No laughing matter
When is it OK to tell a gay joke? It depends on context, audience
advertisement
advertisement
OPINION
United ENDA’s exaggerations There is no evidence for claim that gays oppose incremental approach to rights.
Friday, October 26, 2007
IN THE RECENT debate over ENDA, it has frequently been said that “the community” solidly opposes the first-ever federal gay civil rights bill unless it includes transgender people.
The evidence for this surprising unity is the fact that more than 300 organizations have signed an online petition, available at UnitedENDA.org. “United ENDA,” the web site boasts, “effectively communicated the strong opposition of hundreds of organizations and millions of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.”
The correctness of an all-or-nothing approach to civil rights is not determined solely by the number of organizations or people who favor or oppose it. The strategy could be wrong even if everybody supported it; conversely, it could be right even if everybody opposed it. But in a society that values representative politics, claiming that you speak for millions of people lends moral authority and democratic legitimacy to your cause.
So is it true that United ENDA speaks for the community? The answer depends on which “community” we mean.
If we mean “the community of gay and trans activists” who lead organizations like the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, the answer is “yes.”
But they may not be representative.
But, it might be answered, they lead more than 300 organizations that collectively do represent millions of members of the community. To determine whether this might be true, I looked at the organizations listed on the United ENDA web site. The list is much less impressive than it first seems.
SOME OF THE groups are well-known players on the national stage, like the Task Force and Lambda Legal. The vast majority are obscure local and state groups. One is called “Coqsure,” described online as a “social group” in Portland, Ore., “for people who were born or raised female who don’t presently identify as totally female.”
Missing from the list is the largest and most influential gay political group, the Human Rights Campaign. There are no gay Republican organizations listed, yet more than 25 percent of gay people regularly vote Republican in national elections.
The list is padded. The National Stonewall Democrats are there, but so are a dozen of the group’s state and local chapters, including both the Colorado chapter and that chapter’s “Transgender Caucus.”
There are about 10 million gay Americans, of whom perhaps 7.5 million are adults. How many of them are “represented” by the United ENDA signatory groups?
One way to determine that is by asking how many active members the groups have. Unfortunately, membership figures are mostly unavailable and are often inflated when they are available. Membership in the listed organizations also overlaps.
The active membership of most of these groups, especially the more than 70 transgender groups listed, is probably tiny. Even many of the gay groups aren’t very large. The Houston GLBT Political Caucus, for example, “representing”
gays in a metropolitan area of more than 4 million people, regularly attracts fewer than 30 to its meetings.
LET’S ASSUME VERY generously that the 300 groups average 1,000 non-overlapping members each. That’s a total of 300,000 people — well short of “millions” and less than 5 percent of the 7.5 million gay adults in the country.
Do the listed groups even represent their own members? A fascinating recent article in the Blade about growing defections from the United ENDA front quoted gay Democratic activist Peter Rosenstein as saying that few of the 300 groups canvassed their members before taking a stand.
More than two-thirds of the United ENDA signatories appear to be headquartered in states or cities where gay people are already protected from discrimination.
I’m confident many members of the Harvard Transgender Task Force and the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club of San Francisco fully support making gay people in Mississippi wait until ENDA is ideologically pure, but they don’t speak for anyone outside their privileged precincts.
There is simply no good evidence for United ENDA’s claim that the community opposes an incremental approach to civil rights.
The
following comments were posted by our readers and were
not edited by the Washington Blade. We ask that you
treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will
be removed.
David Strand on 11/2/071:17 AM:
Have to add Professor Carpenter, as a Log Cabin Republican, you should be proud that the first politician in Minnesota to advocate for gender identity protections to be included in a statewide bill was Republican State Rep. Arne Carlson in 1975. He offerred an amendment to add language providing gender identity protections to a state bill to protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Neither the amendment nor the underlying bill it intended to amend passed the house, but this was the spark to Minneapolis adding language providing protection from discrimination on basis of gender identity to it's civil rights ordinance in 1975. So Mr. Carlson should be at least partically credited for the first passage of such protections anywhere in the Americas.
Arne Carlson, later serving as a Republican Governor here in MN, again filled an historic role by signing the first statewide law banning discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity. If GLBT Republicans out there knew this history, they might give more support to gender identity protections. After all, a Republican was the first politician to publicly support the idea!
David Strand on 11/2/071:04 AM:
Professor Carpenter, even in Texas, gender identity protections have been passed at the same time as sexual orientation in 2 communities in recent years--i.e. El Paso, Texas and Dallas, Texas, and gender identity has been added to an existing nondiscrimination ordinance in Austin, Texas which already included sexual orientation and to the Houston, Texas nondiscrimination policy covering Houston's municipal employees.
Bills in the Texas state legislature now covering both sexual orientation and gender identity and have gained support.
The same is true in other states across the south including state bills in North Carolina and Louisiana where odds are seen as strongest for being the first southern states to add such protections.
jeri_hughes on 10/30/075:27 PM:
stephen, the difference is that i make no reference to the "gays" "and their allies" as if they were a seperate entity. i want the world for my gay brothers and sisters - they are me, and i am them. goo-goo-ga-joob LOL if this issue were not so tragic, i really would laugh at the stupidity of it all. the movement has taken a serious step backwards over this mess, and it should have never happened.
stephenclark on 10/30/074:53 PM:
jeri, I agree that the "selfish" remark was out of line. (But see the similar "you, you, you!" remark in your first post here.) I read both as exasperation.
jeri_hughes on 10/30/074:17 PM:
No Stephen, actually I wait until they make a statement like “I’m tired of transgender activists and their allies” or “I really resent transgender people for being so selfish” or “Who needs christian conservative activists when transgender people and their allies are doing their work for them?” ……….
stephenclark on 10/30/071:58 PM:
jeri, with much respect, it seems as though you regard anyone who disagrees with UnitedENDA as a hatemonger or a bigot. "Truth Monger" was angry and needlessly blunt, but much of what he said was legitimate criticism. Not everyone who is exasperated at UnitedENDA's strategy of torpedoing a gay-rights bill is, for that reason, an anti-trans bigot. I know I'd like nothing better than to enact a version of ENDA that is even stronger than the one UnitedENDA supports. Heck, I'd mandate insurance coverage for sex reassignment as well as targeted employer outreach to trans job applicants. But we apparently don't have the votes for even UnitedENDA's version. Given that reality, we face a really anguishing dilemma about how to proceed in the next couple of years.
jeri_hughes on 10/30/071:00 PM:
hey dale, hatemonger understands your position. somehow, i doubt that it makes you feel comfortable.
Truth Monger on 10/30/0712:08 PM:
Finally an article that makes perfect sense. I'm tired of the transgender activists and their allies claiming that the majority of us do not support a non-trans inclusive ENDA. That's bull*?&@!. I fully support a sexual orientation only ENDA if that is all we can get passed at this time. Better to protect as many of us a possible now than hold out protection for all of us! That doesn't mean we have to abandon pushing for a transgender provision later at the federal level.
I really resent transgender people for being so selfish about the rest of us getting protection now if we can just because they can't. Who needs christian conservative activists when transgender people and their allies are doing their work for them?
Dale Carpenter on 10/30/0710:13 AM:
David, I teach in Minnesota but am a native Texan. I have spent most of my life there. I love Minnesota but it is in many ways anomalous. In Texas, there are no employment antidiscrimination protections for the approximately 400,000 gay people living there. The state is unlikely to protect gays or transgenders from such discrimination for a very long time. Without a federal bill, there will be no protection for them or for gay people in many other states for the foreseeable future. Barney Frank, whose bona fides in congressional vote counting are much better than mine or I suspct yours, has said the bill is many votes short with "gender identity" included. Congress is not like the relatively liberal states where T protections have passed. So beware extrapolating the Minnesota experience to the rest of the country.
Brilettt on 10/30/078:24 AM:
Stephen:
I find it odd that you say casting blame is unwelcome - then cast blame on all of the organizations. And in beltway fashion use the pox on both your houes meme to support those in power. It's important to hold Frank accountable because it affected me & many people in my state. It's important because it's an ongoing pattern of behavior going back decades. It's important because it's our history - and it's important because it informs people outside of our community who don't know this history why some of these things happen. It's important because it helps change the power dynamic around this piece of legislation - Frank isn't even on the committee - but he's cotrolling the process. It's important because as John Adams said, "Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast
views beyond the comprehension of the weak." They must be disabused of that notion.
I say nothing that is not supported in writing by two sources regarding PA Reps - by very well respected people (who aren't transgender - not that this should matter). The right wing would have pushed for what their base wanted and not given a damn about what people thought of them. Though - they should laugh at the amatuer hour fostered by Frank & HRC.
stephenclark on 10/29/077:55 PM:
Brilett, what I said was that I fail to see how antagonizing Frank is productive. He isn't going to go away as an influential player. I also said UnitedENDA deserves "a share" - not all - of the blame. Both sides have allowed this controversy get completely out of hand. Frank and Pelosi deserve some blame for their fast-tracked, surprise revision. Lambda deserves special condemnation for churning out pretextual legal arguments to deliberately cloud the issues. HRC deserves blame for being inscrutable and defensive. UnitedENDA deserves blame for its unsuccessful "shock and awe" campaign, which erased the plight of Mississippi GLBs, disingenuously claimed unity behind its views, and tried to silence dissent with insinuations of bigotry. There is plenty of blame here. But the finger-pointing does nothing to help figure out how to proceed. I don't know what the answer is. I suggested that pragmatists agree to a specifically time-limited postponement of ENDA for one Congress in exchange for a commitment not to continue holding Mississippi GLBs hostage indefinitely beyond that, but David, for one, rejected that outright. I've elsewhere suggested enactment of a much narrower bill - H.R. 2232, addressing only federal employment - which would not undermine the pressure for a fuller ENDA, but no one has seemed interested in that. I guess we'll just take sides and lob names, hot rhetoric, and accusations at each other while the religious right sits back and laughs.
stephenclark on 10/29/077:31 PM:
This dialogue has been productive because it has begun moving beyond the pretexts offered by Lambda Legal. The talk here has been about politics and principles. As I see it, we have a fundamental split between idealists and pragmatists. Idealists, like David, would say that morality requires that we withhold job protections from GLBs in Mississippi, etc. as long as necessary - even if that means another decade or more - in order to ensure that trans protections are enacted simultaneously with gay protections at the federal level. Pragmatists, including me, would say politics is about compromise, achievability, and incrementalism and that if we can get job protections for GLBs in Mississippi, etc. soon, we should, even if we can't yet get job protections for Ts and have to add that in a future revision of ENDA. That's the tough choice, and it won't go away until public support for T equality grows to the level of support for GLB equality. Idealists are viewing a gay-only version of ENDA as the final product, never to be revised again. But because all the current versions have significant compromises - such as not requiring equal benefits for gay partners - any current version of ENDA will have to be revised for other reasons. Because I'm not confident that a delay of one Congress would be adequate for an inclusive version to pass - and neither, apparently, is David - I take the incremental side. I wouldn't make Mississippi GLBs wait for a decade. That's too great a sacrifice.
Brilettt on 10/29/075:11 PM:
"Frank, Kennedy, and others have been saying since at least 2004 that this covert-piggyback strategy wasn't going to work. But proving that you can't tell an ideologue anything, the executive directors who've joined UnitedENDA plowed ahead anyway. If a bill can't pass in PA"
===================================
Stephen - Frank is the person responsible for a covert approach. It was his choice to not have transgender people testify on the bill, it was his choice back in December to ask groups to NOT do an educational push and now it's been him personally undermining efforts.
Reps in PA have reported back that right after Frank sent out his press release in support of the Baldwin amendment he was telling them to NOT support it. He certainly was undermining it the weeks before that publicly. If you don't think that has an effect on local legislators, you're incredibly naive. They are quoting Frank when they state their concerns that led them to postpone this for now.
And Stephen - if you're going to claim special knowledge in DC related matters - give those of in PA the same consideration. We know what's happening here and what HAS happened here. When the Gender ID bill only in Philly passed in 2002 - there was only one person that the PA Family Association quoted to support their opposing the bill.
That person was Barney Frank. This makes the second time he's screwed this state over on a local civil rights bill. He needs to stay away. No more fundraisers here for you.
jeri_hughes on 10/29/0712:43 PM:
Congressman Frank has never been criticized for seeking rights for individual segments of our community, but he has been subjected to and deserves criticism for dividing our community. Congressman Frank is promoting the exclusion of a faction of the GLBT community as a politically expedient maneuver to gain privilege for the others. This is not “incremental” rights – it is political segregation. Those who would support or endorse this tactic are actively stating that the transgender population is somehow not ready for or deserving of equal rights, and must be left behind. Whether this is stated intentionally or inadvertently, it remains a statement of prejudice and bigotry. The fact that Congressman Frank and Speaker Pelosi and HRC instituted this maneuver at the eleventh hour without consulting the leaders of our movement nationwide is the true cause for the controversy. The negative impact can be easily validated. Dale Carpenter is now promoting that some of our leading organizations are not actually representing large segments of our community, and that many of these organizations are inflated in the number of their members. I am certain that our enemies will be happy to repeat his arguments. ENDA without one letter has become the end.
stephenclark on 10/29/0710:14 AM:
David, you have put your finger precisely on the key issue here. While trans protections have been passing in major cities on their own recently, they have been approved separately at the state level in only the most liberal states in the union. Gender identity has passed in less liberal places only as a low-profile piggyback on a gay-rights bill. Everyone at UnitedENDA should have realized, however, how much harder it would be to similarly slip gender identity past Congress as compared to a state legislature, just as they should have realized that what worked for a hate crimes bill wouldn't necessarily work when the focus turned to regulating private employers. Before getting so sanctimonious about Barney Frank - and you'll have to explain to me how that is constructive - you ought to criticize the naivete of groups who thought gender identity could just pass unnoticed, particularly given the gotcha partisanship in Washington. Frank, Kennedy, and others have been saying since at least 2004 that this covert-piggyback strategy wasn't going to work. But proving that you can't tell an ideologue anything, the executive directors who've joined UnitedENDA plowed ahead anyway. If a bill can't pass in PA, give UnitedENDA its share of blame for creating a firestorm of publicity. When your strategy depending on people not noticing, it might not have been a great idea to do that.
stephenclark on 10/29/079:57 AM:
David, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think you have answered my question. No, you will not commit to supporting a gay-only version of ENDA in the next Congress if a trans-inclusive one still can't pass then. If that is correct, then you, like Lambda, are indeed willing to hold gay Mississippians (and gay Michiganders) hostage for however many years or however many Congresses it takes to pass an inclusive bill, even if that entails yet another decade of waiting. That's ideological purity. And that's divisive.
jeri_hughes on 10/29/079:55 AM:
the glb and the trans community have a lot more in common than they have in opposition. as mssr. strand stated, to "outsiders" we are all equally "queer".
the glbt movement is not about gay marriage, or transgender employment, or the right of lesbians to adopt children. it is about EQUAL rights for ALL. .
in many ways, the law is only symbolic. if you don't want to hire a transgender individual, you most probably wont hire an effiminate gay man or masculine woman either. how would that be possible if ENDA was inclusive and the law was finalized by the executive branch? an employer could provide another reason for why they wouldn't hire you - there is always a way to defeat the law. what the law WOULD do is state for the record that it is not PROPER to discriminate on that basis. the law would set a standard for PROPER behavior. as edmond burke once stated, "good manners are more important than good laws."
we want the public at large to accept that we are every bit as human as they are. we want a marriage that is same-sex to be EQUAL to all others. we want opportunities that are EQUAL to those given to others. that being the case, we had better recognize that the members of our own community deserve every right that we do. we are fighting for EQUALITY - not gay rights, lesbian rights, bi-sexual rights, or transgender rights. our fight for EQUALITY is what has united us, and given us the moral high ground. surrender that ground at your own peril. - united ENDA
David Strand on 10/29/074:19 AM:
I also want to make it clear that as a gay man who has faced clear cases of job discrimination on more than one occassion when residing in Michigan where there was no state or local law banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, I don't feel it is the right strategy or morally right to pass the law without gender identity also being included. The damage to the community is far more damaging than the short term political gain of passing a bill through the house this year which likely won't pass the Senate and if it does the president has vowed to veto it and we know there are not enough votes to override the president's veto. So why damgae and divide the community any further? I would suggest that this debate has already undermined the likelihood that PA will pass a nondiscirmination law this year which was nearly a foregone conclusion before Frank made his divisive move. Now, the PA bill, which is inclusive, is not moving forward as the national conversation is causing supportive legislators to take a more cautious approach. We were on a roll this year passing inclusive bills in 3 more states and adding gender identity to sexual orientation protections in VT until this controversy erupted. United we are stronger, not weaker. Recent polls show about equal percentages of the public support nondiscrination laws covering gender identity as support laws covering sexual orientation. Frank's scapegoating of the trans community doesn't wash with the facts.
David Strand on 10/29/073:55 AM:
Steve, more than 70% of the freshmen Democrats are cosponsors of the original trans inclusive ENDA including Rep. Tim Walz from MN who replaced a socially conservative Republican. I find the argument about freshmen Democrats a canard. Rep. Jim Ramstad from MN has announced his retirment and is likely to be replaced by a glbt supportive Democrat. Rep. Jim Oberstar of MN never cosponsored ENDA but has publicly proclaimed his support for a trans inclusive bill as had sufficient number of other congressman from the Dems and Reps to pass the bill. The tragic thing is that if Frank had not sold out the existing trans inclusive ENDA, most freshmen Dems clearly would have voted for it. They are however leery of voting on transgender rights in isolation as represented in the Baldwin amendment. Perhaps anti-trans Republicans will succeed in adding gender identity to the bill by voting for the amendment to "kill the bill" in their minds much as did when the supported adding "sex" to the 1964 civil rights law. To their amazement it passed anyway. I think trans protections would too.
David Strand on 10/29/073:43 AM:
Oh yeah, New Mexico and Maine also passed a trans inclusive "gay rights bills" since 2002. I didn't want to leave any of the states out. Also since 2001, 5 of the 12 states which had initially passed laws only covering sexual orientation have added gender identity including Rhode Island, California, New Jersey, Vermont, and Hawaii(DC has also added gender identity). Many major cities have also extended protections on the basis of gender identity that already covered sexual orientation including NYC.
stephenclark on 10/29/0712:44 AM:
David, I hope your speculation about the future is correct, but with respect, I believe it is Pollyannaish at the federal level, for reasons I've explained. We already made the Faustian bargain: Many of us supported moderate and conservative Democrats in marginal districts in hopes of taking control of Congress. Well, we got control, but we got it through the election of moderate and conservative Democrats in marginal districts. If you want a trans-inclusive ENDA, stop sending GOP members to Congress from Minnesota, which makes us have to rely on moderate and conservative Dems from Arkansas or Nebraska for control. And if you can't do that, then stop demanding that vulnerable non-Minn. Democrats ignore their own vulnerabilities - and constituents. How about backing up your rosy forecasts with a commitment to acquiesce if you're wrong? If Frank-supporters agree to forego any bill this Congress, will you vow to support a gay-only bill next Congress if it becomes clear then that a trans-inclusive one still can't pass? If your answer is no, like Lambda's would be, then you are effectively saying you are prepared to hold gay Mississippians hostage for the foreseeable future, and that next Congress, we'll just get the same Pollyannaish forecasts for the Congress after that or the one after that. Indefinite postponement is too high a sacrifice to exact. So will you back up your rosy speculation by accepting a set time-limit that gives gay Mississippians some hope of help soon?
David Strand on 10/29/0712:06 AM:
Further, I beleive it is critical to learn from our community's mistakes as Matt Foreman, current executive director of NGLTF, so eloquently discusses in his missive about what he learned from the battle with the New York legislature over trans inclusion in what became New York's "sexual orienation only" bill, the only bill only covering sexual orientation only passed by any state since 2001. At the time, Matt was executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda. All the other states to pass such laws since 2001 have included gender identity as well as sexual orientation, i.e. Iowa, Colorado, Oregon, Illinois, and Washington. Even new local ordinances being passed have tended to be trans inclusive in recent years as in Dallas, Texas. I believe in the next congress we will be able to pass a trans inclusive ENDA if we work for it. I don't believe passing a sexual orientation "only" ENDA through this house this session is helpful towards passing inclusive legislation next session as Frank claims. Furthermore as the Congress represents U.S. citizens, the majority of U.S. citizens support banning discrimination on both the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in similiar numbers. Let's not forget that to everyone else, we are all as "queer" as some gays percive transpeople to be and some transpeople percieve gay people to be.
David Strand on 10/28/0711:52 PM:
Odd that Carpenter overlooks the one glbtiq organization which has the largest membership of any glbtiq organization in the country- PFLAG Interesingly, Proferssor Carpenter is odd man out(excuse the pun) in his home community of Minneapolis which was the second jurisdiction in america to pass a local ordinance extending nondiscrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation(Ann Arbor, Michigan was first) and simultaneously, at urging of activists, protected people from discrimination on the basis of gender identity. In this sense, Carpenter's analysis(as well as Barney Frank's) are ahistorical. They both overlook the fact that trans inclusion has been an issue from the very beginning of the movement and is preserved in the first "glbti" inclusive law passed a little over 33 years ago. As Minneapolis went so went the rest of Minnesota first in the suburbs and other parts of the state such as Duluth and eventually statewide in 1993 becoming the first statewide law to protect people from discrimination on both the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The faustian bargain of Frank and congressional leaders is then particularly tough here in Minnesota where g and l and b and t and i for that matter have not ever really been seperated, so much so that the same word in local ordianances and state law is used to cover both forms of discrimination.
stephenclark on 10/28/074:13 PM:
My view is that if I were convinced that linking gender identity to sexual orientation would delay passage of ENDA by only a couple of years, I'd endorse the linkage.
But I'm more skeptical. I think we're probably looking at more like a decade before public attitudes have moved enough that members of Congress won't fear electoral retribution for supporting a bill that regulates how private employers must accommodate transitioning employees and handle restroom disputes, etc.
Because I'm more skeptical about how much delay we're talking about here, my view is asking gay Alabamans to wait another decade, after lobbying for three decades already, is asking too much of one's LGB allies for too great a sacrifice.
What would contribute greatly to good will in this debate would be greater acknowledgement of the sacrifice being asked of gay Kansans and West Virginians for solidarity, alongside fewer insinuations of transphobia when some LGB people reasonably conclude that another decade of delay is just asking too much.
While UnitedENDA does a terrific job of highlighting the plight of trans workers, it has steadfastly refused to acknowledge that it is asking for any sacrifice from LGB people in states without protective laws. Indeed, it has tried its best to erase the plight of LGB Mississippians or Utahans who are stuck in closets or suffering in hostile work environments.
What we hear instead is browbeating and insinuations of prejudice.
stephenclark on 10/28/074:03 PM:
Brilett, "best _possible_ legislation" is code for "do not vote against a bill if gender identity can't be included." Given all the accusations and insinuations of transphobia surrounding this issue, that's the kind of euphemistic language you're going to see.
You misunderstand my point about DC. It isn't the location of the headquarters. It is that the DC groups, in everything they do, have to work with DC's House Delegate and strategize about what law reforms in DC are feasible given political realities in Congress, which can override any reforms passed in DC. Those groups, for example, have also deferred marriage legislation in DC based on their assessment that Congress would override it and set back the movement, a position with which I also agree.
As for other cities and states, yes, the trans-rights movement has made tremendous progress in the last half decade in securing protections in a handful of states and, perhaps more impressively, in a number of the largest cities in the country. At the same time, however, those are milestones achieved by the gay-rights movement a decade or two ago. It highlights the fact that the public is not yet as advanced in its understanding of trans issues.
Similarly, the first openly gay, leading character on prime-time TV was Ellen, nearly ten years ago. We haven't yet had one of the big 3 networks give us the trans equivalent. Things like Transamerica and ordinances are very positive indicators, but there's a time-lag here.
Brilettt on 10/28/0712:52 PM:
Stephen:
I think the reporting on Gertude Stein is not correct - please see their web site:
http://www.steindemocrats.org/2007/10/stein_club_affi.php#more
I don't see how finding one group that supports your stance supports the argument Dale makes. And the appeal to supposed authority due to GLAA geography denies the experience many of us have in passing local & statewide bills. It also ignores all of the other DC based groups that have joined United ENDA - I'm guessing here - but about 30 DC based national groups?
The GLAA specifically states on it's web site that it is not a national group & does not lobby on anything but local issues. To use them as an appeal to authority to shore up this argument does seem a stretch.
I would also suggest folks look at the GLAA FAQ to see if they use the words lesbian, transgender or bisexual in describing their work or the community & look at the composition of their leadership.
stephenclark on 10/27/078:18 PM:
Brilett, both DC's Getrude Stein Democratic Club and its Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance have alligned themselves with Barney Frank. See http://www.washblade.com/2007/10-19/news/localnews/11408.cfm . Because Congress hovers over DC with the power to overturn its law, these groups have more experience than just about any other LGBT group, save HRC, with the realities of congressional politics. See the GLAA's statement, pledging support for "the best bill that Congress can pass," with or without gender identity. http://www.glaa.org/archive/2007/glaasupportsenda1021.shtml
Brilettt on 10/27/0712:02 PM:
There is simply no good evidence for United ENDA’s claim that the community opposes an incremental approach to civil rights.
===========================
Let's accept your arguments that these groups aren't particularly large or don't represent every member of their particular group.Your inability to name even one group that doesn't support the inclusive legislation invalidates your own argument on your own terms. Even HRC is clear in their words (if not their deeds) that they only support inclusive legislation.
The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. Perhaps you should try and gain groups to support your point of view - if you're right - you should have over 300 signed on in 2 weeks.
Dale Carpenter on 10/27/0711:05 AM:
Marti Abernathy will need to provide some support and context for the claim that the Equality Federation "represents" 500,000 people. The groups that make up the Federation are very important and do good work for gay equality. But I'm not aware the national umbrella group even makes this membership claim, much less that the claim is documented.
Even if the Equality Federation has 500,000 members, were they polled on this issue? Equality California, probably the largest and most successful state-wide group, did not poll its members. That's not the word of Peter Rosenstein, but of Equality California director Geoff Kors.
Also, the Equality Federation is another example of "padding" the list, since both the Federation and many -- though interestingly not all -- of its state chapters are listed.
By the way, the full version of this op-ed is available at http://ebar.com/columns/column.php?sec=outright.
Finally, thanks to Stephen Clark for making very good and substantive points in an environment that is becoming characterized by super-hot rhetoric.
stephenclark on 10/27/074:03 AM:
ZoeB is good at offering incendiary rhetoric, but not so good at backing it up with facts or qualifying it with fair acknowledgments. I'm not aware of any proposal in Wisconsin or Massachusetts at the time their gay-rights bills were enacted (1983 & 1989, respectively) to include "gender identity." So I fail to see how anyone was "thrown off the bus" in those cases, nor does ZoeB explain who, exactly, is "never allow[ing them] back on." ZoeB also fails to offer any of the supposed "plenty of evidence" that "a significant and influential portion of the GLB movement" (whatever that means) supported killing Barney Frank's bill. What we do know is that DC groups, based on a canvassing of their members, chose to support Frank. Lastly, ZoeB does not acknowledge that a trans-or-nothing strategy would probably mean that there would be no laws for G, L, B, or T today in Wisconsin, Massachusetts, or New York. No, the result in New York was not the most desirable outcome; trans-inclusion would have been. But there was no way then to achieve that best result. As Matt Foreman then recognized as director of Empire State Pride Agenda, the SONDA we got was the best achievable and was a great accomplishment after 3 decades of lobbying. It is extremely frustrating that the movement for trans rights is so many years behind the gay-rights movement in educating the public. But that is a fact that Barney Frank can't wave a wand and change.
Marti Abernathey on 10/26/0711:15 AM:
Your numbers are way off. The Equality Federation by itself represents over 500k people. If you want to talk about inflated membership numbers, go talk to HRC. Their financials never balance out with the number of members they have.
you quote Peter Rosenstein? The guy called for removal of transgender people back in, what, May? Hardly an objective source.
Btw, your rhetoric is showing. Waiting till 2009 isn't making anyone "wait." ENDA will not pass the Senate, and if by some miracle it did... the President has promised a veto.
jeri_hughes on 10/26/079:27 AM:
your "opinion" is twisting and turning and looking for a way to discredit those who would keep the GLBT community united. i can deduce by your "opinion" that you would personally choose to leave a segment of the GLBT community behind. you obviously don't identify with the T, and so you feel no moral obligation to stand united when you can personally profit if you don't. and if it becomes advantageous to leave behind the bi-sexual community? or the lesbian? or the gay? LOL exactly who and what do you feel deserves to be defended? LOL you, you, you! dismantle our community at your own peril!
civil rights is not about determining what is different about people, or making them validate the humanity we share. civil rights is about recognizing all that we have in common, and ensuring that all are afforded basic opportunities to live their lives with simple dignity. there is nothing incremental about the word all.
ZoeB on 10/26/078:57 AM:
If Professor Carpenter's thesis is true, then surely there would be a significant number of groups that would have said so? Well, how about one?
In fact, there is plenty of evidence that a significant and influential portion of the GLB movement *does* oppose an incremental approach. Just not in the way he means.
I quote Chris Crain, when asked about his intentions after a trans-exclusive bill was passed:
"I also don't buy into the notion that we owe it to you to work as hard for trans-ENDA as our own. Where the hell does that come from?"
It is this attitude that the community is revolted by, and thus presses for an ENDA that covers everyone. There have been far too many cases - Wisconsin and Massachusetts for example - where T's once thrown off the bus are never allowed back on.
Everyone knows what happened in New York with SONDA. But not everyone agrees that this was a desirable outcome.
