I haven’t posted about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act here on Pandagon, but if you've been reading the Blend over the last couple of days, you know that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) will introduce two versions of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — the original one that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and the watered-down, transgender protection-free version that may have a chance of passage (even though everyone knows Bush will veto it). (The Advocate):
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said she wasn’t convinced the original trans-inclusive bill couldn’t pass. “We think the bill was pulled prematurely and abruptly,” said Keisling. “Because they pulled the bill, we’ll never know.”Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), the only other out gay member of Congress, will not put her name on the trans-stripped ENDA bill that will be taken up by the Labor and Education Committee.
In response to the prospect of a non trans-inclusive ENDA, National Stonewall Democrats has put up a web petition, nosubstitutes.org, in support of the trans-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, HR 2015 (you can also click the image below).
The debate within the LGBT community is red-hot over whether there is benefit in passing a T-free ENDA that will be vetoed anyway and whether there will be harm done to the community by declaring the transgendered a segment to be left behind, even symbolically. There is a lot of anger directed at Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, two allies on gay issues, whose reasoning is better to try to pass something rather than nothing, to help some of the community rather than none. Again, Bush would veto either version, so it’s a symbolic vote anyway. Another rationale for removing transgender protections is that Pelosi said the floor debate would be “bruising,” — publicly defending against all the right wing disinformation and hysteria out there over Ts and bathrooms (and “she-males”, transvestites and other BS).Congress has the chance to pass HR 2015, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would protect Americans from workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Now a substitute bill has been introduced as HR 3685, which would not stop discrimination based on gender identity. Removing gender identity from ENDA would leave an artificial aftertaste. Not only would the substitute bill leave some working Americans behind, it would also create divisions among Democrats and fair-minded advocates.
Let's help Congress continue to build support for the original ENDA. The well-intended substitute just won't do.
On Friday I happened to be in DC at the Out and Equal Workplace Summit — right when the ENDA issue blew up. I was slated to appear on a panel that was relevant to the developments — Workplace Equality in the American Spotlight — so it was definitely apt timing to talk about the issue of trans inclusion with attendees charged with inclusion and diversity in corporate America. My post on the conference is here.
You can catch up on the issue here:
* The rationalizations of the trans-stripped ENDA crowd fall flat
* More on the ENDA ‘family fight’
* The battle over ENDA
* ENDA in trouble over trans inclusion - and weak Dem spines
7 Responses to “There’s no substitute for the original ENDA”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Is there any chance of the watered-down version overriding a Bush veto? No?
Then to hell with the right-wing bigots, damn the torpedoes, etc etc. There’s no point in spending political capital on a bill that doesn’t include gender identity that won’t pass. You might as well go whole-hog and push through the full deal!
Yeah, that’s how I feel about it as well. We’re at a place where the bill won’t become law until there’s a Democratic president anyway. so let’s set the precedent where we’ve got the more inclusive bill passed, making it easier when there’s a Democrat in office.
True, knowing that it won’t survive a presidential veto, the whole thing is obviously a symbolic gesture. And I don’t like the symbolism implicit in stripping away our TG allies.
I agree. If there is no way that it will become law anyway, then why bother with the stripped-down version? So that they can blame Bush’s veto? Bush isn’t up for re-election, Congress is. I’d rather get the ones that won’t support the full bill on record so that we can work on them. The second bill is unnecessarily divisive amongst the community that it purports to help. It would be understandable if it had a hope of becoming law (and even then I would have misgivings), but when it won’t, its just dumb.
I love Tammy Baldwin. She’s my rep here in Madison. She even lives in my neighborhood, so I get to periodically see her when she’s out and about. She’s so wonderful.
Looks like the backlash made a difference. The planned ENDA vote tomorrow has been postponed until later this month, to give this all more time to be hashed out…
I don’t accept substitutes for sugar, so I won’t accept substitutes for the original ENDA nor will I accept substitutes for the original (1920) ERA.
Pam, I linked to you and posted on this issue here, and am taking a lot of heat from a particular commenter. Perhaps you could help me out?
As it happens, I am very close to a young person with gender dysphoria, so this is almost as personal for me as it is for some of the GLB community who have attacked me over it.