AMERICAblog.com

I would argue most gays are still in the closet, even today. But, that out gays as high as 75% are in unison of non-t ENDA going forward, there clearly is no division in the gay community.
Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 2:19 pm | #

Seems reasonable. The rhetoric on both sides can get heated, which is unfortunate but understandable, given how important these issues are... but in the "privacy" of the poll, it becomes clearer that most of us understand that in this long-term, ongoing struggle, you take what victories you can, and then keep on fighting for more.

One day, buddha willing, we'll all look back on this time from a place of total equality and freedom, and we'll understand how this piece fit into the overall picture.
Mike H. | 11.09.07 - 2:20 pm | #

Now, the self-appointed gay activist "leaders" need to catch up with this reality check, because they are very out of touch with the gay community.
Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 2:21 pm | #

Yes, it's swell to see such unity among those who would divide the Ts from the Ls, Gs and Bs. Divided we stand, united we fall!
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:27 pm | #

While I am pleased for the GLBs, my heart hurts for the Ts. It does seem they are getting the short end of this stick.
An American Karol | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:30 pm | #

omg, do you guys support Hugo Chavez? fox news says the far left loves Hugo.....man I hate fox news
Anonymous | 11.09.07 - 2:30 pm | #

Anonymous, hate is a pretty strong word. I reserve that word for Bush and Cheney. Chavez is just a thorn.
An American Karol | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:34 pm | #

Thank you, American Karol. You know, I get the need to play practical politics, and to do what has to be done, even if it means making unpleasant short-term compromises, but it's nothing to be particularly proud of.
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:35 pm | #

Damn divisive activists!

Wait, isn't John an activist?
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 2:37 pm | #

Does this mean that 84% of gays hate trans people??
Tom3 | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:38 pm | #

I look forward to Timmy taking over for the activists.

They have done so little and he so much for civil rights.
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 2:39 pm | #

Look at the gender identity breakdown on this survey. Only 1 MTF?

This survey is bogus. It definitely does not measure the trans community.
Tom3 | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:40 pm | #

Timmah is a Repuke, iirc.
Tom3 | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:41 pm | #

" ...but it's nothing to be particularly proud of."
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:35 pm | #

Getting the first civil rights vote for sexual orientation that would cover 20-30 million of people is nothing to be proud of? That's just crazy talk.

I completely understand your disappointment. But i am extremely proud to have seen this first step taken. Would I have liked it to be fully inclusive, damn right ... but this is historic and deserves to be celebrated.
Garrett in SF | 11.09.07 - 2:41 pm | #

Where are the rest of the questions, including the one in which 70% thought that transgender should have been included in ENDA?
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 2:42 pm | #

Getting the first civil rights vote for sexual orientation that would cover 20-30 million of people is nothing to be proud of?

Of course it is. The ugly sausage-making behind it is not.
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:43 pm | #

Once again, the justification for doing the wrong thing is supported by the idea that because a majority of people think it is right, that makes it the right thing to do.

It still has to pass the Senate, then Bush's approval. So, enjoy the Koolaid while it lasts.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 2:43 pm | #

Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 2:42 pm | #

That would have made the survey meaningless.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 2:44 pm | #

The ugly sausage making is called Politics. Its the way it is, especially on the national level.
Garrett in SF | 11.09.07 - 2:44 pm | #

"the justification for doing the wrong thing is supported by the idea that because a majority of people think it is right, that makes it the right thing to do"

Thats the same bent reasoning the religious reich used to get Amendment 2 passed here in Colorado. Two million taxpayer dollars later, it was thrown out by the Supreme Court.
Tom3 | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:45 pm | #

I really don't understand why John keeps beating this very dead horse.
I really don't need him to keep rubbing salt into the wound
I'm a dyke. And a transperson. But in his beltway wired mind, none of that matters, and his glee in pointing out that most of the mainstream queer world don't really care about us is really depressing.
I never once thought a T free ENDA shouldn't pass, although I think it's folly to divide the tribe by claiming some people should be more equal than others.
It's just more divide and conquer shit, only this time it's AmericaBlog driving the wedge in. I used to love this blog, now it's all sensational posts and the flogging of the people on the bottom of the LBGT rung.
ellie | 11.09.07 - 2:45 pm | #

i have yet to hear a commenter say that trying to include T was a bad idea. I'm surprised it's only 70%.
Steve in CNJ | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:45 pm | #

So were the people questioned city gays or country ones? Because being a city gay, the Transgender community has always been a part of the gay community.

I wonder how many of the people who don't mind telling the Transgenders to wait their turn actually know one.
seeeteee | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:45 pm | #

but this is historic and deserves to be celebrated

I see no cause for celebration. It's ok.

But if I had to save 100 people by allowing 20 to die, I wouldn't be throwing any parties afterwards. I'd have a memorial service for those that were lost.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 2:46 pm | #

The ugly sausage making is called Politics. Its the way it is, especially on the national level.

Your point?
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:47 pm | #

ellie | 11.09.07 - 2:45 pm | #

ellie, my interpretation is that John is flogging the community leaders who were trying to defeat ENDA. they are most definitely NOT on the bottom rung. most of them live in places where it is already safe to be gay or lesbian. most of them have never lost a job for being gay. most of them have never had to hide being gay. they are at the TOP of the rung.
Steve in CNJ | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:48 pm | #

top of the ladder i mean.
Steve in CNJ | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:49 pm | #

Garrett in SF, are you saying that the ugliness of practical politics mitigates itself?
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:49 pm | #

Donna, I supported "ENDA classic" not "ENDA Lite."

But the politics - or sausage making - probably has more to do with upcoming elections than with members of congress relucltant to support ENDA classic.

They probably feared the ads showing 'cross-dressers' (yes, I know that isn't transgender) and saying that so-and-so supported them.
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 2:51 pm | #

There actually is nothing wrong with making saugage. It is a craft that deserves preservation.

http://www.ruhlman.com/books/ cha...harcuterie.html
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 2:51 pm | #

Rosie, the majority of GLBTs surveyed thought that ENDA should have included Trans. But when asked if ENDA -T should be passed, and they said yes.

But the majority did not want T's removed in the first place.
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 2:44 pm | #
____________

Right. So what does this tell you?

To me it says the gay community is predominately practical. And, that it's the bigoted congress who needs educating.

BTW, I may not be some big wig, coastal activist, but I feel I do my share for my city. The people who are out of touch are mostly coastal gays who don't give a rat's ass about the fly over states.
Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 2:51 pm | #

Not at all ... but to think that it will be anything but ugly is beyond naive.
Garrett in SF | 11.09.07 - 2:52 pm | #

I think that Garrett is saying that lawmaking has always been a dirty game in DC. On rare occasions, that dirty game can turn out something good. That's what happened a few days ago. It's not perfect; hell, it's not even great. But it is good, at least.
Darien | 11.09.07 - 2:52 pm | #

Ok, so unless this gets vetoed by Die Chimpenführer it's a massive leap forward, and kicks the door down for Trans folk.

Not 100%, but not a failure either. Onwards with the fight.
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 2:52 pm | #

Timmy, you're the biggest of the "majority makes it right" thinkers here.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 2:53 pm | #

I'd say that even if it IS vetoed, it's still a massive leap forward. Could it have gotten this far even a few years ago?

Steps towards something that is lasting AND more inclusive.
Muffy St. Bernard | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:54 pm | #

But the majority did not want T's removed in the first place.
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 2:44 pm | #

That should be the story then, how disappointing it is that this had to happen. Not, everyone seems to be ok with it.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 2:55 pm | #

Well if it's vetoed the end result desired isn't achieved, thus from that standpoint it's a failure.

However, it does and would show that the mentality is changing a great degree. It woudl be nice, however, if Chimpy would stop behaving like a petulant child and do something NICE for once.

... either that, or the senate overrides his veto, which would be a nice kick to the nards I wouldn't mind giving him.
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 2:55 pm | #

I think that Garrett is saying that lawmaking has always been a dirty game in DC.

And my point, Darien, is that the dirtiness of the game is not a virtue in itself. I got the sense from John's post that he was finding intrinsic virtue in the willingness of the community at large to sacrifice people other than themselves. I see this as a regrettable reality, not something to be pleased with.
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:56 pm | #

p.s. (Whoah, Wolfman's got NARDS!!!)
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 2:56 pm | #

Grimmlok, and you can finally see it on DVD!
Muffy St. Bernard | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:57 pm | #

grimmlok -- it doesn't matter if it doesn't make it to the Senate or to Bush's desk. The fact is we have a strong majority in the house now ON RECORD supporting A VERSION of ENDA.

If this would not have come to a successful vote at this point in time, it would have taken another 10 years to build up enough political will to be brought up again. That's how national politics works. The fact that the House has passed this means it can now be brought up again and again as long as it keeps winning. (And usually in scenarios like this, the bill gets more expansive --and inclusive -- as it goes thru the process.)

This is what I have been saying on these boards since the issue came up.
Garrett in SF | 11.09.07 - 2:57 pm | #

And my point, Darien, is that the dirtiness of the game is not a virtue in itself.

I'm not saying it is, Donna, but what other possible way is there?
Darien | 11.09.07 - 2:57 pm | #

Timmy, you're the biggest of the "majority makes it right" thinkers here.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 2:53 pm | #
__________

You're a liar. If that were true I would not be for any minority rights.

BTW, gay rights are not the only minority group I activly fight for.
Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 2:58 pm | #

Donna Queen, I don't see John's posting as being proud of the poll, so much as showing that he wasn't out-of-touch with the community by taking this position.
Muffy St. Bernard | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:59 pm | #

John strikes me as being irritated that some leaders felt guilty about leaving people out went ahead and included transfolk into the LGB mob without giving people who thought like he did a chance to slam the door first.
He's very good at pointing out how right he was to say we needed to be excluded for the bill to pass.
That's pretty mean spritited and divisive. And it is really sad to realize there are so many people like him out there who think we don't belong.
Being queer means being different. But only the right kind of different count in John's view.
ellie | 11.09.07 - 2:59 pm | #

OT": dems are softening the spending bill and their goal of a timetable. A number of conservative dems say their constituents support the war. Even Murtha says he will compromise.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071...n_go_co/ us_iraq

They again show no balls and are not willing to have the bill rejected by Republicans and/or vetoed by Bush. They all want to be seen as hard on terrorism at the expense of our troops.
lynchie | 11.09.07 - 3:01 pm | #

ellie, you don't think going against what the majority of the gay community feels is mean spirited and divisive?
Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 3:01 pm | #

This ENDA kerfuffle looks a lot like the internecine arguing the Dems are now doing about MooCrazy and Impeachment.

This is actually healthy. You will note there is little or no disagreement among Repukes since they all goose-step in unison.
Tom3 | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:01 pm | #

Now, the self-appointed gay activist "leaders" need to catch up with this reality check, because they are very out of touch with the gay community.
Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 2:21 pm | #

Timmy, that is but one of your posts promoting the "majority makes it right" ideals. If I felt it worth the time, I could go to nearly every one of the threads on this subject and find more just like it.

So, no, I am not lying.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 3:02 pm | #

ellie | 11.09.07 - 2:59 pm | #
smart political advice is not "divisive" just because you don't want to hear it.
Steve in CNJ | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:02 pm | #

Donna Queen, I don't see John's posting as being proud of the poll, so much as showing that he wasn't out-of-touch with the community by taking this position.

What bothered me about John's post is the Orwellian implication that those who would unite are divisive, while those who would divide present a glorious united front.
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:02 pm | #

Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 2:56 pm | #

You're seeing what you want to see. John has never supported an "intrinsic virtue in the willingness of the community at large to sacrifice people other than themselves" ... but instead has been stating that the community as a whole understands how politics works. You take what you can win. As ugly and nasty as that may be ... its the way it is. The hope is you can keep winning so that you can get to where you want to be.
Garrett in SF | 11.09.07 - 3:02 pm | #

Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 2:44 pm |

That's exactly what I thought
ndtovent | 11.09.07 - 3:03 pm | #

Timmah is a troll. Ignore his bullshit.
Tom3 | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:03 pm | #

Rosie, indeed, you are lying by spinning my posts out of context for your purpose like a Repuke.

What I said was a matter of fact.
Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 3:03 pm | #

I've been part of a shit on minority all my life and I stand with ALL of my brothers and sisters in the 16%.

Never forget that.
scottinsf | 11.09.07 - 3:04 pm | #

John can speak for himself -- but I read this and several other posts as basically responding to the posters on this blog who have said that they didn't believe the poll because they hadn't seen the polling methodology or sampling method, etc.

Now that the pollsters have provided the information (via John), you're back to "well that doesn't matter".

The poll basically confirmed that 1) everyone would have preferred that the ENDA bill be inclusive of GLBT and 2) given the circumstances on the ground in DC, the majority was against killing a GLB-only bill (as espoused by NGLTF and UnitedENDA).
Mike in Houston | 11.09.07 - 3:04 pm | #

Timmy T, can you ever participate in a thread with getting into some kind of petty, off-topic squabble?
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:04 pm | #

Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:02 pm | #

Hmmm, I didn't interpret the post that way, myself.
Muffy St. Bernard | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:04 pm | #

Donna, that squabble was started by Rosie.
Steve in CNJ | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:05 pm | #

Timmy T, I am talking about John's comments on including transfolk, not ENDA.
ENDA's moved to the next stage now, regardless of what I think, and it's time to start figuring out how to move forward. If we're allowed to be part of John's movement.
ellie | 11.09.07 - 3:05 pm | #

Tom3 is a glutton for punishment and refuses to stay away from where he is not wanted -- a true troll. :)
Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 3:05 pm | #

Spinning? You either don't understand the English language, or you are bat-shit-crasy.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 3:05 pm | #

See, from my perspective to kill this bill because it wasn't perfect would have accomplished absolutely nothing.

Why turn down 90% victory for a 100% failure?

DOES NOT COMPUTE
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 3:06 pm | #

Timmah is a bigot and a closet Repuke.
Tom3 | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:06 pm | #

ellie, based on your posts, I'm surprised you even want it to move forward. If you do, that is great.
Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 3:06 pm | #

john, something else to ask chris 'bout

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2...s- ensemble.html
tofubo | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:07 pm | #

We just got AG confirmed who refused called torture as such, John A. refuses to write about it probably because Clinton skipped the vote and yet we spend time on something that has not been agreed on even by people it affects. This blog is getting less relevant every day.
Sedoy | 11.09.07 - 3:07 pm | #

Timmy T, can you ever participate in a thread with getting into some kind of petty, off-topic squabble?
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:04 pm | #
_________

My posts have been on topic or defending my position.

You have a problem that goes beyond me. Grow up.
Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 3:07 pm | #

This bill is dead on arrival in the Senate anyway. And if they miraculously pass it, Chimpy will veto it.

ENDA is a great idea but I don't think it will pass until the Dems have all three houses.

Even then, there are so many DINOs in Congress that its not a sure thing.
Tom3 | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:08 pm | #

Everyone cheer!

Timmy may get some rights!

Hip-hip hurray!
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 3:08 pm | #

oh, c'mon. people in SF don't lose their jobs for being gay. it's definitely NOT the same "path" as in oklahoma or louisiana or alabama or indiana or ...
Steve in CNJ | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:08 pm | #

You have a problem that goes beyond me. Grow up.

This is exactly how these things start with you, Timmy. You can't make your points without tacking on something nasty and personal.
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:09 pm | #

Donna, concerning 'personal', how would you characterize the comments by Tom3 today?
Steve in CNJ | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:10 pm | #

Tom3 -- why is this dead on arrival in the Senate?

What objective fact can you point to that would support that?

NONE.

It's not dead unless we let it die... and I will continue to lobby for it's passage so that IF the shrub vetoes it, we can then push it through in the 1st 100 days very easily as a counterpoint to the current misadministration.
Mike in Houston | 11.09.07 - 3:10 pm | #

Timmy, we 'coastal' gays have had the same path as everyone else. We have paved the way for you backwater folks.

Since you seem to have an inferiority complex that is fed by west coast progressives, feel free to kick California out of the US. I would love to stop paying my taxes to go to backwards welfare states that foment hatred.
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 3:06 pm | #
__________

Gary SF is a perfect case in point.

There are some in the coastal gay ghettos who are elitist and self-righteous and already enjoy a progressive culture. They are incredibly out of touch with the gay community.
Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 3:11 pm | #

"smart political advice is not "divisive" just because you don't want to hear it."

I was not talking about any "advice". I was talking about John's posts and attitude about the trans folk he doesn't like having included, and how we should all start working on figuring out how to be more than a squabbling bunch of creeps.
And I think that it would have been stupid to kill any non T Enda. The goal is to move forward, not tear each other apart.
ellie | 11.09.07 - 3:11 pm | #

Donna, did you have an answer for me?
Darien | 11.09.07 - 3:11 pm | #

You can't make your points without tacking on something nasty and personal.
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:09 pm | #
________

Look in the mirror, hun. You have never posted anything to me that is not personal. You never discuss the issue.
Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 3:12 pm | #

This bill is dead on arrival in the Senate because the Democrats do not have a majority in the Senate.

Plus there are half a dozen DINOs in the Senate who would vote against it.

That's my take on it. I would love this bill to go through, with the T in it.

But I don't think it will make it this year.
Tom3 | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:12 pm | #

Well, aren't we all lucky to have simple gay folk living in the Midwest like Timmy to keep our feet on the ground.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 3:13 pm | #

Donna, concerning 'personal', how would you characterize the comments by Tom3 today?

Unacceptable, of course. But I'm not trying to be thread cop here. Timmy has ripped into me in a nastily personal way a number of times, and I was just making an observation about his posting style and the unnecessary turbulence it generates.
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:13 pm | #

I can't see it making it this year either...but it's still (in my opinion) moving forward.

Hey, why am I even posting about this? I don't live in America.
Muffy St. Bernard | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:13 pm | #

Steve, 40 years ago people did lose their jobs for being gay in SF. The police constantly raided bars and clubs.

Even during the trail of Dan White, the ex-supervisor that shot the first gay supervisor Havery Milk, the police were wearing tee-shirts that read 'Dan White was Right.'

The White night riots had gays literally torching dozens of police cars, smashing the doors of city hall, etc.

It happened again, interestingly enough, when then governor Pete Wilson vetoed our own version of ENDA. The State building was nearly burned to the ground.

I am not sure that I advocate the destruction of property, but in these cases the reactions were somewhat justified and the outcomes positive.

There are dozens of other examples.

Yeah, it was a fucking cake walk.
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 3:14 pm | #

Well, aren't we all lucky to have simple gay folk living in the Midwest like Timmy to keep our feet on the ground.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 3:13 pm | #
______

Yes.
Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 3:14 pm | #

Remember, it was the drag queens at the Stonewall bar that started everything.

Somebody needs to patch things up.
Tom3 | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:15 pm | #

The late Barbara Giddings would beg to differ.
Steve in CNJ | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:16 pm | #

When I came out as a transperson, I got fired. In a sneaky and nasty way I was shown the door.
That was back in the 90's, and I have no illusions that the small midwestern city I lived in has gotten any better.
How many of you have actually lost a job for being queer?
ellie | 11.09.07 - 3:16 pm | #

Rep JERRY NADLER Casts ANTI GAY VOTE Voting AGAINST
CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION ENDA
YEP that's right.....hell even Tammy Baldwin voted for ENDA but My congressman NADLER cast his ANTI GAY vote because of what was NOT IN the bill.
He could have voted against it because of what WAS IN the bill--namely allowing the military and "religious groups" which includes hospitals, and universities, to continue discrimination. But that does not offend him.
He was compelled to make a symbolic vote....and he claimed it wouldn't matter anyway...so he voted NO.

He could have voted "present"
see cause when the history of the votes are recorded he will be with those that voted to deny protection based on sexual orientation in employment. PERIOD.
There is no asterick....

He states this bill "... fails to uphold the American values of fairness and equality.”
Will he NOT VOTE FOR THE SCHIP because of what it DOES NOT INCLUDE?
Namely protection for ALL CHILDREN?
No my rep. who also want to grant immuinity to the telecommunications companies proves he is open to lobbiests not his constituents.
mac | 11.09.07 - 3:17 pm | #

There are some in the coastal gay ghettos who are elitist and self-righteous and already enjoy a progressive culture. They are incredibly out of touch with the gay community.
Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 3:11 pm | #

We FUCKING WORKED FOR IT. Nobody just handed us our rights. We enjoy the rights that we worked decades to achieve.

Your attitude is typical of someone from a welfare state. Are you helpless?

Next time we have to fucking chain ourselves to buildings - like we did in order to get AIDS research and treatment to happen - I'll let my fellow "elitists" know what you think about us.
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 3:18 pm | #

Remember, it was the drag queens at the Stonewall bar that started everything.

A lot of people don't want to remember that, and have even started plugging a revisionist history in which the drag queens were only a marginal factor at Stonewall. I believe I came across that notion in a comment thread right here on this blog.
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:18 pm | #

There are some in the coastal gay ghettos who are elitist and self-righteous and already enjoy a progressive culture. They are incredibly out of touch with the gay community.
Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 3:11 pm |
-----------------------
Is that right. I've posted here before about the shit my partner and I dealt with many years ago in a suburb of Seattle. Hate is bi-coastal and everything in between.

YOU are the one incredibly out of touch with the gay community missy.
scottinsf | 11.09.07 - 3:18 pm | #

ENDA is proving to be a most marvelous wedge issue. It works every time.

Count me, for this once anyway, with Sedoy. There is a massive bi-partisan attack being launched on the United Staytes, its Constitution, and its honor. Torture and GENOCIDE are bi-partisan policy:

"We just got AG confirmed who refused called torture as such, John A. refuses to write about it probably because Clinton skipped the vote and yet we spend time on something that has not been agreed on even by people it affects. This blog is getting less relevant every day.
Sedoy | 11.09.07 - 3:07 pm | #
Gregory Lyons | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:18 pm | #

Remember, it was the drag queens at the Stonewall bar that started everything.

Children like Timmy don't know those days. They have never seen a day when you were arrested for being gay.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 3:19 pm | #

Gregory Lyons | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:18 pm | #

Could you please, just for once, focus upon what is truly important?
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 3:20 pm | #

Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 2:21 pm |

I agree with this. HRC is a prime example.
ndtovent | 11.09.07 - 3:20 pm | #

You know, why doesn't everyone who disagrees with what the MAIN topic of the blog should be just go fucking start their own and stop fucking bitching.

Jesus, buncha backseat blogging pantloads, the lot of ya.
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 3:20 pm | #

Timmah is a troll.

I seriously doubt he is even gay at all.

He's probably a Repuke Religious Reichwinger tryign to start trouble.

Gay ghettos? Puh-leeze!!

Timmah is full of shit.
Tom3 | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:20 pm | #

I do try, Gary.
Gregory Lyons | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:21 pm | #

*giggles everytime someone says TIMMAH!*
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 3:22 pm | #

Hillary skipped the MooCrazy vote.

Hillary is now officially a Repuke.
Tom3 | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:22 pm | #

Tom3 | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:20 pm | #

Oy.
Darien | 11.09.07 - 3:22 pm | #

Timmah is a troll.

Sorry, Tom3, but even I will rise to Timmy's defense here. Your comments are way off base and not helpful.
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:22 pm | #

Gregory Lyons | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:21 pm | #

That's better. Now what's going on with Brittany?
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 3:22 pm | #

Timmahs comments are way off base and are not helpful.
Tom3 | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:22 pm | #

Tom3 | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:22 pm | #

How did Obama vote?
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 3:23 pm | #

Well, it's time to stop fighting the last war and move on.

So the question is:

Will you work TODAY to get the Senate to move on ENDA (with or without the gender identity included)?

or just sit around the computer screen and bitch about what should or shouldn't have happened (even though it did)...
Mike in Houston | 11.09.07 - 3:23 pm | #

Timmahs comments are way off base and are not helpful.

Ooooh! Good one, Tom3!
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:23 pm | #

Obama and Edwards were too busy. Like Hillary C.
Gregory Lyons | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:24 pm | #

How can anyone say that a sampling of 537 people represent the "community". As a college graduate with a degree in math, this is a pretty small sample that can hardly be said to represent the group. 537 people represent millions? Come on.
greensburg | 11.09.07 - 3:24 pm | #

Clinton, Obama and Dodd all missed the vote on Mukasy -- and this is the fault of the Senate leadership.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/ 20..._on_mukasey.php
Mike in Houston | 11.09.07 - 3:25 pm | #

Sorry, Tom3, but even I will rise to Timmy's defense here. Your comments are way off base and not helpful.
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:22 pm | #

----

Timmahs comments are way off base and are not helpful.
Tom3 | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:22 pm | #

And "Timmahs" the troll.
Darien | 11.09.07 - 3:25 pm | #

Obama and Edwards were too busy. Like Hillary C.
Gregory Lyons | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:24 pm | #

Wouldn't that make them all Republicans?
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 3:25 pm | #

Gary SF, I never thought you guys didn't work for it or that it was a cake walk. I'm talking about your attitude nowadays.

We still are working for it.

BTW, I have gone to SF several times a year my entire life. Lot's of family and friends. I know the struggles and I've tried to learn what has worked to apply where I live.

I've even flown to SF, like a lot of others, to participate in demonstrations.

Smaller towns have not progressed as fast and are still in their infancy compared to SF. I think it will take different tactics to get where you guys are -- for e.g. we will probably need federal legislation like ENDA to overcome bigotry.
Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 3:25 pm | #

Edwards skipped the MooCrazy vote too?

That's it, I won't vote for him either.

Biden and Dodd also skipped it.

And I had high hopes for Dodd. He's just another sellout.
Tom3 | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:25 pm | #

537 people represent millions? Come on.

It's called scientific polling. It's done all the time. I don't like the results, but I accept them.
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:25 pm | #

much ado about nothing. veto no override.
constant comment | 11.09.07 - 3:26 pm | #

What the poll shows is that the United ENDA Leadership is out of touch with the grassroots base of LGB.
marc | 11.09.07 - 3:26 pm | #

That was not a scientific poll.

Trans people were way underrepresented.

Only one transwoman? That's bogus.
Tom3 | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:27 pm | #

greensburg | 11.09.07 - 3:24 pm | #

you can easily read up on polling strategy. the most newsworthy polls (such as how many would vote for Giuliani or how many want an end to the Iraq mess) are based on 1 to 2,000 people interviewed by telephone. the "margin of error" goes down with the number of respondents but not fast enough to justify the expense of interviewing more people. whenever a poll is cited in a MSM article, the last paragraph of the article gives the number or respondents and the MOE.
Steve in CNJ | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:28 pm | #

Watching all this is interesting in that is makes a clear point about how actually divided we are. There is no "community".

The argument has gone from ENDA/with or without, to rep/dem, to north/south, to coasters v. flyover.

Yeah. "Community" my ass.

Orientation is seemingly the only thing we have in common.
Up To Here | 11.09.07 - 3:28 pm | #

Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 3:25 pm | #

Fact is, bigger cities are more open minded. If you would move to Cedar Rapids, you would have employment protection. Cedar Rapids has an ordinance banning employment discrimination based on sexual identity.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 3:29 pm | #

That was not a scientific poll.

Trans people were way underrepresented.

500K trans folks / 300m Americans = 0.1666667%

6 trans people / 500 respondents = 1.2%

If anything, trans people were OVERREPRESENTED in this poll.

-marc
marc | 11.09.07 - 3:29 pm | #

Does a community always agree on everything?

How boring if it did.
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 3:30 pm | #

Its more a "population" as opposed to a "community" Its a pipe dream to classify gays as a community.
greensburg | 11.09.07 - 3:30 pm | #

Does a community always agree on everything?

See, more transphobic divisiveness right here.

Just kidding.
marc | 11.09.07 - 3:30 pm | #

YOU are the one incredibly out of touch with the gay community missy.
scottinsf | 11.09.07 - 3:18 pm | #
______________

Lovely response, scott. How incredibly productive to the thread.

Oh, yea! I know you are but what am I?
Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 3:31 pm | #

Its more a "population" as opposed to a "community" Its a pipe dream to classify gays as a community.

The left always sees community as a precursor to us all singing kumbiya.

But we are a set of overlapping groups with some subset of common interests more so than a community.
marc | 11.09.07 - 3:31 pm | #

Its more a "population" as opposed to a "community" Its a pipe dream to classify gays as a community.
greensburg | 11.09.07 - 3:30 pm | #

Exactly!
Up To Here | 11.09.07 - 3:32 pm | #

That was not a scientific poll.

Trans people were way underrepresented.

Only one transwoman? That's bogus.

It is and it isn't. It was a poll of self-identified Ls, Gs and Bs to determine how they felt about a T-free ENDA. Many Ts have difficulty identifying a particular sexual orientation (I don't, by the way. I'm 100% bi and proud of it). A poll of the entire LGBT community would serve a different purpose and yield a different result.
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:32 pm | #

Orientation is seemingly the only thing we have in common.
Up To Here | 11.09.07 - 3:28 pm | #

Well, don't let people like Timmy discourage you. I am quite happy with the "coasters." Without their work, things would be a lot worse for us in the Midwest.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 3:32 pm | #

Absolutely marc!
greensburg | 11.09.07 - 3:32 pm | #

YOU are the one incredibly out of touch with the gay community missy.

That's MISTER missy to you, missy.
marc | 11.09.07 - 3:32 pm | #

.... TIMMAH! *zoom*
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 3:32 pm | #

Well thank you Timmy. That's what I'm here for.

Kiss kiss
scottinsf | 11.09.07 - 3:33 pm | #

That's MISTER missy to you, missy.

Hee, hee!
Donna Queen | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:34 pm | #

squabling creeps
cranky queers
arguing over
who gets to be here
cranky net geeks
trying to get the last word
we need fewer angry monkeys
with clattering keyboards
lots fewer posts
from the insane wards
we're in this together
even if you hate
people like me
or let people like John
pee in your tea
we need less typing
and less vitriol
and lots more people
making phone calls
ellie | 11.09.07 - 3:36 pm | #

That said, rounding up Pakistan's nukes right about now is probably more important than job protections for anyone. What does it say that I'd prefer for the US to hold onto those nukes than for anyone else in that region?
marc | 11.09.07 - 3:36 pm | #

I submit for your consideration that the struggle for ENDA began for real in 1965.

http://images.google.com/imgres?...l%3Den%26sa% 3DG
Steve in CNJ | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:37 pm | #

ellie, you need to be on Capitol Hill lobbying members of Congress instead of whining about how we hate you all and are dividing our community.
marc | 11.09.07 - 3:37 pm | #

Nice link, Steve in CNJ.
Mister missy | 11.09.07 - 3:39 pm | #

and i'm mortified that i misspelled her name at 3:16.
Steve in CNJ | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:39 pm | #

and furthermore, the headline means norhing, suppose you could say it is statiticalty meaniless if not an outright lie.
constant comment | 11.09.07 - 3:41 pm | #

Time to begin calling Reid's office and demanding that ENDA be introduced and brought to the floor.

http://reid.senate.gov/

202-224-3542
Mike in Houston | 11.09.07 - 3:41 pm | #

What makes you think I'm not already calling and bothering my representitives with things I want changed, Marc?

And you may see my posts as "whining" I see it as pointing out how many people around here seem to have no use for transfolk.
ellie | 11.09.07 - 3:42 pm | #

ellie | 11.09.07 - 3:36 pm | #

Well, it's not Walt Whitman, but not bad...
Darien | 11.09.07 - 3:42 pm | #

And you may see my posts as "whining" I see it as pointing out how many people around here seem to have no use for transfolk.

Ellie, can you please give this a rest?

Congress has the problem with you, not us.

It is simply political malpractice to deny the needs of the many because the few have yet to make the political progress required to move ahead now.

The poll confirms that.
marc | 11.09.07 - 3:43 pm | #

A bitter morning
sparrows sitting together
without any necks
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 3:44 pm | #

because the few have yet to make the political progress required

I don't get this statement?
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 3:46 pm | #

crabs climb over each
other trying to escape
boil pot kettle black
marc | 11.09.07 - 3:47 pm | #

OK. I see the log cabin repukes have yet again taken over another Ablog thread.

It was an interesting discussion for a while.
scottinsf | 11.09.07 - 3:47 pm | #

The question now, John, is what you plan to do to heal the rifts that you helped to foment. I'm sure I'm not alone in being sick of the vitriol. You are in a particularly good position, and you have the intellect and political skills, to help turn this into something beneficial for all of us. I urge you to put your considerable talents to use toward this end, and I offer any help I can give toward mending some very legitimately hurt feelings across the boards - feelings I myself have hurt during the heat of the moment.

Let's please stop fighting.
Ed Sikov | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:47 pm | #

because the few have yet to make the political progress required

I don't get this statement?

Rosie, had trans folks made the case to Congress that they should have been in ENDA, then the votes would have been there.

Since the votes were there, the political progress required to prevail had not yet been achieved.

This does not mean that work was not done, just that the work did not deliver the desired outcome.
marc | 11.09.07 - 3:48 pm | #

if you want the fighting to stop, Ed, stop attacking John, ferchrissake.
Steve in CNJ | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:49 pm | #

OT:

hold on now, back that truck up

“Have enjoyed listening to your [MoveOn?] calls!”

Um, this would be a Political official admitting to listening to calls he does not have access to!!!

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11.../rove-bloggers/
Hawk | 11.09.07 - 3:50 pm | #

Gittings wrote, "I keep trying to convince people in the movement that the charge of sickness is perhaps our greatest problem... we can't really progress in other directions until the unsubstantiated assumption of sickness... is demolished! ... It's almost always there, however slyly or covertly or even unconsciously, however 'sympathetic' the person: the attitude that homosexuality is somehow undesirable, some sort of twist or malfunction or failure or maladaptation or other kind of psychic sickness."

And this attitude is still with us today.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 3:41 pm | #

Rosie, this cuts precisely to a problem in trying to unify LGB and T theoretically.

LGB are not medicalized while T are medicalized in some cases with hormones and surgery. As we'd fought to get out of the DSM and medical interventions, T welcome them.

Not that they shouldn't, but it poses problems for asserting unity.
marc | 11.09.07 - 3:50 pm | #

even Tammy Baldwin voted for ENDA but My congressman NADLER cast his ANTI GAY vote because of what was NOT IN the bill.

He could have voted against it because of what WAS IN the bill--namely allowing the military and "religious groups" which includes hospitals, and universities, to continue discrimination. But that does not offend him.
mac | 11.09.07 - 3:09 pm | #
_____________

mac has a good point that is overlooked.
Mister missy | 11.09.07 - 3:50 pm | #

i second that, Ed Sikov.
tlsintx | 11.09.07 - 3:51 pm | #

A religious oganization should not have to hire anyone who practices something that violates the tenets of their faith.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 3:52 pm | #

I don't see how what I just posted was an attack on John, but I'll tell you this: your own rage has done little to illuminate anything. Let's move on.
Ed Sikov | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:52 pm | #

well, do you think he agrees that he was fomenting a rift?
Steve in CNJ | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:53 pm | #

"It is simply political malpractice to deny the needs of the many because the few have yet to make the political progress required to move ahead now."

Last time I checked, I was for ENDA even if T folks were left out. I did have the nerve to ask to be included though.
But if John wants to tell me to take a hike, no problem. It's already plain we're not the right kind of queers to fit in his tribe.
ellie | 11.09.07 - 3:54 pm | #

Well, I missed Stonewall, but I was at the White Night riots in San Francisco. A long line of cop cars do burn very brightly indeed. Everyone notices THAT and cares!

I don't feel very well integrated into this discussion because my life has gone extrordinarily well BECAUSE I'm a queer. I know that is not our common experience, but I've been politically active since 1966, and I consider ENDA right now to be a wedge issue, to cover for the despicable votes taking place daily in the Dem majority Congress. I won't speculate about motivation, but every thread about ENDA has quickly eroded into bitterness and chaos.

We need to share values. Not bludgeon each other for vaporous and doomed legislation.

LOVE
Gregory Lyons | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:54 pm | #

I think most rational people would agree that John went overboard at times. We all did. I take full responsibility for my own bad temper.
Ed Sikov | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 3:55 pm | #

A religious oganization should not have to hire anyone who practices something that violates the tenets of their faith.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 3:52 pm | #
__________

What about the government?

Why should churches get tax dollar support and tax exempt status and not have to adhere to federal equal rights rules?
Mister missy | 11.09.07 - 3:55 pm | #

There's something about the phrase, "had the trans folk made the case to Congress." I cannot quite put my finger on it, but something isn't quite right with it.

I just don't see a lot of difference between myself and a transgender. If the case can be made for my benefit, then why not them? But then, why does a case need to be made at all? Are we so bizarre...oh screw it.

I guess I should just feel lucky the police wont be raiding the bar tonight.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 3:57 pm | #

Because they its their religion. Would you really want to go work for the first Baptist church down the street. You are fighting to get something you really don't want.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 3:57 pm | #

A religious oganization should not have to hire anyone who practices something that violates the tenets of their faith.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 3:52 pm | #

If that were practiced, the Churches payrolls would be empty.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 3:58 pm | #

They are not hurting you by wanting to hire straight people to teach at their little 100 student Christian school. Its their school what do you care?
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 3:59 pm | #

"Rosie, had trans folks made the case to Congress that they should have been in ENDA, then the votes would have been there."

Tammy is my congress person. And I did make a case to her, and all it did was piss John off that she put it forward.
Regardless of how it turned out, I'm glad she at least put an effort in to make us part of things.
ellie | 11.09.07 - 3:59 pm | #

A religious oganization should not have to hire anyone who practices something that violates the tenets of their faith.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 3:52 pm |
Just say no to Opus Dei. Retro, Satanas!
Indigo | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 4:00 pm | #

Less complainin', more haiku'in!
Muffy St. Bernard | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 4:00 pm | #

Thomas Moor, actually, I would prefer churches not get tax dollar support or tax exempt status, then it's OK for them to do whatever they want.
Mister missy | 11.09.07 - 4:00 pm | #

Well, I hope I would be able to decline someone from working for me if they were a baptist then.

I mean, their religion is on contravention with how I live my life.

I suppose that would be.. I don't know.. discimminatory though.. right?
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 3:59 pm | #

Its not the same and you know it. Whatever the job is you have is secular. Their faith is based on a belief system. Why do you care if they hire a church secretary that is a straight evangelical christian?
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:01 pm | #

omg, do you guys support Hugo Chavez? fox news says the far left loves Hugo.....man I hate fox news
Anonymous | 11.09.07 - 2:30 pm | #
=====================================

I'm ambivalant to whether I support him or not. ( support him in what? ) All we've been fed about him comes from the great propaganda machine of this country and that is all we are allowed to believe or see of him.

One has to demonize a person in order to get every one to hate that person. Back during the Vietnam era, when I was in the service, we were fed the propaganda demonizing the Vietnamese so it made it much easier to kill them when we were sent overseas. I have only heard the president and his minions badmouth Chavez. If we recall, Chavez offered to help low income citizens in our country heat their homes in the winter for very little to nothing whilst our government offered no solution except badmouth him. You will recall Castro even offered to help the Katrina victims but this too, would embarrass the government so they refused as well. They have yet to seriously help the New Orleans folks. I won't be the first to badmouth these leaders when we do not have the real facts.
Butch | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 4:01 pm | #

1966 Gregory?!? Good Dog. I was pooping my cotton diapers back then. No Pampers and no Huggies for you or me at that time.

But, here I am!
scottinsf | 11.09.07 - 4:02 pm | #

Frankly Thomas Moore, your argument is a straw man.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 4:03 pm | #

Why do you care if they hire a church secretary that is a straight evangelical christian?
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:01 pm | #
________

Because my tax dollar goes to help support their crap.

And, they don't even pay taxes.
Mister missy | 11.09.07 - 4:03 pm | #
Mister missy | 11.09.07 - 4:04 pm | #

"They are not hurting you by wanting to hire straight people to teach at their little 100 student Christian school. Its their school what do you care?"

Thomas, if these 100 student Christian schools are taking federal money in any form, yes, it is hurting others. If these schools are not taking any federal money, they can do as they please.
An American Karol | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 4:04 pm | #

ENDA passes now
Aravosis grows new horns
Eats trans like orchids
Muffy St. Bernard | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 4:04 pm | #

Frankly Thomas Moore, your argument is a straw man.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 4:03 pm | #

Uh no. Its not. Are you going to make the catholic church ordain married men as priests next? That's only an example.

You cannot force a church to hire a worker whose lifestyle, orientation, or whatever violates their faith.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:05 pm | #

Tammy is my congress person. And I did make a case to her, and all it did was piss John off that she put it forward.
Regardless of how it turned out, I'm glad she at least put an effort in to make us part of things.
ellie | 11.09.07 - 3:59 pm | #

That's not really the case. John was never against the amendment being put forward. He was against UnitedENDA trying to get people to KILL the non-inclusive ENDA.
Garrett in SF | 11.09.07 - 4:05 pm | #

It's always great to see you, Scott.

Always.
Gregory Lyons | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 4:05 pm | #

Oh no, but it IS the same, don't you see?

Some baptists belief system is no different from MY OWN BELIEF SYSTEM that baptists can't work for me.

I can even write a book about it, and thump it quite heartily.

Please point out how it's different beyond religion being considered "special"
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 4:06 pm | #

They don't take a dime of you taxes....they just don't pay into it.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:06 pm | #

Thomas Moore, that is not true. They do get money from our taxes on schools and social causes.
Mister missy | 11.09.07 - 4:08 pm | #

No they do not.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:08 pm | #

Uh no. Its not. Are you going to make the catholic church ordain married men as priests next? That's only an example.

You cannot force a church to hire a worker whose lifestyle, orientation, or whatever violates their faith.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:05 pm | #

Damn, did I miss something at the last liberal gay agenda meeting?
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 4:08 pm | #

Churches want and get special rights.
Mister missy | 11.09.07 - 4:09 pm | #

Churches want and get special rights.
Mister missy | 11.09.07 - 4:09 pm | #

And all because of a "lifestyle choice"... ;-)
Mike in Houston | 11.09.07 - 4:10 pm | #

Money is dangled in front of churches like meat over a tiger trap. Nearly all refuse it because they know there are strings attached. Every Christain school or church I have been associated with has refused state money because they know it isn't really free.

You take the money you accept the rules.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:11 pm | #

Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 3:25 pm | #

Thank you for the post without 'the edge.'

We can disagree on this an work together on other issues.

Let me know the next time you are in SF.
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 4:11 pm | #

*still waiting*
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 4:11 pm | #

I'm assuming Sf doesn't mean Special Forces.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:12 pm | #

"I'm assuming Sf doesn't mean Special Forces.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:12 pm | # "

Oh how astute.
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 4:14 pm | #

Het Tom, you up here trolling the land of hte hershey highway again.
Big Sarge | 11.09.07 - 4:14 pm | #

I'm not trolling, I'm debating
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:15 pm | #

You're gonna get yourself banned like I did
Sarge | 11.09.07 - 4:15 pm | #

You have to be nice when you are in someone else's house. What are you up to?
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:17 pm | #

about 6 ft 6
Sarge | 11.09.07 - 4:17 pm | #

You cannot force a church to hire a worker whose lifestyle, orientation, or whatever violates their faith.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:05 pm | # The religious employer, like every other employer, must abide by certain regulations and constraints applied by the society at large.

Before 1970, the Mormon Church taught that black skin was a curse from God. Did they therefore have a right to hire whites only? No. Our society has a greater interest in prohibiting racism. They can have whatever doctrines they want in private, but must publicly treat all people fairly.

Same with other topics. By your reasoning, American Muslims have a perfect "religious freedom" right to refuse to hire Christians.

But they don't. Race, religion, sex, and other things are protected from prejudice in hiring, even if the discrimination is religious. We believe sexual orientation belongs on that list as well.

Preach whatever hate you want in the pulpit. But it you're also a business, the business must follow secular guidelines of good behavior.
adamblast | 11.09.07 - 4:18 pm | #

I'm not trolling, I'm debating
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:15 pm | #

Debating what?
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 4:18 pm | #

I guess I won't keep Mister missy, but I liked it for a while.

Gary SF, I was just there over Halloween. Castro party closed. Bars loud and scary. I must be getting old.
Timmy T | 11.09.07 - 4:18 pm | #

A church and a business are two different issues. I will work any job with a gay person. I just don't have to hire one to work at the church
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:20 pm | #

Halloween's no fun here in NYC either. Shootings and a stabbing a block or two from my apartment. And believe it or not, the argument apparently had nothing to do with ENDA.
Ed Sikov | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 4:20 pm | #

"I will work any job with a gay person."

How terribly enlightened of you!
Ed Sikov | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 4:22 pm | #

I don't think you have to worry about it Mr. Moore, the gay people I know aren't clamoring to work in your churches. People generally want to be where they are welcome and some fundamentalist church is not where we want to hang out.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 4:23 pm | #

A church and a business are two different issues. I will work any job with a gay person. I just don't have to hire one to work at the church
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:20 pm | #I think Bush agrees with you, and most conservatives. And I might go so far as to agree with the most limited forms of church hiring.

But once we get to, say, church hospitals and church schools, I'd contend they have no more right to discriminate than secular hospitals or schools.
adamblast | 11.09.07 - 4:24 pm | #

Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:20 pm | #

Actually here in SF, the Salvation Army chose not to accept any money from SF for services to the poor because the stings attached to that money would not allow them to discriminate. Catholic Charities decided to provide 'partner benefits' etc because they did not want to give up city money.

Pat Robertson sued the city over this and it went to Federal court. Pat lost.

So if your church accepts money from a government entity, it can be forced to comply with anti-discrimination laws and other regulations.
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 4:25 pm | #

Go to work for GLAAD Mr. Moore, it is possible it may be an enlightening experience for you and you may even begin to understand what is wrong about that statement on your pin.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 4:25 pm | #

Just because a hospital is run by a religious organization doesn't make them bigotted. I just had shoulder surgery at St. Vincent's Hospital here in the city and they couldn't have been more respectful of my partner.
Ed Sikov | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 4:26 pm | #

But once we get to, say, church hospitals and church schools, I'd contend they have no more right to discriminate than secular hospitals or schools.
adamblast | 11.09.07 - 4:24 pm | #

I don't think so. Every time I have an injury I invaribly always get the gay nurse. Seriously I do.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:26 pm | #

I'm not trolling, I'm debating
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:15 pm | #

God's trying to tell you something. Listen up.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 4:27 pm | #

You may get the gay mortician next time if you play your cards right.
Ed Sikov | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 4:27 pm | #

I won't know it
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:28 pm | #

I don't think so. Every time I have an injury I invaribly always get the gay nurse. Seriously I do.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:26 pm | #

You crack me up
Sarge | 11.09.07 - 4:28 pm | #

If I went to work for GLAAD (now there's a stretch) and I wanted to read my Bible in the breakroom at lunch or wear a pin that said sodomy is a sin. I would get fired, wouldn't I? Its a double standard with you people.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:22 pm | #

You cannot be fired because of your religion. You may be fired for inappropriate displays of your religious beliefs on company property.
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 4:28 pm | #

You cannot be fired because of your religion. You may be fired for inappropriate displays of your religious beliefs on company property.
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 4:28 pm | #

You wouldn't be trying to deny Tommy free speech would you?
Sarge | 11.09.07 - 4:29 pm | #

So you don't believe in an afterlife? Or is it just no salvation for you after a lifetime of hating your fellow humans?
Ed Sikov | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 4:29 pm | #

I don't think so. Every time I have an injury I invaribly always get the gay nurse. Seriously I do.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:26 pm | #

Mmmm, another straight Republican with 'gaydar.'

What is your 'wide-stance' on gaydar, Thomas?
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 4:30 pm | #

I think God has a sense of humour.

Now if only you got a gay proctologist every time you went for a physical.
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 4:31 pm | #

So you don't believe in an afterlife? Or is it just no salvation for you after a lifetime of hating your fellow humans?
Ed Sikov | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 4:29 pm | #

I'm a big weight lifter, gay come out of the closet, ur I mean woodwork.
Sarge | 11.09.07 - 4:31 pm | #

You wouldn't be trying to deny Tommy free speech would you?
Sarge | 11.09.07 - 4:29 pm | #

Free speech can be limited on private property.
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 4:31 pm | #

As long as the rules on religious expression were applied uniformly, Thomas, you might have less of a problem than you think.

Proselytizing in the workplace is generally verboten, no matter where you work. Simple ornamental displays of faith, not so much -- unless they interfere with dress codes or safety regs.
Mike H. | 11.09.07 - 4:32 pm | #

Free speech can be limited on private property.
Gary SF | 11.09.07 - 4:31 pm | #

True
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:32 pm | #

Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:08 pm

YES, they do now, with all these 'faith based' initiatives past since shrub and co. have been in office, quite a bit of $, in fact (as long as they preach abstinence at every sermon, and they're all happy to oblige). This $ comes from our tax dollars

Before that, not so much.
ndtovent | 11.09.07 - 4:32 pm | #

True
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:32 pm | #

There you have it, you've answered your own question.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 4:33 pm | #

True
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:32 pm | #

There you have it, you've answered your own question.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 4:33 pm | #

But it call also mean the transgendered guy can't wear his dress in the chapel
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:34 pm | #

Whynot, if he's legally a woman?
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 4:35 pm | #

Now if only you got a gay proctologist every time you went for a physical.
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 4:31 pm | #

Gay doctor about 55 hits on me when I go to the clinic my company uses for physicals.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:35 pm | #

But it call also mean the transgendered guy can't wear his dress in the chapel
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:34 pm | #

I wouldn't expect to wear anything too revealing, but I see nothing wrong with a conservative skirt and jacket.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 4:35 pm | #

Thomas, so you're anti-catholic, then? :-)
Mike H. | 11.09.07 - 4:35 pm | #

Whynot, if he's legally a woman?
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 4:35 pm | #

But he's not, he has his equipment packed
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:36 pm | #

Gay doctor about 55 hits on me when I go to the clinic my company uses for physicals.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:35 pm | #

God ie REALLY trying to tell you something. Time to listen up.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 4:36 pm | #

No thanks
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:37 pm | #

You shouldn't say no to God when God has given you so many signs.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 4:38 pm | #

Coffee break is over....back to work.

Later
Sarge | 11.09.07 - 4:38 pm | #

"But he's not, he has his equipment packed
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:36 pm | #"

You do know that, back in the day, nobody wore pants right? It was more of a robe? lol

This is fucking stupid in any event, a stupid way of thinking. You can be gay, but don't actually act on it. Being something isn't as bad as DOING something. Just repress your natural instincts, bury them deep down and never act on them.

Cuz we ALL know that simply denying what you are works well.

*coughEVERYREPUBLICANcough*
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 4:39 pm | #

Let me see.....hmm.

Take it up the rectum or sleep with my wife......take it up the rectum or sleep with my wife.

Hmmm....Wifey wins.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:39 pm | #

Thomas, you're gross.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 4:41 pm | #

You know there's a lot more to gay relations than just... oh, well, never mind, you wouldn't be interested...
Mike H. | 11.09.07 - 4:41 pm | #

Yes, wifey wins, huzzah for you. You'll notice that gay folk don't care that wifey wins, or that you fuck her, or that you even have one. Why?

Cuz it doesn't matter and it doesn't affect us.

A pity the religious nutjobs can't do the same, they seem to think what everyone else does is their business.
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 4:42 pm | #

he's not as bad as some of the trolls in here. Quite amusing on this rainy Fri afternoon
ndtovent | 11.09.07 - 4:42 pm | #

Pretty standard weak fare, really.
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 4:43 pm | #

Gotta go.....wifey's ovulating.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:44 pm | #

Cuz producing more blighted flipperkids is all their is to heterosexualism.
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 4:45 pm | #

Gotta love it!
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:45 pm | #

John loves proving himself correct. It's so hard to come here when the other contributors (who actually write stuff of value) have to have their relevant posts chopped up by John's ego-blogging.

I am glad ENDA passed, eventhough I disagree with leaving out trans-people. These arguments John uses are exactly the ones hate groups like FRC and AFA use to justify discrimination against queers. How many times do we need to prove that just because the majority agrees with something, doesn't mean it's right?
SF Guns | 11.09.07 - 4:50 pm | #

At the risk of repeating myself, which actually is my favorite sport, let's try to figure a way to ensure ENDA's passage rather than rehash arguments that were painful enough the first time around. What can each of us do to make this happen?
Ed Sikov | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 4:55 pm | #

Shoot Bush? lol

Oh Noes! Teh NSA canz findz me!
grimmlok | 11.09.07 - 4:56 pm | #

Bull, SFGuns, bull. John's arguments haven't been ANYthing of the sort.

John was interested in why non-T ENDA had the votes but T-inclusive ENDA didn't. Period. That's how this all began -- from the FACT that ENDA-T was GOING TO FAIL. It was a set of questions and statements, and others over-emotionalized it and accused him of endorsing the situation that he didn't create, but was reporting on, and trying to understand the phenomenon better.

With some good, hard questions that needed to be asked.

He has never stated that he is against trans rights.

I really wish to buddha that people would start to actually read what he said instead of inventing a position for him. 90% of the venom in these threads would NEVER have happened if people would learn to freakin' read.
Mike H. | 11.09.07 - 4:59 pm | #

I hear you, Mark, but what do you propose to move constructively forward on this issue? And by that I don't mean beating a dead horse.
Ed Sikov | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 5:05 pm | #

Sorry - Mark = Mike
Ed Sikov | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 5:06 pm | #

Take it up the rectum or sleep with my wife......take it up the rectum or sleep with my wife.

Hmmm....Wifey wins.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:39 pm |
-------------------
It always boils down to Thomas' wife. Her boils always send him into rectums in airport restrooms. I think I get it now.
scottinsf | 11.09.07 - 5:09 pm | #

Well, for one, if I were going to comment on people beating dead horses, I'd make darned sure I was doing it equally for people doing it on both sides of the issue.

For two, I'd make it clear that at this point, the best thing for all of us is to push to get ENDA to pass the Senate. It's the bill in play right now, and a defeat doesn't help any of us as much as a victory.

For three, I'd recommend that those of us who want to continue the fight for t-inclusion start to look at why there weren't enough votes in the House to pass T-ENDA but there were for non-T ENDA. So far, the best analysis seems to be "education is needed".

So, let's figure out how to do that. Educate lawmakers and the general public. Come out of the closet when you can. Speak about your experiences as a T. Meet with your elected reps when you can.

And finally, I'd heartily recommend folks stop attacking GLBs as "traitors" who "selfishly threw us under the bus" and "did the wrong thing" and "sold your soul to Satan" and "are just as bad as Hitler, Mussolini, Rove, etc". That's clearly not going to increase unity or help us all move forward.
Mike H. | 11.09.07 - 5:16 pm | #

boils, rectums, airport bathrooms - my kind of discussion. Who's got boils? Identify yourself!

As the great Billy Wilder once said:

"Awards? They're like hemmorhoids. Sooner or later every asshole gets one."
Ed Sikov | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 5:17 pm | #

And finally, I'd heartily recommend folks stop attacking GLBs as "traitors" who "selfishly threw us under the bus" and "did the wrong thing" and "sold your soul to Satan" and "are just as bad as Hitler, Mussolini, Rove, etc". That's clearly not going to increase unity or help us all move forward.

I agree. So stop doing the same thing on the opposite side.
Ed Sikov | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 5:20 pm | #

I don't think so. Every time I have an injury I invaribly always get the gay nurse. Seriously I do.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:26 pm | #

Your cross to bear I suppose.
Up To Here | 11.09.07 - 5:29 pm | #

But if I had to save 100 people by allowing 20 to die, I wouldn't be throwing any parties afterwards. I'd have a memorial service for those that were lost.
Rosie | 11.09.07 - 2:46 pm |

Extremely bad analogy. No one died in the ENDA situation.

In your example, 100 people were better off afterwards and 20 people were worse off. In the ENDA situation, 30 million people are better off and the trans community, however big it is, is -- at worst -- no worse off than they were before and, in some cases, might be better off because some will benefit to some degree from ENDA.

Also, in your example, all future benefit for the 20 is foreclosed, because they are dead. In real life, there is greater hope for the trans community than there was last week, because every advance breaks down walls that make the next step easier.

So, rather than the hyperbolic scenario you propose, it's likely that the trans community is better off -- although not as much as it would like or is proper -- because of ENDA passing, even though it didn't get everything it wanted.
nicho | 11.09.07 - 5:40 pm | #

Nicho is right. I guess we are all so wounded we aren't allowed to even be happy about this incredible advance.
chrisss | 11.09.07 - 5:48 pm | #

great way to keep the hate flowing, folks. so productive. so constructive.
Ed Sikov | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 6:00 pm | #

As important as the question of support for ENDA-T and ENDA+T was to all of us I would've been more impressed with a poll that had a confidence level of 99%. 537 respondents of 1087 panelists isn't very impressive at all and the questions could've used more attention to make them more neutral with less built-in bias.

Of course, that would've cost a lot more and cut into the available money for the bar tab when the pollsters got together to pat themselves on the back for their outstanding polling. /snark
Randy | 11.09.07 - 6:02 pm | #

Take it up the rectum or sleep with my wife......take it up the rectum or sleep with my wife.

Hmmm....Wifey wins.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 4:39 pm |

You'd be surprised how many men make the same choice -- and sleep with your wife.
nicho | 11.09.07 - 6:05 pm | #

537 is good enough for government work.

And it should come as no surprise except to the most narrow minded that most folks would support getting something for the many instead of getting nothing for everyone.

The fact that the leadership of United ENDA and company knew this and intentionally took steps against public opinion on a strategic question is really unacceptable.
marc | 11.09.07 - 6:06 pm | #

Take it up the rectum or sleep with my wife......take it up the rectum or sleep with my wife.

Give that wife a strap on and you can do both at once.
marc | 11.09.07 - 6:07 pm | #

Yes, I know the "close enough for government work" joke. Ha Ha Close enough for waterworks projects maybe. Not close enough when civil rights are involved.

This was a truly sloppy poll although it's being quoted like bible scripture by some.
Randy | 11.09.07 - 6:22 pm | #

Ed... you say you want to make things better, but then you respond to me like this:

"I agree. So stop doing the same thing on the opposite side.
Ed Sikov | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 5:20 pm | #"

As if I am personally responsible for the entire other side OR as if I've ever said ANYTHING where I compared someone to Hitler or Mussolini or that they sold their soul.

(Hint: even at my most frustrated I've never stooped as low as the viciousness that's been directed AT me.)

If this is your idea of even-handededly calming the situation down, please don't ever join the diplomatic corps, 'kay?
Mike H. | 11.09.07 - 6:58 pm | #

Timmy -- About that tired of elitist coastally-based organizational thing, never forget that the HRC was solely focused/interactive with big cities and predominantly coastal ones until my wife literally forced them into an experience otherwise and they discovered that paying attention to political divisions like Congressional districts might have something to offer -- but which, for them, is still treated as a stepchild adjunct to their main goal of urban-centered fundraising -- and they're located in on the East Coast in a comfy urban center; Pelosi is a San Franciscan -- can't get more queer-comfy coastal turf than that; and Barney is from Massachusetts, the state the Repugs hold up as their prime example of uber-liberal, queer-comfy, coastal elitism.

Do not forget that UnitedENDA includes the Equality Federation which is made up of statewide groups and that NGLTF nurtured and supported its founding and growth.
PO'd in Iowa | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 7:55 pm | #

"That's the way it is" thinking about the legislative process is nothing but a cynical cop-out made by the organizationally lazy and/or unrealistically impatient to excuse lack of ability and/or preparation.

That being true, methinks there's a lot of pot calling the kettle black on this board and by its owner.
PO'd in Iowa | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 7:59 pm | #

Sorry, but the wording on this poll is clearly designed for a specific outcome. Pollsters can word things in a specific way to get a preferred outcome - just look at the difference between Fox News' polls and Zogby's polls. The mealy-mouthed language of this poll lends itself to the outcome overwhelmingly preferred. Big surprise.
Luke | 11.09.07 - 8:02 pm | #

Look at the questions:
A. National gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights organizations should oppose this proposal because it excludes transgender people.
B. National gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights organizations should support this proposal because it helps gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers and is a step toward transgender employment rights.
C. National gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights organizations should adopt a neutral stance for this proposal because while it helps gay, lesbians, and bisexual workers, it also excludes transgender people.

How about the real situation:
B. National gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights organizations should support this proposal because it helps gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers even though it excludes the transgendered. or even
B. National gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights organizations should support this proposal because it helps gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers even though it retards the cause of transgendered rights

From Cheryl Jacques, the former President of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC):
As you may know, I served for over a decade as a State Senator in Massachusetts. There are two schools of thought when it comes to passing legislation, work incrementally to get the kinds of protections or laws that you want passed - or push for the full law you want to see enacted. In my experience, incrementalism is sometimes expedient but it almost always creates a less than perfect result. Even in Massachusetts, where there is a non-discrimination law - it only protects sexual orientation. At the time it was passed, advocates said we would go back later and deal with gender identity and expression - but it was never done. ... If I thought an incremental approach would work I would certainly consider supporting it and in fact sometimes it does work with legislation. However, in this instance I don't think incremental will be successful. The history of passing non-discrimation legislation at the state level teaches us this because many of the non-discrimination measures passed without gender identity and expression protections have not been updated. We cannot leave behind a core part of our community, one that is still fighting to undo the discrimination, misunderstanding and prejudice that they face. We have made great strides in gaining public support for gays and lesbians and many have changed their hearts and minds about how they feel about accepting gay couples. We need to continue this education work to make sure that transgender people gain the same level of acceptance and more. If the community leaves them behind on this bill, I think it is highly unlikely that Congress will ever revisit this discussion. Given that transgender people and people who don't fit gender norms are disproportionately impacted by employment discrimination, the gender identity and expression protections are often times the most important protections we can deliver.
The questions were designed to give the answers the HRC wanted, even if they had to lie to do it.
Zoe Brain | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 8:33 pm | #

Smoke and mirrors! this does not address the question of how many felt gender protection should have been removed. These statistics are just like the ones used by the tobacco companies for years. It doesn't portray the real situation here. Even the far right loons can come up with surveys that prove their indefensible positions are right. I think John is just practicing his legal skills. A good attorney can even get a guilty person off if they present the information just right way and carefully omit a few key facts. This like so many surveys is worded in such a way as to give a predetermend result and if you look at the questions as they are worded I would expect a Jr. High student to be able to see how invalid this survey is.

The damage is done by leaving the TG community out of this so I'm left wondering why John is continuing to cover this over and over. The only reasons that seems to make sense to me is that he is either an ungrateful winner who loves to gloat or he wants to continue to sew seeds of discontent so that if ENDA does not pass and become law he can use this as a basis for an argument in the future when the bill comes up again to use as a club to beat the TG community with again so they will have a reason to leave us behind yet again.

The bill is as it is so go with it and don't continue beat the TG community up. The tone you have taken really surprises me. I have seen you on TV and followed this site for quite some time if some one would have told me this is ow you would act in this matter I would have defended you and said that is not possible. Be the gentlemen you claim you are and move on.
Jennifer H. | 11.09.07 - 8:39 pm | #

MooCrazy only got 50 votes. If all those slacker candidates had shown up for the vote, it might have changed things. Maybe one of the six DINOS who voted for MooCrazy would have changed their vote.

Our Democratic frontrunners are more interested in getting elected than in saving the country from fascism.
Tom3

Hear! Hear! -- but would Sens. Clinton & Obama have voted to oppose? Clinton was too busy having antiwar protesters busted in her Des Moines main campaign office and locking out her vollies to prevent protesters from gaining access to her secondary Des Moines office and Obama was busy making sure his JJ dinner speech was both suitably vague yet chock-full of inspiring and lofty sentiments. And the MSM trailing them sure weren't about to ask the question.
PO'd in Iowa | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 9:01 pm | #

A religious oganization should not have to hire anyone who practices something that violates the tenets of their faith.
Thomas Moore | 11.09.07 - 3:52 pm | #

That is not the issue, St. Moore, the issue is where the religious organization ends and the public accommodation begins.
PO'd in Iowa | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 9:08 pm | #

The damage is done by leaving the TG community out of this so I'm left wondering why John is continuing to cover this over and over. The only reasons that seems to make sense to me is that he is either an ungrateful winner who loves to gloat or he wants to continue to sew seeds of discontent so that if ENDA does not pass and become law he can use this as a basis for an argument in the future when the bill comes up again to use as a club to beat the TG community with again so they will have a reason to leave us behind yet again.
Jennifer H. | 11.09.07 - 8:39 pm | #

I agree. Quite a bully.
kerplunk | 11.09.07 - 9:11 pm | #

Some gay men stay in the closet as their way of dealing with their homosexuality. Others resort to being a bully.
kerplunk | 11.09.07 - 9:12 pm | #

Oh. My. God.

Again, I'm left wondering if any of you have even bothered to actually read what John wrote, especially in the beginning.

You're doing more to split the LGBT movement than anything John's said.
Mike H. | 11.09.07 - 9:42 pm | #

I have read his comments from the beginning and if he wouldn't have taken the condescending tone from to out set it could have been very different. Compassion was missing from the outset. If he had said he would fight for the TG community with the passion he has shown lately to condemn us I for one would have fely out raged. Something like this:

"I truly regret that the situation has come to this and it saddens me deeply to ask this of you but we still need your help and support and I give you my word I will continue to fight for you..."

Instead we were given a rationalization why this was good and the right thing to do. John approach in this issue is like Bush my way or the highway. If he took some cues from Bill Clinton and been diplomatic he could have made this a strength not a move that weakened us. Diplomacy was what was missing. Alienating people may not have been John's goal but by not being more thoughtful in his choice of words he did just that. So he has taken offense that we were offended now we need to drop the matter and heal and move on don't dwell on it daily.
Jennifer H. | 11.09.07 - 10:03 pm | #

"for one would have fely out raged."

should be:

for one wouldn't have felt out raged
Jennifer H. | 11.09.07 - 10:18 pm | #

It's not enough to exclude the Transgendered for pragmatic reasons, knowing that it's morally wrong, but feeling that it's necessary.

John needs to feel good about it, that it was a moral thing to do - for conscience doth make cowards of us all.

And the only way to do that is to convince himself that They Deserved It.

He's no bully, just scared of admitting what he's been forced to do. Something Wrong.
Zoe Brain | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 12:32 am | #

I live in New Mexico where we have a state-wide law protecting LGBs and Ts. I fully support it.

And it would have been really easy to support the United-ENDA position because living where I do because I've already got protection. REALLY easy to be all righteous about it when my own neck -- or job in this case -- can't be yanked out from under me because I'm gay.

But I support the passing of ENDA-T because if anything I think people who live in the unprotected areas have far more at stake in this battle than I do, and so their voices are more important. I don't see the point in holding LGBs back from getting protections just because the votes aren't there for federal T protection as well.

I suspect a lot of United ENDA supporters live in states or cities that already have protections too. And I suspect a lot of them would be re-thinking their position if they didn't.
NMWolf | 11.10.07 - 1:42 am | #

NMwolf - so, how long a delay having a GLBT bill rather than a GLB bill was there in NM? And would you have approved one that would have passed 2 years earlier if it meant T's *never* got included, as they haven't been in Wisconsin (22 years) and Massachusetts (20 years) and New York and...? That's the issue.

If the community leaves them behind on this bill, I think it is highly unlikely that Congress will ever revisit this discussion.
Zoe Brain | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 3:19 am | #

I am a statistician, and this poll is suspect. It provides the respondents with no history, context or nuance regarding this year's legislative struggle for ENDA. It does not point out that protections for transgender people were included throughout the process and then dropped at the last minute. I believe that the survey would have obtained a very different result if it asked, "Do you believe that it was appropriate that lawmakers dropped protection for transgender people from ENDA at the 11th hour?"
Steeve | 11.10.07 - 8:24 am | #

Zoe Brain | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 3:19 am | #
************************************************** **

Interesting argument, but how long should the GLB group wait for inclusion of everyone who's come under our 'collective umbrella'?

As you may have noticed, the correct acronym for our group now is GLBTQA. Q loosely translating into 'anyone considering themselves alternative', not necessarily 'queer' as in sexual orientation, but can & often does include str8 kids who feel or desire to not be associated with their own predominate group (heterosexuals) in society. In some quarters, it's become a badge of honor & difference....much like a fashion statement.

Once the discussion moved beyond 'sexual orientation' & into the realm of 'affection, affectation & preferences' the meaning & significance of those who suffer real discriminaton in our society became diluted.
aNoNyMoOsE | 11.10.07 - 8:25 am | #

Moose: a reasonable delay would be in proportion to the numbers: so 25 million GLB vs 500,000 T, 1/50 of the delay.

But 1/50 of forever is still forever, and that's how long T's will wait now. And given that T's have an unemployment rate of 70%, with over 50% of them actually having been fired for being T, maybe that 1/50 figure should be reduced in proportion. To say, 1/5. That would minimise the total number of firings of GLBT people.

No-one would say that a T-only bill will be easier, or as easy, to pass as a GLBT bill. No-one would say that T's alone will ever have the same clout that GLBs have right now, not in a million years. At the risk of being tedious,
Even in Massachusetts, where there is a non-discrimination law - it only protects sexual orientation. At the time it was passed, advocates said we would go back later and deal with gender identity and expression - but it was never done.
It's not that it was tried and failed. It's not as if it had been re-submitted every year. It's not as if there's a plan to make it a priority before same-sex marriage, because that battle has already been won. It's not as if it's a priority now. It's not even on the GLB radar.

There's been no progress, nada, zip, and the odds of there ever being a T-protective bill in that state are worse now than they were 20 years ago. I must emphasise that Barney Frank hails from that state, and knows this. He's cool with it. He knows that this exclusion is permanent, and accepts that as just one of those things.
Zoe Brain | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:17 am | #

"Do you believe that it was appropriate that lawmakers dropped protection for transgender people from ENDA at the 11th hour?" Steeve | 11.10.07 - 8:24 am | # "

Well, if you really want to give history, the poll should have indicated that GLB ENDA has been a 30 year effort, and that T was added only recently.
Williams | 11.10.07 - 1:05 pm | #

Well, if you really want to give history, the poll should have indicated that GLB ENDA has been a 30 year effort, and that T was added only recently.
Williams | 11.10.07 - 1:05 pm

Some of us know that GLBT ENDA is even older than the "30 year effort" you mentioned, older than the lesbians at Stonehenge, older than the T's at Stonehenge. Older apparently, than your gay history book.

By the way, the original Barney Frank bill was T-inclusive.
Randy | 11.10.07 - 3:37 pm | #

T inclusion was added in 2004 or there arounds. ENDA had been around in some form or another for LGB for 20-30 years previous.

One of United ENDA's greatest propaganda coups was defining ENDA as originally containing T protections.
marc | 11.10.07 - 4:40 pm | #

Well, I think John must be pleased with all the power he apparently has, since according to the "John is a bully" crowd, it's all John's fault that T-ENDA didn't have the votes to begin with.

Silly me, I thought he was just reporting on that fact and using his blog to spark some discussion about how that happened and where do we go next.

I apparently missed him CAUSING the lack of support for T-ENDA and single-handedly forcing all the politicians and activists to bend to his will.

I'll be much more careful in the future to respect his omnipotence.

Or, maybe, just maybe, John's continuing to report on this because it's an important issue AND he got so much unjustified vilification that perhaps he IS happy that he's been vindicated and his extremely rude detractors were wrong. Can one blame him for being human? Frankly, he's shown a lot more grace than many of his commenters, and it's convenient for people to forget that when they slam him for being a bully.

Go back and read some of the names he was called, some of the things people read into his words. It was completely outrageous, and I'm disgusted by the hypocrisy shown towards him. It's flat out wrong to hold him to a different standard than you're holding people on your own side.
Mike H. | 11.10.07 - 5:07 pm | #

California passed LGB protections in the 1980s. Mark Leno championed a T law in 2003. The nation's most populous state did come back for the trans folks, once the pieces were in place to win.
marc | 11.10.07 - 6:07 pm | #

one really does have to question the mental stability of ja, when he delete comments by peeps who disagree with him.
billy boots | 11.10.07 - 6:23 pm | #

> Silly me, I thought he was just reporting on that fact

Oh, what rot. John's "reporting" has been strictly partisan editorializing - which is his right, but don't try to pain him as an objective commentator, being unfairly criticized.

Will he "report" on Cheryl Jacque's interview, which contradicts his own arguments and those of most of his apologists? He will not.

And don't forget that this did not start *after* United ENDA took what may have been a poorly framed stance. Right out of the gate, John accused the trans community of attaching themselves to the GL movement by way of coercion. Even though several of us have acknowledged that passing ENDA in any form constitutes right action, neither he nor any of you have budged an inch from that initial position, insisting that trans people are only marginally part of "your" community, and refusing to see that perhaps many of your own alleged compatriots saw right action in the alliance to begin with.

Rot, I say. From the neck up.
Val | 11.10.07 - 7:07 pm | #

As far as Jacques goes, push as hard and as far as you want, but if you're not able to make headway in a reasonable time, i.e. when a bill is before Congress, then don't allow your inability to advance to keep others who have made headway from advancing.

The LGBT communities are diverse, operlapping, contradictory and broad. Any given LGBT can have an experience as a LGBT that is completely detached from any given other LGBT.

Take lesbian separatists as an example. Are lesbian separatists a part of this unified LGBT community you'd assert?

Val, you need to realize that 70% of LGBT surveyed agree with the notion that it is not acceptable to delay progress because one segment of our diverse community does not yet have the support in Congress to move forward.

That political strategy has been repudiated. You might try to build the case that the words of one individual are responsible for that repudiation, but frankly you would do better to focus your attentions on decision makers rather than pundits as you go through successive phases of rationalizations in grieving your loss.

What would you have us do, swear an oath of allegiance to this mythical unified LGBT community as a condition of sucking dick and not take our civil rights when we have the opportunity as a condition of membership in this community?
marc | 11.10.07 - 11:03 pm | #

Marc, you seem to have stopped reading what anyone actually writes, and have just put your lecture on automatic loop.

And by the way, as a confirmed sucker of dick myself, I hope that whenever you pursue your own activism in your area - which you seem to indicate is fairly extensive - I hope that you never use the word "community", since you make it plain that is meaningless to you.
Val | 11.11.07 - 8:09 am | #

marc - California took 11 years. New Jersey took 14. Rhode Island took 6. Vermont took 15.

But it's been 22 years in Wisconsin, 20 years in Massachusetts, all the way down to 5 years in New York. That's 9 states with no plans for ever "coming back for the T's".

Now I personally would accept a 6 year delay, as I've shown in a previous post, a 1 year saving of delay for Gays in exchange for a 5 year extra delay for T's means the minimum number of GLBTs get fired. An 11 year delay for T's, as with California, is acceptable, if it will stop a 2-year delay of GLB only legislation. But in all cases, there would have to be a cast-iron guarantee and a major effort by GLBTs (not just Ts alone) for a T-inclusive bill.

But I see no enthusiasm for the latter. It Ain't Gonna Happen, not in 5 years, not in 11 years, not in 22 years, and maybe not at all.
Zoe Brain | Homepage | 11.11.07 - 8:14 am | #

Oh, rot yourself, Val... John gave plenty of airtime to contradictory views, even though in the end, they were wrong and he was right.

And his INITIAL post was not the kind of thing you're accusing him of. Asking a hard question about T inclusion and the movement IS NOT the same thing as ADVOCATING for T exclusion. Hence my continued questioning of reading comprehension abilities.

Exaggerations (like when you say that we have been "insisting that trans people are only marginally part of "your" community") don't help the legitimacy of your arguments either.

Cheryl Jacques notwithstanding, John's analyses have been accurate so far, and it's not John who has been hurting the trans cause. How about directing all that energy towards a reasonable target? How about working to figure out the real reasons why T-ENDA failed and putting some energy into building a coalition to fix that in the future?

We could have a win-win situation here, but instead, whether it's out of grief or anger or delusion, there's finger-pointing and accusation at your allies, instead of at the GOP or the neocons.

Not realistic. And not helpful. And, if this kind of rhetoric keeps going, it may indeed turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. As in, why SHOULD any of us put any energy into trans rights when trans supporters seem to want to put their energy in tearing US down?

Other than, of course, that it's the right thing to do. So I'll most likely continue to support trying to get a T-ENDA. Even as so-called compatriots in the LGBT group spend their time spitting at me and scratching my eyes out because I'm not comfortable with their hypocrisy towards their own allies.

And *I* am purportedly the selfish one. Go fig.
Mike H. | 11.11.07 - 11:32 am | #

But it's been 22 years in Wisconsin, 20 years in Massachusetts, all the way down to 5 years in New York. That's 9 states with no plans for ever "coming back for the T's".

Zoe, not to dismiss the legitimacy of trans rights, but by what logic do you think that a right that is difficult to obtain at a smaller level like a state, and liberal/progressive states line NY, WI and MA at that, would be any easier to get at the federal level? And Wisconsin is the home state of the member who carried your amendment!

At this point, the level of trust between the LGB community and T leaders of United ENDA is not at the point where I'd see any accomodation likely should ENDA fail to be enacted into law this Congress. Opposing a major LGB rights law is homophobic. Organizing to scuttle it is inexcusable, political malpractice.

Further, there are no guarantees that the Democrats will expand their majority in Congress, if so do so with freshmen more likely to support T, nor are there any guarantees that the Democrats will take the White House. The only way for something to happen for trans folks in winning federal civil rights is for trans folks to make something happen. Dependency on the LGB groups, HRC in particular, obviously was not a strategy for success. The NGLTF is relegated to the sidelines, screeching like a leftie harpie for that over which it is powerless. The HRC is a one trick pony that appears to be playing out its trick.

Virulently attacking us all for not falling on our swords in pity for your plight until you all could get in the game didn't work either. Trying to tell us that we were oppressed due to our gender rather than our sexual preferences and actions didn't resonate with LGB nor did it magnetize us. Trans leaders need to go off by themselves, evaluate what worked and didn't with United ENDA and devise a strategic campaign to make up the votes. They should have done this once the writing was on the wall, but they decided to attack LGB ENDA instead.

Frankly, if United ENDA could be organized in a heartbeat, then trans folks have demonstrated the capacity for national organizing, the kind of specific work that will be needed. Civil rights are not dispensed like soft drinks, they have to be organized for, fought for, wrested from a reluctant state and defended and expanded. Why could, would or should LGB take the lead or responsibility for T civil rights? I can't humanize T for decision makers as effectively as T can humanize themselves and make the case for their protection.

The most disempowered communities in the US have had to organize for their own liberation. T can do so as well.
marc | 11.11.07 - 12:03 pm | #

> John gave plenty of airtime to contradictory views, even though in the end, they were wrong and he was right.

No. He didn't. Point to one post on this blog that "aired" anything but his own conclusions and whatever he thought supported them, as against those he has done nothing but sneer at.

> Asking a hard question about T inclusion and the movement IS NOT the same thing as ADVOCATING for T exclusion.

Ah. So so-called "progressives" never engage in framing? Nonsense, and you know it. His "question" was no such thing. It was an indictment, and one which neither he nor anyone else is willing to accept "education", no matter how civily it's offered.

> Exaggerations (like when you say that we have been "insisting that trans people are only marginally part of "your" community)

How is that an exaggeration? Have you been reading these threads? My paraphrase is being *kind*.

> John's analyses have been accurate so far

Partly. And he has also made some blatant conjectures which have yet to be tested.
Val | Homepage | 11.11.07 - 1:25 pm | #

> it's not John who has been hurting the trans cause.

Oh, you mean gay separatism is good for us? Actually, you may have a point there.

> there's finger-pointing and accusation at your allies, instead of at the GOP or the neocons.

The GOP... in fear of whom, ENDA was put through in its current form. Because capitulation is always such good politics... at least, when it comes to something that's important to you.

> Other than, of course, that it's the right thing to do.

Finally. A simple acknowledgment of right action. The same acknowledgment that many of us have made *time and time again* only to have it made clear that "pragmatism" is, for most, a code for separatism.

> And *I* am purportedly the selfish one.

Well, it does seem to be a zero-sum game, doesn't it?
Val | Homepage | 11.11.07 - 1:25 pm | #

This one's for Marc:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlanti...gbtqrstz- c.html

It goes to what I've been saying for a while about Marc's own major talking point: it's exactly the argument made by the Log Cabin Republicans, who manh of you alleged progressives supposedly deplore.

Of course, the Wockner quote is as blunt as John's original question, but phrased in such a way that allows me to reply, both to him and Marc:

Gee, I thought that sucking dick was our common feature.
Val | Homepage | 11.11.07 - 1:33 pm | #

Val, you apaprently haven't been paying attention. One of the earliest posts on this issue was by Pam, with a considerably different view than John's.

Sure, progressives can "frame" things, but that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING is framing, either. You are arguing from your conclusions, always a flawed tactic.

The current ENDA was put through because it had the votes to pass. T-ENDA didn't. You may CONJECTURE that fear of the GOP is the reason that happened, but that's a guess. And a simplistic one.

And guess what, Val? Trans rights are a good and right thing to fight for, but so are GLB rights, and if we can pass a bill for GLB rights but not pass one for trans rights, then it is the RIGHT thing to do to get the rights we can. Pragmatically AND ethically. That's the point that YOUR side keeps denying. That somehow deliberately choosing to back a bill that we know would fail is somehow "more right" than backing a bill that would pass.

I've said, like John, like so many others, that trans rights are a good thing. It's been acknowledged over and over again.

Nice sidestepping, by the way. Yes, a few *commenters* have made some extreme comments -- on both sides, I might add, but you continually fail to acknowledge that -- but JOHN never has, and I thought you were arguing about HIS words.

How about you acknowledging that sabotaging the rights we can get in order to make some kind of idealistic point that gets nothing for any of us ISN'T a noble or useful act?
Mike H. | 11.11.07 - 1:50 pm | #

Val, argument by cootie did not work for United ENDA in Congress and according to polls it will not work for LGBT at large. When we learned something 20 years ago as radical ACTUP activists, that there was no LGBT community because we're too diverse, and when gay Republicans confirm that, then it probably is a safe bet to conclude that reality is probably somewhere close to between those two poles.

This doesn't preclude working together in ad hoc formations, but willing a cohesive LGBT community where we all sing kumbiya all the time is pure fantasy. Whining when people don't conform to your wishes, be they congress, the HRC or rank and file LGBT who don't register for the unity umbrella, only further marginalizes such sentiment.

So the fact that people get paid to say they represent people does not mean that they do. Such is the trap of a culture where democracy means indirect, representative democracy. Every leader of United ENDA who advocated against passing ENDA as it passed should be sacked for political malpractice.
marc | 11.11.07 - 1:52 pm | #

Additionally, if we're going to drag in commenters, then there have been dozens if not hundreds of comments that John has let stand that have disagreed with his analysis. Plenty of airtime for opposing views, even the ones that didn't bother with sound reasoning or actually reading what John was saying.

As for separatism, there've been separate trans rights groups for a while now, so should I therefore conclude that clearly transfolk have never fully embraced being part of the LGBT community because they keep something separate for themselves?

How about just agreeing on the basics, Val? How about acknowledging that the LGBT commmunity has NEVER been a single, unified, march-in-lockstep group, but a confederation of related-but-different constituencies that work together most of the time, but whose issues aren't always the same?

And that this latest disagreement on strategy is just the most recent manifestation of the reality of our related-but-different nature?

Is your obsessive need for idealogical purity really worth alienating allies like this? Seriously, let me know, because I'll never offer another supportive letter or phone call or cash for a trans cause if it's really so offensive to you that I object with the more untenable aspects of your analysis of the situation.

I'll say it again -- you can flip the situation around and ask -- if we really are one group in solidarity, then people should be happy and proud of anything that helps out the group, even if it doesn't help out their specific part of the group. Otherwise, if you only support the group during the times when you get what you want, then you're not a team player, and maybe you never were.
Mike H. | 11.11.07 - 2:05 pm | #

> if we really are one group in solidarity

So I take it that on this point you disagree with John, Rex Wockner, Chris Crain, Andrew Sullivan, Marc, and the woman (whose name escapes me at the moment) who wrote the Advocate editorial?

And by the way:

> Otherwise, if you only support the group during the times when you get what you want, then you're not a team player, and maybe you never were.

Are you capable of at least *seeing*, if not understanding or agreeing with, how this might be *exactly* how some trans people view the GL(B?) majority right now?
Val | Homepage | 11.11.07 - 3:44 pm | #

> One of the earliest posts on this issue was by Pam, with a considerably different view than John's.

One post... By *Pam*. John's own posts, and the position they represent, has remained strictly partisan.

> Sure, progressives can "frame" things, but that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING is framing, either.

So you are taken in by the "open question" rhetorical gesture? The question which he gives a clear answer to in his very own article? An answer which has been resoundingly supported by so many here? Not "we are related but different" but "we are not related AT ALL."

If you still believe in LGBT "community", then I sincerely congratulate you on your ethical fortitude. But I also ask you to be honest, and to recognize that it is not shared by many people here, and certainly not by John.

As for "ideological purity," who do you think you're talking to? How many times do I have to repeat that I did not personally believe that ENDA should have been blocked? How much genuflection before your moral majority do you need before you will actually *listen* to what's being said?
Val | Homepage | 11.11.07 - 3:51 pm | #

The problem is not so much *what* was done - for there are good arguments that it was necessary. Ones I don't necessarily agree with, mind you, I think with 235 votes in favour, passing the original bill wasn't the impossibility many have assumed. It would have taken the active defection of the 20 R congressman we knew about, plus another 13 D's in addition to the 25 who'd already defected to cause the bill to fail. Had just one, R or D, voted "present" instead of against, the bill would have passed. Those Freshman D's who were so worried mainly voted against anyway, remember.

No, the real problem is the betrayal. Now I dislike using such semantically loaded words, their emotional content is too high for reasoned discourse, but it's the only word that fits.

The T's were booted at the last minute, and with no consultation, nor any indication that work needed to be done to include them. The whole thing was done with unseemly haste, and with no chance to correct the situation. Moreover, and this is why HRC is getting so much stick, this was done 2 weeks after the Chair of the HRC made a speech to a national T convention saying that the T's would never be back-stabbed again, as they had been so many times in the past.

Now he says that what he meant was that the HRC would only oppose T-exclusive bills that actually went for presidential signature, not empty symbols like this one.

And it seems that the HRC has never lobbied for T's, though everyone (including Donna Rose) assumed that they had been. The omission from what would be the norm is inexplicable. Maybe they thought it wouldn't be a problem, and were caught flat-footed by Barney Frank's implacable and continuing opposition to "penises in the women's restrooms" as he always puts it.
Zoe Brain | Homepage | 11.11.07 - 6:16 pm | #

Hey Val, regarding:

-----
And by the way: > Otherwise, if you only support the group during the times when you get what you want, then you're not a team player, and maybe you never were.

Are you capable of at least *seeing*, if not understanding or agreeing with, how this might be *exactly* how some trans people view the GL(B?) majority right now?
---------

the answer is sure, but to a point. See, the issue here is that T-ENDA was dead before it got out the gate. So, while *emotionally* I can understand a certain feeling of betrayal, it's not really the same thing on the flip side, and never has been.

The Ts weren't going to get their rights this time around, period. So, essentially, in the name of solidarity, the GLBs were being asked to fall on their swords, for no real gain aside from some "woo-woo" feeling of solidarity.

Which doesn't gain anybody anything in the real world, it just makes people feel morally superior while they continue to languish in the minority with no rights.

From the get-go I've consistently acknowledged that this hasn't been a good situation, that it was unfortunate political reality, but too many people have ignored political reality in their counter-arguments -- which seems very unhelpful when the very subject -- an ENDA law -- IS political.

If you want to argue about philosophy, or natural law, or what SHOULD be, I'd be happy to take it there. But when the topic IS political, and people ignore the political reality to make their points (and make them quite viciously), that's inherently nonsensical and part of the reason I've been so vigorous in the debate.

Because I've been really annoyed by the unfairness of it, basically.
Mike H. | 11.11.07 - 6:31 pm | #

And continuing...

---VAL: So you are taken in by the "open question" rhetorical gesture? The question which he gives a clear answer to in his very own article? An answer which has been resoundingly supported by so many here? Not "we are related but different" but "we are not related AT ALL."

No, I don't feel I was "taken in", I generally take people at face value until they give me a reason not to. Unlike you, I don't claim to be psychic. In other words, I believe you are reading more into John's words than is truly there, and as an example, please point to the place in John's writing where he explicitly said that "we are not related AT ALL".

---VAL: If you still believe in LGBT "community", then I sincerely congratulate you on your ethical fortitude. But I also ask you to be honest, and to recognize that it is not shared by many people here, and certainly not by John.

I disagree that John feels the way you assume he does, and if there's doubt, why don't you ask him? As for myself, yes, I think there IS a community, but it may mean something different to me than it does to you or other commentators. Which is ok.

--- VAL: As for "ideological purity," who do you think you're talking to? How many times do I have to repeat that I did not personally believe that ENDA should have been blocked? How much genuflection before your moral majority do you need before you will actually *listen* to what's being said?

I have been listening. Do YOU understand that your continuing to beat on John the way you are is a bit hard to reconcile with your stated belief that ENDA should not be blocked? If you truly believe that, your antagonism is bit hard to understand. You seem to be arguing two things that aren't necessarily consistent with each other, and in a very aggressive manner.

And, just for the record, I don't claim any moral majority, and I'm not one to claim that this position is "right" because most GLB folk support it. Even when that was an unknown, I still believed that this was the RIGHT action, although regrettable that it worked out that way.

Seriously, Val, I don't think you're a bad person, I just think you're accusations are out of line with the facts. And given how much unfair grief I've seen John, and others who agreed with him, get in these conversations, I feel compelled to respond.
Mike H. | 11.11.07 - 6:43 pm | #

Zoe Brain -- I can't really say too much about the HRC one way or the other. The ins and outs of political maneuvering by advocacy groups and politicians themselves is a bit of a mystery to most of us.

I do know that most "regular americans" are more comfortable with GLB issues than with Trans issues, and I don't know if Barney Frank's issue is really his own personal discomfort, or his understanding that the "bathroom issue" is the one the GOP will latch onto to fight this.

Honestly, through all of this, my main conclusion is that there needs to be a lot more trans activism in terms of getting politicians and the regular public aware of trans issues in a non-threatening and non-sensationalistic way.

That means education. That means "coming out" to family, friends, co-workers. That means the regional and national groups doing more to specifically push this agenda.

Yeah, it looks like the HRC got caught flat-footed. Is that betrayal, or ineptitude? In my experience, it's usually better to assume incompetence instead of malice.

So let's assume they blew it, and handled it badly, and let's hold them accountable by getting them to do much much better in the next round.
Mike H. | 11.11.07 - 6:51 pm | #

Are you capable of at least *seeing*, if not understanding or agreeing with, how this might be *exactly* how some trans people view the GL(B?) majority right now?

LGB people are not a majority, we are a minority. Hets are the majority. Lack of het understanding, not lack of LGB understanding, is why ENDA moved forward minus T. No skin off our teeth, you're in with us, but if T is a show stopper for LGB, then that's different.

We are not a group in solidarity if some constituents are willing to attack other members of the group in concert with our mutual opponents when things don't go their way.

Betrayal? That means that "we" had something to give "you" in the first instance. "We" are not decision makers, so "we" did not betray "you" when decision makers dropped T.

"We," lesbians, gays and bisexuals, did not betray you when the HRC flipped. The HRC apparently screwed you when push came to shove. But what do you expect from the HRC, seriously? There are tens of millions of LGB who are not members of the HRC and who did not buy into HRC's promises which were not based on political work rather empty, shallow platitudes on political correctness.

That said, the HRC did yeoman and yeowoman's work on moving ENDA for decades. That work has borne fruit and should not be diminished. They probably freaked out at seeing a bump in the road and took the fallback position based on that.
marc | 11.11.07 - 8:55 pm | #

I think this shows some interesting hypocrisy in the whole ENDA debate and is also insulting to the TG community.

http://www.hrc.org/

How well have they lived up to their slogan of:

WORKING FOR GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER EQUAL RIGHTS

This headline is also interesting

U.S. House Takes Historic Step by Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Vote Marks Major Step in Achieving Equality for All.

So even though they say they are fighting for TG rights and they say ENDA achieves equality for all they dont live up to their own press.
Jennifer H. | 11.11.07 - 9:25 pm | #

marc, Mike, I think we have a meeting of minds at last; "never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence."

So, with that in mind, from http://www.genderadvocates.org/ M...008Frankly.html
Some of you might know Barney's reputation for being transphobic. But I felt, with his recent actions in congressional committee, in which he publicly advocated inclusion of transgender women in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), that he may have seen the light. Besides, it was important for Barney Frank and other politicians to see people like us as part of the legitimate political process.
...
A little while later, I found Barney without a group of people around him, so I once again engaged him in conversation. "So," I said, "does your support of transgender inclusion in the VAWA mean that you might be changing your mind about inclusion of gender-variant people in ENDA?" An innocent enough question, but you would have thought that I was threatening him with a loaded weapon. He got red in the face and started shouting, "Never." His problem was that until we could answer the question of "people with penises in [women's] showers," there is no way that he would support it. The conversation got rather heated to say the least. And with Barney speaking very loudly and repeatedly about "penises in showers," we attracted a lot of attention in the restaurant.
...
There was no way to win this argument. In fact, it was déjà vu, recalling a similar conversation we had almost two years ago when Barney was in town for a meeting of the Stonewall Democrats. At that time, it was "men in women's bathrooms."
Zoe Brain | Homepage | 11.12.07 - 2:39 am | #

Marc, I think this is very well said: "We are not a group in solidarity if some constituents are willing to attack other members of the group in concert with our mutual opponents when things don't go their way."

Zoe Brain, the quote, while informative to a point, doesn't answer my original question about Barney -- is he truly transphobic, or is he raising that issue as he knows it will be the political hot button that opponents push in order to stop trans rights?

If, for example, Barney has had multiple conversations with trans activists over the years, and told them, calmly at first, that his opinion was that the "bathroom issue" would be the visceral issue that most Americans would have trouble with... and if the trans activists kept ignoring his point, or didn't come up with satisfactory answers... then I can see him getting frustrated by what he would feel as trans activists trying to get his support while ignoring his input.

So... is Barney transphobic, or frustrated by what he sees as a lack of movement by trans activists to find a way to defuse what he feels is a major roadblock? The passage you quote tells us nothing either way, so I can't support or refute your supposition.

Given the fact that Barney has supported other trans issues and spoken eloquently and inclusively, however, I'm willing to give him a pass barring more conclusive evidence. At the worst, you could claim his record is "mixed" on trans issues -- which still makes him ahead of most politicians.
Mike H. | 11.12.07 - 8:43 am | #

ENDA doesn't protect fat people, goth kids or people who dress like Michael Jackson either.

Those liars at the HRC, they did not guarantee equality for all!

About the penises in the showers part, I doubt that Frank would be upset were he to see a penis in the shower. Perhaps his comments might have reflected concerns expressed by his colleagues about the implications of trans protective legislation that would need to be addressed if it were to be viable.

Either you can address concerns with solutions or you can skewer someone for not agreeing with solutions you won't propose. How would employers deal with bathroom issues under ENDA+T if that were part of work?
marc | 11.12.07 - 8:49 am | #

marc, How do employers cope? The same way they do with people who are Intersexed - and thus protected by ADA - today.

It sounds flippant, but there are two obvious facts that make this argument ridiculous.

Female restrooms don't have urinals. Male restrooms have cubicles.

Pre-op TS and Intersexed women use cubicles, so no one is aware of their non-standard anatomy. Pre-op TS and Intersexed men don't use urinals, they use cubicles too, so no-one is aware of their non-standard anatomy either. This is what makes Ettsity vs Utah Transit Authority so galling, there were no actual complaints, and wouldn't be any. That, and the fact that in order for a TS person to qualify for surgery, they must use the restrooms of their target gender for 12 months beforehand. It's a medical requirement to prove "commitment". Worse, they must remain employed too, or no surgery for them. Just as there are no other "psychiatric" conditions cured by reconstructive surgery, there are no other surgical conditions that require employment and use of a particular rest-room beforehand. You have no idea the hoops TS people have to jump through.

I speak from personal experience. When presenting as male, I didn't exactly want to advertise the lack of penis (OK, technically there was one, but it had a depth not a length). When presenting as female, and before surgical re-plumbing, I didn't want to advertise the more M than F external genitalia either. I didn't have to. It wasn't a problem. On 27th July 2005, I used a male restroom for the last time. In 28th July, I used a female restroom for the first time.

Locker rooms are a different matter, but even there, as long as there are Unisex rooms for those in wheelchairs etc, as required by ADA, there is no problem. In the 70's, at college, I used the unisex bathrooms, toilets and showers that were the only ones provided. Same when I was living in officers quarters at HMAS Watson naval base in the 80's. The issue is one of scare-mongering. Intersexed people exist, those with problems too blatant they can't be ignored are 1 in 1000. Yet you probably didn't even think about the issue, did you? They keep a low profile, as do formerly transsexual people after transition. The difference is, most IS people don't have to worry about questions on recruitment forms like "have you been known under any other name?". And if they should be outed, they're covered by ADA. They may be covered under Title VII too, but there's no caselaw I know of. TS people are not.

It's good to be arguing about real issues though. Your objection needed to be answered, it wasn't an irrelevant one.
Zoe Brain | Homepage | 11.12.07 - 7:25 pm | #

It is not my objection, I am not arguing, but the relative complexity of issues like these when compared to relatively simple similar LGB issues cut to the core of why decision makers object, because they have the power to make a difference, they count. Those objections need to be addressed with facts, as you just did, rather than with invective, as we "transphobic vultures" have seen.

There is a trans guy who uses the wet area of "my" gym. Nobody freaks about it, the only reaction is a somewhat awkward supportive curiosity. No males in our mainstream, A-Gay-to-rent-boy not-uncruisy gym lockerroom bats an eyelash in disapproval. Don't know what the reaction would have been had he dropped his towel, but his mastectomy scars were apparent.

At this point, your quarrel is with the decision makers more than rank and file gays and lesbians who aren't HRC members. If I had my druthers, there would be complete looksism legislation enacted that prevented discrimination based on nonconformance to cultural norms.

I think that enough issues have been raised to indicate the best bet is to enumerate the misunderstandings and architect a comprehensive campaign to raise awareness of misconceptions.

Again, thanks for the reasoned answer.
marc | 11.12.07 - 9:25 pm | #

Comment Policy / Terms of Service
AMERICAblog has a large and diverse readership. We encourage free speech, and do not care if you are a Republican, Democrat, or even French. We therefore assume no responsibility for what is written in our comments sections -- the comments in this forum express solely the views of the comments' authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of AMERICAblog or any of its staff. We are interested, however, in fostering a respectful debate and community. We have therefore added site monitors to patrol the comments. The monitors will delete comments, and ban commenters, in a timely manner when we are notified that a comment violates our terms of service. Violations of our terms of service include, but are not limited to, posting comments that are perceived as: personal attacks on other members of our community; violent/threatening; bigoted/discriminatory; slanderous; hurtful to members of this community; and/or intended to disrupt the debate. Spam and "sock puppet" comments will also be deleted and banned. We also reserve the right to delete any comment, and ban any commenter, for any other reason we deem appropriate. Decisions are final, and not open to debate. By posting in our comments you agree to accept and abide by these terms.

Commenting by HaloScan.com