transgressions: or why enda should include gender identity and why everyone should care.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would create a blanket federal statute regulating employment throughout the US. It should protect everyone, notably minorities (racial, sexual, religious) from being fired or not hired because of any employer's bias. ENDA has bounced around the halls of Congress this year, driven by a newly Democratic majority, only to stall amid recent retooling. When introduced in April the bill H.R. 2015 included "gender identity" among the roll of protected descriptors, via three passages. A different version, H.R. 3685, circulated in the past few weeks, dropping "gender identity" and amending some other passages to assure passage of the bill. (For some great analysis of H.R. 3685, please go here or here.) Many LGBTQ groups were outraged by the omission, and in response, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the bill would be delayed for further reworking. Most significantly, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) released a public statement that in essence said pushing for transgender rights would hold back the rights of everyone else, because widespread discrimination against transgendered people guarantees the bill won't pass.
No matter. Barney Frank is an older white male, who easily makes several times more money than I do. From these and other comments, I believe he just doesn't get it. In all likelihood, none of Congress does. We don't have any openly transgender Congresspeople, and only Reps Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin are openly gay. (I'll leave the digression about the closeted ones for another time.) Maybe you yourself don't get it either. Why should a small thing like gender identity be included if it holds back sexual orientation? Isn't incremental progress better than none at all?
The thing about gender identity is that it is universal. You (yes, you) transgress the boundaries of gender every day, with or without knowing. Anyone can, from assertive women to men who are deferential to others. Note: these aren't my notions of gender, they're in the public domain. Gender, as it is constructed, is highly subjective. In "Render Me, Gender Me," Kath Weston speaks about the distinctions between race and class in feminist movements. White and middle-class second-wave writers and activists like (but not limited to) Betty Friedan made assumptions about all women based on their own experience, not realizing that the oppressions they railed against weren't as important to women of color, or poor women, or nationals of other countries. Each of our lives proceeds in a manner unique to ourselves, and we interact with others whose visions of the world don't quite match our own. My notions of gender are certainly not those of say, President Bush. That's partly why a bill like ENDA needs to exist in the first place.
Think about the last time you questioned your own gender. If you haven't, think about the last time you questioned someone else's. It's not just about dress and hair length, it's about behavior, hell, even body-type, which we don't have that much control over. These things influence all our lives, not just those of us who are marginalized. Masculinities and femininities are plural, not singular as we're led to believe. Transpeople, whether genderqueer or fully passing, live with an extra burden each day, but it's not far from discrimination against them to discrimination against straight cisgendered people who aren't quite living up to some nebulous standard imposed on them. An all-inclusive ENDA is good for everyone, even you.
Maybe you're not convinced. After all, gender transgressions aren't noted until they're considerable, and the boundaries are constantly changing. ENDA, it's true, won't change things overnight, much in the same way Title VII (which the bill would amend) and Title IX didn't. In the struggle for equal rights under the law, change only happens incrementally, and within the structures of capital and power, it's hard to tell when it happens, if at all. People of non-conforming genders are not the only ones who face difficulty in the area of employment. There have also been gains, in court cases from Colorado to New York, but winning equality through the court system is patchy at best, and leaves people in other states, like Florida, exposed.
The fight over ENDA in the LGBT blog realm isn't about whether transpeople should be excluded from legal protections, at least one would hope not. What is most troubling to trans activists and allies is that the move toward ENDA now is calculated to drum up gay support for Democratic candidates in the upcoming elections, and the swiftness with which "gender identity" was abandoned is indicative of how the Democrats will behave in the future, as ENDA is sure to come up again. An editorial in the Washington Blade sums it up thusly:
"Voting on the gay-only version of ENDA now lets gay-friendly candidates pitch to gay voters (who greatly outnumber trans voters) that they tried to help them; avoid having to go on-the-record with supporting transgender workers (a stand even more likely to be used against them by Republican opponents); and still blame the mean old Republicans for the ultimate failure of the whole thing ... only in the highly unlikely chance that Congress could actually pass a gay-only ENDA this year, which President Bush would certainly veto."
My magic 8-ball says the outlook is murky, as far as a transgender-inclusive ENDA. Based on Pelosi's delay of the bill, it's unlikely to see the light of day during this legislative session. Who knows? maybe it will pass someday. I'm not holding my breath.
Sources: Wikipedia, Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights, TG Crossroads, Shakesville, Pam's House Blend, Washington Blade
No matter. Barney Frank is an older white male, who easily makes several times more money than I do. From these and other comments, I believe he just doesn't get it. In all likelihood, none of Congress does. We don't have any openly transgender Congresspeople, and only Reps Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin are openly gay. (I'll leave the digression about the closeted ones for another time.) Maybe you yourself don't get it either. Why should a small thing like gender identity be included if it holds back sexual orientation? Isn't incremental progress better than none at all?
The thing about gender identity is that it is universal. You (yes, you) transgress the boundaries of gender every day, with or without knowing. Anyone can, from assertive women to men who are deferential to others. Note: these aren't my notions of gender, they're in the public domain. Gender, as it is constructed, is highly subjective. In "Render Me, Gender Me," Kath Weston speaks about the distinctions between race and class in feminist movements. White and middle-class second-wave writers and activists like (but not limited to) Betty Friedan made assumptions about all women based on their own experience, not realizing that the oppressions they railed against weren't as important to women of color, or poor women, or nationals of other countries. Each of our lives proceeds in a manner unique to ourselves, and we interact with others whose visions of the world don't quite match our own. My notions of gender are certainly not those of say, President Bush. That's partly why a bill like ENDA needs to exist in the first place.
Think about the last time you questioned your own gender. If you haven't, think about the last time you questioned someone else's. It's not just about dress and hair length, it's about behavior, hell, even body-type, which we don't have that much control over. These things influence all our lives, not just those of us who are marginalized. Masculinities and femininities are plural, not singular as we're led to believe. Transpeople, whether genderqueer or fully passing, live with an extra burden each day, but it's not far from discrimination against them to discrimination against straight cisgendered people who aren't quite living up to some nebulous standard imposed on them. An all-inclusive ENDA is good for everyone, even you.
Maybe you're not convinced. After all, gender transgressions aren't noted until they're considerable, and the boundaries are constantly changing. ENDA, it's true, won't change things overnight, much in the same way Title VII (which the bill would amend) and Title IX didn't. In the struggle for equal rights under the law, change only happens incrementally, and within the structures of capital and power, it's hard to tell when it happens, if at all. People of non-conforming genders are not the only ones who face difficulty in the area of employment. There have also been gains, in court cases from Colorado to New York, but winning equality through the court system is patchy at best, and leaves people in other states, like Florida, exposed.
The fight over ENDA in the LGBT blog realm isn't about whether transpeople should be excluded from legal protections, at least one would hope not. What is most troubling to trans activists and allies is that the move toward ENDA now is calculated to drum up gay support for Democratic candidates in the upcoming elections, and the swiftness with which "gender identity" was abandoned is indicative of how the Democrats will behave in the future, as ENDA is sure to come up again. An editorial in the Washington Blade sums it up thusly:
"Voting on the gay-only version of ENDA now lets gay-friendly candidates pitch to gay voters (who greatly outnumber trans voters) that they tried to help them; avoid having to go on-the-record with supporting transgender workers (a stand even more likely to be used against them by Republican opponents); and still blame the mean old Republicans for the ultimate failure of the whole thing ... only in the highly unlikely chance that Congress could actually pass a gay-only ENDA this year, which President Bush would certainly veto."
My magic 8-ball says the outlook is murky, as far as a transgender-inclusive ENDA. Based on Pelosi's delay of the bill, it's unlikely to see the light of day during this legislative session. Who knows? maybe it will pass someday. I'm not holding my breath.
Sources: Wikipedia, Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights, TG Crossroads, Shakesville, Pam's House Blend, Washington Blade