Of course we should worry!

Trans rights will probably take a little more time, because some people - including gay people - have a very hard time understanding it, but that doesn' t mean we shouldn't try to get them in our anti-discrimination laws and other forms of protections.

As technology moves forward, I really think trans rights will progress quickly too. One of my roomates and friends is ftm and no one in their right minds would EVER be able to guess he used to be perceived by the world as a she. None of my other friends had any suspicions, when they came to visit, and he's completely undetectable. Testosterone injections has given him facial and body hair, made him very muscular, etc. etc. etc.

So, as technology continues to progress and more and more people who may not be able to make the transition as well as my roomate has can be brought along, then fewer and fewer will be discriminated against. The only big forms of discrimination my roomate has had to suffer that I've seen is dealing with the federal government in changing his name, sex on his license, etc. However, he did it, even if part of the process was personally frustrating for him.

Gay rights are about gender rights. So I dont see how you can really untagle them from the rights of other gender minorities - women or transexuals.

Crain is an ass. Fracturing the queer community to allegedly help serve a portion of it is self-defeating and would be significantly damaging to all of us in the long run. That's the politics-ain't-pretty part, the other side is: how could you abandon a segment of our community that has stood with us for all these years. They face the same - if not worse - discrimination than gay men and lesbians do. Coming out as gay or lesbian seems to be hard enough, could you imagine being a 40 year old man coming out as a woman?

The centerpiece of the LGBTQ movement is equality - how do you leave someone behind that?

It would be ideal to have multiple nodes of resistance. One can focus exclusively on gay rights, one can work exclusively on trans-rights, one can work on both; they all can collaborate. That way there's pressure coming from everywhere and in all contexts.

I agree with Crain. We should take what rights we can as we get them. It's like saying no to civil partnerships because we want marriage. It is a stepping stone type process.

I think we should include them for all the reasons given and because it's right. But I think the community will have problems with it. I know that the Michigan Wommyn's Music Festival limits admission to "wymmin born womin" thereby discriminating against trannies. Perhaps they've changed their policies, but I think many in the community don't want to be associated people more marginalized than they are. Sad, really.

I think it's shameful to exclude transgendered individuals from gay rights legislation. How can we in good conscience benefit from such legislation when a community so close to our own is left out in the cold? Chris Crain is an insensitive bastard, who, unfortunately, has shown himself time and time again that he cares more about--
1) Making sure HIS rights are assured at the expense of others' and
2) Cussing out just about every prominent gay rights organization he can.
Honestly, I was thankful he left the Blade. He's a jackass, and this is just one more example why.

Liberal/progessive/Dem politians and voters tell GLB's to wait for equal rights and then some GLB's tell T's to wait for equal rights. I guess every minority does need someone to piss on--and not in the fun way.

It's just as easy to fight for eveyone's rights as it is to fight for our own. I appreciate and like--REALLY like--the "T" GLBT and Crain is a wonderful example of someone being so smart, that they're stupid.

Stepping stone is right. We expect the nation/world to just accept what (for many) are difficult changes in paradigm without hesitation and all at once. Then we wonder about the resistance that is received. It's like throwing a plate of bizarre Ukranian food into the face of an uncosmopolitan midwesterner with a limited palate and saying, eat this and love it! Instead of taking it one item at a time. Sure, equality for all without hesitation is a great goal to keep working for but as the over-used expression goes, "Rome wasn't built in a day." Plus, can we stop burning people at the stake because they have a fucking different point of view? You'd think we're in some sorta communist yet queer china and we've all been handed little pink books on how to think, act, vote, dress... If we're really a "community," maybe we can start hearing from each other without all the flaming (pardon the pun) such as "Crain is an ass" and "Crain is a wonderful example of someone being so smart, that they're stupid." God forbid someone have a different point of view and deviate from our precious "little pink book."

Quelle Surprise .... Crain continues to demonstrate his holier than thou elitest views do not represent the whole GLBT community.

Dividing out trans rights defeats the purpose of this fight. Are we arguing that all people should be treated equally and fairly, or are we content with merely having the sub-group to which we belong treated equally? The world can discriminate against whom it wants, as long as it isn't me? I don't think so. Such compromise weakens the fundamental argument that there should be equal rights for all.

This debate sort of reminds me of the first act of a horror film. A band of teens are trapped in a house in the middle of the woods, and one of them decides to make a break for it. "I'll get help," he promises, and then disappears. After an hour or so of scary scenes, he shows up again at the last second with the cavalry to save the day. "I told you I'd come back," he says as he rescues his friends.

It should be noted that in some movies, that hero is instead killed and eaten.

Chris Crain here. Happy to see a (mostly civil) discussion about this. But let's not create a straw man just to knock him down. Some of the comments suggest I favor "excluding" gender identity from gay rights legislation or "abandoning" transgender rights. Not true. I favor all the same civil rights protections based on gender identity and always have.

My quarrel is with Matt Foreman and other movement leaders who would actually oppose -- that's right, oppose! -- gay rights bills if trans protections are removed by amendment during the legislative process. That means no gay rights until we can get trans rights at the same time. A stance like that is far more "divisive" and "fracturing" to our community than arguing we should get what we can piecemeal while continuing to push for the things we just can't get right now.

I'm in a binational relationship and face choosing between my partner and my country because the U.S. (unlike almost every other major Western country) doesn't recognize gay relationships for immigration purposes. Do I want Congress to address that? Absolutely. Would I argue we should oppose every other piece of gay rights legislation until immigration rights can be included? Absolutely not.

The reality is that some courts have ruled transgender people are already protected from discrimination under existing civil rights laws based on gender, and if gay rights are added, many more will be protected. (Most anti-trans bias is based on a bigoted boss or landlord thinking a trans-man is a "dyke" or a trans-woman is a "fag" than on some sophisticated notion of "gender identity.)

I don't blame trans activists for hitching their wagon to gay rights bills, and I support groups like the Task Force working on trans protections. But it's a betrayal of lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans to hold our rights hostage until the politicians in Washington (including our president) are ready to sign on.

Finally, I agree with Crain about something. But then, as they say, my broken clock is right twice a day, too. Still want him to dry up and blow away given his neo-gaycon gaseous attacks are more the norm in his pontifications.

Seperating Transgendered rights out of the bill is wrong period, and shouldn't be done. As one Congressman once said to me, that sometimes you need to take a stand that runs against what a majority your constituents beleive. He did this in 92 with the assault weapon ban, and lost relection that fall by a couple of thousand votes. Before this vote he had been supported by the NRA. (and yes he was a populist DEM congressman)

Maybe we loose this round if its included, but we will eventually win this battle, leaving part of our community behind I beleive we all loose a little bit of our soul.

Mr. Crain, I'm sorry but your comparison with the Immigration issue, doesn't hold water in my thinking. It's like comparing apples to oranges..they just ain't the same. Your stance in your blog and your reply once again make me happy you are no longer the Editor at the Washington Blade.

Don't fight for gay rights. Don't fight for trans rights. Fight for human rights, which encompass gay rights and trans rights.

Gay rights and transgender rights are entirely bound up together. So many incidents of homophobia and gaybashing stem from fear and anger at those, trans-identified or not, who transgress gender boundaries (‘queen-y’ men, butch women). As logan767 said: gay rights, trans rights, women’s rights - it’s all about gender, and we should be working toward a world where everyone can express their individual genders freely and without shame or reprisal.

I would say to Ryan that yes, even though medical technology is making life easier for some transsexual or trans-identified people, I don’t think the argument that they can ‘blend in’ better now is particularly useful. People who choose not to blend in should also be protected legally, people who choose to live between genders should also be able to feel safe.

I realize that getting legislation passed is a complex process filled with compromise, and I realize that Mr. Crain was probably referencing specific bills currently being debated, but I have to take exception to language like “trans activists hitching their wagon to gay rights.” Transgender folks have been at the forefront of the struggle for gay rights since the drag queens at Stonewall fought the cops over their treatment of a butch lesbian. Not every queer person in this country wants to win our rights based on an argument that excludes a huge part of the queer community. (I realize I’m expanding into a slightly-off-topic rant here, but I’m not interested in communicating a message to the straight establishment that says “we’re just like you - we want the white picket fence in the suburbs with the 2.5 kids, just like you do.” Now, people who DO want that should definitely get it. But are we trying to create a new, more open and accepting place in this culture for gender and sexuality expression or aren’t we?) As a queer woman partnered with a transman - how can I tell him that my rights are more important than his? Our lives, our rights, the hate and fear we encounter, they are all bound up together.

I would like to thank DBB for saying that by “leaving part of our community behind, we all lose a little bit of our soul.” Thank you for that. As Brian said, we should all be in the fight for human rights together.

Oh, shut up already, Chris. Seriously. Shut the fuck up.

I've long been a reader of your rants - not a regular reader, admittedly (and, I'm sure, much to your self-centered dismay), but certainly familiar enough with the meandering collection of masturbatory scraps you so erroneously published under the banner of "editorial" during your tenure at The Washington Blade and its New York sister publication to have you figured out. If you'd actually taken the time to read the sum of the works you call a "portfolio" instead of simply congratulating yourself as you watched it grow, you'd probably know yourself a hell of a lot better as well. But after reading your latest exercise in hate-mongering, tabloid pedantry, I've concluded that you'll never do that; even when coated in the shallow lacquer of pseudo-intellectualism provided by the university education of which you're so fond of reminding your readers, your painfully elementary writing is hopeless to mature. And You are hopeless to mature, Chris Crain.

First, to the immediate matter of your hollow prejudicial "editorial column" (I use both words loosely as I'm sure any legitimate journalist would never resort to such lofty classification for an essay as mundane and muddled as this), allow me to push through the fog of your own faulty logic, forgotten education and personal prejudice to do what you should have done - what real reporters do - all along: stick with the facts as you present them...

1) In case you glossed over the "Stonewall" chapter of the gay history tomes I hope (though doubt) you should have read before taking on the role of Editor at The Washington Blade, then you know that on that immortal night in June when the Stonewall Bar was raided by New York City Police, it was the transvestite/transgender individuals in the crowd who comprised the front lines of the physical fight for all LGBT individuals - they were the soldiers in the trenches hurling bricks, change and glasses while everyone else hesitated (if but for a moment) pondering "whether or not this was a good idea." Hit the books already, Chris!

2) Your Martin Luther King analogy is a fallacy (and one that betrays the way you truly view the gay community and the nation's minorities in general). Familiarity with Dr. King, his works and his legacy allow me to counter with relative assurance that while your pathetic hypothetical of King proposing gay rights be incorporated with black rights is indeed ridiculous (on that we agree), you never once consider what the reaction of King's constituents had he proposed that, say, the fight for African-American civil rights isn't the same as the battle for equality among black Americans of Caribbean heritage; or that Dominican rights be viewed as separate from Puerto Rican rights; or that the rights of black men be seen as separate (and/or more important than) the rights of black women. The previous examples are solely illustrative, but I hope you see how your entire argument really begins to take on a deluge of water at this juncture. Could you even fathom what it would be like if black pundits made a case that basically said, "Let's worry about getting rights for black men first - heck, white women only got the right to vote in this country less than 50 years ago - we need to take what we can get and not worry about the little things..." Could you even imagine? I can't.

3) You really don't know subtle, do you? Responsible, legitimate journalists - especially those whose subject matter is politics - know the power of words and consequently have an awareness, accrued over time, of the consequences resultant from employing words and phrases such as, "suicide pact," "betrayal" and "vilified." Such outrageously overblown rhetoric incenses your readers tremendously, but inspires them not at all. Such writing is a mark of inexperience; the product of authors who lack the patience required of the editing process who seek to disguise their own lack of language and the shortcomings of their arguments by exciting their readers with shotgun adjectives ripe with broad interpretations and deeply emotional associations.

I get the feeling, Chris Crain, that you are someone who enjoys hearing the sound of your own voice, which is why I assume you saw fit to update your original "editorial" to include mention of the transgender podcast that invited you to appear on as a guest in order to discuss your inflammatory piece - that, and the repeated instances you've given your readers over the years to believe that you require attention - any attention - in order to feel whole. I find this sad. Seriously. I know others like this, but your attempts to court attention of late have hurt many and have taken attention and energy away from those people and events in our community most in need of it. Again, I implore you: Shut up, Chris.

Shut up because the only people you're fooling are those who don't have the time, energy or interest to do the dutiful research on your credentials. For the uninitiated...

Despite his statements to the contrary, Chris Crain never had any "roots" in journalism or editing. He bought his "career" as an "editor." In his own bio, he admits to working as a highly-paid lawyer in the years following his university education until basically getting bored with that scene whereupon he decided to [para.] "get into the publishing business" (declared in a manner so flippant you'd think the choice was the result of a coin toss pitting "publishing" against "ice cream man" or the like).

When you left The Washington Blade several months ago, Chris, you declared - with the zealous nonchalance that had become your trademark brand of yellow journalism over the years - under a similarly self-aggrandized header, "Judge Me by My Enemies" - that soon you would "walk across that graduation stage" (a direct allusion to your university days working on the school paper - the only other editorial experience you had prior to purchasing your title at The Washington Blade). I wanted to believe you - a lot of other people did, too. I thought you finally got it, but all you've proven through your unresearched, unreferenced claims and hyperbolic drama of this specific "editorial" is that you haven't learned a damn thing. You haven't graduated, Chris - that much is painfully obvious. You still have a lot of learning to do. But the place for learning isn't as an editor of a national newspaper whose history dates back long before your education as a gay man even began; the space to work out one's personal problems isn't on the page - people who do not have the answers or who seek truth gravitate toward newspapers (and, in recent years, blogs and websites) because they see them as monuments of truth, places they can look to - that they can trust - for answers. Ill-advised talk only confuses them and bastardizes journalism at large.

So shut up, Chris. Please. Shut. Up.

Oh, shut up already, Chris. Seriously. Shut the fuck up.

I've long been a reader of your rants - not a regular reader, admittedly (and, I'm sure, much to your self-centered dismay), but certainly familiar enough with the meandering collection of masturbatory scraps you so erroneously published under the banner of "editorial" during your tenure at The Washington Blade and its New York sister publication to have you figured out. If you'd actually taken the time to read the sum of the works you call a "portfolio" instead of simply congratulating yourself as you watched it grow, you'd probably know yourself a hell of a lot better as well. But after reading your latest exercise in hate-mongering, tabloid pedantry, I've concluded that you'll never do that; even when coated in the shallow lacquer of pseudo-intellectualism provided by the university education of which you're so fond of reminding your readers, your painfully elementary writing is hopeless to mature. And You are hopeless to mature, Chris Crain.

First, to the immediate matter of your hollow prejudicial "editorial column" (I use both words loosely as I'm sure any legitimate journalist would never resort to such lofty classification for an essay as mundane and muddled as this), allow me to push through the fog of your own faulty logic, forgotten education and personal prejudice to do what you should have done - what real reporters do - all along: stick with the facts as you present them...

1) In case you glossed over the "Stonewall" chapter of the gay history tomes I hope (though doubt) you should have read before taking on the role of Editor at The Washington Blade, then you know that on that immortal night in June when the Stonewall Bar was raided by New York City Police, it was the transvestite/transgender individuals in the crowd who comprised the front lines of the physical fight for all LGBT individuals - they were the soldiers in the trenches hurling bricks, change and glasses while everyone else hesitated (if but for a moment) pondering "whether or not this was a good idea." Hit the books already, Chris!

2) Your Martin Luther King analogy is a fallacy (and one that betrays the way you truly view the gay community and the nation's minorities in general). Familiarity with Dr. King, his works and his legacy allow me to counter with relative assurance that while your pathetic hypothetical of King proposing gay rights be incorporated with black rights is indeed ridiculous (on that we agree), you never once consider what the reaction of King's constituents had he proposed that, say, the fight for African-American civil rights isn't the same as the battle for equality among black Americans of Caribbean heritage; or that Dominican rights be viewed as separate from Puerto Rican rights; or that the rights of black men be seen as separate (and/or more important than) the rights of black women. The previous examples are solely illustrative, but I hope you see how your entire argument really begins to take on a deluge of water at this juncture. Could you even fathom what it would be like if black pundits made a case that basically said, "Let's worry about getting rights for black men first - heck, white women only got the right to vote in this country less than 50 years ago - we need to take what we can get and not worry about the little things..." Could you even imagine? I can't.

3) You really don't know subtle, do you? Responsible, legitimate journalists - especially those whose subject matter is politics - know the power of words and consequently have an awareness, accrued over time, of the consequences resultant from employing words and phrases such as, "suicide pact," "betrayal" and "vilified." Such outrageously overblown rhetoric incenses your readers tremendously, but inspires them not at all. Such writing is a mark of inexperience; the product of authors who lack the patience required of the editing process who seek to disguise their own lack of language and the shortcomings of their arguments by exciting their readers with shotgun adjectives ripe with broad interpretations and deeply emotional associations.

I get the feeling, Chris Crain, that you are someone who enjoys hearing the sound of your own voice, which is why I assume you saw fit to update your original "editorial" to include mention of the transgender podcast that invited you to appear on as a guest in order to discuss your inflammatory piece - that, and the repeated instances you've given your readers over the years to believe that you require attention - any attention - in order to feel whole. I find this sad. Seriously. I know others like this, but your attempts to court attention of late have hurt many and have taken attention and energy away from those people and events in our community most in need of it. Again, I implore you: Shut up, Chris.

Shut up because the only people you're fooling are those who don't have the time, energy or interest to do the dutiful research on your credentials. For the uninitiated...

Despite his statements to the contrary, Chris Crain never had any "roots" in journalism or editing. He bought his "career" as an "editor." In his own bio, he admits to working as a highly-paid lawyer in the years following his university education until basically getting bored with that scene whereupon he decided to [para.] "get into the publishing business" (declared in a manner so flippant you'd think the choice was the result of a coin toss pitting "publishing" against "ice cream man" or the like).

When you left The Washington Blade several months ago, Chris, you declared - with the zealous nonchalance that had become your trademark brand of yellow journalism over the years - under a similarly self-aggrandized header, "Judge Me by My Enemies" - that soon you would "walk across that graduation stage" (a direct allusion to your university days working on the school paper - the only other editorial experience you had prior to purchasing your title at The Washington Blade). I wanted to believe you - a lot of other people did, too. I thought you finally got it, but all you've proven through your unresearched, unreferenced claims and hyperbolic drama of this specific "editorial" is that you haven't learned a damn thing. You haven't graduated, Chris - that much is painfully obvious. You still have a lot of learning to do. But the place for learning isn't as an editor of a national newspaper whose history dates back long before your education as a gay man even began; the space to work out one's personal problems isn't on the page - people who do not have the answers or who seek truth gravitate toward newspapers (and, in recent years, blogs and websites) because they see them as monuments of truth, places they can look to - that they can trust - for answers. Ill-advised talk only confuses them and bastardizes journalism at large.

So shut up, Chris. Please. Shut. Up.

Hey G&E,

I'm Becky Juro, host of "The Becky Juro Show", the live Internet radio show (not podcast, though I do one of those, too) Chris Crain was on last Thursday.

For whatever it's worth, I was personally quite surprised that he was as honest and upfront about his elitist positions as he was. He freely admitted in response to my question that he picked a fight with the transgender community, and he volunteered that he felt the reason Matt Foreman and other GLBT activists and organizations are now trans-inclusive is "liberal guilt".

I have to tell you, as a radio talk show host, I'm really glad he isn't shutting up. He makes for some very entertaining...and educational...talk radio.

Just as Phred Phelps makes the far right cringe, now the gay elitists have their very own public embarrassment...well, not counting Andrew Sullivan, of course, but these days he's almost a given.

Becky

Hi everyone!!

Is it good quality and is it safe? - http://steroidssupplier.com
i have heard they r good. let me know how it goes..

See you

Chris Crain really knows how to strain an analogy, if not the odd gnat while trying to con the rest of us to swallow camels whole. His invocation of Martin Luther King is as dishonest as it is weird. Crain is the one who wants the trans community to stay in the back of the bus while "gender-normal" gays like himself hijack it for their own purposes. His agenda is closer to being akin to the civil rights movement had King insisted that dark-skinned blacks wait until light-skinned blacks got their civil rights first because they were more palatable to whites. I don't know what exactly lies behind Crain's anti-trans fulminations, but I suspect he's a misogynist at heart as well as a spolied little brat.

Hi

very, very good. Nothing to be concerned about. - http://www.allsteroidsworld.com
Sorry if there is already post for this, i did not see it.

See you

Hello everyone, wanna be part of some kind of community, possible here? anyone here?