EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Civil Rights for LGB . . . and T
The basketball expression for it is "low-bridge." It is the dirtiest foul in the sport, the act of suddenly taking out a player's legs as he or she leaps for a rebound, pass or jump shot. It's a cheap and devious move, in that it may look spontaneous but is almost always premeditated -- and almost always a prelude to a fight.
That's what happened to the transgender community on Sept. 26. We were low-bridged. By -- of all people -- Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
But, in a shocking upset, the transgender community picked itself up, rubbed its newly scraped elbows and fought back. Frank, Pelosi & Co. didn't know what hit them.
The impetus for this brawl was the struggle over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that is the proud product of some hard battles won by a unified coalition of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists and advocates. ENDA seeks to protect civil rights so fundamental -- and so fundamentally American -- that it seems absurd we are still haggling over this in late 2007. ENDA would make it illegal to fire or refuse to hire or promote anyone based simply on the employee's sexual orientation or gender identity.
On paper, Frank, an openly gay Democrat, seemed the right person to lead this game plan. But as September rolled on, surveys of House members showed that ENDA did not have the votes to pass if it protected transgender people, but it did if it just covered gays and lesbians. So Frank huddled with Pelosi and other Democratic leaders and decided to play Solomon with ENDA -- only with half the wisdom. On Sept. 26, Frank announced his plan to split ENDA into two bills -- one bill protecting sexual orientation, which would get introduced immediately to Congress, and another bill protecting gender identity, which Congress would get to somewhere down the line. Maybe in a year or two. Or six or seven.
Ordinarily, self-interest dominates everything and everyone in Washington, and it often rolls right over decency and ethics. With ENDA, congressional thinking seemed to go: "This boat is listing. We better do something! But what? We really have no stomach for this sort of fight ... so let's throw the transfolk overboard! So what if they are the minority that needs ENDA's protection the most? Nobody knows a transgender person anyway; decades of intolerance and ignorance have kept them closeted. Who'll miss them in this bill?"
Big miscalculation. The strategy did not yield the usual we-got-ours run for safety. Lesbian, gay and bisexual activists stood alongside their trans sisters and brothers, and together we raised the roof. It was a beautiful noise, let me tell you.
It was so much noise -- about 140 gay and trans rights groups told Pelosi in no uncertain terms that protection for the transgendered needed to stay in the bill -- that she and Frank consented to delay a House vote until later this month. In these intervening weeks, Congress and America need to hear from the transgender people who live and walk and work among them -- you're reading one now -- and listen to what Barbara Sehr of the Ingersoll Gender Center told me last week.
"Until now, the problem has been that nobody has ever seen a trans person," Sehr said. "Before, the thinking was, 'Oh, they're just men in dresses and girls with beards. They're not worth the effort.' In their minds, this was not a civil rights issue. People saw it as a totally sexual thing, when nothing could be further from the truth. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with gender identity."
This generation, Sehr said, has more experience with the issue because more transgender people are being public about it.
"The same thing happened with the gay community. Twenty or 30 years ago, not that many gays were out, and people didn't realize they might be living next door to a gay person. Once people realized that the gay agenda included doing their laundry and driving their kids to school and getting their hair done, the thinking changed to, 'Hey, they're normal! They deserve civil rights.' "
You are reading this right now, in no small part, because in 2003 California passed a state version of ENDA, the Gender Non-Discrimination Act. In early March, I scheduled a meeting with a person in our human resources department to do some exploratory research about transitioning at The Times. I was told: "Well, The Times cannot discriminate against you because California has a law in place."
Well. That was worded somewhat more bluntly than I wanted to hear. But it also was comforting. I had protection. I could be myself, and I could continue to draw a paycheck. From those crude beginnings, I was able to work with HR and my editors on a transition strategy that enabled me to keep my job, change my byline and, as it turns out, boost my career to a new level of personal fulfillment. I now write three or four columns a week for The Times' Sports section along with two blogs, including Woman in Progress, about the experience of transitioning from male to female.
I realize I am lucky. California is one of nine states that currently bar discrimination against transgender employees. My friend Susan Stanton did not have that kind of protection in Florida. In February, she lost her job as city manager of Largo despite a long and outstanding record of public service.
So I have a personal and professional stake in what's happening to ENDA right now. So do you, if you care about the most basic rights being extended to a neighbor, a co-worker, a friend who might be transgender but afraid to tell anybody because a national ENDA is still but a concept being picked apart by some shortsighted political opportunists.
Christine Daniels is a Los Angeles Times sportswriter.
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
22 Comments so far
Show AllI'm so glad the gay community didn't cave on this. It's important to stick together. Why should any group be left out? Makes no sense except to those who wish to divide and conquer.
I believe Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are practical legislators who would rather win some battles on health care, war, taxes, the future Supreme Court, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other things, than to enable the less-than-honest detractors from the right to scream about EMPLOYERS' RIGHTS OVER TRANSGENDERS' RIGHTS all the way through the next election. And we ought to be glad they have that much sense, since, indeed, we liberals lost the last two presidential elections by the margin of reactionaries.
Grrr ... I suppose to SOME Democratic Party lickspittles, being "practical" is more important than protecting people's rights. This brings to mind Martin Niemoller:
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me."
Or Ray Charles (by way of Barry Mann, Cynthia Weil, Brenda Russell):
"You better listen my brother
'Cause if you do you can hear
There are voices still callin' from across the years
And they're cryin' across the ocean
And they're cryin' across the land
And they will until we all come to understand
"That none of us are free
None of us are free
None of us are free if one of us is chained
None of us are free
"Well there are people in the darkness
And they just can't see the light
And if we don't say it's wrong then that says it's right
We got to feel for each other
Let our brothers know we're here
Got to get the message and send it out loud and clear
"That none of us are free
None of us are free
None of us are free if one of us is chained
None of us are free
Well it's the single truth
We all need to see
That none of are free if one of us is chained
None of us are free."
Yes, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Frank are indeed practical politicians who keep their powder dry, pick their battles, and refuse to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
So, for now, transgendered persons are a form of collateral damage.
I've been asking myself a lot lately whether being a Sensible Moderate is innate or a "choice". Because I find the curious Principle of Not Standing on Principle repugnant, along with all of the other dogma loyal moderate Democrats piously spout.
And incidentally, it's arrant nonsense to imply, as the plodding accommodationists do, that if everyone just took their "sensible" approach and supported the least offensive candidates, that little by little the clouds of oppression and malignant irrationality will part and the sunshine of enlightenment again spread o'er the horizon.
I cordially despise Joe Klein, but in "Primary Colors" he accurately satirized the "liberal" politician who encourages progressives and dissenters to jump on his bandwagon because once he gets in, he'll address their issues-- hell, he agrees with them, but knows ya gotta work the system.
And once they do get in, whoops-- turns out they can't help out their "outsider" buds after all, because of various unforseen circumstances. Probably because the outsiders didn't "keep up the pressure". Please!
This attempt by Barney Frank and John Aravosis to delete the T from LGBT is an all-time low for gay and lesbian people.
Anyone who makes the claim that the Ts are, as Aravosis says, suddenly hijacking the gay and lesbian cause is completely ignorant of (or willfulling ignoring) queer history.
Have any of these people ever heard of the Stonewall Riots?
My God, I am so ashamed.
David Dnaiel,
"we liberals lost the last two presidential elections by the margin of reactionaries."
The last two presidential elections were stolen and the proof is available to everyone.
bildad,
Grr, yourself. And name-calling is hardly appropriate for someone pretending to be intellectual. You're not tired enough, yet, of Republicans running your life and your country. When you are, you'll appreciate that a modicum of practicality is required to win elections over a voting block that is actually 50% conservative-leaning. Indeed, Democrats need to pick their battles, and this one isn't ripe yet, as Barney Frank has wisely noted. One might note though, that if progressives can get in the saddle and actually elect clear Democrat leadership, the transgender folks might get just the legislation they want. In 2009. Not in 2007 when so much is on the line to be lost by so few if they exercise poor judgment.
Barney Frank, like many gay men, has a visceral antipathy towards transgender women.
The people who passed DOMA and were satisfied with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and keep urging "Just vote for us again, and we'll get another little nibble" are not worth the time of day.
Following the Civil War, the 'practical politicians' decided that the time hadn't arrived for women to have the right to vote, and Fredercik Douglass and others split with women over whether they should be included in enfranchisement & took the position of 'ex-slaves first'. Of course what happened was that women's claims were postponed another 60 years -- and the suffragettes were told still that the "time wasn't ripe" and it would be another half century wait for the descendents of slaves.
"One might note though, that if progressives can get in the saddle and actually elect clear Democrat leadership, the transgender folks might get just the legislation they want."
OK, let's suppose that Dems get clear majorities in the House and the Senate. We will hear from Senate Democrats that they can't pass a bill for transgender peoples' rights as long as the Republicans still have 41 Senators. If Republicans have 38 or 39 Senators, they will still say "We can't do anything because if we pass it, we'll lose our Congressional majorities in the next election". And of course Phlox Noise and the rest will be in major assault mode, so ANY remtoely controversial legislation will be put aside by the "practical politicians".
There is never any time which is "safe" by the Democratic Leadership COuncil's principles -- everything is always "at stake" -- the time is never ripe -- it's always "but think about the risks of the next election."
Dichterfreund,
You're right. Democrats are always cautious, they're always fence-riders to a degree, and they're always money-grubbing (from corporations or anyone else)
politicians first. But Republicans are not going to pass anything ever for the GLBT community, nor for blacks, nor for hispanics, nor for women, nor for any individual citizens. What Republicans are going to do is pack a Supreme Court that instead reverses the gains of the past. Most people have not yet even caught on what the Alito-to-replace-OConner nomination has cost and will cost citizens for years into the future. Only half-reliable Kennedy stands in the way of a corporate steamroller parading as a court.
One more, just one more, judicial appointment like that is going to hurt real people--a lot, and for decades. So, whether I like Hillary Clinton (or Obama, or Edwards), I do trust them to appoint judges and I will support them to the end for that reason alone. Of course I would prefer Kucinich, but Kucinich is not going to be elected. Those least worst Democrats MIGHT be elected, and I personally believe their chances will be somewhat better if some of us beg the progressives to take a deep breath and help. The notion of beating up the luke-warm Democrats to ensure the election of cold-as-ice Republicans, I just don't get where the progressives realize any "progress" in that. The ideas constantly debated here are nice, but they might as well be debated on the moon unless we elect candidates who are at least somewhat sympathetic to our positions.
Giulini, I assure you, is not. Neither is Thompson.
How backward the US is... no surprise there...
Meanwhile, in a small country like New Zealand... meet Georgina Beyer:
http://www.georginabeyer.com/
A kiwi mayor & MP. Openly transsexual. Former drag queen & stripper. Former prostitute. None of it a secret, not of it a big deal. Last I head she is planning to run for mayor of Wellington.
"My speaking time is drawing thin and I cannot help but mention the number of "firsts" in this Parliament: our first Rastafarian---our Green colleague over there and I am very glad to see him here because it adds diversity; our first Polynesian woman member of Parliament, and, yes, I have to say it, I guess, the first transsexual in New Zealand to be standing in this House of Parliament. This is a first not only in New Zealand, ladies and gentlemen, but also in the world. This is a historic moment." (2000)
Oh, when will the US grow up?
~ Proud Unamerican.
To answer the question about when the U.S. will grow up in regards to issues of gender and sexuality, I'd say that it'll happen when people start to divest of the clinging remnants of Puritan morality. I'm sure New Zealand has its fair share of reactionaries too but the trick is that they don't exert political clout on the scale of America's reactionaries. The other side to this, as Dichterfreund pointed out is the hatred/loathing/fear associated with transpeople. As a gay man, I've spent time with transpeople and have not experienced any of those feelings. I don't get what the big deal about someone being trans. The Democrats are just typical political types who make their calculations based on getting by politically. They are marginally less poisonous than BushCo but only just.
Daniel David keeps trying to convince us that the Dems are still the minority party and just need our vote to be able to suddenly do all the good things that they have neglected/refused to do.
Foolish, and you KNOW it.
Why is it when someone has a legitimate gripe about Democrats here comes ole' double-D and explains to us it's not their fault, that the Repubs are still 'running the country'. Well you know what DD, that's the only correct thing you've said. The part you neglect to mention is that most of those Republicans have a D next to their name, and are the same people you would have us slit our own throats to support.
Well, no. I'm just not that stupid, gullible or childishly enthralled with 'my team'.
The Dems you love so much are in power RIGHT NOW. That's right, TODAY they have the power, they GOT MY VOTE when they needed it in 2006, and how has my confidence been repaid? You don't want to get into that part of it do you?
You'd have us forget the complete lack of any attempt at filibustering any of the fascist legislation the hard-righters brought to the table. You'd have us forget the capitulation and outright complicit backstabbing of their base. You'd have us forget that the Dems are by a large majority hawks and warmongers (oh, and among those who profit from our assaults on innocent nations).
Forget all that? No, forget YOU. Forget you and all of your sell out friends who want me to completely ignore history, logic and my own self-interest in order to play for 'the team'.
Your pity-party for the Dems was obsolete the day they took over both House and Senate. Your cries of needing a supermajority are dishonest AT BEST in light of the fact that the committees that are now in Dem hands keep pumping out flotsam to the floors of Congress.
Seriously, unless you're being paid to shill for the Dems you should probably look into the U.S. political system and after learning of the tools available to sitting congresspeople reevaluate the Dems in light of their ludicrously poor performance and unwillingness to do what they can to represent the will of the people.
If you ARE being paid to do this, resubmit for more job training, because you're doing a piss-poor job of convincing anyone.
"Those least worst Democrats MIGHT be elected, and I personally believe their chances will be somewhat better if some of us beg the progressives to take a deep breath and help. The notion of beating up the luke-warm Democrats to ensure the election of cold-as-ice Republicans, I just don't get where the progressives realize any "progress" in that."
Al Gore undisputably won the popular vote in 2000, and he won the electoral vote, which would have been publically shown had he gone for a statewide recount. He refused to do anything about it because he was a "cautious" Democrat.
All the exit polls showed an unbeatable majority for John Kerry in 2004, when vote flipping started; and tho' he'd pledged to make sure every vote counted, Kerry immediately conceded and Bush took the White House illegally a second time.
Come 2006, the Democrats were pushed into majorities by a tremendous popular effort, by people who demanded impeachment to remove those who illegally gained & illegally exercise power -- and they STILL DID NOTHING TO DO SO.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, thrice, four times . . .
The Democratic leadership has absolutely no intention of advancing human rights domestically or human rights internationally. All the want is polite dinners safe from the hoi polloi with their colleagues, and large fences & water cannon to repel those who try to scale the fences.
neomunk,
No, I am not being paid to shill for Democrats at this site or any other. As for (anyone) convincing you of anything whatsoever, that goal appears to be out of reach.
Your reply, though, has failed to advance any credible strategy to counter permanent Republican rule in the United States. I will take some comfort in believing that the more you practice your "smackdown" posting manners, the more thought other readers might give to how they can actually participate in regaining citizen control of their country. Since you'll be hard to top in the "having a fit" category, some of them will resort to logic--and that's always a good thing.
Dichterfreund,
I probably can't convince you either, but thanks for relative civility.
Daniel David
Daniel David:
Your continual calls for support for people who vote right along the same lines and with the same purpose as the Republicans does even less to advance any credible strategy to counter any permanent corporate (which you mistakenly label as Republican, as if it were unique to them, a fact which I point out in every post, a fact which you ignore in every one of yours).
And what about my post is at all illogical? What about my post is 'smackdown' style?
Can you seriously give ANY REASONABLE excuse for your Democrat friends' actions in congress? All you ever offer is 'Ds are better than Rs' without any corroborating facts.
Every post of yours is a whine and a moan about how we're giving in to the Republicans, you never offer any REAL reason to vote Democratic other than beating Republicans. You never face the fact that your Dems are offering up more of the same flotsam.
You berate me for my tone while conveniently ignoring the fact that my statements are accurate and undeniable. Can you offer any (ANY, ANY AT ALL) excuse for the Democratic controlled (yes, that's Democratic, not Republican, just to remind you YET again) congress advancing the same disasterous policies as the neocon? No, 'we need 60 votes' isn't accurate, nor is it acceptable, simply because it's both obviously untrue and completely insulting to my intelligence.
The insults you o-so-smoothly level at me in your reply are cute. More informationless platitudes from someone who knows they having nothing useful to add. Attack my message (if you can) not me. Attacking ME is easy, I'm poor, uneducated and unproductive to the economy (I'm a stay at home dad). I'm also agitated by repetitions of easily proved falsehoods. My message however is sound, and you'll find my mind EASILY swayed (though you probably won't believe it) if you can prove otherwise.
Good luck, you'll need it. Frankly, your Democratic saviors have removed any leg you had to stand on.
P.S. I've offered my solution before, often actually, but you're right DD, I didn't this time.
The solution (obviously enough) is to IGNORE the letter next to the politician's name and vote for their policies. Vote for what you believe in, not which 'team' you supposedly belong to.
That, of course, is assuming your vote will be counted, but in the context of THIS conversation, I believe that that is an unstated assumption we both are working with.
P.S.S.
The reason I'm angry about this is that you're spewing the same crap that I actually (foolishly) fell for in 2006. What did it get me Daniel? What good has come from 'taking one for the team' this time? Not a damn thing.
I've been betrayed. We all have.
That's enough to anger someone who thinks that this is more than a game, more than trying to win one for the Gipper. People are DYING right now, horrible painful degrading deaths, by the hands of those who you would put on a pedestal for being (in your own words) 'least worst'. I guess that's nothing to get upset over, after all, we wouldn't want to come off looking like we think we matter, or looking like we're too soft to murder innocents.
The more I go up and re-read your posts Daniel David, the more I think I was TOO civil with you. I hope you're haunted by the ghosts (read: memories) of those that die because your 'least worst' heros can't pull out of Iraq until 2013 (2013?!?! Are you KIDDING ME?) because they would look 'soft on terror'.
You won't be though, because that would be too honest of you, an attribute that is anathema to capitulators and enablers like you.
neomunk,
The last presidential election went to Bush with just about 51%, as I recall, of the popular vote. Although some polls say Democrats are ahead for 2008 so far, I don't believe it. I believe there are many people (as are found at this site) who are angry, disappointed, and actively working against Democrats--which, if they're successful will hand the election to Giuliani or Thompson. Maybe even by a wider margin than Bush got in 2004. That is a worst worst outcome, and given the shenanigans that can be pulled with electronic voting machines, it is far liklier than the MSM would have us believe with their constant polling.
I'm sorry you're disappointed with the fruit of 2006, as it has so far played out. I'm not thrilled with it either. But, more importantly, I still can't get over 2004, because I know what the additions of Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court have done to hurt real people--for years to come. One guy called it "the long national nightmare just beginning". My single biggest reason for wanting a Democrat in 2008 is the Supreme Court. It's worth having one for no other reason than that, but there are really dozens to hundreds of other good reasons in every little corner of every agency.
I would be delighted if Kucinich was our president. But, failing that, I can also accept Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, or any other who is not a Republican who promises "strict constructionist" judges
to keep people down for decades.
As for attacking you, I think if you'll read your posts and mine, you'll find it was the other way around. As for being on "teams", I'm not, and I don't even like the concept. I am voting policy, just as you suggest, against Republican policy--for the other candidate (who will be a Democrat whether we like that or not.
The fallacy that you keep repeating is that somehow the Dems are different than the Republicans. THIS is the statement you keep making that I keep denying.
Specifically, what about Hillary Clinton makes her any different than the Republicans? She's a hawk, she's all for reducing civil liberties in the name of security, she's all for increasing tensions with Iran, etc. Her policies are undeniably neoconservative, he health plan obviously a solution that benefits only the (already fat from the trough) insurance industry...
Obama? Neither you nor I know enough about him to pass judgment, favorable or no. He's just not been around long enough to have amassed a comprehesive voting record, but by his speeches, he's just a moderate conservative.
Edwards, now there is a man who you MIGHT MAYBE be able to convince me to vote for. His voting record is mixed (which is favorable, compared to the rest of the crowd) and most of the positions he alludes to in his speeches are somewhat sane. Unfortunately he's a hawk too. Well, maybe just a falcon, but still a raptor. He is however (from my point of view) within a few yards of practical, and could be brought all the way there if he removes from his advisory team the capitulators and the nay-sayers.
The rest are pipe-dream candidates, just like Kucinich and Gravel have been made to be by the corporate media.
As for being on team, you claim you're not, but then in the same paragraph explain that you're voting AGAINST the team that's supposedly (the most important word in this post) opposite yours. That's playing for 'the team'.
And STILL, yet again, you completely dodge 95% (the informative 95%) of my posts. You ignore factual information I present in support of my stance. (said stance being that there is no appreciable difference between the Rs and Ds)
The difference is like that between a ski-masked thug robbing everyone who walks down my street by knifepoint and the guy who claims to be my friend waiting until I'm not looking and cleaning out my wallet. I'd rather deal with the open thug. The 'friend' who just cleaned me out would look at me sheepishly, shrug and say 'I tried to stop them man'.
I'm sorry, but that seems even MORE dishonest (and dangerous, I'd shoot the thug who tried to get in my house, the 'friend' might just slit my throat while I slumber) and thus more worth my ire. ESPECIALLY since these thieving 'friends' are supposedly (like you keep implying) my only choice unless I want the thug in my house.
I don't buy it, there IS a choice, there IS a way out of the false dichotomy, and it's voting AGAINST both thug and 'friend'.
Most certainly, I will not allow such a 'friend' to sweet talk me into being allowed back into my confidence, to do so would be a character flaw on my part.
neomunk,
I'm glad we can agree on John Edwards being "MAYBE" acceptable. I like him much more than I like Hillary, but I doubt he has much real chance.
As for ignoring the facts of your posts that Democrats govern much like Republicans, perhaps I have ignored that point because I pretty much agree with what you're saying. Four years ('09-'12) with Democrats all over the place would only shift the government slightly and slowly to the "left." Both parties are indeed much the same when they really get into office, with the notable exception of Supreme Court nominees.
But I prefer a slight shift left to a further shift toward corporations. That's why I plan to spend more energy working against Republicans than working against Democrats. See you later on some other future thread.
I think that part of the reason people continue to support the Dems despite the fact that they are pretty much using the same neo-con talking points as the Repubs is summed up by a quote I read in an article about Algeria. An old woman was talking about her political choices and to paraphrase her, "If I have to choose between the thieves and the killers, I'll choose the thieves." I think people are still more comforted by the thieves, even if that's the wrong approach.