Nov 02, 2007  | COMMENTS     

I WAS HOPING to write about something — anything — other than ENDA this week. But the stakes are too high to ignore what’s happening in Congress this week.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act emerged from committee as, essentially, two bills: the fully inclusive ENDA, and “ENDA light,” which cuts out all that pesky stuff about gender identity or expression. While a sizable majority of GLBT organizations put their weight behind the all-inclusive bill, it is the exclusionary version that is largely expected to continue on and maybe, just maybe, make it to President George W. Bush’s desk.

I’ve heard this crippled ENDA referred to as a “vanity bill.” The argument is that it serves only to make Barney Frank — its chief proponent who, nevertheless, is not a lead sponsor on this new bill — and the Human Rights Campaign look good fighting for gay rights.

Frank has definitely helped to make that seem to be the case, if you listen to him argue about how us big, bad trannies are working to prevent an old gay man like Frank from gaining rights. You see, he is standing up against these people who actually expect that those fighting for civil rights will wish to include more people, rather than fewer. Sounds like he would have been a dandy person to have around during the fight for the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s.

Make no mistake that if the bill makes it out of Congress, it will be vetoed. This is a president willing to shoot down the health of sick, impoverished children. You think he’ll let ENDA become law?

While I’m sure there are those at HRC who truly believe that an exclusionary path is the right one, I personally suspect that a quick victory will help keep the cash flowing to the coffers of an organization derided as the “Human Rights Champagne Fund.” Someone has to be paying the rent of that big, swanky D.C. office space, and I’m sure said someone prefers to see a return on their investment. Surely showing some movement on ENDA would go a long way, no?

THE LANGUAGE AROUND gender that exists in the full ENDA serves not only to protect those who transcend the boundaries of traditional definitions of man and woman in very big ways, but also to protect those who might simply be viewed as less than manly, or perhaps a bit lacking in the womanly department. In could be argued that an effeminate gay man is inferior to those who opt to be seen as gender normative in spite of their sexual orientation.

This bill, instead of taking a broad view of the GLBT community, would provide employment protections to the Larry Craigs or Barney Franks while leaving those less willing or able to try to secure a space in the ill-fitting pastiche we call “gender normative” out in the cold.

Those critical of such a stance claim that, indeed, their bill will protect you if you’re gay or lesbian no matter what.

SO THE IDEA seems to be to act as much like Frank as you can. Be a nice, straight man, at least in outward appearances, and don’t challenge any of the stereotypes. Be a man or, alternately, be a largely normative member of the feminine gender, and your rights as an employee are safe. If you cannot so easily fit in, well, we’ll just have to pick you up in a future bill, whenever that might come about.

Those of us who are transgender, however, cannot afford anyone’s vanity: we need jobs and we’re the most in need of discrimination protections. While people muck about over a non-inclusive ENDA, trans people face termination for being who they are on a regular basis and often find the job market discriminates against those not willing to fit neatly into a gender.

There is a very compelling argument that all gay or lesbian people would be helped by including “gender identity” in the bill. Loving another female might not be viewed as especially “womanly” by many, but this revised ENDA doesn’t seem to care much about that.

There are efforts underway to try to keep gender in the bill, perhaps as an amendment to the new bill. That is what we need to see happen — an expanded bill that protects all of us.

This isn’t a time for vanity. It is a time for equality.