Illuminate the Mystery

by Molly Ivors

Social and political change, we are often told, must be incremental.  Grandma Dorcas, living in Peoria, might drop dead if, say, troops came home from Iraq all at once, or everyone suddenly had health care coverage, or, corporations weren't persons, or we impeached the president and vice-president. Certainly, it would cost any person who voted for these measures any chance of elective office ever ever again.

The conventional wisdom of our media tells us that the denizens of Earth-W would never have been forced to pass Defense of Marriage laws, or drag uppity blacks on chains behind pickup trucks, or blow up federal buildings if only the Democrats had been more reasonable and measured in attempting to expand rights and protect minorities.

Bullshit.

Justice is justice, and caving to the base instincts of the howling masses is always a mistake.

House Democratic leaders are strongly considering dropping anti-discrimination protections for transgender persons from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, after an internal Democratic head count on Wednesday found that the bill would likely be defeated if it included the trans provision, multiple sources familiar with the bill said.

 

The current version of the bill calls for banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, terms that are defined in the measure to include gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender persons.

 

As of late Wednesday, it appeared likely that the trans provision would be removed, setting up a potentially divisive fight within gay activist circles over whether or not to support an ENDA bill that excludes trans people.

Apparently, congressional Democrats have decided that it's okay to extend employment protection to gay men and lesbians, and even those wacky bisexuals, but once you get to transgendered persons, well that's just icky. But who defines "icky"? If we allow bigots to draw lines between what is and isn't appropriate behavior for other people, we're essentially sanctioning bigotry, or at least allowing it to determine the legal status of people whose health and happiness depends on a broader social will to grant them equal protection under the law. (FWIW, all the major Dem presidential candidates support including TGs in ENDA and hate crimes legislation.)

Removing transgendered persons from ENDA is a huge controversy in the GLBT community, as demonstrated by this poll at 365 Gay: slightly more than half of their readers support Barney Frank's move to exclude TGs. As one man put it to me, "I'm a gay man and I've waiting long enough." Okay, but TG's stood with the gay movement as ENDA was formulated, and it seems pretty cold to snub them now, when they are so close. (As Pam notes, a great many companies have already signed onto ENDA, even with the TGs included.) I guess I don't see why this is the dividing line. Charles Parnell once famously declared that no nation had a right to say to another nation "thus far and no further," and I would argue that this is also true of individuals, particularly in such a deeply personal area as gender identity.

Speaking of Ireland and Parnell, this whole sorry affair reminds me far too much of the relationship between the Catholic Church in Ireland and the Irish nationalist movement. At least since the Penal Laws of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, nationalism and Catholicism went hand-in-hand in Ireland: religion became the marker of distinct identity for the natives of Ireland, and supporting the priests and Catholic Emancipation were key nationalist goals. And they won. In 1829, most of the major Penal Laws were lifted, but the larger goals of Irish self-determination were put off. This division really bore fruit fifty years later, when the priests of Ireland chose to take a hard line against Parnell when he was named as the correspondent in a divorce case involving one of his MPs. It's hard to overestimate the bitterness of this event,  as any reader of Joyce knows,  but its seeds were sown much earlier: as Joyce's John Casey says, "Didn't the bishops and priests sell the aspirations of their country in 1829 in return for catholic emancipation? Didn't they denounce the fenian movement from the pulpit and in the confession box?" When they attacked Parnell, the priests of Ireland were carrying water for the British, much as those who attack Hillary Clinton from the left do today. In Ireland, they delayed independence by a good 40 years, and when it came, it was the Fenians and their descendants who brought it, not the Irish Catholic Church.

Divide and conquer is the oldest game in the book, and for those who say "protection for me but not for thee," I say "Feh."

 

Note to Wingnuts and cowardly Dems: ENDA is not Edna.

Comments

[Poicephalus]

Nice understanding of the 14th Amendment, Molly.

[ql- was in NY]

After thinking about this yesterday, I've decided it ought to be all or nothing. The TG community is too small to bring enough pressure on their own to force Congress to revisit the issue down the road. If they don't get included now, they never will.

[Molly Ivors]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I must be missing something.

[racymind]

I don't know why I was so surprised by this ENDA crap. I must say it has truly bothered me.

It is like all of my accomplishments have been devalued, and I do have a few. Heck, I feel devalued, and I have usually been very good at not letting other people affect the way I feel about myself.

Thanks for the efforts and support...

[SteveB]

When they attacked Parnell, the priests of Ireland were carrying water for the British, much as those who attack Hillary Clinton from the left do today.

Well, I've done lots of attacking Hillary Clinton from the left, but I never suspected I was carrying water for the British.

Fuck those limey bastards, I say. Hillary in '08!

[Molly Ivors]

Fuck those limey bastards, I say. Hillary in '08!

You're so cute.

[flory]

One gets the distinct feeling that a few history lessons might greatly improve the prospects of the Democratic leadership.

[Bloix]

Yes, Barney Frank is the enemy and without his support you guys will get a bill passed that includes transgendered people. Some people live for the day that they can shoot themselves in the foot.

[SteveB]

Bloix gives us a nice example of how liberal Dems defend their own: personalize the issue, so you can distract your critics from any serious discussion of the issues involved.

To play this game, all you need to do is claim that someone who criticizes a piece of legislation (like, say ENDA) is launching a personal attack on the legislator ("Barney Frank is the enemy").

As citizens, it is our job to tell legislators whether the legislation they are proposing meets with our approval. I'm sure Barney Frank understands this, I wonder why Bloix doesn't?

[Bloix]

Does Molly Ivors think that Barney Frank believes that extending rights to transgendered people is icky? That's what she said, isn't it? Does she think that Frank is saying, "protection for me but not for thee?" That's what she said. Frank has very respectfully and carefully explained what can be done and what can't be done, and what does Ivors have to say? "Feh." Now there's an argument for you.

The fact is that with transgendered people the bill will not pass. Some people would like to make some progress rather than none. Other people would like to be self-righteous.

[Thers]

Bloix, if the transgendered were a legitimate and active part of the coalition that pushed for the bill in the first place, jettisoning them now seems awfully cruel.

And Frank has been respectful, but he will be protected, and others won't.

And in this case there is a legitimate argument against incrementalism.

Who is going to be the voice pushing for inclusion of the transgendered in the future? How long can you "respectfully" ask someone to endure an insult and lesser status?

[Bloix]

Thers - you are making an argument. Molly Ivors called Frank a "cowardly dem." An argument is worthy of respect. Calling Frank a coward is not.

The answer to your question about how long you can ask someone to wait is simple. If it is not possible to do something about a situation, then people have to wait. Will transgendered people be better off if the bill passes without their inclusion, or if it fails with their inclusion? That is the choice. People who refuse to face that hard choice are engaging in self-indulgent posturing.

All progress toward equality in this country has been incremental. There has never been a stage at which the Democratic Party has said, everyone who matters is on the inside, now let's pull up the drawbridge. Yet Ivors is accusing Frank of just that strategy - "divide and conquer," are her words. My word for that accusation is contemptible.

[Thers]

Bloix, you're reading things into the post. Molly is not saying that Frank is a coward -- the Dems as a whole are. They have majorities in both houses and this bill could pass with the TGs in it if Dems all voted for it.

All progress toward equality in this country has been incremental.

Not really. The Revolution was not incremental. Neither was the Emancipation Proclamation.

Progress occurs as a result of courage in the face of crisis.

Leaving the transgendered out of this bill is morally indefensible, and this bill, if it has any authority at all, rests upon the moral premise that all Americans deserve equal rights under the law regardless of sexual orientation. Diluting that premise for purely political reasons merely legitimizes the notion that some people may be treated unequally under the law.

I cannot and will not accept that as a good idea. Can't cross some lines.

[Antonio Montana]

Molly, did you see this?

Police Brutality Strikes Fifth Anniversary of Sylvia Rivera Law Project

Transgender activists and allies to hold press conference in response to brutal police attack at the Sylvia Rivera Law Project Fifth Anniversary

On Wednesday, September 26, 2007, officers from the New York Police Department's 9th precinct made an unprovoked attack, employing excessive use of force against members of the Sylvia Rivera Law Project and other community members. While pepper-spraying a group of people who were gathered outside of a celebration and benefit for the organization's five year anniversary, the police also violently arrested two people from the crowd, Ileana Mendez-Penate and Reggie Gossett. These two people were released the following night, and all charges were dropped.

[Molly Ivors]

Antonio, I did, thanks.

Bloix, I never call Frank a coward here, and would not. I have great respect for him, and it's largely due to his leadership that this bill even has a chance of being voted on. But the articles I have read say that "an internal head count of Democrats" indicates that it passes one way and fails another way. I place the cowardice within those who draw this line, and am asking why this is a line to be drawn at all. I don't know who these people are, and I don't claim to.

[shrimplate]

People are people.

The real problem here is that our elected officials have failed to heed the prescient words of Depeche Mode.

[shrimplate]

All people deserve to be protected from hate crimes, and of course that includes the transgendered.

[SteveB]

The fact is that with transgendered people the bill will not pass.

So let me see if I understand your view of how the democratic process should work: some Dem Congressmen say they won't vote for the bill if trans people are included, so we accept that as the best deal we can get. Is that it?

Meanwhile, more than a hundred million voters sit on the sidelines. We make no effort to educate them, or persuade them, or to move them in our direction. And why? Is there any evidence that some substantial part of the population draws the line where you're suggesting we draw it? Are there millions of Americans who oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians, but approve of it for the transgendered?

Imangine that you're one of those Dem Congressmen who want to cut trans people out of the bill. Now imagine that you've been asked to make a case, in public, for your position. What would you say? After all, you're already on the record as opposing discrimination against gays, so "Jeebus tells me so" isn't going work.

Here's a lesson in politics: when the other side can't muster any arguments for its position, that's a debate you can win.

And, aside from being bad politics, your approach isn't even an effective way to prevent discrimination, even against the gays who will be written into the bill. Ask anyone who has ever tried to use a federal law like this one, and they'll tell you what a cumbersome and ineffective tool it is. In the end, the most effective tool for preventing discrimination is challenging bigoted attitudes in public - the same tactic you can't be bothered to engage in now.

Since Stonewall, the gay community has understood that the most effective way to win their rights has been to go directly to the public - not to cut backroom deals with the politicians. Legislation, if any, has always come later, after the public has been won over. The progress you want to grab hold of today is the product of years of patient activism by those who understood, better than you do, how democracy works.

[Toast]

You know, I can't stand the term "gender identity". If a guy wants to show up to work wearing a dress, that's his business, and I don't think he should be discriminated against for it. But if he's got a dick and goes around "identifying" as a female, yes, that I have a problem with. You are what your plumbing says you are. "Identifying" otherwise does violence to the English language.

[SteveB]

"Identifying" otherwise does violence to the English language.

You've got to admire a guy (or gal?) whose empathy for the English language exceeds his/her empathy for actual people.

[Bloix]

Thers - of course the Emancipation Proclamation was incremental. It purported to free the slaves only in areas that were in active rebellion - not Under Union control. It didn't free a single slave in Maryland or Delaware or Kentucky, or the District of Columbia, or anywhere else, for that matter - at first. But after it, the Union armies became armies of liberation.

And if you don't think that the Revolution was only an incremental increase in human liberty - well, may I suggest that you consider th position of black people, American Indians, and women after the Revolution. You may also be unaware that after the Revolution many states had property and religious qualifications for the right to vote, even for white men.

Molly Ivors - If you were not talking to Frank when you said, "protection for me but not for thee," who were you talking to? Which other gay member of Congress did you mean by the word "me"? When you called "Barney Frank's move to exclude TGs" an example of "divide and conquer," what did you expect your readers to understand, if not that Frank is acting in bad faith?

[racymind]

Bloix,

Are you serious? Incremental - I don't think the word means what you think it means...quite the stretches you make.

As far as divide and conquer goes, Barney Frank has not been a good ally to TG's. Molly has not been following the issue over time. Other TG's have followed it more closely than I have, but I can tell you he was dragged kicking and screaming into any ENDA bill that was TG inclusive and it is no surprise he is the quickest to sell them out. Call it whatever you like...

[Thers]

Bloix, uh, neither the EC nor the Revolution came about because of incrementalism. Both were quite radical steps. The fact that both were incomplete is an argument against, not for, incrementalism: look what the consequences were of compromising to appease bigots. You may be unaware that these consequences were unhappy.

At any rate I disagree completely with Frank for compromising here.

[virgotex]

Congrats Toast: a straight, smalltown Texas Baptist libertarian (cubicle neighbor@work)has a more sophisticated understanding of this issue than you. Really, kudos....
Great post Molly.While I remain cynical about the elected Dem response, I fear much more the effects of rope a dope/divide and conquer on the various progressive factions. I think this has the potential not just to cause division w/in the GLBT political community but w/in the Netroots, etc. It's heartening to see you come out swinging early

[Molly Ivors]

virgotex,
Thnks, but I'm not that early: Pam's the one who's really on this, both at her own place and at Pandagon.

The comments on this post from the end of last week are excellent, and better than I could ever do.

I can't speak to whether or not Frank is acting in bad faith: as racymind notes, this is a relatively new area of exploration for me, but it seems a matter of simple justice. The divide-and-conquer seems to have been some fundie mailing campaign in conservative Dem districts which succeeded in convincing the congresscritters that TG's weren't "really" men or "really" women. So I called bullshit and cowardice, and I stand by that. Letting the wingnut Wurlitzer choose the tune you dance to is always, always a mistake.

As it's a symbolic vote anyway (no Senate bill on the cusp of passage, will definitely get vetoed even if there were, and not even close to the number needed for override), the message *is* the point. And the message is: we'll throw TG's under the bus.

[virgotex]

yeah, but you are earlier than most non-GLBT-centric bloggers that I've seen. So, the thanks stands.
In a perfect world, we'd all be sensitized to issues that we don't think affect us personally, but this aint' that world yet.

[Pam Spaulding]

Just stopping by to say thanks for your post. As I said over at my pad, it's almost as if no one expected trans-inclusion to be controversial or used as a political football by the right. The Dems said they were ready to act on ENDA once they gained control of Congress. If they are getting cold feet now, it means they hadn't given the issue of dealing with the potential political blowback of trans-inclusion too much thought in the first place. That's seriously not ready for prime time politics.

Speaker Pelosi and Barney Frank are the ones to take major heat for this situation. His abrupt move to accept a trans-gutted ENDA unintentionally took a bat to the knees of ENDA that makes it all the more difficult to convince under-informed but supportive members of Congress to be on board. These fence-sitting members want to know who's going to have their back when they go back to their communities to face re-election.

In the end, it's about the education needed to bring legislators to a place of comfort where American companies are now. They, and the public at large need to see the faces and hear the stories of transgendered Americans and why ENDA as written is not a threat, but a fulfillment of a promise of equal treatment under the law that many take for granted.

[Toast]

a straight, smalltown Texas Baptist libertarian (cubicle neighbor@work)has a more sophisticated understanding of this issue than you.

Yes, and sophistication and nuance - always and everywhere - equals accuracy, right? Foreign policy expertise requires sophisticated understanding and an appreciation of nuance. Determining what gender you are -- not what you "feel like" but what you in fact are -- requires the ability to unzip your pants and take a look. (And yes, I'm well aware of the purported distinction between "sex" and "gender", I just don't happen to find it useful or interesting.)

[Shayne Smith]

Perhaps if one stopped identifying oneself by the old outdated notion of what or what is not hanging between one's legs, we can get on with the business of equality for all.

Apparently, some are a little reluctant to leave behind such antiquated notions.

[racymind]

Wow, still going a little over here.

If you want to see what a queer blogger brouhaha looks like go to Americablog here and here

I know I can be a bit of a brawler, but I still think John Aravosisis a thin-skinned priss. Questioning someones assumptions and knowledge level isn't necessarily a personal attack, dude!

[Jake T. Snake]

As a dear friend of mine used to say "The largest sex organ in our bodies...why the brain, of course!

[lyssa]

Just a quick note...Frank is a proven transphobe. He uses the same talking points as the Americans for Truth and other right wing hate groups.

See for yourself:

http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/enda-the-transgender-bathrooms-for-businesses-bill.html

Frank has openly been contemptuous of FtMs as well. His disdain for transpeople is so over the top that it sounds like it's coming from a fundie.

Frank IS the enemy, folks.