Molly brought this to my attention this morning, and I have to say it surprises me not at all. I don’t know the backstory because I’ve been too busy playing nanny for the last few days, but I can guess what’s happening. Some will think that this is “good enough for now” and are willing to toss the tranny community under the bus in exchange for rights for ’regular’ gays now. Sigh. When will our side ever learn?
House Democratic leaders are strongly considering dropping anti-discrimination protections for transgender persons from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, after an internal Democratic head count on Wednesday found that the bill would likely be defeated if it included the trans provision, multiple sources familiar with the bill said.The current version of the bill calls for banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, terms that are defined in the measure to include gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender persons.
As of late Wednesday, it appeared likely that the trans provision would be removed, setting up a potentially divisive fight within gay activist circles over whether or not to support an ENDA bill that excludes trans people.
Sounds like the HRC is going to come down on the right side of this one, I hope they do.
But it here’s the question I have: is there a chance that either version has veto-proof support? I doubt that, although the Blade piece suggests I could be wrong. But in any case, what is gained from telling trannies to stay at the back of the bus? Legally, I’m not even sure such a watered-down version would hold up to a challenge from a transexual. That is, if a gay transexual is covered as a gay person but not a tranny, could they still be fired from their jobs by discriminating employers? I’m no legalist, but this seems like a pointless and stupid “compromise” that helps no one and makes our Dem Leadership look mushy and weak, again.
I guess I’m used to it by now.
Front page
Everyone
It seems to me that the problems with including trans-sexuals in the list is almost proof that the word needs to be there.
Mushy, weak, and trying to split hairs for their owners
By setting a precedent that one group of gays has less rights than another, it allows the introduction of a slippery slope: transgender less than “normal” G&L less than “normal” women less than “normal” men.
And then they get to throw color and religion into the mix too.
A heirarchy of employment rights “protecting” the most Serious
white males in the corporate structure.
It all works quite well for them, doesn’t it?
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
People
One group of people.
The thing is...
Bush will veto ENDA with or without trans protection, and there’s not enough votes for an override. So it’s always been a symbolic vote.
Not to say symbolism isn’t important — being willing to toss aside the most vulnerable members of the LBGT communities without even an attempt to line up more support sure sends a signal to the pro-bigotry side: we’re willing to cave even before things get serious.
Rather than cutting loose trans people without warning, Frank and company could have said, “hey folks we need more votes, go lobby your representatives.”
This isn’t “half a loaf is better than none,” this is “You can starve as long as I get mine.” And while a dozen major LGBT organizations are protesting this move, HRC is sitting quietly on its hands while it happens, despite repeated promises to support a trans-inclusive version — a promise that their president reiterated only two weeks ago at the largest trans conference in the country. See the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_GhTiBO8…
As far as waiting politely…
Did gays and lesbians “wait their turn” when they pushed for inclusion in civil rights legislation in the ’70s, when they were told doing so might harm efforts by racial minorities?
Did they “wait their turn” when they demanded funding for HIV/AIDS research and finding a cure for it get higher priority in the ’80s, when established groups felt that doing so would take badly-needed money away from other fatal diseases?
Did they “wait their turn” when they demanded that their rights be acknowledged and respected in the ’90s?
Did they “wait their turn” in 2003 when they pushed for marriage equality in the face of warnings that it could have a disastrous impact before a critical presidential election?
And color me cynical, but “we’ll come back for you later” hasn’t had a particularly good track record.
In New York and Maryland, trans people helped pass LBG anti-discrimination laws six years after being told to wait. Six years later they’re still waiting — and left to fend for themselves while LGB organizations focus on marriage equality.
In Barney Frank’s home state, LGB anti-discrimination laws were passed 17 years ago. Trans people are still waiting.
In Michigan, trans protections were dropped in order to pass LGB anti-discrimination laws passed 18 years ago. Trans people are still waiting.
Trans people have been in this fight a long time — if you haven’t heard about it, it’s because but it took 10 years before the LGB organizations would agree to let us take part in ENDA in 2004. If we’re that discriminated again within the queer community, just imagine how we’re treated by the general public.
Florida activist Nadine Smith put it aptly: “Like every minority group that has fought for basic rights, we will never win by the votes of our community alone. What we do have is the moral authority to call out to America to live up its ideals. We have the ability to call on our leaders and our fellow citizens to treat everyone equally under the law, to reject bigotry, prejudice and the discrimination and violence they breed.
To cut out, to throw out protection regardless of gender identity/expression is to cede that moral authority. It is to confirm for our political enemies that a dividing line within the human family is acceptable–the haggling about who is worthy and who is not is all that remains.”
But if any of this doesn’t convince you, think about this: omitting gender identity leaves a huge loophole to be exploited by careful bigots, e.g. “We didn’t fire you because you’re gay/lesbian, we fired you because you’re nelly/butch (or simply not masculine/feminine enough).”
As Martin Luther King Jr. said, in the long run it would be the arguments of our enemies, but rather the silence of our friends, that will be remembered.
thank you very, very much, Lena
for the little history lesson. i have had my own difficulties with the tranny community in the past (my take on the Michigan Women’s Festival and “Camp Tranny” has come down on both sides at different times in my life) but you make the case rather forcefully that there is no problem here, when it comes to knowing/doing what is right.
in a way, it’s sad we even need these sorts of laws. as Liberty is pointing out, how about the notion that people are people, and deserve to be treated as one equal group under the law? wow, how crazy.