BlogHer - Gender-Identity Expression, Discrimination, and the Law - Comments

only 8 ?

PhyllisMs — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:19:35 -0500

Thank you for enlightening me. It's comments like yours that help enlighten. In this day of freedom of speech, it also helps to say, "I might have been wrong" so may I recant my statement? Maybe I should say, "at least 8 people commented and maybe that will trun to 64 and...maybe that will...etc., etc.

Update...

nelle2nelle — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:41:46 -0500

From Donna Rose:

I'm told that HRC had lobbyists on the hill for 2 days, actively lobbying legislators to support the SO-only version of the bill that is now primed to move. Given that fact, along with the acknowledged 'deal' that HRC made with Democratic leadership to move the SO only bill forward, some have questioned me as to whether those actions are contrary to the HRC Board's policy as outlined in their Press Release of October 2 (direct quote: "HRC will not support the newly introduced sexual orientation only bill.") It would seem so

The full story is on Donna's blog.

nelle

Agreed

nelle2nelle — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:38:04 -0500

This is obviously a passionate subject for many of us. As with any subject, support does not necessarily translate into a written opinion. There are many subjects of interest to me, but I blow hot and cold, depending on mood, on actually writing on them.

HRC is doing some fast footwork now, trying to show it is committed to a full ENDA - at least that email from them in my in box states they are. Do I believe that is carrying the full force of that organisation behind it? No. But what it does suggest is they are feeling the heat, and that heat is coming from the reaction to their initial action.

That means people were talking.

nelle

What do you mean, only 8?

Denise — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:31:24 -0500

I would like to ask you to reconsider your measurement of success and/or interest. Comments are not an indicator of either.

Almost 600 people clicked in to read the post, we don't have a measurement of how many people read the post in an RSS feedreader. Many of us discussed the post, and the topic on our own blogs, on TWitter, in email, in instant message, on SKYPE, on message boards not on BlogHer and with our own families, friends and co-workers.

Please do not judge the BlogHer community members or their commitment to personal freedoms based on blog comments, or lack of them.

~Denise
Fast Times @ Homeschool High & Flamingo House Happenings

Personal freedoms

PhyllisMs — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:47:16 -0500

Well, I am disappointed...Only 8 people showed interest in ENDA. Only 8 people on BlogHer showed any interest. I showed interest in personal freedoms when I was a soldier in Viet Nam. Now, sometimes, people are concerned about our soldiers in Iraq. But it's not really. Interest in our soldiers in Iraq is showing an interest after they have returned home. The little yellow bows that have appeared on cars is a copout. That's the extent of their interest, a bow that cost a buck 49, nothing more...I find it's a sad day for the state America...

2 more states?

Suzanne Reisman — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:16:12 -0500

Maybe North Carolina and Virginia? Southern Illinois is basically the deep south, so it doesn't surprise me that it didn't pass there in the past.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

One of the reasons...

nelle2nelle — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:51:11 -0500

the remaining states got cold feet when we were so close 25 years ago was the potentially unknown scope of the ERA, and how it would grant protections to lgbt folk.

These are the states yet to ratify:

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Utah
Virginia

Illinois really surprises me, and think we could win there... but what other two states would be most promising?

nelle

ERA? Yes!

Suzanne Reisman — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:09:06 -0500

I've never considered the ERA in such an expansive way. Excellent point, Nelle!

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Thank you...

nelle2nelle — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:00:47 -0500

Hopefully some will read this and be moved to write their Representative encouraging a full ENDA bill, not separate ones.

I've emailed HRC and expressed my extreme displeasure with their once again selling us out. HRC traditionally ignored transfolk, but 3 years ago moved to inclusion. At the most critical moment, namely working for passage of a complete ENDA, they sold us out.

IMO, the real, the ultimate solution to this is not ENDA, it's the ERA. The ERA, a mere 3 states from ratification, would legally take out any discrimination based on gender, and that would extend to lgbt rights. I hope we hear more in the next two years on it, and start pressuring the remaining 13 states to get it done.

I'd be in favour of scrapping ENDA for further action on the ERA, but it doesn't even show up on Congressional radar.

I've digressed, but bottom line is a united approach to protect us all.

Thanks again...

nelle

point well taken

Roberta — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:17:58 -0500

I hate to state the obvious, but we cannot be fully accepted as diverse individuals until we can fully accept the diverse individuals that make our society what it is. We are all deeply different and deeply the same - as individuals and as a society.

Your point may be obvious Alyssa, but it is a good one! Thanks for the reminder
Roberta
Birdsword

Please stay out of my bedroom, unless I invite you in

alyssaroyse — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:50:30 -0500

Thanks Suzanne, as always, for pointing out the prickly bits that we all shy from.

It's true that gays and lesbians have made great strides in corporate America, and, as such, ENDA is not worth rushing into passage. I think it is far more important to keep it's intent intact and pass it as the sweeping legislative statement that ti should be. Namely, what consensual adults do in their bedrooms, who they do it with, why they do it, and how they do it is not anyone's business at all, period.

What intrigues me about the "acceptance" of gays and lesbians in corporate America - and popular media - is still that we accept them as long as they fit the stereotypes that we assign them, and sometimes do better than the "straight" people who would have similar characteristics.

A woman who is "butchy" and not overly made up will be jeered, but if she were a lesbian people often say, "oh, she's a lesbian, that explains it." As if there is something wrong with those characteristics if she were straight. Conversely, a lesbian who is very girly still gets called a "lipstick lesbian" as if those traits should not exist within the lesbian identity.

When, as a society, will we realize that there is a huge spectrum of "normal" and that most of the behaviors and within that spectrum are found in every "type" of person.

And that's the point, to me, of keeping ENDA in tact. To say that transgendered people may be "different" than you and I, but they have all the same, needs, desires, fears and rights as you and I. Period.

I'm lucky, I think. I was raised by a gay dad, and never had to go through the angst of learning that people are all the same, because it was shown to me every day through the loving care of someone i trusted and respected. But I was keenly aware of, and occasionally troubled by, the fact that we were not only different, but not accepted. My daughter is even luckier, as it is all around her. I am so optimistic for the future, even if we have to wait until my daughter and her friends are running the country.

I hate to state the obvious, but we cannot be fully accepted as diverse individuals until we can fully accept the diverse individuals that make our society what it is. We are all deeply different and deeply the same - as individuals and as a society.
___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com

One more good info source

Kim Pearson — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:40:18 -0500

Hi Suzanne,
Thanks for this great roundup. Just wanted to add that we have another good blog on the rolls with information about ENDA and related issues -- Dr. Jillian Todd Weiss' Transgender Workplace Diversity Blog. She notes the need to educate lawmakers:

"I heard from those in the know that part of the reason that some legislators expressed hesitancy about supporting a gender-inclusive ENDA was that they were not sure what "gender identity" meant.

"By this, I assume, they did not refer to a mere definition, as there is one in the bill and they've been hearing about this for months. Rather, I take it that they did not understand the importance and significance of including it. And this is no surprise to me, as I have spent the last several years leading full-day trainings and marathon policy meetings with corporate leaders who also had a hard time understanding this, even though on another level they surely did understand, as they were paying me to explain it to them in full. The significance of "gender identity" to the project of anti-discrimination law is much more than its definition...."

The rest of the post explains why.

Kim

BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Thanks

moddivorce — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 15:25:02 -0500

for the post Suzanne. We need equal protection for all, including the Ts and LGBs!

Gender-Identity Expression, Discrimination, and the Law

Suzanne Reisman — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:54:20 -0500

Here's my beef with capitalism: while the system works in theory because businesses want to recruit the most qualified, talented, smartest, and overall best people to work for them, the reality is that capitalism is a system administered by humans. As humans, we tend to let our prejudices, biases, and ignorance guide our decisions, which historically leads to discrimination against people who are different than those in charge. (Of course, this aspect of humanity also poses problems for socialism, democracy, and other wonderfully theorized systems of social organizations.) To overcome our human flaws and truly give everyone a fair chance in life, government often is required to pass laws banning discrimination. This brings me to today's topic, the Employment Non-Descrimination Act (ENDA), which originally was written to ban and provide remedies for "employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity."

The key here is that ENDA originally included protection for "gender identity." The House Democratic leadership, Rep. Barney Frank explained, decided to remove transgendered individuals from Federal protection to avoid controversy and expedite its passage. Needless to say, this is not going over well with a large portion of the bill's supporters.

In a discussion forum opened on BlogHer, PhyllisMs from Louisiana explains why the ENDA is necessary, and why it should include trangendered individuals:

Personally, I believe that Corporations, business, and religious orders should not make our Constitution and Bill of Rights mute by dictating who they can hire or terminate based upon race, color, religion, sex or national origin, sexual preference or gender identity. As it is today in many states, with more lobbying continueing throuhout the nation, Corporations and business's can fire for "any reason" or for "no reason at all". This labor contract is call "Employment at will" and leaves the door wide open for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, making them in effect mute, null and void. Changes in the way of employment for all Americans is desperately needed and our previous equality legislations are eroding before our eyes. I believe, we as Americans, do not need the government nor the general public to have rights of discriminations due to our bedroom activities or perceptions by others.

Phyllis also shares her personal story of life-endangering harassment, which makes it crystal clear why we can't be pragmatic about this law. When it comes to dropping transgender individuals from legal protections, Michelangelo Signorile at The Gist wrote:

I honestly don't understand what the rush is on ENDA at this point -- and yes, I've now read many different takes on it, including that of Barney Frank, who I respect a great deal and don't disagree with lightly. Through the hard work of activists over many years, 20 states, the District of Columbia and 140 cities and counties -- among them the most populous states of California and New York, which also disproportionately contain large GLBT populations -- have laws banning discrimination against gays and lesbians. The Fortune 500 has so greatly outpaced the federal government, with over 90% of Fortune 500 companies having gay-inclusive anti-discrimination policies, that ENDA's immediate impact on the rest of the country, in terms of providing relief, if passed and signed by the president (doubtful), surely would not be nearly as significant as some have claimed in their arguments for dropping the transgendered… 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.

Nelle2Nelle at Swim Beyond the Imagery feels sold out and is taking action and urges others to do the same:

I've fired off a couple of letters to my rep, fired one off just now to Speaker Pelosi, and urge anyone who might happen to read this to write Congress in support of a whole ENDA bill, and not the one tearing the 'T' away from the LGB.

I've lived a lifetime of inner angst. Had my life ripped apart, but I'm also fortunate to work for an employer that values my work and protects my rights. Too many of us have no protection, and ENDA will bring us that long needed protection.

Since we are a minority within a minority, gaining rights outside the framework of the lgbt community will be exceedingly difficult. Many people see us as just plain warped, weird, or worse.

I'd appreciate taking time to contact Speaker Pelosi in support of an intact ENDA.

There's still time to act - Mombian points out that Pelosi is delaying the mark-up of the bill until the end of the month. She also writes:

I’m a realist. I’ve watched enough West Wing to know that often, hard tradeoffs have to be made when enacting legislation. At some point, however, we leave the original spirit far enough behind that we have to ask ourselves whether it is worth moving ahead with a shell of a bill, or to maintain the bill’s integrity and our own, even at the risk of losing.

A bill like ENDA really protects all of us when it includes protections for gender-identity expression. While I am fortunate to have a "female" body that matches my gender identity, I also don't engage in many of the beauty rituals that our society uses to distinguish men from women. Obviously, transgendered individuals are significantly more at risk for discrimination and harassment than I am (one of the many reasons I support unisex bathrooms), but in reality, any woman who works in a stereotypically rigid workplace could be at risk if she appears too "butch;" men who seem to "girlie" would also have no rights.

The point is, while this affects transgendered people most, it is also important to all of us. We all have a basic right to be comfortable with our bodies and selves without being discriminated against or harassed. Abandoning the most visible and vulnerable members of society as we seek to promote basic rights does not advance rights for anyone.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants