Hardworking Trans Americans Honored In The First-Ever “Trans 100” List


For the first time in history this morning, 100 groundbreaking trans advocates from around the country were honored by We Happy Trans and This is H.O.W. in the inaugural “Trans 100″ list, a comprehensive overview of the movers and shakers in the typically underrepresented community.

The project was birthed between This Is H.O.W. Director Antonia D’orsay and We Happy Trans’ Jen Richards in an effort to focus media attention on the positive efforts of the community by highlighting its diversity as a whole. “These people demonstrate the diversity, the determination, and the incredible triumph of spirit that informs all trans people, no matter where they are,” said D’orsay. “This is just a glimpse of what trans people can accomplish.”

janet-mock-headshot1The historical list, sponsored by Chicago House and GLAAD, was complied from over 500 nominations and presented at the Trans 100 Launch Event in Chicago on March 29, International Transgender Day of Visibility. Keynote speaker Janet Mock (right), a trans activist included on this year’s list, was the first to publicly speak about the finished product, declaring “I am here tonight because of the 99 other names on the inaugural Trans 100 list and the unrecognized thousands who are not on this list whose quiet acts are changing lives. They are the dream realized.”

Mark this day in your calendar, folks! Years from now, you’ll remember these fearless honorees as the people that paved the way for future generations of trans people in America.

Check out the full list in detail on BuzzfeedWeHappyTrans.com or Facebook.com/Trans100.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #advocacy #antoniad'orsay #glaad(gayandlesbianallianceagainstdefamation) stories and more


  • yaoming

    Not sure how this is gay news… unless Chaz Bono is dating a man.

  • zrocqs

    @yaoming: This site is “queerty”, not “gayty”.

  • yaoming

    @zrocqs: “Free of an agenda… except that GAY one.”

  • zrocqs

    @yaoming: A reference to right-wingers who spout nonsense about the so-called “gay agenda”. This site is still Queerty: “queer” being a more inclusive word than “gay”. Inclusive of our Trans brothers and sisters, as the inclusion of this article proves. If you’re unhappy with the breadth of inclusion on this site, troll elsewhere.

  • yaoming

    Is trans queer? I thought queer was gay.

  • 2eo

    @zrocqs: It;s okay, you can ignore Yaoming, he’s always hanging about to put the boot into anything to do with Transgender issues.

  • yaoming

    …anything that’s not gay, yes. I don’t see the connection. If Chaz Bono were dating a man, that would be gay news (or gossip). If he’s dating a woman, that’s straight news. Why would it appear here?

  • Thedrdonna

    @yaoming: Ah, good. The next time I hear someone calling a trans person a queer (shouldn’t take long, they do it all the time), I’ll be sure to tell them that they should check to make sure that person is gay before using it. I would hate for trans people to be accused of appropriating hate meant for gay people.

  • Dixie Rect

    @yaoming: I totally agree. B & T should not be a part of the G & L’s, they are their own category. I never understood why G&L’s want to include everyone. Sorry, I don’t, and do not recall any type of vote either. I have zero interest in the plight of B&T’s and could care less. Not everyone is politically correct, even within this group. Get over it.

  • yaoming

    @Dixie Rect: @Thedrdonna: I wouldn’t say I don’t care about trans people. There is something wrong with them and I feel sorry for them. If they want to and are able to transition (surgincally or otherwise) and then have relationships with people of the opposite gender, then I am happy for them. Being gay, however, is not a pathological condition. We’re a normal, separate minority group with issues of our own – which is why I sometimes question this site posting trans stories.

  • zrocqs

    Okay, fellow Queers. I’m goin’ in again to try and engage @yaoming: and @Dixie Rect:. Wish me luck.
    1) Trans is Queer when a person chooses to identify as such;
    2) Gs and Ls and Bs and Ts are known as LGBT because we share a common goal: equal legal recognition and protection. Lately, we’ve added QIA because: Q (questioning) can use some support that they probably won’t get elsewhere; I (intersexed) find themselves in a legal limbo; A (allies) are just nifty people.
    We could add some more letters and a couple of numerals if we wanted to be completely inclusive, but that would get cumbersome. This is why some of us prefer the simple moniker “Queer”.
    Finally, Yaoming: Rick Santorum probably feels sorry for you because, since you don’t know the proper function of your penis, there is obviously something wrong with you.

  • yaoming

    @zrocqs: “Intersexed”. I don’t even know what that means. Is that like a hermaphrodite, or is that “H”?
    Anyway, zrocqs, I think you’re making my point – I say keep this blog simple; keep it gay – which it mostly is now… which makes the ocassional trans story seem so out of place.

  • Dixie Rect

    @zrocqs: Thank you for your definitions, however, these are your definitions. Not everyone agrees with these definitions.

    When you say ” we’ve added QIA…” who is this “we” you speak of? I don’t recall a popular vote, and I would of voted NO to include them with the Gs & Ls too. Sorry, they are a separate group with many other issues and concerns – most G&L’s are completely uninterested in their issues. We have our own, thank you very much!

  • zrocqs

    @yaoming: Thank you for admitting your ignorance. I hope that by now you’ve found a dictionary. It would be a good first step in improving your mind.
    And no, Yaoming, I wasn’t making your point. I was making *my* point. You’re attempting a sloppy and obvious tactic used by people without a substantial argument to make.
    This blog is simple to navigate: click on stories of interest to you, and don’t click on stories that you find “out of place.”

    @Dixie Rect: Those weren’t *my* definitions. They weren’t definitions at all: they were words and acronyms. Definitions are what they are: definite. You’re confusing “definition” with “opinion”. Maybe you can borrow Yaoming’s dictionary.
    You’ve mentioned “vote” in both your posts here. This is not a voting site, as far as I know. There are however many glorious polling and survey sites on the wwweb where you can vote ’til you’re spent. Yummy!

    To both of you: the word “Trans” is in the headline to this article. Twice. If you’re so disinterested in Trans issues, why in the world would you bother with this article?

  • zrocqs

    @2eo: You warned me. Thank you.

Comments are closed.