ENDA 2007: pass it as was
I would have placed this under an LJ cut, but this is too important an issue to hide behind a cut.
I was excited to hear that ENDA had been approved in the US House of Representatives. My kneejerk reaction to the division of the LGBT community over H.R. 2015's splitting was one of dismay. I believed at that we should take what we could get and fight for more later. One major item of contention related protecting LGBT individuals who do not dress or have mannerisms that reflect those of their sex. An employer could still easily justify termination of employment as 'not acting according to norms of professionalism' so I saw this as a moot. With a clearer mind, I agree that the passage of an intact ENDA should be the LGBT community's primary goal. No less.
Confusion
The human psyche/condition demands that because we currently enjoy historically record public support, we must demand an all or nothing approach. I whole-hearted agree not only because of legal reasons, but due to the social implications as well. One need only consider gay marriage as the latest example of why settling for a partial victory is dangerous to our ultimate goal. I have meet numerous friends, coworkers, strangers, who ask why I am waiting for marriage in Virginia when I can go to Hawaii or Massachusetts. By reading only the headlines people fail to realize that not only did LGBT lose Hawaii, but non-Massachusetts residents can not flock there to marry. Furthermore, they fail to understand that without full faith and credit of gay marriage throughout the 50 states, my marriage would be meaningless in Virginia. If the general population can confuse marriage in this way, it would be easy to see how employment non-discrimination would be simplistically misunderstood as well. "Oh, he came into work dressed like a woman then got fired, he should sue.... what do you mean he can't?". Sadly, we will achieve more public sympathies with no protections than abridged ones.
A partial victory now will lead to reduced popular support in the future
Popular response donations to the International and National Red Cross for causes such as Tsunami relief and Katrina relief were met with open wallets. Unfortunately for the Regional Red Cross chapters that called for donations afterwards, the response was that of "I already gave, why do you need more?" While this is an imperfect example of displacement of responsibility due to how the Red Cross is actually a licensed name, it does demonstrate that when people feel that something is in place, they are less likely to provide for additional support. Likewise, if H.R. 3685 passes, I fear the popular response to add protections for gender identity will fall on deaf ears. I already gave.
"Common enemy"
The Civil Rights movement is a clear example of how people of different backgrounds rallied together towards a common goal. It is often credited that the diligent work of Blacks, Asians, and LGBT working together were able to win the repeal of the anti-miscegenation laws and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Today, our groups are separate and seldom coordinate to create a better tomorrow. Like the civil rights movement, today all LGBT are currently in the same boat. There is currently no nationally recognized protection against job discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. We are united in a common goal. If we settle on H.R. 3685, we cast the transgendered out. It will not even be a matter of time before we forget them since we will have what we wanted; they will stand alone. Unfortunately, consensus amongst lesbians and transgendered persons that gay men only care about gay men exists for a reason.
Call to Action
Regardless of your Congressperson's stance on ENDA, H.R. 2015, please take the time to ask them to support the original version.
References
Lambda Legal's response to H.R. 2015 co-sponsor Congressman Barney Frank
I was excited to hear that ENDA had been approved in the US House of Representatives. My kneejerk reaction to the division of the LGBT community over H.R. 2015's splitting was one of dismay. I believed at that we should take what we could get and fight for more later. One major item of contention related protecting LGBT individuals who do not dress or have mannerisms that reflect those of their sex. An employer could still easily justify termination of employment as 'not acting according to norms of professionalism' so I saw this as a moot. With a clearer mind, I agree that the passage of an intact ENDA should be the LGBT community's primary goal. No less.
Confusion
The human psyche/condition demands that because we currently enjoy historically record public support, we must demand an all or nothing approach. I whole-hearted agree not only because of legal reasons, but due to the social implications as well. One need only consider gay marriage as the latest example of why settling for a partial victory is dangerous to our ultimate goal. I have meet numerous friends, coworkers, strangers, who ask why I am waiting for marriage in Virginia when I can go to Hawaii or Massachusetts. By reading only the headlines people fail to realize that not only did LGBT lose Hawaii, but non-Massachusetts residents can not flock there to marry. Furthermore, they fail to understand that without full faith and credit of gay marriage throughout the 50 states, my marriage would be meaningless in Virginia. If the general population can confuse marriage in this way, it would be easy to see how employment non-discrimination would be simplistically misunderstood as well. "Oh, he came into work dressed like a woman then got fired, he should sue.... what do you mean he can't?". Sadly, we will achieve more public sympathies with no protections than abridged ones.
A partial victory now will lead to reduced popular support in the future
Popular response donations to the International and National Red Cross for causes such as Tsunami relief and Katrina relief were met with open wallets. Unfortunately for the Regional Red Cross chapters that called for donations afterwards, the response was that of "I already gave, why do you need more?" While this is an imperfect example of displacement of responsibility due to how the Red Cross is actually a licensed name, it does demonstrate that when people feel that something is in place, they are less likely to provide for additional support. Likewise, if H.R. 3685 passes, I fear the popular response to add protections for gender identity will fall on deaf ears. I already gave.
"Common enemy"
The Civil Rights movement is a clear example of how people of different backgrounds rallied together towards a common goal. It is often credited that the diligent work of Blacks, Asians, and LGBT working together were able to win the repeal of the anti-miscegenation laws and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Today, our groups are separate and seldom coordinate to create a better tomorrow. Like the civil rights movement, today all LGBT are currently in the same boat. There is currently no nationally recognized protection against job discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. We are united in a common goal. If we settle on H.R. 3685, we cast the transgendered out. It will not even be a matter of time before we forget them since we will have what we wanted; they will stand alone. Unfortunately, consensus amongst lesbians and transgendered persons that gay men only care about gay men exists for a reason.
Call to Action
Regardless of your Congressperson's stance on ENDA, H.R. 2015, please take the time to ask them to support the original version.
References
Lambda Legal's response to H.R. 2015 co-sponsor Congressman Barney Frank