Gay-Rights Milestone Draws Transgender Activists' Outcry
A bill forbidding workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation -- which gay activists see as a milestone in three decades of activism -- is moving steadily through the House, encouraging advocates who hope to make advances now that Democrats control Congress.
But the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, has been met by impassioned resistance, and it's not from conservatives opposed to gay rights. Rather, transgender activists, backed by many in the gay community, are angry that the bill's sponsors, in a bow to political reality, stripped out protections for those who are born as one gender but live as the other.
The small but vocal transgender community has generated notable support among activists for its demand that the bill not move forward without including them. A coalition of about 300 groups sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter Oct. 1 saying, "We oppose legislation that leaves part of our community without protections and basic security that the rest of us are provided."
This opposition has deeply frustrated the bill's backers, including Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who warn that a short-sighted insistence on purity could torpedo a long-cherished goal. The non-discrimination bill -- scheduled for a committee vote Thursday -- cannot pass if it includes transgender rights, they say.
"You protect people when you can," said Frank, one of the only openly gay members of Congress. "The notion you don't do anything until you do everything is self-defeating."
Activist: Bill writes a wrong
For many gay activists, a non-discrimination bill that omits transgender people would write immorality into the law, akin in their view to a civil rights bill that protects blacks but not Hispanics. The way transgender people have been incorporated into gay activism is symbolized by the frequent use of the term GLBT, or gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender.
Cutting off transgender people would betray that coalition, some argue. "We as a community are accustomed to gaining our rights incrementally," said Roberta Sklar, spokeswoman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Issue by issue, not person by person."
Rick Garcia, public policy director at Equality Illinois, a GLBT advocacy group with 12,000 members, said the bill would not cover all gays and lesbians if it omits transgender people. He points to Illinois, which has a state law banning discrimination based on gender identity, as proof that such a bill could pass.
"I am in the heartland. I am in the middle of the country," Garcia said. "If it can play here, it can play anywhere."
The battle reflects a larger issue facing the Democrats now that they control Congress for the first time in 12 years. Activists, full of pent-up energy after their long exile, are pushing the party on a variety of issues -- from the Iraq war to impeaching President Bush -- toward positions that party leaders fear are unrealistic and even politically damaging.
"I came to the Congress as an advocate myself, so on any issue you can name, I appreciate the relentless, dissatisfied persistence of advocates," Pelosi said recently. "There is a level of dissatisfaction that will always be there." But, she added, activists and party leaders have distinct roles.
Frank echoed that point. "Does a political party say to its most militant, committed, ideologically driven believers in purity that they have a veto over what the party does?" Frank said. "How do we relate to those people? And it has become an increasing problem for both parties."
He emphasized that the choice on this measure is between getting no bill and one that omits transgender people. In a highly personal Oct. 9 speech on the House floor, he seemed agonized that he was being accused of indifference to transgender rights.
"I say to my colleagues in the gay community, maybe I will do a little stereotyping, maybe they have seen 'The Wizard of Oz' too often," Frank said. "They seem to have Speaker Pelosi -- a wonderful, dedicated, committed supporter of human rights -- confused with Glenda the good witch. They think if she waved her magic wand, she could somehow change things."
'Attack on people of faith'
On the conservative side, most activists oppose the bill whether or not transgender rights are included.
"It's an attack on businesses and people of faith," said Tom McClusky, vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council. "Businesses wouldn't have the freedom to hire whoever they want."
Still, American culture and politics reflect a growing acceptance of gay rights, but a discomfort with the notion of someone born into one gender but identifying with the other.
"Little by little, the broader culture has included gay people," said Sheila Kennedy, a law and public policy professor at Indiana University who has written on the subject. "You don't see that same thing occurring with transgender people, at least not nearly to the same extent. ... It's perceived as strange or unusual."
For now, Democratic leaders are pushing ahead with their version of the bill that omits transgender protection. The House Committee on Education and Labor is scheduled to vote Thursday, and supporters are hopeful the full House will pass it.
Pelosi has agreed to allow an amendment on the floor to include transgender rights, which is expected to fail.
Meanwhile, gay activists fear Bush will veto the bill, but they argue that even congressional passage would mark an enormous step forward.
© 2007 The Chicago Tribune
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
17 Comments so far
Show AllLet me start by saying that I am a Straight White Male. But I'm also a Leftist/Progressive (I would NOT call myself a "liberal"). I'm a white-collar-office-worker. For me the question is simple. When is bigotry/descrimination OK?
The Answer is also simple: NEVER. I've learned long ago the importance of standing up for the under-dog. Obviously (from reading this discussion) Transgender people are still under-dogs even within the TBLG movement/community. The slogan "an injury to ONE is an injury to All." is something that all progressives can live by. I think that Loraine and GrrlExplores are absolutely right.
At my former High School there was a transgender person who worked in the administation office. SHE was hired after I graduated. I never met HER. HER name was Robin. SHE was a Transsexual. Students would make fun of HER. Even HER bosses/coworkers didn't want to have much to do with HER. HER desk was moved to a basement. They didn't want a parent or new student to see HER and get offended. SHE was made to feel like a FREAK. SHE killed HERself.
SOME FUCKING CHOICE.
Looking at this thread it's no wonder that progressives can't seem to get anywhere these days.
I know the GLB community is pinning a lot of hopes on Barney Frank's bill, but it will be a long time before it's passed because homophia is so strong in some parts of the country. It's sometimes virulent. ENDA will pass about as quickly with transgendered people included.
Efforts between now and then should be focused on education and public celebrations of GLBT individuals who've made a successful transition into mainstream life, overcoming stereotypes and discrimination. Get people featured in the media -- part of the reason for fears of GLBT people is that a lot of people haven't seen those in the community with whom they can identify. The same was true of Blacks several generations ago -- until whites were "forced" to work with African Americans, many just did not let down the walls of fear and resistance.
The time is much closer now for those in the GLBT community to finally receive equal rights, but it's still not going to happen right away.
There's way too much talk about people having choices here.
If you have a choice, then your suggesting that you are in control of your thoughts. And if you think that's the case, then I have one simple question for you -
Can you guess your next thought?
No?
Assuming you are your thoughts, is like assuming you are your heart beating, or that your in control of your chest cavity rising and falling as you breathe.
What caused what to be whom?
The natural function of life involves all possibilities, and the quicker we see this, the quicker life will function without resistance, naturally, as it should.
Civil rights is about allowing that natural functioning of life to occur.
gyro....
thank you for being so succinct...i tend to become verbose in my attempts to get my point across...if you had posted before me, perhaps my contribution would have been simply "ya, what she said"....
so, i guess you're the man in your relationship...ugh and oy!
One thing about an effective civil rights movement is that it cannot be a catch-all.
I think Jade is one out of the many in the gay movement who, as such, in some way represents gays who do not like being lumped into a group with trans people. There are a lot of us who have been around numerous individuals who actively work to defy gender perceptions--and we sympathize with but are not synonymous with them. But we are not trans. Trans folk and gender-fuckers should not be considered part of the gay movement. They have their own understanding that they need to impart to all of us. Which is why they need their own movement. Teach me, and all of us.
But for the time being, consider this: I DO NOT WANT TO BE A MAN. As a butch lesbian I have to explain this to people all the time. I am not a man; I do not want to be a man. For straight people, this is a very confusing issue, especially when the women who do want to be men are lumped into our political movement--i.e. the movement of women who have to fight the stereotype that we all have penis envy (works with men too). I hate to say it, but girls who want to cut their lady parts off aren't doing me any good right now.
If gays are confused by their own civil rights movement, then we're screwed.
Transgender people are not gay, they have NOTHING to do with being gay and some don't see them belonging to the gay civil rights movement. I was one of them.
Not anymore, prejudice is prejudice, regardless, and it must be defeated. They're tying gay down, perhaps. It doesn't mean their cause is less important than ours, this bill should include them.
Jade,
I do not know what goes on in the isolated community of Provincetown but Full Equal Rights for Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgender people does not seem to be on the agenda as represented by you. WHAT THE HELL HAS GONE ON UP THERE. Such ignorance as expressed by you was not evident in the late 70s and 80s when I first went up there several times. I did not notice any ignorance or hostility towards Transgender people when I was there for my civil union honeymoon in 2000.
As a Lesbian you should damn well demand that the NAACP join with us!
You confuse Transgender with cross dressers. And, Transgender folks have been with us from the beginning and have endured all the abuse and persecution our bigoted and hate-loving nation has been able to use against us. Read and learn about Stonewall. Read and learn who was in the first march for OUR rights.
Your ignorance was also shared by our former Governor (a well known closet case) when he imposed a tax on medical procedures for Transgender people. Being Transgender is not a choice. These words regarding choice are identical to those used against Gays and Lesbians by the bigoted religious right. Don't you hear yourself.
Naomi also writes about psychologists and their opinions. This relates to the ancient debate of nurture vs nature. Well, all of Learning Theory's precepts from Freud through Watson to Skinner were shown to have serious problems with Garcia's experiment in the 60s. Cognitive Theory has shown its scientific value and does not ignore the brain as was written of by Crick in Scientific American in 1980.
Remember, the psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers with psychoanalysts viewed us as sick. All but the analysts changed their views and reversed themselves saying we were now OK. But, WHAT GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO BEGIN WITH? What they should have done and what we should demand is that they apologize for using the hate of society and its religions to justify their mythic opinions. They need to state that they had no right to begin with. Also, I love all this science trying to find out why we are Gay. How about finding why heterosexuals are heterosexual and perhaps they can find the gene that causes them as a group to persecute us and deny us FULL EQUAL RIGHTS.
Thank you,
George DeCarlo
CANDIDATE FOR GENERAL ASSMEBLY IN NEW JERSEY'S 21ST DISTRICT.
member Lavender Green (LGBTIQ) Caucus of the Green Party
908-342-1275 (cell)
geodecarlo@yahoo.com
Also, I am a Consulting Hypnotist.
Jade:
The language excluded from ENDA is something along the lines of "gender identity and expression".
Numerous gay, lesbian, and bi people are discriminated against because of their "gender identity and expression", including lesbian woman who claim to look remarkably like you. Try visiting GenderPac.org for specific examples of this.
They are harassed, fired, abused and killed because they are not "female" or "male" enough, and they don't act the way women and men are supposed to act. As you seem to acknowledge, they are, in their own way, gender transgressive or TRANSGENDERED.
In fact, homophobia is rooted in gender prejudice. Homophobia is rooted in the belief that women only have sex with men, and men only have sex with women. This is how bi-people connect with you - in that they transgress these expectations by having sex with both/any genders.
It's all about gender. It's always been about gender.
Which is why smart people all over the country (and world) understand that you Jade, as a lesbian woman, are not fully protected from discrimination until your gender identity and expression is also protected. Which is one reason why over 300 organizations have demanded that ENDA include language that covers gender identity and expression.
As far as "transgender" being a choice.... really?
Are you sure? That seems a funny thing to say because standing on the front lines of LGBT activism I've heard the EXACT SAME CLAIMS from the religious right about being lesbian!
You probably don't know this, but most psychologists who study transgender issues don't really see gender identity as a choice. Its a part of your sense of self (or spirit) the very same as sexual orientation. And most trans people would agree with this assessment, because they would tell you that sometimes its not very fun to be trans, but they have no choice but to be honest about who they are.
So yes, I guess it is a choice - being honest or lying. Most people choose to be honest and damn the consequences. But one of those consequences shouldn't include being marginalized by people who face the same kinds of challenges.
Transgender is a huge umbrella - covering gender non-conforming LGB people, drag queens, crossdressers and transvestites, transgenderists, transsexuals, two-spirits (which have been found since the beginning of our species), and a list of other gender identities beyond my ability to name them all. And then there's intersex.... which adds a whole different anatomical perspective to this discussion.
So if you want to continue to use your own race, class and gender privileges as a shield to avoid what these good people are trying to explain to you - then that's certainly your right. But at least they have tried to get you to understand something is clearly evident to most LGBT organizations, front-line activists and supporters.
Good luck,
Naomi
The most disenfranchised, discriminated members of a society or segment thereof have always been represented in the fight for rights of the larger discriminated class.
Which reminds me of the whole divide and conquer strategy.
We have to ask our fellow Americans whether we are going to have the same legal rights for the LGBT community as heterosexual Aemricans.
Because if we don't, what legal right does the country have to possess any power over citizens who aren't accorded basic common rights?
It's ironic that in Connecticut a lesbian couple is asking the court for a divorce- they had been married in Massachusetts. The no-same sex marraige crowd doesn't want them to be able to get a divorce because in effect it will be Connecticut recognizing the marriage. Maybe they really, subconsciously want them to suffer in marriage like too many straight couples?
Let's get honest about the rights of citizens in a society. Powers not given specifically to the federal or state governments reside in the people as individuals. Equal protection under the law is, pardon the pun, pretty straight forward.
Were it only so!
loraine.....
thanks for your insight.....
i lived in p-town for 10 years...my interaction with transexual, transgender folks is not limited to cross dressing men or drag queens...i was using the cross dressers as a reference to 'choice'...
i can understand that you would be fed up with people telling you you don't belong...i maintain that i do not see a connection and/or united front in regards to gay and lesbian and transgendered people...do i support your civil rights as a person, of course i do! but i do not recognize your transgendered choice as the basis of your right to be included in gay/lesbian legislation....
one's race is not a choice...one's sexual orientation is not a choice...transgender, religion, politics, professions--those are all choice...i don't support special civil rights for those who choose to believe in supernatural beings either......
i know this must be difficult for you to read/comprehend--i have had many a conversation (or scream fests) with homophobes (some close relatives included) who would deny any legal protections for me as a lesbian...i just don't see our common thread......
...jade
Dear Jade and all,
Bisexuals and transfolk didn't "ask" to join "your" movement. We have been a part of it from the start. It's just a matter of whether we recognize each other as in common cause, or not. The reason LGBT has become a popular term, or LGBTIQQ, etc., is because it WORKS for us to understand the connections between our orientations and identities and to educate others about it as a group. I am sick and tired of people telling me I don't belong in "their" movement and that they'll support me as long as I stay separate. Which doesn't mean I don't defend lesbian-only space. I do. Just as I defend all groups to have their own space as touchstone. I have learned a lot from lesbian feminists and would not be as committed a bi activist as I am without that. I've also learned a lot from bis and gay men and trans and intersex people, etc. Yes this ENDA issue is a complex one, but that is all the more reason we need to understand WHY orientation and gender identity are linked. Jade the way you describe trans people tells me you might benefit from meeting more of them and educating yourself more about the huge diversity of their issues. They are not just as few cross-dressers conventioning once a year in P'Town, although i bless those folks too. In fact, you're onto part of it when you name the trans aspects of your own identity. That is exactly the core of the argument about why we need to stand together on this more inclusive ENDA bill and not cut out the more gender-variant among us. I didn't tag onto anything. I've been out and watching your back, and all of our backs, for many years and I'm fed up with people telling me I don't belong. This is MY movement and I'm not leaving it or ceding it to anyone.
with love,
Loraine
gaveingourley...please see my first paragraph where i say "i support bisexual and transgendered people's civil rights but why tag on to our long term fight for rights?" i am a white woman who is a lifetime member of the naacp...i wouldn't demand that the association embrace me as a person of color...
when i said "i love my men", i was referring to straight men not gay men though i do have gay men friends...
it is my understanding that transgendered people have a choice in being transgendered...it's a choice to appear and act the opposite of what society dictates is the proper role for each sex...it's a choice just as the cross dressing men who visit provincetown for a week each year with their wives--they choose and enjoy dressing as women (silly donna reed type women)...i don't abide by the dictates, i have transcended them--i have both obvious masculine and feminine (as opposed to male and female) qualities and am very comfortable with myself--i don't expect any special privliges for that....
i came out in 1972 so i know about the struggles and have had death threats made against me...my last wonderful galfriend, who i am still close to, is bisexual...i came crashing out of the closet and have never cared what people thought about my appearance or sexuality...
i own my own company and when my employees are on 'the clock', they are representing my company...i have a right not to hire people who choose to appear unkempt and unbathed--i would hope they wouldn't sue me for discrimination...if a person wants to work at mac cosmetics or prada international dressed in a scarecrow outfit and it is not allowed, is that discrimination?
i was born gay and my only choice in the matter is to accept it--very naturally, i have embraced it-...
by the way, pedophiles have a non-conformist attitude towards sex and i don't intend to present a united front with them.....
the general public is ready to accept and pass civil rights statutes for gay people--it has taken decades of work, we have fought the hard fight...enda will not pass if transgendered people are included...i know this is a point of contention with many gay people...
respectfully....
.....jade
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has a very disturbing history in regards equal rights for Transgender AND Gay people. I caught him and his staffer in a lie back in 2004 when I debated his staffer, Mr. McGlinchey, on a the Gay listserv - queerpolitics@lists.qrd.org.
In my first message, I purposely did not write the source of my information that Rep. Frank, Traitor to Gays, told the Democratic Caucus in Congress that it was alright for them to vote against DOMA. He told them in 1996 that Gays and Lesbians would understand. This vote was at the same time ENDA was being voted on prior to the presidential election that year. Rep. Frank was acting for the White House and not civil rights as he now enjoys telling everyone about his personal history.
His staffer then posted the following with Rep. Frank answering: "I have just seen the posting from someone named George DeCarlo relaying a story told to him by someone named Marc Loveless who is relaying a conversation that he had with Congressman Bobby Rush. Since this now is a third-hand report of what I was supposed to have said, I am not surprised that it is seriously inaccurate.
First, I never told the Democratic Caucus - nor any other group nor individual - that the Defense of Marriage Act "wasn't something that L & G really cared about." I made it clear throughout that discussion in 1996 that I and other gay and lesbian people strongly opposed the measure. I spoke frequently against it in Committee and on the floor, and, in fact, I offered an amendment to try to kill the most obnoxious part of it - the one that prevents couples in a same-sex marriage from getting federal benefits. That is the one that will be tested by people in federal court after Massachusetts goes forward with same-sex marriage. On that particular amendment, by the way, although we lost badly, I was successful in getting a small majority of the Democrats to vote with us. Unfortunately, we only got three Republican votes on that issue.
Some Democrats had asked me not to offer the amendment because they thought it would be a difficult one for them to vote on, precisely because it undercut the rationale that voting for DOMA was a way to protect states rights. But I thought it was important for our cause that the amendment be offered, and I disregarded these requests.
I did tell a small number of Democrats that I thought that members of the gay and lesbian community would support them electorally even if they voted for DOMA. That small group consisted of Democrats from politically marginal districts in which they faced strong Republican opponents, usually right-wingers, and where, despite this, the Democrats in question had strong
pro-gay records. In other words, I did tell a few Democrats who voted with us on gays in the military, cosponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, supported putting protection for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people into the Hate Crimes Act, supported the domestic partnership laws of the District of Columbia against Congressional efforts to undo them, etc., that I believed gay and lesbian voters would continue to support them against homophobic opponents if DOMA was the only issue on which they had voted against us. I note in this third-hand story that Congressman Bobby Rush is mentioned. Since Congressman Rush holds a very safe Chicago seat, he is not one of the people to whom I would have said that. I should note that things have evolved politically since then, and in the current situation, since the issue before the Congress is not directly same-sex marriage but whether or not a Constitutional amendment should be passed banning it, the political situation is very different. I am strongly urging all of my Democratic colleagues to vote against this particular Constitutional amendment because I do not think that the political situation is comparable to that of DOMA in 1996. There is of course one similarity - both of these are divisive, anti-gay issues brought up by the Republicans within a few months of a Presidential Election. REP. BARNEY FRANK"
This is the information from a friend in Chicago that they did not know I had.:
"From: Marc Loveless
Let me just share one story about Barney Frank. During the debate about DOMA I was lobbying Congressman Bobby Rush (D-IL, 1st District). He told me that Barney had stood up in the democratic Caucus and told them to vote for DOMA because it wasn't something that L&G really cared about and they could say that they were told to vote for it.
Just a little info to think about the Democrats."
Rep. Frank's staffer did not respond but since that time I have let all Gays and Lesbians know about the Congressman and some history he is hiding.
Thank you,
George DeCarlo
member Lavender Green (LGBTIQ) Caucus of the Green Party
908-342-1275 (cell)
geodecarlo@yahoo.com
This is called divide and conquer. Both sides believe that division is the way to go. Barny Frank states that we have to get what we can when we can and if that means dividing the community so be it. The right believes that by dividing us they weaken us.
The right is correct and Mr. Frank is wrong. I've never understood this divisiveness in the equal-human rights movement. I believe that a huge mistake was made when we started making lists of who could not be discriminated against. By making a list anyone who is not on the list is by default unprotected. What we should start doing is asking the question who is not included? When the statement was made that all men were created equal, with certain inalienable rights, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, just who is not included? Does the "men" in the statement mean biological males, or does it mean all of mankind? all of humanity, all human beings. What we need is an amendment stating that "men" means each and every human being, regardless of anything, if you're a member of the species "homo sapiens" you are protected, you are included. Start asking politicians this question, just which human beings are excluded from the constitution, and the bill of rights? That is the question that needs to be answered, and it would be interesting to hear just which humans don't deserve to be under the auspices of the U.S. constitution and why.
Jade, when you said "i figure i am a true transgendered person as i have trancended the silly gender roles created by the society in which i live", I think you got it right. Which why it's odd that you don't care about transgendered rights.
You celebrate your "firm and muscular" body and that you
wear your hair short. But that's not conventionally feminine. If there are no protections in law, an employer can discriminate against you because you don't conform to their ideas of what you should look like, even if you are otherwise clean, well-dressed and presentable.
You don't care about bisexuals or transgendered people, but you are happy to form an allegiance with gay men. That's odd too. If gay men had sought rights for men only, your world would look very different today. The Stonewall riots, the watershed moment for gay rights, didn't involve many lesbians - the rioters were mostly gay men and transsexuals.
Whether ENDA passes or not, people with non-conformist attitudes to sex, sexuality and gender all face the same issues and should present a united front. That includes you Jade.
perhaps my contributions are confusing people...
transgendered people deserve rights like the rest of us...pflag folks are 'straight but not narrow' and support my civil rights as a lesbian, but i would not add them to the lg community...being lesbian or gay is separate from transgendered, catholic, hispanic, young, rich, left handed...i can support all those people in their quest for human rights but i do not agree that they belong under the definition of gay or lesbian...
noone has responded to my reference to nambla--the north american man/boy love associate is a gay group...shall we include them in this legislation as well? i think not...
i want everyone to support legislation to offer lesbians and gays against discrimination including my friends at the naacp BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM GAY...
someone please explain to me what--besides demonization by some--transgendered has to do with being gay??
i am glad that there are members here who support equal rights for transgendered people...i support furthering your civil rights but, please, not on my legislation........
i do not want the term 'men' or 'mankind' to refer to me...human kind is inclusive and i agree we should all be protected by our consititution...i will say with all honesty and my knowledge of right wing conservative religious zealots that they would be turned away if they applied for employment in my business...is that choice or discrimination?
it continues to amaze me that there is still no federal equal rights ammendment for women...
i appreciate that this discussion is intelligent and civil...i do not mean to offend anyone...i appreciate that i can be of a different opinion and i do my best to understand others.....
as a lesbian (you can call me a beener) i have never understood the inclusion of bisexual and transgendered folks...i don't support groups that refer to themselves as lgbt and now lgbtq...i support bisexual and transgendered people's civil rights but why tag on to our long term fight for our rights?
as far as i am concerned, transgendered people only dress and act according to society's dictates of how men and women should dress and act...i don't get it...i figure i am a true transgendered person as i have trancended the silly gender roles created by the society in which i live...i am firm and muscular and wear my hair short, my beloved boobies are held up by a lacey black bra, i wear toenail polish, lots of bracelets, like my skin to be soft and sweet, i cut my own firewood, bale hay and manage all the repairs on my house...oh, and i LOVE my men!! and NO, this is not an invite of any sort...