Blegging for Trans Protections

Listen up, kids. My typist has asked for the soapbox today. She has a very important message for you and something unusual for Roxie’s World: a request for action. Oh, and she’s got a tin cup in her hand, too. Have those credit cards ready! Take it away, Moose.

A Public Service Announcement from Moose

Thanks, Roxie, and thank you, legions of loyal fans, for listening.

As many of you know, Roxie’s World is physically located in Montgomery County, Maryland, a cobalt-blue paradise of lawyers, teachers, and government types just outside Washington DC. Last year, the Montgomery County Council passed a law banning discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of gender identity. Similar laws are on the books in 13 states, the District, Baltimore and 90 other local jurisdictions that have banned discrimination against transgender people, according to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Unfortunately, a group calling itself Citizens for Responsible Government got 26,000 signatures on petitions in support of putting the law to a vote this November. Equality Maryland, our state’s wonderful LGBT civil rights organization, challenged the petitions in court, but a recent ruling has cleared the way for the question to go on the ballot.

Which means that now, in the midst of a presidential campaign and the battle to protect same-sex marriage in California, we’ve got one helluva fight on our hands right here in our own ridiculously large backyard. I am asking you to get involved in the fight.


Basic Rights Montgomery has been formed to educate voters on the issue and the importance of voting yes on Question C. (A “yes” vote affirms the anti-discrimination law; a “no” vote repeals it.) BRM will have to mobilize quickly to recruit volunteers and to raise the money needed to communicate with voters in the months, weeks, and days leading up to Election Day on November 4. The group is working with the blessing of Equality Maryland and with grants from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Human Rights Campaign. The goal is to identify and persuade 220,000+ Yes voters for Question C through canvassing, phone-banking, targeted mailings, and paid TV and radio spots.

All of that effort will of course require money, which is where you and I come in. For the first time in my life, I’ve agreed to help raise money (rather than just write a check) in support of a cause, because I appreciate the importance of winning this particular battle, here and now. No matter where you live (and I know Roxie has fans from sea to shining sea and around the world), you should appreciate that, too, and consider making a contribution. Why?

• Because this is the first time a trans-specific anti-discrimination law has been put to a vote. If we lose in a place as liberal as Mo Co, the right will feel emboldened to challenge such protections all over the country. Citizens for Responsible Government has an endorsement from the Family Research Council on its web site. The right is clearly keeping a close eye on this fight – and probably helping to fund it.

• Because even sophisticated, liberal voters need to be educated on the issue of gender identity and may be vulnerable to misleading information and scare tactics focused on, you guessed it, restrooms. CRG’s campaign to repeal the law is called “Not In My Shower,” and a scary bathroom scenario is featured on the masthead of its web site. Who knows how voters will react to efforts to whip up a gender panic?

• Because Mo Co is in the backyard of the United States Congress, which is watching this fight to see if it is politically feasible to take transgender people out of federal employment non-discrimination legislation. (The House passed a bill last year that left protection on the basis of gender identity out of its scope, but the bill has not become law.) Again, a loss here would have important national implications.

Join the fight. Give a little. Give a lot. Give because you hate discrimination in any form against any group. Give because you live here and want to make sure that Montgomery County lives up to its progressive reputation. Give even if you don’t live here because you are delighted to support a queer political cause that doesn’t have anything to do with marriage. If you are a disappointed Clintonista, give to Basic Rights Montgomery rather than contributing to a Democratic party that disrespected your candidate. If you are an over-the-moon Obamaniac, give to BRM knowing that your contribution will have a bigger impact on a local issue of national significance.

Give soon, because I have a Friday fundraising deadline, and those of you who know me know what a stickler I am for deadlines. (Okay, maybe not so much, but this time it matters.) And do me a favor. If you give online, shoot an e-mail to me or to Roxie to let us know so that we can thank you and get credit for the contribution. If you don’t want to give online, you can send a check directly to Basic Rights Montgomery at this address (again, please be sure to let me know):

Basic Rights Montgomery
1418 Fenwick Lane
Silver Spring, MD 20910

Thanks for reading and for supporting this important cause in whatever way you can. This fight is our fight, and it’s one we have to win. Click to give, and please help spread the word to Montgomery County voters:

VOTE YES ON QUESTION C!

Cheering the Color Line

(Photo Credit: Preston Keres, Washington Post; Senator Barack Obama is joined on stage by his daughters Sasha and Malia and Michelle Obama after his speech accepting the Democratic party's nomination for president at Denver's Invesco Field, 8/28/08.)

Two questions that spring to mind upon hearing the news that John McCain has selected Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate: 1) Does anyone else think Palin sounds like the nasal-voiced character (whose name we can neither recall nor track down) on A Prairie Home Companion? We do, and now we can't stop laughing. 2) Does McCain really believe he can pick off disaffected Clinton supporters by running with a gun-toting, anti-choice Jesus freak who just happens to have a vagina? Oh, John, poor John, sweet, old, puffy-jawed John, this is not how the game of identity politics is played. Those of us who actually have vaginas are smart enough to know when some cynical pol is pandering to us. So what if Palin is a "hockey mom" with better than average hair and eyewear for a Republican? Dems offer vagina-equipped candidates whose policies and positions actually serve rather than undermine the interests of women, even if they are not, um, willing to put those candidates on the, um, ticket.

But still, watch your heads, kids -- If that glass ceiling gets any more cracks in it, it is bound to fall down pretty soon! I mean, think about it. With Palin in the mix, we are now assured of having either a woman or an African American in the executive branch for the first time in American history. And we haven't researched this, but I'm willing to bet this is also the first time we face the prospect of having either a Hawaiian or an Alaskan (though Palin was actually born in Idaho -- we did research that) in the executive branch. Finally, fellow citizens, we can smash the hegemony of the 48 contiguous states! If this election gets any more epochal and transformational, I am sure the nation's pundits will have to hospitalized. (Please, lord, let it be so.) New adjectives will have to be brought in to share the load with epochal, transformational, and post-(insert ancient relic of the bad old order here: race, gender, partisan, etc.). Are the nation's thesauruses up to the task? How many more cataclysmic changes in the zeitgeist can we be expected to endure before Wolf Blitzer and Chris Matthews simply (mercifully) explode?

And now back to what we intended to muse on before McCain's epochal, transformational announcement distracted us from our deep thoughts on yesterday's cataclysmic change in the zeitgeist:

Today's post title is brought to you by this book, a paradigm-shifting work of queer cultural analysis you should absolutely buy so that its author won't get mad at us for playing fast and loose with her brilliant title. And yet, she had to have known it was always a matter of when not if we would get around to making such a move, given our known fondness for parody as well as our fundamental laziness when it comes to coming up with titles. Besides, in this rare instance, the clever title actually has some bearing on the substance of what is on our minds as we reflect on yesterday's extraordinary events in Denver and the formal nomination of an African-American man on a major-party ticket for president of the United States.

Go back up and look at the picture at the top of this post. We could go all snarky on what transpired yesterday at Invesco Field, and we imagine some readers will be disappointed if we don't. (Sorry, Steve. Love you! Mean it!) We could join in the long line of those who are mocking the over-the-top setting and try to come up with something even more clever than "Barackopolis" or "Barackenon," but we know Dana Millbank probably couldn't get another job if we edged him out of the one he currently holds, so we'll pass on that. We could focus on the fact that we basically agreed with David Brooks' reading of the occasion, both in what he said last night on PBS and in the speech parody he published this morning. (Sorry, kids, but we do love us some parody.) Like Brooks, we thought the outdoor setting sacrificed a lot in terms of conveying the passionate intensity of an Obama speech and of his connection to his audiences. It was as if Bruce Springsteen had booked the Meadowlands and then decided to leave the E Street Band at home and do one of his somber acoustic shows. Speaker and audience seemed miles apart and on different emotional wavelengths. We could also follow Anglachel's lead and tear into the speech for its political and rhetorical incoherences.

But, gazing at this pretty picture, we don't feel moved to do any of those things, at least not right now. We want to drop the snark, put a hold on our heretofore relentless questioning of Obama's candidacy, and pause for a moment to take in the idea of this stunningly beautiful family moving into the White House. It is impossible to know what an Obama presidency might do to alter the material structures of racism in the United States, but it is easy -- and intoxicating -- to imagine how seeing this family comfortably settled into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would alter the social and cultural logics of race and racial privilege. Even if you deplore the mingling of church and state (which of course you must), close your eyes and imagine the White House Christmas cards and the Easter egg roll featuring the Obamas rather than the Bushes -- at long last! --, the Clintons, the Nixons, even the Kennedys. It's a simple substitution but one that looks and feels monumental in its import.

Roxie's World is sufficiently invested in a politics of visibility to want to cheer the multiple transgressions of the color line contained in this far from simple substitution in the tableau of the presidential family: the bi-racial man, the tall, strong, dark-skinned woman, and the proud little girls with the sparkling eyes and the names that are a delight to say. (The younger Obama daughter, Sasha, has become a favorite in our house this week. The moms have laughingly termed her "the rascal child" for her mischievous antics on the convention stage.) In their journey toward the White House, the Obama family and campaign are walking through the great American minefield of race, negotiating the impossible binary of sameness and difference. The candidate was excoriated a few weeks back for uttering the perfectly obvious truth that he doesn't "look like" previous occupants of the Oval Office, and so his nominating convention chose to emphasize sameness rather than difference. Michelle Obama's address to the convention used a rhetoric of resemblance clearly aimed at reassuring the audience that the change we contemplate is by no means a threatening one. She patiently explained that Barack's family, despite the "funny name" and its far-away home, was "so much like" her own family in Chicago, and that she and Barack both subscribe to the values of the "American Dream" (of course, of course) and want to pass those values along to their own children and "all children in this nation" (of course, of course). No one wants to hear the truth of difference, and so the campaign takes refuge in the comforting fiction of sameness. That, my friends, is the dream underneath the "American Dream," and that is why the "dream" so often turns into a nightmare.

Let's hope in this case it doesn't. Let's pause to wish the Obamas well on their treacherous, amazing journey under, over, and around the color line. In this respect, on this day and every day, without yet, quite endorsing his candidacy, Roxie's World is proud to declare itself Obamaniacal in its good wishes for the senator, his family, his campaign, and the country he aspires to lead.

Peace out.

With Malice Toward None

Honest Abe supplies the eye candy for this quick pre-Barack Festival post because he's the reason we missed last night's doings at the Dem convention and therefore did not post about them earlier today. The moms were out exercising one of the great privileges of living in the Washington area – taking visiting friends on a nighttime tour of the monuments downtown.

The national mall at night is a place of surpassing beauty. Everything looks and feels different. The daytime hordes long gone, you can hear the sound of your own footsteps on the marble stairs. The security folks make eye contact and smile at your pleasantries. The plainly expressed yet magisterial sorrow of the Gettysburg Address actually reaches you as you read the carvings on the walls, and you find yourself able to imagine the absent dead conjured by Lincoln's words. Moose spent several minutes with those few words last night, re-joined her friends on the stairs, and declared, "That was one helluva speech Hillary gave in Denver, but it was no Gettysburg Address." As the group made its way back to the car, Bill Clinton was launching into his own fine speech, which declared his unequivocal support for Barack Obama by reminding listeners that Republicans have a habit of arguing that Democrats are too young and inexperienced to be trusted with the keys to the Oval Office. Well done, Big Dawg. Nice tie, too.

Note to the schoolchildren who rely on Roxie's World for fine points of national history: The title to this post is a quotation not from the Gettysburg Address but from another of Lincoln's great addresses, also carved in the wall of his glorious memorial, the Second Inaugural Address, which he delivered just weeks before his assassination on April 14, 1865. We offer the allusion because it cleverly expresses our feelings in this interesting political moment as the Democratic party makes history by nominating the guy we didn't support in the primary race.

Note to the many visitors who have made their way here in the past couple of days through Google searches related to Hillary Clinton's invocation of Harriet Tubman in her (just about as good as the Gettysburg Address) speech on Tuesday: Welcome to Roxie's World. Come back and see us any time. And here's a link to a New York Times piece that consults with two Tubman scholars to try to pin down the allusion. (Turns out Clinton was kind of riffing on words that have traditionally been attributed to Tubman, but there isn't clear evidence that Tubman ever actually said them. Both scholars agree Clinton's reference was fair, though, and in keeping with the mediated histories we have of an illiterate person who left no direct account of herself.)

Note to anyone who is still mad at us for refusing, so far, to commit to voting for Obama: Melissa McEwan has a brief yet important announcement that nicely explains why we are not listening to you. It's a little civics lesson in how we elect presidents here in the United States -- i.e., not through direct popular vote but through that funny thing we all learned about in the 2000 election: the electoral college. As we noted in Comments the other day, we live in a cobalt-blue state that will vote for Obama no matter what the two cranky middle-aged broads who are the eligible voters in Roxie's World do, so go read Melissa, and, you know, take a breath. And, yes, if you live in a swing state, by all means: Vote early, vote often, and vote Democratic.

Note to the tough girls and the pretty boys who come here for little dollops of queer history and pride: Grandmother of lesbo activism, Del Martin, died yesterday at the age of 87. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who married Martin and her partner and co-conspirator of 55 years, Phyllis Lyon, in June when California legalized same-sex marriage, ordered flags in the city to be lowered to half-staff in honor of her memory. We think that's a good idea. Flags in Roxie's World will fly at half-staff until, um, we remember to hoist them back up. Meantime, our gratitude to Del for fighting the good fight for so many years and our heart-felt condolences to Phyllis.

Okay, the Barack Festival is about to begin. We said we would listen, and we will -- and not just because Hillary told us to.

Peace out.

(With affection to June Star, the Man Formerly Known as Michael, and the Two Little Micks, who travel well.)

We Were Listening

Updated (again): Scroll down for speech vid and the wonderful tribute, narrated by Chelsea, that was the set-up for the senator's speech. Highlight: the music and the identification of the Big Dawg simply as "Hillary's Husband."

(Photo Credit: Stephen Crowley, The New York Times)

Transcript of Hillary Clinton's speech at the Democratic Convention is here.

Talk amongst yourselves. We are speechless.

But, yes, we were listening when she said this:

My friends, it is time to take back the country we love.

Whether you voted for me, or voted for Barack, the time is now to unite as a single party with a single purpose. We are on the same team, and none of us can sit on the sidelines.

This is a fight for the future. And it's a fight we must win.

and we were listening when she said this:

Most of all, I ran to stand up for all those who have been invisible to their government for eight long years.

Those are the reasons I ran for President. Those are the reasons I support Barack Obama. And those are the reasons you should too.

I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

And we got Goose-bumps (and Moose-bumps and Roxie-bumps) when Clinton offered her eloquent tribute to the legacy of Harriet Tubman helping slaves to freedom along the Underground Railroad:

And on that path to freedom, Harriett Tubman had one piece of advice.

If you hear the dogs, keep going.

If you see the torches in the woods, keep going.

If they're shouting after you, keep going.

Don't ever stop. Keep going.

If you want a taste of freedom, keep going.

Even in the darkest of moments, ordinary Americans have found the faith to keep going.

I've seen it in you. I've seen it in our teachers and firefighters, nurses and police officers, small business owners and union workers, the men and women of our military - you always keep going.

We are Americans. We're not big on quitting.

But remember, before we can keep going, we have to get going by electing Barack Obama president.

We don't have a moment to lose or a vote to spare.

She's a party animal, and she did what she had to do. We are party animals, too, and so we were listening. And now we are thinking. We will be listening tomorrow, too.

Peace out.

Swing Voters

(Image Credit: Richard Crowson, The Wichita Eagle; H/T to Goose)

Read this, because Sean Wilentz is smarter than you are. His take-down of liberal intellectuals who "largely abdicated their responsibility to provide unblinking and rigorous analysis instead of paeans to Obama's image" should make you sit up straight no matter who you supported in the Dem primary.

Read this, because Melissa McEwan might help you understand why the selection of Joe Biden didn't exactly cause an outbreak of euphoria among Dems. Our favorite paragraph? This one, which we offer up to those who would drag us kicking and screaming to our unity ponies:

I also feel coming down the tracks more alienation from former allies because of it [the selection of Biden]. For months and months I have read rejections of Clinton because she supported the war, but I suspect that those making the argument will not now reject Obama because he put one of its cheerleaders on his ticket. For months and months I have read rejections of Clinton because she and/or her husband are racist, but I suspect those those making the argument will not now reject Obama because he put a man who says things like this or this or this or this, all within the last two years, on his ticket. For months and months I have read exhortations that I must vote for Obama because he will protect reproductive rights in a way McCain won't, but I suspect those who have beat me with that cudgel will not now reject Obama because he put on his ticket a man who does not support federal funding for abortion and supported the "partial-birth abortion" ban even without protections for the health/life of the mother.

And what of those who have chanted Obama's 100% NARAL rating like a mantra? Will they reject him now that he has asked to join his ticket a man with a 36% NARAL rating in 2003 and a 75% rating in 2007? Or will they come at last to their stubborn insistence that he's still better than McCain, even though that's not the debate...?

Read this, because it's important to ponder how Obama's candidacy and possible election might alter the politics of race in this country.

And then get back to work, you procrastinator! Don't you know Labor Day is one week from today? That syllabus is not going to write itself, for heaven's sake!

Sunday Snacks

Gold-Medal Homo

Hooray for Australian Matthew Mitcham, the openly gay diver who won the men's 10-meter platform event yesterday in Beijing! (Advocate cover story on Mitcham is here.)

Topic for Group Discussion: Will/should Mitcham replace Daniel Vosovic (finalist on Project Runway, season 2) as Candy Man's dream date? Please weigh in in Comments.

(Photo Credit: Phil Noble, Reuters, via NYT, 8/23/08)

A Dog, a Blogger, and a Bar

No, that is not me in the photo below, and the guy in the baseball cap is not Office of Persona Management Director Mark Twain, and the bar is not Ishmael's, the seedy place around the corner from Roxie's World's global headquarters. (We make all this stuff up, you know, precisely so that The New York Times will never find us.) It's NY state political blogger Phillip Anderson, with his non-blogging dog Molly, who is featured in a Times story on bloggers going to the upcoming political conventions. The story, which also features Pam Spaulding of the awesome LGBT group blog, Pam's House Blend, is here; Anderson's post on the story is here. No, Molly is not going to Denver with Anderson. Dogs apparently are not allowed, which is why Moose, Goose, and I will be staying right here in Roxie's World this week.

Topic(s) for Group Discussion: Will Dems win if they persist in discriminating against dogs, the loyalest, most political animals on the face of the earth? Also, is there a risk or a downside to the levels of access and legitimacy bloggers are suddenly gaining in this political season? Do they run the risk of losing their independence, of becoming more and more like the insider journalists they have so relentlessly and righteously critiqued? Does the mere fact of our asking such questions prove that Roxie's World is jealous of the bigger, more influential dogs in the growing pack of political bloggers? Please weigh in in Comments.

(Photo Credit: Jacob Silberberg, New York Times, 8/24/08)

Biden Our Time

David Brooks is happy with the Biden selection, and lord knows that is good news. I mean, hell, I'm sure hostesses all over Georgetown are breathing a big sigh of relief that they won't have to invite the Clintons over to dinner this fall. David Brooks is happy, so polish up the silver, kids, and let's have us a nice civilized village dinner like we used to in the good old days.

The PUMAs are happy as they head off to Denver, knowing they can protest to their heart's content without having to explain why they refuse to be satisfied with a ticket that might have put Hillary a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Tom Watson is satisfied for reasons that are similar to the ones we'd be offering if we could set conscience aside and just endorse Obama already -- i.e., Biden brings the gray hair, the foreign policy cred, and the experienced insider's knowledge of how stuff gets done in Washington that the hopey-changey crew desperately needs if it is actually going to realize any of its airy-fairy ideas, should the Lesser manage to secure a victory in November.

Mod Fab is feeling less enthusiastic than he wishes he felt, now that some of the scales have fallen from his eyes, but he's gearing up to blame those psychotically obsessed Clintonistas who might "throw a hissy fit" on national television next week and cost Dems the election.

Prediction #1: Even if Hillary Clinton stands up at the convention and gives the most gracious speech in the history of language, even if she spends every single moment of every single day between now and November 4 tirelessly stumping for Obama-Biden, if the ticket loses, she and her deranged, disloyal, bitter supporters will be blamed for it. It won't be the fault of a candidate who ignored the several constituencies who supported Clinton in the primaries, dismissing them as part of an old, outmoded Democratic coalition. It will be the fault of voters who just didn't know what was good for them. That's right, guys. Blame the voters. That's a strategy that always works for Democrats.

Prediction #2: If blaming Hillary isn't enough (and if Obama manages to lose in a year so perfect for a tidal wave of Dem victories, even the all-powerful, super-wicked Hillary may not be enough of a scapegoat), the "blame racism" argument will be brought in as a reinforcement. Oh, wait -- Here it is already, wrapped up in a bright, shiny package, just waiting to be opened up and pressed into service.

For those of you who've been hitting your refresh buttons all day long, wondering what on earth Roxie's World would do now that Moses has descended from the mountain and announced His veep choice, well, darlings, you know we appreciate your devotion and your faith in our political wisdom. (Or is it the jokes that bring you back and back? The charmingly crude turns of phrase -- "poop on toast," for example?) Sorry to keep you waiting, but we are slow thinkers here in Roxie's World and need some time to sort through our options and our feelings. For the time being, the flag of Switzerland still flies, while the moms devote themselves to the pressing late-summer tasks of syllabus-writing and back-to-school meetings. We can tell you this isn't a ticket that will get much, if anything, from our political team in the way of time and money. As Goose disclosed in a comment on the previous post, we've recently decided to do some work on a significant local political battle over a Montgomery County, MD law that prohibits transgender discrimination. We'll be calling on my legions of loyal fans to support Basic Rights Montgomery as it gears up to win a referendum likely to be on the ballot in November on whether to keep or throw out a law that provides protections for transgender individuals in housing, employment and public accommodations. (Wa Po brief is here.) Stay tuned.

Sometimes, it's good to remember the old lefty adage: Think globally, act locally. This old dog has plenty of fight left in her, but she may just decide it's time to pick her battles carefully. And you can't blame her for that. Peace out.