ENDA tha' coalition, apparently

[solarbird]

A news story:

Senate OKs hate-crimes bill protecting gays, lesbians
But House Democrats weaken employment legislation for transgender people
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Friday, September 28, 2007

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/09/28/MNAGSFEAR.DTL

By "weaken," they mean "eliminate entirely," pulling all forms of transgender people completely out of the bill.

The Stranger notes this rather neutrally on their Slog, quoting the Chronicle story, and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)'s defense of the action. Comments are mixed. Here's mine, partly in response to another comment made higher on the chain:

Gitai (#20)'s comment assumes, quite incorrectly, that the same body of people will be lobbying for the transgendered as lobby for the collective set of people now referred to as GBLT now. All of Gitai's examples of long-duration struggles, for example, are examples wherein it's the same set of people being semi-equally oppressed throughout the spectrum; in this case, most of the population will get legislative relief, and for them, this particular battle will be over, and they will not return to it with similar enthusiasm. That difference in reality makes the example situations they describe completely different than this one.

Some may protest this conclusion, but history says they're wrong. Post-non-inclusive-ENDA, the GLB portion of the GBLT coalition will have achieved this goal - though they certainly won't achieve it this year, there will be no veto-proof majority - and a substantial percentage of the political GLB population will move on and no longer see it as a primary concern. And that's honest; for them, it isn't a primary concern any longer, since legal employment discrimination will no longer apply to them. This is simple, but unfortunate, reality: it will be natural for them to care much less, so they will. That leaves substantially the transgendered to fight alone, and transgendered people are a fractional minority of an already small minority, a fractional minority which is more than occasionally disliked by the members of the greater minority in which it is immersed. Some of those members will even become openly hostile, given the opportunity to decide that they have moved on. (It has long been noted that alliances are in the most danger of collapse at both the points of defeat and victory. This would be an example of the latter.)

I'm not saying it will be impossible for transpeople to gain these protections later; it could happen. But it becomes at least significantly, if not dramatically, less likely. If the GLB (cisgendered) portion of the GBLT minority decides this is acceptable and cuts off the transgendered, so be it - but it should be done honestly, with full knowledge, and not with lies to itself about what it's really doing.

What I don't mention there is that the Democrats are partly right, in that passing ENDA - in its original form, at least - only to have it vetoed is the right thing. It does show political will and courage - or, at least, would have, if they'd managed not to shoot themselves in the foot at the same time, by letting - no, helping - the opposition split one of their own coalitions out from underneath them. Oh well.

I have not dissimilar comments on the larger form of this same general political situation here, made in response to a post in another journal.

Comments

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Well said. I now find myself hoping that the stripped bill either fails or is vetoed. I'm reminded of a line from 1776 where John Hancock defends his casting vote that requires that any resolution on Independence must be unanimous, roughly, "Would you have the symbol of our new nation be the mark of Cain? No; either together we go forward, or together we stay right here."

[solarbird]

Oh, it'll get vetoed. I'm fully aware for example that Mr. Bush has pledged to veto including GBLT people in Federal hate-crimes legislation - so far, that one still has a T on it - and the base hates this bill even more. And they don't have a veto-proof majority for this no matter what they do.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Which makes throwing the trans-folk under the bus even more stupid. The Democrats are never going to have enough votes to override a veto, so why fiddle around with the details on this bill? Do what you can, lose if you must, and fight it again next Congress.

[solarbird]

I have asked this question of the Democrats over and over and over again since 2006 regarding abuse of power issues, and have generally gotten yelled at for my trouble and told to STFU and vote Democratic because there's only two choices, after all.

[wrog]

so who is telling you to STFU?

Just curious.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

As someone who's tried to argue the pragmatism of voting for Democrats even though they suck, I do have to point out that I never told you or anyone to STFU. In fact, I think Democrats will only improve if Democratic voters hold them accountable and let them know why they're falling short. Eliminating either piece, (1) a mainstream party willing to enact part of your agenda and (2) activist groups and individuals fighting for principles and redefining the spectrum of political opinion over time, leads to failure.

[archanglrobriel.livejournal.com]

*applauds* Exactly that. The question is whether or not the transgendered population is going to be thrown in front of the bus which means that the people who need protection the most won't get it.

I heard Barney Frank yelping about how we have to be "ok" with this bill passing in increments and how civil rights have always proceeded at "unequal pacing" and thus we shouldn't push to get -all- of us in the fold immediately - as long as this bill passes in any form. It just strikes me as wildly hypocritical that the theory here is that gay and lesbian people want straight people to stand up for them and "do the right thing" by outlawing discrimination of them, but they don't want to stand up for transpeople, who are the statistically similar percentage of the GLBT population.
It's all well and good to enjoin those starving people BEHIND you in line to just "wait your turn, be patient! Don't mess this up for the rest of us!" while you go on into the cafeteria and get fed.
Nice one, Barney.

[angharads-house.livejournal.com]

Oh, my, do you ever need the Charter of Rights and Freedoms down there....

sadly,
A., from north of Checkpoint Charlie

[solarbird]

We need a lot more than that.

[angharads-house.livejournal.com]

Yes (sadly indeed) you might need more than that. Big hairy nasty problem is always the one of assembling an effective population, and of the high-jacking of that effective population once it has been assembled.

I suppose that's why I live behind those quiet little lace curtains, and hope like all get-out that if and when the mobs rampage westward at the Uglies' behest, my neighbours won't think of delivering me up to said mob. Damn, this sort of thinking makes me feel powerless, since my only remaning recourse is to open or close my chequebook, and that (in itself) has its own risks.

Sigh.

Angharad, enduring the Culture Wars
yet bowing to no man.

[darkphoenixrisn.livejournal.com]

At least Republicans are honest about how they feel about transpeople.