Q Of The Day: Would You Support ENDA if...?

ABSOLUTELY.....NOT

I didn't before either

We all get ENDA, or I'll wait with transgender people

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 02:12:07 AM CST

Funny

I said Yes.

Because although it would cause thousands of deaths of trans people not to have an inclusive ENDA if that was possible, if the choice was no ENDA ever, or one just covering GLBs, I'd choose the second. Because it's the right thing to do.

But meanwhile I'll support an inclusive ENDA because it will kill thousands of trans people not to have it. That may sound melodramatic, but it's true. Trans people are still waiting 25 years in some places after Gays have been granted human rights, and their employment situation is not only obscenely worse in relative terms, the latest data says it's marginally worse in absolute terms too.

There is no situation so complex it can't get even worse

---

by: ZoeB @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 02:45:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The lie "we'll come back for trans rights" is INSULTING to all involved (or maybe uninvolved would be more apt)

Transgender people have been fighting with us since Stonewall, and it would be spitting on an ally to except such a bad bargin and a bargin with the DEVIL, who would love to rip the LGBT community into smaller and smaller pieces. Transgender may be the smallest subset community in the LGBT (not sure how numbers of bi's compare to transgender folks.) So leaving our smallest group behind would condemn them to much longer fight for equality than gays and lesbians.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 02:53:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The I would probably be the smallest

As intersex seems at about the rate of asexuality. Also an unscientific observation of people musing on their sexuality has lead me to conclude that the unofficial number of bi people in the world is probably greater than 50% of the total population.

Back on topic, agreed and not just because I'm trans and would like some federal protections, thank you very much, but also because it's just a dumb idea.

Now, our enemies throw up a lot of chaff on the idea that they're only worried about the bathroom thing and trans people , but their actions prove them liars. They fight just as hard against non-inclusive ENDA than inclusive ENDA. Furthermore, it threatens deep divisions in the LGBT community just to have the battle which means massive drop-off for support and trust for lobbyist groups. I mean has HRC fully recovered yet from their attempt to get non-inclusive ENDA which coincidentally stalled just as badly as the inclusive bill was expected to?

Not only that, but starting with a cut-away bill basically starts from a point of weakness. It starts with an implicit agreement that ok, this group isn't deserving of rights or is right to be hated, which allows the other side to make a legitimate point that this means its okay to hate all the groups they hate or to strip them of rights. It emboldens them rather than settles them down.

So, if it puts you at a disadvantage from the start, is just as hard to pass, and doing it alienates a very crucial segment of the base and engenders distrust for national leaders, why not just skip all that bullshit and just push for inclusive ENDA to begin with?

---

by: Cerberus @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 03:21:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Another aspect of this issue

Those who hate LGBTs can identify a great proportion of transgender people that makes them greater targets for hate crimes. While there are visibly gay men, and visibly lesbian women (or assumed gay and lesbian) the larger percentage of G and L can be invisible if we choose.
The idea of leaving behind a small group who are identifiable to attacks would make us COWARDLY and lousy friends.
I know I have fought with individual transgender people here, and have decided to avoid trans themed threads, because it isn't comfortable for me, doesn't mean I don't want transgender folks to have every right I have, or will have.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 03:48:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's funny, but...

...I get this line of reasoning, Zoe. On one hand, I wouldn't support an incremental approach to ENDA...

...But on the other hand, I do support an incremental approach to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). I do see a major problem, given American sensibilities on sex and gender in the locker room, and if gender identity and expression was included in the repeal of DADT I think it would delay the repeal by a decade or more.

So, I do get that I'm not a purist on the urgency of now with regards to civil rights. Frankly, making accommodations with restrooms (ENDA) are a lot less ominous to most Americans than accommodations in locker rooms. Repealing DADT will require a congressional vote, and the votes should be there with repealing DADT for LGB folk, but I don't think the votes would be there for letting T people serve openly in the American military.

Not the same with ENDA, though. I believe that given LGBT activists' and broader American society's attitudes on employment civil rights based on sexual orientation and gender identity expression that a fully inclusive ENDA should be able to pass a congressional vote.  

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 09:17:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

would you?

what change will it do?

wedding catering sydney wedding catering adelaide

---

by: sydneywedcater @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 04:07:14 AM CST

I have trouble believing

that anyone except Barney Frank dislikes transgender people but believes that GLB people deserve the same rights as straight people. Seems to me they either accept us all or are disgusted by all of us. To us there is a world of difference, but how much difference is there to Orrin Hatch, Michelle Bachman, or Virginia Foxx between a trans man and a butch lesbian? Between a trans woman and a lesbian? They want the same for all of us, to know our place, which is the closet, and stop expecting the right to rent or buy homes and be hired for or keep our jobs just because we're qualified and competent. I just don't believe that in this divided Congress, a non-inclusive ENDA is going to get any more votes than an inclusive ENDA unless someone is agitating the "trans women are coming for your daughters in the bathroom" crap again.

Unisex bathrooms, people. Stall doors too high to look over, too low to crawl under, a knob that indicates occupied or free. They are all over Europe. Trans people have no question about which bathroom to use because everyone uses the same. No peeping Toms or Tinas because no one can see through any cracks. Dad can take daughters and mother can take sons right to the stall door to make sure no predator is lurking nearby. All parents can access the changing station. Put the urinals into one big cubicle if men are so attached to urinating side-by-side in a line. Build bathrooms in new buildings like this; retrofit old ones when appropriate.

---

by: one jewish dyke @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 04:41:21 AM CST

Uhhhh....

I have trouble believing that anyone except Barney Frank dislikes transgender people but believes that GLB people deserve the same rights as straight people.

How about...

Those who concocted the scheme known as 'Window Media' - gay men who regularly used the formerly-legit papers as platforms for venting against the concept of considering trans people to be equal to gay men?

Those who control The Advocate - who, far more recently than people are willing to remember, ran an op-ed that, practically speaking, called for the extermination of transsexuals?

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 10:57:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You know, I was thinking about that while falling asleep

But not enough to get up and write more. Barney Frank isn't unique. There are a bunch of G&L people who look down on transsexuals. I'm sure there are some bisexuals too, but probably fewer. If gender isn't a factor in whom you'll date, trans status probably isn't one either. So I will agree with you that there is a hierarchy of queers, which rich white gay men at the top and trans women of color at the bottom. Some gay men don't want to associate with those unattractive lesbians, some lesbians don't want to be affiliated with those bisexuals who are just going to go straight eventually.

I was talking more in terms of straight society. It seems to me that they accept all of us or none of us. It took my mother a bit longer to accept transsexuals, but she has never known any out ones. Before I came out she wasn't exactly Mrs. PFLAG either, and when I came out groups were just concerned with GL or GLB. The only exposure she had to anyone transgender or transsexual was on daytime TV, that bastion of reality. But now she's a good ally.

---

by: one jewish dyke @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 18:57:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes

If we could pass a law that would allow two women to marry each other (but not two men), I would support that. (I'm a gay man).

If it's possible to pass ENDA with T protections, I'm all for that. But if it's necessary to do it without T protections, then...

Progress is progress.

---

by: esurience @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 05:33:20 AM CST

So let's turn that around

If it was "necessary" to pass an ENDA that covered gender identity but left out sexual orientation, would you still be in favor of it?

If not, why not?

Because I'm one of those people you are willing to throw under the bus to get yours, and I want to know why you think that's a winning strategy.

---

by: Kittyburger @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 07:11:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, I would

It should be obvious from my previous comment that I'm perfectly willing to throw myself under the bus if it helped move the ball forward. So the answer to your question is: Yes.

---

by: esurience @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 14:50:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thank you

There's only one difference - for you it's an unlikely hypothetical. For us, it's everyday reality.

Usually though, we don't get the choice. See NY, see MA, see NH..... the list of states that give full rights to GLBs -  including marriage rights - while withholding them from trans people indefinitely - is growing.

Right now though, the point is moot. ENDA is stalled. The mid-terms will lose the Dems their fillibuster-proof super-majority. If the GOP could come up with a remotely credible candidate (MOST unlikely), Obama could possibly be a 1-term president, but that's irrelevant. No ENDA will cross his desk unless it gets voted on before the mid-terms.

When unemployment hits 15-20%, then maybe it could be attached to a Pelosi "must pass" Labor bill. Maybe. I think that's the Barney Frank gameplan. But if so, it's likely to only be an ambit claim to be discarded in committee for something more important to the DNC.

If we don't get ENDA in the next 6 months, we'll be waiting another 14 years before we can try again. Till after the GOP president that succeeds Obama. Just as we did last time.

There is no situation so complex it can't get even worse

---

by: ZoeB @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 07:19:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Progress isn't progress

By every possible measure Massachusetts is a GLBT rights mecca. Except for one thing. We have no T rights. And our latest attempt to pass a transgender enda is languishing once again in committee where it's likely to die.

The lesson we have learned is simple. If we don't pass as part of the GLBT umbrella, it's over and done.

There is a second issue, we in the transgender community have been part of this bill and we have endured withering hate from the anti-gay lobby for months just as we have in the past from inclusive enda's. Ditching us at this point isn't compromising or progress, it's using the transgendered community as human shields.

Because let's be honest, we all know the anti-gay fundies are lying liars. If it wasn't "transwomen in the bathroom" it would be gay men recruiting children or something else.  

---

by: kathygnome @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 08:20:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Why I disagree.

I wouldn't.  I might have, a couple years back, but I wouldn't today.

There are three independent reasons why I wouldn't support either your hypothetical or an LGB ENDA.  (I'm a B male.)

First and LGB ENDA is, and I believe this is intentional, internally devisive.  We are less powerful in all our work for rights when we work against ourselves, and the Churches and powers that oppose us work to create these divisions as a tactic for slowing the pace of progress.

Second, to take your hypothetical on directly, I wouldn't support a law only allowing two women to marry today.  I believe that the existence of such a law would actually delay the day in which two men could marry, not bring it closer.  Even without divisiveness, there'd be less energy towards passing the second bill later on from allies and quote-moderates-unquote.  In fact, I'd rather see a government that doesn't recognize marriage at all, for anyone, than one that picks and chooses the winners, and creates second-class citizens in the process.

Finally, I think in the scramble to get scraps of rights it's all too easy to miss the big picture, and it's a big picture that I'd like to see us keep in mind more often, both in our words and in our actions.  I dunno, about you, but I am a firm supporter of the principle of government that makes equal protection, "all men are created equal", a foundation of our society.  This principle is about more than "getting my benefits", it's about working for a society that treats all individuals as equals in every axis--race, sex, orientation, gender identity, all of it.

A little bit of equality is like a little bit of pregnancy, there ain't no such thing.

That may sound philosophical, but it's also pragmatic.  The queer kids committing suicides every year aren't killing themselves because they don't get a tax break.  They're killing themselves because their society, government (and as a result, family and churches) don't treat them with the respect every human deserves.  I believe this is the real battleground that we're fighting on.

It is only a firm belief in and consistent advocacy for those principles that will create the kind of society I, and I assume you, eventually want to live in.  

---

by: Joe Decker @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 11:36:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Btw, I think it's important to note

...That The Advocate has been chastized by readers for asking the quesion, as no one in Congress is considering taking this tact again.

Asking the question can be seen as devisive. I wanted to point out here that even in the more conservative approach to civil rights that The Advocate has historically taken, its readership is voting an overwhelming "No!" to the idea of removing gender identity from ENDA, and its commenters are raking The Adovcate over the coals for even posing the question.

The point is, to me anyway, that this question has been decided by activists and Congress: Overwhelmingly "everyone" understands the message that ENDA without gender identity is politically not a good idea, and that a less than fully inclusive ENDA would not be hailed as a legislative win by LGBT community activists.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 09:34:09 AM CST

Thanks for the clarification

I read the headline and wondered what the purpose of the poll is--who cares what Bruce on the Street thinks?

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 09:50:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks, and I have to say I'm surprised and pleased.

Surprised and pleased not that the question was asked (I do see the question as devisive), but that the Advocate's readership has so overwhelmingly said "no."   It gives me a little hope to see such a substantial number of folks "getting it."

This week, I'm glad for a little hope.  :)

---

by: Joe Decker @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 11:16:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Civil Rights come incrementally - a victory either way

I'm curious why the Advocate is putting this poll out there, albeit it quite un-scientific. Are the votes not there for gender identity?

I would view it as a victory if ENDA passed with or without gender identity protections, even though I absolutely support a trans inclusive ENDA. But I'm an independent thinker (and realist) who doesn't take my marching orders from national non-profits or activists and who knows that things happen incrementally in Washington.

As I've mentioned before, killing federal legislation that protects millions of people is unheard of.  Those "millions" are gay men and lesbians. ENDA with protections for sexual orientation is a great bill and would be a watershed moment after decades of trying.

People have to remember a sexual orientation-only ENDA is the original ENDA.  National non-profits and loony activists on the coasts got overconfident and decided they would try to get 2 for the price of 1-- but they never asked or discussed with people in the gay community.  All this silliness began in the early to mid 1990's. Before that, you never heard of this thing called the "LGBT" community. It's a term borne out of political expedience. The gay and trans communities are two, separate communities with different life experiences and journeys through life. (And no, I'm not the one who's "dreaming".)

In fact HRC and PFLAG (yes, PFLAG) were a little slow off the mark in modifying their mission statements and were threatened with protests back in the 1990s if they did not include this second community known an transgender/transsexuals. I remember thinking at the time: What kind of slime bags would threaten a wonderful organization like PFLAG with protests simply because they questioned the wisdom in adding another community to their mission and vision statements?

Other than the blogosphere, national nonprofits, and diversity gatherings like Out and Equal or Equality Forum, gay men and lesbians view themselves as their own community. Sorry folks, that's reality.

I would hope that trans community learned its lesson from last time: Don't try to kill ENDA if the votes for gender identity are not there. I'm telling you, you'll awaken a sleeping giant and the consequences will be measured on the Richter scale.  You'll lose all of your allies, including me.

Let's work together, even if it means passing ENDA incrementally. After all, ENDA is a "watered down" version of a more comprehensive civil rights bill anyway, right?  (Don't forget public accommodations and housing protections.)

If you succeed at killing ENDA, you'll see what gay men and lesbians in this country really think about adding trans folks to their movement. (And it won't be pretty.)

To any gay man or lesbian who says "oh, I'll wait", I say this: You need serious professional help.

---

by: JJ in Chicago @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 09:48:37 AM CST

A Trans-exclusive ENDA would be a hollow victory

Removal of gender identity protections is a trojan horse to divide and conquer the GLBT community. The GLB portion might think they're achieving something to throw the T portion under the bus in order to get a version of the ENDA passed, but all they're really doing is giving the bigots the petard upon which to hoist GLB people instead of the fact that they're G, L, or B. They'll just claim that the effeminate gay man isn't masculine enough, hence, it's not their sexual orientation, but their gender identity that the bigot is using to discriminate. The butch lesbian isn't feminine enough, again, not being discriminated against because of sexual orientation, but because of gender identity. As soon as you allow gender identity discrimination to go unchallenged, anyone not fitting into some ideal Ozzy and Harriet mould of what it means to be a man or a woman, any GLBT person, can be freely discriminated against just for being GLBT, no matter if sexual orientation were a protected class.

And it's far easier to get housing and public accommodation protections tacked on as a blanket for everyone presently protected than it is to add transsexual or intersexual protections to a civil rights framework that already includes employment, housing, and public accommodations.

Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

---

by: Status quo Cathy @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 11:04:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Gay men and lesbians are being thrown under the bus

Trans folks are not being thrown under the bus (that was the popular catch phrase last time around), if the votes are not there for gender identity and expression.  If you kill ENDA, trans folks still have no protections.

Actually, as I correctly pointed out the last time around, the people really being thrown under the bus are gay men and lesbians, if a sexual orientation only ENDA had the votes to pass, but was killed in that doomed all-or-nothing strategy (previously called "United ENDA").

Nice try, but mentioning effeminate gay men or butch lesbians in an attempt to scare gay men and lesbians into supporting an all-or-nothing strategy won't work.  Another common talking point.

In reality, there are countless gay civil rights protections around the country at the local level and gender non-conformity isn't presenting itself as a problem. In other words, sexual orientation protections do have enough teeth to protect gay men and lesbians, regardless of their appearance or non-conformity.

And a sexual orientation only ENDA would add millions to that protection. It would be a strong bill with real teeth.

---

by: JJ in Chicago @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 14:40:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sooooo...

You've answered Status Quo Cathy's reply with a reply, but not my reply that The Advocate's question regarding ENDA, as well as the conservative "Christian" arguments against ENDA, are both red herrings.

So, I'll ask the question in response to your arguments more bluntly: What if ENDA can't get to the President's desk for signature without including gender identity and expression? That actually appears to be this legislative session's reality -- a fully inclusive ENDA or no ENDA at all.

So, if you had to choose between supporting a fully inclusive ENDA in the face of conservative "Christian" opposition and no ENDA at all, do you support a fully inclusive ENDA? Do you fight as hard for a fully inclusive ENDA as a less than fully inclusive ENDA? I'm asking those two questions because those seem to be the real questions to be asking of those who last congressional session argued for a less than fully inclusive ENDA. If it's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans or nothing, do you fight for trans too?

I think we both know that since it's extremely likely that trans civil rights is going to be included in ENDA legislation this year, or we won't have ENDA at all, some gays and lesbians won't fight as hard for their own civil rights because they have issues regarding being grouped together in community with trans people. I would say there is transphobia in the LGB portion of the LGBT community just as surely as I would say there is homophobia in the T portion of the LGBT community.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 15:07:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

To me this is asking are GLB's and T's allies?

If we are allies, which have each other's backs when attacked, the answer to ENDA being inclusive is "OF COURSE."
Allies are independant of each other, and we will make decisions which might not be universally accepted or liked, but when we face foes (as we will no matter what form ENDA takes,) do we stand shoulder to shoulder?
If you don't stand up, shame on you.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 15:23:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fighting for a version of ENDA...

In response to the Advocate's question:  "would you support ENDA if gender identity protections were taken out of the bill?".

My answer is unequivocally:  YES

So, if you had to choose between supporting a fully inclusive ENDA in the face of conservative "Christian" opposition and no ENDA at all, do you support a fully inclusive ENDA? Do you fight as hard for a fully inclusive ENDA as a less than fully inclusive ENDA?

Very simple: I reject those as the only 2 options (i.e., all or nothing) and therefore am unable to select one or the other. (Technically, my answer is none of the above).

To be clear, I'm not advocating removal of gender identity protections, unless the votes simply aren't there for passage (that's not my fault) and it means there would be no ENDA at all.

Then yes, I would lobby my elected representatives to move forward with a sexual orientation only ENDA.

I reject holding ENDA hostage or using its passage as a bargaining chip with the gay and lesbian community by implementing all-or-nothing strategy.

---

by: JJ in Chicago @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 17:21:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The LG folks being thrown under the bus

are the ones who aren't hardline gender-conformists; y'know, those of us who, despite your attempts to speak for us, do recognize the need for solidarity with T-folks.  The right to keep one's job as long as one is a hyper-butch gay "bro" or a lipstick lesbian only helps some of us -- and I'm not willing to say "to hell with solidarity" quite that quickly.

---

by: M @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 16:03:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Butch Lesbians would NOT be covered by an orientation only ENDA

so the Lesbian community activists stand with the trans-people on this issue. We won't leave the trans community behind, and we certainly will not leave our own behind.

And before you say "yes, they will be covered," let me say don't bother. I am an attorney as are the gpod men and women of Lambda Legal, And we are in agreement on this. Quote Carpenter and his self serving skewed analysis if you wish, it is hugely flawed.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 20:08:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, to quote a comment on The Advocate's thread...

...from Law Proffessor Jillian T. Weiss:

Why is the Advocate suggesting that [a less than fully inclusive ENDA] is even being considered? LGBT leaders in both the House and Senate have assured us that no such idea would be considered. The main objections to the bill have nothing to do with gender identity, but are focused on concerns about protecting pedophiles and other sexual deviants, and religious freedom. What is with this poll? Do you think this is up for a vote?

So, your argument regarding trans folk and their allies kiling the bill if gender identity isn't included really is a moot one. Gender identity is going to be included in the bill.

The real question is if the bill is going to go anywhere at all, and that's because of our common enemies on the religious right are stirring the pot with red herring arguments against ENDA, just as apparently The Advocate raised a red herring argument by even posing this question -- Posing this question when no lawmaker is or LGBT activist organization is planning this legislative tact of again removing gender identity from ENDA legislation.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 11:25:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

JJ, you should read up on your history

JJ, you said "All this silliness began in the early to mid 1990's. Before that, you never heard of this thing called the "LGBT" community." In fact, the reason historically we never heard of it before was that transsexuals were part and parcel of the "homosexual movement" that preceded "gay liberation." I was just re-reading Armistead Maupin's Tales of the City, published in 1978, in which the transsexual Mrs. Madrigal is just assumed to be part of the social group.

You may wish to read my article on the history of our movement and the later separation out of transsexuals, entitled "GL vs. BT: The Archaeology of Transphobia in the Gay and Lesbian Community," from the Journal of Bisexuality (2004) 3, 25-55 (available here)  

Dr. Jillian T. Weiss

---

by: DrJillianTWeiss @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 19:48:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm aware of the so-called "history"

I appreciate the references, and I am aware that some believe this.  There are many of us who see history differently and reject the joined-at-the-hip mindset, especially when it comes to a legislative strategy.

There are many more gay men and lesbians who agree with John Aravosis' opinion piece entitled, "How did the T get in LGBT?" (October 2007) than readers in PHB realize.  John is not in the minority, despite what many in this forum would like to believe.

The inconsistency with this reasoning is that for those who believe in one so-called "LGBT" community, they are hypocritical for not permitting ENDA to move forward to protect the gay and lesbian part of the community (assuming the votes are not there for gender identity).

If it's one big Kumbaya moment, then why make your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters wait unnecessarily? That's selfish, mean spirited, and downright cruel. For proponents of a "one community" mindset, it seems to me that you would want to protect members of your own community, even if the votes aren't there to protect everyone, right?

But the truth is that, when push comes to shove, the trans activists are thinking of themselves (gender identity protections), not those gay men and lesbians in hostile, red states who are in desperate need of protections.

(C'mon... we know why.. they're afraid they'll be forgotten or have to go it alone next time around.)

It is also true that the trans community needs the gay community, legislatively speaking, which is why they latch on to this thing they call "parity", where, when you speak of sexual orientation, you must also reference gender identity. (I reject this concept as complete nonsense.)

Yet, there are trans folks who are the first to say they're not gay and bristle at the thought of blurring sexual orientation and gender identity. They are adamant about making a distinction on gender identity and distancing it from sexual orientation-- and I agree with them 100% on this, because the two are fundamentally different.

The point is inconsistency. People cannot rightfully draw that distinction, then blur the two as one so-called "LGBT" community when it's politically convenient for things like ENDA-- and then have the audacity to try to kill ENDA protections for millions of gays and lesbians, when the votes aren't there for trans folks.

That is the ultimate in hypocrisy and a losing strategy when it comes to building coalitions. It will be the trans community who would suffer because of this, not gays and lesbians.

---

by: JJ in Chicago @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 11:47:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ok, well we could no doubt do a deal with the Christians

where we toss what the Right calls the "sodomites" overboard and get at least part of what we want from ENDA. Doesn't have to be the trans people. Toss in the fears of paedophilia, disease, Paul Cameron's arguments, etc and as an attorney I could sell this and I am sure that Professor Weiss would agree that we could cut a bargain with the Right.

But it would be immoral.
And I wouldn't do it.
I possess principles.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 20:11:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The phrase "Gender Identity and Expression" is the goal,

and is a better protector of lesbians and gays and bis than just a sexual orientation clause by itself. Don't forget that some gay men simply never succeed in being sufficiently butch to "pass", and some lesbians never become sufficiently femme to please the eye of some male superior. That's not simply a matter of dress, but of manner, and if one client of a company expresses discomfort with dealing with a soft-spoken, slightly "effeminate" gay man or a short-haired woman who looks the (male) customer in the eye and briskly delivers the technical details of the "pitch", well, the company will fire for "manner makes customers uncomfortable", and not for simply being a woman or being a gay or lesbian.

That points out another thing - the inclusive ENDA is a symbol more than an enforceable piece of law. Most employers are clever enough to avoid leaving too many incriminating bits of paper filed away, and fire the employee on some other pretext. If an employer wants to fire you, or not hire you, he will find a way to do so. The cost, financial, personal, psychological, career-wise, for a person of unpopular standing to sue a large company on basis of discrimination, is often huge. Discrimination law works most efficiently by altering the terms of public discussion - the company can be publicly embarrassed by a lawsuit by a likable and plausible plaintiff. Of course, if the company is sufficiently large, paying off an occasional plaintiff to stay silent and drop the suit is merely the cost of doing business.

---

by: NancyP @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 16:32:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We should look at WHY transgender inclusion is so difficult

Because this is the group that upsets the bigots most, and because it is the hardest issue it's the one we MUST win together.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 12:48:44 PM CST

Also everyone answering yes

Seems to be talking about a theoretical world that doesn't exist.

There is no point in our current world where there could be a situation where there is exclusive ENDA or nothing forever. Again, our enemies hate all of us rather than being exceptionally squiked out by transpeople.

And as evidence as shown, even in the bad old days when that seemed like a more stark possibility to our national leaders, we well, did it. We removed T and tried to see if that would be palpable to the phobic congress. Every time that was attempted, it failed, stalled, and the only lasting effect was anger in the base towards national leaders.

So, the trade never worked practically in the incremental.

I have nothing against the incremental in general. I am in favor of incremental reform towards national health care in the US, I am in favor of a whatever we can get, wherever we can get it type scrum right now, but we tried piecemeal and it was a giant failure.

There just isn't a meaningful difference in the number of votes between inclusive and exclusive ENDA.

Thus, why would you go for the option that'll do a lot of damage to the carefully built coalition?

---

by: Cerberus @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 12:55:08 PM CST

If You Support Exclusion....

You've forgotten who you are and who's been fighting with and for you since the beginning.  Since the first punch was thrown...

---

by: P4ttythe3p3rf3ct @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 17:27:15 PM CST