Bil Browning

Ted Kennedy wants non-trans ENDA

Filed By Bil Browning | April 02, 2008 10:30 AM | comments

Filed in: Politics, Transgender & Intersex
Tags: Barney Frank, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ENDA, LGBT community, Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, transgender, White House

Senator Ted Kennedy will push the non-inclusive ENDA forward in the Senate. While he's usually extremely LGBT-friendly, Kennedy has taken a page from Rep Barney Frank's playbook.

The Massachusetts Democrat is leading a push in the Senate for a federal ban on job bias against gays, lesbians and bisexuals -- but not transsexuals, cross-dressers and others whose outward appearance doesn't match their gender at birth.

"We will strongly oppose it," said Roberta Sklar of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Leaving transgender people out makes that a flawed movement."

George W has already said he'd veto the legislation. Today's million dollar question? What's the rush if it's not going to make it into law to start with? Why alienate a large segment of the LGBT community?


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Im not surprised at all that Teddy would follow Barneys lead then last I head Barney had changed his mind again and we were a part of ENDA yet again? The Senate is notorious for lagging behind the house to on these issues. So don’t look for a vote any time soon until after the election and a new Congress and President come to office. But im not holding my breath on Trans folk making the cut in any national bill.

Jeez. Only around 2/3 of America are OK with trans job protections. Do those greedy trans folks with all their marriages and straight-privilege and bizarre lifestyle choices really expect the rest of us to wait until that fraction improves to something politically viable?

Alex to many realy do feel like what you just wrote and then have the nerve to ask why are we are pissed off.Hmm perhaps it realy is time for th T to tell the GLB bye bye and work on our own.

Edward Fox Edward Fox | April 2, 2008 12:24 PM

With one notable exception, the GLB folk have been steadfast this time. The politicians are another matter. As long as we accept, on one side and the other, that politics as usual is acceptable, that is what we will get. Do not be angry with the community; place the blame where it belongs. Accept no substitutes. Accept no compromises. Accept no nonsense. There are very few, even very few politicians, who will support a GLB bill but cavil at including the T. The last iteration of the non-inclusive bill really included no one, except the politicians who could claim a victory without working for one and could retain the issue which is even more valuable to them than would be a real victory.

*sob*

I'm a whole-hearted supporter of United ENDA and the all-or-nothing strategy (commence flaming... now!) but this hardly comes as a surprise. Truthfully, I was sorta hoping Kennedy would just drop it until the next Congress begins... for all the reasons he himself expressed: a Democrat in the White House, more Democrats in Congress, etc.

By forcing this flawed bill with 0% chance of becoming law back into the spotlight, I suspect that the ONLY thing Kennedy will accomplish is another angry and bitter rift within the queer community. If I'm being super-charitable, I could imagine a scenario where Kennedy pushes this legislation forward knowing it won't become law because it gives us another chance to educate our own community and the broader community about trans issues, therefore building greater support for future inclusive versions of the bill. But I think you'll agree that's an unlikely fantasy.

Did anybody expect Ted not to support his Massachusetts homie?

To be honest, let it go through. Once Frank and ted's Folly gets taken down by Bushie boy's veto pen, we transpeeps can point out once again that this was the third time you've tried to pass a non-inclusive ENDA and failed.

How about trying a new strategy and actually including us in it?

There was a posting on Pam's supporting the as is bill,"It is the sort of compromise made every day of the year in Congress.", and on a certain gay male's blog the comments were all pro-trans-exclusion, going so far as to make fun of trans-feelings about "being thrown under the bus.

Here are my feelings on the subject:

It will be decased before the community comes back for the transsexuals.
They will continue to lose jobs during transition.
They will continue to be the larger part of LGBT casualties.
All the while, the bulk of the movement's lobbying will be aimed at marriage and HIV.
Important?
Yes...
But to the negelect of the members of the community dying?
NO.
It is a travesty.
If we need so very desperately to get an ENDA through, then let's really get one, a veto proof one, through.

Let's consider this:
The Religious Right's Ire is by and large about their perceptions of the behaviours of gay men.
They publicize the use of meth, the barebacking, the bugchasing, the stupidity of LGBT organizations trying to keep bathhouses open, the issue of public bathroom sex.

This is a huge part of the right's anti-gay screeds and mantras.

So, we can peel off votes to develop a veto-proof majority in favour of the bill if we simply....
don't include gay men in ENDA.
Make it solely a LESBIAN non-discrimination bill.

"It is the sort of compromise made every day of the year in Congress."

And it has the best chance of getting a veto proof majority.

If we have to leave the T's behind, let's at least pass a veto proof bill.
Lesbian ENDA....

and we will come back for the gay men later, after we rescue the trannies.


HRC is funded and supported by rich gay men. They would throw lesbians and bisexuals under the bus if they could get away with it. If that happened, too many lesbians would kick their ass. That's why the rich gay men won't cut out lesbians. Maura, I really like your strategy.

Maura that idea is so bad I love it!Pity it wount fly.

Carry on
Caty

On a personal observation look for a rash of things being passed that G.W. will veto just before the election so the Dems can have something to run on getting passed come after the general.

Umm.... was Alex being jokingly sarcastic or not? Someone explain before I get pissed off.

I'm doubting this entire site right now. Maybe my kind isn't welcome here...

The obvious answer is the right one here.

The fact is that for all the GLBT movements have made great strides, that many GLB people are every bit as anti-T as the right wing is about being anti-GLBT.

This isn't about making a more passable bill; it's about getting rid of the people you don't like while you have a politically viable means to do so.

The Franks and Kennedys of the world know that if they wait until the bill might actually pass, they would never be able to pull crap like this. But while they can proclaim 'It's just compromise!' they can do what they want.

I Have tried to express that this is part of a "PLAN!" One that has been bartered in the back room to be played out by minions like Barney and Ted.

This is about a looming liability facing the medical-pharmaceutical , chemical-industrial, and banking-investment interests. It is classic and you may review history to understand how it will play.

Wait till the other shoe drops!Trans-hate will spread like a wildfire...

@cerise - You obviously don't spend a lot of time here. We have the most coverage of trans issues on the gay political scene. We are fully inclusive. Yes, Alex was being sarcastic. Take the middle out and what do you have?

Jeez. Only around 2/3 of America are OK with trans job protections. Do [they] expect the rest of us to wait until that fraction improves to something politically viable?

2/3 is already a politically viable fraction. Eh?

I have one, short statement to add:

Trans-exclusion means trans-deaths.
I am not going to be one of the ones wearing trans-blood in exchange for my own protections.

Bill: I understood the first part was sarcastic so I asked. It was the last part that threw me.

...really expect the rest of us to wait until that fraction improves to something politically viable