One Utah

If you’ve been following the saga, you know by now that Congressional leaders - including Barney Frank - realized that ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) would not pass if it included protections for transgender persons, so the trans protections were dropped.

This has led to some serious brouhahas (I don’t like the way that sentence reads but it feels right).  Here’s the deal - on one side, you have folks arguing passionately that dropping protections for transpersons from ENDA is a violation of integrity and justice, while folks on the other side are just as passionately arguing that the goal is to pass the best version of ENDA we can at this time, then start working to fill the gaps. 

John at Americablog offers what seems to me a sensible narrative:  the gay community has been - largely through executive fiat - slowly changed from the “gay” community to the “gay and lesbian” community and then later to the “lesbian, gay, bisexual” community (generally listed as LGB).  As recently as 10 years ago, the “T” for transgender was absent.  Some organizations haven’t added transgender at all.  The broader community was never invited into the discussion and so support is a mile while and a quarter inch deep.  It’s not a lack of sympathy for the struggles of transgender persons, but more a question about “Exactly why are transgender persons being included?  What’s the connection?”

In a post entitled the The transgender fiasco, John writes:

I remember being at the beach with a bunch of gay friends about 6 or 7 years ago. There was an Advocate or OUT magazine on the table and it was open to some article about the transgender community. The details of the discussion now elude me, but I remember there being a lively debate about just how and when transexuals became part of the gay community, and vice versa - the consensus was that nobody knew how it happened, and nobody was quite sure that they agreed with the inclusion. Now zoom forward to today. We’ve heard a lot of anger from every single gay group on the planet, save HRC, that gender identity is being dropped from ENDA in order to save the bill. We’ve also heard from a number of vocal activists. But when I speak to friends and colleagues privately, senior members of the gay political/journalistic establishment, and just plain old gay friends around the country (and our own readers), the message I hear is far different from what I’m hearing from the groups. I’m clearly hearing three things. Well, four

1. I feel empathy for transgendered people, and support their struggle for civil rights.
2. I want ENDA to pass this year even if we can’t include transgendered people.
3. I don’t understand when transgendered people became part of the gay community?

And then there’s always #4: Please don’t tell anyone I told you this.

What I’m hearing is a message far different from what you hear from NGLTF and some of the louder activist claiming to speak for the enlightened masses. I think that a lot of gay people never truly accepted the transgender revolution that was thrust upon them. They simply sat back and shut up about their questions and concerns and doubts out of a sense of shame that it was somehow impolite to even question what was happening, and fear that if they did ask questions they’d be marked as bigots. And now, that paper-thin transgender revolution is coming home to roost.

The squares with my experience. When I was in college, the student group called itself the Grinnell College Gay Community; when a group of lesbian students complained that they weren’t “gay” they were “lesbian” it was changed to Grinnell Lesbian Gay Alliance.  Later still, after much huffing and puffing, it was renamed the Stonewall Coalition - since noone could figure out a nice acronym including bisexuals and transgender persons.  A year ago, I attended a retreat at which the organizers talked about the lgbtqqqiap community (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning intersexed, asexual, genderqueer and polyamorous).  In the name of inclusion, any hope of meaningful focus has been lost.  Becoming simply the “queer” community is not going to happen (long story short: too many people hate the term queer more than they hate the term faggot).

Rank and file gay and lesbian folks are supportive of but just aren’t that committed to transgender issues.  A coherent argument has never been made for the connection between gay and transgender issues and politics.  Generally, transgender issues have simply been added (for well-intentioned reasons) but not really discussed.  A case needs to be made.

Pam Spaulding - with whom I normally agree - is clearly outraged and sees ENDA without transgender a a major mistake - and argues that we’re turning on each other by not including transgender in the bill.  She does however say:

It appears some people are reluctant to publicly broach the subject of transfolk in LGBT movement and the effect on or strategy of the passage of anti-discrimination legislation lest they be labeled with the equally radioactive word “bigot.” Nothing shuts down the conversation or draws a line in the sand faster.

If people want to make the case that Ts shouldn’t be attached to LGB, then that’s a discussion that reveals a serious difference in opinion and philosophy about the definition of our movement. It needs to be aired out honestly and openly. It’s relevant to know how many hold this view and why. It’s the first step toward admitting a problem we all must face to move forward.

It’s one matter to make a case that the trans protections should be dropped from ENDA as a matter of strategy and pragmatism, it’s a completely different matter to hold the view that Ts aren’t really part of the movement at all and use the former as PC cover for belief in the latter.

Is this view due to lack of direct engagement with transfolk on the issue, a lack of education on the history of the movement, or is it because of some other factor that is worthy of open discussion that may inform those on the other side of the issue that may shed new light on the topic?

John at Americablog reprints and email he received from a longtime lesbian activist, Robin Tyley:

I support full transgender rights. However, when I have been invited to legal weddings of some of my transgender friends, not one of them has said “we will not get married until Diane and you and other same gender couples can get married”. They did not sacrifice their legal rights on the alter of political correctness to give up the State and Federal benefits of marriage.

And yet, with regard to ENDA, the lesbian and gay community is expected to do so, leaving millions and millions of us in the majority of States, once again, unprotected.

Robin Tyley

Bay Windows - the largest gay newspaper in New England, wrote in an editorial: Barney Frank was right.

LGBT organizations from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force to the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network are demanding that either a trans-inclusive ENDA be put forward or none at all.

This is madness.

Rex Wockner sums it his take:

My take is: I support equality for transgender people. I think transgender people and anyone who cares about transgender equality should work to pass laws to protect transgender people and give them equal rights. I also think politics is politics. I think if Barney can get an LGB bill through Congress, he should do it, and we should let him. If Barney and whoever else can then get a T bill through Congress, they should do that, too. Nixing an LGB job-protection bill, which would directly affect in the neighborhood of 30 million Americans, because we can’t simultaneously protect an unknown, vastly smaller number of T Americans doesn’t seem reasonable. In a perfect world, of course we’d include the T folks. But we don’t live in a perfect world. We’re trying to make it more perfect. But that takes time, it takes process, and it means grabbing opportunities when they are available.

Some have argued against Barney’s jettisoning the T folks because, even without the T folks included, the LGB bill might not make it through the Senate and Dubya might veto it. To that I respond, Congress never votes for pro-gay bills. Having the House of Representatives pass a pro-LGB bill — any pro-LGB bill — sets precedent, and makes it easier for them to pass pro-LGB or -LGBT bills in the future. If they do it once, then they’re much more likely to do it again.

Which gets us to ENDA - in a institution in which ENDA is already a tough sell, adding protections for transgender persons was a death knell.  Rep. Barney Frank:

The Democratic leadership, which is in complete sympathy with a fully inclusive bill, did a special official Whip count – a poll of the Members. There had been earlier informal counts that had showed significant support for a bill that included transgender, although even these informal checks never showed that we had a majority. But Members will sometimes be inclined to give people the answers they think the people who are asking the questions want until the crunch comes. In the crunch – the official Whip count taken in contemplation of the bill – it became very clear that while we would retain a significant majority of Democrats, we would lose enough so that a bill that included transgender protection would lose if not amended, and that an anti-transgender amendment would pass.

Emphasis added. IOW - it would be much much harder to work the issue in the future.  It’s a matter of picking your fights - this is a fight that can be won if we’re willing to accept a good bill with hole, or a nasty fight that will be lost and lost hard if we insist on a “perfect” bill.  It’s the old problem - don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Unfortunately, the outcome is rapidly becoming an embarrassing internecine fight.  Lambda Legal, for instance, has issued a strongly worded letter excoriating Barney Frank - and including this passage:

Finally, we want to emphasize the point we and other LGBT groups have been trying to make. It simply is wrong for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals to seek protection for themselves and leave transgender people in the dust. Transgender individuals have fought against discrimination along with gay people years before Stonewall and were prime actors at that epic moment in our joint civil rights history. Imagine if the proponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act had decided that the prohibition against race discrimination included only some racial groups but not others. For gay people to sacrifice transgender people to get protection only for themselves would be wrong.

We stand by that position and our further concern that a sexual orientation antidiscrimination law that has eliminated protections against discrimination based on gender nonconformity will provide less secure protection for everyone, including lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. Unfortunately, as you said yourself, “bigots [will] try to get around the law.” We need a law that will make that as hard as possible. That is why we continue to support H.R. 2015, the version of ENDA introduced in April, and to oppose H.R. 3685, the version of ENDA introduced last week.

I can’t help but see letters like this as anything but self-defeating.  Okay, so next time Lambda goes to Barney Frank and asks for something, he’s going to remember being called out by them for not being perfect. 

This is one of those instances in which the left is totally screwing itself by refusing to have the backs of our elected representatives.  Why make this letter public?  Why not send it directly to the Representative, or better yet, go in person, forget the letter, and say, “We’ve got your back.  We know it’s a tough gig being an openly gay member of Congress.  We’re ready to fight for this bill, but we really want transgender protections.  If we can’t get them today, we want to start fighting for them tomorrow.  We’re disappointed.  So what do we do now to get what we want?”

I spent years advocating for hate crimes legislation in Utah - and every time we lost, I’d say to the sponsor (usually David Litvack) - “Okay, I appreciate how hard you fought for this.  What do you need me to do to help get this passed next year?”  I’m not wild about the final bill, but it’s an improvement over what we had before.  You don’t kneecap the reps who are figthing for you because they don’t produce your dream bill.  It’s bad politics, as matter of fact, it’s god damned stupid politics.  You don’t piss off or piss on the people you need and leadership in congress did their due diligience and they saw that they could pass ENDA - if it covered sexual orientation but not gender identity and they made the right (and the tough) choice.

I’ll let John at Americablog summarize my response to those who argue we have to pass a trans inclusive bill now and it is simply cowardice or dislike that is preventing it:

Show me the votes. Show me that you have the votes to pass a trans-inclusive ENDA, that the bill won’t go down in flames, that Democrats won’t be forced en masse to vote in favor of some hideously anti-trans amendment lest they lose their jobs next election, and I’m there for you. You think this is some easy game, that we actually have the votes, but some of us simply don’t like you and find you icky and that’s why we’re concerned. Fine, then I’ll call your bluff. I adore you. Now prove to me that you have the votes to pass ENDA and that your strategy won’t kill this legislation for the next two decades, and you have my support. You have two weeks, which should be ample time considering all of us are lying about there not being enough votes to pass ENDA with trans inclusion.

Here’s my take:  Missing this opportunity is foolish, short-sighted, politically strategic idiocy.  It’s  not about abandoning the transgender community, it’s not about sacrificing rights for anyone - it’s about making the world some better.  Turning this into a make or break deal is stupid, short sighted and foolish.  It will also set back the cause of civil rights.  A couple years of living with sexual orientation only ENDA will make it easier to add protections for transgender persons.

Why give up significant progress in a probably fruitless quest for an ideal we can’t reach today?  Why sacrifice the laying the groundwork for real improvement tomorrow?

This entry was posted Friday, October 5th, 2007 at 11:03 am and is filed under Bigotry, David Litvack, Democracy, Homophobia, Human Rights, Party Politics, People Are Nuts, Religious Fundamentalism, This Blog, Tribalism & Blind Obedience to Authority, Utah Legislature, Utah Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.