This does highlight the fact that HRC was lying to all of us when they said they didn't support the non-inclusive bill. They had to have been planning this poll for a few weeks.

They lied then, they lied with their letters on their web site, they lied whne they had people pushing the non-inclusive bill in the LCCR.

What makes you think you should trust them about this polls accuracy? Their history requires skepticism.

But don't worry - they say the bills religious excemption problems are moot. They say the gender identity loophole won't be exploited by bigots to fire gays. Trust them.

The only time you can their words uncritically is - when they ask you for money - they really do want it.

Other than that, I've never been a fan of basing what's right and what's effective on a poll. I hope that wasn't the reason it was conducted.
HRC receives money from its members. Those members pay them to advance their causes. What those causes are and what is the "right" move to make at any given time are the rub, of course, but I find it odd that "speaking to your members" is not viewed as a logical step in this process. There is debate about what to do; isn't taking a poll to get the "sense" of things from the community a wise idea? You phrased it as if it were some sort of moral offshoring, letting a poll engine guide your values compass, but that seems to be overstating the process as well as devaluing the data gathered, imho.

How odd - HRC polled this question a few years back and came up with this (courtesy of former HRC Board Member Donna Rose):

"HRC conducted polls and found that 61 percent of registered voters and 85 percent of gay and lesbian voters support workplace protections based on gender identity and expression. " - Washington Blade, Aug. 13, 2004

http://www.donnarose.com/ENDABlog.htm

The numbers can only have increased from 3 years ago. As Donna states - and should know - this poll and HRC's duplicity were obviously planned for some time.

Just for the sake of clarity, The Advocate ran an article about the poll, not the poll itself. It was HRC's poll, and amazingly, they got the results they wanted!

Alex is of course correct in talking about methodology, especially if an independent pollster didn't conduct it, and it was done in house.

But my issue is, why did they spend the money to take the poll when they said they support the inclusive bill? There is only one possible answer: to cover their ass.

It's one thing to be useless. It's another to actually spend money on something which will not further the progress of the community. I think HRC needs to explain to its donors why it wasted their money.

Hmm, I'm not entirely sure you have anything in your article that isn't purely a visceral stock-response.

1. Criticizing the polling methodology - it's somewhat valid, but then again, no poll is perfect and it's better than nothing.

2. Stating that no-one will come back for T folks in ENDA without providing any supporting evidence. Do you have statistics on how many cities/counties/states have passed ENDA equivalents for gays and then come back and passed them for T folks? During what time frame? And what the statistics are on ones that haven't done so yet? Otherwise it just sounds like unsubstantiated ranting.

3. On one hand stating that T's are too small to push for inclusion on their own when it's quite evident even with a 'skewed' poll that 30% of gays are in favor of putting their own privileges on hold to wait for T inclusion.

Personally, if someone were to do the research on point #2, it would really help clarify whether the hysterical rantings of some people should be listened to - that it would be prudent to wait for T inclusion before passing ENDA or whether they should be dismissed as being purely paranoid.

BG,

Here's a few quick stats for you:

1. Wisconsin passed an ENDA for gay and lesbian people 22 years ago. Transgender people remain unprotected in the state to this day.

2. Massachusetts passed protections for gays and lesbians in 1989, 18 years ago. Transgender people remain unprotected.

3. New York passed protections for gays and lesbians five years ago. Transgender people remain unprotected.

4. New Jersey passed a law protecting gays and lesbians 19 years ago. Transgender people were protected for the first time by a law passed last November and enacted this February, but only after:

A. 18 years of waiting.

B. A trans-protective bill in the NJ legislature that had the support of a strong majority in the legislature and NJ voters was ignored for over two years.

C. The threatened public condemnation of a high-ranking Democratic Party official's transphobic public outburst at the 2006 State Democratic Convention.

5.Maryland passed protections for gays and lesbians in 2001. Transgender people are still waiting.

Notice a pattern here?

Ok, so we have 5 states in the US that have a gay inclusive ENDA with 1 of those 5 having added Trans protections. However, a sample size of just 5 isn't very big to draw any conclusions from.

Any info on the rest of the states? It can't be just 5 states that have gay inclusive ENDAs. How about California? Washington?

How about cities/counties?

If one of the groups that get paid to do these things could compile a total list of this for the US and clearly demonstrate that trans inclusion doesn't happen, I promise, I will take those statistics and spam citizencraine and americablog and a whole bunch of other blogs when they say trans inclusion needs to happen when gay inclusive ENDA passes.

Not to mention you'll have substantiated evidence to prove your point, which would convince me of the fact that we need to get trans inclusion before the federal ENDA passes - yeah I know, big whoop just convincing one person, but there may be more people like me out there who are more swayed by fact and evidence than rhetoric.

And Alex, sweetie, I always thought you were a guy. My bad if you have a uterus. Being gay is usually enough for hysterics (some people just say drama queen) - you don't have to have a uterus you know :)

Alex, thanks for doing the research. I've bookmarked this thread so I can come back for that info in the future. It's not a great record, but it's not abysmal either, which means I'm still sorta undecided on the whole thing. I am a little shamed that so many New England states haven't included trans folks in their ENDAs though.

We knew the issues with the Dems getting into bed with them. Less gay bashing than Republicans, but less spine as well. Whether gay bashing and spinelessness are correlated is another matter.

No need to name your baby after me, just drink a lot and hit on guys that all your friends (and husband) think are really unattractive - hence the name.

I have tried registering before but the validation email never makes its way to my email box. Either there's something up with the mail generator or comcasts filter just drops some registration emails like that - I dunno.

There are many, many, men who have uteruses. So if Alex has one, he would still be a guy. One of the reasons we want a T inclusive ENDA is for guys with uteruses.