There’s an ongoing debate in progressive and LGBT communities about whether or not Congress should pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would make it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Yes, that’s right: Unless you live in a state with very good anti-discrimination legislation, your employer can terminate you for the sole offense of being gay, lesbian or transgender. And there’s no federal law against it.
Bush will likely veto the bill, but it’s nonetheless an important step. Progressives, though, are divided over a revised version of the bill that omits gender identity from the protected classes. So, should ENDA pass, you can no longer be terminated from your job because you’re gay. But you can be terminated for being transgender, or for not conforming to a traditionally gendered appearance. Rep. Barney Frank, who is openly gay, says that Congress should pass ENDA anyway, and that “it would be a grave error to let this opportunity to pass a sexual orientation nondiscrimination bill go forward, not simply because it is one of the most important advances we’ll have made in securing civil rights for Americans in decades, but because moving forward on this bill now will also better serve the ultimate goal of including people who are transgender than simply accepting total defeat today.”
It’s a compelling point, and all-or-nothing activism has its problems. But I find Pam’s argument more convincing:
Anyone who regularly reads the Blend knows that I generally fall into the pragmatist camp on many issues, including marriage equality, and know full well that political strategy and policy advancement is as important as purist activism. However, as a minority within a minority within a minority (female, black, lesbian), for me this one issue is a no-brainer — I know what it is like to be marginalized by more than one of the groups I inhabit.
To think that the decision to dump T protections is based on the fact that we should help the largest group of marginalized folks at the expense of a subset is horrible, particularly when proposed so quickly by our own — and allies on the Hill. A trans-inclusive ENDA would have been a symbolic vote, given Bush would veto it anyway, yet Ts were sold out in a flash because, in the minds of some, the floor debate, which will be contentious at any time given the kind of tactics the religious right uses, is too frightening. Just incredible. Leadership without a spine.
She also includes this bit from Michaelangelo Signorile, which I think gets to the heart of the issue:
Even though we believe marriage is the goal we herald civil union gains as an interim measure. But that doesn’t wash: Whether it’s marriage or civil unions it’s still for all of us and not just some of us. (Or did I miss the part where some genius said, Let’s pass civil unions for lesbians first and come back to the gay men later, since lesbians might be less threatening than gay men?) Incremetalism does not mean cutting out whole groups of people.
Another comparison I’ve seen from those who support dropping gender identity from the bill is that their action is similar to the supposedly pragmatic activists during the black civil rights movement who understood that they needed to start small and grow — they started with employment, and then moved on to housing and public accommodations in later years. That, again, is a disingenuous comparison…African-Americans did not say, Hey, let’s put forth a bill to protect all the light-skinned blacks — those who can pass and are less threatening to whites — and we’ll come back to the blackest of the black later. And make no mistake: the trannies are the queerest of the queer; they are the ones who need protections more than anyone else.
Regarding all the high-minded pledges from various people who say we will come back for the transgendered and make sure we add them later: We have seen an unfortunate history of leaving people behind within this movement, I’m sorry to remind you. Soon after the onset of the HIV drug cocktail, for example, many middle class gay white men went back to their lives (including, among many, having unprotected sex, and fetishing it on “bareback” sites) while HIV ravages other communities in this country and much of the rest of the planet. The political will within the gay community in America to help those other communities has all but died. (Oh, and do I also need to point out that the promise to come back for the trannies was made in New York when its gay rights bill was passed? That was five years ago, and they’re still waiting.)
Pragmatism matters. But throwing an entire group of people under the bus because it’s politically expedient is not an option. And as Pam emphasizes, this bill is largely symbolic. If Democrats can’t even get it together for a bill that has no chance of becoming law, how are they going to get the job done when they actually have power?