LGB Rights Bill: Hold The "T"?

The Nation: Congress May Exclude Transgender Rights To Drive Tough Bill Forward

(The Nation)  That decision cost HRC its sole transgender board member, Donna Rose, who resigned October 3. While Rose lauds HRC for its past work on transgender issues and its lobbying for a gender-inclusive bill, she notes that "in political speak 'do not support' and 'oppose' have very different meanings."

"Unfortunately the people who get left behind are the people who need it most," Rose said, noting that Solmonese spoke at a transgender conference on September 21, where he clearly stated HRC would oppose a noninclusive ENDA and had sent that message "loud and clear to the Hill."

Rose fully admitted there is a "delicate balance between political pragmatism and community building, or for lack of a better word, soul," but she also raised the following question: "Politics is great, but at what cost?"

One of the consequences of the ENDA conflict is a realization that LGBT rights groups have organized themselves differently over the past decade. In the 1980s and early '90s, a handful of national organizations based primarily in New York and Washington lobbied legislators and served as mouthpieces for gay rights issues, most often AIDS-related funding. But with the Republican Congressional takeover in 1994, plus the cultural shift toward more openly gay people living outside big cities, local LGBT political organizations flourished, especially after the spate of marriage amendment campaigns began. The move has started to pay dividends; with help from national organizations, Equality Arizona helped beat back a marriage amendment initiative in its state in 2006.

Robert Haaland, a female-to-male transgender on the national board of the AFL-CIO constituency group Pride at Work, helped lead a vigil at Pelosi's office after hearing news of the split ENDA bill. "When over 150 organizations say no and one group says 'kinda,' at what point does it become the entire [LGBT] community versus a small part of the community? The depth and breadth has just been overwhelming."

While there has been a near unanimity of support for an inclusive ENDA among gay rights groups, some notable queer pundits have strongly defended Frank's strategy, noting that the transgender issue is simply too foreign for most members of Congress to feel comfortable with. AmericaBlog's John Aravosis wrote on Salon, "It's only been five months since transgendered people were included in ENDA for the first time," adding that ENDA without gender identity is important because it "would empower our community, demoralize our opposition, and forever place us among the ranks of the great civil rights communities of the past and present... I'll take that half-a-loaf any day."

Aravosis has also brought up long-simmering tensions between the "LGB" and "T" parts of the community equation, a debate that has been firing up gay-themed websites across the Internet. In an October 3 post on his own site, Aravosis wrote, "I don't think the T was added because there was a groundswell of demand in the gay community that we add T to LGB. I think it happened through pressure, organizational fiat, shame, and osmosis."

Aravosis is not alone. "I'm also not convinced that homosexuality and transsexuality are the same thing, and I really don't think there is such a thing as 'the LGBT community,'" wrote Rex Wockner, a gay columnist, while former Washington Blade editor Chris Crain took on Foreman's claims that there is an overwhelming consensus that excluding gender rights should be a legislative deal-breaker. "He knows very well that there is a great debate raging among GLB's about which strategy to adopt." And longtime lesbian activist Robin Tyler wrote to Aravosis to point out that some of her transgender friends who legally married "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."

Wayne Besen, a former HRC spokesman, sees things differently. "There is nothing more that I want than ENDA passed," he said. "I am willing to make a sacrifice - it's an easy one to make.... I have trouble with the argument that equal rights is just for me. It's not. It's for everybody. I think we can do better."

[hippychicky-2009]

Just one more reason to dislike Bush. Why is it so hard for the conservative right, to just include everyone and treat us all equally. Are we human do we not deserve that much? The LGBT community makes a small step forward, only to get smacked back its sad.

[xrk9854]

Christopher Lisotta is to be commended for a balanced article about ENDA. That said I wanted to explain the necessity of the language that was in the original bill (HR 2015). "Gender identity and expression" covers everybody because everyone has a gender identity and unique gender expression, it''s not just a trans issue. For example many ***/lesbians are gender variant. Under Rep Franks bill (HR 3685) employers would be free to discriminate against those people. Only straight acting and appearing ***/lesbians would be covered. We shouldn''t be encouraging discrimination by telling employers it''s okay to do that! Two recent incidents illustrate everyone one has a gender presentaion: In New York as butch lesbian was thrown out of a restaraunt after she attempted to use the womens room. The bouncer thought she was male. Another case involved a straight woman in Washington DC I believe. She has arrested and held in the male section of the jail for 3 days because the guards thought she was male. Civil right legal experts tell us the language of the original bill is needed to not only protect all GLBT people from employers, but also protect them from judges who have consistently ruled against us in court through extremely narrow interpretation of the law. Explicit (gender identity and expression) language will help prevent that. Gender identity/expression and protections for ***/lesbians are inextricably linked.

[kellib4]

Representative Frank has made a shambles of ENDA. Together with HRC they are attempting to make it appear that they have supported Transgender Inclusion to ENDA by anouncing support of the Baldwin Amendment.
Tammy Baldwin has stuck out here political neck in an attempt to correct the wronge of Frank and ENDA and now they are trying to get credit for it.
This new manouver is a insult to anyone that cares about LGBT rights.

[taddles-2009]

I have to disagree with you. If any version of the bill will be vetoed than watering it down to try and get a few more votes isn''t worth it. You can not afford to alienate a whole segment of your support base in an attempt to draw a few more votes. You have to be more aggressive in demonstrating the inherent unfairness of the existing system and the culpability in that unfairness of those congressmen who vote against it. You can''t throw your allies under the bus and that is exactly how this will be seen.

[quatrops]

The article describes the sad dilemma that those of us (many, I hope) face when we agree with both sides of contradicting opinions. I see the positions of ALL of the named groups and individuals as the "right" choice.

Perhaps the adage about each long, hard journey beginning with one small step is the one to apply here. Frank''s position that, even though ANY version of his bill is going to be vetoed, getting a greater number of congressional supporters "on board" and comfortable with supporting a bill of this nature will, in the long run, advance the cause.

The reality of politics is such that the right answer isn''t always the right answer. Sad but true!

These are all people of good will. The journey continues!!