Loganotron

Last week I heard the brief rumblings over the “T” being dropped from the LGBT-protective ENDA bill. The situation goes a little something like this:

- A version of ENDA was introduced in April that would protect LGBT citizens from discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation

- A new version of the bill was introduced recently that dropped protections for “T” or transgendered citizens and, thus, gender-identity. This was a compromise made so that the bill would actually pass. The more inclusive April bill would almost certainly not pass.

- Some people, including House leadership, support passing any form of the bill, even if it’s not as inclusive as it could be. Moderate gains, baby steps, and so on.

- Most gay activist groups argue that the new bill is unacceptable because not only does it leave out gender-identity and thus trangendered citizens, but it also leaves out protections for gender (non)conformity (more on this below).

When I first thought about the issue, I came to a preliminary conclusion that it was better to protect some people now and include the rest later. My friend Todd asked me what my opinion was, and I shared with him my rambling perspective. In so doing, the somewhat offensive nature of my line of thinking became clear to me. I realized that excluding a subset of people from protections so that my more-privileged subset could be protected was not in line with my philosophies. (It may be odd to draw these types of distinctions within the LGBT minority group, but they exist. Some would argue, and I agree, that the classes are as such [in descending order of class/political power]: gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and finally transgendered folks.)

Over the last couple of days I have read quite a bit more about ENDA, thought about the social, political, and cultural ramifications of my initial position, and come to terms with the fact that I was uninformed and personally pretty ignorant on the subject beforehand. After all of this, I realized that my position needed to evolve to reflect my core set of beliefs about equality and civil rights.

I feel that it is neither right nor acceptable to exclude a group from protections because of the politics of xenophobia. Transgendered citizens fight the same battles for civil rights, and we (gay men, lesbian women, and bisexuals) should not allow discrimination against our transgendered brothers and sisters to continue to be discriminated against while we benefit. I cannot be complicit in sacrificing a group who has been instrumental in the struggle for LGBT rights, simply because we are now being offered a devil’s pact that would protect most of our minority group.

It also turns out that by eliminating gender-identity and a few other choice words, the new version of ENDA doesn’t even adequately protect LGB citizens if they don’t happen to conform to heteronormative cultural standards. Thus, a corporation could fire someone and simply (legally) claim, “We don’t have any problems with gays/lesbians, but we can’t have a man/woman work for us who isn’t masculine/feminine enough.” This loophole is yet another reason why the newer version of ENDA is completely unacceptable and insufficient.

I realize politics is about compromise, and you don’t always get exactly what you want. But if we’ve waited 30 years for ENDA to pass, we can wait another year, or two, or ten until we can pass a bill that adequately and inclusively covers all those who suffer from gender- and orientation-based discrimination.

Bush has also vowed to veto any version of ENDA. I don’t support passing a bill through Congress that doesn’t represent the full protections it was intended to encompass. I understand the argument that if we can pass a bill in Congress now, despite its limitations, then that sets precedent. Then, in subsequent years and administrations, we can pass more inclusive bills that will will get signed into law. I just don’t agree with or feel comfortable passing a precedent-setting bill that doesn’t represent the full protections I support.

There were a few other things that I pondered that helped change my mind. The first was swapping the “T” for “G.” In other words, would I still support the bill if ENDA proposed to protect lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered citizens, but exclude gay men? The answer is an emphatic no. This helped me realize that it was all to easy to for me to accept the exclusion of a group, as long as it wasn’t mine. The exclusion of a minority group doesn’t fit with my personal, political, and social philosophies, no matter what the reason for exclusion.

Another way of addressing the issue involved thinking of it hypothetically. How would I explain to my friend Chase (FTM) or my roommate’s dad (MTF)? How could I look them in the face and tell them, “We’re just excluding you for now. We’re just allowing you to be discriminated against a little while longer. First, we’re going to pass protections for the rest of us. Then, sometime in the future, we’ll make sure you get included under the umbrella of protection from discrimination. I realized I just couldn’t have that conversation. I could never utter those words to an FTM or MTF, or any other person for that matter. I just don’t believe in the sentiment and personally don’t agree with the underlying statement it makes.

I plan on calling the offices of Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and Diane Feinstein to tell them I do not support the newer, exclusive version of ENDA, and I will urge them to vote “no” or to not bring the current bill to a vote. Instead, I will urge them to resurrect the original, inclusive version of the bill, whether it passes a vote or not.