But...but...but...but...we *know* how to get it to pass, don't we? St. Barney has shown us the way, hasn't he? Just drop 'dem 'damn dirty disgustin' deceivin' trannies from *our* bill, right?

Right?

Right?

Kat, that is a possibility being currently discussed, yes. The "attachment to a bill that HAD to pass" gambit didn't work, so it looks like it will have to stand alone.
Under those circumstances, it will need all the help it can get, and since the precedent has been set by ENDA, this is a distinct possibility. I don't think it will eventuate, but we must be prepared for that eventuality. Now that the TDOR is behind us, it makes the pragmatism less likely to cause bad PR.

My view:
Unlike ENDA, which was always symbolic and never going to avoid a veto anyway, the Matthew Shepard act just may get into law - but it will be really close, and it needs all the help it can get.

Unlike ENDA, where 70% of TS people are unemployed, so the number of people affected TS vs GLB are comparable, the FBI stats show that GLBs suffer a great deal of violence, maybe 1/2 or 1/3 that of TS people (stats aren't kept on TS violence so this is a guess), so they would be in a significant majority.

Unlike ENDA, there has been no past history of GLB rights remaining GLB only in this area. As GLB assaults decline the TS ones wil become more visible, and probably lead to incremental change.

Unlike ENDA, where protection based on Sexual Orientation will be subverted due to unconventional appearance, TS people will directly benefit from a sexual-orientation-only bill, as the violence is universally based on homophobia rather than transphobia. The additional funds for prosecution can't easily be split into GLB but not T investigations. Essentially, TS people cannot help but "ride on the coat tails".

Finally, since things have been delayed until after the Transgender Day of Remembrance, there will be less bad PR from doing this.

I was against the "incremental approach" to ENDA, on the grounds not that it was morally bankrupt (though it was) but that it wouldn't work. The same approach though just *may* be the only chance the Matthew Shepard Act has to pass into law, and the chances of re-visiting later are much, much higher. Now it may leave a bad taste in your mouth, but the HRC lost its moral virginity with ENDA. Don't pike out now, when pragmatism may actually do something good.

Yes, I'm sickened that I had to say that. To abandon TS people is so morally repugnant, I don't know whether to cry, vomit, or just dissolve in incoherent rage.

Nonetheless, if pragmatism is going to be the rule from now on, we shouldn't let mere considerations of ethics or right get in the way.

Why do I feel so unclean? I'm TS after all, I'd get no benefit out of this.

Maybe it will take something like this to throw a spotlight on the whole rotten mess, so we can clean it up. And in the meantime, it will protect millions who need it. It's still sickening.

The amazing thing to me is that my "But...but..." post was merely a slap at St. Barney, HRC and the other self-appointed elites who wouldn't know the everyday needs and interests of ordinary GLBs (muc less Ts) if they were to run them over with their Lexuses.

The reactions, though, indicate to me that just about everyone believes that the self-appointed elites are not only able, but ready and willing to completely pragmatize us to death...

Again.