Time 4 Trans Justice

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.”