10/05/2007
Barney Frank to Speak on ENDA Controversy
Representative Barney Frank will appear on Michelangelo Signorile's Sirius radio show at 5:15 pm EST today to talk about the controversy surrounding the ENDA legislation. Jon Davidson of Lambda Legal will be on before Frank, starting at 3:30 EST. You can get a free three-day pass to Sirius here.
A week ago, Frank announced that transgender-inclusion in the LGBT anti-discrimination legislation would be cut because the bill would not have enough votes to pass with transgender people included.
This, understandably, set off a firestorm in the LGBT community.
On Monday, the House voted to postpone action on ENDA pending further assessment of reaction from the LGBT community.
I've tried to gather some of the pieces I've run across regarding the controversy:
Lambda Legal's Open Letter to Barney Frank [PDF]
Barney Frank on Lambda Legal's analysis [bilerico project]
Lambda Legal Responds to Rep Barney Frank [bilerico project]
Sole transgender HRC board member Donna Rose on her resignation over HRC's position:
Donna Rose statement [out for democracy]
United ENDA Forms [ngltf]
HRC Launches Full-Scale Nationwide Call to Action in Support of Inclusive ENDA [hrc]
The difficult discussions people don't want to have [pam's house blend]
Gabriel Rotello: If ENDA Doesn't Protect the Transgendered, It Doesn't Protect Me [huffington post]
John Aravosis: The Transgender Fiasco [americablog]
Waymon Hudson: Accept No Substitutes: Stripped Down Version of ENDA is Dangerous and Wrong [bilerico project]
Libby Post: The Party Never Really Started [pageoneq]
Posted 12:41 PM EST by Andy Towle in Barney Frank, Discrimination, ENDA, News, Transgender | 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.
"They aren't gay"
DC-20008, I don't want to be insulting because no one has lowered this debate to personal insult TODAY. So, I'll say this as gently and respectfully as I know how. DC, there are some who may argue that you are not gay. For some of us, gay means freedom from society's rules about gender role assignment, gay means having a contempt for sexual/gender role conformity, gay means realizing one's own prejudices and bigotry and fighting against them; and gay means an acceptance of racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender expression DIVERSITY. If one doesn't have these things in their philosophy of living, then you're not gay, you're just a homosexual.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Oct 5, 2007 4:55:11 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, under all circumstances, please defer to Derrick in this discussion.
He will define all terms (gay, homosexual), determine which classes of discrimination are closely enough related to merit unified legislation (sexual orientation and gender expression, yes; either of those and race, no), and assign each group and individual to the coalition of his choosing (Derrick v. too many arrogant gay men; us v. them).
Damn, if Derrick were Congress, this'd all be taken care of by now.
Posted by: 24play | Oct 5, 2007 5:12:25 PM
My confusion and disgust is not projected towards those who would support a trans-less version of ENDA solely to acquire passage, while still genuinely working for the rights of others, but to those who would diminish in their support of the bill precisely because it includes trangendered people.
What I mean is, obviously people think support will fall for the bill if transgendered people are included, and they are probably right. But why is this? Why would people that are okay with protecting gay people not be okay with protecting trans people? It is those that disgust me, those who would falter in their support due to their prejudice against transgendered people.
Posted by: Wes | Oct 5, 2007 5:22:40 PM
"What do gay men have in common with transgendered? Little to Nothing. So why are we lumped together? The answer is the reason I hate the left."
Do we have to have anything in common with them to support them? I'd say we both share an uphill battle for equal rights... is that enough or do they need to be exactly like you to qualify for support?
Posted by: Wes | Oct 5, 2007 5:28:26 PM
"For some of us, gay means freedom from society's rules about gender role assignment, gay means having a contempt for sexual/gender role conformity, gay means realizing one's own prejudices and bigotry and fighting against them; and gay means an acceptance of racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender expression DIVERSITY."
No offense, but for most people that's a means being *liberal* not gay.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 5, 2007 5:29:26 PM
What exactly is so wrong with transgendered people that we shouldn't support them?
Posted by: Wes | Oct 5, 2007 5:33:49 PM
Darb's attitude is exactly what I think is wrong with the folks who will not accept a non-trans ENDA. Fear. That is all it is. Fear that they will be left behind.
They are so afraid for themselves, that they are willing to let gays and lesbians drown with them. To continue the metaphor - they are unwilling to let strengthened gays and lesbians (strengthened with ENDA) help them stay afloat and eventually swim on their own.
The fact is, trans advocacy will not stop with the passing of a non-trans ENDA. And in fact, more gay people can be MORE vocal about their fight for equality - without fearing losing their jobs!
Have a little self-respect and realize that your rights are WORTH fighting for, even separated from gay rights in general. Do you feel that your rights are unachievable? Do you feel like you are so disposable that all of us will forget that Trans people DESERVE equality?
Have a backbone and realize that Trans rights are worthy and achievable on their own, without necessarily being associated with gay rights.
Posted by: Gregg | Oct 5, 2007 5:39:59 PM
Wes, there you go again.
I repeat: Most of the people supporting an attempt to try and pass a trans-less ENDA right now DO support transfolk. We simply believe that, as history clearly shows, incremental change is how civil rights are granted and extended in the real world.
Therefore, if trans protections do not have enough support in the House to pass this week, but protections based on sexual orientation do, then we should try to pass protections based on sexual orientation now.
Posted by: 24play | Oct 5, 2007 5:41:27 PM
24play,
Maybe Forman evolved in his understanding of what equality really means or he's just another political opportunist? This battle was fought out years ago here in San Francisco when the two largest and most powerful gay political clubs in town(Alice Toklas and Harvey Milk) didn't even want trans folks included in their name because it added another letter...LGB..T. A few openly transgender activists including Robert Haaland and others pushed the issue and won. Now only a few years later the city has among other prominent transgenders-Theresa Sparks as a commissioner of the Police Commission,Cecila Chung heads the Pride Parade Committee,etc.
Posted by: SFshawn | Oct 5, 2007 5:53:55 PM
It is hypocritical to use the phrase Non-Discrimination while simultaneously discriminating.
Let's change the name to the
Employment Not-As-Much-Discrimination Act.
Posted by: Alan | Oct 5, 2007 6:02:28 PM
Shawn,
So Foreman gets credit for maybe having evolved beyond a strategic decision he made on employment protections earlier this decade, but Barney's still a bastard for a bad compromise he made almost 15 years ago?
I have no doubt they've both supported trans rights in their hearts from the very beginning.
Can you say "double standard?"
Posted by: 24play | Oct 5, 2007 6:08:59 PM
"Wes, there you go again."
I fully understand your point. I was referring to those who feel transgendered people are not, or should not, be considered part of 'our' community. I would like to know if there's a good reason not to.
To restate the distinction:
"My confusion and disgust is not projected towards those who would support a trans-less version of ENDA solely to acquire passage, while still genuinely working for the rights of others, but to those who would diminish in their support of the bill precisely because it includes trangendered people."
Believe it or not there actually is prejudice against transgendered people within the gay community, and that is what I find especially repulsive.
Posted by: Wes | Oct 5, 2007 6:14:37 PM
Alan,
Do you also believe that civil rights legislation passed in the 60s was discriminatory because it focused on race and didn't include sexual orientation or gender identity and expression (or veteran status, or disability...)?
LGBT groups and members of Congress have fought for several years now to get trans protections passed as part of ENDA. Just last month they fought to get a trans-inclusive hate-crimes bill passed, and succeeded.
Now that some of those leaders have made a strategic decision to take trans employment protections off the table for the time being, don't you think it's just a tad unfair—and frankly, really nasty—to call the move discriminatory?
Posted by: 24play | Oct 5, 2007 6:19:18 PM
Gregg,
Actually, it has nothing to do with fear of being left behind. As it happens, Frank's proposed legislation wouldn't leave me behind. Nor does it have to do with lack of self respect or backbone. It actually takes a little bit of self respect and backbone to stick up for the rights of a group that you aren't a part of... but if name-calling makes you feel better...
I believe that in the fairly near term, we would be able to pass an ENDA that includes trans. I believe that trans inclusion in ENDA will take MUCH longer if ENDA is initially passed without inclusion.
It's becoming more and more acceptable to be a pro-gay-rights politician (even a pro-gay-rights republican). But once ENDA is passed without trans inclusion, I think it will be a long time before politicians would be willing to revisit this legislation for the trans community. Pro gay is easy for a lot of constituents to swallow. Pro trans is not.
And just so I'm clear, you're saying that ENDA will help you become stronger so that you can better help the trans community win their rights? How about finding the strength to help them now?
Posted by: DARB | Oct 5, 2007 6:39:19 PM
Your logic is flawed Darb. There's a difference between inner strength and legal strength. I have the inner, and I would like the legal.
And I'm not calling names. I am expressing what I see as the issue here - fear. And your follow up is still fear based.
Posted by: Gregg | Oct 5, 2007 7:11:25 PM
24Play,
This is not a competition between Forman and Frank. Who gives a shit what's in their heart,it's what's in their ACTIONS that counts and Barney sold out the opportunity for GLBT folks to serve openly and proudly in the United States military 15 years ago and they are still being impacted adversely TODAY by his cowardly actions and his desire for expediency. It's sad to see him repeat his same mistakes by selling out the transgendered community in this way.
Posted by: SFshawn | Oct 5, 2007 7:26:09 PM
And it's sad, SFShawn to see you being so fucking retarded, er, pardon me — willfully misrepresentating or missunderstanding what happened with DADT that is the same kind of bullshit cluster fuck group MISthink on ENDA.
Frank did not sell "out the opportunity for GLBT folks to serve openly and proudly in the United States military" any more than it was "15 years ago." The debate started in 93 but you're farther off than a year in your hyperbolic slur against Frank. He wasn't in control of the situation and, willy nilly, thought, "well, I have all the power in the world to get gays in the military, but, hell, I won't do it. I'm not in the mood." Grow the fuck up, children!
He was no more in control of the situation then than he is now. He did the best he could then and he's doing the best he can now in the face of votes that aren't there but highly funded, right wing lobbying against even gay job protection that is all around us. None of us like the results in either situation but to blame Frank is loony.
Please, everyone spouting off about it, tell us exactly what he could do that would actually change anything? He could scream and holler and pout like all the trans groups and their politically correct AND politically stupid allies are doing. After all, they've mastered that. But we aren't talking about your parents that spoiled you, and came running with candy and a hug anytime you squalled and turned red in the face. These are ADULT games being controlled by ADULTS. Just like pathetic GLAAD and their annual self-indicting "Ooops, while we were off rimming Coor, gays disappeared from TV" reports, what have NGLTF and NCLR and Lambda Legal and all of the other handwriggers been doing for the past 30 plus years that we're STILL having to beg others for equality?
But, hey kids, if YOU care so much about it, log the fuck off Towleroad and get your self-righteous asses down to DC. And I don't mean, like some toy boxes for brains trannys are planning, to picket the HRC dinner. It's WAAAAAY too late for that, mes bitches. Put your bodies where your yaps are and go picket Congress, the White House, the homes of those you know will vote against even gay protection. Stage a sit in. Chain yourselves to the White House fence. Hold a hunger strike on the steps of the Capitol. In short, put up or shut up.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 5, 2007 7:54:06 PM
Where is this powerful Bat Phone that Barney and HRC are supposed to possess and where can I buy one?
Posted by: Brad | Oct 5, 2007 7:59:07 PM
The original ENDA bill has its flaws; it has no teeth and, like all federal law lays the burden of the victims of discrimination instead of the rich who get richer paying us lower wages and it lacks tough provisions to go after religious bigots. However, the attempts by Democrats Pelosi and Frank et al to further gut ENDA are a betrayal. Support for a non exclusionary ENDA is a principle, a line in the sand. Cross it and you’ve aligned yourself with enemies of the GLBT communities.
Even the Stonewall Democrats and their cronies in the HRC have backed down, attaching themselves to the more than 150 groups demanding that Democrats Pelosi and Frank et al back down on their backstabbing effort to gut ENDA. They had to because if they hadn’t it would’ve accelerated the danger of them becoming as marginalized as the Log Cabin Republicans. They've all locked themselves in political closets with parties of misanthropic rightist gay bashers and/or centrist backstabbers.
Now they’re all scuttling around looking for ways to be relevant to both our GLBT communities and their parties but that’s not as easily said as done. So the logheads go after easy targets like Romney and ignore the fact that Giuliani takes three steps backwards for every timid step forward on GLBT equality. And the stoneheads duck the antigay intolerance of Democrats like Hillary Clinton (no samesex marriage, DOMA, DADT, war with Iran) and her cronies Pelosi, Frank and the other Democratic policy makers opposed to full equality.
The logheads are fast becoming a self isolated and disgraced group of quislings. HRC is looking at a huge drop in income because of their deceit on ENDA.
The Stonewall Democrats will be in the same boat as the logheads when the Democrats win in 2008. With the midwife of DOMA and DADT in the Oval Office consulting with First Daddy Bill, who claims that same sex marriage is the "kiss of death' for Democrats, and gay baiter Pelosi in the House joined by Reid, timidity personified, in the Senate, and with Frank 'protecting us' it's a setup to bankrupt HRC and put the stoneheads in the same sinking boat as the Republican identified logheads because they'll be identified as Democrats.
Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | Oct 5, 2007 9:54:15 PM
Considering that transsexualism is primarily regarded by the AMA and APA as an intersex condition with gender disphoria as the primary symptom (a birth defect and closely associated psychological disorder), wouldn't the ADA already provide civil protections and, if not, wouldn't the the more reasonable course of action be to amend the ADA to include sexual identity disorders?
Posted by: TNBlueDogDem | Oct 5, 2007 10:10:07 PM
TNBlueDogDem:
Re: ADA ...um..suggestion.
Shouldn't you do a teeny bit of research before suggesting this?
The ADA was passed with explicit exclusions for transgender AND gay people. The unlovely Sen. Helms specificaly included all of us. But, of course - we've never been linked in legislation before.
And no - it wouldn't make sense to try and include transfolks for a whole host of reasons - a few being: we're not disabled, not part of the disability community, and case law and the ADA limit coverage to those who have substantial limitations in major life activities. You know - like walking, seeing, hearing and being able to work. We most fortunately, don't have those issues to live with.
Hey - but if being gay is inborn - is it a birth defect?
And if it's an inborn condition involving a sex-reversed condition as compared to the majority of the population - gay men are attracted to men just like most women are - does that make homosexuality a transgender condition?
If folks say it's inborn and related to either brain structures or genes - as most do - it seems reasonable to conceptualize it as such.
Posted by: True Blue Dem | Oct 5, 2007 11:30:01 PM
A great deal of bitching about HRC, GLAAD, Stonewall Democrats and almost every other group. Who else will fight for GLBT? Are any of us actually doing anything ourselves, but whining over groups actually FIGHTING for GLBT rights?
There have always been dissention within the ranks about how best to achieve civil rights. There were always groups within the black community and the women's rights movement who didnt' see eye to eye on what the right path was to get full equality. The same is true of the GLBT community.
Posted by: Elais | Oct 6, 2007 12:57:15 AM
True-blue-dem: I am so tired of this faux logic. Gay men do not think that they are women. They know that they are men. So no, they are not transgender.
Now can we stop making this incorrect comparison?
Posted by: Gregg | Oct 6, 2007 12:43:38 PM
this uproar upsets me a whole lot. the road to completely equal rights, or as close as we can get, is long. Look at African-Americans, it took them over a century to gain 'equal rights', it is a long process to change people's viewpoints. We should welcome the little victories as they come, instead of being a bunch of bitches about it.
There are a lot of vocal gay men and women, but I haven't seen any transgendered folk advocating. If the transgendered community wants a change, they should fight for it, not ride our coattails.
Posted by: michael | Oct 6, 2007 4:26:18 PM