The
term
“political
correctness”
has
been
so
overused
by
the
Rush
Limbaugh
crowd
in
recent
years
that
it
is
almost
devoid
of
meaning.
But
the
leading
gay
and
transgendered
rights
groups
proved
yet
again
that
being
P.C.
can
still
have
consequences
for
their
supposed
real-world
constituents.
Last
weekend,
the
board
of
the
nation’s
largest
gay
rights
organization,
the
Human
Rights
Campaign,
voted
against
the
interests
of
the
vast
majority
of
its
own
members
to
withhold
support
for
federal
workplace
protection
for
gays
unless
Congress
agrees
to
a
provision
covering
“gender
identity
and
expression.”
Until
the
rise
of
marriage
as
the
most
pressing
issue
in
our
movement
for
equality,
workplace
discrimination
and
the
federal
Employment
Non-Discrimination
Act
had
been
the
No.
1
priority.
Polls
show
longstanding
support
from
a
strong
majority
—
even
among
conservatives
and
Republicans
—
but
ENDA
has
never
passed
either
house
of
Congress,
though
it
came
one
vote
shy
in
the
Senate
in
1996.
ENDA
has
languished
even
as
gay-friendly
Democrats
controlled
at
various
times
the
House,
the
Senate
and
the
White
House.
Given
that
sorry
legislative
track
record,
it
is
mind-boggling
that
HRC
has
caved
into
trans
activists
and
other
groups
—
including
the
National
Gay
&
Lesbian
Task
Force
and
PFLAG
—
and
is
now
insisting
ENDA
should
be
passed
only
if
it
also
includes
protections
for
transgendered
people.
IF
HRC
AND
these
other
groups
have
their
way,
workplace
protection
for
gays
and
bisexuals
will
be
held
hostage
until
a
majority
in
Congress
(and
the
president)
agrees
to
protection
for
transgendered
employees.
This
“trans-jacking”
of
ENDA
is
wrong
politically,
legally
and
even
morally.
And
it’s
the
latest
sign
that
the
groups
at
the
supposed
helm
of
the
movement
for
gay
civil
rights
are
out
of
touch
with
their
constituents
and
sadly
adrift
when
we
need
them
the
most.
Matt
Foreman,
the
Task
Force
executive
director,
should
know
better.
As
head
of
the
Empire
State
Pride
Agenda,
New
York’s
gay
rights
group,
Foreman
accepted
a
civil
rights
bill
for
gays
in
that
state
even
though
trans
protections
weren’t
included.
In
a
statement
released
before
the
HRC
board
meeting,
Foreman
cried
“mea
culpa”
for
his
successful
New
York
strategy,
and
explained
his
newfound
resolve
on
ENDA
by
working
himself
into
a
policy
pretzel
that
would
make
John
Kerry
proud.
Without
the
compromise
Foreman
and
others
agreed
to
in
2002,
hundreds
of
thousands
of
gay
men,
bisexuals
and
lesbians
living
in
New
York
today
—
including
many
who
are
also
transgendered
—would
not
enjoy
civil
rights
protection
on
the
basis
of
their
sexual
orientation.
The
GOP-controlled
New
York
Senate
would
not
have
allowed
it,
and
Republican
Gov.
George
Pataki
would
not
have
signed
it.
The
same
is
true,
of
course,
in
Washington,
where
Republicans
a
lot
more
conservative
than
Pataki
are
in
charge.
REFUSING
TO
SUPPORT
ENDA
without
trans
protections
also
makes
no
sense
legally.
HRC
has
made
the
peculiar
claim
that
gay
people
sometimes
endure
discrimination
because
they
are
effeminate
men
or
butch
lesbians
and
won’t
be
protected
unless
ENDA
is
trans-inclusive.
But
they
have
not
offered
up
even
a
single
case
to
back
up
their
claim.
In
fact,
HRC
and
the
trans
activists
have
it
exactly
backwards,
and
they
know
it.
Courts
have
already
ruled
that
existing
federal
and
state
laws
that
protect
against
gender
bias
protect
transgendered
people.
Those
rulings
aren’t
universal,
but
they
offer
more
federal
protection
than
gays
currently
enjoy.
What’s
more,
if
ENDA
passed
without
explicit
protections
for
“gender
identity
and
expression,”
transgendered
people
would
still
in
many
cases
be
winning
newfound
workplace
rights.
Which
is
a
more
likely
scenario:
HRC’s
worry
that
a
gay
man
might
be
fired
by
a
boss
who
is
gay-friendly
but
nonetheless
intolerant
of
effeminate
men?
Or
an
anti-gay
boss
who
fires
a
male-to-female
transsexual
because
“he’s
a
faggot”?
A
transgendered
person
fired
for
being
perceived
as
gay
or
due
to
anti-gay
bias
would
be
protected
under
ENDA
even
if
it
only
adds
actual
or
perceived
“sexual
orientation”
to
federal
civil
rights
law.
BUT
BEYOND
THE
naïve
political
judgments
and
wrongheaded
legal
analysis,
hijacking
ENDA
for
transgendered
protections
is
downright
immoral.
If
legislation
can
be
achieved
that
wins
some
civil
rights
for
some
people
—
in
this
case,
almost
all
of
HRC’s
constituents
—
that
is
better
than
nothing.
Just
as
domestic
partner
registries
are
better
than
nothing,
civil
unions
are
better
than
DP
registries,
and
neither
should
be
sacrificed
indefinitely
until
gay
couples
can
marry.
If
HRC
and
the
Task
Force
are
right,
then
civil
rights
laws
for
African
Americans
and
women
should
have
waited
for
gay
rights
and
trans
protections
as
well.
And
existing
federal
hate
crime
laws
based
on
race
and
religion
shouldn’t
have
been
passed
until
they
could
be
amended
to
add
protections
based
on
gender,
handicapped
status,
sexual
orientation
and
(of
course)
gender
identity
and
expression.
Transgendered
people
in
opposite-sex
relationships
can
marry
under
the
existing
laws
of
many
states.
Should
they
be
denied
that
freedom
until
same-sex
couples
can
do
likewise?
Should
heterosexual
couples
be
prevented
from
marrying
until
same-sex
couples
can?
It
would
be
wrong
and
immoral
for
us
to
expect
others
to
be
treated
unfairly
until
we
are
treated
equally.
And
it
is
just
as
wrong
and
just
...