Dustin, this is what the next election is all about. I cannot wait to watch the final campaign debates, because McCain has hero, smile, and intelligence, on his side, but no ammunition.

All he can do is try to recreate the snowjob of Reagan's "It's Morning in America" and somehow morph that into keeping Americans scared to death about security.

All other issues belong to the Democrats. It is going to take a serious and strong Democratic majority in Congress to get ENDA passed, once written correctly to include transgendered persons.

Besides, politicians love to appear to be protecting "the little guy" from insurance companies, before going to cocktail parties to accept checks from them.

With so little genetic discrimination going on, there's not many (any?) folks who want to fight for their right to discriminate against the... uh, under-gene-ed?

But there are plenty of people who like discriminating against queer and trans folks. And they'll desperately fight to protect their right to do so. With that in mind, GINA is a political no-brainer -- there's no opponents. Whereas ENDA is a hot issue. It's not about the impacts of the policy, but the impacts of the politics.

This is a fabulous post, Dustin. You really hit the heart of the matter. Overwhelming majority to pass a law against discrimination that doesn't happen. Outright denial to pass a fully inclusive ENDA.

What in the hell does that say?

GINA exemplifies bigotry in a more direct way than just highlighting how little progress the Congress has commited to ENDA (inclusive or not).

Who is excluded from this bill?

"(B) EXCEPTIONS- The term `genetic information' shall not include information about the sex or age of an individual."

So - transgender & intersex people are singled out as not being covered by this bill. Much like Strom Thurmond made sure we all were excluded from the ADA. It was purposeful - if below the radar for most people.

I don't know of any genetic testing for age (perhaps telomere length?)

Kathy, that (B) EXCEPTIONS paragraph is a loophole big enough to fly a 747 through. ... Wouldn't that mean that even a glaring chromosome abnormality such as XXY,47 would not be protected? Amazing!

What about gender-specific disorders, such as genetic predisposition to uterine or prostate cancer? Probably the courts will have to resolve that one!

P.S. Dustin, be careful when you criticize the 'Richard Florida and his "treat gays well for good business" mentality.' --- Here in Indiana, that is essentially the same argument that finally found traction and kept the marriage amendment off the ballot this year.

It's (C) Exceptions in the latest version.

But yes, it specifically excludes Intersexed and Transsexual people from protection.

I'm not sure whether this was an oversight, or deliberate. "Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence", so I'll assume that they just never thought about it.

So... when can we expect GLBT groups to do some lobbying to get a last-minute amendment passed to delete the exclusions? Because once passed and signed, getting the issue re-visited in the next 20 years will be practically impossible.

I'll second what AJ said about respecting the Richard Florida argument. It goes beyond him, too. There are a lot of really strong arguments to be made from a purely economic-interest and bottom-line perspective. I sincerely believe that one of the great motivators of social change in the last 30 years was the effect of people interacting with LGBT co-workers after those companies voluntarily enacted non-discrimination policies in order to exploit the buying power of the LGBT community.

The legislation says, in effect:

It shall NOT be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

(1) to fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge, any employee, or otherwise to discriminate against any employee with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the employee, because of genetic information with respect to the sex of the employee (though it is for all other genetic information); or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify the employees of the employer in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any employee of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the status of the employee as an employee, because of genetic information with respect to the sex of the employee (though it is for all other genetic information).

(b) Acquisition of Genetic Information- It shall NOT be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to request, require, or purchase genetic information with respect to the sex of an employee or a family member of the employee (though it is for all other genetic information).

See the problem?

Now why weren't our GLBT representatives on top of this, just like they missed the opportunity to get rid of the exclusions in the Americans with Disabilities Act during the recent review? Could it be because they're GLB only, and Ts just don't register on their radar? That when it comes to T issues which are not also GLB ones, they haven't got a farnarckling CLUE?