The ENDA Kerfuffle
Rod Williams
Democratic-led Congress's intent to introduce (after some 30 years in
the wilderness) the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) this
month.
When originally written, this bill was intended to ban discrimination
based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, credit, and public
accommodations. At some point, Our Gay Leaders figured it would have
a better chance of being enacted if it was limited to employment
discrimination -- national opinion polls have indicated for years that
the public was solidly in favor of employment protection for queers.
More recently, following plenty of lobbying over the past 5 years or
so by all of the major LGBT organizations, it was again amended to
include a ban on employment discrimination based on "gender identity
and expression." Nothing earth-shaking here -- many of the states
that have passed their own non-discrimination laws over the past
decade or so have included that provision.
So, the (Democratic-majority) House of Representatives was finally
going to act on ENDA this month, and there were early indications that
there might be enough votes to pass it. But evidently some
Congresscritters started getting cold feet about the "gender"
language, and openly-gay Rep. Barney Frank, who chairs the House
committee that would introduce the bill, opined that the only way ENDA
could now pass would be to strip out that language, leaving only a ban
on discrimination based on "sexual orientation." That's when the shit
hit the fan -- hundreds of local, state and national LGBT and other
progressive organizations instantly cobbled together a coalition to
oppose the sexual-orientation-only bill and insist on action on the
original, inclusive ENDA. To cut a long story short, the Democratic
leadership are taken aback by the response from its LGBT "base";
they've withdrawn the SO-only bill, at least for now, and are figuring
out what to do next.
Of course, no matter what happens in the House, there's even less
chance that ENDA would pass in the Senate, and every chance that Dubya
would veto it. I'd prefer not to speculate just yet how President
Hillary Clinton will deal with it when it comes around again...
Along with all of this political scuffling, there's a larger kerfuffle
in the LGBT blogosphere about the relationship between LGs and Bs and
Ts, and the whole notion of what and who constitutes our "community"
and what, if anything, we all have in common and owe each other.
Salon.com put up a couple of lively opinion pieces this week...
John Aravosis, "How Did The T Get In LGBT" --
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/08/lgbt/index.html
Susan Stryker, "Why the T in LGBT is Here To Stay" --
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/11/transgender/index.html
For the record, I'm solidly behind Susan Stryker's position.
Discrimination against all of those alphabet letters is rooted in a
rigid view of, and a determination to control how men and women
express their gender. Here's how she puts it...
To want to have sex with somebody of the same gender violates
heteronormative expectations of gender behavior as much as it
does
heteronormative expectations of sexual behavior. Simply put:
Real men
don't suck cock. Nor do they use the word "fabulous" when
describing a
pair of women's shoes. Nor do they keep a picture of their
husband
pinned to the wall of their office cubicle. All of the above
violates
conventional or stereotypical expectations of proper masculine
gender,
and as Lambda Legal's preliminary analysis of ENDA makes
clear, none
would be protected under the rubric of sexual orientation
alone. It's OK to
be gay, in other words, just so long as you don't act like a
fag.
JTEM
> To cut a long story short, the Democratic leadership are
> taken aback by the response from its LGBT "base";
> they've withdrawn the SO-only bill, at least for now, and
> are figuring out what to do next.
So, in other words, we had a chance to take a step forward,
but we're going to stay EXACTLY where we are because a
bunch of ass-snatches.
Typical.
Rod Williams
> > To cut a long story short, the Democratic leadership are
> > taken aback by the response from its LGBT "base";
> > they've withdrawn the SO-only bill, at least for now, and
> > are figuring out what to do next.
JTEM:
> So, in other words, we had a chance to take a step forward,
> but we're going to stay EXACTLY where we are because a
> bunch of ass-snatches.
>
> Typical.
If you believe that it's a "step forward" for Congress to pass an
incomplete and ineffective bill, that would purport to offer
protection to some people who least need it, and would deliberately
deny protection to other people who most need it -- a bill that the
President would in any case veto... then yeah.
JTEM
> If you believe that it's a "step forward" for Congress to pass an
> incomplete and ineffective bill,
You're talking about a federal law that would have made it
illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their
sexual orientation.
....as hard as that is to believe.
Rod Williams
>
> > If you believe that it's a "step forward" for Congress to pass an
> > incomplete and ineffective bill,
JTEM:
> You're talking about a federal law that would have made it
> illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their
> sexual orientation.
>
> ....as hard as that is to believe.
Tell me how that law would protect the lesbian who was fired from her
bartender job in a Nevada casino for refusing to tease her hair and
wear make-up?
Rod Williams
> US motssers may be aware of the controversy raging about the
> Democratic-led Congress's intent to introduce (after some 30 years in
> the wilderness) the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) this
> month.
Rep. Barney Frank held a press-conference yesterday to tell his side
of the story. Today's (Fri. 10/12) San Francisco Chronicle has a
report...
JTEM
> Tell me how that law would protect the lesbian who
> was fired from her bartender job in a Nevada
> casino for refusing to tease her hair and wear
> make-up?
Are you saying that if she wasn't a lesbian she
wouldn't have been fired?
Look. Imagine how low that same lesbian would
have to be to defeat laws against racial
discrimination, because they didn't protect her
from gettng fired for not wearing make-up....
Frank McQuarry
Rod Williams wrote:
If Barney Frank says he can't get a bill passed that includes gender
identity, then I believe him, and I won't fault him for doing what he
thinks is right.
That said, I hope the bill fails. I think we should get discrimination
protection as a group. If we gain it and the transgender community doesn't
then it might be quite a while before they can get it too.
JTEM
> If Barney Frank says he can't get a bill passed that
> includes gender identity, then I believe him, and I
> won't fault him for doing what he thinks is right.
And then...
> That said, I hope the bill fails.
Fucking shit heads...
Jack Hamilton
Is it better for neither group to have protection for quite a while?
I'm not sure. The danger, I suppose, is that if I get protection, I
will be less likely to agitate for you to get protection.
The benefit is that the majority of voters will see that no harm came
from giving me protection, so they might as well give you protection
as well.
There's no point in trying to persuade the haters - individually, they
might be swayed by a personal epiphany, but we won't be able to
convert them as a group.
Frank McQuarry
Jack Hamilton wrote:
> Frank McQuarry <fmcq...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Rod Williams wrote:
> >
> >> On Oct 11, 1:37 pm, Rod Williams <rjwi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > US motssers may be aware of the controversy raging about the
> >> > Democratic-led Congress's intent to introduce (after some 30 years in
> >> > the wilderness) the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) this
> >> > month.
> >>
> >> Rep. Barney Frank held a press-conference yesterday to tell his side
> >> of the story. Today's (Fri. 10/12) San Francisco Chronicle has a
> >> report...
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/yntfcy
> >>
> >If Barney Frank says he can't get a bill passed that includes gender
> >identity, then I believe him, and I won't fault him for doing what he
> >thinks is right.
> >
> >That said, I hope the bill fails. I think we should get discrimination
> >protection as a group. If we gain it and the transgender community doesn't
> >then it might be quite a while before they can get it too.
>
> Is it better for neither group to have protection for quite a while?
>
> I'm not sure. The danger, I suppose, is that if I get protection, I
> will be less likely to agitate for you to get protection.
This is exactly what I think would happen.
> The benefit is that the majority of voters will see that no harm came
> from giving me protection, so they might as well give you protection
> as well.
>
> There's no point in trying to persuade the haters - individually, they
> might be swayed by a personal epiphany, but we won't be able to
> convert them as a group.
I think this is true too. I have a feeling it is better to wait until after the
2008 elections. If the democrats have a larger majority and the presidency it
will be possible to pass a stronger bill that will pass, rather than a weaker
bill that will likely be vetoed.
David W. Fenton
news:470F9743...@earthlink.net:
Well, I'm ambivalent here. It looks to me like the
transgender-inclusive demand is the quintessential example of the
perfect being the enemy of the good.
Neither will become law until we have a Democratic president, so I
say, get something passed *now*. Whatever is passed (and vetoed)
will act as pressure on the future Democratic president and
congressional majority to do the right thing. That is, if it passes
without transgender protection, then the question will be why an
all-Democratic government can't pass a transgender-inclusive law. If
it passes with it now (and is vetoed, or doesn't make it through the
Senate), then the pressure is to just get the thing passed for
signing by the President.
I just don't see a downside to passing *something* in a context when
the whole point is to lay the groundwork for the future.
On the other hand, I guess there's a certain brand of Democrat
that's afraid the Republicans will use it against them in the 2008
campaign. Those Dems can go Cheney themselves, as far as I'm
concerned. It's the quivering fear of Republicans saying nasty
things that has paralyzed the Democrats for the last 15 years. The
Republicans are going to say nasty things, true or false, about
Democrats no matter what the Democrats actually do (cf. Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth [sic]).
--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
David W. Fenton
> If Barney Frank says he can't get a bill passed that includes
> gender identity, then I believe him, and I won't fault him for
> doing what he thinks is right.
>
> That said, I hope the bill fails. I think we should get
> discrimination protection as a group. If we gain it and the
> transgender community doesn't then it might be quite a while
> before they can get it too.
Having read the article on Frank, I think both sides are right.
Frank and Pelosi should push through the non-inclusive bill, and the
gay rights organizations should criticize them publicly for doing
so.
This has several benefits:
1. something useful gets passed (even though it won't become law).
2. the Democratic leadership shows they aren't cravenly beholden to
the gay rights lobby.
3. the gay rights organizations raise money and visibility on the
issue, while getting half a loaf.
I think everybody wins.
Rod Williams
> I just don't see a downside to passing *something* in a context when
> the whole point is to lay the groundwork for the future.
Well, I do. We're hearing that civil rights gains have always been
incremental, but that relates to *what* is being protected, not
*whom*. It took women decades to win complete protection, but all
women benefited from the incremental changes. Similarly racial
minorities and people with disabilities.
Removing the protection of gender identity and expression from ENDA
means jettisoning a despised segment of our community for a merely
symbolic gain for everyone else. It's akin to passing a law banning
racial discrimination... except against Asians, or a law banning sex
discrimination... except against women over 40. It will further
divide our community, and it's morally repugnant.
JTEM
> Is it better for neither group to have protection
> for quite a while?
Of course it it! That's why we should hold down black
people and pour sand under their eye lids. They took
protections when there were still others getting none.
JTEM
> Well, I do. We're hearing that civil rights gains
> have always been incremental, but that relates to
> *what* is being protected, not *whom*.
On that other planet, sure, but here on earth those
$#%@ black people & women took protections while
others got none.... those Nazis.
We should all get jobs as waiters just so we can
put boogers in their eggs...
Rod Williams
> ...To cut a long story short, the Democratic
> leadership are taken aback by the response from its LGBT "base";
> they've withdrawn the SO-only bill, at least for now, and are figuring
> out what to do next.
It seems that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had a come-to-jesus meeting
today with the leaders of the major LGBT organizations to try to come
up with a face-saving path forward for everyone. I'm hearing that
Barney Frank's House committee will go ahead with the "stripped-down"
bill next week (ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation
only), which has a good chance of passing in the House, a less likely
chance of passing in the Senate, and no chance of avoiding a
Presidential veto. And Pelosi apparently made a commitment that she'd
hold a floor vote on the "inclusive" bill (ban on discrimination based
on sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression) as soon
as votes can be rounded up to pass it (for whatever that's worth).
JTEM
> I'm hearing that Barney Frank's House committee
> will go ahead with the "stripped-down" bill
> next week (ban on discrimination based on
> sexual orientation
Anyone who would support such a bill deserves to
be fisted by Captian Hook, along with all the
black people who supported racial civil rights,
and the women who supported legislation against
discrimination on the basis of sex.
I mean, what were these Hitlers thinking?
Legislation that doesn't end all discrimination,
everywhere, all at once?
Rape is too good for them. We need to shave off
their nipples and pour alcohol into their wounds.
We need to stripe them naked and force them to
sit on red-hot iron chairs. We should even force
them to use Comcast DVRs.
The fuckers...
Stephanie Moore-Fuller
> David W. Fenton:
>> I just don't see a downside to passing *something* in a context when
>> the whole point is to lay the groundwork for the future.
>
> Well, I do. We're hearing that civil rights gains have always been
> incremental, but that relates to *what* is being protected, not
> *whom*. It took women decades to win complete protection, but all
> women benefited from the incremental changes.
Er... What "complete protection"? The ERA was never passed.
stephanie
--
Stephanie Moore-Fuller smoo...@blackrose.org Mountain View, CA, USA
"When ... everything goes against you, till it seems as though you could
not hold on a minute longer, never give up then, for that is just the place
and time that the tide will turn." -- Harriet Beecher Stowe
Rod Williams
> >> I just don't see a downside to passing *something* in a context when
> >> the whole point is to lay the groundwork for the future.
Rod Williams:
> > Well, I do. We're hearing that civil rights gains have always been
> > incremental, but that relates to *what* is being protected, not
> > *whom*. It took women decades to win complete protection, but all
> > women benefited from the incremental changes.
Stephanie Moore-Fuller
> Er... What "complete protection"? The ERA was never passed.
Tsk -- quick, someone tell Hillary. Oh, and those girl soldiers over
there in body-bags. Sometimes real life moves faster than symbolic
legislation.
JTEM
> Er... What "complete protection"? The ERA was
> never passed.
Thank God!
Ignoring the fact that it was a proposed constitutional
amendment and not legislation, could you imagine the
horror of passing equality for women -- just women --
while so many others are left by the wayside?
Why, any selfish pig who didn't lobby hard against it
should be stapped to a board and have high voltage
electrodes attached to their genitals!
David W. Fenton
news:1192229819.5...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
I wonder what would have happened in the black community in 1964 if
the Voting Rights Act had applied only to blacks. Would the black
community have rejected it because it wasn't inclusive of all races?
I see this as one of the clearest examples I can recall in politics
of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
Of *course* I want the more inclusive law, but the opposition lined
up against it is pretty stiff (and not just outside the Democratic
party -- many of the Dems elected from districts that lean
Republican would likely endanger their incumbency with such a vote).
To me, the half loaf is better than none at all.
But I also think there should be a commitment to immediately
introduce legislation to include gender identity.
JTEM
> I wonder what would have happened in the black
> community in 1964 if the Voting Rights Act had
> applied only to blacks. Would the black community
> have rejected it because it wasn't inclusive of
> all races?
Because only gay people have a sexual orientation?
Or...
Because you type random thoughts that have nothing
to do with the issues under discussion?
Rod Williams
> To me, the half loaf is better than none at all.
I guess you don't see the conflict of interest in that statement. As
a "G," you get to enjoy the crumbs from that half loaf, albeit
symbolic, while your "T" brothers and sisters get nothing, except
rejection, abandonment, and stale promises. What's better about that?
JTEM
> I guess you don't see the conflict of interest in that
> statement. As a "G," you get to enjoy the crumbs
> from that half loaf, albeit symbolic, while your "T"
> brothers and sisters get nothing, except rejection,
> abandonment, and stale promises. What's better
> about that?
Replace "G" with "B" or "F."
Oh, right, only gay people have a sexual orientation...
David W. Fenton
All transgendered folk are hets?
Michael Thomas
Um, so? It's not like it's a speak now or
forever hold your piece kind of proposition.
And California shows that incremental changes
can happen all the time. Even though Ahnuld
vetoed the marriage bill, he's been signing
other things into law left and right, and that
because IMO the main battle on those subjects
are over with the fundies on the losing side.
Frankly, I think that David is onto something
about this being a win-win situation though.
This is purely symbolic at this point, so it's
hardly the last word.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
E Unum Pluribus: California out of the US.
Rod Williams
> >> To me, the half loaf is better than none at all.
Rod Williams:
> > I guess you don't see the conflict of interest in that statement. As
> > a "G," you get to enjoy the crumbs from that half loaf, albeit
> > symbolic, while your "T" brothers and sisters get nothing, except
> > rejection, abandonment, and stale promises. What's better about that?
Mike Thomas:
> Um, so? It's not like it's a speak now or
> forever hold your piece kind of proposition.
> And California shows that incremental changes
> can happen all the time. Even though Ahnuld
> vetoed the marriage bill, he's been signing
> other things into law left and right, and that
> because IMO the main battle on those subjects
> are over with the fundies on the losing side.
The U.S. Congress moves a tad more slowly than the states. The last
time they visted ENDA was in 1994, when the then Democratic majority
brought it up as a sop to their base after the debacle of gays-in-the-
military and don't-ask-don't-tell. It failed by one vote.
They won't get around to it again until 2009, at the very earliest.
us...@domain.invalid
>>> Well, I do. We're hearing that civil rights gains have always been
>>> incremental, but that relates to *what* is being protected, not
>>> *whom*. It took women decades to win complete protection, but all
>>> women benefited from the incremental changes.
>
> Stephanie Moore-Fuller
>> Er... What "complete protection"? The ERA was never passed.
>
> Tsk -- quick, someone tell Hillary. Oh, and those girl soldiers over
> there in body-bags. Sometimes real life moves faster than symbolic
> legislation.
yes, but where are the girl generals?
season, who has no desire to be a general, but i'm sure there are girls
out there...
season
so where are the girl generals?
season, who does not want to be a general, but is sure there is someone...
(sorry if double posted...i'm switching newsreaders again)
Rod Williams
> >>> Well, I do. We're hearing that civil rights gains have always been
> >>> incremental, but that relates to *what* is being protected, not
> >>> *whom*. It took women decades to win complete protection, but all
> >>> women benefited from the incremental changes.
Stephanie Moore-Fuller
> >> Er... What "complete protection"? The ERA was never passed.
Rod Williams:
> > Tsk -- quick, someone tell Hillary. Oh, and those girl soldiers over
> > there in body-bags. Sometimes real life moves faster than symbolic
> > legislation.
Season:
> yes, but where are the girl generals?
>
> season, who has no desire to be a general, but i'm sure there are girls
> out there...
Good point. I was going to say there's no legal impediment to women
becoming generals. But there actually is one -- Congress's
prohibition on putting military women in combat roles. That has the
effect of limiting women's promotion options, since I believe combat
experience and achievements are a big factor in how far people can
advance in the military. That prohibition has become quite
meaningless in the Iraq war and occupation, since there's no practical
division between combat and non-combat roles over there, hence all of
the women casualties. So maybe we'll start seeing some more girl
generals out there as a result...
Rod Williams
> US motssers may be aware of the controversy raging about the
> Democratic-led Congress's intent to introduce (after some 30 years in
> the wilderness) the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) this
> month.
Update: This morning (Thu. 10/18), the House Committee on Education
and Labor passed by a vote of 27 to 21 the version of ENDA that
prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation only. I believe
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) plans to introduce an amendment when the
bill gets to the House floor, that would restore the language
protecting gender identity and expression.
JTEM
> Update: This morning (Thu. 10/18), the House Committee
> on Education and Labor passed by a vote of 27 to 21 the
> version of ENDA that prohibits discrimination based on
> sexual orientation only.
I can understand why gay people would get upset about
that...
Rod Williams
> > Update: This morning (Thu. 10/18), the House Committee
> > on Education and Labor passed by a vote of 27 to 21 the
> > version of ENDA that prohibits discrimination based on
> > sexual orientation only.
JTEM:
> I can understand why gay people would get upset about
> that...
The devil is in the context.
JTEM
> The devil is in the context.
In this case, the devil is squeezing a penis into
a pair of control-top pantyhose...