And, Yes…More Reality

October 28, 2007

Colorado Confidential – on that state enacting a trans-inclusive civil rights statute less than 15 years after the state’s electorate approved of a state constitutional referendum that, had it taken effect, would have made the state’s gays, lesbians and bisexuals all but non-persons:

The passage of the bill was a long time coming. It was the seventh time Sen. Jennifer Veiga (D-Denver) had introduced such a bill. Twice before it had passed both chambers before being vetoed by former Republican Gov. Bill Owens. Over the years, opponents said the bill would lead to a rash of lawsuits or that it would be bad for business, but rarely did anyone object to the inclusion of transgender people.

“This is a very interesting state in many ways,” says Jeffrey Shaw, chair of the Colorado Stonewall Democrats. “It’s somewhat a conservative state, but it’s also a libertarian state, and it’s definitely a Western state. This is a fairly good state for things like this to pass.”

University of Mississippi Prof. Paul Secunda agrees. Secunda, who teaches workplace discrimination law, says Colorado has come a long way since voters passed the anti-gay rights Amendment 2 in 1992.

“To some sense, you have conservatives in Colorado, but you’re not Mississippi,” he says.

The state didn’t object to trans stuff in 1992 either.  Had Amendment 2 been upheld, it would not have prohibited trans-based anti-discrimination law – and, also missing from the incrementalists’ pseudo-historical palette, the state had enacted a pro-transsexual statute (identity recognition, not anti-discrimination) eight years prior to Amendment 2.

For Those Who Don’t Like Aravosis, We have…Reality

October 27, 2007

From Becky Juro over at Bilerico:

It seems likely to me that ENDA will not survive to be voted on during this session of Congress, and if by some chance it is, it will not pass. The reality which even those as arrogant as Barney Frank can no longer ignore is that passing a non-inclusive ENDA not only won’t help Democrats in the next election, but rather will actually serve the opposition, to rally the progressive left against the Democratic Party leadership’s elitism and willful mistreatment of persecuted minority groups to try to pander to wealthy elitists.

More reality that the stomachs of those elitists aren’t capable of digesting:

By now, it’s common knowledge that ENDA will not become law by ‘09 at the very soonest, and that any attempt to pass this already-doomed bill now is really nothing more than a shameless attempt at pandering to LGBT voters before the election season really begins (i.e. when the Reps and Senators actually start campaigning for their own seats). If the Democrats are so arrogant as to try to pass this incomplete, unwanted piece of crap anyway knowing all this, not only isn’t it going to help them in the more conservative areas, but it will also hurt badly them in the more liberal areas where they’re hoping to see their strongest LGBT community support.

The upshot: Transgender people don’t need more Americans to rally behind us or to do more education in order to simply be considered worthy of being protected under the laws of this country by most of its citizens. We’re past that now. The numbers in our own community are unquestionably on our side, every poll taken indicates that the American public supports protecting transpeople from workplace discrimination far more strongly than they support same-sex marriage or any other gay-only issue. Those old saws just aren’t credible anymore, and now, everyone knows it.

But a handful of loud-keyboarded elitists won’t admit it.

More Re-Writing of History – Courtesy of Aravosisism

October 27, 2007

More spin from AmericaSlog:

We’ve heard for weeks from the United ENDA crowd how easy it would be to get a trans ENDA passed in the House.

The United ENDA crowd has been naively telling us all how easy this was going to be.

Not exactly.  We have questioned (successfully, I would assert) the official conservaqueer narrative – namely, that there was a problem with trans inclusion prior to Barney Frank creating one.

Barney was right, and now we have a huge mess on our hands when just a few weeks ago the GLB ENDA was a sure win.

“Barney was right?” 

Sayin’ it don’t make it so.

He was the lead sponsor of HR 2015 also.  If it was so wrong in September, how could it have been so right on April 24th?

Why Ask Why?

October 26, 2007

‘Marc’, commenting on AmericaSlog, asks:

Why might the HRC have resisted including trans folks in the bill? Could it have been that the political work needed to build a coalition in support of it had not been done?

Marc, have you ever considered the possibility that, prior to announcing carefully-worded support for an inclusive ENDA in 2004, HRC didn’t actually do the amount (or any) of the ‘education’ it had claimed to have done in previous years?

Is the Scam Now Complete?

October 26, 2007

Alex Blaze over at Bilerico reacts to the alleged reason – fear of Repug attack ads – that some first-term Dems are going further than simply not supporting the Baldwin Amendment, instead not wanting the Amendment to be brought up at all:

What a great decision! Now there won’t be any attack ads in 2008! Democrats will sail right back into Congress since Republicans won’t have any reason to run attack ads!

Now that that problem is solved, the fresman Repugs can move on to their next trick: sucking pianos into their lungs.

More on the Characteristically ‘Incrementalism’-Centric Queer Channel Media

October 26, 2007

From Cathryn over at Pam’s House Blend:

The transphobic Washington Blade is currently offering a flood of gay  attorney opinions regarding the dumping of trans people from ENDA.


Maybe I should start calling it Queer Channel FOX.


I wouldn’t want to insult FOX.

Shilling for Queer Channel Media’s Kevin Naff, The John posits:

When you talk to real gays and lesbians, rather than their supposed leaders, there isn’t a groundswell to kill ENDA at all

So, now…The John can determined who among us is real and who isn’t?

He has PUREGay-Dar?

What next?  Will he pontificate through his blog whilst suspended in see-thru box that is suspended in mid air?

An Open Letter to Barney Frank

October 26, 2007

Posted by a 42-year-old trans woman over at Pam’s House Blend:

 You should be ashamed.  I know you don’t think you are “transphobic” — that you are simply trying to get something, anything, through.  I know that you think you are doing the right thing.

But you have decieved yourself and the public — you have forsaken your constitutional obligations.  The Orignal Bill never had any of the concerns you raise in your speeches until after you chose to remove the transgender elements.

This entire debacle is your own doing.  The controversy is yours, and yours alone.  You might want to pass the buck to Pelosi, but everyone knows that this is your baby and she’s going to let you di it. You are an elder statesman.

AS such, you are likely subject to many of the older prejudices that were instilled in so many of us during the 1970’s.  Or perhaps you aren’t aware of the incredible advances in knowedge and understanding made jsut within the last 8 years.

YOu speak of “doing it another time”.  Giving us our rights at a nother time.

Despite this being the second and third time that you have, yourself, sandbagged the “least of those”, I’m actually willing to give you a chance.  An opportunity to prove to myself — and all my brothers and sisters who might not act or look straight enough for our common political foes, inclusive of yourself — that you really do mean this.

 Tell us, now, when this opportunity will happen.  Who will sponsor the bill.  And guarantee it. Not “as best you can”, but an absolute, ironclad guarantee that it will happen on a specific day and date.

 I am unemployed. I’ve been looking for a job for six months. I am fully qualified to do the jobs I am seeking and have excellent references anmd prior work history.  I dress professionaly, sharp and clean. I’m 42 and am frequently told I look ten to fifteen years younger than that.

After 1,137 applications (as of this writing), I have had 34 intrgviews, all of which ended within 40 minutes because I’m transgender.

If anyone is keeping track: no. I’m not that 42 y.o. trans woman – though when I saw that paragraph, I was wondering if, perhaps, I hadn’t sleep-blogged.

That 42 y.o. woman still holds out hope that Barney is capable of giving a damn – ands capable of not lying to trans people.

[T]he symbolism of an inclusive bill being passed has enormous effect on the population. IT sets a signal that says “this is wrong”, even if its not a law yet.

You are saying it isn’t wrong. And harming my family by doing so.

 You are doing this. I hold you, personally, responsible.

 So will you — can you? — give me that date and that promise?

If not, then make *now* that time and fulfill that promise. Please.

Barney will make you a promise – just like he and HRC have done for years.

Then, you leave the room – and they do what they had always planned to do to begin with – which is to make sure that you, me and all of us get to send out 1,137 more applications to people who will have no obligation under any civil rights law to even look at them.

The only difference will be an increased likelihood that the job you were qualified for – that you never even got an interview for – will go to someone who supported the version of ENDA that codified your third-class citizenship.