Response to Susan Stanton's (Jan. 04/08) Letter, or:
Poor Susan Stanton - Redux!

In the face of withering controversy and almost-universal condemnation following the December 31, 2007 St. Petersburg Times article about her (Susan Stanton's Lonely Transformation; also saved here), Susan Stanton penned this letter (January 04, 2007), in her own defense.

The following is *my* response (commentary).

In these early hours following Susan Stanton's "rebuttals letter" (available online at her web site, www.susanastanton.com, and here, for "safe-keeping"), serious questions still remain unaddressed / unacknowledged / unanswered.

These include:

---

• ENDA: Does Ms. Stanton support a fully transgender-inclusive ENDA (past/present/future)? Is a transgender-*excluding* version "tolerable;" has she lobbied in this regard?

• HRC: What is Ms. Stanton's relationship, specifically, regarding the Human Rights Campaign (HRC)? Does she receive compensation from them, as alluded here, and elsewhere on the internet?

• Barney Frank: What relationship / communications does Ms. Stanton have (or intend to initiate) with transphobic, 'out' Congressman Barney Frank?

• Congress: What are Ms. Stanton's plans, exactly (planned / anticipated) regarding testifying before Congress, the Senate, or any other legislative bodies? What would she say, if she did testify?

• Financial Renumeration / Other Benefits: Just how much, if any, is Ms. Stanton profiting from her various speaking and media engagements and other public appearances, at "our expense?" It's time for full disclosure, to settle this issue once and for all. Who among us, just "outted" by the media, summarily terminated, and hence in need of taking care of personal issues before all else, would agree to have a CNN camera crew tag along for an entire year documenting the debacle, "gratis" (pro bono)?!
  
  

  ---

As I read Ms. Stanton's letter [~1,252 words in length; the Dec. 31/07 story about her is only slightly (35%) longer, at ~1,913 words], I encounter one inconsistency after another and more than one instance of how Ms. Stanton is unique, special, and different from others in her/our community, by virtue of past employment, degree of public awareness (being a "public figure"), etc. These are simply rationalizations, reflecting self-importance and ego.

I also agree with others who do not see any direct denials of the most salient accusations, including the comment from Ms. Stanton that the transgendered "aren't ready" for, or deserve the protections offered by ENDA.

In my opinion, Ms. Stanton needs to emphatically disavow the comments either made by her - or rightly or wrongly attributed to her - in the St. Petersburg Times article (Dec. 31/07). It's Ms. Susan's word vs. reporter Ms. Lane's word on this issue - in the absence of evidence one way or the other, whom do you trust?

Ms. Stanton agreed to be interviewed; as a seasoned politician, she knew that she yields editorial control, but this does not absolve her from accepting responsibility for the information that ultimately gets reported. If Ms. Stanton was indeed misquoted - on virtually *every* account, it would appear - then Ms. Stanton can unreservedly apologize and refute each offending comment, one-at-a-time, briefly without excessive verbage.

We need to know the answers to these questions, straight from Ms. Stanton's own lips, first-hand.

Additionally, Ms. Stanton fails to address, let alone clarify, issues of significant concern regarding her future plans regarding the HRC, ENDA, Barney Frank, and perhaps most importantly, regarding future Congressional or other transgender-rights testimony (for or against). On this latter point, here are some concerns expressed by various transpersons, excerpted from various e-mail discussion groups and other correspondence:

• May 17, 2007: "Earlier this week Stanton was in Washington lobbying members of Congress about transgender civil rights."

• December 04, 2007: From a report on "An evening with Susan Stanton," HRC-sponsored, Chicago event, "Transgendered Day of Dialog" (originally featuring Donna Rose):
  "Ms. Stanton speculated that the people who ostracized her, betrayed her trust, discounted her abilities and cast her out were "really good people who just made a bad decision because they didn't understand what transgenderism is all about".

  She went on to say that the exact same reasoning applies to the congressional defeat of an all-inclusive ENDA, because they're "really good people who just don't understand", which is why the trans-community should join forces with their most powerful political advocate (HRC) in order to "educate" all those "good people" so that when (and if?) "our turn" comes back around (in a few more years?) trans-people will prevail and finally attain 1st class citizenship."

• January 02, 2008: "Watch for Stanton to soon become a spokestrans for the Human Rights Campaign and perhaps even a member of the much-rumored "Good Tranny Brigade", a handful of wealthy, well-groomed, straight-looking transgender people being personally selected by Barney Frank to testify before Congress about transgender inclusion in ENDA at some point before it comes up for another vote. Stanton's publicly stated views fit right in with the HRC/House Democratic leadership agenda to protect Congressional Democrats from feeling obligated to do the right thing by all LGBT Americans, and to somehow try to convince Members and the American public during an election year that passing an ENDA solely for those who look and act like straight people has the transgender seal of approval."

• January 02, 2008: "I understand that Susan Stanton has been chosen by Rep Barney Frank to speak to a congressional panel about transgender issues."

• January 02, 2008: "I don't know if you have seen this, but can you give me any idea how someone testifying at a congressional hearing about our community who says things like this is going to do us any good at all. It's a disaster ready to happen. Can we afford to hedge words on ... such statements by 'experts'."

• January 02, 2008:
  "While her testimony will probably be about such things and the fact that TG people, including 30 year past Post ops are not really ready for their rights as yet, and should not be included in human rights legislation yet, her testimony should be about the successes of post ops and TG people who are out and are employed in responsible positions and prove that we are ready for our rights and already have earned them in about 10 states. it's not about what we have to do, it's about what we have done already and proven that TG people are ok in the bathrooms and don't start hysterical reactions in ten states.

  Bringing these things up in a Congressional testimony places the emphasis on what we are not, not what we are and have done. You will hear the constant lament from Frank that we have to educate. That is what he says he wants to hold the hearing for. To educate congress and help us.

  What he is trying to do is to educate the public about the reasons why we should not be on this version of ENDA and in the process lose the fact that we need to be there more than or at least equal to GLB people."

• January 02, 2008: "Are you nuts? Barney is a pure transphobe. He 'owns' Joe who was once one of his staffers and therefore the HRC. They are not "well intentioned" in the remotest realm of the universe!! The law they are trying to shove down everyone's throat doesn't protect anyone! Not even gays and lesbians. Lambda legal can explain it to you. Inviting Sue Stanton to explain trans people is like inviting a freshman in college to give the valedictorian speech at graduation. She hasn't even made it through her first year. I wish her the best, but ..."

• January 04, 2008:
  "Are you aware that Barney Frank has asked Susan Stanton to speak in front of a Congressional Committee on our behalf? To give them the information they need to help determine if we have rights like all other Americans to work without Discrimination. In my opinion, Susan is not qualified to give that speech to a Congressional Committee. She will most likely put us back in the Dark Ages. There are many more qualified Activists that would fit that need better. Susan is all about the center of attention and not US.

  I have nothing against her personally. Some of you said she needs to learn because she is new. But please, not at mine or others expense. She along with HRC is tearing all our work from the last 30 years apart. Our wonderful HRC has for the last 20 years shown they do NOT want us. The proof is in their actions not just from me. Along with Susan Stanton's comments we as a Society will never see Equality in anything. "

• January 04, 2008 (from Susan Stanton, herself): "It is my belief that until the general public is properly educated on the diversity of gender identification and expression, attempts at passing comprehensive federal legislation prohibiting discrimination will not have the necessary support in Congress."

• January 04, 2008: Regarding Susan Stanton's December 04 letter / rebuttals: "The one piece of information that we need is that she won't testify in front of Congress. I don't see it here."
  

All of this, from the very start, reads like a choreographed script. Given HRC's traitorous past with respect to the transgendered, no one associated with HRC, or their shills, can ever be fully trusted. Who's to say that this isn't a stalling tactic, of some sort?

Furthermore, given what's been done to the transgendered community in recent months, I think that we all need to know precisely where certain people stand on these issues, and hold them accountable to their words and actions. We're due this courtesy, at least.

It would be best for all of us, herself included, if Ms. Stanton fully addressed these concerns, then quietly faded into the background to focus on herself and her transition, while engaging her community at a local level, and not causing any more harm or controversy. Time will tell if she is indeed sincere and reliable.

I don't see indications that this is going to happen, however, as she states "In all future media communications I will expressly state that I do not speak for or represent anyone other then [sic] myself." Her own web site (main page; January 05, 2008) lists these sections:

• Home Page
• Message to TS Community
• Media Coverage
• Speaking Engagements
• Contact Info

These are all my own opinions - of course, others will see things differently.

By the way, "being transgendered" is not in and of itself "medical nature," as far as I'm aware, but rather an *innate* self-identity ...

Sincerely,

Victoria,
Durham, N.C.

January 04, 2008
Amended / updated January 05, 2008