I agree that many organizations within the Gender Community shouldn't be required to admit ALL members. To do so could be anti-productive. Organizations are simply subsets. When we have so much to fight for in the general public, why must we be so consumed by in-fighting? At the same time, exactly where do we draw the line between discrimination and sensible exclusions? Should men be allowed into a women's support group to avoid sexual discrimination?
I have always been partial to "open" groups. I have learned much from them. One FTM taught me a lot about courage and perseverance. It took conversation to convey the commonalities of our lives - discrimination on the job - the difficulty of finding medical help that wasn't prejudiced - the courage to BE ourselves. We were passing along the same road, just in different directions. Another helped me solve spiritual problems that I have struggled with for decades. Almost totally as a result of her ministry, I have finally found a faith community and joy and acceptance I have not known ever before in my life.
It wouldn't change anything for many of the women to exclude men from the conference. Most part in anger and really there are other issues in their marriage that are the real problems. They say the organization is for heterosexual CD's. Well it is funny, you can't have a gay person at the meeting but after the meeting most go to the gay drag bars. Go figure.
Actually, discrimination is exactly what you are advocating, according to its literal meaning. I agree that membership requirements where the discrimination is based on irrational bias should be challenged. But I think the essence of your argument is that discrimination based on group definition is appropriate; the group needs to be discriminating regarding who is allowed to claim membership. I agree with that. If there were no discrimination or group definition at all, that is an open invitation to someone to come in and define the group to his/her own end.
I strongly agree - any organization should be narrow with the interest of those members in mind. Anything too broad will result in blurred issues that will help no one. With this said, it is also important that the group co-operate with other groups, in the support of common issues that help all the groups.
...has charged we are discriminatory because we have rules for who may and may not be FULL members and vote. We are not discriminatory, but are focused and selective. I don't see any one using the word Discriminatory towards the American trial lawyers association because they won't let non-lawyers be voting members....same with the AMA....ever try to join if you're not a DR? Besides if you're not a Dr or a Lawyer you wouldn't want to waste your money joining....These groups are SELECTIVE....They serve a specific purpose. If you're not a DR or lawyer, they don't have anything you want and they don't need your help...Imagine the American Trial lawyers association run by a group of carpenters? The key word is damage. DISCRIMINATION Damages something. SELECTIVITY and FOCUS does not. Many members will miss the support by having non-qualified, non-interested, non-supportive members voting on how support should be given.
I have listened for the past few years to Christian Fundamentalist leadership grapple with this same issue. They see the world as their "poker" club when they seek to exclude GLBT people. The place where anyone's arguments turn weak is when they talk of how to decide who gets excluded. There is no way to exclude people without utilizing discernment -- without discrimination. From that point on, it is only a matter of convenience and social tolerance -- whether the majority of people will willingly support the separation, the discrimination. Over the years I have been speaking out against discrimination of all types. It is impossible to have specific-function groups of people without discriminating. Discrimination and its attendant exclusions will always exist. We cannot make discrimination go away. But what we need to ensure is that discrimination does not harm people in the excluded groups. We need to be aware that some people will set goals and work to gain entrance to anything seen as excluding them, while others will set goals and work to become part of a group simply because they believe belonging to the group will benefit them personally. Understanding their motives, and our personal biases, will help us to work with them or against them; it is the function of our journey through life to understand ourselves and others.
If Ed had been properly briefed that the poker club was just that a poker club and not a poker/bowling club the poker club was right in asking Ed to leave. Ed could then get up his own poker/bowling club if he wished. What about a person's honesty with himself. Is he Hetro, Homo or Bi? Many Hetro clubs are reportedly closed yet after the closing gavel is sounded most every one heads for a gay club. Why? They say that they wish to be able to go somewhere to be "dressed". Why is a true Hetro in a Homo world? Is he less than honest with himself? There are those of us who wish to be just Hetro cross dressers and no more. It is up to us to find the places to go and dress and be what we wish (the poker club).
I am disturbed by the exclusion of bisexual people. Exclusion in the sense that when gay and lesbian people/community/rights etc. are included there is nary a mention of bisexual people/community/rights, and also, there are places where bisexual in included in a title or something and it is not included. For instance bisexual has been removed from the title of the SF parade. I also couldn't agree more that territorial disputes dilute our ability to function as an effective group. The Right would have all of us locked up or killed!
There are some relevant points but also feel that you are justifying "clubs" that fall within the criteria of serving the "Gender Family". The definition that you overlooked was that of Family. That means unconditional acceptance and love. That is not what you find in a club that is closed to some members of the Family. Any way you cut the cake, discrimination is just that. There are no shades of gray when dealing with it. Prejudice is like being pregnant, you either are or are not. Many relationships are restrictive in one way or the other, but not to the point of demeaning the other person. When w have closed groups that only accept certain people within our Family, we no longer become a family with many faces, we become a crowd of many faces. It's time that we drop the pretenses. When we have people getting killed in the streets who are members of our family, it's time to drop the analogies of poker and bowling and wives who just can't live with people like us, and get down to some basics. Lets not hide behind the trivial complaints of others and not call it what it really is, TRANSPHOBIA!
The NAACP allows white members, NOW has male members> The point is in joining a group one agrees with the Goals of the Group. Why can't a group say, "these are the goals, support these goals and then you too, be you gay or TS can also be a member? What has been socially acceptable and even expected in the past has often been what is discrimination today. Finally, just because Ed wanted to go bowling should he be forced to leave a club that plays poker?
Diversity - The quality of being diverse; complete difference; unlikeness; variety. I love the straight folks (if there is such a thing) and religious groups that support us. There are many that do. Most religious righters won't stand in the same city block as queer people. And what if I like to play poker and bowl?
Unfortunately, your analogy of the poker club doesn't work for the problems we are currently having in the transgender community. It's not so much that Ed is trying to force the guys to go bowling; it's more like Ed being kept out or forced out because he is a bowler as well as a poker player. It's not about Ed's behavior, but about who Ed is. It's important to differentiate between the focus of an organization and who is allowed to be a member. I don't know anyone who would say that their focus should change to serve anyone other than heterosexual cross-dressers and their female partners. There is a bit of problem with honesty. It's more like the guys kick Ed out of the club and then sneak off and go bowling themselves.