Numbers, numbers, numbers. What is the 25M figure from – approximately 10% of the US population? 9%? Whatever. Well, think about how much of the overall US population is covered by sexual orientation state civil rights laws: Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii and D.C. Gee – that’s roughly 40% of the nation, just in terms of numbers of state-level jurisdictions. Population? California by itself is a heavy duty chunk of the U.S. (12-14% or so?) No Texas on that list, and no Ohio, and no Pennsylvania, and no Michigan and no Florida – but there’s New York. That’s a pretty hefty chunk, too. Let’s face it, other than redress against a federal employer in federal court, the gay-only, federal ENDA doesn’t do anything more for gays and lesbians in those gay-rights-law states than their state laws do (in fact, many of the state laws allow actions against smaller employers than will federal law.) Now, think about how much of the overall US population is covered by trans-inclusive sexual orientation state civil rights laws: Vermont, Maine, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington, and D.C. A nice chunk in its own right – but no New York and no Massachusetts. Now, let’s look at the gap – the gap between the trans-inclusive and the non-inclusive: Wisconsin, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Nevada, and Hawaii. Which number is greater – the number of gay and lesbian people in Alaska or the number of trans people in all eight of those states combined? Which number is greater – the number of gay and lesbian people in Alaska and Wyoming combined or the number of trans people in all eight of those states combined? Which number is greater – the number of gay and lesbian people in Alaska, Wyoming and South Dakota combined or the number of trans people in all eight of those states combined? And so on… Where does the irresistible Aravosis meet the immovable reality? How many no-gay-rights-law-at-all states’ combined GLB population matches the combined T population of the gay-only-law states? Yes – there will be a gap. No matter how the numbers add up and sift out, there will be some significant portion of the GLB populace not covered – and that number will outnumber the combined T population of the gay-only-law states. But not by 25 million. And then there's the 'D' factor. What's that? Its something I'm referring to as the actual, practical likelihood of being discriminated against. If you can be honset with yourself (something seemingly absent in the Aravosis camp), you'll know that trsns people are much more likely to be discriminated against (and many of us live in fear of discrimination by the very class of elites that are most salivating over a gay-only ENDA.) Is it a factor of two? Five? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? Taking whatever D factor you might be willing to acknowledge into account, not only will the number of uncovered non-trans GLBs not outnumber trans people by the gazillions that Aravosis wants you to see - but very possibly we will outnumber them. The bill is supposed to be about protection, after all. What is more importasnt? Covering large numbers of people not-as-likely to be discriminated against? Or smaller numbers of people who are all-but-guaranteed to be discriminated against? Frankenvosisistic orthodoxy will brand that as idealistic. I say its reality - its simply not the reality that they face when they wake up each morning and go to work (or go to find work.) Certain conservaqueers are propagating the neo-myth that the proponents of trans-inclusion are sacrificing the ‘fly-over states’. Look at the list again: Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii and D.C. I’ve italicized the arguably-flyover states. Look at ‘em. I see a lot of italicizing. And I see a lot of people flying over a lot of states with gay rights laws (and, of those, only one is not trans-inclusive - Wisconsin.) Yes, the south is screwed – no way around it. And Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio (but, realistically, they're one or two liberal-leaning election cycles away from being able to get such laws done; Alabama? Not so much.) But don’t talk to me in general terms about fly-over states being sacrificed. It’s the Ts – everywhere – that are being sacrificed. Sacrificed for a lie. |
