From today’s SF Chronicle:
“Leading gay rights organizations, with the pointed exception of the Human Rights Campaign, withdrew their support Monday from a landmark gay civil rights bill after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., pulled transgender people from the legislation that would protect gays and lesbians from workplace discrimination.
The intense backlash by the gay community surprised House Democratic leaders, forcing them to postpone what had been intended as a big House vote this week to include gays and lesbians in the nation’s job discrimination laws for the first time in American history.
The debate playing out between gay rights activists and two of their biggest supporters in Congress raises a classic political question: Are activists better off compromising and accepting progress or continuing to fight for everything they want?
Gay rights groups have been waiting for a decade for the bill to pass, and many say a few more months to try to build support for including gender identity would be worth the wait. They say transgender people will have little chance of winning protection from discrimination if they aren’t included in this bill.
Pelosi and Frank, however, fear the inclusion of gender identity will kill the overall bill – again denying gays and lesbians protection against job discrimination.
I can understand the fear that if lesbians and gays don’t take what they can get now, perhaps they won’t be able to get anything at all. How many years more will it take?
Nonetheless, opposing a Federal anti-discrimination bill that excludes transgendered people is the right thing to do. The reason that it’s harder to pass a bill including transfolks — which is that open bigotry against trans people remains entirely acceptable for bosses, corporations, governments, and congresscritters — is the same reason legal protection for transgendered people is essential.
I’m thrilled to my bones that the queer rights groups have refused to sign on to the Democratic Party’s compromise. It’s solidarity in action. And it’s fucking great.
Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings suggests that us blog readers can show a little solidarity, as well:
If you think that people should not be fired because they seek gender reassignment surgery, or have some other sort of gender misalignment — if the very idea of choosing one of the toughest parts of a person’s already tough life to take away his or her livelihood for no good reason makes you as mad as it makes me — then now would be a good time to write your Representative and ask him or her to support the extension of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to transgendered people.
UPDATE: I must quote “Edward,” from Obsidian Wing’s comments:
As a gay man, I don’t mind saying, I have no interest at all in becoming a “first-class citizen” if it comes at the expense of someone else’s status. I’ll happily take my chances with the current law before I’ll passively support the hideous assertion that gays and lesbians are kind of ok now, but transgendered Americans are still very much not ok. That folks can’t see why that’s so offensive to many gay folks suggests to my mind they don’t see why the current lack of protection is offensive to us either. It’s not about us. It’s about what’s right.
What this boils down to, quite frankly (no pun intended), is that I trust the motives of the transgendered community in this battle much, much, much more than I trust the motives of those among general public who are coming around and now ready to condescend to suggest I might be worthy of some of the same civil liberties they take for granted. In other words, if the sh*t hits the fan again, I’d rather stay aligned with the folks who’ve shown me constant, genuine support, regardless of how small a minority they may be, than be worried my new allies are still harboring bigotry and might turn against me again.
I just read a press release http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0348
Press Releases
For Immediate Release
10/01/2007
Pelosi, Miller, Frank and Baldwin Statement on ENDA
Washington, D.C. — Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, Congressman Barney Frank, and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin issued the following statement today on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA):
“After discussions with congressional leaders and organizations supporting passage of ENDA, we have agreed to schedule mark-up of the bill in the Committee on Education and Labor later this month, followed by a vote in the full House. This schedule will allow proponents of the legislation to continue their discussions with Members in the interest of passing the broadest possible bill.”
I hope that’s a good thing.
I suspect TG folks would be better off fighting for their own bill.
A federal anti-discrimination law that covers gays and lesbians is likely in for the mother of all court fights, on religious liberty grounds. Religious conservatives have legally compelling arguments that are not going to be easy to get past, and two centuries of social and legal precedent on their side. (I’m not intending to fight that battle here; just noting that it is a battle which will be fought.)
If TG issues are bound up tightly into that bill, then it’s very likely that a Supreme Court defeat for the anti-discrimination law will also remove the TG protections, and that will be that.
A separate transgender bill, however, would not be as susceptible to the precedent(s) created by a gay/lesbian bill. The religious case against transgender behavior is much weaker, although it still exists. That defangs the religious freedom argument somewhat and makes it much more likely that a TG bill could survive such a challenge.
Are bisexuals included in this bill as well?
I’m always leery of the “divide and conquer” argument, as espoused by Robert. I’m also curious about “legally compelling arguments” of the so-called religious community that would enable them to argue GLBT protection any more successfully than some attempted to argue race and gender protection.
With regard to HRC, they’re showing their true colors once more. It would be nice if they were intellectually honest and admitted what is patently clear: they are not a GLBTQ rights organization, they are a GL rights organization, and anyone on the BTQ end of the spectrum cannot rely upon them as advocates.
People who argue in the name of “religious freedom” that they can discriminate against gay people are just as likely, in my experience, to argue just as hard or harder that they shouldn’t have to hire “men who wear dresses” or “people who desecrate the body that God gave them because of gender confusion and immoral lifestyle choices.” I mean, think about it, at the root of all these arguments about religious freedom is a simple feeling of ewww ick, I don’t want to be around those people or think about that and I don’t want my kids seeing any of it, it’s wrong. That applies just as much to trans people as to non-trans gay folks. I mean, they claim that non-conforming gender expressions are prohibited in Leviticus too. It’s all over the anti-trans fundie websites.
So I don’t think separate bills are going to do any of us any good, especially since these things are tied together — sexual orientation and gender expression, if someone can’t discriminate for one, they’ll just say that they were discriminating against you for the other. It’s been known to happen.
I’m also curious about “legally compelling arguments” of the so-called religious community that would enable them to argue GLBT protection any more successfully than some attempted to argue race and gender protection.
The First Amendment of the Constitution is pretty compelling; Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Very few people argued that their religious beliefs required them to discriminate against black people. Again, I’m not interested in making this case or having this argument right now; I’m just saying the argument will happen.
Robert, before you continue your current line of argument, maybe you should read section 6 of ENDA, which bears the title “Exemption for Religious Organizations.”
This isn’t anything new; state-level laws forbidding employment discrimination against lesbians and gays all contain some form of religious exemption, similar to the above. This aspect of the law has, iirc, been tested in court, and has not thus far been found unconstitutional.
People made this exact claim all the time; religion was frequently invoked in defense of discrimination, from slavery days on forward. (Of course, religion has also frequently been invoked against racism.)
Also, laws that prevent employers from discriminating based on religion have not been found unconstitutional, despite the fact that historically many Christians might have claimed that their religion required them to discriminate against Jews, Protestants that they can’t hire Catholics, and so on.
Finally, your belief that the bigots who dominate the public face — and the legal departments — of big institutional Christianity would be any less hateful of transgendered people than they are of gays is fantastically naive.
God damn. So we shouldn’t pursue civil rights for everyone in our group because someone might file a lawsuit. Huh.
The exception for religious organizations etc. is fine. But it isn’t the central material point, which go to the individual rights of both those wishing to discriminate and those who would be (and are) discriminated against.
People made this exact claim all the time; religion was frequently invoked in defense of discrimination, from slavery days on forward. (Of course, religion has also frequently been invoked against racism.)
I am referring to the specific case of arguments against the civil rights era when anti-discrimination laws were first tested. People argued in court on the grounds of need, conviction, freedom of association, convenience, cost, states’ rights, etc. – but very few people argued that they had a right to not hire blacks or women because God didn’t want them to associate with blacks or women due to their immoral behavior. These cases were referenced, broadly, by Dreama in #4, who wanted to know what was special about the argument over homosexuality.
I do accept the validity of your counter-argument against the much larger point it attacks, and which I do not attempt to defend. ;)
Also, laws that prevent employers from discriminating based on religion have not been found unconstitutional, despite the fact that historically many Christians might have claimed that their religion required them to discriminate against Jews, Protestants that they can’t hire Catholics, and so on.
I don’t know enough about the law in this area to comment.
Finally, your belief that the bigots who dominate the public face — and the legal departments — of big institutional Christianity would be any less hateful of transgendered people than they are of gays is fantastically naive.
Are you asserting that I believe the leaders of institutional Christianity are bigots who hate transgendered and gay people?
Let’s try and keep who thinks what clear, if we can. Because I don’t believe any of that stuff. I’ve had the misfortune of meeting a few people who could be accurately and objectively characterized as “bigots who hate”. They were (and are) pretty dreadful people. One or two of them were indeed nominally Christian – and others were not.
Religious opinion on transgender issues is pretty mixed from what I know, though largely disapproving. But that “what I know” is again pretty small so I again can’t say much. (“It’s never stopped you before!”)
Oh, come on. It’s not even a question of law; its a question of reason. What Christian edict says, “Your faith forbids you to hire gay people, but feel free to hire people who deny the divinity of Christ”?
(This is always a fun question in determining what is central to a person’s religious faith.)
But it doesn’t come at the expense of someone else’s status. Trans people will have the same status whether they are stripped out of this bill now, or if they are included in the bill and the bill goes down to defeat.
So the real question is this: If we can pass the bill with lesbians and gays but not transgendereds, should we do so?
Trust the transgendered community? Trust them to do what, exactly? Commiserate with you when you get fired for being gay? If that’s all you want, great, you got it. We can skip the whole legislative thing.
You know, upon reflection, Athenian democracy did not grant the franchise to women or slaves. Magna Carta merely established the principle that the king doesn’t have unlimited rights over the nobles. The Declaration of Independence merely asserted the proposition that the King doesn’t have rights over the colonies. The Emancipation Proclamation only purported to free slaves in Confederate territory. The 14th Amendment expressly defends the voting rights only of males. And the 15th Amendment merely outlaws discrimination in voting based on race. The 19th Amendment merely outlaws discrimination in voting based on sex. The 26th Amendment merely outlaws discrimination in voting on the basis of being less than 18 yrs old. The various civil rights laws have not addressed everyone’s needs. Sure enough, NONE of them establishes legal nirvana, so I guess they were all a big mistake!
That’s one perspective, I guess.
Another would be to acknowledge that EVERY advance in civil rights have been piecemeal, and we’d have to be steeped in hubris to imagine that our generation, alone in all of history, will transcend this dynamic.
Honestly, I’d be surprised if the opposition to granting rights to gays and lesbians was any greater than the opposition to granting rights to gays and transgendereds. So as a strategic matter, there may be little harm in going for the whole enchilada. But to me, this is just a strategic question. Have the Democratic whip count the votes and see if we can get closure, and if we can override a veto. Politics is the art of the possible, not the perfect. And at this point, it ain’t a question of morality; it’s a question of math.
So I don’t think separate bills are going to do any of us any good, especially since these things are tied together — sexual orientation and gender expression, if someone can’t discriminate for one, they’ll just say that they were discriminating against you for the other. It’s been known to happen.
This is exactly right. Further, the fact that the term “transgendered” was considered and argued by Congress makes it even more necessary to be included in order to protect the rights of non-transgendered gays and lesbians.
Remember, being a member of a “protected category” is not an objective test, it is determined subjectively on the part of the person accused of discrimination. Even though I am obviously a hillbilly white person to any reasonable person, if a new white boss was hired for me who was delusional and thought I was black and fired me based on that delusion, I would have valid race discrimination claim against my employer. So an employer accused of firing a gay man because of homosexuality might say, “I don’t give a damn who he sleeps with. I just don’t think a man should go around acting so swishy.”
And realistically, this might be the truth. And then the employer can claim it was discrimination based on the employer perceiving the gay man to be “transgendered”, whether or not the gay man who was fired sees himself that way. The only way to avoid this outcome would be for the gay man to have consistently “acted straight” at work. And this legislation then just becomes a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” rule for private employers.
Now, had Congress never even considered discrimination against the transgendered as an issue, a good argument to counter the above result would be that the type of discrimination that the above employer engaged was clearly intended to be covered under the term, “homosexuality”. But now the employer will be able to point out that Congress did consider the issue of discrimination against the transgendered, and specifically decided to not outlaw such discrimination.
Future personal moral dilemma: A woman sues her employer, claiming she was fired for expressing her radical feminist views. Employer responds that he considers such behavior “transgendered”. How hard should I bite my lip to stifle the laughter?
nobody.really-
As to longer historical view you present, I agree with you. But because of what I describe above, and because, as you point out, the opposition to this legislation is probably not much greater if you include the transgendered, and is unlikely to be much greater in the near future even if it is now, I think the strategic questions weigh in favor of including the transgendered.
Hm. Interesting argument, Decnavda.
This is true only in the strictest legal sense of “the same status.” If trans people are stripped out of the bill now and left behind to fend for ourselves, it may be decades before we see employement protection for trans people. If trans people are included and the bill is defeated, there will still be a strong incentive, amongst a much larger community of people — all of whom are oppressed due to being sexual minority, which as I’ve pointed out are fairly inextricable — to get an ENDA-type bill passed. And it’ll be a collective will, inclusive of everyone. It won’t be as long before trans people can actually get a job and not have to fear being fired for being trans. That seems absolutely crystal clear to me — and it’s why the idea of stripping trans people out is being described as throwing trans people off the back of the bus, especially when the work of an awful lot of trans people over many decades were involved in what got us here. All the promises of “oh, we’ll come back for you” — they’ve always proven to be false in the past. Trans rights have made barely any progress since the 70s, despite the hard work of many, many trans people on broader issues of gay rights, labor rights, etc.
It’s also worth looking at Lambda Legal’s analysis of why cutting out gender identity actually creates a massive loophole that shoots supposedly-protected gay people in the foot, and why the revised ENDA is a far weaker bill in other ways.
The analysis by Lambda Legal that Holly links to agrees with what I wrote above, but in more legally specific terminology:
In addition to the missing vital protections for transgender people on the job, this new bill also leaves out a key element to protect any employee, including lesbians and gay men who may not conform to their employer’s idea of how a man or woman should look and act. This is a huge loophole through which employers sued for sexual orientation discrimination can claim that their conduct was actually based on gender expression, a type of discrimination that the new bill does not prohibit.
It also describes how the bill provides an expanded, and nearly unlimited, religious exemption, and fails to protect domestic partners.
Pingback: all for one, one for all « [insert witty pun here]
I think this is the most confusing thing I’ve read on this website yet. Why should there need to be a law preventing discrimination? Why isn’t there a law saying something along the lines of “you may not discriminate in the workplace on any basis except that which directly affects the persons ability to do the job they were hired for” or something. It is a bit absurd that people have to have laws created specifically to prevent discrimination against their explicit group.
Other than that, I think it is a great stand they are making, being against the bill until it includes transgender people too. Some people won’t understand the solidarity and it will confuse some people and that’s probably a good thing.
Why isn’t there a law saying something along the lines of “you may not discriminate in the workplace on any basis except that which directly affects the persons ability to do the job they were hired for” or something.
Well now that’s the $64,000 question, isn’t it?
But it doesn’t come at the expense of someone else’s status.
It comes at the expense of throwing trans people under the bus.
And for what? For what purpose?
No one gains, and the LGBT community loses in the sense that when one segment of our community loses we all lose.
a tangent . . .
I recently read that, although homosexuality is a capital crime in Iran, the government pays for sex reassignment surgery for transgendered Iranians.
Prejudice is inexplicable.
Not sure. Generally we have freedom of association. That means that we get to choose whether or not to associate with other people on any basis we like. You don’t have to justify your choice of friends, or spouse, or political party, or coworker. Wanna go to an all-black church? Feel free. The boss doesn’t have to hire you if he doesn’t like tall people, and you don’t have to work for the boss if you don’t like bald people.
But other laws have tampered with a boss’s freedom of association pretty heavily, so I don’t know why we couldn’t take this leap.
Ah, but you have to remember public accomodation laws.
As individuals, sure, we can befriend or not whomever we wish.
As, say, a burger joint owner, if I am open for business to some people, I have to be open for business to all people. I can’t bar, say, Japanese people from coming in and buying a cheeseburger and fries – for any reason or for no reason.
Civil rights laws in re: public accomodation fall under Congress’ power to regulate commerce among the states.
Bald people and tall people are not protected classes. Race and religion are.
Together we stand or divided we fall, it looks like to me. Either heterosexuality *and* conformist cisgenderedness, in fact and in presentation are compulsory pre-requisites for equal human and civil rights, including employment rights, or they’re not. As Decnavda said, if transexual and/or transgendered people are not protected by the law:
… the employer can claim it was discrimination based on the employer perceiving the gay man to be “transgendered”, whether or not the gay man who was fired sees himself that way.The only way to avoid this outcome would be for the gay man to have consistently “acted straight” at work. And this legislation then just becomes a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” rule for private employers.
And apart from that – speaking as a lsebian – I’m in agreement that throwing transpeople off the back of the bus would be simply the wrong thing to do.
I wonder what Georgina Beyer, the first open transwoman in the world to be elected mayor of a city (some years ago now), and subsequently elected a member of New Zealand’s parliament by a conservative rural constituency, no less, will be making of all this. I’m living in Oz now, and I really don’t know how inclusive all legislation is back in the home country, but still, possibilities, eh?
Together we stand or divided we fall
Bingo.
Well…except that you’re “standing together” with just the people you like. There are plenty of “sexual minorities” who find themselves on the wrong end of the discrimination stick all day, but they aren’t GLBQT or whatever and so they aren’t on the agenda. Are you “throwing” the bestialists and pederasts “under the bus”? Or just making quasi-rational decisions about which sexual minorities you find “normal” and thus feel deserve legal protection?
Please note that I’m not trying to argue that for a gay rights activist to be consistent they have to argue for freedom for every other sexual minority; I don’t believe that to be the case. Nor do I think that gay is the same as transgendered is the same as polygamist is the same as ephebephile. But I do believe it to be the case that an activist who makes the reasonable decision to firewall their activities must forego the temptation to claim democratic universality for the principles they’re espousing, when they don’t actually believe in the democratic universality of the principle. They believe in making sure that certain groups get the principle, and have a strong opinion that one more set of people should be squeezed in. Not everybody – some bodies.
To put it another way, people who have already finished drawing chalk lines in the parking lot to mark off what’s allowed and what isn’t, really aren’t in a position to talk about the evils of chalk.
Bald people and tall people are not protected classes. Race and religion are.
But that begs the question: Why do we need to identify protected classes?
Traditionally (as I understand it), we defined protected classes to protect freedom of association. We don’t want government second-guessing all our choices about who to hang out with. So the law grants us absolute discretion over our associations EXCEPT with respect to certain situations (mostly involving interstate commerce) and then EXCEPT with respect to protected classes.
But standgale poses the thoughtful question: With respect to employment law, shouldn’t it be sufficient to complain that you were discriminated against for reasons that did not constitute a bona fide occupational qualification? If so, then we don’t need to worry about pleading membership in a protected class. People could file claims that they were discriminated against because they’re bald or tall just the same as they could plead that they were discriminated against because they were black or Jewish.
I’d be interested to hear the perspective of someone who practiced in this area of law.
What if I’m your boss and i just can’t stand you? You’re good at your job but you wouldn’t be that hard to replace and I just. can’t. stand. you. To remove my duty to the shareholders assume I own the company. Don’t have I have the right, as the owner, not to work with people who bug the crap out of me? What if I started my own business specifically because I didn’t like working with all the obnoxious people GlobalMaga inc and wanted to be able to work with people I can get along with?
Also, wouldn’t this give ANYONE who was laid off grounds to sue? Now if I want to fire you becuase you’re late all the time. Or you’re hung over every monday and do a poor job, or because i want to take the company in another direction, or because I think you annoy one of my best customers I have to document that perfectly or risk losing a lawsuit.
(If this is too far O/T too soon please just delete the comment. )
Pederasts?? PEDERASTS?!?!?!?!
Fuck off asshole.
Pederasts?? PEDERASTS?!?!?!?!
What’s your objection to their inclusion in the category of “sexual minorities”? Pedophilia is surely sexual. It is surely a minority preference.
If your objection is that pedophiles are hated and reviled, or that you hate and revile them…well, so? Gays are hated and reviled. Transgender people are hated and reviled.
If your objection is that many of the things pedophiles do are illegal, again I inquire as to the consistency between them and gays. Homosexual behavior used to be illegal, still is in some places.
If your objection is that pedophiles engage in coercive practices, then I will agree with you, and agree that coercive expressions of sexuality should not be a protected category in any kind of system. But not all pedophiles are coercive; it is an attraction, not a behavior. So there remain plenty of people in this sexual minority whose rights could be protected without endorsing coercive models of sexuality.
And all of that said, there are plenty of other sexual minorities in my post who are not so (frankly) vile in their preferences and who do not incur such revulsion from most people; polyamorists in particular. So you’re welcome to tell me to fuck off and ignore me, but it leaves me thinking you have no response, not that I’m bad and wrong.
Is there a coherent difference between a polyamorist and a transgendered person, in terms of it being legally or morally OK to discriminate against one but not the other?
Amp,
I’m sorry. I generally value the discourse here although there have been times I have been upset by how some people conduct themselves.
I have expressed to Mandolin privately, and now express to you publicly, that I do not feel safe posting in any forum in which Robert participates.
His two most recent comments give me good reason.
He does not argue in good faith and he chooses to pick nits – how someone can equate the identity and behavior of and between consenting adults with adults who hurt animals and children is beyond me.
Ban me if you will for my outburst; I no longer care. I will post here no more, nor will I read [edited to add, as long as Robert is here. Post # 30 proves you are an asshole, and that your intent is indeed to be an asshole. Res ipsa loquitur.]
Robert, I’m going to go out on a limb and assume, at least for a second, that you’re not simply engaged in vile trolling. I believe that the categories of pedophilia and bestiality are generally held to be in a different category than other “sexual minorities” because of issues of consent. Minors and animals are not considered, by law or culture, to be capable of making decisions about their own well-being, including ones around sexual activity. Feel free to pick nits and explore grey areas in this definition, but I am under the impression that the line here has been well-tread in many discussions, and understood by a whole lot of people. So in response to:
“Or just making quasi-rational decisions about which sexual minorities you find “normal” and thus feel deserve legal protection?”
In fact, they’re very rational decisons based in ethics. I have not seen a rational, ethical argument advanced for why it should be perfectly OK to kick homosexuals or transgender people out of your restaurant, or fire them, etc. I’ve heard emotional ones like “but I don’t like those people, they gross me out.” I’ve heard religious ones like “the Bible says that’s wrong.” And I’ve even seen some quasi-rational ones about how you’re going to corrupt all the children and destroy the American family, but I think there are plenty of very well-reasoned counters to those arguments that involve, for instance, all the children of gay & trans people out there who grew up healthy, happy, and well.
Also, the similarities being pointed out between discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and discrimination on the basis of gender identity are far more intertwined than just being under some umbrella called “sexual minorities.” It’s not an arbitrary choice. Gay & trans have been conflated for a very long time in cultural understanding and stereotypes. Even today there’s a popular myth that gay men are always more feminine than straight men, and that trans women are just some extreme form of gay man, and vice versa for lesbians and trans men. When it comes to discrmination, this kind of thing is hard to ignore. As the executive director of Lambda Legal (the largest legal defense fund on LGBT issues) points out, protecting people from one but not the other means “You can’t be fired for being lesbian, gay or bisexual but you can be fired if your boss thinks you fit their stereotype of one.” So there are also some very practical, legal reasons why these things are intertwined. It’s not arbitrary at all, it’s not just because both groups are “hated and reviled” or because gay & trans people “like each other.” (Believe me, this is not necessarily true, and there’s a lot of bitterness about exactly this kind of issue because of it. There’s an intertwined history, the discrimination is intertwined, the populations are intertwined. That’s different from “you like us and we like you.”)
So let’s take polygamy, since you mention it briefly. Yes, it’s another kind of sexual/relationship kind of minority, that’s illegal. Personally, I don’t have a problem with legalizing poly-marriage in principle, although in practice, I think there are some problems related to how prevalent extremely sexist setups are amongst polyamorous marriages. Still, I don’t see that as an objection in principle, although it is a significant problem and it does factor into the fact that I don’t put a lot of my personal time and effort towards fighting for legalization. Also, this is clearly a distinct kind of problem to me than the stuff I mention above, for the same reasons that are in that quote. The issue of polygamy being illegal is much more tied up, from my point of view, with the question of whether governments should recognize marriage and confer legal and administrative benefits on the married.
Robert, a right-wing Christian Republican comparing LGBT folks to pedophiles is not something that happens out of context, any more than a white person calling adult black men “boy” is something that can be correctly understood without considering historical context.
You are part of a political movement that regularly acts hatefully towards queers; that campaigns against queers having equal legal rights; that regularly elects leaders that disparage queers; and that relies on fermenting hatred towards queers for fundraising and get-out-the-votes. And, in the course of doing this, prominent Republican Christians have made the pedophile/gay comparison multiple times, and infuriated queers each time.
For someone positioned as you are to make the pedarist / homosexual comparison — no matter what disclaimers you use around it — is monumentally insensitive. It shows an amazing disregard for how much your amusing little arguments might genuinely hurt the feelings of other people, who, unlike you, are the victims rather than the beneficiaries of the political movement you support. And it’s completely unacceptable on this forum.
Do not ever make that comparison on “Alas” again, and do not defend making the comparison here on “Alas,” either. The only remaining contribution I think you should make on this thread is an apology.
Are you kidding? The idea of banning you for what you said never crossed my mind, not even for a moment. I think what you said was exactly right, frankly.
I believe I’m a first time poster (I can’t remember if I posted anything the first time I came across Alas years ago), but I’ve been reading here for a week now.
I believe that Monica Roberts put it very well when she quoted Reverend Dr. Martin Luthor King, Jr:
I’m grateful that we got a delay, so that it will be possible to both campaign for an inclusive bill and make it absolutely clear why splitting the bill just so one part can pass easily is divisive and dangerous to the GLBT communities.
I’m extremely disappointed with Barney Frank’s explanations. Civil rights should not come at the oppressor’s pace – the fact that oppression exists at all is reason for the civil rights to happen now.
Minus one pointed exception. Donna Rose sent in her resignation letter to the Human Rights Campaign Board affective Oct. 8., ’07. It’s on her blog, just got updated a few hours ago. I wasn’t sure if I should add it to the comment, but I thought it might be relevent.
Thank you.
Okay, now that I have thrown up as a result of my bone-shaking rage . . .
Dear Robert,
Seems your apology is not forthcoming. I’ll proceed anyway.
Why the concern w/ the “T” community and not with the other of your “sexual minorities”? [You know, you’re a real piece of work, you with your faux concern.]
Since you obviously did not notice, the subject of the post is “Queer Rights Groups To Congress: ‘None of Us Without All Of Us!’” To parse: None of us now who were in the original bill without all of us who were in the original bill. The “T” community was in the original bill; your other groups were not. I was posting on, you know, the original topic.
“Well…except that you’re ‘standing together’ with just the people you like.”
How do you know I like any of them? Conversely, how do you know I dislike any of them? You know little of what I like. To paraphrase you, “Let’s try and keep who likes whom clear.” You would do well to practice what you preach. Let’s dispense with the straw-Bonnies, shall we?
“Please note that I’m not trying to argue that for a gay rights activist to be consistent they have to argue for freedom for every other sexual minority” “I don’t know enough about the law in this area to comment.”
Great. Then shut the fuck up and stop this ridiculous, tedious, snitty, snot-nosed, asinine, high-school debate team devil’s advocate bullshit (you know, the shit you pull in virtually every thread on Alas). You bring nothing to the table in LGBTQ discussions.
“I do believe it to be the case that an activist who makes the reasonable decision to firewall their activities must forego the temptation to claim democratic universality for the principles they’re espousing”
I do not believe I have ever made such a claim. Another straw-Bonnie!
“What’s your objection to [pederasts’] inclusion in the category of ‘sexual minorities’?”
What’s my objection?!? Are you fucking kidding me?!? You jerkoff. I’ll defer to Holly’s reasoning: “[C]ategories of pedophilia and bestiality are generally held to be in a different category than other “sexual minorities” because of issues of consent. Minors and animals are not considered, by law or culture, to be capable of making decisions about their own well-being, including ones around sexual activity.”
And further, from Holly: “the line here has been well-tread in many discussions.”
You can read, right? You’ve read threads here before on LGBTQ issues. Are you being obtuse on purpose? Or are you just being intentionally provocative?
“If your objection is that pedophiles are hated and reviled, or that you hate and revile them…well, so? Gays are hated and reviled. Transgender people are hated and reviled.”
I hate and revile pedophiles because they hurt children. The physical, psychological, and emotional hurt they cause children is unconscionable and is why pedophiles will never be included, not because they are hated and reviled. And your “well, so” remark – could you be more of an ass?
“If your objection is that many of the things pedophiles do are illegal, again I inquire as to the consistency between them and gays. Homosexual behavior used to be illegal, still is in some places.”
Illegality is not the argument being made and you generally seem far too sophisticated to believe that it is. Plenty of activities are illegal that shouldn’t be (e.g., selling sex toys in Alabama); I do not now and have never adhered to the idea that just because something has been so in that past that it should forever be so in the future. To sum up your point in a word: specious.
“If your objection is that pedophiles engage in coercive practices. . . . .”
What? You’re really reaching now. Again, specious – the entire paragraph. You’re arguing just for the sake of doing so. As I urged above, drop the high-school debate team argument-for-the-sake-of-argument nonsense. You’re just flapping your (metaphorically speaking) gums for the sake of doing so.
“Is there a coherent difference between a polyamorist and a transgendered person, in terms of it being legally or morally OK to discriminate against one but not the other?”
No. Absolutely not. Of course not. Should Myca desire to, and actually, find multiple consenting adult partners willing to enter a multi-partner marriage, I would fully support them in their quest to do so. And believe me, this sort of marital arrangement is coming. More than likely not in our lifetimes, but in the not to far-off future.
“So you’re welcome to tell me to fuck off and ignore me, but it leaves me thinking you have no response, not that I’m bad and wrong.”
(1) If the only reason you can think of why someone would not respond to your vile trolling [thank you, Holly] is that the person has no response, you’re a damned fool, and further you lack imagination, insight, and empathy.
(2) You are bad.
(3) You are wrong.
(4) Okay: FUCK. OFF.
Robert, do not ever EVER pull this crap with me again. On any topic, but particularly about LGBTQ issues. I find you a vile, worthless hunk of shit for how you conduct your discourse on this site. You do little but delight in inciting anger with your bullshit devil’s advocate wah-wah “but what about all these groups you meanies left out” thread-derailing self-centered bloviating ego-stroking jacking off.
I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns. And I hope I have been perfectly painfully unequivocally clear in my expressing myself to you; however, in case I have not, please:
Do not reply to me. Ever. Do not communicate with me / to me / about any of my posts – ever again.
Hugs and kisses,
Bonnie
P.S. – Do the entire planet a big fat favor and keep your sorry ass and your sorry rhetorical devices out of all LGBTQ and feminist discussions FOREVER. Jackass.
I actually got an action email from the Human Rights Campaign asking me to contact my representative and tell them that I support the inclusion of gender identity in ENDA. The language of the form email for your representative was slightly odd, and did not actually go so far as to say that they should oppose ENDA without the inclusion of gender identity, only that they should support the inclusion of gender identity in ENDA.
Not exactly a strong objection, and coming later than I it did from everyone else, but still better than nothing, I guess.
Thanks, Bonnie. I think that you have expressed what many of us have felt for a long time.
Thanks, Jake. I hope he groks it in fullness.
Wow. There but for the grace of god go I.
I sense Amp has it right: to those “in the know,” calling a black man boy is derogatory. And yet in 1987 I did precisely that. I simply didn’t know any better. So I can’t help but feel for Robert here.
Apparently I’m not very “in the know” on these issues either. I did not read Robert’s remarks as an intent to stigmatize gays, lesbians and transgendered people. Rather, I read them as an effort to introduce a note of humility into what was largely a list of uncritical self-congratulatory posts about solidarity (with a side discussion about the need to identify “suspect categories” for purposes of employment discrimination law).
Whatever thoughts people may have about the messenger, I think he makes a fair point: Much of the arguments about the harm of passing a bill that excludes protections for trans people also applies to passing a bill that excludes polyamourous people. Why did the original bill exclude polyamourous people? I haven’t heard.
Careful.
nobody.really:
As a polyamorous person, I’d agree that there’s no coherent moral reason to exclude polyamorous people from a bill like this.
At the same time, I think that there are coherent reasons to exclude polyfolk on effectiveness grounds. That is, it seems likely to me that including protections for polyamorous people would make it extremely unlikely that the bill would get passed at all, and I’d rather have half a loaf than none . . . even when I’m the one who gets shorted their half of the loaf.
I think that the same logic could apply to including protection for transfolk in the bill, and that’s obviously why they decided not to include those protections. I don’t see anything wrong with this in theory, but I disagree that in this case this exclusion will be effective in passing the bill. I’ve been convinced by the posts here that 1) excluding protection for transfolk will not significantly increase support/decrease opposition for the bill, 2) excluding protection for transfolk does significantly damage the coalition that has supported this bill all along, and 3) since I believe 1 and 2, I find excluding protection for transfolk from this bill to be morally indefensible. That is, yes, there are compromises, and I’m not opposed to compromises, but I am solidly opposed to throwing your allies under the bus for little benefit, and I think that’s what this is.
—Myca
PS. I also think it’s interesting to look at this in the context of the Michfest ‘superheroes’ comic Amp referenced some time back, and the idea that ‘we’re all on the same team’ until it becomes inconvenient.
“I sense Amp has it right: to those “in the know,” calling a black man boy is derogatory. And yet in 1987 I did precisely that. I simply didn’t know any better. So I can’t help but feel for Robert here.”
If you’ve been involved in political conversations on Alas for as long as Robert has, and if you’ve been reading other feminist and LGBTQ blogs, such as Pandagon, then you have no legitimate claim to ignorance on the issue of why Robert’s comparison between homosexuals and pedophiles is unequivocally unacceptable.
I don’t know. Investigate the legislative history yourself.
I suspect that, from a purely mechanical standpoint, it has something to do with the fact that at present polyfolk are not actively represented by any of the groups sponsoring the bill, they do not actively participate (to my knowledge) as a group with any of the groups sponsoring the bill, and thus they have not made themselves a constituent in the groups sponsoring the bill.
And here, Myca, I think I have to disagree with you a tad. I don’t believe that the “mainstream” groups (e.g., GLAD, GLAAD, HRC, Lambda Legal, NGLTF, and etc.) subscribe at all to “we’re all on the same team” in re: polyfolk. I don’t necessarily think that’s a good thing, but it’s just what it appears to be as I interpret their use of “LGBT.”
I reiterate that I do not find polyamory as practiced by consenting adults to be objectionable on any level, nor for any reason. In fact, I think there are numerous aspects of it that are positive. Polyfolk were not thrown under the bus vis a vis the deletions from the original bill as they were not a part of the original bill, good, bad, or otherwise.
Oh, and Myca? If I actually ever get half a loaf, I would be honored to share it with you.
Jake Squid, I’m uncomfortable with your post, which smacks of gangpiling.
Nobody Really, if Robert had limited his comparison to polyamory — as your defense of Robert did — I never would have criticized it. The issue and argument Robert brought up is legitimate; bringing it up with a comparison to pederasty, regardless of his intent, was hurtful and insensitive.
Hey, Bonnie, I may have phrased things badly . . . I don’t think they subscribe to that either, I don’t think it’s wrong or weird for them not to subscribe to that, and I don’t think that they threw polyfolk under the bus.
In other words, we agree. :-)
What I was saying is that excluding transfolk from this bill would be throwing transfolk under the bus and would be a blow to professed unity . . . which is why I made the comparison in my PS.
—Myca
Ah, then, yes indeed we agree. ;)
roberts arguments are common from the religious right, and i’d like to counter them with more than the fact that they’re hurtful and insensitive.
using this logic, i’d argue that trans people are not part of the category of “sexual minorities”. being trans is surely not sexual – it has nothing to do with sexual behavior. i know a good number of trans people who are asexual. nor is it a “minority preference”. most of the women i know wear pants. i’d argue that the majority of people on this planet exhibit some attributes of transgender behavior.
that said, i wouldn’t categorize lgbt people into the same group that includes pedophiles, polyamorists, and bestialists. it’s easy to oppress and discriminate against people when one is free to categorize them as they please, especially when one is part of the ruling class.
i’d argue that your suggestion is a typical “bait and switch” tactic. you start your argument with pedophiles, and finish with polyamorists. again, using your line of reasoning, one could argue that religious leaders, like say catholic priests who molest children and evangelist christians who are caught in homosexual activities are part of the white male minority. thus, we should start denying white males jobs, healthcare, housing, and other basic human rights.
before you argue about chalk lines, we should be clear about who is holding the chalk and drawing the lines.
the group to which you belong would call me a “fag” while beating the crap out of me, just like they’d call a gay man a “fag” while beating the crap out of him. the chalk lines you draw around “t” and “g” are based on gay and trans people’s behavior that is outside gender roles you have arbitrarily drawn with that same chalk. the other so called “sexual minorities” you describe are not “fags”.
hatred is easily justified by the people who have the chalk when they have the power to use it. talk about being painted (or in this case, chalk lined) into a corner.
The HRC caught a lot of flack from the transgender community earlier this evening at HRC’s Washington, D.C. bash. Good. I hope the fire keeps burning under their bums for their tepid support of transpeople.
I thought people might be interested in the response I got from my representative:
Notice something missing?
My hope is that this is merely the result of his office sending me the boilerplate response to mentioning ENDA in an email, but it is a bit disturbing that gender identity is completely absent from his response.
Further correspondence from Earl Blumenauer:
that said, i wouldn’t categorize lgbt people into the same group that includes pedophiles, polyamorists, and bestialists.
Nexyjo, I would like to know why you categorize polyfolk with pedophiles and bestialists. In explicit detail. Now.
Pop – Did you read Robert’s comments? He set that tone.
Pingback: Xtinian Thoughts » Blog Archive » I love this Bonnie person, and I don’t even know her!