As I’m sure many of my gay readers are aware, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) passed in the House of Representatives yesterday by a vote of 235 to 134 marking the first time ever that either chamber of Congress has passed employment protections based on sexual orientation. ENDA did not come without its share of controversy however. Realizing that the bill would be defeated if it included protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, openly-gay Congressman Barney Frank introduced a bill that protects only sexual orientation to the floor. It was this version of the bill that was passed.
The removal of gender identity from the bill has caused quite a bit of debate and infighting among the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender- also seen as LGBT) community. Many assert that we need to remain united and only support a bill that includes both sexual orientation and gender identity. Others take the position that we must accept the current political climate and support Congressman Frank’s bill that still offers protection to the great majority of the GLBT population while revisiting transgender protections in a later and more politically-favorable time.
Both sides made very persuasive arguments. Those taking the all-or-nothing approach argued that excluding gender identity from the bill would be akin to only light-skin blacks being covered by racial non-discrimination laws. They worry that the transgendered will be forgotten by the GLBT community and lawmakers. Those favoring the step-by-step approach countered by pointing out the civil rights struggles of the 50’s and 60’s were not won overnight, and that we must be willing to accept smaller victories as we work towards a larger goal.
Which side is right? Both and neither. It’s a very hard call to make, and that’s why I haven’t blogged about it before now. Buckaroo and I had a discussion about it one night and were unable to figure out on which side of the issue we stood. It raised a question in my mind though that I’ve been thinking about ever since then. It might upset some of my readers, but I have to ask:
Why are transgendered individuals considered part of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual community?
I believe in inclusiveness; I really do. I don’t believe anyone, gay, straight, or transgendered, should be discriminated against either, but it’s not immediately obvious to me how tansgender fits in with the GLB.
I did a web search on transgender to make sure I was defining it correctly. According to a site called DignityUSA, a transgendered person is someone who exhibits appearances or behaviors opposite their birth sex. Their gender identity differs from their physical sex. OK, that matches what I thought I knew. The site goes on to explain that most transgendered persons identify themselves as heterosexual. Their intrinsic difference is their gender identity, not their sexual orientation: these are two different things altogether.
That’s where I guess most of the public gets it wrong. It is a common stereotype that gay men want to be women and/or we enjoy dressing up like women. Well, I’ll admit I’ve done drag a few times and it was a blast, but I did it because I was in costume for Halloween. One time I was Disney’s Pocahontas, another time Cruella de Vil, and yet another a poodle-skirt wearing 50’s girl. I didn’t do it because I wanted to be a woman. I just didn’t have the hang-ups about dressing up as a woman that a straight man might have. Someone might think I’m gay because I dressed in drag? Well guess what!
On the other side of the coin, transgendered people are perceived by most people as homosexuals. In actuality, most are quite heterosexual for the gender they identify with. For example, a transgendered man might want to sleep with other men, but he does so because in that person’s mind, he is a woman. The transgendered were born into a body that the cannot identify with, but they aren’t necessarily gay.
So how did transgender become the T in GLBT? I think it’s because we suffer from the same types of discrimination. We all face employment and housing discrimination. We’re likely to be potential targets for hate crimes: verbal harassment, hate mail, hateful telephone calls and even acts of violence. It is especially hard for transgendered persons because often they want to dress and act like the gender they associate with which makes it hard for them to ‘blend in.’
Buckaroo and I ate at a sports bar over the weekend. Although being gay can be hard, we are fortunate in that we can ‘butch it up’ in situations and places like this sports bar. We cheered for the football game on TV and in general refrained from doing anything that might identify us as gay. Transgender people don’t often have this luxury.
I guess then while the transgendered are not similar to gays like lesbians and bisexuals are, it is the struggle for equality that we all share that brings us together. Knowing that makes me feel a little guilty that ENDA passed without gender identity protection. After all, discrimination of any sort is still discrimination so we all need to look out for one another.
Entries (RSS)
I live in kind of a small townish type area and oddly enough (I say oddly because aren’t transgendered people usually noticed and shied away from in smaller towns?), I have seen a couple of people around town that are very clearly people that ended up in the wrong skin and they dress accordingly, even for work, and nobody seem to bat an eye.
Actually, now that I think about it…everyone around here seems to be very tolerate of gays, lesbians, you name it I think we have it. Go us!!!
As for the bill, yeah it’s kinda wrong that the transgendered part was taken out, but the all or nothing approach doesn’t do much good because then the bill loses and all gay and lesbian people lose protection. This is one step upwards, just keep fighting for the rest and it will come.
That’s what they say, baby steps. We gotta get what they’ll give us. Then we can go for more. The more we have to start with, the easier it is to get more!
It really is a tough issue…but unfortunately, in this case, I don’t think the “baby steps” strategy will work. Honestly, the possibility that ENDA will make it through the Senate and then across hateful Dubya’s desk without a veto is nearly non-existent. If, by some wonderful, crazy twist of circumstance, ENDA did make it into law…how many gay people would go back and fight for equal rights for trannies? I suspect, not very many. All too often, groups that gain equal rights then forget about the others that have not yet.
I have always hated the acronym LGBT - though I understand that it’s intent was to “cover” everyone. The fact is that those of us who do fit under that umbrella do so along a beautiful and colorful spectrum of sexualities, affectionalities and gender identities. We don’t always fit into neat categories of “L” or “G” or “B” or “T”. Just because some of us gay men can “butch” it up in public, or some lesbians can “femme” it up, doesn’t mean that we can’t identify with those of our queer sisters and brothers who can’t, or won’t.
To be honest, I’ve never cross-dressed or done drag or felt like I wanted to be the opposite sex….but that doesn’t mean I’m unable to find a common ground with those that do. As you pointed out Scott, the people who are being left out are the ones who need it the most. I’ve lived without ENDA all my life, and I can continue to live without it until it includes everyone that it should.
I agree that taking transgendered people out of the bill is wrong, any step forward is good. Of course, this debate may be completely moot if the Senate doesn’t pass it or if Dubya vetoes it.
I’m trying remain positive.
Well stated, Scott.
I can understand the T being dropped off. Up until 10 years ago, I befriended a certain person whom I’ve never would have. However, after learning this man had been married, kid, house and the dog. He had been having affairs with men the entire time he was married until he decided enough was enough and he came out to everyone as gay. At the time, He was dating my best friend. I thought they made an odd couple but it was love and I was not to judge. They broke up and we remained friends. In time I found out why they had broken up. My new friend (we’ll call him Peter) had decided to share with me his “secret” and why he and my best friend broke up. It’s the first time I heard the word Trans-Gender. It took many a nights and many conversations to try and wrap around my mind what all this meant. In the end, I was glad to have a penis and even more happy to be gay then to have to live with the feelings of being trapped in the wrong body. My friend Peter was in his mid to late 40’s when he started “the” process. Sadly, I still could not really understand why the women’s clothing and all the other things that followed. In the end, my dear friend Peter never got the chance to live his dream. He passed away 5 years ago come the day before World Aids Day. Do I believe it was right to leave the T off in this fight ? No it’s not. Maybe with a better understanding, in time we’ll all have = Rights.
Ooh, ooh - Bossy is an expert on this because she saw it once on Oprah: a person’s sexual orientation originates in the genitals and a person’s gender identity originates in the brain. Wait - can that be right? Clearly on occasion Bossy’s brain overrides her genitals. Are ‘genitals’ plural? Oh forget it. So much for Oprah.
PS Now you’ll know who to thank when “Bossy Genitals” becomes one of Scott-O-Rama’s Google hits.
I don’t think it was a good thing that Transgender rights were left out of the bill that passed, but I think it was necessary. It doesn’t matter whether or not W will pass the bill. What matters is that is passed a House of Congress, which is a huge precedent in and of itself. Even more huge is the number of Republicans that supported it. If these Representatives stay in office for another term, they will have learned that they can support gay rights without their world collapsing, emboldening them to continue supporting such rights. If our luck holds out and a Dem gets into the White House in 2008, then a fully complete bill can be presented to Congress, including Transgendered rights, and it will become law.
I also am dubious that the Transgendered belong under our umbrella. If we include them because they struggle for equality, then why don’t we include the disabled or illegal immigrants and make it GLBTDI? I sympathize with all people who do not have full rights, but that doesn’t mean that my specific personal causes must include theirs as well. I support and have fought for a woman’s right to choose but that is not a homosexual issue. I support rights for transgendered individuals but I truly don’t believe it is part of the Gay, Bi- and Lesbian universe. It doesn’t mean that I feel they deserve it any less than I do, and am happy to invite them to the party WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT. But that time was not now.
Transgendered people are part of our community, because they have fought along side us. It was a bunch of Trannys that started the stonewall riots. Which really was the start of the modern gay rights movement. We need to not turn our backs on those who have supported us. Regardless of how you feel about transgendered people they have earned a place in our family. As such an important time we shouldn’t be kicking our family to the curb.
The point that I think is being over looked is that gay groups like the HRC has supported the ENDA without transgendered inclusion. This is why I have refused to support the HRC. The HRC has a history of not supporting the transgendered community. It is the LGBT community turning on itself. This is where the outrage should be. How can we as part of the LGBT turn our backs on tansgendered people. Or any part of our community that is not the happy normal picture the HRC and others want to paint. Who else will the HRC turn their backs on when it suits them.
The debate here recalls debates in the gay rights movement in the UK in the 1970s. One wing of the movement tended to take it that if you were gay and supported gay rights you were somehow also committed to women’s equality, abortion rights, and sundry other causes, even as far as the overthrow of capitalism and support for paedophiles (”another oppressed sexual minority”). On the other side were those who fought to make gay rightrs activism a single-issue thing.
Thank you Scott for again facilitating such an important discussion in your internet home.
I just wonder how gay men would feel if the only version of ENDA that could be considered to have a possibility of making it through Congress was a version that extended protections only to lesbians. I mean, there are clearly differences between gay men and lesbians, and well, lesbians are just more acceptable to mainstream America right now. Once they have their rights, then gay men can work on getting their own protections. And besides they’ve been the ones to lead the fight for equality anyways…gay men were always just riding their activist coattails.
As one of Scott-o-rama’s straight male readers (apparently there’s not many of us…), I’m finding this discussion/debate pretty fascinating. Living in a city that’s GLBT-friendly, the ENDA thing is talked about and such, but I had no idea of all the debate within the GLBT community in regards to the legislation itself, but also the transgender inclusion/exclusion.
[...] Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) passed the house, but without protection for transgendered people. Scott tries to think it through. Jami is just pissed as [...]
Bossy is back because: great discussion.
Cyrus: your argument is specious.
Black and Latino groups work together as people of color despite being of different ethnicities, since they share minority status as people of color.
Gays and Lesbians work together as members of the homosexual community despite having different affectional affinities, since they share minority status as homosexuals.
Transgendered individuals to a large extent consider themselves heterosexuals with a physical issue they wish to resolve.
As a gay man I have supported all kinds of legislation that excluded me, because it was the right thing to do. I support my tax dollars going to programs that help children, illegal immigrants and the disabled despite having no children, being a legal resident, and having no disabilities. I would support a bill that expressly called for Transgender rights. I would call my representatives and make donations to help educate the public.
I’d like to offer the marriage/civil union issue as a semi-parallel to the ENDA issue. I think we’d all prefer marriage, but if civil unions are a first step that would eventually lead to marriage rights, I’m happy to support it and will fight for it even though it is not the ideal. I don’t have a partner, so this issue has no benefit for me, but many of my friends do have partners and I want them to have full rights like any other couple. Maybe one day I might have a partner, but I’m not holding my breath. Regardless the issue is what matters, not how it directly impacts me.
In fact, I work in an industry where I encounter absolutely no issues of discrimination. I probably never will. This bill will make no difference in my life whatsoever. But for millions of gay and lesbians it will, and that is what is important to me. While it would be great to include the separate issue of Transgender rights, that was a current deal-breaker to the important precedent of getting this bill passed, despite the inevitable Presidential veto.
Gay Geek: You make a good point that transgendered people were part of the Stonewall Riots. I see them as allies of the gay community, but since they themselves often do not take on the moniker of “homosexual,” I have to question their demands to be included in legislation that specifically addresses the gay and lesbian community.
David,
I don’t think my argument is specious, and I still, very respectfully, disagree. I think it’s important to consider that this legislation does NOT specifically address the gay and lesbian community. It addresses sexual orientation - therefore it addresses everyone.
It’s also important to point out that the revised bill that passed did not specifically leave out transgendered people, who “to a large extent consider themselves heterosexuals with a physical issue they wish to resolve.” It left out protection from discrimination based on gender identity. There are many, many people in our community who express their gender identity in a way that is, well, not traditional. This calls to question where the line will be drawn.
What about a really butch lesbian? Will she be protected based on sexual orientation, or will she be discriminated against because her gender identity and expression is perceived as unacceptable? What about a very effeminate gay man who has no desire to actually be a physical woman, but he is fired for being too “flamboyant?” It could certainly be argued, and I’m sure it will, that it wasn’t because of their sexual orientation - it was because their gender identity was incompatible with employment.
And then, we may learn that “us” and “them” really are a “we.”
David-
Cyrus is right in that the bill was about discrimination in general, not just GLBT discrimination. You surprised me your opinion on this. This was originally the viewpoint I intended to express when I sat down to write the article however as I wrote it, my viewpoints softened a bit.
Technically though, transgender is not the same as homosexuality. When I look at the GLBT (or LGBT) acronym, I always think of that old Sesame Street song “One of these things it not like the other…”.
Cyrus-
Here’s the thing, gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals all share one thing in common: discrimination because of their sexual preference. Transgender persons face it because of their gender identity.
Yes, we all face discrimination, but I think the point David and others are trying to make is that transgender, while a close ally to our community, is not the same as homosexuality. The question then becomes, should the homosexual community (GLB) bypass their chance at equality to support transgender (T)?
That’s a tough question. I think transgender persons should be free from discrimination, but is it right to include it in a debate on homosexuality? It’s like throwing apples and oranges in the same bag and selling them all as apples (but I guess one could argue that they’re all fruits
).
I have a lot of sympathy because I do think transgendered persons face even more discrimination than homosexuals, and therefore are the ones most in need of protection.
P.S.
Great discussion everyone. I’m enjoying reading your viewpoints, and you all make strong arguments.
My personal feeling is that there is no right or wrong answer to this issue other than discrimination towards any one of the G, L, B, or T communities needs to end.
Scott-O-Rama: I find your Sesame Street analogy very interesting. Though while in college I attended a weekend symposium on Sexual Identity and Gender Issues. I attended a few sessions on both Bisexuality and Transgender issues. Based on what I learned that day Bisexuals are much different than gays and straights. So maybe they should be excluded as well. And we should just be the LG community. And what would have happened if Lesbians would have used the same logic during the AIDS crisis. Who would have taken care of us. What I am trying to point out is our community is very diverse. I personally am not into leather or bears. Should I exclude them from my community because they are not like me. I think the answer is no.
David: As others have already pointed out that this bill protects against sexual orientation and is not an exclusive gay issue. I am gay but personally I find the moniker ‘homosexual’ offensive so does that mean I can’t be in your community either. Who wants to be homosexual? It is a clinical term for someone who is mentally ill. I don’t feel I am mentally ill. So if homosexual is the defining term and that doesn’t apply to our community than what does. Queer? I personally like queer but there you go there is another inclusive term that includes many more people than just gays and lesbians. Which I think comes back to the bigger issue of who is our community. Ryan White who was not gay did so much to get the word out about AIDS. Much progress came because of him even though he was not gay. He was a hero to our community. We can’t exclude him from our community. I think as a community we need to have a more open definition of who belongs to us. So for me Transgendered men and women are part of my big gay family and I hope more of our community starts to see it the same way.
Gay Geek-
First, homosexuality (that covers gay and lesbian) and bisexuality are sexual orientations. Transgender is not. It is about gender identity.
Second, homosexuality is not a clinical term for someone who is mentally ill, unless perhaps you are looking at a dictionary from 1950. The American Psychiatric Association has not defined homosexuality as a mental disorder since they reclassified it in 1973.
I think you miss my point. If you go back and read my blog post, I came to the conclusion that discrimination is discrimination, and we all need to look out for one another. That means that while G is a little different from L which is a little different than B which is different from T altogether, we are all united in our quest to end discrimination. The T component is often mistaken for G,L, or B, and while scientifically different, that makes them part of our community.
I think too that we need to stop our infighting over ENDA. It is tearing our community apart. That is exactly what the religious right wants.
Just my 2¢.
Scott-O-Rama: Stop fighting over ENDA is something we both can agree on.
My take on the transgender issue is that since society in general views transgender sex as being homosexual in nature, lesbian and gay activists brought transsexuals under the umbrella to increase solidarity. I’m not sure when that occurred but it seems to me that when I was in college in the early 80s it hadn’t happened yet.
Maybe with the passing of this law, the transgender community will soon be able to get more recognition.
I wonder what would happen if we would simply change the meaning of “sexual orientation” to include gender identity? Any psychiatrists and/or psychologists out there know who actually maintains the “dictionary” of what sexual orientation is? I have to believe that any jury of 12 average people is going to believe that sexual orientation includes gender identity. I can’t imagine average folks getting into a discussion of the finer points of psychological/psychiatric definitions… just an idea…
Further clarification: Existing law prevents discrimination on the basis of race. It doesn’t specify African American, Native American, etc. If the meaning of the term sexual orientation can be broadened to include the entire GLBT community, the transgendered are included.
Hermit-
The only problem with your suggestion I have it that’s not accurate.
African American, Hispanic, Native American… Those are all races. Transgender on the other hand is *not* a sexual orientation; it is a gender identity issue.
To broaden the definition of sexual orientation to include gender identity wouldn’t be doing the transgendered a favor IMHO. It would just create that much more confusion around what transgender means.
Can you imagine a teenager who is coming to terms with the fact that he’s transgendered only to be counseled as if he were homosexual? I think that happens a lot today. Transgendered youth are told that they are homosexual and it’s left at that. It’s not until much later in life that the person figures out that in fact they are not homosexual, but transgendered. By then it may be too late for them to elect for surgery or whatever other options they might choose. Wouldn’t it be much easier for a person to enter the workforce after high school or college as their new gender rather than changing genders after years on the job?
This is a thorny issue. There’s a lot of strong feelings one way or another. My goal is pointing out that transgender is *not* as sexual orientation issue like homosexuality was not to divide us further, but rather shine light on the fact that in getting non-discrimination laws through Congress, we may have to treat them as the two different issues that they are.
If anything, this ENDA debate should show us that while we have done a fairly good job at educating people about homosexuality, there still needs to be a LOT of public education on transgender. When that occurs, it may be easier to end the discrimination.
Let me try to be better at explaining what I’m saying: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered people are all sexual minorities; just as African American, Native American, Japanese American, etc., are all races. If equal employment and other legal protections had to list, and fight for, one at a time, each individual racial minority, it would have taken centuries to have all races protected. My suggestion is that we fight this battle together, and we do it by using a word that includes all four parts of the sexual minorities. I guess I don’t know what that word would be (my thought was sexual orientation, but apparently that won’t work–I didn’t mean to be insulting or inaccurate). By coming up with that word that is inclusive, it becomes impossible to separate the fight for equality… Does that make any sense at all?
I think they lump in trannies because its mostly (conveniently gay people that like them), so therefor it *must* follow that we all in get the same escape pod together (the defective one probably).
Seriously though, I think for most unbent people, they just dont give a shit about knowing, so its easier and more convenient for them not to have to think about it (which is fine), and any sexual deviance which doent fall into a predefinition is lumped in together.
You me and mandy over there know, but thats because we have thought about it and most of the time give slightly more of a shit about it at any given time.
Scott’s got a good point in that educating people on transgender is key. It’s easy for straight folk to lump transgenders in with the other “sexual” minorities — it’s neat and tidy and allows us to move on without delving too deeply in an issue that’s far deeper than sexual orientation. In all honesty, before reading all the comments here, I’d never given this any thought at all.
Hermit-
I follow what you mean now. I think we were using GLBT (or LGBT) as that term, but unfortunately that term is too easily divisible.
Great analysis Scott. I had to think this one through a great deal myself. I’m a gay man who relishes masculinity, maybe a little too much. From a purely legal point of view, leaving the “T” out of the bill opens up the door to further discrimination for everyone in our “alternative lifestyle”. As butch as I am, giving a blow-job is, in the most literal sense, “acting like a woman”. I can imagine future litigation where someone is fired for being gay, and the discriminating employer uses the defense that the person wasn’t fired for being gay, they were simply fired for “acting like a sissy”.
Personally, I think the best way to combat discrimination is to boycott those businesses that practice it. Ironically, the military, the biggest perpetrator of discrimination against gay people, is exempt from ENDA. Sad that I can’t think of any entity that I would more like to boycott right now than the machine behind our war in Iraq.
I agree there should be no discrimination but I don’t agree that transgen people should be under the gay/lesbian umbrella. I don’t know why it bugs me so much but it does. I feel that when people see the transgen people under the same category as gay, they associate us and um, I soooo do not want to be female. So where can they turn? I dunno, give them their own category their own classification. I just don’t like the association I guess. I also don’t believe in transgen people, I mean…well, I don’t think there are girls in boys bodies and vice versa…hey, don’t hate for me having my opinions.