Sorry, couldn't resist the Chef Boyardee-goes-to-Washington headline.
I had the great good fortune this morning of sitting on a panel at the Out & Equal conference here in D.C., discussing ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act). Like everyone else on the panel, when I accepted the invitation I had no idea that two days before the panel, the Blade would break the story that leaders in the House were getting ready to remove "gender identity" from ENDA to ensure passage -- basically, dropping transgenders to get some conservative freshman Dems on board.
So the room was packed and the discussion was pretty lively. It was good to get a sense of where a mixed crowd -- activists and non-activists alike -- stood on the issue, given that most of what I've been hearing has come through the insular world of activist e-mail lists and blogs. An impromptu raise-your-hand poll showed the audience pretty evenly split as to whether ENDA should move forward if removing trans protections would ensure passage in Congress or if the bill should retain trans protections even at the cost of failure to pass.
There was a fairly broad range of opinion on the panel as well, from Jonathan Capehart, who wrote the Washington Post's editorial today advocating for passage of ENDA without the transgender provision if that's what it takes to get the protections into law, to Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend, who advocates leaving no trans behind and taking a principled loss given that no version of ENDA will make it past a presidential veto.
My own opinion wavers a bit, because as usual I can see some pretty valid arguments on both sides. It seems to come down to whether you see ENDA as a symbolic piece of legislation that reflects the continued movement of Americans toward greater tolerance in the workplace and professional spheres, or if you see ENDA as a practical tool to alleviate instances of actual harm done to GLBT individuals who have lost their jobs (or can't get one) because of their sexual orientation or gender identification.
If you think ENDA is primarily a symbolic effort to "send a message," then you don't really have much choice but to stick with the trans-inclusive version through thick and thin, given that a loss in such a situation can send a pretty strong message in it's own right.
But, if you think that ENDA is a legislative remedy that is needed by people who are actually suffering because of job discrimination, then I don't see how you can advocate allowing some people to continue to suffer because you can't stop all people from suffering. It would be laughable for me -- a gay, white professional in the D.C. metro area with a good job history, a lot of connections and the luxury of a gay-positive professional environment -- to claim that I'm willing to live without ENDA protections as long as it takes to get an inclusive bill passed. What about, say, a lesbian in my home state of Kentucky who finds she can't get a job in her small town because word's about her sexual orientation, and she can't move because of her kids or financial situation? It's a bit hubristic to expect her to take the same principled stand I might take on my own comfortable little pedestal.
I happen to fall into the first part of that argument, that ENDA is in many ways more of a symbolic measure than a practical one -- American business is light-years ahead of the government on this issue, and public opinion is catching up behind it -- so if you're going to make a statement, you might as well go for the most inclusive one.
Problem is, I don't like symbolic legislation. Given that businesses are rapidly adding their own anti-discrimination policies -- and I was surprised by how many people at our panel raised their hands to affirm that their own companies included transgender protections -- by the time any version of ENDA makes it past the White House, the whole thing could be essentially moot. I don't mean that discrimination will magically end on its own, because it won't. But neither will it end because a bill that's languished for years in Schoolhouse Rock limbo finally makes it into law.
Regardless, I should thank Bob Witeck of Witeck-Combs Communications for inviting me to be on the panel -- despite the usual pre-panel butterflies, I had a great time being a part of it, and I walked away with a better understanding of how the issue plays with real people, not just pixels bouncing through my e-mail inbox.
Why are laws 'symbolic' but policies are not, when it seems as though policies are those without ... force? Or is it all symbolic?
I don't see how you can advocate allowing some people to continue to suffer because you can't stop all people from suffering.
It's not that hard. There *are* limits to divisibility, compromise, and how much you can temporize. To wit:
Would one have accepted to abolish slavery for just those with 20% or more 'white blood'? Is there (or could there be) such a thing as a "20% Abolishonist", in principle?
The list goes on.
Would one accept an ENDA "compromise" that forced LGBT to indicate their sexuality on any application form and keep it updated annually?
Posted by: Amicus | October 06, 2007 at 01:14 PM
We've seen this "better half a loaf than none" bit before. We've heard the "You'll get your turn" too.
SEVENTEEN YEARS ago, Mass. gave employment protection to GLB - but not T. They're still waiting. Protection for them is as far away as ever.
FIVE YEARS ago, NY's inclusive GLBT bill became GLB so they could pass it this session, rather than next. "Better half a loaf than none" "You'll get your turn" etc etc. Well, TG people lost existing rights, as they now were specifically excluded. Existing precedents that previously protected GLBT now were overturned, replaced by more extensive ones that were GLB only. And since then there has been zero, nada, zip progress on the more difficult task of passing a trans-inclusive bill. Most don't see the need now they have theirs. GLB activism has lessened, no need or it, and the T in GLBT has been hung out to dry yet again.
Now TG people are supposed to believe the same tired old lies? To accept that their needs are somehow less than those of the majority? They suffer more discrimination, not less.
Enough already. Either delete the T in GLBT or actually do something about it. No more hypocrisy, they don't believe you any more.
Posted by: aebrain | September 30, 2007 at 09:31 AM
This is a copy of San Diego County Transgender Assessment Report:
http://tg-news.org/Star/Transgender_Study.pdf
The assessment of transgender employment begins on page 13. In 2004, the reported transgender unemployment rate was 37.3% when the unemployment rate for San Diego was 3.2%. The report also indicated 14.2% had experienced workplace discrimination related to being transgender, 8.2% reported that they avoid employment because they experienced workplace discrimination in the past,and 14.2% reported that they recently experienced stigma related to transgender issues while in the workplace.
It was a small sample poulation, to be sure, in a localized area, but the reality is that the report speaks to why keeping transgender protections in ENDA is more than purely symbolic.
As the HRC's former executive director said in 2004:
"Passing ENDA without gender identity and expression is like passing a copyright law that covers books and television shows but doesn't cover digital music or videos. But ENDA is about people's lives, not MP3s or DVDs. That's why it's so important that we have the strongest and most comprehensive bill possible."
Posted by: Autumn Sandeen | September 30, 2007 at 01:24 AM
> But, if you think that ENDA is a legislative remedy that is needed
> by people who are actually suffering because of job discrimination,
> then I don't see how you can advocate allowing some people to
> continue to suffer because you can't stop all people from suffering.
> It would be laughable for me -- a gay, white professional in the
> D.C. metro area with a good job history, a lot of connections and
> the luxury of a gay-positive professional environment -- to claim
> that I'm willing to live without ENDA protections as long as it
> takes to get an inclusive bill passed. What about, say, a lesbian in
> my home state of Kentucky who finds she can't get a job in her small
> town because word's about her sexual orientation, and she can't move
> because of her kids or financial situation?
And here is where the rubber meets the road......your hypothetical lesbian would NOT be covered under the non-inclusive ENDA along with every other gay and lesbian who fails to totally conform to gender stereotypes. This has been well known to the leadership of HRC for over a decade. Frank knows this. A study was even done ten years ago among gay and lesbians...........75% of those who had experienced job discrimination felt it was on the basis of gender nonconformity, not orientation. Gays and lesbians, not trans-people, not gender queers, not transsexuals. A non-inclusive ENDA means that ONLY those who do not need the protections get them and that's the rub, it's a feel good bill only because by jettisoning the gender identity language it actually becomes meaningless to the entire community other than those with passing privilege.
How does that work you ask? Jane, a butch lesbian, is fired for looking too butch. When she tries to sue based on ENDA protections for orientation her employer points to the femme Mary and states she is an out lesbian therefore the issue is not orientation. Further, there is a legal consideration called legislative intent. Pass a non-inclusive ENDA and all future court decisions regardless of past ones can now be based there being no legislative intent to protect any gender nonconformity effectively erasing past favourable decisions. Think it cannot happen?......it already did in New York after SONDA became law and in exactly that manner.
Wake up people. Barney is a well known transphobe who has been actively working against any trans inclusion all along changing only enough to keep his record muddy. Pelosi is about to get a HRC award and both she and HRC need a big "win" to keep the gay bucks rolling in. ENDA doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell in the Senate and they know it. By cutting out gender protections now, the fix is in for the future and it will not be included then......again, just as happened in New York year after year after year until finally the time arrived and it was off the table.
Posted by: Rev. Cathryn Platine | September 29, 2007 at 01:53 PM
It's not symbolic for transpeople. That's a big one right there. I know of at least half a dozen friends who have been fired in the last few years. Outright straight up discrimination fired--we don't want any trannies here. Nothing sideways about it. Nothing hidden.
The other issue is Mr. Frank's transphobia and opposition to transinclusion is very well known.
Posted by: Kathy | September 29, 2007 at 11:36 AM