|
Gwen Smith
Friday, May 21, 2004
I HAD THE pleasure recently to walk up Rhode Island Avenue in Washington, D.C.,
and stand with several others in front of a large, glass-fronted building. In
my hand was a sign that said, simply, “Ten Years of Exclusion.”
The building we were standing in front of had a large, burnished aluminum
sign near the top — in the shape of an “equals” sign. Yes,
the building is the office of the Human Rights Campaign.
We were proud to stand outside that building, attracting the attention of
those behind the glass windows as well as many passers by. If anything, this
was nothing more than yet another skirmish in a battle that has been brewing
for a very long time; and a struggle that is heating up yet again.
It will be of no surprise to many that there has been a long history of bad
blood between the Human Rights Campaign and transgender rights activists. For
the last decade — as transgendered people have fought to be included
in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — HRC has stood firm to the
belief that adding “transgender” to this bill would weaken its
chances of passage.
The argument is that it is better to stick with political expediency than
wait for a future time when an all-inclusive bill would be accepted. After
all, we could simply attempt to include transgendered people later, or craft
a future bill to cover gender identity or expression.
Similar arguments have been made in regards to the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement
Act, the federal hate crimes bill. While “gender” is included within,
it is unclear if this will apply to transgendered people or not.
Some have said that it is best to just assume that it will rather than worry
about adding specific language that may make the bill harder to pass. Never
mind that neither the LLEEA or ENDA are going anywhere fast in a Republican-dominated
Congress.
OVER THE LAST decade many things have changed. Transgendered people have gone
from a blip on the radar screen of a relatively small number of queer rights
groups to being an accepted — if often under-served and misunderstood — part
of the larger community. The term “transgender” itself has gone
from obscurity to the mass media and, yes, the floors of Congress.
Yet while rights victories across the country have become vastly more inclusive
of transgender and gender variant inclusive language, transgender activists
have been told that a trans-inclusive ENDA is still as risky a proposition
as it was in 1994.
Now, information has come to me that shows why this remains the case within
the beltway, even while trans-inclusive change has happened across the country.
The answer is as simple as it is disturbing: The Human Rights Campaign itself
has been the roadblock.
A day before I stood in front of HRC’s swank offices, a sibling activist
visited the office of a member of Congress. The member was supportive of transgender
inclusion, but wondered out loud why HRC was not “on board” with
this. Over the course of the next day, more heard similar questions from Congressional
aides.
IT ISN’T CONGRESS that is so much resistant to trans-inclusive bills;
it is those we entrust to push for our rights in Washington, D.C. The tail
has been wagging the dog all along, as HRC keeps transgender-inclusive language
out of the offices of our legislators, rather than assisting in the education
of these same individuals on the need for such language.
In the week that followed this protest, even more damning reports began to
surface, including allegations that HRC had attempted to influence a trans-supportive
organization to change its stance toward trans inclusion.
The day of this protest in D.C., a Human Rights Campaign representative came
out to meet our protesters, and ask us inside and away from the public eye.
Amidst the platitudes and promises, it was mentioned that HRC was intending
to discuss whether it should support only transgender-inclusive bills in the
future at their August board meeting.
If this behavior doesn’t set well with you, then make your own stand.
When you are asked at Pride to contribute to HRC, decline. If you are a member,
do not renew.
Exclude yourself — and your money — from an organization that
chooses to exclude other members of your community. Let HRC know that if we
are indeed one community, then we only need one fully inclusive bill to cover
us all.
|
