MNTA statement re:Lavender Magazine--7/25/2017
The Minnesota Transgender Alliance is shocked and saddened by Lavender magazine's betrayal of the transgender community. The July 6 issue of Lavender magazine included an article When GLBT Nonprofits Lose Their Bearings that used the language of anti-transgender activists and maligned the trans community using double standards in comparison to gay rights activism. As a support group for transgender people run entirely by trans people, MNTA is well aware of the harm that is done to the trans community, and this Lavender article falls well into this category.
We ask that Lavender magazine retract this article, apologize for its printing, then demonstrate that they are as committed to trans civil rights as they have been to gay civil rights. Until then, we have to consider Lavender to be hostile towards trans people. Until this is remediated, we urge businesses not to advertise in or distribute Lavender.
The first offense is use of "transgenderism." This is a term currently used almost exclusively by anti-trans activists. Possibly the author used this term out of ignorance rather than anti-trans bias. Either reason should have disqualified the author from writing about the subject in an LGBT publication.
A double standard pervades the entire article. Bizarrely, trans people are blamed throughout for the acts of the gay rights movement and others.
Double standard example 1: The article references a fundraising email "telling lies about transgender suicides." However, the email itself said “Many young queer and transgender people are committing suicide in wake of the election results.” Why did this article drop the "queer" and leave in the trans?
Example 2: The article says, "...but the trans movement itself has yet to create a concerted, coherent, and patient campaign." [Emphasis theirs.] Patient? We were at the forefront of the LGBTQ movement. We were side-by-side at Stonewall. A 22 year old trans person at that time is 70 years old now. Haven't they been patient enough?
Did the author/magazine ask the gay community to be "patient" during the AIDS/Act Up era of the 1980s? During the fight for marriage equality? Wasn't the trans community already asked to wait for SSM? Now what are we supposed to be waiting for? We have only one life. Why should we waste it waiting?
Gay activism had several schisms – radicals against establishment, fighting for ENDA vs SSM, fighting for SSM via courts or legislatures. Once again, why is the trans community singled out for not having a concerted effort?
Example 3: The article seems to imply that groups should be pursuing ENDA rather than pronoun shaming (as far as we could tell through the muddled arguments). The author doesn't tell the readers that the trans community was and is in favor of ENDA , but that LGBTQ organizations threw trans people under the bus, removing us from ENDA to try to get it passed for LGB people (only re-adding us after that failed). Trans people were not responsible for this. Trans were also not responsible for the emphasis on SSM rather than ENDA.
Example 4: The article says, "Too often activists resort to scolding and shaming when a pronoun is innocently misspoken or a question or glance is presumed to be a microaggression. Not good PR, folks." This does NOT happen except in the fevered imagination of people with anti-trans bias. If anything, trans people are overly deferential. I'm sure there may be a counter-example, but we have not come across one. And definitely no non-profit organization has a mission of scolding innocent pronoun scolding.
Example 5: "One of [president Obama's] 2016 executive orders is a questionably crafted item regarding trans toilet facility usage. It was apparent immediately that the ramifications of this had not been thought through." Setting aside the factual problems with this statement, why are the actions of a straight, cis politician being used to criticize LGBTQ organizations and trans activism?
Example 6: "Tax-deductible nonprofit organizations can invade the pocketbooks and psyches of potential donors, cravenly preying on their fears." All fundraising materials, including and especially right-wing causes, use hyperbole. Why are LGBTQ organisations singled out for this? Why now when there is a little more emphasis on trans rights?
Lastly, there are factual problems with the article. One big problem was Obama didn't issue an executive order about trans restrooms. The Justice Department and Education Department issued a "Dear Colleague" letter based on several court rulings including trans students in Title IX. This letter summarized the legal landscape of rulings and clarified how to put these into effect. This wasn't a matter of activism. This was guidance on how to reconcile the law as written and the further interpretations by the court.
The author stated in his article that "..the general public [is] uneducated in trans concepts..." The double standards applied in this article as well as the factual mistakes indicate that the author himself is deeply embedded in the uneducated public.
The Minnesota Transgender Alliance is shocked and saddened by Lavender magazine's betrayal of the transgender community. The July 6 issue of Lavender magazine included an article When GLBT Nonprofits Lose Their Bearings that used the language of anti-transgender activists and maligned the trans community using double standards in comparison to gay rights activism. As a support group for transgender people run entirely by trans people, MNTA is well aware of the harm that is done to the trans community, and this Lavender article falls well into this category.
We ask that Lavender magazine retract this article, apologize for its printing, then demonstrate that they are as committed to trans civil rights as they have been to gay civil rights. Until then, we have to consider Lavender to be hostile towards trans people. Until this is remediated, we urge businesses not to advertise in or distribute Lavender.
The first offense is use of "transgenderism." This is a term currently used almost exclusively by anti-trans activists. Possibly the author used this term out of ignorance rather than anti-trans bias. Either reason should have disqualified the author from writing about the subject in an LGBT publication.
A double standard pervades the entire article. Bizarrely, trans people are blamed throughout for the acts of the gay rights movement and others.
Double standard example 1: The article references a fundraising email "telling lies about transgender suicides." However, the email itself said “Many young queer and transgender people are committing suicide in wake of the election results.” Why did this article drop the "queer" and leave in the trans?
Example 2: The article says, "...but the trans movement itself has yet to create a concerted, coherent, and patient campaign." [Emphasis theirs.] Patient? We were at the forefront of the LGBTQ movement. We were side-by-side at Stonewall. A 22 year old trans person at that time is 70 years old now. Haven't they been patient enough?
Did the author/magazine ask the gay community to be "patient" during the AIDS/Act Up era of the 1980s? During the fight for marriage equality? Wasn't the trans community already asked to wait for SSM? Now what are we supposed to be waiting for? We have only one life. Why should we waste it waiting?
Gay activism had several schisms – radicals against establishment, fighting for ENDA vs SSM, fighting for SSM via courts or legislatures. Once again, why is the trans community singled out for not having a concerted effort?
Example 3: The article seems to imply that groups should be pursuing ENDA rather than pronoun shaming (as far as we could tell through the muddled arguments). The author doesn't tell the readers that the trans community was and is in favor of ENDA , but that LGBTQ organizations threw trans people under the bus, removing us from ENDA to try to get it passed for LGB people (only re-adding us after that failed). Trans people were not responsible for this. Trans were also not responsible for the emphasis on SSM rather than ENDA.
Example 4: The article says, "Too often activists resort to scolding and shaming when a pronoun is innocently misspoken or a question or glance is presumed to be a microaggression. Not good PR, folks." This does NOT happen except in the fevered imagination of people with anti-trans bias. If anything, trans people are overly deferential. I'm sure there may be a counter-example, but we have not come across one. And definitely no non-profit organization has a mission of scolding innocent pronoun scolding.
Example 5: "One of [president Obama's] 2016 executive orders is a questionably crafted item regarding trans toilet facility usage. It was apparent immediately that the ramifications of this had not been thought through." Setting aside the factual problems with this statement, why are the actions of a straight, cis politician being used to criticize LGBTQ organizations and trans activism?
Example 6: "Tax-deductible nonprofit organizations can invade the pocketbooks and psyches of potential donors, cravenly preying on their fears." All fundraising materials, including and especially right-wing causes, use hyperbole. Why are LGBTQ organisations singled out for this? Why now when there is a little more emphasis on trans rights?
Lastly, there are factual problems with the article. One big problem was Obama didn't issue an executive order about trans restrooms. The Justice Department and Education Department issued a "Dear Colleague" letter based on several court rulings including trans students in Title IX. This letter summarized the legal landscape of rulings and clarified how to put these into effect. This wasn't a matter of activism. This was guidance on how to reconcile the law as written and the further interpretations by the court.
The author stated in his article that "..the general public [is] uneducated in trans concepts..." The double standards applied in this article as well as the factual mistakes indicate that the author himself is deeply embedded in the uneducated public.