Vanity, thy name is ENDA Gays would benefit from gender identity provision in non-discrimination bill.
Friday, November 02, 2007
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.
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.
marc_salomon on 11/8/074:06 PM:
This victory was not accomplished at the expense of anyone. It was the culmination of decades of work to get to this point. Trans folks need to launch that concerted campaign on this point if they wish to see similar legislation for them pass. Blaming others for your unsuccessful organizing won't round up the votes nor will raining on the LGB parade endear trans folks to LGB for future alliances. It is not like we were not where you are, in the political wilderness, for decades until yesterday, and that we don't empathize with trans. The game has to be played and the game has rules. One of those rules is that you can't win by shaming your allies.
jeri on 11/8/078:55 AM:
3685 passed in the house! i was just talking about how equality will be attained if we stay united. as much as i want discrimination to end against gay men and women, i am deeply saddened by this victory. it was accomplished at the expense of the transgender community. i FEEL a separation now, an exclusion, and i don't know if all of the support that united enda offers can even be accepted. lost of trust is not something that can just be found - it has to be created anew. for the time being, i am not going to sit on my hands. it is time that we stop worrying about the GLB community and focus our efforts on securing human rights for ourselves.
jeri on 11/7/0710:30 AM:
legislation is great, because it sets guidelines but it is not the end all solution to prejudice and bigotry. (BTW, i am presently unemployed) what is important is that the GLBT community remains united behind the cause of equality and basic human rights. we can demand it, and we will attain it - if we stay united. as a single voice, no letter within GLBT has the numbers or the moral argument to demand change specifically for themselves.
jeri on 11/7/0710:14 AM:
Washington-District of Columbia: here is some legislation that was passed on the East Coast.(BTW, HRC did not play a role in this)
TITLE 4 CHAPTER 8 COMPLIANCE RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION -----
800 Purpose -----
800.1 In order to meet the obligations to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression as set forth in the Act, the Office and the Commission adopt this chapter for the following purposes:-----
(a) To implement the provisions of the Act regarding discrimination based on gender identity or expression in employment, housing, public accommodations, or educational institutions, including all
agencies of the District of Columbia government and its contractors;------
(b) To provide guidance with regard to the requirements of the law to all employers, housing providers, businesses, organizations, educational institutions, and District government agencies and
contractors in seeking compliance with the law; ------
(c) To educate the public on the behaviors, conduct, and actions that constitute unlawful discrimination based on gender identity or expression; ------
(d) To ensure that transgender people are treated in a manner that is consistent with their identity or expression, rather than according to their presumed or assigned sex or gender; and -----
(e) To guide the internal processing of complaints filed with the Office or cases heard by the Commission. -----
David Strand on 11/7/074:33 AM:
Am I wrong or is this anti-trans thing an east coast thing? Since 1999 when Neveda passed a sexual orientation only bill, every state west of New York & Maryland, other than Nevada and Wisconsin(which passed it's statewide law in 1982) have either added gender identity to an existing state law banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as did California and Hawaii have done or had or did pass bills inclusive of both sexual orientation and gender identity as happened in Minnesota, New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Iowa, and Illinois.
Meanwhile, in the east, Maryland and New York passed sexual orientation "only" bills in 2001 and 2002 and Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire continued their exclusive ways.
Granted Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey and the District of Columbia have succeeeded in amending existing laws to include gender identity and Maine passed gender identity at the same time as sexual orientation.
Every state bill introduced last year from North Carolina, Texas, Montana, Pennsylvania (and in Iowa, Colorado, and Oregon which all passed) the bills were inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity accept when you get to Deleware.
Why?
Is it something about the lesser formality in the west both inside and outside the workplace that makes the culture more accepting of gender variance?
I find it interesting that the map is so lopsided and wonder what the cultural reasons may be for this.
David Strand on 11/7/074:16 AM:
That the City of Minneapolis supports a fully inclusive Employee Non-Discrimination Act, including gender identity protections.
Be It Further Resolved that the City of Minneapolis calls on Congress to follow Minneapolis’ decades of leadership by including gender identity as one of the classes protected against job discrimination.
Passed November 2nd, 2007
_____________________________________
Barbara Johnson, President of the Council
Approved:
_____________________________________
R.T. Rybak, Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________________
Merry Keefe, City Clerk
I'm proud of my current home town for passing this ordinance supporting an inclusive ENDA. They also instructed their intergovernmental relations staff to lobby for inclusion of gender identity not only in ENDA but in future similiar bills addressing discrimination.
Perhaps if other communities follow Minneapolis lead and express support for a trans inclusive bill, the level of support for a trans inclusive bill will be more aptly reflected by our congressional representatives if such debates and exlcusion should again arise in the future.
David Strand on 11/7/074:10 AM:
Resolution of the City of Minneapolis
Supporting a Fully Inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
Whereas, on April 24, 2007, Representatives Barney Frank, Chris Shays, Tammy Baldwin, and Deborah Pryce introduced H.R. 2015 supporting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which included gender identity as a protected class; and
Whereas, on September 27, 2007, Representative Frank introduced H.R. 3685, passed by the Education and Labor Committee on October 18, which was a version of ENDA that does not include gender identity as a class within its scope; and
Whereas, the City of Minneapolis played an historic role in the struggle for equal rights by passing the first civil rights protections for transgender people anywhere in the United States 33 years ago; and
Whereas, the City of Minneapolis was the second city in the United States to pass nondiscrimination protections for gay, lesbian and bisexual people; and
Whereas, three hundred and thirty-nine GLBTIQ organizations across the Country have called for a fully inclusive ENDA; and,
Whereas, the City of Minneapolis deeply believes in equality for all persons regardless of race, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, values our transgender employees, residents and visitors and believes they deserve the same protections against discrimination afforded to all other citizens,
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the city council of the city of Minneapolis;
Dyssonance on 11/6/077:48 PM:
Funny, that poll. The HRC commissioned it. TO do so, at the minimum, they would have had to act *before* Frank pulled the bill apart.
It was all a set up.
Kiss my ass, otherwise. Be *?&@!ing happy, and enjoy your self.
marc_salomon on 11/6/073:10 PM:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid50267.asp
According to a new poll, 70% of LGBT Americans prefer passing an Employment Non-discrimination Act that does not include transgender people over not passing the bill at all. The poll, commissioned by the Human Rights Campaign and conducted on October 26, surveyed 500 members of the LGBT community across the country
marc_salomon on 11/6/072:23 PM:
Words aren't just gangs of phonemes that you can throw around willy-nilly, words have semantics that are implicit in their usage:
Gender
Main Entry:
1gen·der Listen to the pronunciation of 1gender
Pronunciation:
\'jen-d?r\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English gendre, from Anglo-French genre, gendre, from Latin gener-, genus birth, race, kind, gender — more at kin
Date:
14th century
1 a: a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language...
2 a: sex b: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
Sex
Main Entry:
1sex Listen to the pronunciation of 1sex
Pronunciation:
\'seks\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Latin sexus
Date:
14th century
1: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures2: the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females3 a: sexually motivated phenomena or behavior b: sexual intercourse4: genitalia
marc_salomon on 11/6/071:14 PM:
Congress follows the middle ground of the states rather than going out in front of them. Few states have T protections. CA had LGB protections for 2 decades before T protections. NY has no T protections. The issue is not whether you "deserve" protections, rather whether you are willing to put protections for 25,000,000 on hold until you all do the successful political work required to prevail in Congress. I grew up in Texas as a gay kid in the 1970s and 1980s. I am fully aware of the discrimination that LGBT suffer in places like that, which is why I want to advance as many protections for as many as quickly as possible. Don't confuse serving up a healthy dose of political reality with hating you. You all continue to dig yourselves in deeper and deeper, ensuring that you have more and more work to do just to get back to ground level. In case you haven't noticed, whining does not round up the votes.
marc_salomon on 11/6/071:10 PM:
In 2000, I marched with the "freaks" at the HRC-instigated march on Washington against HRC assimilationism. I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the HRC. You are barking up the wrong tree there. Perhaps the mistake was yours in trusting the HRC to carry water for/with you. That doesn't mean that I won't accept the fruits of their successful labors. There is no evidence that the membership of the groups whose leaders comprise United ENDA would support no ENDA but ENDA+T, as those groups are not democratic and are mainly grant-supported nonmembership based advocacy groups. I did not urge Congress to oppose trans protections, that would have been bigotry. Had the votes been there, I would have applauded the passage of an inclusionary bill. This idea that unless I adopt exaggerated gender attributes that I am a heterosexist is simply bull*?&@!. I've fought for trans rights on healthcare and with my political party over the years. Just because I'm not willing to go over a cliff with you all does not make me transphobic, it makes me smart. Gender and sex are different. There are gender norms for the two sexes, the way you act per gender. But those norms have nothing to do with sex. Those norms are imposed as means of control, just like prohibitions on adultery are imposed for hets parallel to prohibitions on homosex. Homosexuality is something you do, not something you are. Trans is something you are. T was not introduced in congress until 2004.
Dyssonance on 11/6/072:23 AM:
And then you use the same speech as the enemy to describe your person as a choice. Brilliant.
Oh, and T was introduced at the state level in the early 1970's Marc. Again, your lack of knowledge is showing. And it was stripped then, for the exact same reasons as today. The animosity you are feeling is becuase its been that way for nearly 50 years, Marc. We work our asses off, and since we're pretty evenly split between gay, straight, and bi, we sorta include everyone. Then we get shafted, and our work appropriated (as in some of the attempts to rewrite Stonewall out there), and then we end up having to defend ourselves agianst the likes of you all over again.
Most of the LGB people out there are already aware of this. But not a few of you log cabinites.
Admit it, Marc. You're a transphobe. Hell, the Michigan Womyn's Festival at least does that -- and iirc, they support an inclusive ENDA.
Come to Phoenix, Marc. Seriously. Come with me as I go to place after place, filling out application after application.
I'm open and out, and I'm passable enough. Over a thousand applications, Marc.
40 something interviews that start and end with "are you like gay or something?"
Don't you *even* start to give me that bull*?&@! without expecting me to get in your face. Yeah, texas was tough, I know. Texas is always tough.
Get over it already. You've already admitted you've got it made yourself -- you don't have to worry about a job.
I do.
Dyssonance on 11/6/072:18 AM:
Why should I? At this point, it'll be 10 to 15 years before I can even think of seeing another federal level legislation.
You want Unity? HRC and only two other organizations against the rest of all the rainbow. Sorry -- I'll stick with UnitedENDA.
And we are organized -- have been for years. You've benefited from them, and never even knew it. You don't know jack about transhistory, either, or you'd know better than to say that.
Flagellate? No. But you'd do a damn sight better if you opposed this bill like most of the LGB population does. IN all my activism, in all my talks locally and abroad, online and in person, the only people I know of with views like yours are all, universally, transphobic.
Feels like crap to have the tables turned, doesn't it? TO suddenly not be the gay man being attacked by the religious right, but to be the religious right itself. Your entire meta-observation on the comments is off, but the sentiment shines through clearly.
You are even using the same arguments they use. Against you. Never occurred to you to wonder how easily they came to you, did it?
And I'm not redefining it to gender, you twit. Its *becuase* you have sex with someone of the same sex. That's not a gender normative behavior. That's crossing the lines. You are not heteronormative. That makes you a transgender person. You don't want the label, fine -- I don't want it either. I'm stuck with it though. Either way, its an assimilationist view on your part.
Dyssonance on 11/6/072:05 AM:
My invective damn well better make it clear to you how pissed off us "trannies" can get. Years to heal? We're still reeling from what you did to us with the marriage fight.
The corresponding T initiative *was* the HRC initiative. Lest you forget, the board at that time included a T. She quit when *she* was betrayed in person when they decided not to oppose the bill (and, in the end, have fully supported it).
It wasn't us who alienated anyone - it was franks and people like you -- the "acceptable", heterosexist twits who still hide themselves and live in open closets, blending in *almost* as well as we do. The HRC is rapidly losing all its capitol -- they've already lost the huge chunk of the Erikson funding, and pretty soon the only voice they'll be representing is yours and those others like you.
You aren't anymore transfriendly than those idiots who say "i know a few gay people and they don't support marriage equality" are gay friendly. Yeah, you might know a few,but that doesn't make you friendly.
I expect Barney Frank to lose reelection is what I expect. Yes. And I plan to personally work to help ensure it. You have no idea how much I want him to hurt as much as I do. Think that'll be a good thing or a bad thing? It won't matter to me -- getting a job isn't going to happen as long as there's no ENDA to protect me, and I know already he has no intention of introducing a trans inclusive bill in this or any other session.
Why should I care otherwise?
Dyssonance on 11/6/071:50 AM:
So it's my fault for relying on an organization that swore an oath not to do this *again*? For giving them a second chance?
In this case, yes you are responsible -- becuase we're not talking about my mistakes. We're talking about the intentional and purposeful action of one man and the intentional non-action of an organization that claims to support rights for all of equally.
I'm in, near, and around a school all the time. I have children to support. And ENDA+T *is* going to fall, you dolt. It doesn't even have a third of the votes needed to make it through the senate anymore. Which makes this partiuclar series of events strictly symbolic.
And the symbolism is that the T doesn't count.
DO I trust them now? No. Nor will I ever again. I've offered to go to Washington myself, to work on behalf of HRC. Wanna know what the response was?
You are right, it isn't the fault of them -- its the fault of one man. Most of those millions are part of Untied ENDA -- or hadn't you noticed that?
And the over 5 million of us have organized a sustained campaign to win rights, and we placed it in the hand Stop using Transgender as a code word for transsexuals, please -- there are over 5 million transgender folks in the nation, and a sizable portion of them are gay and lesbian that you are advocating screwing over.
Your bigotry is showing.
marc_salomon on 11/5/073:34 PM:
I thought this was a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered website? Are we prohibited from discussing issues related to LGBT? There is a link on this page titled "BITCH SESSION." What will the fundies think about THAT? Let me get this "straight," if lesbians and gay men don't act at the extremes of the gender appropriate for their sex, then we are assimilationist het wanna bes. If we use the terms we use to describe ourselves, then we are being vulgar. If we mention homosexual acts, then we are being inappropriate. These words get tossed around absent any semantics, and when words don't mean anything anymore, or when words can be construed to mean just about anything, then the basis for discourse has been eradicated.
jeri on 11/5/073:22 PM:
salomon, this is a PUBLIC forum. conversation involving explicit sexual activity is a more than a little bit off topic and frankly, very inappropriate. the evangelicals will undoubtedly quote you, so congratulations on your notoriety. i am not going to continue in this exchange - you are an embarrassment.
marc_salomon on 11/5/073:18 PM:
Jeri, it is demeaning for you to command that people cleave to your standards of language under pain of being attacked as being hateful. It is possible that United ENDA might have scared liberal democrats into voting against original ENDA. T was not included along with LGB at least here in SF until the early/mid 1990s. It follows that T did not make it into the national organizing campaign until somewhat after that. This was not due to hate, rather due to the fact that T had not begun to organize as T for T until then. This does not mean they were absent, simply not present as a coherent, organized interest group organizing for their rights. The divisions are not imposed. There are different political questions involved in advancing LGB rights than T rights. If the political questions were the same, then you'd have the votes in Congress, but you don't. Since you don't, and you are asserting one big happy LGBT community, then scuttling ENDA is nothing more than telling 25,000,000 of your community members to wait for the next bus which may not come for years or decades, until trans can rustle up bus fare. Far from me being a fundie, trans folks seem poised to do the work of the right wing for them--impede the imminent passage of a landmark gay and lesbian rights bill through the congress because it does not meet their PC test of inclusiveness.
jeri on 11/5/073:07 PM:
salomon, i don't use the words "fag" or "dyke" or "tranny" because they are demeaning terms. unlike yourself, it is not a part of my nature to demean. and i thank God that i am not like you.....if you want to talk about reality, the last time i looked no one was being held hostage. 3685 passed through the committee. but then again, i have to take into consideration that if you can't play the martyred victim you just aren't happy. get out that skateboard! LOL you are truly pathetic.....you constantly rely on inaccurate rhetoric to support your pathetic OPINION. "LGB organized for decades to win civil rights, T did not, relying on others to carry that weight." if it is only the LGB who have worked to get rights for 30 years, why do they profess to represent GLBT? wasn't the T always part of the community in one form or another? "Political maneuvering is holding the rights of 25,000,000 of your alleged allies hostage until you get your work done." who is doing this maneuvering? who are my alleged allies? why are they ALLEGED? how are they being held hostage? who is the YOU who has work to get done?...... divide and conquer - are you sure you are not one of those evangelicals in disguise? the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing? i know that you have more in common with those hate mongers than you do with me. i mean, after all, to them i am a just a tranny, too.
marc_salomon on 11/5/073:06 PM:
The other disturbing trend here is that one is an assimilationist if one does not deviate from gender norms but deviates from sexual norms. Assimilationism is a state of mind, not a state of being, just as homosexuality is a practice--men sucking dick, men having hot ass thumping sex, women licking clit, using dildoes on one another--not a status. My read is that so many professional homosexuals are so inured of their role in a community of other homosexuals that they have probably ceased having same sex experiences, preferring to socialize with congress members rather than engaging in any sort of sexual congress. That certainly is the case in San Francisco amongst LGBT activists, and I would be surprised if it weren't the case in DC. As Gore Vidal said, one does not exist as a homosexual, rather one engages in homosexual conduct.
marc_salomon on 11/5/072:27 PM:
If we're all the same, then I should be able to use the word "tranny" just as I'd use the words "fag" and "dyke." But when I use the word "tranny," it is an indication of hatred for trans folks. If you care claiming that I am advocating willfully trying or exclude trans folks from protections, then you're incorrect. The numbers are what the numbers are, and I'd prefer to bring protections to as many as possible rather than to hold off until everyone can be protected. Are you suggesting that we depend on government laws to judge one's humanity? I don't think that unaccountable leaders are capable nor legitimately empowered to make the call on delaying civil rights protections for 25,000,000 people for the purposes of solidarity. That approach has never been successfully used to advance civil rights in the US, in fact all measurable advances have been as a result of the exact opposite approach, where groups organize for civil rights and wrest them from the state. LGB organized for decades to win civil rights, T did not, relying on others to carry that weight. Realizing that there are 80 votes lacking for T protections is not political maneuvering, it is reading the writing on the wall and getting what you can when you can. Political maneuvering is holding the rights of 25,000,000 of your alleged allies hostage until you get your work done.
jeri on 11/5/072:01 PM:
"I am outraged that civil rights have to be demanded and fought for" - your words. but you, and bigots just like you, are the reason it is so. you always see the differences, and not the common humanity. there is a logic behind your argument, but it has too much venom for my taste...."stopping civil rights protections to 25,000,000 people" - not me, personally. i actually support any advance in civil rights for anyone, including 3685. however, i vehemently oppose any political maneuvering that leaves behind any segment of that 25 million or any portion of the community that it supposedly represents - particularly at the 11th hour and without consulting the community. united enda didn't exist until that occurred.....transgender people don't wake up in the morning and think - "i'm transgender". we self identify as "different", many of us assuming we are just gay men and women. i mean, after all, how can one really determine that one's body is the wrong gender? we live our lives immersed in the gay community where we find friendship and acceptance. once we do determine that our identity conforms to opposite gender does that remove our humanity? does it negate our friendships? not in my experience. united enda is the result of friends who are not willing to turn their backs for their own personal gain. which is why i still support 3685. and why your arguments are both repulsive and demeaning to our entire community. some things are worth a sacrifice - but you don't get that.
marc_salomon on 11/5/071:05 PM:
I care about doing political work that wins and changes people's lives. If you want a therapist to help you work through disappointment, then go see one. I am outraged that civil rights have to be demanded and fought for and that anyone goes through their lives being discriminated against for what people think they are or do. TO assume that I don't care about trans rights because I am not wringing my hands in anguish and stopping the show because trans folks are not included in ENDA is your mistake. Need I autoflaggellate and draw blood in order to prove my commitment to civil rights to you? Of course, stopping civil rights protections to 25,000,000 people could never be construed as hating lesbians, gays and bisexuals, right? A project that tries to recast our oppression from one of hating how they think we we have sex towards one where our gender is allegedly the source of our oppression is hateful of LGB as it would redefine LGB on T terms.
marc_salomon on 11/5/071:00 PM:
It seems to me that the hagiography that has been established here puts trans folks as the innocent victims in all oppression and places LGB in line with the hets as oppressors. A discourse has been constructed to buttress this ontology where all diction is suspect, signifiers vary depending on the needs of the argument at the moment, and any reasoned political analysis can be derailed because a dangerous word has been included in the statement. Sad to tell you all, but there is no innocence, there is no guilt, only the aggregation of the consequences of actions into our current reality. It does not matter if I call you trans folks, T, trannies, transgender, transgendered, only the substance of the political strategy and the consequences of moving forward are what counts. Always count on someone who is losing a contest to distract from the substance to the language in order to change the subject from something uncomfortable, lack of initiative and a campaign to win, to something comfortable, we are all victims willing to be martyrs by blaming others for not doing our work for us if doing the work to move our agenda is too daunting.
jeri on 11/5/0712:49 PM:
you are still hung up on using offensive terms like "tranny", aren't you? you can't help yourself - you NEED to be offensive. you NEED to express your hatred and your ignorance. you don't call your transgender friends "tranny" because you can't. you don't have any friends. if you can't criticize and demean someone you cannot communicate with them at all. you have to behave that way because you see yourself in every fault that they possess, every frailty that they exhibit - everything else you envy...... trans people everywhere are pro -active - take united ENDA for example. not to mention all the local and state laws being implemented protecting gender identity, like here in DC. the transgender community CARES about leaving anyone unprotected. the trans community CARES about our gay brothers and sisters. we are YOU. but you don't get that, do you? "one thing you can't hide is when you're crippled inside". - John Lennon
marc_salomon on 11/5/0712:30 PM:
Poor thing, everyone always ganged up against trannies. Everyone thinks trannies are bad, bad, bad. Nobody can be oppressed as bad as trannies are. Instead of whining about how bad everyone else is and what you deserve, why not expend that energy organizing to change votes in the Congress? Pro-active instead of re-active works wonders.
jeri on 11/5/0712:27 PM:
oh you poor gay man! life has been so unkind to you, and so many others just like you. bad trannies!.... quit playing the victim/hero. you keep swinging around that skateboard. you are an outright embarrassment to gay people everywhere.
marc_salomon on 11/5/0712:07 PM:
Listen, Jeri, I grew up a gay anarchist Jew in Texas during the 1970s, which was no picnic. I've been attacked by nazi skinheads wielding chains for being gay and I fought them off with my skateboard as they told me to "run away, little faggot." Read your own writings and it is clear that there is no plan on how to achieve trans workplace protections other than going down in a blaze of glory for doing "the right thing." That's bull*?&@! and does not work to move the common agenda. Political victories are won by organizing to the extent that politicians have no other choice. Trans folks appear to have managed to do that to progressive Democrats to scuttle ENDA for LGB. If that is the case, then the scenario where we climb out from that hole you've dug is into will require all sorts of organizing, organizing which is much more difficult to do when you've alienated tens of millions of LGB. I don't do politics to stand up for anything, only to change real people's lives for the better. TO quote the Red Hot Chili Peppers: "Can't stop the spirits when they need you This life is more than just a read through." Now, thanks to you, 25,000,000 LGB will cont inue to face losing their jobs, being evicted or forclosed on and possible homelessness, giving plenty of company to the T folks who will face the same challenges. The more miserable, the merrier, eh?
jeri on 11/5/0711:54 AM:
LOL a warm bucket of spit! salomon, my life has not been easy. i have had more than my share of struggle and pain, but no, i am not a victim. i know that i have been fortunate. for instance, right now i am just happy that i am not you. i can't imagine looking at the world through your eyes. i am not religious, but i thank God that i am not you.
marc_salomon on 11/5/0711:17 AM:
First off, you should be calling me a heterogenderist, as sex apparently has nothing to do with our oppression, it is all now due to our gender because you are oppressed due to your gender. Second, like many queers, I opposed BOTH Clinton's gays in the military debacle AND the lawsuits on marriage, preferring to focus on the bread and butter of job and housing protections. The only reason we got married was because it was an act of civil disobedience. Finally, enough with the martyrdom! I think the difference here is that LGB have managed to become comfortable in our queer skins and have a positive self perception, a confidence which enables us to move past the perennial victim stage. As PWAs managed to come into their own 20 years ago, the chant was "not victims, not patients, but people living with AIDS." Apparently, trannies are too consumed in their own victimhood to adopt a posture of confident self-assured initiative. Well as LGB, we are not victims, we are not martyrs, we are playing to win, playing for keeps, because every day when there is no ENDA, that means that LGB are being fired, are being evicted are becoming homeless solely due to how heteros think we have sex, not because of our gender. If all you all can do is blame everyone else BUT yourselves for lacking votes in congress, then it is going to be a very lonely campaign to win those votes. You'll have the leftists on your side, a political bucket of warm spit, but little else.
marc_salomon on 11/5/0710:19 AM:
If your invective against me as a trans friendly queer living in a progressive coastal enclave is any indication, then the damage done to any sort of LGBT unity amongst lesbians and gays living in the red states will be severe and take a generation to heal. The fact is that the HRC did what was needed to be done while there was no corresponding T initiative--Comptons and Stonewall are no substitute for organizing. If trans folks could organize United ENDA in 2 months to stop ENDA, then you all have the resources to move a Congressional lobbying campaign to build support for ENDA+T. Anything else is offloading your responsibility onto people who you've managed to spectacularly alienate over the past few months. Can you expect Barney Frank to carry any water for you now, now that you've excoriated him? Can you expect relative newcomer Tammy Baldwin to move legislation through Congress as Frank did? Do you expect Nancy Pelosi to expend political capital in making herself the Mark Leno of the Congress? No, trans folks seem to have dug themselves in deeper strategically and are now lashing out at anyone who is telling them that they are causing more damage to themselves, to LGB, to any hint of unity within sexual minorities, then they could possibly solve with this posture. If you continue down this road, you will find yourselves further away from your ultimate goal. If the HRC won't, then organize for your own damn rights!
marc_salomon on 11/5/0710:12 AM:
Dissonance, the mistake was yours for counting on the HRC to do their job for you. Am I now responsible for your mistakes? If rioting was all it took to change things in the US, then it would be a much better place. Have any of you all been near a school, on a bus with school kids? The N word might be painful for us, but for kids growing up, it is meaningless. Same with tranny. If we were all sinful and immoral equally in their eyes, then ENDA+T would rise and fall with ENDA-T. Obviously there is something else going on that drives hatred from different origins. We've had to pass legislation here in SF that left people behind. The recent SCHIP legislation uninsured many people and left countless others uninsured. Was it wrong to move that legislation until everyone could be given the gift to subscribe to health insurance? Of course not. We have no clue as to what is going to be the political situation in 5 years. You don't trust Frank, do you trust Pelosi, Emmanuel, Reid and that gang of fools to not screw it up again? It is not the fault of 25,000,000 LGB that things did not work out for T on ENDA in 2007. The selfishness here is when 500,000 people don't organize a sustained campaign to win rights, expect others to do it for them, and then stop the show when those who have organized are on the cusp of legislative victory. The issue that has congressional support is employment protections for people who have sex with the same sex.
Dyssonance on 11/5/075:46 AM:
Political consequences: one of the consequences of being a politican is that sometimes you have to stand up for what's right.
ANd yeah -- it always seems to turn out badly. That's why they call them martyrs.
YOu think Frank is going to allow himself to become a martyr? Hell, you saw what he said. He doesn't give a rats ass.
But, really, the big issue is when will it come for the T if this POS bill goes through?
THe answer? 10, maybe 20 years.
IF we're lucky.
See, that's what makes this bill so important. With all of us, even if this one fails, we have a pretty good chance of doing it within 5 years.
Without, you exect me to believe that you'll put getting a T version of this bill put through before you'll turn your attention to marriage again?
Uh uh. I know better. Its already started.
YOu are the one creating division, and its based in the same things that our foes base their dislike of all of us.
Ignorance, blind conviction, and desperation.
Dyssonance on 11/5/075:45 AM:
Then we get to my favorite part, the heterosexist part:
The T hasn't done its fair share of the work.
Funny thing that. Wasn't Compton's a raid on T places? Wasn't the raids that led to stonewall based on finding the Ts becuase that's whee the gay folks were?
Wasn't the origin of the modern movement in the late 1800's when we were all one thing?
News: The T's have been fighting for just as long, and been just as hard.
To the typical foe of rights for us, there is zero difference between me and you. We're all sinful and immoral and we're all the same damn thing. They don't know the differences between T and G and L and B.
Hell, half of them don't even know what the letters stand for.
YOU are abandoning gay people, as well. I notice you don't talk about that. That's the heterosexism in your posts speaking.
Not that I'm much better (heck, I'm wickedly so), but I wouldn't use that as an excuse to cut *you* out of a piece of legislation.
And now its "our" plantation?
I thought it was all of ours. That's why its a united we stand sorta thing. Like the founding of the nation.
Yeah, sure - let Vermont and New Hampshire get screwed and go off and make their own nation. Yep, I can see how that idea went over real well 200 years ago.
Dyssonance on 11/5/075:32 AM:
Call me a tranny or a trannie and I'll scratch your eyes out.
So let's see what the basic argument here is, shall we?
Enda Light is the original ENDA. That's an early one. Would that be the ENDA that *also* had the same T provisions stripped out of it, and *then* involved blocking the trans activists from meeting with membrs of congress?
That one, right? Oh, gee, so this is the *second* time this has happened. And you, Marc, are saying this was done "right"?
Gee, Have you told your T friends this yet?
You say that the majority of LGBT organizations are "dividing" the community.
Funny, I could have sworn it was the duplicity and the actions of one man who has said absolutely horrible things in the past that did that.
Wait -- wasn't that one guy also involved indoing the same thing the last time? WHy, hey, I think he was!
And didn't he just say: "For some of these people, you can never be an ally," Frank told me. And the proper response is to "call their bluff."
"Who are they going to run against me?" he asks. "Larry Craig?"
Why, I think he did...
How can you ask me to put *my* rights on hold hen it was the all or nothing pursuit of your rights that cost me the right to marry?
unfair, isn't it?
I don't blame you. I'm a very vocal supporter there.
But you are blaming me. And that *really* pisses me off.
You want to win. But you want to win no matter what the cost to anyone else.
But wait! There's more!
JCady on 11/5/0712:40 AM:
Marc_Salomon, I'd love to see you tell a black guy that he's not allowed to be offended that you refer to him as a "nigger" because you don't mean it as an expression of bigotry.
marc_salomon on 11/5/0712:01 AM:
Marti, the main reason we got married was as an act of civil disobedience. After 18 years together and a mortgage, who needs a piece of paper from the government to legitimate a relationship. Same sex marriage and gays in the military have distracted attention from the bread and butter of housing and job protection. By your logic, because ENDA is not HENDA, Housing/Employment nondiscrimination act, we should pull the emergency brake and demand housing protections. Housing protections are important, but employment protections are housing protections too.
Marti Abernathey on 11/4/0710:07 PM:
I'm curious Marc, do you then support Barack Obama? He supports the strongest "incremental" approach to marriage equality.
marc_salomon on 11/4/071:31 PM:
Jeri, this is a critical moment in LGBT history, and thanks to United ENDA we are writhing on the floor, incapacitated in a political fit, when we should be walking in power celebrating an incremental victory, and looking forward to the consequences of a divisive coup by the leadership of small LGBT groups over the HRC. We are seeing an ideological project to reconstruct queer theory as gender theory which strips out all sexuality to speak of. Not only are you attacking pragmatic LGB advancement, you are advocating imposing your favored, yet noninclusive, ideology on us and attacking us on semantics as a proxy for engaging on the substantive issues. That, jeri, is pathetic and that is highly offensive in a way that using the term "tranny" is not. I am offended that you claim I am oppressed, that I am, for violating gender norms when it is clear that I am oppressed for violating sex taboos. Tranny is the word I use with my tranny friends to refer to trannies.
jeri on 11/4/071:00 PM:
salomon, you are pathetic. i wouldn't be alive if i were overly sensitive or insecure. that aside, your invective isn't worthy of a response.
marc_salomon on 11/4/0712:21 PM:
jeri, my, oh, my aren't we sensitive and demanding! Either we all agree with you or we are being divisive and bigoted. Your demands would be best made to the Congress rather than to me. The word "tranny" or plural "trannies" is part of the vernacular and, unless used as an attack word, is not an expression of bigotry. The question to me is whether one would have us move ahead and advance protections for 20,000,000 and omit 500,000 or so or whether one would urge waiting for protections for 20,500,000 until some unknown point in the future, a point which may be decades hence. If you are going to prefer the latter, might I suggest the appropriate title for this opinion piece should read: "Vanity, thy name is tranny?"
jeri_hughes on 11/4/075:08 AM:
the term "trannies" is highly offensive. if you want 3685 to pass, don't use the argument for "satans sake" either. i don't think many members of congress want to associate themselves with an individual or an organization that thinks in those terms. i know i don't.
marc_salomon on 11/2/0711:35 PM:
jeri, ignoring your projections of your own insecurity onto your interpretation of my relation to trans folks, yes, trannies, I've lived and been a politically active queer in San Francisco for 20 years satan's sake, it does not matter whether you can convince me of anything with respect to the legitimacy of trans claims to employment protections. This is not because I disagree with you, rather because I agree with you but have no power on that subject. The only people you need to convince are 50%+1 of the Congress and the President to pass and sign the language by whatever vehicle possible. If the Democrats played hardball, they would at least attach ENDA to a "must sign" bill to at least up the stakes. I could accept if ENDA were traded for massive reductions in war funding under such an indirect passage scenario so that we might at least get something significant policywise for losing as well as a chance to regroup. We are only going to see equality when the humanity of trans folks and the discrimination you all face are made real for swing members of Congress and folks in their districts. Don't confuse a strategic decision to move forward with a bill that is ripe and to work to ripen trans protections with a support of LGB protections to the exclusion of T protections. We know that 2/3 of Americans support ENDA for LGB. Do we have any data on the numbers for T? To put Bush in a position where he goes against 2/3 public opinion AGAIN is too rich to pass up.
jeri_hughes on 11/2/076:34 PM:
at least you answered a question without using the term "trannies". you really are a charmer.....we have a lot more in common than you give us credit for, you know. we all want to earn a decent wage, pay our bills, build a future. we want to be able to love who we feel attracted to and walk down the street without fear of being attacked or ridiculed. we want our children to have the same advantages as those whose parents are hetero or gender "normative".... no, i don't have 80 votes hidden somewhere, but i am sure we need more than just 80 anyway. and we still need a president that will sign any bill that passes in both houses into law as well. i don't believe in very much, but i do believe that humanity has value. i can't prove it, but i need to believe it. i am not certain if you do or not. i think that to win real equality for the GLBT community, it will be necessary for everyone to believe in our humanity and our basic goodness - not in the votes in the senate or in the congress. our leaders have not historically been wise or just in matters of human rights..... the real question is, if you don't believe in equality or justice, why should they?
marc_salomon on 11/2/075:18 PM:
When people who get paid to do a job collude in a clusterf*ck of group think where they ratify amongst themselves how correct they are, only to find out that the outside world does not sync to their internal consensus, then, yeah, there has to be some accountability. If they led us to the position where pro-LGB Democrats are going to scuttle ENDA in favor of some possible future ENDA+T, then, yes, they should all be fired.
Congress has been forced to recognize the reality that LGB have much in common with T? Really? Did you manage to find those 80 votes? Can we now move on to pass a bill?
If trans folks and their supporters organized amongst the leaders of groups to call for ENDA+T, then a small number of organizers managed to convince slightly larger number of activists to take steps without consulting their grassroots bases.
I agree that LGBT have much in common, but the one thing we don't have in common is a history of successful organizing around ENDA in congress.
When I worked with ACTUP/SF in the 1980s, I learned that there is no such thing as the LGBT community, as the only thing we have in common is the fact that we don't cleave to patriarchal norms. Conservative gay white men were our strongest detractors. LGBT are a mile wide and an inch deep, that is not the stuff of which a community is made of.
I could give a damn about the moral high ground, show me the votes or get busy finding them or give it a rest. And don't scuttle ENDA-T while you do that.
jeri_hughes on 11/2/075:04 PM:
so now you want to do what - fire the leaders of the GLBT movement? the civil rights of millions are put on hold because people oppose YOU? LOL and again, you want to blame me for the vitriol and trans activists for failing to garner support? well, you are extending a lot of power to a lot of people. they sure have failed you - they had better get it right soon. if your argument were not so ridiculous, it would be comical...... ENDA now has an opportunity to pass because people are finally getting used to the idea that in spite of all of our differences, we still have more in common than not. congress has been forced to recognize that reality. and you are correct, it isn't perfect and it isn't complete, and there is still a lot of work to do. ....... by lobbying for basic human rights and equality, the GLBT community possesses the moral high ground. to seperate the argument into factions makes the argument one of self interest and weaken it exponentially. the bill itself - 3685 or 2015, win or lose, pass or not - is not one tenth as important as the unity of our community and the strength of our resolve.
marc_salomon on 11/2/072:50 PM:
The problem is that no matter how united professional LGBT advocates are, that does nothing to compensate for the fact that they have JUST made ENDA+T a priority and have not done what they're getting paid to do--build a viable congressional coalition. The lot of them should be fired not for supporting ENDA+T now, but for not doing their jobs over the years to make ENDA+T viable. ENDA needs to pass and to do that needs to deal with congress members who cringe at the notion of GRS. That is the major bigotry in this campaign, don't try to pass off on me responsibility for your failure to educate and the consequences that portends to ENDA-T. The incrementalism here is adding T to a well-settled LGB ENDA bill without gaging the political support beforehand. That political misstep has put the civil rights of tens of millions on hold and, thanks to people like jeri, amped up the vitriol and damaged the T cause. Instead of whining on a chat board, trans folks need to get their asses in gear and lobby Congress to move their agenda. You all had better start that NOW as you've pulled the emergency brake on ENDA for LGB and the train is already late. NOW.
jeri_hughes on 11/2/072:31 PM:
salomon, your bigotry remains your own. this controversy exist because gender identity was removed from a bill to prevent employment discrimination. some of the greatest and most talented (gay and lesbian) advocates of gay rights support a united ENDA. ENDA is not a bill to fund gender re-assignment. my tranny fanny!!?? i do have disdain and contempt - but certainly not for my gay brothers and sisters. my disdain is for the cowards who would factionalize our community for their own short sighted self interest and my contempt is for the bigots like yourself.
marc_salomon on 11/2/0712:59 PM:
There are different political considerations in convincing people to support LGB civil rights than T civil rights. This is evidenced by the fact that support is different in Congress for the two measures. Did I cause this by my choice of diction? To my mind, you all need to convince people who cringe at the thought of gender reassignment surgery. Those legislators seem to agree now that the their sexual practices, when practiced same sex, are no basis for discrimination. That is the crux of why ENDA-T carries while ENDA-T falters. That is my opinion of where Congress is, not my view of LGB and T. You can expect backlash from LGB living where there are no job protections if ENDA goes down due to Democrats opposing T omissions. That is suicidal. You expect the HRC to live up to their committments? Did T advocates or the HRC devise a political plan to ensure support for ENDA+T? Then the HRC is not in a position to deliver that for which political work remains undone and T are short-sighted to blame the HRC. I only disdain those who are living in a magical place where political denial passes for political reality. The only question is what are you going to change that? Scuttle ENDA until trans are included? Blame LGB? Blame the HRC? Or take responsibility for moving your agenda and asking us for help? Your tone demonstrates disdain for everything but your own self-perception of victimhood and senses of drama and political entitlement. Alienating allies loses.
jeri_hughes on 11/2/0712:27 PM:
solomon, your use of the term "trannies" is more than semantics. you frequently punctuate your opinion with the argument that the GLB community is seperate from the T, and that we can expect backlash. backlash for what, expecting HRC to live up to their commitment? you personally demonstrate disdain and antagonism to the trans community in all of your opinions, so don't even go there.
marc_salomon on 11/2/0712:22 PM:
It seems that jeri_hughes is lazy and just likes to complain. Had I done nothing about trans issues, I'd be commit the sin of omission. Having done something about trans issues, I am patronizing, guildy of a sin of commission. Complain all you want, but until you get off your tranny fanny and do the work necessary to build a legislative coalition that can pass legislation, you are going to be left out in the cold complaining about how others are not moving your agenda for you and sniping at them for semantic violations.
marc_salomon on 11/2/0711:53 AM:
My transgender (or should that be transgendered?) friends don't freak out when I use the word "trannies." But why deal with the real political issues when you can attack on semantics? I'd done ACTUP work in the 1980s, where there were real, live trans folks in the coalition. But when the issue came up to include trans rights in our platform, and there was resistance from folks in the Central Valley, we worked through their concerns and got the support to pass the plank. What you misread was that the HRC had worked on LGB ENDA for 30 years. For all the disgust you've expressed with LGB folks, for keeping you all on our plantation, maybe you should strike out on your own and move your own damn legislation? Perhaps you might ask all the LGB you've alienated to help you? That has about as much of a chance of happening now as ENDA+T does of seeing the light of day in congress. Oh, yeah, political consequences for one's action's or lack thereof is a foreign concept to you. It seems that you expect that civil rights are like waiting for a bus, the longer you wait, the better chance you have of catching a bus. But it don't work that way. Civil rights must be wrested from the state by political force and then vigorously defended from backlash. Now you all have two backlashes to confront, first is the reluctance of the general population and their representatives to support your cause, the second is LGB who you've disparaged for not capitulating to your guilt trip.
jeri_hughes on 11/2/0711:36 AM:
yassuh, mr. marc, yo sho nuff is a fren to us trans folk. .....i am sure you have many friends who are trans. that must be why you refer to us as trannies. there are good trannies and bad trannies, right? .... i have said it before, i will support 3685. if you don't want negative discourse with me, stop with your negative comments about the trans community. and you were fighting all the way back to 2005? so where did the "30 more years" come from?
marc_salomon on 11/2/0711:09 AM:
jeri_hughes, As a member of the California Green Party, I facilitated the inclusion of a trans civil rights plank into our platform in 2005. Greens supported the inclusion of trans health care into San Francisco's public employee health care plan in '01. You have no place telling me what I have done, what I think or how I think. That is little more than projecting your own insecurities onto others. This kind of discourse portends significant divisions in the LGBT movement which will take a generation to cure. Why would I make inaccurate or disparaging comments about people I work with and live around and have had in my life for decades? I believe in full civil rights for all NOW, but know how Congress works. The fact is that the only thing that matters is votes in Congress. Leading the Stonewall riots does not add votes in Congress. Caring for PWAs does not add votes in Congress. I want to win, and winning at the federal level is an incremental process unfortunately. Having grown up gay in Texas, I know that outside the coastal enclaves, things still suck for lesbians and gays just for (being suspected of) being who we are. I understand your frustration at having to wait, but that frustration is best channeled into organizing rather than alienating allies. If you all don't stop alienating allies, you will need to spend substantial resources repairing those alliances, resources that could go into a campaign to build a Congressional coalition. Show me the votes.
jeri_hughes on 11/2/0710:26 AM:
okay, so now you have my attention. you had to call us "trannies"? what "political work" have you done - you as in YOU personally? obviously, you have no respect for human rights or the dignity of the members within the GLBT community. you want only to represent those with whom you yourself identify. again, more power to you. but don't you dare showcase your ignorance or your bigotry by making innacurate and derogatory comments about the trans community. should have done the work years ago? i lived through those times. i held my friends dying before aids even had a name. and you have the nerve to tell me who belongs in our community? you show me S%&T, sucker.
marc_salomon on 11/2/079:41 AM:
ENDA light is the original ENDA, the one which the HRC, in the only thing they've ever done right, built a majority coalition to support. When supporters of ENDA+T attack the tens of millions of lesbians and gays who live in states without employment protections as seeking "vanity," do folks realize that you are willfully dividing our community by telling people who have done the political work to prevail that the needs of a relatively unorganized half a million trannies should be a show stopper? How can you expect to build this elusive LGBT community when you excoriate lesbians and gays as alpha queers who are not oppressed as much as trannies, so our rights can be put on hold? Trans folks need to do the political work of building a majority coalition if they wish for ENDA to pass in any form ever with trans rights. LGB can't do that for them. The failure here is to assume that because we think something is fair and right that will automatically translate into legislative victory. The point of representative government is for the reps to make those calls. They don't do that unless they are brought in as a part of a coalition. The states experiment and the Congress tends to consolidate successful experiments nationally. Many states have LGB protections, few have T protections. LGB are consolidatable while T needs work. The time for T to have had done that work in order for ENDA to be ripe now was years and years ago. Must we wait 30 more years for our rights?
jeri_hughes on 11/2/078:12 AM:
I am willing to argue all day that GLBT individuals should have EQUAL rights to any hetero-gender-normative individual in America, but I am tired of arguing with my gay brothers and sisters about ENDA. To Kevin Naff and the cocktail crowd, I say that I want the exclusive ENDA to pass legislation. I want Bush or some President to sign it, and I want it to become law. You are correct. Any freedom, any equality, is better than no equality. Let Aravosis have his half a loaf. And Kevin, you and your friends don’t have to be associated with those who are transgender. We will understand. At least I do. …….. The reality is that the legislation will actually have very little effect on actual equality related to hiring and firing of gays and lesbians. If someone in the decision making process decides that you are to femme or too butch, you still won’t get the job, or the promotion. Had it been trans inclusive it would have even less effect on the hiring of those who are transgender. They are easier to “read” than most gays. If you don’t think so, just look at the statistics on employment and the associated quality of life for the trans community..…… The exclusive bill is a start. At least it is a statement. It says “Gays and lesbians are people and deserve equal employment.” And they really do. Personally, I will always be willing to argue that position. But I am tired with this ENDA bill, and I won’t argue for myself. I will probably die before the legislation has any real effect, in any event. But you are young. You will remember when you represented that you didn’t want to be associated with those who are transgender. You will remember when you decided that advances were incremental and that some should be excluded. You will live with that. For me, that is enough justice.
