May 10, 1933

Dr.Magnus Hirschfeld in 1919 founded the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (Institute for Sexual Research) in Berlin.   It became renowned not only for its immense library collection, it also provided medical consultations, treatment and educational services for the 20,000 people a year who visited it.  

In addition to its research, the Institute treated STD's, advocated for sex education and contraception and the human rights and social acceptance of gay and trans people

The Institute was also doing pioneering research on trans people.   Some of the first trans surgeries were performed in the early 1930s under its auspices.  Trans people were on its staff and part of its clientèle.  Dr. Harry Benjamin, who would later expand on trans concepts he would learn there in the United States was a colleague of Dr. Hirschfeld.   .  .

But unfortunately the rise to power of the Nazi party would bring that progress to a screeching halt.    As Ernst Rohm's moderating influence weakened, the Nazis launched a campaign in February 1933 that shut down GLB clubs, banned gay rights organizations and outlawed sex publications.  The pressure got stepped up another notch a month later when Kurt Hiller, the main administrator of the institute, was sent to a concentration camp.

On May 6 while Dr. Hirschfeld was on a lecture tour in the United States, the Deutsche Studentenschaft raided the Institute, seized its extensive list of names and addresses and looted its archives and library.   Four days later in the Opernplatz (now the Bebelplatz) the 20,000 books and 5000 images from it were burned along with the works of other 'un-German' books as Joseph Goebbels spoke to a crowd of 40,000 people.

Hirschfeld never returned to Germany and tried to rebuild his beloved institute in Paris, but died of a heart attack on his birthday in 1935.

In 1934 Hitler launched Operation Hummingbird, the murderous purge against the Ernst Rohm led SA by the Gestapo and the SS.   Aided by what some historians believe was the address list that was confiscated from the Institute, followed up recently passed harsh anti gay laws with round ups of gay people that hadn't already fled Germany.   Many people caught in this dragnet ended up incarcerated in slave labor or death camps.

One of the books that was burned that day in the Opernplatz was Heinrich Heine's Almansor.   It had a chillingly prophetic line in it in which he states, "Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people."

The tragedy of the May 10, 1933 book burning is that not only did Heine's quote tragically come true a few years later, a lot of research and a major chunk of TBLG history went up in flames.that day which will never be recovered.

You are also as a transperson left to wonder how far along SRS research and gender studies would be if it had been able to build on Magnus Hirschfeld's work.

Texas A&M Student Senate Forgot That Hate Is Not An Aggie Value

A few months ago I had the pleasure of rolling up to the Texas A&M campus in College Station to do my African American Trans 101 presentation for the GLBT Resource Center.

I have had the pleasure of visiting more than a few GLBT centers on various college campuses around the country over the years as I've done these speaking engagements.   Even though I'm a proud Cougar alum, the second I stepped into the Texas A&M GLBT Resource Center that day it felt like home even though it's been a while since I cracked open a book or took a class on a college campus.in the Lone Star State.

I had a wonderful time getting reacquainted with Lowell who I met at last year's TTNS and the Aggie students who were in there working on various on and off campus projects, hanging out, doing GLBT center related tasks or just quietly studying.  In addition to the love I received just for being the TransGriot, I got their insightful takes on what it's like to be a TBLG college student in the 2k10's.  I also got a chance to tell them what it was like for the TransGriot in the early 80's. 

In that room over the 36 hours I was visiting Aggieland (and hope I can make it back up there for the 2011 TTNS they are proudly hosting up there)  unlike the members of the Texas A&M student senate, the GLBT center students were role modeling the Hate Is Not An Aggie Value slogan.

The Texas A&M Student Senate professes to live by it but some members showed by their actions they don't.   

We had discussed the SB 63-106 situation over dinner when I was up there in November.  I was not happy to read that on April 20 the conservafool dominated Texas A&M student senate passed S.B. 63-106, AKA the “Sexual Education Equality in Funding Bill” in support of TX Representative Wayne Christian’s amendment to HB 1

It's a veiled attack on the funding of the GLBT Resource Center since our GOP dominated state legislature is cutting $8 million out of the education budget for the next two years. 

In reaction to this development an open letter to the Texas A&M Student Senate was penned by a gay Texas A&M student and published in the Dallas Voice.    The student signed it An Aggie No More and here's the full text of it..


****


Dear Senators:
I once thought that I was an Aggie. Next year will be my 5th year of study. I am a Presidential Endowed Scholar. I attended Fish Camp. I went to football games and yelled until my voice was dead and my ass was red. I joined a FLO. I started two organizations. I received the prestigious Buck Weirus Spirit Award for my contributions to this student body. I have made hundreds of friends, touched hundreds of Aggies’ lives and been touched by thousands more. Yes, I once thought that I was an Aggie.

On April 20th, 2011 the Student Senate made it clear that, in their eyes, I am an Aggie no more.
That day, the student senate told me that I was not worth as much as other Aggies. You told me that breaking the Aggie Honor Code and lying to my fellow students was preferable to you deciding to respect me for who I am.

On that night, S.B. 63-106, otherwise known as the “Sexual Education Equality in Funding Bill” in support of Representative Wayne Christian’s amendment to HB 1 passed. And with its passage, the Student Senate made its position clear: that because I am gay, I am not truly an Aggie.

Now you may be saying to yourself that I’m being overly dramatic, that that was not your intention in passing that bill, or something else along those lines. Some of you may have stopped reading this letter as soon as you saw the words “I am gay”. I would expect nothing less from the 17th least friendly campus for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) students in the country (according to the Princeton review). If you’re still reading, then allow me to explain why I don’t at all feel like I am being melodramatic and state my reasons for concluding that the Student Senate no longer views me as an Aggie:

1. Harming the Texas A&M GLBT Resource Center was the purpose of this bill, not, as the authors claim, the creating of centers for the purpose of so-called “traditional values education.” This is made clear in the second operative clause, where the opposition of increased student fees to cover this new “traditional values education” is set forth. The authors of the bill are not fooling anyone, since the drastic budget cuts make it clear that no additional government funding is at all likely for this new “traditional values” education, leaving one clear option: cut the GLBT Resource Center’s budget in half. This barely concealed attempt to attack the funding of the biggest support system for GLBT students and their allies on this campus is not just an attack on some perceived “immoral lifestyle choice” or whatever phrase people might choose to use. It is a direct attack on Aggies like myself, a clear “shot over the bow”, warning us that we are not welcome on this campus.

2. The purpose of this bill was not to promote equality of funding for support for all students. If that were indeed the goal, then allow me to point you to several areas where there is a severe problem. First of all, why is there a Women’s Resource Center on campus but no Men’s Resource Center? Applying the same logic that has been applied in the passage of S.B. 63-106, it is clearly unfair that my student fees, as a male, go toward funding the Women’s Resource Center, especially if I disagree that women need any special attention. I should demand equality of funding towards a center that supports me and my needs as a male. Likewise for the Department of Multicultural Services, because I as a Caucasian Amercian have no need of their services. Where is my Department of White American Services? Clearly, the student body does not have a problem offering support to the communities of women and multicultural students within the Aggie family. Thus, singling out support for GLBT students like me sends a crystal clear message: “you and people like you are not worthy of our support. Women, multicultural people, those groups deserve support. You do not.“

3. The assertion that there is not already “traditional values” education related to sex on this campus is laughable. Anyone who has taken a KINE 198 class can tell you that only heterosexual examples are given when discussing romantic or sexual interactions and the health guidelines related to them. And a mandatory class is far more pervasive in educating the students of Texas A&M than a resource center buried in Cain Hall that never requires people to pass through its doors. The programming that the center offers is optional for those who wish to attend. There is no requirement that straight Aggies listen to a discussion of sexual safety for gay men or lesbian women, but clearly the same is not true for GLBT Aggies. We are treated to a discussion of straight sexual safety and relationship guidelines whether we want to be or not. Thus, the assertion that “alternative sexual education” is being funded more than “traditional values” sexual education on this campus is not only patently false, but demeaning to those of us who are consistently maligned for being attracted to (a) different gender(s) of people than the Student Senate apparently feels we should be.

Senators, let me reiterate what I said at the beginning of this letter. Next year will be my 5th year of study. I am a Presidential Endowed Scholar. I attended Fish Camp. I went to football games and yelled until my voice was dead and my ass was red. I joined a FLO. I started two organizations. I received the prestigious Buck Weirus Spirit Award for my contributions to this student body. I happen to be gay. I am also a strong Christian, attend a local church, and have a wonderful relationship with my father.

A year ago, all of that almost vanished. I almost became a name read out at Silver Taps Senators, because I was so tired of living the lie, feeling controlled by fear. And the voices that were in my head were delivering the same message that the Student Senate is delivering to the GLBTQ students of this university: you aren’t worth as much as everyone else. I’m not accusing the Student Senate of causing suicides, but the passage of this bill simply reinforces a message that many GLBT people have been hearing their whole lives. Will it take a Tyler Clementi here at Texas A&M before this becomes apparent?

You may think it’s a sin, that I chose to be gay, and that I’m having wild, promiscuous, unprotected sex every chance I get. You may think of me as a faggot, a queer, a poof, a fairy, or a dirty homo. You may think that I will certainly die of AIDS…some of you may even think that I should die because of it. I know people on this campus and in this community who think that I deserve the death penalty for being gay. That is the reality of being gay on this campus, Senators. Even if a GLBT man or woman never once experiences outright discrimination, the knowledge that if it weren’t for Texas politeness they almost certainly would stays with them. It is fear, a constant awareness that we have to have when we’re on a date or walking across campus, an undercurrent of uncertainty about how people will react to us holding hands, wearing a GLBTAggies t-shirt, or standing in front of an Aggie Allies table by the Academic Building.

That is why the GLBT Resource Center is essential. It was part of what kept me alive a year ago, having a community where I knew I could find support, be able to talk to people who knew what I was going through and had the funding and resources to help get me (and every other person who visits the center, gay or straight) the information and support that they need to make it through a day, a week, a year, a lifetime.
Because guess what Senators? Somehow, most of us still love Texas A&M. Despite everything, we still bleed maroon. That’s why we are still here, why we haven’t just up and left, packed our bags, and hit the road for California or New York. The people who work at the GLBT resource center could have just given up years ago; it would have been easier. GLBT Aggies and their allies are still bettering this campus through our involvement in the student body. But we will continue to fight to be recognized fully as Aggies, despite the Student Senate’s clear position that we are not.

In closing, you will notice that my name is not attached to this letter. You may accuse me of cowardice, of choosing to hide behind the cloak of anonymity as I take potshots at you. Then again, you may not. But let me be clear: I have chosen to withhold my name not out of fear, but because you, as a senate body, have lost my trust. Choosing to come out to someone, which is what I would be doing if I included my name, requires trust. However, I do not trust you with my name any more than you as a senate trust that the GLBT students of this campus honestly need the support and resources that the GLBT Resource Center offers. You clearly no longer represent me, so you are no longer entitled to my name.

Maybe when you are willing to repair the damage that you have done to the Aggie Family I might be willing to trust you again.

Sincerely,
An Aggie No More
.  

Dallas County Expands Rights-Omits The Trans Community

Dallas County is one of the blue political and liberal progressive oases in sea of Texas red politics, but even that blue political oasis ignored a section of the Dallas County population recently.

Despite the tidal wave of bad news for Texas Democrats in the 2010 elections, one bright spot was the Dallas area.   They not only held off the Tea Klux Klan electoral tsunami that wiped out the progressive progress we'd made in Harris County since the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, but gained a Democratic majority on the Commissioners Court for the first time in three decades.    

The city of Dallas’ employment nondiscrimination policy has included sexual orientation since 1995 but the  Republican majority ensconsed on the Commissioners Court allegedly has prevented Dallas County from enacting similar protections.

As part of fulfilling a campaign promise from incoming Judge Clay Jenkins and County Commissioner Elba Garcia to do so as quickly as possible, back on March 22 the Dallas County Commissioners Court voted to add sexual orientation to the county's non discrimination policy for its 7000 workers.

That's great news if you're gay or lesbian, but as we know, not if you're trans.

The reason?   County Judge Clay Jenkins told the Dallas Voice Instant Tea blog they were under the impression that sexual orientation and gender identity were the same and would cover trans people.

Um, no they aren't 

"It was our intent in adding sexual orientation to broaden that to include all members of the GLBT community," said Judge Jenkins in that interview

While that's good to know, for future reference only adding both sexual orientation and gender identity language or expression language will accomplish that task.  

Judge Jenkins to his credit has stated that they will revisit the issue of adding the gender identity language in a future commissioners court session. 

Great, can you do that as soon as possible?    It might be a good idea to do so before the Out and Equal Convention comes to Dallas?.

HUD Proposes Rules To Ensure Equal Housing Access For TBLG People

The 'crumbs' just keep on coming from the Obama Administration.

 Today the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed new regulations intended to ensure that its core housing programs are open to all eligible persons, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. 


“This is a fundamental issue of fairness,” said HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan.  “We have a responsibility to make certain that public programs are open to all Americans.  With this proposed rule, we will make clear that a person’s eligibility for federal housing programs is, and should be, based on their need and not on their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

 HUD is seeking public comment on a number of proposed areas including:

• Prohibiting lenders from using sexual orientation or gender identity as a basis to determine a borrower’s eligibility for FHA-insured mortgage financing.  FHA’s current regulations provide that a mortgage lender’s determination of the adequacy of a borrower’s income “shall be made in a uniform manner without regard to” specified prohibited grounds.  The proposed rule would add actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity to the prohibited grounds to ensure FHA-approved lenders do not deny or otherwise alter the terms of mortgages on the basis of irrelevant criteria.
   
• Clarifying that all otherwise eligible families, regardless of marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity, have the opportunity to participate in HUD programs.  In the majority of HUD’s rental and homeownership programs the term “family” already has a broad scope, and includes a single person and families with or without children.  HUD’s proposed rule clarifies that families, otherwise eligible for HUD programs, may not be excluded because one or more members of the family may be an LGBT individual, have an LGBT relationship, or be perceived to be such an individual or in such relationship.
   
• Prohibiting owners and operators of HUD-assisted housing, or housing whose financing is insured by HUD, from inquiring about the sexual orientation or gender identity of an applicant for, or occupant of, the dwelling, whether renter- or owner-occupied.  HUD is proposing to institute this policy in its rental assistance and homeownership programs, which include the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance programs, community development programs, and public and assisted housing programs.

 In addition, HUD will also be conducting the first ever national study of discrimination against members of the LGBT community in the rental and sale of housing.  Every ten years, HUD does a study of the impact of housing discrimination on the basis of race and color.

HUD undertook this important research in 1977, 1989 and 2000 and is currently undertaking this study again. It is believed that LGBT individuals and families may remain silent because in many local jurisdictions, they may have little or no legal recourse. While there are no national assessments of LGBT housing discrimination, there are state and local studies that have shown evidence of this sort of bias. For example, a 2007 report by Michigan’s Fair Housing Centers found that nearly 30 percent of same-sex couples were treated differently when attempting to buy or rent a home.

HUD currently requires its recipients of discretionary funds to comply with local and state non-discrimination laws that cover sexual orientation or gender identity.  In July, the Department issued new guidance that treats discrimination based on gender nonconformity or sex stereotyping as sex discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, and instructs HUD staff to inform individuals filing complaints about state and local agencies that have LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination laws.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in rental, sales and lending on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability and familial status. Approximately 20 states, and the District of Columbia, and more than 150 cities, towns and counties across the nation have additional protections that specifically prohibit such discrimination against LGBT individuals. Under guidance announced last year, HUD will, as appropriate, retain its jurisdiction over complaints filed by LGBT individuals or families but also jointly investigate or refer matters to those state, district and local governments with other legal protections.