10/12/2007
Barney Frank and Activists Dig in Their Heels Over ENDA
Above, highlights from Barney Frank's press conference yesterday on ENDA.
The conflict between the Democratic legislature's will to pass a bill that excludes transgender people and the desire of the vast majority of LGBT groups to pass an inclusive bill has spilled into the mainstream media over the past 24 hours.
The AP reports: "The debate over including transgender people has sharply divided gay rights activists, many of whom are trying to kill a stripped-down bill without protections for transgender workers that Frank and Democratic leaders hope will win House passage this year."
Both Frank and the executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force Matt Foreman have acknowledged that it's strange for the two groups to be on opposing sides of a progressive issue.
Said Foreman: "We're not going to be split off this way. We're driven by principle. No civil rights movement has ever left a part of its community behind - and we're not about to be the first. I never thought in a million years we would be on the opposite side of Barney Frank and it is painful."
Frank countered, "Politically, the notion that you don't do anything until you can do everything is self-defeating. These things take awhile. The transgender issue is of relatively recent vintage. Fighting your friends can sometimes be difficult."
Gay Rights Backers Split on Bias Bill [ap]
Posted 8:50 AM EST by Andy Towle in Barney Frank, Democratic Party, Discrimination, ENDA, Matt Foreman, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Barney is correct.
Posted by: ousslander | Oct 12, 2007 8:55:58 AM
This "all or nothing" mentality that our community so often has on issues will once again cause our community to lose once again.
The leaders of these so-called national GLBT organizations do not have the best interests of "middle America" gays and lesbians at heart when they proclaim they are working for everyone. They sit in their big buildings on both coasts-comfortable that they have rights while we gays and lesbians in the heartland fight sometimes for our very lives. These co-called GLBT leaders do not come to our states because they do not see our states as winneable.
We must take what we can get at the moment and then go back and fight for those who have been left out. Everyone deserves rights and eventually we will all get there but only one step at a time.
Posted by: Paul B. | Oct 12, 2007 9:03:45 AM
foreman is a f'tard. barney is right.
Posted by: nic | Oct 12, 2007 9:13:36 AM
It's a shame Barney lied to all of us. with tha "Here's two weeks to get the inclusive bill passed. Which I support as much as anyone does"
Then he spends those two weeks undermining efforts instead of supporting them. Sure it won't be as likely to pass if you actively work against it Barn.
Sad.
Posted by: Kathy | Oct 12, 2007 9:21:01 AM
I'm afraid I have to disagree here. We need to stick to our principles, have confidence in them, and recognize that we are winning people over. I could not look any of the "T" people I know have worked long and passionately on my behalf in the face. Justice will be sweet; let's not tarnish the justice by leaving some of our brothers and sisters out in the cold.
Posted by: Jim | Oct 12, 2007 9:29:10 AM
Matt Foreman is a blowhard and frankly he doesn't represent my interests as a gay man. Transgendered people are not part of my community any more than any other person. I'm tired of people lumping those with sexual identity disorder with people who are homosexual.
White women, when they won the right to vote, certainly left black women behind. They didn't refuse to push for the right to vote until black women could as well. Let's be realistic.
I 100% support a fully inclusive ENDA bill including transgendered because I feel they deserve equal protection under the law. HOWEVER, if the bill won't pass, it won't pass and if there's a chance we can get sexual orientation listed as something that cannot be used as a basis for employment discrimination, why should we not let the bill pass without biting each other's heads off?
Posted by: Carrie B | Oct 12, 2007 9:29:44 AM
non-inclusive ENDA would remain non-inclusive for a long, long, long time. If we leave trans community behind now, they aren't going to catch up for a long, long, long time. OK with you?? Not OK with me.
I can't imagine a bill dealing ONLY with job protection for transexuals passing house/senate/veto anytime in near future. But I can imagine inclusive bill passing. Maybe not next year, but soon, because the gay community will keep pushing for it.
I don't think gay community will keep pushing for trans inclusion once non-inclusive bill is passed. It won't have the support of many (see Carrie B's post), and for others who may support it, it just won't be a high priority anymore.
NOW is our chance to push a bill that covers the entire LGBT community -- and by "now" I mean next few years, not necesarilly this session. If we miss that chance by taking easy road to "rights but some but not for all," the road to "rights for all" gets a LOT longer.
BTW, Carrie, in mentioning your post as example above, I don't mean in any way to insult your opinion that trans community is not part of your community. Perfectly entitled to your opinion, which I respect, but disagree with.
Posted by: DARB | Oct 12, 2007 9:40:29 AM
I believe John Aravosis sums up a valuable political lesson in his recent article in SALON:
"Conservatives understand that cultural change is a long, gradual process of small but cumulatively deadly victories. Liberals want it all now. And that's why, in the culture wars, conservatives often win and we often lose. While conservatives spend years, if not decades, trying to convince Americans that certain judges are "activists," that gays "recruit" children, and that Democrats never saw an abortion they didn't like, we often come up with last-minute ideas and expect everyone to vote for them simply because we're right. Conservatives are happy with piecemeal victory, liberals with noble failure. We rarely make the necessary investment in convincing people that we're right because we consider it offensive to have to explain an obvious truth. When it comes time to pass legislation, too many liberals just expect good and virtuous bills to become law by magic, without the years of legwork necessary to secure a majority of the votes in Congress and the majority support of the people. We expect our congressional allies to fall on their swords for us when we've failed to create a culture in which it's safe for politicians to support our agenda and do the right thing."
We have a tremendous opportunity to do accomplish some tremendous good for millions of Americans. Let not the 'perfect' be our enemy here.
Posted by: Laurence Ballard | Oct 12, 2007 9:48:25 AM
I understand that transgendered people are lumped together with homosexuals because of gender role issues and how none of us conform to the norm, but honestly, being transgendered and being homosexual or not the same thing.
And to assume that I support a "non inclusive" bill means I would not later support an "inclusive" bill is simply not factual. It makes no sense to hold back progress because we can't get everything we might want the first time around.
And if you really want to get at the heart of how I feel, I don't actually think it is the job of the government to inform businesses on how they should or should not hire or fire people. If the company I work for chose to terminate my employment because I was gay, or because of my race, I think they have every right to do that. It wouldn't be very nice, or frankly very smart since I'm good at my job and since it is likely I would make it well known that they discriminate based on those factors in a hope that people would stop providing them business. But private corporations should have the liberty to hire and fire whoever they want for whatever reasons they choose to. Telling them otherwise to me is a violation of the core value of freedom we hold dear. I understand we pass Employment Non-Discrimination legislation to effect behavioral change and promote acceptance, but I simply don't see that as a role of our government. However, since I'm in the minority there (clearly) and have accepted that that view of government is not realistic, then I feel if we are going to use our government as a tool to promote social advancement, then gays should have the protection under the law that people of certain races and religions do. As should transgendered people. I just think practically speaking, those two groups do not have to be lumped together simply because our community tends to lump all of us together.
Posted by: Carrie B. | Oct 12, 2007 9:56:21 AM
why is it a given that if an ENDA bill( that doesn't include transgenders) passes, it automatically means that transgenders will remain dis-included for a "long, long, long time"? i am not trying to be difficult; i just want to know why that is the presumption.
Posted by: nic | Oct 12, 2007 10:03:18 AM
"Transgendered people are not part of my community any more than any other person."
Good. Now let's talk about gay people. The label "transgendered" could fall on about one third of gay people I've seen throughout my life at every gay bar, every Gay Pride event, every gay... any damn gay thing. And half of them don't dress in the clothes of the opposite sex. They simply break rules of gender role conformity. I'm am not going to have some bigoted gay man (who sounds like something out of the White Citizen's Council) define who is and who aint gay.
To put it quite simply, boys, what y'all saw in "Brokeback Mountain" aint gay. What y'all saw in "La Cage Aux Folles" was and still is.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Oct 12, 2007 10:07:12 AM
Good question, Nic. It's a convenient assumption for those who oppose Frank's efforts. I was also interested in the phrase in the article that the "vast majority of LGBT groups" support a trans-inclusive bill. That's probably true, but I wonder if that translates to a vast majority of gay people. I doubt it.
I would like to see a trans inclusive bill but I think Frank's effort is pragmatic and effective. I don't necessarily believe it will be a long long time before trans people will be included. Attitudes are changing rapidly.
Posted by: sam | Oct 12, 2007 10:11:07 AM
NIC,
Obviously, that's just my opinion. To crystal ball.
But it's my opinion for a few reasons:
(1) I think that it will be a very long time before many politicians (and certainly before a majority of politicians) are willing to go out on a limb for trans rights.
(2) I think that there are a lot of people in the gay community who resent the association of "gay rights" and "trans rights", and view them as very different things. This will make it harder for the large gay rights organizations to aggressivly push (or prioritize) a purely trans-rights agenda. Would result in loss of community support and funding.
That said, I understand that I may be somewhat "chicken little" about this, and that gay rights orgs, and politicians/the public would do the right thing in fairly short order vis-a-vis trans inclusion in ENDA. I just have serious doubts. And I really do believe that we would be able to pass an inclusive bill before too long.
Beyond that, personally supporting a bill that specifically and knowingly carves out a group that, like it or not, is associated with the LGBT movement, and that includes some of the strongest and most vocal supporters of all-inclusive civil rights, leaves me a little queasy. I just can't do it.
Posted by: DARB | Oct 12, 2007 10:17:49 AM
Derrick,
Being a crossdresser and being transgendered are two different things. And I don't know what gay bars you got to but 99% of the ones I go to have men who conform pretty much to the "normal" dress for men. They just happen to like to sleep with other men. Throwing on a dress for Pride or Halloween is not the same as being transgendered. And being transgendered is not the same as being gay (though admittedly one person can be both).
By saying they are not part of my community, I mean that the majority of gay people do not have gender identity issues. Most gay men and most lesbian still feel comfortable as being men and women respectively. It's two completely different issues and to say otherwise it to simply be incorrect.
I am in no way bigoted either. I don't treat anyone differently because they are black or white or gay or straight or transgendered or not transgendered. Period.
Posted by: Carrie B. | Oct 12, 2007 10:22:14 AM
Who appoints these “leaders” and “spokespeople” in the lobby groups that supposedly speak for all gay folks? These people are just the whores of “K” Street, no different than those from the NRA, Catholic League, the Sugar Growers or the Pharmaceutical companies.
You DON’T speak for me, so STFU! Barney Frank is the correct voice in all this. Keep your yap shut, long enough to hear what he’s saying. No one is being thrown under the bus.
Posted by: Marq | Oct 12, 2007 10:27:50 AM
It takes a heckuva lot more courage for a Transgendered person to come out and exist than it does for me as a gay man.
Let the history books expose congress for their hypocrisy if they won't vote to protect us all. Personally, I'd rather not have rights I've never known, than have them knowing I abandoned my brother.
So it may take a little longer? There is no wrong time to do the right thing. It's about integrity, people.
Posted by: Jesse Archer | Oct 12, 2007 10:28:09 AM
"...No civil rights movement has ever left a part of its community behind..." -- Matt Foreman
That sounds as warm and fuzzy as can be but FACTUALLY it is patently and categorically NOT TRUE.
History is full of examples where civil rights movements left part of their communities behind!
If you're going to fight Frank's ENDA strategy, at least do so with honesty and integrity. Lord knows we get enough lies, misrepresentations and exaggerations from our enemies. Who needs them from our friends?
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 12, 2007 10:28:30 AM
Sam, you doubt that even the majority of gay people support an inclusive bill (I tend to agree with you there), yet you don't tink it will be a long time before trans people will be included? Think about that. If even a large part of the gay community doesn't support inclusion (and I personally know a lot of people who don't), how will get the general public, and thus the politicians, there any time soon? I know that people HATE this phrase, but to me this really does have a "throw them under the buss" feel to it (or at least "make them sit at the back of the bus").
Posted by: DARB | Oct 12, 2007 10:31:27 AM
The reason why it is harder for a transgendered person to "come out" is very likely the same reason it is harder to pass a bill including them. Gay people have fought very hard to be accepted and we have made amazing strides in the last 40 years. Why should we be punished simply because transgendered people have not yet gotten to a point where the rest of society is willing to accept them the way they MIGHT accept us? In a perfect world, I'd say we should all be included, but if you've got any beliefs that you are living in a perfect world, I'd say you need to look around.
Posted by: Alexy | Oct 12, 2007 10:34:26 AM
I'm a 'gender-conforming', sports-loving gay man, and I refuse to accept anything less than 100% inclusion for ENDA. How soon we forget who stood up at Stonewall. How foolish we are to think that half a loaf is fair enough.
Remember or regret it later.
Posted by: Gary | Oct 12, 2007 10:39:37 AM
Transgendered people are "lumped" together with gays and lesbians because WE have to stick together to fight inequality and oppression. Just as many racial and ethnic groups fighting for civil rights in the U.S., who have different countries of origin, speak different languages, and have vastly different cultures, have generally united as one (pan-ethnicities) to fight for civil rights, we must fight for and protect every part of LGBT (and that includes racism and sexism within the LGBT community). I'm ashamed to read many of the comments related to this post. I disagree with Frank's states that "the notion that you don't do anything until you can do everything is self-defeating". Standing up for those who are oppressed even if they “are not the same” as me is a sign of character, humanity, courage, and PRIDE! I remind you of Martin Niemöller's statement:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Posted by: GT | Oct 12, 2007 10:45:33 AM
DERRICK,
i've known boys just like from "brokeback" who ARE gay. let's not over-generalize. what i want explained is the premise that excluding trans-genders from ENDA now necessarily means that they will not be included for decades.
DARB,
if you've read this blog before, you know that i am of the politics-is-half-a-loaf school of thought championed by the late, great molly ivins. i'll say it again, politics is incremental. if we demand everything, we may get nothing. but, if we win battles, we will eventually win the cultural war foisted upon us by the religious right. let us not throw out the baby with the bath water; the all-or- nothing notion will only lead to our defeat.
Posted by: nic | Oct 12, 2007 10:47:59 AM
The vote count on ENDA was within the margin of error with gender identity included to cover transgender people AND bisexuals, lesbians & gays. Why stop efforts when it was going to be vetoed when with some more work - it could pass. Why split people for no reason?
To those who say politicians won't support transgender people in legislation - polling shows a 1% difference in support for transgender & gay people. 40% of the population urrently lives in jurisdictions with gender identity protections.
And a little history is instructive. When PA passed the hate crimes bill in 2002 - a bill that included transgender people - we had a Republican House, a Republican Senate & a Republican Governor.
People point to NY - but never look to us - a much less blue state. Or Maine. James Carville calls PA "Philadelphia one one side, Pittsburgh on the other & Alabama in between".
What was the difference here? People tried the same split the community nonsense - in fact they also tried to say - hey we'll pass that for transgenders only - that's inborn & being gay is just a behavior. We stayed together - none of us would sell the others out.
And legislators - Republican legislators - had to listen to who we said needed to be covered.
Posted by: Kathy | Oct 12, 2007 11:05:23 AM
NIC- You are right that politics is/has been half-a-loaf and incremental. But it doesn't have to be. That mentality is playing into the hand of those in power (wealthy, white, heterosexual men) - those who make the rules and define who is included in the game. Of course politics is half-a-loaf. That mentality maintains and reproduces inequality or, at the very least, makes it harder for others to gain power and equality, which reduces the power of those currently in power. We will always lose if we simply play by their rules. When this issue is written in history books do we want to be another group that left someone else behind (like women and men of color, the poor, the disabled, etc.) because “politics is half-a-loaf” or do we want to be the group that stood up for what is right and what equality for all really means? To not stand up for everyone who is oppressed is what will truly lead to “our” defeat!
Posted by: GT | Oct 12, 2007 11:06:37 AM
The issue of how to proceed with ENDA was not the major issue for me when I read the first threads on this topic. But now I'm in total agreement with those who believe in an inclusive ENDA or no ENDA. What was the issue for me (suprize) was this incredible arrogance of some homosexual men who make this distinction between gay and transgendered. It's almost as though you people have "come out" since the 1980's and are creating YOUR OWN criteria for what is gay. Do you think that when violent gay-bashers are deciding what kind of "faggot" to bash, they make their decision based on the of level effeminacy exihibited by their victim?
In my life, I have meant many gay men who thought they were "unclockable" in terms of how traditionally masculine they THOUGHT they carried themselves. When they open their mouths the only that separates them from the drag queen is the drag.
There are a number of definitions of transgender that I've read. The one that makes sense to me is anyone who rejects (or has ever rejected) their society's expectations of gender role behavior. If nothing else, having been called a "faggot" should make you more accepting of those in the gay world who gender role rebels--brave ass souls, they are.
Child, please, GAY means diversity. Gay can range from Dave Kopay and Roy Simmons to Holly Woodlawn and The Lady Chabliss of Savannah...aint no bigoted homos gonna' change that.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Oct 12, 2007 11:07:00 AM