Twelve LGBT Groups United: Don't Strip Trans Protections From ENDA

Remembrance

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

I remember - and will continue to remember - HRC's words.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 23:50:32 PM CDT

ADD 9 LGBT groups stand up for acronym's last letter

9 LGBT groups stand up for acronym's last letter

Outtake:
Yesterday, the Washington Blade reported that House Democrats are likely to drop transgender inclusion from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in order to help its passage. In reaction, Jody Huckaby of PFLAG, Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Mara Keisling of National Center for Transgender Equality, Kate Kendell from National Center for Lesbian Rights, Jon Hoadley of National Stonewall Democrats, Rebecca Fox from National Coalition for LGBT Health, Jeremy Bishop from Pride At Work, Clarence Patton of National Coalition of Anti-Violence Projects, and Andrea Densham from Mautner Project have issued the following joint statement:

Our collective position remains clear and consistent regarding the status of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Our organizations oppose the removal of protections
for transgender people from ENDA. We would also oppose any bill that did not protect transgender people.

I am sure there will be more:)

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:15:40 AM CDT

HRC,,,are you listening, or reading,

  I have donated to you in the past when Hrc became trans inclusive,  Don't throw transpeople under the bus, and prove I wasted my money donating to you.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:22:42 AM CDT

We should have seen this coming ...

I knew this was going to happen as soon as gay 'journalists' Matthew Drudge and Andrew Sullivan started hyping the transgender aspect to their right-wing fan base. Gay conservatives are having a field day with this one. They seem to get an almost erotic thrill out of demonizing someone in the glbt community for being more deviant than them.

---

by: Ralph4159 @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 15:21:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Never drink the Kool-Aid

I've seen it coming for years.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 15:37:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Being the optomist I am,

  I had hoped others that told me the same were wrong.  Silly me.

  I have recieved so many notices from the various orginizations that I am a member of. Suprise, suprise, not a peep from HRC.  They are probably busy wording an alert letter to sucker me into donating another chunk of change.

  NOT HAPPENING!!!

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 15:45:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Andrew Sullivan is already celebrating the bill's failure

Andrew Sullivan as well as Jeff Gannon and Matt Sanchez have been against this bill from the beginning (calling it "special rights ligislation"). Here we go again. The Machiavellian GOP are absolute geniuses at fomenting hate and bigotry, and they are literally unstoppable when so-called gay 'conservatives' assist them and provide cover.

---

by: Ralph4159 @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 17:43:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And the Wind Cries Barney

From the February 4, 2000, edition of the Texas Triangle:

And The Wind Cries BarneyBy Katrina C. Rose "I think the amendment seems illogical, ill timed, ill placed, and improper." Is this a comment by Barney Frank in opposition to an amendment to the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would include transgendered people in ENDA? It could be.  And - who knows? Maybe he actually has uttered those exact words against transgender equality.  I certainly wouldn't put it past him. Of course, usually he, Elizabeth Birch, Dale Carpenter and all of the gay transphobes of our movement use the bigoted buzzwords 'its not a gay issue.' So, then, who is the above quote from? Emmanuel Celler. Who? Emannuel Celler - a congressman from New York in the early 1960's.  His statement was in response to an amendment to the bill which we now know as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The amendment in question was a tiny lil' ol' thang that was added during floor debates on the day before the bill ultimately was passed by the House. How tiny?  'Twas but one word - though it appears several places in the law. The word? Sex. It was introduced by Rep. Howard Smith of Virginia, one of the most ardent opponents of the civil rights bill.  He queried, "This bill is so imperfect, what harm will this little amendment do?"   Well, Rep. Edith Green of Oregon knew what the potential harm was and strongly believed that the supporters of the addition of the word "sex" not only knew it but were hoping that it would come to pass.   "The very people who most strongly opposed this bill," she said in a letter to Robert Miller who wrote a law review article about this aspect of the Civil Rights Act which appeared in the Minnesota Law Review in 1967, "became the strongest advocates of the 'sex amendment.'" She bluntly added, "I believed then, and I believe now, that the 'intent' of the sponsor of the bill was to enlist additional opposition to Title VII of the Civil Rights Bill." The entire episode regarding the "sex amendment," comprised less than two hours of a nearly two-week-long floor debate, which had followed several months of hearings before both the Judiciary Committee and the Rules Committee.  Only once had "sex" been mentioned during the committee hearings - on the bill's final day in the Rules Committee when Rep. Smith had also attempted to add "sex."  That attempt was defeated 8-7, but the same ploy on the House floor worked - and "sex" was added to the bill's list of protected categories. After being approved by the House, the bill endured 83 days of debate in the Senate.  According to Miller's article, "the sex provision went without challenge, and virtually without mention." By now, I'm sure that some people who have at least a few functioning brain cells are thinking, 'Gee, Kat.  If you're trying to make the case for TG inclusion in ENDA, are you saying that adding 'gender identity' would be nothing more than a bullet designed to kill it?' Well, if Tom DeLay suddenly proposes such an amendment to ENDA, then beware.  However, my point is that even with an obvious nefarious intent behind the inclusion of the word "sex" (Miller notes that "only one of the male members who spoke in favor of the amendment voted for the Civil Rights Bill as amended"), the Civil Right Act passed. I could devote a considerable amount of space to chastising federal courts for refusing to include 'change of sex' or 'the sex of the person that one sleeps with' under the auspices of 'because of sex.'  It is always stated that the legislative intent of Title VII's sex provision is narrow and,therefore, cannot include homosexuality and transsexualism.  This, of course, as is all judicial homophobia and transphobia, is simply not true. If the actual legislative intent of inclusion of the word "sex" was followed, then there would be no cause of action for employment discrimination "because of sex" (or race, color, religion or national origin for that matter) at all. But then, logic has never been a strong point for bigots. We keep hearing that adding transgendered people to ENDA will kill the bill.  Yet, the Civil Rights Act, replete with an amendment that was assumed to have the potential to kill it, passed.  Moreover, Miller stated that Rep. Green was "undoubtedly correct" that, as a separate bill, sex-based equality would not have passed.  Keep in mind that by the time that Congress was enlightened enough to approve the Equal Rights Amendment, America had a crypto-conservativecrook in the White House (as opposed to the liberal, pro-equality crook who occupied it in 1964 and spearheaded the Civil Rights Act.)  Sex-based equality likely would have had to wait until the Carter administration. The 1993 Minnesota Human Rights Act included a broad definition of sexual orientation, one that includes transgendered people.  Had transgendered people not been included in 1993, we still would not be included.  Despite the reputation of 'Minnesota Nice' and despite thecurrent governor, conservatives have made inroads in the land of the North Star.   The Americans with Disabilities Act was not passed until over a quarter-century after the Civil Rights Act.  If ENDA becomes law sans transgender inclusion, it will be likely at least 20 years before there will be any chance of  us becoming included, which will be just in time for mostof the transgender rights activists who have been lied to and spit on by the likes of Frank, Birch and the HRC to hit retirement age - assuming that we have anything to retire from. The inclusion of "sex" in Title VII was a nefarious act designed to kill the entire Civil Rights Act - but, instead, it helped millions of people.  There is equally nefarious intent swirling around ENDA right now - exclusion of transgendered people.  That swirling wind cries Barney. Most transgendered people, on the other hand, simply cry.  Its all they can afford to do.  If Barney Frank has his way, its all they'll ever be able to afford to do.

 

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:34:53 AM CDT

Apologies

Aaaaarrrrgh!!!!!!!!  I pasted it from MS Word - and all of the line formatting went away as soon as I hit the 'post' button.

Sorry.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:36:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Use Notepad...

...to compose your comments.  It's an ASCII word proscesser that preserves paragraphing. 

The only thing that Notepad lacks is spellcheck, but nobody cares (or should care) about obvious spelling errors.

---

by: raj @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 08:42:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Frank started it

While we're talking about all the hate about wrong genitals in the shower room, we shouldn't forget that Mr. Frank was the one who started spewing that stuff.

For me as a transwoman, it comes down to two things.

1) Mr. Frank has a record of rabidly transphobic statements to the press. He was the first one to invoke all the things the fundamentalists are now spewing. There is no reason to trust him about whether or not the votes are there. If anything, I would suspect he is working behind the scenes against transinclusion.

2) HRC has made great strides, but as the above article references, it is time for them to put up or shut up. Many of us have taken them at their word and supported them. If they stab the trans community in the back, they will never ever be trusted and it will cause fractures that will go further than this one bill.

---

by: kathygnome @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:06:01 AM CDT

And HRC's stance is made all the more bizarre

By ENDA's slim-to-none chances of becoming law during this Congress.  I mean, seriously, HRC can do the math, and they know that this time around, ENDA is symbolic.  So why...why... would they possibly risk causing this kind of schism.  It's baffling.  None of the explanations I can come up with is very flattering.

---

by: eastsidekate @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:10:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm going to urge caution...

Let's wait and see what the HRC releases on this.

If they end up supporting the "separate but unequal" bill structure, then I think transgender people, their significant others, families, friends, and allies will have something to be angry about.

If they don't, and take a position that they won't support the split bills, then transgender people, their significant others, families, friends, and allies would have judged the HRC too early this year. 

I would rather have the HRC as a friend than as an enemy on ENDA, with regards to transgender inclusion.

If folk want to contact the HRC to let the organization know what they think about dropping trans protections from the main ENDA bill, and possibly sway their final public position, here's their contact info:

Mail:
Human Rights Campaign
1640 Rhode Island Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036-3278

Phone:
Front Desk: 202/628-4160
TTY: 202/216-1572
Toll-Free: 800/777-4723
Membership Toll-Free: 800/727-4723

Fax:
202/347-5323

Email:
- For general HRC inquiries/comments, please contact hrc@hrc.org.

- For membership-specific inquires/comments, please contact membership@hrc.org.

-----
~~Autumn~~

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

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:31:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Once Again...

...our "fearless" leaders in Congress have caved in to pressure from hate groups, and capitulated on yet another issue for fear of rocking the boat. In essence, they have suggested that transgenders are somehow not worthy of protection from discrimination.

Speaking of hate groups, did anyone catch the story about the "Values Voter" debates held in Fort Lauderdale last week? Some idiot named John Cox was whining that some "transvestites" in PA wanted to be schoolteachers - oh, the nerve of some people!

Here's the link to the Maddowfans blog if you want a chuckle (it's the 9/21 entry)...

http://www.maddowfans.com/blog/

 

---

by: bogenrim @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:21:13 AM CDT

To All Democratic Politicians,

  With your spineless actions, I would like to let you know that you have just lost support from me and my family members.  One thing my family takes seriouely, is LGBT civil rights.  There are other issues as well we feel you have not done enough, or caved in to fear.

  Good luck in 2008.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 10:08:57 AM CDT

Please don't jump ship just yet, HappyCat

I know it's easy to get frustrated. If we give up, storm off in a huff, and stay home on election day, and don't bother to vote, we'll play into the hands of the repugs and wingnuts and hand them another presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress. Then we'll really be screwed. Let's keep our chin up, vote and give the Dems the WH and an even bigger majorities in Congress in 2008. Then we can lean on them even more to carry out the will of the majority. Believe me, they will listen eventually - giving up won't solve anything.

---

by: bogenrim @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 10:26:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Politicians react to two things, Money and votes,

  In the past I have donated to campaignes, lobby orginizations, and volunteered my time to help elect these spineless whimps.

  I am tired of having my vote taken for granted. and than to be told by these people that I am worth throwing under the bus, No thanks.

  If I can't have my job protected, why the hell should I protect theirs?

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 10:47:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

With the Dems in Office

At least there's a chance that they will listen and do the right thing. When people like Bush and other repugs get elected because progressives stay home and don't participate, it gives the fundie radical right-wing nutjobs direct access and an open door to the WH and Congress. Believe me, anything is better than 4 more years of that!

I admit that I am not real happy with many of the things that have happened since the '06 elections, but somebody told me once that being involved in politics means having to often put up with very unsatisfactory results. Let's keep fighting, but let's also keep voting! Eventually, we have to believe they will do the right thing - don't give up and make it easier for the hate-mongers because that's exactly what they want.

---

by: bogenrim @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:00:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

With Spineless Dems in Office,

That is what we get, the hate-mogers winning, resulting in needless setbacks. The Dems are chicken shit to debate the heart of the issues.  Giving the looney right a victory by backing away from is not going to win favor with anyone who wants their representatives to stand up for what is correct.

  The LGBT has been slugging it out against the looney right and winning. And the main reason we are winning is we stand on the correct side of the issues.

  IMHO, this should go to the floor as it was written, debated honestly, and get the looney right fears into the record.  That is why the republicans when in control would not let the issue come to the floor of the House or Senate, because they knew they would lose.

  I mean this seriously, what does the right truly have to argue against ENDA being trans-inclusive? Pre-ops (MtF)using the lady's room?  A trans-woman that hasn't completed electrolosis having a 5 O'clock Shaddow? Heaven forbid a deeper voice? A heighth over 5'6"?

  Or being transsexual isn't "normal"? My answer to that is, "Being Trans ins't normal, but it is a fact of life, and a transsexual is a human being that deserves the right to work as a citizen of the U.S. in the U.S., the same as any other citizen!"

  The ball needs to be thrown back at the looney right.  Let them try to defend their position, and they will make fools of themselves.

  As a trans-woman, I can tell you, one fear they project is so insane. "pre-op trans-women wnat to have sex with genetic women using their still attached male parts."  Sorry, that is not the case, and I have yet to meet a pre-op trans-woman that would want to, As well as hormones make little willie not work.

  This is just one of many reasons I will NOT support spineless Democrats!

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 13:36:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not being trans...

...I can hardly imagine the discrimination that you must have to endure on a frequent basis, and I will not even pretend to comprehend it. All I am trying to say is that the fundie nutjobs want you to stay home on election day so they can have their way with ramming through hateful legislation (not to mention a friendly President to sign this shit into law at signing ceremonies with the requisite "family values" assholes grinning in the background -- remember the stem cell veto with all the women holding babies?). One of the first laws that the new repug congress rammed through in 1995 was the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I also know Clinton signed it and that was a huge mistake. This would have never happened with a Dem Congress.

One right that you do currently have that nobody can ever take away is the right to cast your vote on election day. If you choose not to participate and vote, you have denied yourself the right to have a voice. I know that everything that goes on in politics and government is not what we always want, but I think we owe it to ourselves to give ourselves the best chance to get it done, albeit one small chunk at a time. Putting repugs in office by default won't even come close...

As a military veteran, it is important to me (among other things) that the discriminatory practice of DADT be ended now -- with a Dem in the WH and a Dem Congress, I think that has a good chance of happening. 

---

by: bogenrim @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 14:37:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Voting overrated

Voting is overrated but that is no reason not to do it.

I recently met a candidate running for a Cal State Assembly termed out seat...she believes special interests elect officals.  I was disappointed to hear someone in the process say this.  I responded by saying we might as well put do elections by ebay...she says it's already so....Still no reason not to vote.  If you don't vote you use support the status quo.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 16:37:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Special Interests (like the right-wing nutjobs) Do Elect Politicians...

...especially when almost 70% of the electorate stays home on election day (like 1994). If more people showed up to vote, maybe it wouldn't be so ridiculous in terms of these fanatical groups calling the shots. 

---

by: bogenrim @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 16:44:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it is important

to keep in mind that conditions differ in each state.  the scene you describe for CA does not describe most elected positions in my state.  local voting is still a very powerful tool that we collectively would be idiots to ignore.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 16:57:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Proof minds and hearts can change,

  Tim Hardaway, the NBA player who said the hurtful, "I hate gay people"  even has had a change of heart.

http://sportsillustr...

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 13:47:01 PM CDT

Barney picked the path of least resistance

As I said in my comemnt on the other thread, Barney could have put two bills, one with sexual orientation and gender identity linked and one with sexual orientation only and I would support THAT compromise. I can even support a compromise where there are three bills, (which I guess is technically the state right now)

Bill A: LGBT ENDA

Bill B: LGB ENDA

Bill C: T ENDA

I support all three bills. Are people reallly going to call their representatives and say vote NO against Bill B because Bill A before yesterday was the only game in town? I don't think so.

Although I do think people will be perfectly well within their rights to  NOT ACTIVELY SUPPORT Bill B or Bill C and still urge that Bill A be the bill they want their constituent to vote for. If that goes down in defeat, we can at least see what happens with Bill B and Bill C.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 14:37:53 PM CDT

Passing ENDA

In my opinion, it is FAR more important to pass ENDA - N*O*W. The TG protections can be added later. If the TG protections are included now, ENDA will not pass.

 It's very simple. 

---

by: Holly in Cincinnati @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 14:39:09 PM CDT

Granted...

...not 100% of what we wanted, but politics has always been the art of the possible. At least if we get 80% now, we can come back later and get the other 20%. It is certainly better than swinging for the fence and striking out completely.

---

by: bogenrim @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 14:48:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Place the blame where it belongs: Bush and the GOP

These LGBT groups are doing the right thing by standing up for our transgender allies. We all know that this ENDA vote is symbolic anyway - Bush will veto the legislation. It's better to stick together and show the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates that we expect ENDA - with gender identity protections - to be signed in 2009. 

My appeal is to those who are disappointed by the turn of events. Don't take your ball and go home. Place the blame squarely where it belongs - George Bush and his right-wing cronies. Get involved in defeating your GOP elected representatives! 

---

by: Clark414 @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 15:01:54 PM CDT

No, I'm going to put it on the back of the spineless Democrats.

Pelosi: 'ENDA is an Historic Advancement for Gays and Lesbians'

Press Releases
Contact:
Brendan Daly/Nadeam Elshami
202-226-7616
For Immediate Release
09/28/2007

Washington, D.C. - Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement this afternoon on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act:

"For my 20 years in Congress, ending discrimination against gays and lesbians has been a top priority of mine.  The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ENDA, sponsored by Congressman Barney Frank, is an historic advancement for gays and lesbians and their families.  I am proud to be the first Speaker to bring this legislation to the House floor, which was first introduced in 1994.

"While I personally favor legislation that would include gender identity, the new ENDA legislation proposed by Congressman Frank has the best prospects for success on the House floor.

"I will continue to push for legislation, including language on gender identity, to expand and make our laws more reflective of the diverse society in which we live."

Quoting the Bay Area Reporter:

...[NGLTF Executive Director Matt] Foreman said that according to what he was told, the gender identity bill would be "left on the table," meaning it would not be passed now.

That puts this squarely on the back of Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Frank for not standing up for the entire LGBT community.

The politis behind this? - from the San Francisco Chronicle: Carolyn Lochhead: Pelosi deadline is HRC gala Oct. 6

The decision by House Democratic leaders yesterday to dump transgender people from a civil rights law protecting gays and lesbians from workplace discrimination has put the Human Rights Campaign in a terribly awkward position.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco is to be the guest of honor at the HRC's big national dinner Oct. 6, where she is to be feted for her accomplishments on behalf of gay people.

The HRC gala could help explain the sudden rush to push the long-languishing Employment Non-Discrimination Act, known as ENDA, through the House next week -- even if it means throwing transgender people off the bus.

The move has generated outrage in the gay rights community -- with the notable exception of HRC, which so far remains silent, refusing to return repeated phone calls. Sources say HRC has scheduled and cancelled at least two emergency board meetings over threats by some board members to quit if HRC endorses the new ENDA bill, sans gender identity protections.

-----
~~Autumn~~

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

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 15:46:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Icing on the Cake,

  That does it for me and my family voteing for Democrats!!!

  As a poster put here awhile back, if the GOP wins 2008, atleast I know where my seat is on the bus. or rather that I know I don't have one.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 15:55:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you're not going to vote for Dems...

...then at least show up and vote for somebody! The repugs have been winning elections for years primarily because they've succeeded in alienating 50% of the voting age population from the political process (or rigging voting machines - but I digress...). Don't make it any easier for them, because we all have to live with the result.

---

by: bogenrim @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 16:03:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Trust me, I will vote,

  But it will not be for a Democratic Candidate.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 16:12:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't think of it as being thrown off the bus...

...so much as maybe this bus was full, and the next bus will be stopping by very soon to pick up those who were left behind. While not a complete victory, it's certainly better than driving off with an empty bus. If the repugs were the majority in Congress, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because the only thing getting passed would be more laws discriminating against the LGBT community. Would we rather have that? 

---

by: bogenrim @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 15:58:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly...

I mean, really, you weren't actually on the first bus anyway, and we were just thinking of making you sit in the back or maybe stand and just hold onto a strap, but we figure it's just too full for you Ts. So sorry, but full! The next one, which, come to think of it, is a bit shorter and has seat belts, but you don't mind cuz we LGBs are leading the way! Ta da!

Nice, real nice, Bogenrim. Are you riding on the first one? You are? I'll wait. Thanks.

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

---

by: TJ McFisty @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 16:18:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually, no - I missed the first bus...

I'll wait with the last group, if that's okay with you. I'm just saying that getting something now (however symbolic) is better than nothing at all (even if Shrubnuts will veto it anyway). Then the next time this comes up in 2009 (with a Dem in the WH and a larger Dem majority in Congress), it will pass with the transgender provisions, and we can all celebrate.

Besides, why are you pissed at me? I'm on your side!

---

by: bogenrim @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 16:27:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nah...

Not pissed at you. I felt the comment made Ts into second class citizens. Well, third really, since LGBs are second as it is. We fail ourselves if we don't fight together. There's enough room for Ts on this bus. 

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

---

by: TJ McFisty @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 15:28:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I believe that, too..

...and I certainly don't believe anyone is a second class citizen (nor should anyone be treated as such). Bottom line - the sooner we get more people in office that feel the same way and are willing to put their money where their mouth is, the better. I also get very irritated when certain factions continually use human dignity as a political football (much like the Episcopal Church did recently w/ the LGBT community) in order to placate the nutjobs. I never believed that any group of people (and their rights as citizens) should be used as a bargaining chip, which seems to have happened here. All in all, not a good day for the Dems (or the LGBT community).  

---

by: bogenrim @ Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 14:00:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They would never

allow one of their upscale black tie soirées to be disturbed by raising something as gauche as a civil rights inequity to an honored political celebrity. Pelosi will speak and all in attendance will congratulate her and themselves. Then they'll sip champagne and dance with dignified grace.

To hell with that. No more money to the HRC from me EVER. That's really just a continuation of a long standing commitment though. They can send me all the cheery of pleading emails they like. I cringe when I reference their stats and regret using one of their videos just yesterday after the Matthew Sheppard Act passed.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 16:58:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Own the Price, that's all I ask

It is a foregone conclusion that we are going to be tossed under the bus. It would be kinder if we were just dropped entirely. By introducing a separate transbill, we are being sacrificed to mockery and hatemongering as a distraction so the GLB lobby can protect themselves using us as human shields.

What I ask of the GLB community is this: don't lie to yourselves. Take responsibility for the price of this "victory."

Transgender people are a tiny minority. We have no political power. If we are not part of an overall GLBT bill, there is not going to be a tomorrow. The prospects of a separate bill are horrible compared to a combined bill. And the chances are that we will just be forgotten.We are not talking about next year, we are talking about decades at best for protections for transpeople. Don't insult our intelligence by saying it's going to happen next year.

If you're willing to pay the cost for your freedom with my blood, that's fine. But don't smile at me and tell me it's not happening while you pull the trigger.

---

by: kathygnome @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 15:49:49 PM CDT

recognize the source, is all i ask

kathygnome, why do you address this to "the GLB community"?  haven't you seen above that most of the LGBT orgs age against the trans exclusion, as well as many many many of we individuals?  also please note that we are not the decision makers.  we in the actual GLB community can try to pressure what pelosi and frank, but we can't force them to do or not do anything.  please take a moment and remember that you are among friends.  and please, stop slapping your friends in the face.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 17:07:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

RE: recognize the source, is all i ask

Lurleen, speaking from my perspective (queer trans woman), I really do try hard to not to paint the LGB community with a broad brush.  It would be incredibly unfair, and hurtful, for me to lump in those lesbians who are my good friends, supportive coworkers, and fellow bloggers and blog commenters, including yourself, Pam, Sarah in Chicago (I miss you, Sarah!) and many, many others.  I cannot even use attendance at Michfest (Michigan Women's Music Festival or MWMF) as a yardstick - I have a lesbian friend who is a regular attendee of Michfest, is ambivalent about the women-born-women policy, and yet, knowing that I am a trans woman, specifically reached out to me to invite me into a Jewish woman-only spiritual group.

Yet, I think that you need to understand why some trans folk, including myself, are angry with the LGB community.  I was driven out of an LGB-supposedly-T synagogue when I came out as trans.  I was mocked and disrespected at Philadelphia's LGB-supposedly-T community center (William Way) and no longer go there.  I will not walk into Philadelphia's only women's bar - even with other people - because the transphobia there is so intense, that I literally fear for my  physical safety should I set foot in there.  And, right here on this blog, I've had several commenters (all gay male) call me "bitch", "freak", and "monster", to the point that I had to take a break for a month until I felt safe to come back.  And now, Barney and Tammy have shown how seriously they take the trans community.

So kathygnome is upset.  I know I'm livid.  And maybe, today we paint with a broad brush.  But in one's frustration, it gets hard to keep every nicety in mind.  Please don't take it personally.

Social outrage is power protecting itself; it is not morality. -- Andrea Dworkin

---

by: RachelPhilPa @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 17:53:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i'm not taking it personally.

and now is certainly as good a time to rant as any.  but it is never constructive to fling guilt by association at anyone.  never.  we get enought crap from our true enemies - we don't need to give each other grief on top of it all.  besides, it only serves to turn away allies.  and by that i am not threatening to take away my support.  no way!  but there are plenty of people out there who will just walk away because they don't need more conflict in their lives.  we need them all to stay.

it really is upsetting to hear the kind of shit you and others get from some LGB people.  it upsets me the same way non-white people get shit from some white LGBTs.  all i can say is that i am sorry that this happens, and that i do what i personally can by confronting it when i see it.  it is all anyone can do.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 18:17:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ENDA Won"t Be SIgned By Dumb Fuhrer Anyway

ENDA's not getting signed by Bush anyway.  So why jump off a civil war in the GLBT community by yanking transgender out of the bill?

I've seen this happen too many times since I started hitting the Hill in 1998 lobbying for transgender civil rights.   I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired of the anti-transgender wing of the GLBT movement and their point transphobes working tirelesssly to keep us out of 'their' ENDA.

And you wonder why transpeople don't donate our hard earned money toward 'your' organizations.

 

 

---

by: MonicaR @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 15:56:11 PM CDT

Congratulations Nancy and Barney,

  You have successfully split the LGB  T!!!

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 16:16:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gender identity-inclusive ENDA helps GLB people too!!

I just wanted to comment on something I think is missing from this discussion. ENDA with the “gender identity” language will protect trans people but it will ALSO help GLB people in a very big way. Specifically, it will protect GLB people whose appearance, mannerisms or gender expression differs from traditional “gender norms” and get discriminated on that basis in the workplace. After all, many GLB people are targeted not because of their sexual orientation per se, but because they may depart from traditional gender norms (e.g. effeminate gay man, butch lesbians). As a butch-ish lesbian, it doesn’t help me if ENDA protects me on the basis of “sexual orientation” while allowing an employer to go ahead and fire me because I am a masculine woman. I think GLB people need to start accepting the fact that in many situations, we are discriminated against because we challenge traditional gender norms, not because of who we sleep with. Legally, I do not believe GLB people can achieve sufficient protections in the workplace without having “gender identity” protections too. Also, I believe that HRC and the Task Force cannot abandon transgender folks if they truly claim to represent their interests in their organizational mission statements. It would be like the NAACP saying that they will work for African American men but not African American women. Finally, transgender people face homelessness, suicide, and joblessness at much higher rates than GLB people. Why is this? Because it is VERY difficult in some places in this country for trans people to find a job. This bill simply allows people to be judged in the workplace on their abilities. I think the Democratic leadership, especially Barney Frank, are cowards if they drop the gender identity language. As I said before, from a legal perspective, they also aren’t doing GAY people any favors either because gender identity discrimination happens to everyone, not just trans people.

---

by: sfne @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 16:29:19 PM CDT

Or the NAACP

Only covering people who's parents were both black.

<3 Sam

---

by: Samie D @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 16:44:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

PROMO supports T-inclusive bill

PROMO is the Missouri LGBT rights lobbying/education organisation.

---

by: NancyP @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 17:00:38 PM CDT

Political calculations,

  I hope it is worth it Nancy, Barney, and the rest of the Democratic members of the House of Representatives that has made it clear that discrimination against a U.S. Citizen exists, and that it is okay with them.  I sincerely want to thank you for letting me know that I no longer need to waste my time, effort, and money to support you re-elections.

  I have a new mission for the spare time I have now that it will not be used supporting you. It will be used defeating you.  If by some way I do discover that you were against removing "gender identity" from ENDA, I will gladly support you.

  It was one thing to be a political football from the Republicans, but to be drop kicked in the teeth this way,  well, FRANK ly is unforgivable.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 18:16:34 PM CDT

You Should Contact Your Representative...

...and find out where they stood on removing "gender identity" from ENDA. Who knows, your congressperson may feel the same way you do. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if most Dems would have voted for ENDA as it was written. Perhaps we can all be focused on getting more like-minded Dems elected, as opposed to trashing the whole party. 

---

by: bogenrim @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 18:39:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]