ENDA in trouble over trans inclusion - and weak Dem spines

Ooohhhhhhhhh....

Ohhhh...they'll cry.

Ohhhh...they'll hand-wring.

Ohhhh...they'll claim it couldn't be helped.

Ohhhh...not a damn one of them (that means YOU Barney; that means YOU Tammy) will admit that this would not have been a problem in 2007 if this 'fight' had occurred with the live language of one of the bills from one of the christianist Congresses of a decade ago that had no intention of passing any version of ENDA.

Ohhhh...the overpaid ones who are not us but who claim to know what is best for us will say that we should look at the big picture.

A big picture of a turd is still a picture of a turd.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 22:32:22 PM CDT

I was hopeful.

I dreamed of an LGBT inclusive ENDA.  If congress dumps transpeople this year, they'll dump transpeople every year.


-----
~~Autumn~~

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

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 22:59:49 PM CDT

Makes no sense to me.

  I will never get the logic of leaving a group of citizens out a bill to continue to be discriminated against. 

  I guess I am getting wary of the Dems as well.  And I will hold them responsible with my vote, as I am sure others will as well.

  But what makes no sense at all is, even if ENDA and Hate Crimes passes, Shrub promises to veto it.  This alone ought to be a damn good reason to keep it trans-inclusive, besides being it is the correct thing to do.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 23:05:14 PM CDT

my thoughts exactly

shrub will veto it no matter what, so let's see who the allies of ALL of us really are.  then we'll know better how to bargain when we have a dem in the white house that'll sign the bill in the next go-round. 

this i one L who will not leave her T, B or G family behind!

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 23:13:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We must all hang together or most assuredly we shall hang separately

"this i one L who will not leave her T, B or G family behind!"

If one of us is chained - none of us is free! Right on, sister. LGBT solidarity is now stronger than ever and we'll show them. 

 

Here's what I find about compromise--
don't do it if it hurts inside,
'cause either way you're screwed,
eventually you'll find
you may as well feel good;
you may as well have some pride

--Indigo Girls

---

by: Hypatia @ Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 23:35:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No way, Barney

Get a roll call vote on the bill as is.  Win or lose, we'll do everything possible for our allies, and declare war on Dems who screw us.  What else can we do?

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 23:06:59 PM CDT

But ... But ...

You can't dump Barney!  He's gay!  The LGBT community HAS to support him and keep him!  He's going to do so much for us!

Ummmm...no. 

---

by: Jami @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:52:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

They forgot something!

What about the co-ed restrooms like they had on Ally McBeal? It looked like so much fun, they had deep personal discussions and even broke out in song and dance a few times.

I WANT MY ALLY MCBEAL RESTROOM!

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 23:28:40 PM CDT

I've used plenty of integrated potties

and that was TV, , not real life, honey.

Sorry to break it to you in front of the class.

Seriously, I'm perplexed. Barney Frank has been around the block a few times and knows which bars pour a decent Scotch.

So why is he willing to pursue a strategy that may cause the most-often-mistreated members of the LGBT community to live for another few years or decades without job protection?

Is it the old something-beats-nothing?

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 00:02:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Previously, Rep. Frank argued against transgender inclusion

In 2003, the Concerned Women For America worte:

Barney Frank cites bathroom, shower problems

Like HRC, Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank (D), a homosexual and prominent "gay" activist, has opposed inclusion of a "transgender" provision in the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), which would mandate pro-homosexual hiring practices in businesses across the country (with some religious and other exemptions). According to a "gendernet" website, Frank commented:

The current ENDA would protect transgender individuals if they are discriminated against because they are gay or lesbian or perceived as being gay or lesbian, he said. But there are workplace situations-communal showers, for example-when the demands of the transgender community fly in the face of conventional norms and therefore would not pass in any Congress.

I've talked with transgender activists and what they want-and what we will be forced to defend-is for people with penises who identify as women to be able to shower with other women," said Frank, citing the activists' handbook which states that a person's declared gender is the one by which he or she should be recognized. "There are no votes for that. And if that is the price for this [ENDA] bill, it is wrong.

For his remarks, Frank has been labeled a "transphobe." (We will address "transgender" arguments and counter-arguments on this point in future issues.) Meanwhile, the Human Rights Campaign is in the uncomfortable position of supporting full "transgender rights" at the statewide level- even lobbying for tax-funded transsexual "sex-change" operations for city workers in San Francisco-while it continues to oppose inclusion of "gender equity" language in ENDA for practical political reasons.

I don't know how Rep. Frank will come down on the bill this time should transgender employment protections be taken out of ENDA, but I included this excerpt to give an historic perspective.  For quite a few years, Rep. Frank actively opposed transgender inclusion in ENDA.

-----
~~Autumn~~

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

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 00:35:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Want to bet

as to whether or not Mr. Frank had a real conversion of faith?  Or is just pursuing the politically expedient course.  He never wanted us on board.  Like the blacks who are homophobic, Barney Frank has always struck me as a gay man who is transphobic.  (There's plenty of both out there.)

---

by: Jami @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:55:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It would be so much easier if we could

put him in our shoes, let him live our lives for a while, and show him what life is like.

 

Pity we can't. All we can do is make our voices heard and hope....      

---

by: Michiko @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 00:37:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why do they have to make it so hard?

I'm just trying to live my life the way I need to in order to be happy. Why is it that that's so hard for 'normal' people to understand? 

-Jess    

---

by: Michiko @ Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 23:44:33 PM CDT

Colorado passed a trans-inclusive ENDA this year,

  Signed into law by Governor Ritter.  That is one reason why I moved here.  Flor-DUH still doesn't allow L or G adopt children, only one of the reasons I left.  I heard it was a tough fight,  expescially with Dobson in colorado springs, and it was successful.  So Barney and Tammy, and Nancy Pelosi, look at what Colorado did, kept it trans-inclusive, and won.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 00:45:52 AM CDT

this is pretty shocking

I would urge my Congressperson to vote AGAINST an ENDA which has had its trans-inclusive provisions stripped.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Mad Professah Lectures http://madprofessah.com
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

---

by: Mad Professah @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 00:55:47 AM CDT

Congressperson

Unfortunately, I've got a representative that's an obedient lap dog for the American Taliban and he'll do whatever he's commanded to do.  Fortunately though, I live in a state that has passed full protections for gays, lesbians, bi's, AND TRANSGENDERS.  And, even though I enjoy those protections based on the state I live in, I'll fight for those who don't.  I say either ALL of us be federally protected or NONE us be federally protected.  This divide and conquer crap is just what the Republicans are hoping for.  

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:00:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No so simple

Although I personally agree that we should push for an explicitly trans-inclusive ENDA, there is a rational basis for going ahead with just sexual orientation.  The reason is that, unlike gays and lesbians, transgendered persons already have protection under the federal anti-discrimination laws prohibiting sex discrimination.  Courts have found that the ban on sex discrimination can also prohibit discrimination based on gender sterotypes, which is really what transgender discrimination usually comes down to.  While there is NO protection at the federal level for gays and lesbians, transgendered persons currently have some protection, the scope of which is being addressed by courts.  So while it would be ideal to pass a trans-inclusive ENDA, (a) the lack of the EDNA leaves gays and lesbians completely uncovered, (b) legislators might reasonably think that transgendered persons have all or most of the protection that EDNA would provide them, and (c) arguably transgendered persons are no better off with a trans-inclusive EDNA than they already are with the law prohibiting sex sterotypes.  All of this is to say that the issue isn't that simple, and that this is about choosing necessary battles, not spinelessness.

---

by: tony @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:29:10 AM CDT

10th Circuit Court Of Appeals from last week:

'Transsexuals Have No Civil Rights'

-----
~~Autumn~~

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

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:36:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thus Arguably

The Tenth Circuit's interesting application of the Price Waterhouse case takes a different approach than other courts that have addressed the issue.  The point is that it is not at all unusual for Congress to let the scope of existing laws play out in the courts before changing them.  To the contrary, it is very unusally for Congress to change its laws in response to a Circuit Court opinion.  That they are not being reactionary while there is still a good legal basis for arguing that transgendered persons are protected under Title VII is usual, ordinary, etc.

---

by: tony @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:19:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Except that it's not ordinary

Many people have argued in many different courts that Title VII protects trans people.  As far as I know, the record is pretty spotty.  Spotty's not good enough if you've just been fired, and the courts say they can't help you.

---

by: eastsidekate @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 11:56:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also...

Spotty isn't enough to keep you from being fired (or never hired to begin with) in the first place.  If it isn't in the statute, they're willing to take their chances - not simply with the state of  the law but with the likelihood that you'll ever be able to find a lawyer to take your case at all. If its in a statute, the employer will likely think long and hard about trying to do the discriminating.

Prior to the recent addition to statutory law in NJ, there were lots of employers and trans people who had no idea that the 2001 court decision that seemingly said trans people were protected had ever happened.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 12:17:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't get too exercised over this...

even if an ENDA bill, with or without a provision concerning gender identity were to get through the House, it would probably be filibustered in the Senate, and there probably would not be enough votes for cloture. 

Furthermore, it would almost certainly be vetoed by GWBush, and it is almost a certainty that there aren't enough votes in either house to override a veto.

Probably the best strategy at the moment is to continue working at the state and local levels.

---

by: raj @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:33:41 AM CDT

We need to have the vote, though, win or lose

The priority in Congress seems to be to avoid taking the tough vote (as it so often is).  They shouldn't be able to get away with that.  We've given enough money for nothing over the years that we at least deserve to know who's with us and who's against.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:45:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We do?

We need to have the vote, though, win or lose

 Why?  We have a pretty good idea as to who is for us and who is against us in Congress.

 Concentrate at the state and local level.

---

by: raj @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 11:18:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why?

So that we can direct our dollars and volunteer efforts appropriately in the next election cycle, of course.  None of these people can be trusted on anything, as they've shown over and over again.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 16:52:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agree with your general point, though

There's a lot more bang for the buck to be had at the state and local level.  Concerted effort can really make the difference there, whereas it's much harder to have an effect on DC.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 16:55:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This country sucks

I'm sorry......but I said it, and I mean it.

This country is barely better than a thrid world theocracy if we can't pass ENDA with protection for ALL GLBT people. I am SO SICK of the gender police and the thought police and the sex police. No wonder I am so depressed I'd like to die.

This entire nation has been paralyzed by a minority pack of far right, neofascist religious zealot whackos, and whatever bullshit lies they can dream up to advance their hate-based agenda--and nobody has the damned guts to stand up to them.

LOSERS!!

What a pathetic excuse for a nation. I give up. There is no helping a country like this. I need to find a way out of here........there has to be someplace better than the United States of Jezustan.

A society without religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw.

---

by: Jen @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:50:05 AM CDT

Relativity

We do have the advantage of not being executed in this country...

---

by: tony @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:20:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Re: Advantage

You mean "YET".

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:02:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And of course

it's perfectly OK to taunt, beat and discriminate against LGBT people in all facets of society.  Just as long as they don't die, everything else is pretty much fair game.

---

by: Jami @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:58:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Re: Someplace Better

I sympathize with you Jen.  Sometimes I wonder if heading north of the border wouldn't be a better option for GLBT's.  But, then I come back to the realization that doing that would be just what the American Taliban would hope for.  Without us, and other progressive groups, they'd virtually have the theocracy in the U.S. they hope to create.  So, I'm going to stay here and do everything possible TO MAKE LIFE A LIVING HELL FOR THEM!!!

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:02:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Look

It would be better to pass ENDA without transgendered protections now and fight like hell to ammend it later than let it go down in flames.  Damn it to hell, I wish we would just pass the fucking ERA and none of this shit would be an issue anymore for any of us in the GBLTQ community or for straight women.

---

by: onthesea @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 07:02:22 AM CDT

it's inclusion or never

It would be better to pass ENDA without transgendered protections now and fight like hell to ammend it later than let it go down in flames

As a transgendered person, I am absolutely certain that if we do not have trans inclusion in an overall GLBT bill, we will never ever ever see it otherwise.

If a GLB not T ENDA passes this session, I will never see equality in my lifetime. Ever.

---

by: kathygnome @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 07:53:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Cheer up

It has happened that way in several states, so unless you expect the end of your lifetime to be imminent, that is just drama.

---

by: tony @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:46:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're kidding, right?

"I wish we would just pass the fucking ERA and none of this shit would be an issue anymore for any of us in the GBLTQ community or for straight women."

The federal ERA would not have taken care of any GLBTQ issue.  Its backers went to great pains to ensure that everyone knew the legislative intent was not to affect marriage or bathrooms.

Of course, that's the least of our problems.

At this moment, actually, stripping T from ENDA is not the worst thing that could happen.  Long ago I predicted (I hate that word; let's call it what it is: I got pissed off at the continuing Barney-ness and HRC-ness of the official gay rights industry and started thinking about the ways in which we could really get screwed) that not only would we not be included in ENDA, but someone - likely a christianist rep from a state that does have a T-inclusive civil rights statute - would attach a federal pre-emption amendment, the effect of which would be to have the federal ENDA supplant all state and local law on the subject of sexual orientation.  This would automatically wipe out any state law that includes us in the definition of 'sexual orientation' and poise set the stage for Dubya-appointed judges to issue opinions to wipe out our protections in 'gender identity' and 'sex' states.

Paranoid?  I don't think so, but I can't stop anyone from saying so either.

Still, I'd keep my eye on Michelle Bachmann (MN), Marilyn Musgrave (CO), Heather Wilson (NM), Steve King (IA) and any of the repugs from California.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:21:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Preemption

That would be very clever of them.  That is what Colorado did by state constitutional amendment to local ordiances within the state, so perhaps such an effort would reach a similar fate.  There would be the added advantage for us that the feds have not traditionally occupied the field (states had non-discrimination laws before the federal government did) and the states with greater protection could sue the U.S.    But, it is really theoretical because if a preemption clause got in there, it would be a poison pill that would kill the bill until next time around.

 

 

---

by: tony @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:53:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Poison

"[I]f a preemption clause got in there, it would be a poison pill that would kill the bill until next time around."

That was the theory behind the inclusion of "sex" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

We all know how that turned out.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:17:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

How about we just lobby

for a lesbian ENDA and then work to tack on gay and then bisexual and then transgender coverage to it later?

No?  Didn't think so.

---

by: Jami @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:01:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, but...

You know how many horny, anti-gay men love to fantasize about lesbians.

I think a lesbian-only ENDA would probably pass easily.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:12:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uh...

Well, they fantasize about Jenna Jamison lesbian action, not the full on pipe-hittin' Dieselana Dyke who delivers Deer Park water bottles without needing a cart--she's Margaret Cho's fantasy. Her or that No-Dyke-Donna Lindsay Davenport. Nope, they want the pretty pretty giggly porny girl-on-girl "I hate you daddy" gone wild types with the shaved down there sizzlin' bacon strips.

Get that in ENDA legislation? Passed before their Cialis kicks in. 

Curses! My million dollar ideas foiled again: "God Bless Your Brand!" http://www.christvertising.com/

---

by: TJ McFisty @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:51:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lesbian ENDA and marriage equality

I think this is a great idea, and one which should be mentioned whenever this conversation arises. The only reason we don't have an ENDA for sexual orientation and marriage equality is because heterosexual men are disgusted by the thought of having sex with another man. They are turned on by women having sex -- we all know this. How many straight men that you know love "The L Word" and hated "Brokeback Mountain"?

This is the proper analogy. If you're going to balkanize the LGBT community and sacrifice one segment because they make passage of the bill more difficult, then drop the gay men and just leave gay and bisexual women. Even Larry Craig would probably vote for that.

Dr. Dana

---

by: danabeyer @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 12:32:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Analogy

The problem with the anaology is that no one is withholding his vote because EDNA includes gay men while people are holding back votes because EDNA has transgendered protection.  If there would really be people voting for a lesbian-only bill, then I would think we should go for it.  (It would open the door to a great equal protection challege....)

 Maybe someone should call Larry Craig to see if he would,indeed, go for it.

---

by: tony @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:56:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Later? Fight like hell now!

It would be better to pass ENDA without transgendered protections now and fight like hell to ammend it later

Fight like hell later? Why procrastinate? Fight like hell NOW for civil rights for everyone.

Besides, seriously, how many LGB are going to fight like hell for the T once they already have their protections?

---

by: Stephanie, in Victoria @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:43:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Re: How many LGB are going to fight . . .

I would!  But, I agree with you Stephanie.  Why put off to tomorrow what you can do today?!

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:49:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Color me pink

It passed anyway thank Goddess, but that means I have let myself become too cymical.  BTW those of you who think that the ERA would not solve these issues are just wrong, that was propaganda from our side.  Gay marriage and transgendered issues would have indeed ultimately been taken care of by ERA whatever it's supporters said at the time.  The law has it's own life outside of it;s original intentions, for the better in this case.

---

by: onthesea @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 14:06:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

hate crimes passed, not ENDA

---

by: tony @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:58:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're

right, unfortunately.  I misread.

---

by: onthesea @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 03:16:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would

because my closest friend is a transgirl and I would not leave her out in the cold.  She saved me, literally, and helped me come out of the closet.   I'm only saying however, that I would also vote for universal healthcare for all children now, even though it should cover us all, because it is a step forward to the real thing.  Or I would support federal legistlation that guarentees the right to abortion, even though it fails to provide funding for poor women's abortions for the same reason.  Or I would support Civil Unions in a state that has no protections, even if it falls short of marriage. Every step forward helps real people and we never have to stop pushing.  I find it insulting to say that most GBL would throw transpeople under the bus, just because some would.

---

by: onthesea @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 03:26:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hear, Hear for passage of the ERA

And there was no language concerning marriage or bathrooms in the ERA text.

---

by: NancyP @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 19:17:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

True

but if you don't think it would have created a strong constitutional argument for both, you are mistaken.   We would have had a much stronger federal case in both areas.  Even if not, the ERA should have passed and it's a national shame.

---

by: onthesea @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 03:19:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Never

There is never a time when progress can include throwing minorities under the bus and still be called progress. This is a one of those rare times when what's right fits (almost) onto a bumper sticker.

If ENDA isn't trans-inclusive now, it never will be. The first time ENDA moves to a vote without trans-inclusiveness will be the death of trans-inclusiveness in ENDA. If inclusion seems insurmountable now, try a resurrection.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:28:45 AM CDT

The 'incremental progress' lie

Other than Rhode Island and California, when we have been the subject of a political hate crime (read: non-inclusive civil rights laws) we have not been and will not be added until those who believe same-sex marriage is more important than my ability to earn a living have their way.

New York?  Gays and lesbians have the right to fire me - and then sit back and know that same-sex marriage is the top civil rights priority.

Maryland?  Gays and lesbians have the right to fire me - and then sit back and know that same-sex marriage is the top civil rights priority.

Wisconsin?  Gays and lesbians have the right to fire me - and then sit back and know that same-sex marriage is the top civil rights priority.

Hawaii?  Gays and lesbians have the right to fire me - and then sit back and know that same-sex marriage is the top civil rights priority.

Massachusetts?  Gays and lesbians have the right to fire me - and then go out and get married.

Connecticut?  Gays and lesbians have the right to fire me - and then go out and get a civil union.

New Hampshire?  Gays and lesbians have the right to fire me - and then go out and get a civil union.

New Jersey? We were added - but not until civil unions came in.

Vermont?  We were added - but not until SEVEN YEARS AFTER civil unions.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:58:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah...

Kill this bill. I've never been vocal on Trans rights because I've just always assumed it was part and parcel to our cause...one goes with the other, la te da, but this whole "Oh, we should just remove them from the bill just so we can get passage cuz the bill itself is just too important." is just wholly offensive. 

I'm not in that much of a hurry, Barney. Do it right, or don't do it at all. We need that "T" on the end of LGB.

Curses! My million dollar ideas foiled again: "God Bless Your Brand!" http://www.christvertising.com/

---

by: TJ McFisty @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:10:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You sure swallowed that bait quickly

By adopting as your mindset, Those gay people who control the movement don't care about me, you're doing exactly what Barney is doing with ENDA:

Splintering our coalition from within to make it easier to smash from without.

This kind of divisive, inaccurate carping insults the people in state equality organizations who would benefit most from throwing transfolk under the bus...and haven't done it because that would be unethical.

Believe me, I have less than nothing to gain politically from being associated with you, I just know right from wrong.

I suggest you think about the real people whose integrity you're demeaning, next time you're considering rising to the bait.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 10:51:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually...

I'm just asking that all of the sheeple be honest with themselves about what the agenda actually is.

I'd have much more respect for them if they just flat out said: We think our marriage rights are more important than your employment rights, and whenever the two are in conflict we will choose our issue over yours; I'd still fight them, but I wouldn't legitimately be able to call them fraudmeisters.

But, then they couldn't engineer fuzzy trans-inclusive mission statements and trans-friendly ads.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 11:00:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where has there been a trans-friendly ad?

and, What's your experience been that indicates a conflict between access to marriage and employment protections for trans people? Maybe my imagination has failed me, but I'm having a hard time picturing any political reality in which those two things would be in opposition.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 12:18:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where?

http://transadvocate.com/activism/its-put-up-or-shut-up-time.htm

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 12:47:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well that certainly took some chutzpah

Lead with that and I'll march right behind you.

As a point of information, I have never in 20 years in this movement seen HRC raise any trans issue, while asking me for MY hard earned money. Yes, they pushed for an inclusive federal hate crimes bill, but that's not politically difficult; everyone knows that without a gender identity provision, you may as well not bother because you're not covering the majority of victims.

It's one thing for HRC to mouth inclusive platitudes while doing nothing concrete--as long as they aren't asking you to pay for the nothing.

That's just wrong.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 13:05:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As for the rest of your post...

My intent is to get trans sheeple to wake up.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 12:50:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Is anything being

done to promote the inclussion of transfolk in leadership committees and positions in state equality oranizations?  I'm genuinely asking, not being sarcastic.  In my involvements and reading, I haven't seen much of that.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 11:26:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

i am seeing this

in the state-level org i am most involved in, which is located in a large liberal-ish city in an otherwise conservative state.  transfolk have a strong voice here and appear to have few barriers to participating to the degree they wish to.  (although i wonder if the women amongst them are having to deal with the same sex discrimination that i've had to occasionally).  i cant speak for other orgs.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 11:33:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fortune 500

---

by: DonnaTvTg @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:43:13 AM CDT

Sorry.

The big companies that have become L or G or B or T inclusive have essentially done so because it helps their bottom line; there's really no altruism involved.  If applying pressure to Congress isn't going to help them financially - and especially if it's going to hurt them - they're probably not going to do it.

---

by: Jami @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:05:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A profile in courage

This really is the same last minute nonsense that goes on before a vote on this type of bill. Happened when the PA hate crimes bill was passed - that was trans-inclusive. Happened when the Philadelphia Trans only bill was passed, happened when the New Hope, PA Trans only bill was passed - happened in Boston. People bring up nonsense issues to try and derail the entire bill. If folks are really worried - call Pelosi, call Kennedy, call your Reps and let them know you support equality for the entire community - that less in unacceptable. And call Rep. Frank to tell him how dissapointed you are in him.We all know the bill will be vetoed by Bush. Better to put people on record and really know where support is soft. It's the only vote count that really matters.

I remember when the PA hate crimes bill passed - they tried to say they would pass a Trans only bill and leave lgb's out. That our issue was something inherent - but being gay was just behavior. We didn't buy it. They tried the same thing in Philadelphia with the gender ID bill - we can see covering transsexuals - but not those crossdressers and drag queens. Again - didn't buy it

I'm amazed at how quickly Rep. Frank is selling us out. It wasn't three years ago he assured me that while he wasn't yet ready to support transgender people in ENDA - it was unconscionable to exclude us from hate crimes. He absolutely supported an inclusive bill - real profile in courage there Rep. Frank.

He damn well better stand up there and say - all those transgender people we mentioned being murdered when he argued for this bill - well - I really didn't care about their deaths - please strike that from your consideration when voting. I would hate to see this bill pass using their deaths, but leaving them out.

 

---

by: Kathleen @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:49:52 AM CDT

Where is the HRC

standing on this?  I haven't heard from them.  Are they still all for transgender inclusion?  Or have they also restarted the "we can't pass it if the Ts are in it" whine?

---

by: Jami @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:07:43 AM CDT

The Human Right Scampaign

HRC has only changed its con methodology.

It has never changed substantively.

Yet again, I point to all of those open and visible trans employees at HRC - particularly the MTFs.

Don't see 'em?  Neither do I.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:17:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

BTW

This is something that just dawned on me after having watched Dirty Sexy Money (which was much better than I thought it would be - even irrespective of the trans storyline it looks to be a good show) last nite: Unless there have been some hires that I haven' t heard about, currently there are more MTFs employed in acting roles on prime-time network television than are employed by the major national GLB(allegedly T) civil rights organizations (HRC, NGLTF, Lambda.)

Im just sayin'....

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 10:00:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wish they (HRC) would drop the pretense...

...and that we would stop asking them not to do so.

Maybe we should ask them to stop tallying transgender protections into their Workplace Equality Index.

Or maybe we won't even have to ask, once ENDA goes through without trans people.

 

 

Hate stops a beating heart.

---

by: KarenS @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:31:11 AM CDT

And...

ENDA is actually no longer in danger, specifically because of the Trans Issue.  That's why transfolks were included, to be removed.  To leave room for Congresspeople to say that "at least ungainly men in dresses won't be demanding to show up at work like that"  

Hate stops a beating heart.

---

by: KarenS @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:38:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by george, I think she's got it!

I was afraid to be the first one to say it, because all of you know I'm the most cynical person who's still active in politics.

There are two justifications for the step of amending the ENDA that make political sense but are just so damn ethically challenged that it's hard to attribute them to the HRC folks who influence Rep. Barney:

1) Including the trans provision in committee gives the sponsors something to strip out to tell the opponents that they won

2) Once HRC gets this bill passed with all of our community included, what will the college kids who come to my door and ask for money for HRC need my money to do?

Yes, I'm a follower of the Lily Tomlin school of politics: No mater how cynical I get, it's hard to keep up.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 10:58:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Forget the college kids

What will the people who are planning to retire from their non-real-world jobs on Rhode Island Ave. do?

They might have to go out and find a real job - by competing on a level playing field with qualified trans people - something no one has ever had to to do to secure employment at HRC.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 11:03:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You know who really walks their talk?

NCLR.

Maybe re-directing donations to the only national organization that seems to embrace the T part of our coalition would be an effective way to communicate with HRC and Lambda.

Just a thought.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 12:21:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree NCLR has done wonders.

  They helped me during my divorce. Karen Doering and staff are wonderful people.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 12:50:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Garden State Equality

will work to defeat any version of the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act that excludes the transgender community.


If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 13:12:22 PM CDT

Bravo!

Bravo!

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 13:23:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Triangle Foundation

will not support this legislation unless it includes the same protections for our transgender brothers and sisters as it does for our gay, lesbian and bisexual family.

  I am sure more will groups will follow suit. :)

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 13:46:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yup, just got the email

Garden State Equality will work to defeat any version of the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act that excludes the transgender community

Thursday, September 27, 2007

The Garden State Equality Board of Directors today adopted the statement below as organizational policy.
[...]
Were Congressional Democrats to remove the transgender community from ENDA, they would be sending a morally repulsive signal that discrimination against transgender community is acceptable. 

With fury over this potential Congressional disgrace, and with not an ounce of equivocation, Garden State Equality hereby declares that we will work passionately to oppose any form of ENDA that excludes the transgender community. 

We wish to emphasize what our opposition would mean.  We would not merely be silent or neutral on an ENDA that excludes the transgender community.  We would actively oppose the bill
[...]
Is Garden State Equality really saying we would rather have no ENDA at all, rather than an ENDA that excludes the transgender community?  You bet.  Let there be no doubt.

The standards today must be different for a Democratic Congress than the standards might have been when the Republicans were in the majority.

With Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, the notion of being practical, or taking one step at a time, with something as simple as preventing basic discrimination, is obsolete and grotesquely insulting.
[...]
The LGBT community is one.  Garden State Equality insists that we stand together for one another.  The time has come to say enough.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 13:51:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

New Jersey

Which is easy to say if you are from and talking to people from New Jersey who have job protection through state statute already...

---

by: tony @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:04:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Transgender people need to do their own lobbying...

at the federal, state, and local levels. Politicians are hard to convince without having a CONSTITUENT of the category of person in question. Gays and lesbians have been lobbying longer, and at the state and local level, spokespeople and constituents can be identified by the state LGBT rights organisation. I think it is very important to develop federal, state, local T spokespeople, and for state and local LGBT or T organizations to develop constituent/district lists so that T people can be deployed to meet with their own legislators FACE TO FACE, and to write letters.

I don't know how many state-level LGBT rights organizations have such a database. T support groups and social clubs ought to be talking to the state organization about building a database, with T group help, and if the state organization isn't helpful, starting a T-specific rights organization for lobbying purposes. Other tactics are constituent meetings sponsored/ cosponsored by T group, for a date when the legislature is on break. State representative level legislators love to talk to a few dozen likely sympathetic constituents, if only to get a campaign volunteer or two or a few campaign bucks.

Gay groups and gay organizations have been lobbying for a long time now. The lead T-specific organization (NCTE) is a little over a year old. NCTE had its first DC lobby day recently.

We gays and lesbians CAN'T DO this part of lobbying *effectively* - YOU (Ts) have to meet with your legislators, so the legislators know they have T constituents and can place a face and story to a specific T constituent. Especially at the state and local levels, the legislators aren't necessarily the sharpest knives in the drawer, so they need the concrete impact of your (T) physical presence. We Gs and Ls can tell the legislators that you (Ts) exist, but it doesn't make an impact the way meeting a T person does. I realize that many Ts are not out, but those that are safely out should make themselves known to their representatives.

---

by: NancyP @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 19:42:02 PM CDT

I can't help but disagree

although 'not the sharpest knives in the drawer' doesn't start to say it, sister. My state legislature in session means that over 120 villages are short their idiots. These are not abstract thinkers, folks, so if I try to 'splain 'em why the Ts need protections more than i do, they start looking at my throat real close. (I kid you not.)

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 21:11:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"not out"

I meant people who have not been able to fully transition, and who are fairly sure that they will get fired should they express their true status at work. I know a few such, one of whom is 3 years from retirement with a pension and health insurance, but needs to keep health insurance NOW for pre-existing condition.

In other words, those with a great deal to lose and a hign likelihood of losing it. The ones who would benefit most from ENDA. 

---

by: NancyP @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 00:29:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right

We are as close to passage on ENDA as we are today because of the huge cultural changes in the last 10-20 years by gays and lesbians.  ENDA is not threatening to a majority in both houses because everyone not living under a rock personally knows gay people.

 The same is not true for transgenered folks.  The huge majority of people do no understand what it is all about.  And people don't know transgendered people.  The exposure and comfort is where it was for gay people in the 70's (with the added benefit of not being illegal...)

 The "T"'s are riding on the coat-tails of the G's & L's on the road to political acceptability and acceptance.

 The B's? ... I have never figured out how they fit into all of this.

---

by: tony @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:11:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

One thing you forget, the L and G have bible Quotes,

  And that is what gets them fired up, the bible.  There is not one line in the bible that says T is a sin, if there was one, they would be bleating it to the top of capitol hill.  Don't forget that T is considered as a birth defect, as the cure is hormones and SRS, breast implants for some. T's add to the knowledge that we are born this way, LGBT, and not choises, and with the T, there is nothing in the bible that says T's are sinners according to their comic book.

  The L and G are battling the bible in this fight, the T are battleing idiots worried about the bathroom!  They can't go against the DSM4, or they lose quickly. as the step for "curing" a T is transition.

  Thay way to win is stay united, and forget who is on who's coat tails or miniskirt.  Ts take away the ammo throw at LGB from the bible, and in 1973 gays and lesbians where removed from the DSM.  A T can be classed as being born with a birth defect, that can be seen MtF or FtM, just wrong body on a loving person.  One other thing, and I have said it before, HORMONES makes the wrong body parts(penis and testicals) not function. No woody, the testicals shrink to the size of sunflower seeds, all it can do is pee.  Estogen for a pre-op TS is reverse Viagra, but we pray for the 24 hour not working.  (and we brag about how small they get) 

  You see, if the LGBT stays united, we will win, for the reason the bible has nothing on us Ts they can twist tofit their agends.  And with Craig in the bathroom, negates the bathroom issue.  and with us united as LGBT, we have it easier to show that the religious right hates those that are different, and that is it.  And easy to beat with logic and commonsence.

  BTW, I supported LGB rights for many years before I came out of the closet as a trans-woman, and so did many more that I know,  we were your LGB silent supporters!

Love and Huggs to all!

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:08:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not exactly true, for those who interpret the Bible literally...

There is a Levitical (Deuteronomical) prohibition against men wearing women's clothing.I think there is one concerning women wearing men's clothing, but I am not sure on that one (women weren't important aside from their duties to men). The cite evades me at the moment. Never mind that the social milieu, state of scientific knowledge, religious milieu (crossdressing "pagans"), were all radically different in OT times. The literalists will use that verse.

For those willing to look it up, there are transgender-specific and T-friendly Christian sites, and probably T-specific Jewish sites. There have been a number of books published on T - specific/inclusive  theology and pastoral care, largely from the UCC press.

---

by: NancyP @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 14:13:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll be sure to tell all my trans friends

that our hard work on the recent fight to oppose an anti same-sex marriage amendment to our state consitution was appreciated.  I suppose next time I do any activism (or anything at all), I'll be sure to wear a transsexual menace t-shirt, and tell those around me that I'm a trannie.  All the 15 minute conversations (You were born what? I don't understand...) and occasional beatings will probably slow me down, but you're right-- in the long term, it'll be for my own good.

I'm just saying, being out as a trans person (and I am out) isn't as easy as you make it out to be.  Virtually all of the time, my transsexuality is irrelevant to the task at hand, and people don't want to hear about it.  Now, being out as a lesbian is pretty easy-- I just have to hold my sweetie's hand in public (which I do regularly, and [i]is[/i] relevant to how I life my live).  I'm not sure how I could do that for being trans-- get a t-shirt made of my birth certificate?  Walk around without pants (provided I still haven't had genital surgery)?

And, for the record, what makes you think that transsexuality is/was any less illegal than homosexuality?  I sure as hell don't recall reading about white gay real estate agents at Stonewall.

Yeah, I know, you're totally trolling for an argument, but whatever.  I just can't bear to read this garbage about my taking it easy and riding other people's coattails for civil rights.

---

by: eastsidekate @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:13:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

conservative schism in LGBT movement

To me I connect the push back HRC's Solmonese has received on speaking up for the Jena 6 from gay white male activists with this sudden panic about trans-inclusuveness preventing passage of ENDA or hate crimes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Mad Professah Lectures http://madprofessah.com
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

---

by: Mad Professah @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 20:00:06 PM CDT

the GOP couldn't have set it up any better

So, now LGBT leaders are launching grenades at each other over how to gain passage of ENDA. The GOP and their right-wing allies couldn't be any happier.

We need to stick together - no matter how frustrating it can be. While negotiating this impasse will be tough, I beg all of our LGBT leaders to be sympathic towards each other and refrain from catastrophizing the situation. Let's not give our opponents a reason to celebrate.

Having said that, I have my own opinion about what our community should do. Since Bush is going to veto ENDA anyway, why are we so willing to injure and insult a core constituency? Let's work together to elect a Democratic president who will sign ENDA with trans protections. I'm willing to accept yet another legislative defeat with the hope that it will motivate our LGBT community to get rid of this right-wing executive branch.

I'm feeling really uncomfortable with selling out the transgender community on this one. It's sort of like breaking someone's heart. While it may seem to make sense at the time, karma is a real bitch.

---

by: Clark414 @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 22:46:46 PM CDT