Despite hundreds and thousands of outraged cries, the House Committee on Education and Labor voted 27-21 to pass a non-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The bill, which tosses trans folks on their asses, will now head to the House of Representatives.
As PageOneQ points out, four Democrats voted to stop the bill from going forward: New York’s Yvette Clark, Loretta Sanchez of California, New Jersey’s Rush Holt and Ohio’s tiny presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich.
adamblast
And to think I supported Kucinich for a while. All of you who *oppose* gay rights simply because trans rights aren’t ready for prime time have your head up your asses. You’re the one breaking up the community, not us.
Leland Frances
“tosses trans folks on their asses”? We can see the antibiotics didn’t take and you’re back to foaming at the mouth with Mad Tranny Disease. So EVERYONE should be without even a modicum of job protection?
“thousands of outraged cries”? “THOUSANDS”? Would that be the lambs, Clarice? On what planet, Clarice?
Lena Dahlstrom
Aside from the fact that ENDA won’t become law this year (no bill in the Senate, a certain veto from Bush even if there was), so it’s all symbolic anyway — I hope both Leland and Adamblast are straight-acting, because without protections for gender expressions people — gay, lesbian and hetero — still could be fired for being too nelly or too butch or simply not masculine or feminine enough for your boss’ taste. And yes, dahlings, there is case law that’s upheld exactly this sort of firing.
Leland Frances
Despite the disinformation by you and Lambda Legal, you’re simply speculating because, regardless of what has or has not happened before, we do NOT know what would happen in the presence of a federal law. Dahling.
adamblast
Lena, no one is arguing that the exclusion of gender expression is a good thing, or that its exclusion affects only transfolk.
Odd that the gay-only bill was good enough for NGTLF, Lamba Legal and our various activist groups for so many years. And now they pretend the exact same language is not only insufficient, but a “bad bill” full of loopholes. Talk about politically expedient.
And no, I’m not particularly straight-acting, though I am completly gender-traditional in appearance and could pass if I chose to. Instead, I am the only gay in the village, more or less, working on social progress in the non-urban environment so many here have abandoned.
Mr. B
“Lena, no one is arguing that the exclusion of gender expression is a good thing, or that its exclusion affects only transfolk.”
This from the person who refers to anyone who opposes the current ENDA as suffering from “Mad Tranny Disease.” You’re STILL MISSING THE POINT.
Leland Frances
Uh, Mr. B, it is I, not adamblast, who created the expression Mad Tranny Disease. But, once again, we have evidence that one of its symptoms is the inability to read, see, or think straight, if you’ll pardon the expression.
This all reminds me more and more of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. Yesterday’s brother, sister, ally is today’s enemy; political purges are already being talked about. Down with HRC! Down with Barney Frank! Down with Nancy Pelosi! Down with anyone who disagrees with US!
La terreur n’est autre chose que la justice prompte, sévère, inflexible. (“Terror is nothing other than prompt, severe, inflexible justice.”) – Robespierre
Jamie
I have to agree with Adam and Leland. History shows us that those who demand “all or nothing” usually get the latter.
Compare this to DADT. 10 years ago DADT was seen as a step forward, for, while it wasn’t perfect, at least it stopped SOME discharges. A baby step in the right direction, if you will.
The same goes for a non-trans-inclusive ENDA. No one is “happy” that it’s not inclusive, but IF we can take a small step forward and keep fighting for the inclusion, what’s wrong with that?
Every objection I’ve seen is just petulant, short-sighted “ME ME ME NOW NOW NOW.” Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
I even posted as much this morning.
shivadog
I read that more people were discharged after DADT than before. Making it a “baby step” in the wrong direction.
Paul Raposo
“Compare this to DADT. 10 years ago DADT was seen as a step forward, for, while it wasn’t perfect, at least it stopped SOME discharges.”
Uh…Jaime, there have been more discharges under DADT than under the previous ban on gays in the military. It was not a step forward, it was a regressive law that ruined military careers.
“but IF we can take a small step forward and keep fighting for the inclusion, what’s wrong with that?”
What’s wrong with that? Well, 15 years later DADT is still the law of the land, even though Dems had years to change it. Do you honestly believe that 15 years from now Trans people will have any protections if ENDA passes?
“Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.”
Throwing the Trans community, femme gays and butch lesbians under the bus, so straight acting gay men and lipstick lesbians gay men can ride inside the bus, Jaime.
“I even posted as much this morning.”
Glad to see you’re all about appeasing the homocons, Jaime. I’m sure if this was WWII Berlin and the Germans were handing out pink triangles, people like you and Robbie would be ordering lampshades.
Patrick
Pass ENDA without transgender inclusion. Do it! If Bush vetos so what. We’ll be one step closer to passage given the likelihood of a Democratic President in 2009. Real families in the millions will be one step closer to clearly defined federal laws assuring them protections no matter in which state they reside. That is a historic victory for our community and something I want asap.
All or nothing strategies often end in … nothing.
Leland Frances
Herr Paul, “throwing under the bus”—WOW, where did you come up with such an original phrase? Silly me, of course, you’re simply parroting the bumper sticker cliches those with Mad Tranny Disease substitute for original thought.
As for DADT, you, too, should enroll in my class, “How to tell shit from Shinola for better living.” The PERCENTAGES of discharges MAY have gone up after DADT but NOT the actual numbers. The highest number of discharges in one year, those in 2001, were HALF the number of gays discharged on average per year during WWII.
If one only looked at percentages discharged the impression post DADT would be that there is an astronomical difference. BUT by the time WWII ended, there were some 12 million in the military. Presently, there are roughly only 1.4 million, so the number discharged misleading magnifies the percentage.
In NO way was it a “regressive law.” The existing ban before DADT [after many variations in the preceding couple of decades] said gays could not serve period. DADT said THEY COULD, if closeted. Though it was far less than no-strings admission that Clinton imagined, the devil has been more in the details of the way the Pentagon has administered it, literally ignoring its mandate not to “ask” or “harass.” That is not to say that we should not fight to overturn DADT.
Even if you had all of the facts correct, there is still little similarity between the way ENDA would likely operate in a civilian sector [it doesn’t include the military] and the way DADT operates in the military sector.
Paul Raposo
“WOW, where did you come up with such an original phrase?”
Made it up myself. I’m pleased to see that it’s taken off well here.
“Silly me, of course, you’re simply parroting the bumper sticker cliches those with Mad Tranny Disease substitute for original thought.”
Leland, you haven’t had an original thought since your morning dump. Everything you spew on this board is pathetic transphobia.
“As for DADT, you, too, should enroll in my class”
Clown college?
“How to tell shit from Shinola”
WOW, where did you come up with such an original phrase?
“The PERCENTAGES of discharges MAY have gone up after DADT but NOT the actual numbers.”
How exactly can a percentage go up without numbers going up, douchebag? Taking your sad argument at face value, the PERCENTAGE of gay soldiers having their careers ruined has gone up, compared to the pre-DADTDP law of being asked and denying and being left alone. The percentage of soldiers being dismissed in your 1.2 million person army may pale in comparison to the smaller percentage of gays soldiers dismissed in the WWII 12 million person army, but the fact remains that the number of gay people being discharged for being gay has risen.
“The highest number of discharges in one year, those in 2001, were HALF the number of gays discharged on average per year during WWII.”
“On average” being the key phrase, numbnuts. Provide the figures, the actual numbers of discharges, Leland.
“The existing ban before DADT said gays could not serve period.”
And if asked, a gay person would deny being gay and the issue was dropped.
“DADT said THEY COULD, if closeted.”
The law says, Don’t Ask–Don’t Tell–Don’t Pursue. The first and second tenets have been ignored by those who look to discharge gays/lesbians. Soldiers are routinely questioned based on “accusations”, or perception. If the soldier denies, he is investigated. Whereas before, when a soldier denied being gay, the issue was dropped.
“there is still little similarity between the way ENDA would likely operate in a civilian sector [it doesn’t include the military] and the way DADT operates in the military sector.”
I used DADTDP as an example of a regressive law that hasn’t been changed, the way transphobics believe trans people will be added tp protections later. However, both correlate because both involve discrimination against a minority within a larger group–gays within straight military and trans within the gay community.
Paul Raposo
“The law says, Don’t Ask–Don’t Tell–Don’t Pursue. The first and second tenets have been ignored by those who look to discharge gays/lesbians.”
That should have read:
The law says, Don’t Ask–Don’t Tell–Don’t Pursue. The first and *third* tenets have been ignored by those who look to discharge gays/lesbians.
Leland Frances
Since you can’t grasp the way that different finite numbers [the # of troops now vs. the number of troops in WWII] affect the “weight†of percentages, per your request, we’ll use hard numbers.
According to Allen Berube’s classic book and documentary, “Coming Out Under Fire”:
“Over 9000 were discharged for homosexuality during WWII, and a large number of cases went uncounted.” SEE: http://www.tvguide.com/movies/coming/review/129983
The US was involved in the war for less than four years. 9000 divided by 4 = 2250 per year [+ the “large number of cases (that) went uncounted”].
Per the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which I trust you know was created soley to try to overturn DADT and counsel those affected by it until then, the highest number under DADT in any month through 2006 was 1273—only 148 more than half the average in WWII. The DADT numbers by year rage from a low of 612 to that 1273. In only half of the previous 12 years of DADT, did they exceed 1000 per year. Adding the highest four years [1998-2001] together totals only 4273 versus the 9000+ in four years of WWII.
SEE: http://www.sldn.org/templates/dadt/record.html?section=145&record=3864
Further, “in the three years prior to 1966, the Navy [ALONE] discharged over 1,600 sailors each year for homosexuality.†Some 400 MORE than the highest year of DADT.
SEE: http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html?section=5&record=423
“By the late 1980’s the total number of men and women discharged as homosexuals or lesbians since the beginning of World War II approached 100,000.†SEE: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE4DC1338F931A35756C0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
I think a few of those 100,000, as well as Berube and every other expert on the history of gays in the American military, might disagree with your stunningly ignorant, “before, when a soldier denied being gay, the issue was dropped.”
Leland Frances
Since you can’t grasp the way that different finite numbers [the # of troops now vs. the number of troops in WWII] affect the “weight†of percentages, per your request, we’ll use hard numbers.
According to Allen Berube’s classic book and documentary, “Coming Out Under Fire”:
“Over 9000 were discharged for homosexuality during WWII, and a large number of cases went uncounted.” SEE: http://www.tvguide.com/movies/coming/review/129983
The US was involved in the war for less than four years. 9000 divided by 4 = 2250 per year [+ the “large number of cases (that) went uncounted”].
Per the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which I trust you know was created soley to try to overturn DADT and counsel those affected by it until then, the highest number under DADT in any month through 2006 was 1273—only 148 more than half the average in WWII. The DADT numbers by year rage from a low of 612 to that 1273. In only half of the previous 12 years of DADT, did they exceed 1000 per year. Adding the highest four years [1998-2001] together totals only 4273 versus the 9000+ in four years of WWII.
SEE: http://www.sldn.org/templates/dadt/record.html?section=145&record=3864
Further, “in the three years prior to 1966, the Navy [ALONE] discharged over 1,600 sailors each year for homosexuality.†Some 400 MORE than the highest year of DADT.
SEE: http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html?section=5&record=423
“By the late 1980’s the total number of men and women discharged as homosexuals or lesbians since the beginning of World War II approached 100,000.†SEE: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE4DC1338F931A35756C0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
I think a few of those 100,000, as well as Berube and every other expert on the history of gays in the American military, might disagree with your stunningly ignorant, “before, when a soldier denied being gay, the issue was dropped.”
– Leland Frances
Leland Frances
Correction: ” the highest number under DADT in any YEAR through 2006 was 1273″
Paul Raposo
Well Leland, I appreciate those links. However, I’m discouraged to find that you work so hard to support DADTDP. I suppose since it does not effect you–much like trans equality does not effect you–you aren’t in any hurry to have DADTDP overturned. I find that sad and quite telling.
Paul Raposo
Also, as you stated, there were 12 million soldiers in service during WWII. If 9000 soldiers were discharged, that meant that 1 out of every 1333 soldiers were dismissed.
Conversely, as you state, if the military today has 1.2 million service personnel and 4273 have been dismissed since DADTDP was initiated, that means that 1 in 280 soldiers has they career ruined by DADTDP.
Clearly, the numbers present a story far different from the rainbows and kisses that you present DADTDP as being, Leland.
Leland Frances
Paul, Paul, Paul! You “find” something that is not there. I had thought to myself, “surely no one will confuse my disagreement with his statements about the nature and history of DADTDP with support for it.”
For the record, while I have never been in the military, overturning it is one of my highest priorities for which I have given both money and volunteer time. In addition, I have personally known some of the key players in the legal battles against antigay military policies pre-DADTDP which is why I know so much about it.
I have also been fired from jobs and denied promotions simply for being gay so no one—transgender or trans-intoxicated—has the right to attempt to guilt-trip me about inequality or demand that I, or any other gay man or lesbian, join them in their crusade to take us all over the cliff.
Paul Raposo
“I have also been fired from jobs and denied promotions simply for being gay”
Was it because you were gay, were known to be gay, or were *perceived* as gay, Leland?
Leland Frances
All of the above.
Paul Raposo
“All of the above.”
Leland, in another thread you stated that the single parent in a rural Texas diner would lose their job because they don’t have fed protections against discrimination. You assume that person is out. If that person lives in an anti-gay rural area, chances are they are not out, so the chances of being fired for being gay are slim. However, their chances of being fired for being *perceived* as gay are quite possible. That is why a gender identity law is important. For the closeted femme man, for the closeted butch woman, for the person of ambiguous sexuality to be protected, how they identify needs to be protected. You’ve experienced first hand how a person’s perception of you negatively affected you.
Leland Frances
I never mentioned Texas, nor said a “gender identity law” was unimportant.
If the case can be made that the employer fired the person because he/she perceived them to be gay [for whatever reason] then that is de facto discrimination based on orientation alone and would be illegal under ENDA.