A post on America Blog (http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/enda-laymans-perspective.html) today lays out a balanced and reasoned explanation as to why supporting a version of ENDA that is not trans-gendered inclusive may be the correct thing to do. I am not saying that the transgendered community should be thrown under the bus - simply that political reality has to play in at some point:
It's fascinating to watch this argument play out, because to a large extent the two sides are talking about totally different things. Broadly speaking: On one side, people support including T because it's the right/moral thing to do. On the other, those who would accept a non-T ENDA say it's a good pragmatic, political move (which is its own moral argument, I think, if not specifically presented as such). Here's the thing: I haven't read a single persuasive argument that putting up a T-inclusive ENDA to get voted down in Congress (which it assuredly would, whereas a GLB ENDA would just as assuredly pass) would help the cause of T (not to mention GLB) rights, either in short or long term. Opposing a non-T ENDA is about the symbolism and ideals, rather than tangible benefit or strategy.
I'll take this one step further: Some commenters have opposed a non-T ENDA by asking the question, if ENDA covered, say, just lesbians, should we still support it? The question is meant rhetorically, as if the idea is too ridiculous to be contemplated, but I think one could make a persuasive case that the answer should be . . . yes! If that would pass Congress, and no more progressive alternatives would, you do it. If the most progressive bill you can get through Congress is to create legal protection for all lesbians named Jane in towns whose names start with "W" then you pass that. I'm not saying pass less than you can, but don't torpedo something by including something you *know* is a poison pill. You get what you can, when you can get it. Then when people see that the world hasn't ended, and there are benefits, and we haven't all immediately gone to hell, there's more room for even more advancement.
In short, it is better to support passage of an imperfect bill rather than "stand on principle" and allow thousands of LGB individuals to be fired regularly.
No comments:
Post a Comment