It’s official. House Democratic leaders, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and openly gay Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) are taking gender-identity protections out of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) because they fear it will not pass otherwise.
This is reprehensible. There is a reason we use the unwieldy acronym L, G, B, and T. Although there is a difference between sexual orientation and gender identity, there is much common cause among the four groups. We have come too far in creating an inclusive movement to abandon transgender people now. The non-trans part of the movement also risks shooting itself in the foot. Let’s take a look at the text of the bill for a moment:
The term `gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.
Many of us in even in the non-trans part of the spectrum nevertheless have “appearance or mannerisms” counter to traditional gender roles. If someone is fired for being a lesbian, but the employer claims it was because she had short hair and wore pants all the time, an ENDA without a gender-identity clause is useless.
If the bill is going to fail, it is going to do so with or without the inclusion of gender identity and expression. The Senate yesterday passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, with gender identity and expression intact, proving it is possible. Are the hypothetical votes the LGBT movement would gain in ditching them from ENDA enough to balance losing the respect and support of the trans part of that movement, plus their family and friends? I think not. This would split the movement into two parts, and we’d all spend time playing the “where did you stand on ENDA?” game rather than focusing on the many constructive tasks that remain for us in the future.
For other perspectives, see Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, as well as Marti Abernathy, Rebecca Juro, and Marla Stevens all at the Bilerico Project. Pam Spaulding also offers her opinion. Several of them (as well as Lane Hudson at the Huffington Post) ask why HRC has not yet issued a formal statement in support of gender-identity inclusion, like many other major LGBT-rights groups. If HRC does not step up, it jeopardizes not only our chances of passing inclusive legislation, but also its broad support (despite frequent criticisms) throughout the LGBT community at large. It would risk much of its membership and money, and hobble itself for future endeavors. This is a developing story, however, so stay tuned.
How depressing that something like this would come so soon after the hate-crimes legislation victory. :-/
Frank has always opposed transgender inclusion.
His transphobic statements to the press about trans inclusion are actually talking points for the fundamentalist groups.
He’s the architect of this one.
Pingback: Mombian » Blog Archive » Weekly Political Roundup
Here here, sister Dana. The root of the oppression against all LGBT people is common, so must our cause for justice be common as well. I for one don’t want the employment non-discrimination protections that would come at the cost abandoning my trans kin. Nor should anyone. Thank you for tracking this emerging story and providing the helpful link round-up.