ENDA: Barney Frank's press conference, Tammy Baldwin's statement

cell phone

Note the difference between a) when Rep. Frank was engaged and ad lib'ng as he talked about not putting his fellow representative on a straight scale and b) his manner when that cell phone went off.  During b) I felt like I was watching an actor interrupted.

I still don't buy his assertion about doom and headlines. I don't buy the headlines' capabilities to doom and I don't buy that huge headlines will occur because of a bill failing.

I also don't buy that everyone supporting the hundreds of orgs against a discriminatory ENDA are single issue activists. Where is he getting that? I'm definitely not.


Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 17:21:44 PM CDT

hasn't he always been transphobic?

Why is he the one leading the call on this? Doesn't he a have a conflict of interest in killing the Transgender part?

---

by: AHiddenSaint @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 17:40:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

single issue?

No - seeking civil rights based just upon sexual orientation is a single issue. Accusing others of what you're doing yourself is what the other side does Rep. Frank.

---

by: Kathleen @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 17:55:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

what is funny

Is if they had faught for TG rights instead of throwing under bus the outrage wouldn't be there. It is basically telling a woman in a relationship with a man who is abusing her to sit down, shut up, and know your place. They want us to remain silent not voicing our concerns.

---

by: AHiddenSaint @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 20:59:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There is an item at Salon

  There is an item at Salon refyting Aravosis' argument about transgendered people and since his argument is identical to Franks, it's very appropriate. It's titled Why the T in LGBT is here to stay and it is excellent. As Frank and Aravosis have appointed themselves as the sole spokespersons for the community at large, it's good to have dissenting voices.

---

by: Margaret @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 18:16:42 PM CDT

Great rebuttal by Susan Stryker

One of the best points in it:
"What does Aravosis, as a gay man, have in common with a little girl whose mother gave her HIV in utero, or a heterosexual African man who contracted HIV from a female prostitute, or a junkie living on the streets of Bangkok, Thailand? Presumably, a common interest in ending AIDS. And what might he have in common with transgender people? Some sense that a person's suitability for employment had something to do with their ability to do the job?"

---

by: Jami @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 10:57:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

All that energy

I've heard a few people touch on this now, and it is really starting to ring true for me.

 If Rep. Frank devoted anywhere near as much energy to helping us fight to salvage HR 2015 as he is putting into his claims that 1) he's a great guy with lots of accomplishments, 2) people who disagree with him are ignorant and stupid, and 3) this is about getting rights for people now even though it isn't...  Well, gosh, if he put all of that time and energy into helping us instead of fighting us, maybe it would be easier to believe his claims about supporting transgender inclusion.  Heck, maybe we'd even pull it off.  If he helped.

---

by: kellyanon @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 18:26:43 PM CDT

Barney, what got trans-inclusion in ENDA...

  in the first place?  It was lobby groups and the people telling our representatives in the first place.  or were we just added as a bargining chip? 

 

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 18:50:20 PM CDT

Hey, John A...

From Susan Stryker's Salon article:

Aravosis and those who agree with him think that the "trans revolution" has come from outside, or from above, the rank-and-file gay movement. No -- it comes from below, and from within. [Emphasis mine]

John Aravosis, Barney Frank, and other assimilationist conservative / DINO white wealthy androphile men:  I'm going to repurpose a line from a TV series (about a slayer of evil things):

"From below it devours." 

You've put us at the bottom of the barrel.  Now, us queers are rising up from beneath you. 

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

---

by: RachelPhilPa @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 20:41:50 PM CDT

"from above it flushes:

RachelPhilPa has drawn a line in the sand between Queers (who cite their Bible) and GLBT. Good. Citing the Bible is so PostModernist Queer Theory -- or simply queer. Lambda Legal, unfortunately, has purchased the Queer Agenda, abandoning its GLBT human rights for "queer rights."

GLBT differ from Queers in one specific regard. Queers are paraphiliacs, while GLBT are homophiles. Activists in the late Seventies insisted "sexual identity" of the Trans community be included in the GLBT network for the obvious reason that TG/TS, regardless of sexual reassignment, would be involved in "sexual orientation" however they chose. It was and remains an appropriate part of the Gay Liberation Movement.

While only TG/TS have a legitimate interest in the question of "sexual identity," sexual identity itself was never part of the GLBT Movement. Only because TG/TS are thrust into the "sexual orientation" dilemma, however each is reassigned sex/gender, the sole justification of including TS/TG was the shared overlap with sexual orientation.

Many GLBT resisted the inclusion, but most recognized a common denominator between TG/TS and GLB sexual orientation. Few gays, lesbians, or bisexuals confront conflict with their sexual identity, rather prejudice for loving and sexing their same sex -- which has no bearing on their employability, domesticity, and public accommodation. Thus, for thirty years, "sexual orientation" was the sole common denominator between all four GLBT

Enter Queer Theory and its PostModernist variants. Ignoring all biological norms and standard variations, these theorists claimed sex and gender were all socially constructed and wholly arbitrary. That is utter nonsense, typical of French pseudo-intellectualism. But since Queer Theorists regard science as no different from myth, they regard males as no different from females? Queer Ideology may make such preposterous claims, but GLBT, as well as heterosexuals, are quite certain that males are males, females are females, and if Queer Theory were coherent,a Queer Fem would enjoy a Queer Male with no discrimination. Except, gays and lesbians do make a discrimination. Gay men desire other men, lesbians desire other women, and bisexuals desire both. Queers may insist these desires are socially constructed, but when it comes to human affairs, rather than intellectual psychobabble, men want men, women want women, and no one is sure of what Queers want, since their rhetoric of indeterminancy precludes Queers from making ALL and ANY claims.

 

Sadly, Queers were not silenced by their own theory, but rather chose a new mantra: transgressivity. For Queers, their transgressive paraphilias are their sole concern, not that the love their own sex. Queers revel in kink of every kind. And knowing society, medicine, and law would never place "queer transgressive kink" on the same status of "sexual orientation," queers co-opted GLBT for their Queer Agenda. 

Prior to Queers, "sexual identity" was relevant, if at all, to TG/TS. GLB do not question their sexual identity, nor do the espouse queer theory. But the transgressive requires "in your face" exhibitionism. Exhibitionism is one of the eight paraphilias that Queers get-off on. But so few GLBT are paraphiliacs, such transgressiveness never surfaced in the 30 years of ENDA.

But, Queers want to be "in your face" transgressive, and they're hyjacking GLBT to achieve non-discrimination of sexual orientation to include their queer "sexual idenity." The Queer Agenda has nothing to do with TG/TS, it's their mantra of transgressivity as queerfucks, and their freedom without restraint to be exhibitionists that drives them to use ENDA for their ends. They want to ban discrimination based not on sexual orientation, which is essentially a private matter and irrelevant to housing, employment, and public accommodation . . .

. . . they want to ban discrimination of their paraphilias, one of seven in which is exhibitionism. All things kinky, sado-masochistic, dominance-submission, and gender-bending is the Queer "sexual identity" the Queers insist not be discriminated against. Alas, most of the GLBT community is not Queer Transgressive Paraphilia. Unlike homosexuality, which is biologically normal, Queer Transgressive Paraphilia is psychosexually deviant and anything but biologically or psychologically normal.

 

For example, a good Queer Transgressive Exampe: A cross-dressing punk rocker with hoardes of tattoos and studs, in male anatomical form but dressed in female clad, spouting leather chains and halter tops, dressed intentionally to be "in-your-face Queer" insists no one discriminate against his/her/its "sexual identity," which at core requires employers, landlords, and public accommodation to accept this "sexual identity," however it is expressed. The issue is not sexual reassignment, but rather Queer Transgressivity. Any weird expression for "its own sake" is Queer. Most TG/TS are not attempting "weird," but simply the anatomical reassignment based on a psychological perception of sexual identity. Sexual orientation follows of necessity.

 

But "sexual orientation" would protect such a Queer in his/her/its private domain, but Queers are not private, but exhibitionists, and broadly paraphiliac. Their preoccupation is to be "transgressive" and "in your face." So, to secure Civil Rights for Queers would require businesses, landlords, and public accommodations never discriminate against the Transgressive "in-your-face" Queer who most of us would simply identify as a "mess," with sexual identity being essentially irrelevant.

 

Ah. But therein is the Queer Magic. They need to express their being a "mess" (what they call "transgressivity") in order to feed their Queer "sexual identity" (which is incoherent even with French PostModernist psychobabble), and they want the color of law to prohibit anyone from denying them their out-rageous expression in dress, behavior, or hygiene -- not in private, but in public. If a guy shows up for work in pink panties, red bandana, jock short, tattooed head to toe and studded throughout wants the "right" to transgress during work hours -- ENDA-T would bar anyone from judging this attire inappropriate, because the "sexual identity" card could be played. 

 

The Queer, uniike GLBT, gets off not on "sexual orientation," but by gender-bending sexual identity, and in order for Queers to gender-bend, their paraphilias must be allowed PUBLICLY, because it is the exhibitionist aspect of paraphilia that gets Queers to feel and act transgressive. They are the ones who revel in torture porn, kink, and fisting, not because they sexually identify with men or women, rather their fetish commodification requires reaction and revulsion in order to "get off." Whatever else one thinks of the Psyche Industry, not even it is willing to deny Queer Paraphilia and Transgressivity are aberrant, abnormal, and deviant. If so, how can Queers be "in your face" transgressive, if their S&M, B&D, scatological, and fetishness are a "sexual orientation," which clearly, they are not? So, they've appropriated "sexual identity" as their mantra, so that "sexual identity" trumps the public's objection to such behavior.

No one will "buy" this Queer option, least of all GLBT. Queers have more in common with their Straight Kinky Perverts than they do GLBT. Most Queers do not know the gender or sex of their "human toys," less sexual denigration is part of their release.

 

Like NAMBLA, which also claims to be a "sexual identity," GLBT must not yield to Queers who insist their kink is "sexual identity." Pedophilia and paraphilia is not GLBT, however exhibitionist it is. Hurray for sensible GLBT to halting the Queer takeover of GLBT Civil Rights. Queer discontents need to exhibit their transgressity, or else they fade into weird where they belong.

 

When Queers quote a biblical verse to justify their Queer exception, I think most of us recognize the Queer Agenda is not the GLBT Agenda. And, as a gay man, I will not be coerced to hire, lodge, or accommodate a Queer's transgressivity, and work tireless to preclude their psychosexual pathology being equated with GLBT. If gay men won't indulge the Queers, does anyone think straights will?

---

by: The Gay Species @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 20:11:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and they think Gender identity isn't needed

http://www.gay.com/n...

A woman filed a civil rights lawsuit against a popular Greenwich Village neighborhood restaurant Tuesday, claiming a bouncer chased her out of the women's bathroom because she looked too masculine.

Khadijah Farmer, who was at the Caliente Cab Company after New York's gay Pride parade in June, said the bouncer ran into the bathroom, pounded on the stall door and demanded that she leave. He told her a customer complained a man was in the women's room.

"I told him I was a woman, and I tried to show him my I.D.," Farmer said at a news conference. "He refused to look at it. I was extremely uncomfortable and quite humiliated."

Caliente Cab Company released a statement denying the discrimination claim and said Farmer's "primary interest" was money.

"There has been no discrimination or violation of anyone's civil rights or human dignity by Caliente Cab Company or anyone employed here," the restaurant's statement said.

Farmer's lawyer, Michael Silverman of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, says his client is asking for unspecified damages and demanding that the restaurant train its staff not to discriminate on the basis of gender identity.

---

by: AHiddenSaint @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 23:09:10 PM CDT

Too Butch to Pee by Rady Ananda

http://www.opednews....

Farmer's case highlights another point Aravosis misses: Farmer is not transgendered, yet suffered from T-discrimination. Her case raises the T discussion to a legal level, which Avavosis is well advised to follow. Part 2 of the Gay USA interview includes a lucid discussion of sex, gender, and role discrimination, showing how this type of discrimination impacts straight women as well. In Part 3, Michael Silverman of www.transgenderlegal.org explains more of the legal issues behind the action filed on Farmer's behalf.

---

by: AHiddenSaint @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 23:26:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, she is trans. All of us are.

*Everyone* who is part of the LGBT group is transgendered.

That is, they don't act within the social expectations for their genders and cross those lines.

Gay, Bi, straight -- doesn't matter.  Gender Identity is *something completely different* from sexual orientation.

And the discrimination that is faced by gay people most often these days isn't based on their sexual oreintation, but on the supposition that they don't "act like men" or "act like women" (gender) because they happen to like people of the same sex.

Frank is *scared* and, as noted elsewhere, worried about his personal legacy -- he wants it to pass for the LGB people before he leaves office.

He's scared because *he* feels that way, and so he thinks others do. And he'll make them that way if he gets a chance.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 13:28:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Things I don't like about Barney's Take

From the "highlights" reel (almost in order):

1. Prescribing a solution, rushing it aong, and then getting upset that people are upset

Unlike Barney, I believe that you can trust people to compromise, that people really do understand that.

The two interested parties here are absent from his disucssion.  They are (a) the gays and lesbians and  (b) the transgerdered in the 47% of the nation not covered by local or state laws.  (Separately, how 'bisexual' got included in 'sexual orientation' or 'sexuality' but transsexual did not, for instance, is perplexing).

Get them together and have them talk.  I think you'd be surprised at how much people under adversity bond together in solidarity, rather than participate in forced division.  When they do not, you'd be surprised at what types of agreements can be reached between groups, when they don't have a gun to their head.  One groups says, I'll let you go on ahead, but you have to do this, this, and this for me now and promise that you'll come back by doing this, this, and this.  Then the other group thinks it over hard and says, "o.k., deal".

The fact that there is "no time" for a listening tour, and no early, visible, substantive, forthright, and immediately recognizable gesture to those who are expected to do the compromising in pursuit of the supposed greater good is disturbing.

There are some who say that 'softy liberals' like me created this problem.  Clearly that's wrong, but even if there is a problem for votes, that's my solution process - it involves trusting and reaching out to people (yes, taking time if necessary), not reaching for the eject button at the first sign of trouble.  Level 'problem created', and I'll say, 'problem solved' - AND without the mean-spirited tactics.

2. It's immoral if we don't proceed

Not if the people involved, the aggreived parties themselves, decide *in good conscience* that they would like another solution, a different strategy. (see above)

What's more, it's probably immoral to signal a compromise, *in advance* of pushing forward an inclusive Bill, because that more or less indicates to your opponents that they just have to wait you out.  The Civil Right Act was perhaps the most debated piece of legislation in the Congress.  Johnson and Senate Democrats went into the 'debate' asking for the entire kitchen sink, and traded away what little he had to.  That's a far bit different than *introducing* your compromise from square one.

No one *wants* to leave people behind, but neither does that mean we have to vote this immediate instance, either.   What's more, the high probability of a veto and no sure support in the Senate indicate further that there is time, yet, it seems, to do vote gathering and the lobby work that Barney complains wasn't done since the meeting last November (or whenever), when it was decided that this piece of legislation would get and up/down vote this year.

Against that backdrop, there is no 'moral shame' in waiting a little longer, in order to take care of one of your coalition partners.

3. We have to worry about the Freshman Congressman and govern responsibly

Well, while the Repubs were in power, the LGBT advocates have been working very hard on getting the number of companies behind workplace non-discrimination up, up, up.  

Since 2003, eleven (11) states have voted for 'gender identity' and NOT ONE where action was taken has left it off the list.  Now, more than 53% of the *voting public* is covered by State or local non-discrimination laws. 

These are the upfront reasons that 'gender identity' was probably included in the bill this April, not because it abandoned some stylized notion of the '30 year goal'.  The Nation is trending that way.  Companies are trending that way.  Heck, the rest of the English speaking world is trending that way.

Frankly, it's not clear why workplace nondiscrimination isn't part of the Democratic Party platform.  Can't we expect that, when we elect a Democrat, that's what he or she is going to support, on principle, not just as a matter of what is expedient or 'doable'?

Why are we so afraid of the Republicans?  Eight years of Bush and a two failed Presidential bids have us gunshy, maybe.  But that's wrong.  Because the Republicans cannot 'punish us' by passing a "Federal Anti-Gay Employment Admendment", this is an issue on which the politics of conviction is one that will reward, not divide and cause failure.  Evan Wolfson, at the Freddom to Marry, has even made a strong and reasonable persuasive case for advising candidates to follow a politics of conviction for gay marriage issues - check it out, he's got some Congressional statistics and samples, too.

  

---

by: Amicus @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 01:27:23 AM CDT

...oh, not that it goes without saying

by the way, it probalby shouldn't go without mention that I love Barney Frank and think he has been, over the years, just an exception representative, not only for Massachusetts, but for the gay Community, even though some others have reservations.

It's just that the gay community is far to diverse and complex to be managed by one person (or maybe even one organization).

It really does take everyone pitching in to do things well.  In fact, over time, almost all those promising "focus" by winnowing down their constiuencies (instead of focusing on articulated goals) have ended up with trouble, while those who were successful in building and maintaining diversity, even at a cost, have had the flashiest success.  Think about it, that's all.

---

by: Amicus @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 01:37:40 AM CDT

My Response to the press conference.

HR 2015 has 171 co-sponsors, The magic number needed is 218. That is  47 votes difference.  Ok, I can agree that 47 votes might be hard to get.  But Barney said the new ENDA HR 3685 above the 218 by 15 to 20 win.  That makes HR 3685 having 67 votes more than HR 2015.  I wonder who are these 67 Representatives are.  I am sure I live near one of them, and would make a trip to his office with my family.  And we would be able to give him an education on what a family, single mom post-op MtF with two daughters looks like. How we act together, and how we love each other.  And need a job.

  Barney gave us an amount of Representatives that "need educating" well, I am willing, just need to know who they are.  Let me know Barney,  I live in the Denver area.

  Because what doesn't pass with me,  Is if there are 67 representatives willing to sign onto HR 3685 and feel safe to go back home with their constituents knowing you Mr. or Mrs. Representative signed a Sexual  Orientation  Bill only to feel safe for re-election, he or she must know who the opponent is, a Republican  Representative,  That will be anti LGBT anyway. So T or no T it doesn't matter.  So you must be worried about the swing vote, and that is understandable.  I suppose it just might take a trans-woman with a family of two kids to remove all the freaky ideas and false stereotypes they have of us transsexuals.

  Now, please don't feed us the flip-flop vote of John Kerry over the war, the right is using the flip flop against Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.  Those had to deal with the war with John Kerry when the American public, along with those in congress that went along with it were fed a bad bag of goods,  Mitt and Rudy deal with LGBT and abortion rights.  Big  difference in my opinion.  And for the headlines in the newspapers, you seem they can be so negative.  "House fails on gay rights agenda" , think positive  Headlines
  "House Passes an Inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act"  Now that is a head line that speaks LOUD!!!  And with a sub-head line, " Local and National Groups  Become United to Help End Discrimination."  (most Americans don't like discrimination)

  And then you compare us, The LGBT to the NRA, what where you thinking?
But that is ok, trust me it is,  Are you ready???  The LGBT wants to live in peace,
The NRA wants to live with a piece (AKA a gun) I know, you meant lobbying and being active.  With out ENDA, most LGBT-people are without work when they come out of the closet.  And just barely make ends meet, if that.  That is when they go into prostitution, because that is the only way many can survive. And if Ts had work, they wouldn't have to go to the prostitution gig.

  Now to the bathroom and shower issue,  A pre-op MtF Transsexual will use the ladies room, No where to stand and pee, as she is in her private stall, and all private. An FtM pre-op doesn't stand .either.  Now, the shower,  I will guarantee that a pre-op MtF will not use a community shower. But just in case, put a prevision in for that.  But as of late, most fortune 500 companies all ready have provisions in place, and if not, I am sure the employed transsexual will work with in the availability of closed showers.

  So let us know who needs educating on Trans issues, I am sure there are plenty of us that will meet with them..  I know this as many made it to Largo Florida.  Were Susan Stanton was fired for being Trans. 

  If you or your colleagues have any questions that need to be answered, feel free to E mail them to.

I will add E mail addy tomorrow

 

If any here have any suggestions or changes, please list in comments.  I will be mailing this out to 233 Representives.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:09:36 AM CDT

the shower thing...

The shower thing that Frank made a transphobic ass of himself over in the pages of Bay Windows is actually covered in the bill. It does not mandate shared use of a shower.

And I agree, we need to know who to target for lobbying. Frank whines that we aren't doing enough lobbying and nobody is giving us even the most basic tools. Here in Massachusetts, we were always aware of who was a possible pickup on the marriage question. That's why we retained it. Good thing the Barney wasn't in charge of counting votes here!

---

by: kathygnome @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 07:20:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you! I would have missed this

In the middle of the first one right now...hearing Barny Frank explain just about anything is worth checking out. 

---

by: deadissue @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 21:27:03 PM CDT