Tuesday, November 06, 2007


ENDA will be voted on tomorrow, without the Baldwin Amendment.

& Apparently the decision to go ahead was based on HRC surveying 500 LGBT people across the country as to whether or not they should go ahead even though transgender people were included.

As if the 500 organizations that already said NOT to go ahead don't count at all.

What really pisses me off is that this is how the question was worded:

"This proposal would make it illegal to fire gay, lesbian and bisexual workers because of their sexual orientation. This proposal does not include people who are transgender. Would you favor or oppose this proposal moving forward?"
No mention that the Tammy Baldwin variation isn't just inclusive of transgender identities, but of GENDER IDENTITY. No mention that the inclusive ENDA would also protect gays and lesbians whose genders aren't normative. That is, no mention of the butches and queens, sissies and bulldaggers. Apparently there to be hung out to dry along with the trans population. So now we can hear that a woman wasn't fired for being a lesbian, oh no; she was fired because she's just too masculine, of course.

Feh. Or, as a friend of mine comments when HRC comes up, "You expect anything from an organization that can't even put GAY in its name?"

(Sources: PageOneQ, Gay.com, The Advocate, The Associated Press)


Karen said...

To Whom It May Concern:

Your Board voted to support a Trans-inclusive ENDA.

You have certainly made public promises to that effect.

I regret to inform you that my understanding of the intersection of NFP and Lobbying laws indicate that your active support of HR 3685 (which includes reports of possible active direct paid lobbying, and confirmed instances of exhorting the public and your members to contact their representatives and urging them to vote in favor of HR 3685 to the exclusion of the earlier "inclusive ENDA" bill) may amount to nothing less than willfully ignoring your duty of care in discharging your legal responsibilities regarding the mission and goals of your organization and represents real legal jeopardy for the HRC.

In my opinion, in order to reduce the likelihood of this possibility, the Board should either:

- Reverse it's vote, release an apology, as well as remove references to your... stated... efforts for any people with perceived or real gender-variances (which include lesbian, gay, straight, trans, and intersex persons), and offer to refund contributions for any contributors or members whom might request it, or

- Confirm it's previously stated commitments, and replace the current leadership (presumedly the ED), and begin to support, or at the VERY least cease actively undermining, the positions it has pledged to work for, as well as accepted funding to operate towards.

I look forward to a prompt reply.


LT said...

I'm deeply saddened by the fact the "T" was left out of this bill. I feel we need to do everything in our power to force the ENDA bill to fail as long as the "T" is left out. This is our once in a lifetime chance to get this important piece of legislation passed. If we don't get it right we may never have a chance like this for a very long time to come and may never see it in our lifetime. I'm very disgusted in what the HRC has done to us here. I feel we need to actively block every bill going forward that has the "T" left out.