The battle over ENDA

Time

"It's possible that a trans-only, separate bill would pass some time down the road, but it wouldn't be any time soon."

Indeed.

I am 42 years old. 

I graduated from high school in 1982.

That was the year that Wisconsin enacted the first statewide gay(-only) rights law.

It is still gay-only.

I know that a handful of gay-only states have rectified their gay-only laws - but lets use Wisconsin as a worst-case (though, IMHO, likeliest-case) for how things will go if a gay-only ENDA is enacted.

2032.

I'll be 67.

Anyone who expects me - and those like me - to live the rest of of our working (if we're lucky) lives watching out of the corners of our eyes all of the people who were willing to 'accept' a gay-only ENDA 'compromise' enjoy the benefits of knowing that they can challenge those who seek to exclude them from the workforce is lying if they say they have any understanding of trans issues, trans lives - and trans fears.

"[T]he fact that this dilemma is playing out so early shows that a lot of education on the issue has not been done."

Well, just look at who claims to have been doing 'education' on trans issues for the last decade.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:17:10 AM CDT

An injury to one...

is an injury to all.

Do not sacrifice the minority of the minority.  Partial gains mean nothing.  We are in this together.  All for one and one for all.

Without protections for T I want nothing to do with protections for G L or B.

If it's not ok to discriminate against me (G), its not ok to discriminate against them (T). 

Thank you for being strong and encouraging others to do the same, Pam. 

 

 

 

 

---

by: Patrick @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 10:16:54 AM CDT

well-reasoned, Pam

I couldn't agree more that this needs to be hashed out on the house floor now, not after january 2009.  whether the bill is t-inclusive or not, it has no chance of being signed by bush.  so let us get the full educational debate going now.  next time it will be that much easier, and no legislator can say that they hadn't had time to consider the issue.

to all those freaked out fundies out there afraid that some day a transperson will pee in the same public bathroom as you or teaching your kid math, i have this to say: they already are have always been. monsters under the bed are only scary if you imagine them to be.  grow up and stop reveling in fear.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:22:43 PM CDT

Shame on Barney

 

  Its not acceptable, to not include TG in the legislation..it just is not. This capitulation must stop. There is a moral imperative here. I am sick and tired of the go along to get along dems. We passed the TG part in NM , it can be done.  Its time to stop giving these fundies any cred at all. They must be shamed..yes shamed for their bigortry. This is federal policy , not church policy - we are not a damn theocracy unless the T is in the bill , its no bill for me. AND if the HRC cannot utilitize the our constituency responsibly maybe we need a new less compromising group.

 

...End . rant . here.   

---

by: proudprogressive @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:51:38 PM CDT

Mistake

Correction: "major LGBT legislative advocacy group, HRC" is not an advocacy group, but a political action committee.

Why are we exercised over this "piecemeal" approach to our civil rights? Why not simply amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include the phrase "sexual orientation?" Nothing more or less.

Because these diversion tactics over piddling issues divides us rather than unites us. It feeds the politicians their bread at our expense.

Such a "simple solution" might avail if that "advocacy group HRC" ever mentioned the use of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It does not, because it is not a human rights organization, but a political action committee. It spent not a dime in 2006 on the anti-gay marriage efforts. Instead, it plays this piecemeal game.

You can support these tactics and this kind of advocacy, which tried to suppress Mike Gravel and his message of equality, or you can advocate a SOLUTION, not pacification. Frankly, Civil Rights and Equality are too serious to play these games over.

 

---

by: The Gay Species @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 13:40:15 PM CDT

You don't get it if you don't ask for it......

This is an excellent time to include T in ENDA, BECAUSE it is GUARANTEED TO FAIL.

Why do minority parties put up bills that are likely to fail?

1. to please their constituent clamoring for action. 

2. to record "no" votes of the opposition, for future use in campaigns

3. to get people used to the concepts within the bill - ie., EDUCATION - while fully expecting that it will take many more tries to get the bill passed.

What are the  downsides of putting up a bill likely to fail?

1. personal time and effort expended, without immediate "results" 

2. a slot on the legislative schedule taken up, without immediate results, probably displacing some other worthy legislation under consideration

3. becoming identified as the "transgender issue" person (sponsor) among the legislators. You spend political capitol, that might be spent on maneuvering for some broad-interest legislation.

4.becoming identified by your opponents as the representative who "voted to allow guys in women's bathrooms". THIS requires some advance planning on how to fend off these scaremongering memes and ads and possibly come up with inoculation and with good counterattack plans before the opposition starts.

 

As I said yesterday in one of the ENDA or other trans threads, there is no substitute for grassroots organizing and for face-to-face meetings of affected constituents with their representatives. That means transgender people need to hit their district offices on Congressional break, or visit DC if that is feasible, need to lobby their state legislators (preferably have a T lobby day), need to have a local, regional, national media strategy with "rolodex" of T speakers and interviewees for reporters to consult, need to set up a local, state, national T-alert email system (and local phone bank/tree) to rally T people to call/ write/ visit their legislators, need to have "talking points" for their legislators, including messages the legislator can use to defend any positive action for Ts to skeptical or hostile audiences. They need to have Trans 101 course directed towards legislators - make it simple, have it presented by a T constituent or  a personally T lobbyist.

Sad to say, Barney Frank is right about one thing. The T inclusion issue IS NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME SUCCESS. There has been a promising start, with the organisation of NCTE, with the recent media prominence of and Hollywood fad for transgender topics. But the basic public and politician education has a long way to go. Trans 101 needs to be presented in as many public venues as possible, starting with typical liberal groups, liberal churches, universities, and so on. Gays and lesbians have been at the politics game longer, and the moveable public and politicians are only now discarding some misconceptions. I suspect Ts will be able to move a little faster than the original GL effort (starting circa 1964), but only if Ts THEMSELVES start the lobbying and education process at all levels.

---

by: NancyP @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 14:00:34 PM CDT

I agree that T should not be stripped from ENDA but...

As a compromise, I think activists should try to pass both versions of the bill, one with the T and one without. I suspect that the LGB one would pass the House and the noe with the T would not but at least we could use that information for future activism. Regardless, i'm not sure that an LGB bill would pass the Senate, and it most definitely will not be signed by President Bush.

I guess what Barney sees (and I am quite shocked by his behavior on this because I had regarded him as one of the smartest politicians in Washington) is that it is more beneficial for the Democrats to have passed a "gay rights bill" and had it vetoed by Bush than to have failed to pass an LGBT-inclusive bill.

The problem with this reasoning is that what is best for the Democrats is not necessarily what is best for the community for whom ENDA was created and is intended to protect. That community needs both sexual orientation and gender identity or expression employment protections in federal law. And it should be pointed out THAT is a mere incremental step because it does not include protections in housing, education, public accomodations or other categories like most statewide civil rights bills.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 14:23:30 PM CDT

shocked? Frank was on the record opposing transinclusion

Frank isn't doing this for political reasons. He's doing this because he's against transgender inclusion. He was the first critic of the bill and spewed out venom in Bay Windows that was so viciously transphobic that the fundies are actually using it as a talking point!

---

by: kathygnome @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 18:12:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

An issue of integrity

For some time I had been in the minority in the "trans" community, arguing that it isn't time for a Trans-inclusive ENDA.  Gender identity would be the Willie Horton issue. 

Over time I changed my view in light of the dramatic increase in state laws outlawing discrimination on the basis of gender identity, the positive response from corporate America (due in great part to HRC), and the consistently positive press coverage we have seen relating to gender identity issues.

Regardless of my personal views, none of the current theatrics is the least bit surprising.  This turn of event was one of several very foreseeable possibilities.  HRC knew this.  And HRC staked a position that it would not support ENDA unless it was trans-inclusive.  Some of us didn't believe HRC at first, but it steadfastly made the commitment over-and-over again.  We were lulled into a sense of security.

HRC hasn't been put in a difficult position at all.  In the world of ethics, we call the position HRC is presently in one of doing the right thing, acting with integrity.  You do what you promise and you do so with courage and conviction.

HRC, if it bows to pressure, will lose its moral authority.  Moreover, HRC and Barney Frank will have placed gender-affirmed people in a worse position than they were before  --  an embarrassing moment for us all.

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pending, the Republicans added "sex" as a protected category, believing that the bill will never pass with sex as a protected category.  The Republicans were wrong.  The bill did pass.

HRC, show courage and stand tall with the Task Force, which has demonstrated its moral leadership from the start.  HRC, show courage and withdraw your invitation to Speaker Pelosi; she is unworthy of any award if she isn't willing to make bigotry something worth fighting against.   

Christine

 

---

by: christine @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 22:22:28 PM CDT

I believe that this is incorrect...

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pending, the Republicans added "sex" as a protected category, believing that the bill will never pass with sex as a protected category. 

I believe that it was the Dixiecrats, the Southern Democrats, who got "sex" added as a protected category, for the purpose that you mention.

On the general subject matter of the post above

(i) ENDA, with or without T, will fail until a Democrat is elected president anyway (and it might fail even if a Dem is elected president) because Bush or any other Republican will veto it.  It is probably a mistake at this point in time to put a lot of political capital into what might become a "bruising fight" for a bill that will be vetoed anyway.  A bruising fight might very well may make subsequent congresses reticent to even consider the issue, even with a Dem president.

(ii) I, for one, am sick and tired of having Ts try to hijack bills that might benefit GLs.  T groups tried to hijack the NYS GL bill at virtually the last minute after the Republican governor Patoki and the conservative Republican president of the state Senate Bruno had worked out an agreement regarding GLs.  As far as I'm concerned, that action by the T groups was disgraceful.  Whether or not Ts should be included in some biill at some point in time is another issue, but, as far as I can tell, T groups have not done the leg work to make the surrounding straight community comfortable with them, but GLs have.  "It's not fair" just doesn't cut it.

(iii) As I've said here before, given the unlikelihood of ENDA, with or without Ts, being passed at the federal level any time soon, it would be good advice to work at the state and local level.

---

by: raj @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 08:18:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Concerns

Trans though I am, if a trans-inclusive provision were the only thing preventing a bill like the ENDA from passing through congress and being signed into law, I would wholeheartedly stand behind a GLB-only version. That's cuz, you know, I'm a pragmatist, and whatever nice notions I'd like to promote about GLBT solidarity should always take a back seat to actual progress. That said...

    I, for one, am sick and tired of having Ts try to hijack bills that might benefit GLs.

... the notion that Ts are "hijacking" anything is a preposterous red herring. As you're so fond of pointing out, transpeople don't enjoy the same level of acceptance that GLBs do. What political influence we have doesn't derive from public sympathy and it certainly doesn't derive from our numbers - we're fortunate to have lots of non-trans GLB allies who are willing to speak up for us. They're the ones who lead the big advocacy groups and raise the money. If you were really being fair-minded here, you'd aim some of your vitriol at them, too.

Also: 

    as far as I can tell, T groups have not done the leg work to make the surrounding straight     community comfortable with them

I don't really understand this "legwork" refrain. Is this, like, man-hours of canvassing or something? Or do you measure "legwork" in terms of actual political progress made? And are you making a practical objection to trans inclusion here - that is, something like, more work needs to be done before this is possible? Or are you talking about desert - as in, transpeople haven't worked hard enough to earn their place at the table? Under what conditions would you be satisfied that the requisite amount of "legwork" has been done?

Anyway, doesn't this every-minority-for-itself rhetoric kinda undermine the principle that the reason legislation like this is worth fighting for is because it's right? Actually, let me ask you, because frankly your comments give me cause to wonder: politics aside, do you believe that transpeople ought to enjoy legal protections per the ENDA?

---

by: anomie @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 12:34:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Regarding your last "also"...

...consider the phrase "laid the groundwork" instead.

---

by: raj @ Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 07:33:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you, Pam

We're all in this together.  You and I may be different, but I will fight like hell for you, and I expect you to fight like hell for me.

You're living up to your end of the deal.  I'll keep living up to mine.

(I just came from Americablog, where the dialogue has been making me cry. )

---

by: Texas_Supergirl @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 09:57:10 AM CDT

Education about "trans" issues

If lack of education is the issue, shame on the LGBT groups that helped slate the speakers for the recent House hearing.  How about having one or two gender-affirmed people as witnesses at that hearing?  I'm starting to buy into Autumn's conspiracy theory regarding HRC. ;-)

Barbara Walters' recent 20/20 show and the recent Newsweek cover story on gender identity were easy to comprehend, in relatively mainstream media sources.  Pretty straightforward stuff to educate people with.

This really isn't about any lack of "trans" education.  That's just a smokescreen to kill the bill.  Folks who don't want their kids educated by a "trans" person don't want their kids educated by a "homosexual" (the word they will use). 

(I'll save for another day the interesting point how groups like HRC have no problem using the word "transsexual" but avoid the word "homosexual"; sexual has no relevance to gender dysphoria, whereas it has a fair amount to do with sexual orientation.  Both terms should be avoided because of their pejorative connotations.)If anything, recent events show that legislators seem to be more comfortable with the T part of LGBT.  For example, on the same day in December 2006, the NJ Legislature passed both a civil unions bill and a gender identity/expression anti-discrimination bill, which the Governor later signed into law.The NJ Legislature was ordered by the NJ Supreme Court to pass a civil union law, and that the Legislature was under no court directive to pass a gender identity/expression anti-discrimination law.   

Surprise, surprise: 102 yeas, 8 nays, and 10 abstentions/no-shows for the gender law that didn't have to pass.  79-31-10 for the civil union law they were ordered to pass.  Let's see, that means the "trans" folks had 29% more yeas than the gay and lesbian folks.  Nearly 4 times as many legislators were against G&L people than were against T people.

Christine

---

by: christine @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 21:51:41 PM CDT