Time 4 Trans Justice

Okay, we all knew this would happen soon after ENDA passed, without the trans inclusive language. A sex discrimination case against the Library of Congress. Diane had applied for a job in 2005, then was offered the job. Diane wanted to start out the working relationship with her future employers on an honest note, so she told them that she was a MtF transsexual, and then, later she received a phone call telling her she wasn’t a “good fit” for the job after all. Here is some more about this story, found at the Logo News website.

“Diane Schroer filed the suit in 2005 …the government fought the suit alleging that Title VII, which protects against sex discrimination, does not protect transgender workers.”

“The court did not specifically address the question of whether Title VII’s ban against sex discrimination also bans discrimination based on gender identity. It did, however, reject the government’s contention that laws barring sex discrimination are limited to a person’s chromosomal configuration.”

The courts declared that this is a sex discrimination case, and has nothing to do with gender identity. Sex discrimination does not depend on a person’s chromosomal configuration, but rather on many different factors. And this is encouraging that the courts are beginning to recognize that a person’s sex doesn’t just depend on chromosomes or what’s between their legs. This is an important first step in gaining fair and just treatment in the future.

(sigh and frown) They’re at it again–the right-winged conservatives trivializing what should be basic human rights for all people, and turning them into rights only for the select few who are straight and, supposedly, normal. This article, written by the American Family Association, states that,

“Activists insist that ENDA must be passed in order to protect homosexuals. “Qualified, hardworking [gay and lesbian] Americans are denied job opportunities, fired or otherwise discriminated against for reasons that have nothing to do with their performance and abilities,” says the Human Rights Campaign.

“This discrimination effectively denies qualified individuals equality and opportunity in the workplace, HRC explains. Those who experience this form of discrimination have no recourse under current federal law or under the Constitution as it has been interpreted by the courts.

“But just how many homosexuals have experienced “this form of discrimination?” One looks in vain at HRC’s Web site for any concrete numbers. Instead, the lobby group basically contends that because this kind of discrimination could happen, homosexuals must have federal protection.

“Of course, this does not demonstrate that homosexuals are being fired because of their sexual orientation. Technically speaking, HRC’s argument could be made for countless categories of people. For example, there is no law in any state that says a person can’t be fired for having a beard, being a New York Yankees fan, or preferring mint chocolate chip ice cream. But that doesn’t mean they are.”

Now I ask you–what the heck kind of reasoning is that? It’s circular, because they are essentially saying that if a=b, then b=a, so therefore, a=b=a=b. They aren’t making a bit of sense in that they are not seeing the actual issues. Their question, “So perhaps the question before Congress should be: Are homosexuals being discriminated against in sufficient numbers to justify federal intervention?” really doesn’t make sense either. How does being fair and just to your fellow human being, regardless of who they are sexually attracted to, or the gender they identify as, have to be “justified” for federal intervention? And why do we need cases upon cases to prove that we are human beings with the same rights as everyone else?

Here’s another nugget for you: “…concerning a nonexistent problem.” Non-existent?? Obviously, they have closed their eyes to what exactly is happening and why we need protection like everyone else does. Isn’t it bad enough to be beaten and killed by living our lives? Do they not see this? Why should we be excluded from the protections and basic human rights that these same “Christians” get? And yet, these same people get upset if their way of life is threatened. And I know this is true, as I have spent many, many years in a very conservative church that worshiped on Saturday. They were all about saving the world from the “evil” that would threaten their very same freedoms that they want to keep away from our LGBT community.

I have a confession, though. I couldn’t get through the entire article, because I got so tripped up by the crap they were spewing everywhere and I got angry. With all this happening against us, we need to fight even harder to protect ourselves from the crap they are giving us.

Let me leave you with this baloney that the article spewed out, and my conclusions: “Christians should not underestimate the potency of this weapon in the public-policy wars, however. Because our country has, in the past, been guilty of real discrimination against minorities, we as a people tend to react guiltily to anyone’s claim that they, too, have been wronged.”

First of all, what is “real” and”fake” discrimination? Discrimination is discrimination! Period! We are just as much a minority as those who have had “real” discrimination in the past. The only difference is that it is classified as a “sin” to many Christians. Well, once upon a time, it was considered a sin to be a different color–mainly black, as in the slavery days. And, many people used the good ole’ bible to make their claims. Now, I do not agree with that claim, just as I don’t agree that it is a sin to identify differently than how others identify. To take a line from that article, “a person can’t be fired for having a beard, being a New York Yankees fan, or preferring mint chocolate chip ice cream.” Now, I could say, and find support for in the bible, that being a Yankees fan is a sin. (And I am sure there are some that would actually agree with me!) Or, I could say that not having a beard would be a sin according to the bible. But what would be the point?

Next, why are people debating so heavily about federal protections for any particular class of human beings? Didn’t Jesus say to “love your brother (and sister, and whoever else) as yourself”? Well, let’s say that everyone in the LGBT community is a human being. If we are to love each other as ourselves, then why is discrimination even present?? Basic human rights: to be able to make a decent living, free from harassments, and to be safe from attacks based on orientation or gender identity. What is the harm in letting others live as they choose, so long as they are not infringing on another person’s basic rights? In living harmoniously with others, discrimination would not even be an issue. So…why the big deal on their part??

Have you heard about the poll where some 70% of the LGBT Americans were in favor of passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act without the trans-inclusive language, rather than it not passing at all? Well, the Human Rights Campaign conducted that poll, and they are the organization that pulled out their support at the last minute so that the bill would go through without that all-too-important trans-inclusive language. And now, people are wanting to know: is that poll that they conducted valid? Here are some of the questions raised from the PrideSource website:

“What polling company conducted the poll?; What is the source of the 500 people questioned, and were they all HRC members?; What is the breakdown of the group - lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender?; What is the margin of error?”

HRC was part of a larger group of 360 LGBT organizations in support of the trans-inclusive language, and had pulled out their support in favor of passing the bill without, as stated above. One has to wonder–was this poll an attempt to show that they had more support than they actually did? And, did they really ask Transgendered people what they thought of the revised bill? More than likely, they did not. More importantly, why would they take out their support of a bill that would give all of us the same rights as everyone else? As they are the Human RIGHTS Campaign, wouldn’t it make sense to support something that will give everyone RIGHTS?

On the day of the bill passing without the trans-inclusive language, my spouse became very outraged, and wrote a scathing e-mail, with many valid points, to the HRC. He has allowed me to post this here for all to read:

“Because you have not lived up to your name of supporting Human Rights I will not be contributing to your campaign nor endorsing your work.

Laws need to be passed for all Humans, not specific sub-categories. But even if sub-categories are to be singled out then by your giving up on Transgender in ENDA you are saying that it is ok that it is legal for discrimination against this segment of humanity.

One step for SOME of humanity is not what I thought HRC was about…Obviously you don’t believe in your own name.

Transgender as a group has a small voice. It is growing. HRC’s actions during ENDA will be remembered.“

Now, here is the reply he received back from them, which is a complete cop-out of what they wanted us to believe about their organization:

“We understand your concern and anger at the situation; HRC acknowledges that this ENDA bill that passed the House is an important first step to fight workplace discrimination and we are not in anyway celebratory of the fact that our transgender brothers and sisters were not included in this bill. We want you to know that we will not stop fighting for the inclusion of gender identity in ENDA.

Although we decided to support this version of ENDA in the final hour, throughout the entire process our goal was to have a fully inclusive bill go to the floor. The disagreement on strategies by advocates for equality should not make us question each other’s commitment to the common goal of getting protection for all members of our community. The truth is our real enemies will stop at nothing to prevent equality from moving forward for GLBT people.  That the extreme right wing is doing all they can to lobby for the defeat of ENDA, but it has nothing to do with whether or not it includes gender identity. Their goal is to simply have our movement fail and for ENDA to die in Congress, which would severely hinder any chance of protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans. 

While the bill Congress passed this week was not the bill we wanted, the Human Rights Campaign decided to stay at the table with Congress to ensure that millions of Americans receive the protections they deserve, and because passage of this bill is a first and absolutely necessary step toward preventing discrimination based on gender identity. Very soon, HRC will launch a new initiative to ramp up efforts on educating Congress on the importance of including gender identity in ENDA and protecting the entire gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.

HRC continues to break down barriers in the corporate world through our Workplace Project.  This year a record 195 major U.S. businesses earned the top rating of 100 percent on our Corporate Equality Index, and for the first time, a majority of rated firms - 58 percent - provide employment protections on the basis of gender identity.

The bottom line: The commitment of HRC’s Board of Directors for a fully inclusive bill has not changed.  Because HRC stayed at the table, something we will continue to do, we were able to secure an unprecedented commitment from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Without a doubt, the only path to achieving a bill protecting our whole community was by securing passage on this historic vote.

After twelve years of hostile leadership, we have come so far and changed so many hearts and minds. Only a year ago, it never seemed possible that we could pass any GLBT legislation.  For the first time in history, both houses of Congress passed a hate crimes bill, and for the first time ever a workplace anti-discrimination law passed in the House. Even a year ago, we could not imagine this coming to fruition.  Our fight will not be won overnight; it will be won one step at a time.

Whether or not you stand with HRC, we hope that you will continue to take action in the fight for equality for the entire GLBT community.“

I read it first when he forwarded this crap to me, and was appalled then at the apparent lack of passion, and the obvious attempt at making themselves look good to the public. Reading it again now makes me even more upset with the way they have handled things. Really–how hard would it have been to actually support the fully inclusive bill, stood their ground, and then went back in a year to keep fighting for it? In this way, they would have had the respect of Congress, the entire LGBT community, especially the Transgendered community, and they would have been able to go back even stronger next year. There is more integrity in standing for a cause than there is in backing down when things get tough. In this way–the way they did this–they said to the entire world that we as a “sub-community” are less than human, and we don’t really need these protections like everyone else does. Like our issues aren’t that important, and that we should just sit down, shut up and take it!

Well here is one Tranny Boi who will not sit down and shutup! HRC–you messed up and you know it. You should be ashamed of your actions as an organization in Congress. And no amount of pre-formulated crap that you are using to “justify” your actions will fix what you did that day.

ENDA, while the voting is over for now, is far from being over. While it may be over for the LG and B of the alphabet soup, it is definitely not over for the T. I wanted to give you a brief recap of what happened with our “friend in court”, Barney Frank, during this time.

From Congressman Barney Frank, who voted against the trans-inclusive language in ENDA:

“The millions of people that talk openly and to take on the prejudice against people who are transgendered is newer. It is also the case that prejudice begins with people reacting against those who are different from them in some way. People are rarely prejudiced against their clones. So we have this situation where there is more prejudice in this society today against people who are transgendered than against people who are gay and lesbian, partly because we have been working longer at dealing with the sex orientation prejudice; partly because the greater the difference, the greater the prejudice is to start, the more people fail to identify, the more they are put off by differences, especially when those differences come in matters of the greatest personal intimacy.

“So where we are today is that earlier this year, after years of our introducing the bill which we call ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to ban discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation, we added this year for the first time a provision that would also have banned discrimination based on gender identity as we have designated it, i.e., against people who are transgendered. We began dealing with the transgender issue earlier in the context of the hate crimes legislation, and legislating against hate crimes, it’s easier to do than sexual orientation. It is less intrusive, and it is easier to make the argument that assaulting people and destroying their property is wrong than it is to say that refusing to hire them is wrong. I think they’re both wrong, but obviously, there is a distinction in this society. One is a serious criminal issue; one becomes civil.”

He spoke in defense of Transgender issues, yet he voted against it—why? Here is why:

“I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. …would he consider my making a unanimous consent request to change this to a “motion of forthwith,” so the House could simply adopt this “forthwith” and go to dinner? So the purpose here, the intent, perhaps not the purpose, but the unmistakable intent would be to put this off until after we are due to adjourn November 16. And for what purpose? For the purpose of restating what has already been stated.”

“If there was a real need to do this, it would be now part of the law and we would be voting. It is “promptly” because it adds nothing to the bill, nothing, literally nothing; it subtracts nothing. It is simply a motion to delay. I was ready to yield to make this “forthwith” so this extra language which does nothing could be added. But if you don’t do that, as they won’t, and you vote for this, you are killing this bill. Understand that. Nine days later it is too late for this bill and we are out of this. So I will close with this. Yes, this is personal. There are people who are your fellow citizens being discriminated against. We have a simple bill that says you can go to work and be judged on how you work and not be penalized. Please don’t turn your back on them.”

(To read more of this article, go to Mr. Frank’s website.)

Basically, our “friend in court” sold out, because he didn’t want to have the entire bill be rejected, because the trans-inclusive language was tripping others up, making it risk not passing, due to time constraints. So, instead of taking a stand in court for those of us he began taking a stand for in the earlier months, he gave up his stand, so that he and the rest of the Lesbian and Gay community could get what they wanted—maybe coming back for us later. It seems that he was ready to have this over with, rather than fight for what was right for all people—not just for his own personal agenda.

My question to you, Mr. Frank: “Can you sleep at night for what you did to all of us Transgender Americans you shut out of the protections from the idiots who employ us? Can you deal with the loophole you gave them? So, basically—what you are saying is that if I am gay, I can work without fear of being discriminated against now. But, if it was found out that I was a transgender gay man, there would be nothing to protect me, based on my gender identity? That’s essentially what you did, and I really hope you can live with yourself.”