IN MEMORIAM: TRANSGENDER DAY OF REMEMBRANCE - NOVEMBER 20

Share

TRANSGENDER DAY OF REMEMBRANCE November 20
"This day was set aside to memorialize those who were killed due to anti-transgender hatred or prejudice. The event is held in November to honor Rita Hester, whose murder on November 28th, 1998 kicked off the "Remembering Our Dead" web project and a San Francisco candlelight vigil in 1999. Rita Hester’s murder — like most anti-transgender murder cases — has yet to be solved.   Although not every person represented during the Day of Remembrance self-identified as transgender — that is, as a transsexual, crossdresser, or otherwise gender-variant — each was a victim of violence based on bias against transgender people.   The Transgender Day of Remembrance serves several purposes. It raises public awareness of hate crimes against transgender people, an action that current media doesn’t perform. Day of Remembrance publicly mourns and honors the lives of our brothers and sisters who might otherwise be forgotten. Through the vigil, we express love and respect for our people in the face of national indifference and hatred. Day of Remembrance reminds non-transgender people that we are their sons, daughters, parents, friends and lovers. Day of Remembrance gives our allies a chance to step forward with us and stand in vigil, memorializing those of us who’ve died by anti-transgender violence."   Note: The original post can be found at http://www.rememberingourdead.org/day/what.html   The Remembering our Dead Web Project and The Transgender Day of Remembrance are owned by Gwendolyn Ann Smith, All Rights Reserved

Michael Jackson, Rest In Peace, farewell dear sister... If you were one.

There are two conditions under which I'd dare to call someone a Transgender, Lesbian, Gay, etc.
The obvious one is when that person self identifies as one.
The other one is when the person in question, engages in sexual acts with a person of the same sex while at the same time, hypocritically, attacks us for the same acts.

I'm making an exception, with great respect, to that rule with Michael Jackson.

So much is being said and written about Michael, some of what I see is a person who went to great lengths so his physical appearance was that of the opposite gender, by definition, he appeared to be and would fit the description of Transgender.

I'm not trying to establish whether or not Michael Jackson was Transgender or a Transgender Woman, these farewell words, are just that, ' farewell dear Michael ', 'what if' and 'thank you' words.

Dear Michael,

I want to say a few things to you and in a selfish manner, to me as well.

You are dead and you are still being disrespected, I saw the words, 'Jacko' and 'Wacko' in print, I won't say that you were a Trangender Woman, however, I'm very comfortable in asking "What if?"

Maybe it is just my imagination, but when I see close up pictures of you, the look in your eyes always jumps at me, in a way, it feels that I'm looking at an Enlakesh of my gender. (Mayan - I am another yourself)

I never fail to glimpse that there is something else behind the facade, I want to say it again for the last time, maybe it is just my imagination, but when I saw your pictures with your children, I didn't see a daddy, I saw a mommy.

There are many of us who are good mothers and, many-times-many, others who have a yearning to be mothers, some will adopt, others will join a man with children and help him raise them as their own, with all the maternal love and care that we are capable of, with the knowledge that this is what we want to do, what we chose to do, fulfilling what we were meant to be, and now are.

There are times when I also see in your eyes an old acquaintance of mine, pain, profound pain at being unable to live your life as who you really are, the pain of knowing that you are being pressured to be ashamed to be who you are and to live your life as they feel you should, the pain of being made to feel guilty because of who you are, pain in knowing that to rebel and be your true self, is to invite more spiritual, emotional and psychological pain into your life, this is in addition to the heavy penalties and punishments in the social, legal, professional, religious and family life for having the audacity to be who you really are, and to live your life as such.

I also self-medicated to stop the pain, but the medication which took away a lot of it, was when I decided to not allow anybody else but me, to define me or to rule my life, realizing at the same time, that the people who call us freaks or mentally ill, are the real sick and deformed freaks in a human caricature.

The doctors and the professors are starting to come out of the woods and into the limelight of the 24/7 networks, I'm afraid it won't be pretty, in all seriousness I can tell you that if you were not already dead, they would psychoanalyze you to your grave, I don't know if you were a Transgender Woman, but you can rest assured that any and all attacks will be confronted, by me if by no one else.

But I don't think you need defending, at least on the surface I also see you as way above that, you were very brave by defying convention in so many ways, you minced the hypocritical crap of "Be yourself" that we are continously fed in "The Land of the Free and The Home of the Brave", contributed generously to worthy causes, enjoyed being a parent and who can forget, "We are the World"?

I hope you made the best of the hand nature dealt you, I prefer to think that you did, I have the feeling that we didn't get to really know your true self in life, most likely I'm wrong in my perceptions, I don't know if you were a Transgender Woman, but in case you were, I want to at least in death, acknowledge you as one who felt as I did, I also want to tell you from the bottom of my heart:

You are free now, whomever you may really be, to be who you are.

Farewell dear Michael, rest in peace.

Aurora
070109


PS
Thank you for the great music and performances, you did well, yes indeed, you did good, TXs!
Also, for what is worth, there are many of us around who still think "We Are The World", that "We Are The Ones We Have Been Waiting For", we will keep advancing the torches of basic human rights and dignity.

We Are The World: Michael Jackson, Lionel Richie, Cindy Lauper, Steve Wonder, Paul simon, kenny rogers, Dionne warwick, willie nelson, Bob dylan, Cindy lauper, & Many Other Friends

Michael Jackson - We are the World [Solo Version]

Lyrics:

Lionel richie
There comes a time when we heed a certain call

Lionel richie & stevie wonder
When the world must come together as one

Stevie wonder
There are people dying

Paul simon
And its time to lend a hand to life

Paul simon & kenny rogers
The greatest gift of all

Kenny rogers
We cant go on pretending day by day

James ingram
That someone, somewhere will soon make a change

Tina turner
We are all part of gods great big family

Billy joel
And the truth, you know, love is all we need

Chorus:
Michael jackson
We are the world, we are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So lets start giving

Diana ross
Theres a choice were making
Were saving our own lives

Michael & diana ross
Its true well make a better day
Just you and me

Dionne warwick
Send them your heart
So theyll know that someone cares

Dionne warwick & willie nelson
And their lives will be stronger and free

Willie nelson
As God has shown us by turning stones to bread

Al jarreau
So we all must lend a helping hand

Chorus:
We are the world, we are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So lets start giving

Bob dylan
Theres a choice were making
Were saving our own lives
Its true well make a better day
Just you and me

Michael jackson
When youre down and out, there seems no hope at all

Huey lewis
But if you just believe theres no way we can fall

Cindy lauper
Well, well, well, well let us realize that a change can only come

Kim carnes
When we stand together as one

Chorus:
We are the world, we are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So lets start giving

Theres a choice were making
Were saving our own lives
Its true well make a better day
Just you and me

We are the world, we are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So lets start giving

Theres a choice were making
Were saving our own lives
Its true well make a better day
Just you and me

We are the world......

California's Prop H8: The State Supreme Court Punts.

Upon hearing the decision of the Supreme Court of California on Prop H8, the first comment I made to my friend Juanita was made 'off-the-cuff', she asked me what I thought and I said "The Supreme Court is buying time", the reason I felt that was the case is very simple, in the previous rulings they have pleased the Pro Prop H8 proponents and angered the LGBT Community when they ruled that licenses for same-sex marriage were invalid under State Law because it barred such unions (California Proposition 22 (2000)), next, in another decision, they pleased the LGBT Community and angered the Prop H8 Proponents when they ruled that Prop 8 was an unconstitutional abridgment of civil rights, oookey... So, in their latest ruling, which they announced on Tuesday May 26, 2009, they declared the Prop H8 constitutional amendment is valid, albeit it takes away rights protected under the 'equal treatment under the law constitutional clause' (Part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution), furthermore, they ruled that the 18,000 or so same-sex marriages performed in between their second and third ruling, were valid, because of their second ruling which was apparently reversed on their third.

He, he, he... I don't mean to laugh at this very serious issue, but, in addition to being a little confusing to follow their steps and logic, it brings to my mind overtones of the 'Keystone Cops' on a State Supreme Court Scenario, bumbling and fumbling.

But just taking a sample of the opinion pieces out there, here is Dan Walter's on the San Jose Mercury News on May 27th:

Opinion: California Supreme Court followed the law on Prop. 8

"marriage licenses that San Francisco was issuing to same-sex couples at the behest of Mayor Gavin Newsom were invalid because state law prohibited such marriages.

A year ago, the same court pleased gay rights groups and angered conservative "pro-family" groups when it declared that the statute barring same-sex marriages, although enacted by voters, was an unconstitutional abridgment of civil rights.

The court seemingly reversed itself again Tuesday, declaring that Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment again outlawing same-sex marriages, is valid. But all three decisions were correct, even courageous, because they upheld the limited role that courts play in public policy.

As the court itself said, "In a sense, this trilogy of cases illustrates the variety of limitations that our constitutional system imposes upon each branch of government — the executive, the legislative and the judicial."

In petitioning the court to set aside Proposition 8, gay marriage advocates wanted the court to rule that it was a constitutional revision, rather than an amendment, and thus could not be enacted via initiative. But had it done so, it would have made a mockery of the initiative system — which, for all its flaws, remains a valuable tool for effecting public policy — and created a legal quagmire with unimaginable unintended consequences."

It is not a simple issue no matter which way you look at it, but two points are blatantly clear, 1. Protection of Civil Rights on equal treatment under the Law and, 2. Public Policy or, putting it another way, pure, unbridled democracy, the worst kind of government but the best thing we got going for us, on the one hand, the governed have, supposedly, participatory prerogatives on a democracy, on the other, notwithstanding that nobody is either better or worse than the other, we humans have differences on how we look, what we think or our nature, but... And this is a big but, regardless of our differences, all of us are supposed to have the same inalienable rights, hence, "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities.". but, there seems to always be a but, isn't?, what about democracy? Well, this beautiful monster called democracy, in it's extreme, purest form, is what is known as 'anarquism', another extreme manifestation of unbridled democracy is that "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic."

Is it just? According to Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, "The voice of the majority is no proof of justice", Maximilien Robespierre said that "Any law which violates the indefeasible rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all." and the great humanitarian, Mahatma Karumanchi Gandhi, left us one of his tenets "In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place.", the answer to me appears to be a resounding no!

Going back to my comment that the California Supreme Court was 'buying time' or, as stated in this post's title, they 'punted', I must say that the point is valid because a) in their first ruling they validated the voice of the majority and, b) on their second ruling they upheld the inalienable rights of the individual and, c) in their latest ruling they upheld unbridled democracy as the supreme policy-maker of the land, making a little aside to say that because in their second ruling, they temporarily made legal the marriage between persons of the same sex, the legal marriage contracts made during that period, remained legal (Something to do with legal retroactivity versus current legal status, I think)

Yes, the State Supreme Court punted, they decided to go the political route, they left it to the electorate to decide public policy instead of settling once and for all the issue of whether or not a majority has the prerogative to take away constitutional rights from a minority, or until the US Supreme Court rules on the issue, which will happen, since already legal suits challenging the Cal Supremes' ruling have been filed.

I do totally agree with Dan Walter's point that the California Supreme Court have "created a legal quagmire with unimaginable unintended consequences", fortunes and majorities change, public opinion attitudes change as well, today's majority may in the near, or far future, whichever may be the case, change too; so, let the 'political pin ball game' commence, the 'pro-this' or 'pro-that' will win a scrimmage or a battle here and there, only to be reversed later by the 'con-this' or 'con-that' majority, only to be set back later by the 'pro or con on this or that', yes indeed, by all means, let the 'political pin ball game' commence instead of answering two simple, yet vital, questions: "Does the individual has inalienable rights?" and "Does a majority has the right to abridge them?"

I do also agree with Dan on another point he makes because there is no question on my mind that same-sex marriage contracts will be legal in California and other states sooner than later, but I disagree that it is the appropriate course of action, as he and others are saying:

The appropriate course for same-sex marriage advocates to take is to pursue their cause in the same political arena in which their opponents prevailed in November. Polls indicate that Californians are split roughly 50-50 on the issue of gay marriage, but support is growing over time, and a pro-gay marriage measure has a fair chance of succeeding next year.

In closing, I do most fervently disagree with the opinion of many and that Dan also exposes in his piece, while leaving for another post the role of "Organized Religion", more aptly called "The Religious Right" And the innumerable and outrageous ironies and the accompanying plethora of hypocrisies in this matter:

A victory at the polls would have much more moral validity than the Supreme Court's ignoring legal precedent and blithely overturning Proposition 8.

I'll state why I disagree, moral validity is acquired when what is just is followed, what Dan and others are saying is that they expect that their views will be validated by political Trends/Will - What legal precedent? It seems to me this claim was done in a vacuum due to his not specifying to which precedent he is referring to.

I heard somewhere that the California State Supreme Court's ruling on Prop H8 was courageous, excuse me?

They punted, the stage is set thus bringing up a final question: Which minority will be next?

Are you gay?

[This piece which is an extremely abbreviated version of why and how I lost my 65K per annum job was presented for the Mission SRO Collaborative’s writing project for it’s first issue of “Hotel Voices", published in the spring/summer of 2006, it was also published in Poor Magazine online the summer of that year.

The themes were about the experiences of SRO Hotel’s residents and/or how we came to be living in SRO Hotels, which is a step short of homelessness.

It was subsequently posted on 03/05/07 at the Coalicion Primero de Mayo Blog and I'm posting yet again as a reminder that phobias and prejudices have consequences for people who are different than oneselves and in relation to the California Supreme Court's Ruling on "Same-sex marriage", the regressive movement to change the Constitution so same sex couples can't marry.

Also at the Daily Kos From this Author ["Tranny"]
"My 2001 Valentine's day story."
“Gay Panic” Defense? My Ass!
"Beyond He and She: A Transgender News Update"

Are you gay?
- By Aurora Grajeda:

Silvia asked lifting her gaze away from my shining pearly-white nails, professionally manicured in the style known as French, the baby pink flesh showing through the neutral-colored nail polish, we were confirming our upcoming first lunch date in 2 plus years of working together.

I tried to think how many times she had asked during the 2 1/2 years of us working together. Today, I didn’t answer with the usual question: Why do you say that?

Today I firmly said, “no“

“Mmmm… Are you sure? Silvia asked, lifting her eyes to mine, pondered, “mmm… I don’t know…” Looking again at my nails… “Are you really sure you’re not gay?”

Tired of her regular queries about my sexuality, this time I said “No, I’m something else”, “What are you then?” She inquired, “I think I’m a girl” I answered.

After a couple of under-the-breath “uhms” And “aahs”, she asked if we could reschedule our lunch date.

“Sure”, I answered walking away.

Why did I tell her? As my boss’ Executive Assistant, she was the Office Politician par excellence who loved the taste of power, was very good at how to keep it and increase it; whereas I, all I wanted was to keep doing the work that I enjoyed, was good at it, was getting paid very well for doing it and having just started hormonal reassignment treatment, was looking at a future with hefty gender transition related expenses.

A superfluous question knowing that a) I resented being thought of as a gay man; it is a question of gender and not sexual orientation, b) the charade was over, I had removed the facade and now I was living my life in a rigorously brutal honesty, and c) I wanted to give her the opportunity to show me her acceptance, tolerance or rejection.

She outed me.

I witnessed and experienced my co-workers reactions, from the utter fixation with the restroom’s ceiling that some men had recently developed - as soon as they noticed my presence in the room - coupled with the not quite whistling but rather an in-between-the-lips and barely audible soft hissing of the latest “Music Brain Worm” In their heads, to the ones that acknowledged me with a curtly nod, or the ones that actually said hi and conducted business with me with a hardly noticeable discomfort, and last but not least, there was a group that never changed a iota, either because of acceptance, tolerance or conscious non-interference in other people’s business. And then, there were the others.

These were the most vicious and cowardly ones, the invisible closeted transphobes that had their own sub-division, passive-aggressive and active-aggressive.

The former chose to live with their misery and only passively projected it on me, among the latter, there was a small delegation of women who approached David, my Director, and shared with him their potential future feelings of violation were I to come into the ladies’ room, the most aggressive ones were David’s superiors who pressured him to cancel my contract, he didn’t yield because my pay came out of his Dept.’s budget, he refused until he was presented with an ultimatum whose dictates were never disclosed to me in neither one of the two official meetings I had with him RE: My “Outing”.

On the first, we talked, he was happy with my work, he pledged his support and wished me well on my journey, told me about his superior’s pressure.

I was reassured and calmer for the next few weeks until he called me again for our second meeting, he looked tired as he told me how fortunate he was because of my hiring, the satisfaction of getting more than what he expected and was paying for, deploring the bad news, he informed me of a directive to cancel my contract because of a job consolidation move, implemented over his objections, or so he told me .

A bucket full of icy water couldn’t have frozen me as much and his voice became a muffled distant murmur as realizations of the travails coming my way started materializing in countless foreboding thoughts which brought fear and anger.

David’s voice brought me back, “Do you want to say anything?”, the breath I drew felt like the first one in some time, with tense body and through clenched teeth I replied, “I’m trying very hard to put aside the thought that this is one of these ‘let’s get rid of that thing type of thing’ “.

His blanching face made his hair look whiter, he said that wasn’t the case.

“Whatever!” I thought, “Effective when?”, I asked, “One month” he answered. We had some shop talk on how best to maintain the continuity of my projects, tie loose ends etc.

And so it came to pass, August 11, 1999 was the last day worked at PG&E by this Transgender Woman beginning to face a hostile world that had no place for her.

“ Aaand no, I’m not gay, I'm a Transsexual Woman.”


"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
Mohandas Karamachand Gandhi

"We are the ones we have been been waiting for"

A Poem for South African Women by June Jordan
In Commemoration of the 40,000 women and children who, August 9, 1956, presented themselves in bodily protest against the "dompass" in the capital of apartheid. Presented at The United Nations, August 9, 1978

"Viva Obama / Aurora Song / Aurora Video"

Email and subscribe to
GrassRoots4Obama: "Yes We Can, Si Se Puede!"

"March 1st, Int'l Women of Color Day"

"El Rinconcito de Aurora" Subscribe by Email