Barney Frank | Gay Rights | News | Transgender

Trans Inclusion Cut from ENDA After Vote Reveals Lack of Support

The Employment Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA, is to be taken up by the Education and Labor Committee next Tuesday, and sent to the House floor after that for a vote. It will not include protections for transgender people as a preliminary vote revealed that because of the trans-inclusive nature of the bill it did not have enough support to pass, the Washington Post reports.

EndaAccording to The Advocate, Rep. Barney Frank will introduce two versions of the bill. ENDA, which would extend civil rights protections based on sexual orientation, and a new bill, "GENDA", that will take up civil rights protections for transgender people. The latter, obviously, is not likely to pass until further hearings are held.

Via WaPo: "The last time Congress took up ENDA was in 1996, when it failed to clear the Senate by just one vote. It should have passed then, and it most certainly should pass now. The bill will not give 'special rights' to homosexuals, as opponents claim. The reality is ENDA will give homosexuals basic civil rights on a federal level. If the legislation is passed, it would be illegal to fire, refuse to hire or refuse to promote an employee because of the person's real or perceived sexual orientation."

Barney Frank discusses the decision on the Bilerico report.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. GENDA?!?!? LOL Oh my gawwwwwd....

    Posted by: Becks07 | Sep 28, 2007 5:24:18 PM


  2. GENDA?!?!? LOL Oh my gawwwwwd....

    Posted by: Becks07 | Sep 28, 2007 5:24:28 PM


  3. GENDA?!?!? LOL Oh my gawwwwwd....

    Posted by: Becks07 | Sep 28, 2007 5:24:34 PM


  4. I fucking hate Firefox and it's cocksucking refresh...sorry for the multiple posts. I didn't find "GENDA" that funny!

    Posted by: Becks07 | Sep 28, 2007 5:26:52 PM


  5. See our comments on the issue here:
    http://tedandmichael.com/?p=108

    What do you think?

    Posted by: Ted | Sep 28, 2007 5:28:34 PM


  6. What do I think, TED?

    I think your commentary shows real ignorance on the issue of hate crimes. The fact that you reference your "dear friends over at GayPatriot" was enough to convince me that you have a piss poor understanding of the average gay person and our issues.

    I noticed you didn't call for the repeal of existing hate crimes laws, in fact, strangely enough you didn't even mention them. You know the ones that have been around since the 60's that cover RACE, RELIGION AND NATIONAL ORIGIN. Why would that be Ted?

    Do us all a favor and save your ignorant comments for GayPatriot.com. They're used to dealing in stupidity and Republican talking points over there.

    Posted by: Zeke | Sep 28, 2007 5:59:49 PM


  7. I think, Ted, you've swallowed the Religious Right's bullshit lies that Hate Crimes legislation criminalizes thought and beliefs. It does not. It stiffens penalties for existing crimes when hate is a motive.

    People are welcome to hate all they like—and even to loudly proclaim their hate. It's only when they commit a crime against another person that any hate-crimes penalty comes into play. Because motive is a factor strongly weighed in our judicial system.

    Posted by: 24play | Sep 28, 2007 6:03:52 PM


  8. Transgendered people get thrown under the bus again. When will the gay rights movement learn that our fight is the same? Very sad.

    Posted by: Lia | Sep 28, 2007 6:07:09 PM


  9. TED, another question:

    Would you support getting rid of classifications of murder and manslaughter? Those classifications are based on intent, degree, mindset, etc. According to your logic anyone who kills another person, by accident, in self defense, premeditated etc., should be tried the same. Crime is crime, hate is hate, homicide is homicide, intent is intent, right?

    Posted by: Zeke | Sep 28, 2007 6:16:56 PM


  10. Oh, poppypenis! Enough with the worn out "thrown under the bus" metaphor. In fact, it's more like, uh, no we're not willing to starve ourselves to death just because there isn't enough food YET to feed you, too.

    That doesn't change the fact that it's outrageous that members of Congress are still so stupid that they don't get the need for equality for all. THAT's why you should be mad—because HRC has done such a piss poor job of educating them.

    Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 28, 2007 6:23:02 PM


  11. I wonder if Congress will exclude itself from (G)ENDA as it does with all other civil and equal rights legislation so they can continue to be sexist/racist/homophobic on the Hill.

    Posted by: Chris | Sep 28, 2007 6:29:46 PM


  12. Leland:

    What's with this "you" and "us" stuff? Transgendered people have always been at the forefront of the gay rights movement (from Stonewall on!) and to parse "us" now makes as much since as passing legislation for lesbians but not gay men. It is ALL the same struggle, GENDER DEVIANCE vis-a-vis straight society. I'm happy for you if you have passing privilege, but most people see no difference between the transgendered and femme gay men.

    Posted by: Lia | Sep 28, 2007 6:36:44 PM


  13. Thank you, Lia. Leland, don't be so short sighted and indignant. It is really a shame that the transgendered community is not included. They are being thrown under the bus and you are right, what HAS the HRC done for us lately? Nada.

    Posted by: Mark | Sep 28, 2007 6:48:10 PM


  14. Allow Barney Frank to speak for himself on this issue:

    http://www.americablog.com/2007/09/barney-on-enda-transgender-controversy.html

    I think his position is well thought out, well reasoned and well stated.

    I happen to support his position, not because it's fair, or right, or ideal, or perfect to exclude trans people in this first round but because all progress in these fields is incremental and sometimes real life doesn't play by the rules of fairness

    This is why I also support taking Civil Unions, AS A STEP toward marriage. It's better than nothing and moves the public in the right direction.

    Someone asked me if I would support a lesbian-only ENDA. I said HELL YEAH!, if I thought it was the only way we could get it passed and it got our foot into an otherwise slammed shut door. I would take what we could get and fight like hell to build on it.

    Here are the questions I ask:

    Should women have refused suffrage until African-Americans could vote?

    Should African-Americans have waited until GLBT people were included in hate crimes laws or employment non-discrimination laws to accept legislation that would protect them?

    Should mixed race couples have refused to accept marriage rights until gay people could marry?

    We have to see this struggle as MANY battles in a larger war. EVERY battle won moves us closer to winning the war. Refusing to take a battle victory because it falls short of winning the war is conterproductive and frankly, I think, insane!

    What we need to do is take whatever victory we can get and then use the momentum to fight like hell to bring our trans brothers and sisters onto the American Dream Bus.

    What I fear, and I WOULD NOT support, would be taking this victory and then leaving our trans brothers and sisters to fend for themselves. We MUST stand up for them, as brothers and sisters in the human family.

    Posted by: Zeke | Sep 28, 2007 7:16:19 PM


  15. Why are many in the left so worked-up over the failure to gain support for including the transgendered? The G/L community and the transgendered community are not one in the same; they overlap at the edges, but fundementally are different...one's rooted in sexual orientation and affectional-relationships, while the other is one of gender-mechanics and gender-identity. Both are societial-minorities, but not the same minority. I don't buy the "...it's just about sex"-reasoning that conflates the two communities to many in the left and the right. And spare me the "Stonewall drag-queens" rationale, tranvestites can be gay, straight or transgendered.

    This is a step forwards...not backwards for our community.

    Posted by: Ted B. (Charging Rhino) | Sep 28, 2007 8:24:10 PM


  16. Zeke is right (hmm..I think that’s the second time I've said that today?..)
    Yes, Transgender people SHOULD be included but politics are not about shoulds. They are about compromise, pragmatism, and baby steps towards the ultimate goal. It sucks but it's a reality. We need to chip away at the block, if we ask for too much at this point we won't get anything and will be further away from our goal then we are now. Lets pass this legislation and remain committed to work on expanding the bill to be inclusive of our entire community.
    Barney Frank’s statement is excellent and very worth reading.

    Posted by: AdamN | Sep 28, 2007 8:25:28 PM


  17. Absolutely gender "NORM" deviance is at the core of homophobia, transphobia, and traditionally-thought-of "sexism" itself. But being similarly victimized, having similar goals, does not make us otherwise identical. So spare me the purposeless nonsense over pronouns.

    Please also spare me the myth that "Transgendered people have always been at the forefront of the gay rights movement (from Stonewall on!)" While some “queens” were AMONG those who fought back at Stonewall, there is no consensus among people who were there, including them, about who did what first. There is no disagreement that they were not the ones who made it famous in the ensuing years, and, in fact, no substantive progress for LGBTs from the decriminalization of sodomy to anti job discrimination legislation to marriage in Massachusetts and domestic partnerships in other states can be attributed to transgenders. In fact, there is, empirically, the converse, such as the damage Stonewall vet Sylvia Rivera did to the early efforts to pass a gay rights bill in NYC.

    Feel free to attempt to prove me wrong, to document anything to the contrary not written by someone merely echoing that ubiquitous myth. But even in regard to the Stonewall riots, I urge you to read, "Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution," by David Carter; "Stonewall" by Martin Bauml Duberman; "The Gay Militants" by Donn Teal, and "Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities" by John D'Emilio.

    Regardless, transgenders SHOULD be included in ENDA and hate crimes legislation, allowed to serve openly in the military, marry, whatever. But spare me the "all now or nothing now" lunacy. Such egotism does none of us any good so climb down off the cross. We need the wood to build bridges to better tomorrows for you, me, we.

    Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 28, 2007 8:49:31 PM


  18. ZEKE,

    Go easy on Ted. One look at the 'About Us' section of his blog reveals that he and Michael enjoy 'shoes from Allen Edmonds' (barf!), 'playing bridge', and 'our log home at the lake'. Clearly, Ted and Michael live in a fantasy world that they are a straight, midwestern couple from the time of Mamie and Ike Eisenhower. Can we really expect them to understand the rationale of hate crimes legislation?

    xo,
    peterparker

    Posted by: peterparker | Sep 28, 2007 9:23:34 PM


  19. One can say that trans issues are not part of the LGBT movement, but one could just as easily say that bi or gay or lesbian issues aren't a part of the LGBT community; doesn't make it true and it runs contrary to at least 15 years of gay political history. To separate gender and sexuality makes little sense in this case, as most gays and lesbians have "deviant" gender identities as well. I predict that once a non-trans-inclusive ENDA passes, that bigoted employers will continue to deflect gay rights through claims of their "gender expressions" not being protected. Just wait and see.

    Posted by: Lia | Sep 28, 2007 9:24:58 PM


  20. I don't base my support for trans rights on whether or not they are or aren't "valid" "members" of the gay community. I base my support for trans rights on their membership in the HUMAN community.

    That being said, I think it's easier to pull others onto the equality bus when we're already on it than it is for us to tie our legs together with the trans community, with golden ropes of principle, and try to chase the equality bus down the road in some well-intentioned but doomed three legged race.

    I'm really concerned that we have so many people in our community who are unwilling to accept anything less than perfection in our ongoing struggle.

    I thank god that these people weren't running the show when the Civil Rights movement and the women's suffrage movement were making advancements.

    Posted by: Zeke | Sep 28, 2007 9:41:08 PM


  21. Anyone here ever actually go through an EEOC hearing and investigation?

    Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Sep 28, 2007 11:52:01 PM


  22. In the end it won't matter, because Bush is going to veto any bill for queer rights. He's still pandering to the Fundies, remember.

    Posted by: Weezy | Sep 29, 2007 1:14:07 AM


  23. The exclusion of transgender folk in ENDA is shameful.

    Posted by: peterparker | Sep 29, 2007 1:58:25 AM


  24. Pete,

    Preaching to the choir, babe.

    Posted by: Weezy | Sep 29, 2007 2:03:09 AM


  25. Shameful yes but strategically unjustifiable or inexplicable?

    I don't think so.

    I'm seeing a lot of people on other discussion boards calling people who agree with Frank's strategy "transphobes" and "selfish a**holes".

    I take major offense to the first claim and frankly, don't understand the second. Do people not see the irony in a person who says, "If I don't get covered then NO ONE should get covered" calling someone ELSE selfish?

    I'll repeat my earlier analogy; were women suggragettes of the 20's selfish for accepting voting rights legislation that didn't include African-American women?

    Posted by: Zeke | Sep 29, 2007 10:12:24 AM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «News: ENDA, Diane Arbus, Iraq Deaths, Elizabeth Taylor« «