One thing I learned while on military Active Duty is that with more than half the people I dealt with, I had to 'listen' to their actions, not their words. 

I can't count the number of times I was told one thing, and would then behave in a manner appropriate to what I was told, only to find out the actions they had finally taken were at great variance with what they had said they intended to do.  And often my preparatory actions (based on what I'd been told they would do,) would leave me at a disadvantage.  I'd had something stolen from me each time -- time spent preparing, a reputation as a team player, my ability to anticipate and react to the mission, etc.

I had much better luck waiting for them to act, then discerning what their REAL values were and what they really intend thereby.

The recent situation with the Democrats dropping Gender Identity from ENDA bespeaks the same type of situation.  We have been assured of one thing, and have spent time preparing, and some of us have spent money in support of various organizations that have SAID they would support us, no matter what.

But in the end, their actions bespeak a value of us to their campaign like unto a 16oz disposable tumbler -- at the end of the party, we get left behind in the trash.  I'm sure you could come up with some other 'disposable' metaphors on your own...

The GOP has and espouses values.  Of course, those values only include the TBLG community as a kind of counterpoint to their absolute, God-given Morality™.  They are the Gardeners of Eden, and we are the weeds that must be cleared from their pure, orderly beds, lest we cross-pollinate the innocent.

But they have Values.  And they by-God stick to 'em!

The Democrats, on the other hand, do not put values at the forefront.  They have them, all right.  But they will compromise them and set them aside when it appears that to do so will make reaching their goal-du-jour easier.

Hence, they brought us trans-folk along in ENDA.  And when they felt (or feared) that we'd spoil the party, they ditched us to 'save' the bill for the 80% of the TBLG community that presents as str8, saying 'don't worry' we'll come back to pick you up as soon as we get there!' 

Thanks a lot.  By your actions, I now know exactly how strong your 'values' are.  And I know I'll have to get there on my own.

I think I'll save my money for bus fare.

Karen J. Savage

I'm surprised this has become such a "moral" issue. If I was lawmaker, and had been fighting for years and years for GLB protections, and ended up choosing between:

1) Include the T portions of the bill, knowing it won't pass and NO one gets protected

2) Drop the T portions of the bill, most likely getting the GLB to pass, and coming back to the T portion soon as a better-focused and educated proposal than it currently is

I'd pick to drop the T as well.

It's a *practical* matter. I'm really surprised to hear things like "now we know who are REAL friends are" from people here. Just because someone disagrees on the tactics to get these things passed doesn't mean they're immoral or not our "friends" anymore. They're trying to find a way to SAVE it, not drop it forever.

I think it'd be far more immoral to hold back the GLB community from getting the rights they apparently CAN get just to make some moral statement.

~Kate~

Kate, we have always been there. We have been fighting for over 30 years for our rights. It has just been recently that they have included the word transgender. That doesn't mean that the transgender people have not been there, they have, right along our brothers and sisters of the GLB. We were the ones who started the whole process, Stonewall, NY. They were Drag Queens who got tired of being arrested cause they were in womens clothes. We have every right to have the same rights as anyone in the country. To be fired from your job, cause your trans. or to be evicted from your home cause your trans. is not right. I'm sure you don't have too much to worry about, but there are those that will be fired or evicted.
Sheila

Quote from: Sheila on October 01, 2007, 12:49:23 PM
To be fired from your job, cause your trans. or to be evicted from your home cause your trans. is not right. I'm sure you don't have too much to worry about, but there are those that will be fired or evicted.

I agree, but they're not saying that trans people are going to be dropped and then forgotten. Just that it needs to be a separate battle, needing more time to catch up to where the GLB community is now in terms of public acceptance.

And IMHO, it *should* be separate, if needed at all. It's an entirely different fight. Gays are fighting for the right to be different sexually, but TSs are fighting for the right to be considered the same in terms of who they ARE. Being lumped into the GLB community and fight legitimizes those who think of TSs as "variant" and "not really women." It makes TSs sound like oddities in need of special protections *because* they're not real.

It's a catch-22: the more you demand special protections because you're "just another woman," the more you prove you're NOT "just another woman" to them. IMHO.

I know people get fired and picked on for being TS. I don't know the answer to stop that. But I do suspect that as I've been told before, "the bigger a deal you make of this, the bigger a deal they'll think it is."

Transitioned/ing men and women should simply be protected under the same laws which protect any other man or woman, IMHO. If we're truly, legally our target sex, then we don't NEED special protections as "odd" situations. Firing a woman for having been born a boy is the same as firing a woman because she's not pretty enough, or whatever.

~Kate~

Quote from: Kate on October 01, 2007, 08:49:37 AM
I'm surprised this has become such a "moral" issue. If I was lawmaker, and had been fighting for years and years for GLB protections, and ended up choosing between:

1) Include the T portions of the bill, knowing it won't pass and NO one gets protected

2) Drop the T portions of the bill, most likely getting the GLB to pass, and coming back to the T portion soon as a better-focused and educated proposal than it currently is

I'd pick to drop the T as well.

It's a *practical* matter. I'm really surprised to hear things like "now we know who are REAL friends are" from people here. Just because someone disagrees on the tactics to get these things passed doesn't mean they're immoral or not our "friends" anymore. They're trying to find a way to SAVE it, not drop it forever.

I think it'd be far more immoral to hold back the GLB community from getting the rights they apparently CAN get just to make some moral statement.

~Kate~

Being a moral hypocrite is not a strategy.

Its politics, alright, its dirty politics.

Some people do not leave their dying friend on the battlefield. They carry them and try to save them, even if they know they might probably die anyways because that's what solidarity is about, and the "stark reality" is that the democrats have no solidarity with the trans people.

Literally, trans people are dying and suffering because of the employment issues, and their supposed allies are telling them they will come back and save them at a later time when they are already bleeding?


If they have no intention of form solidarity with trans people, at least have the deceny to not pretend they are every minority's best friends.

I am just courious does anyone have a link to the actual bill I have seen so much on this that i would truely like to read the complete discription myself. maybe someone here can answer a few questions I have.

does this bill extend protections so that someone cannot be made so miserable at work over these issues that they are forced to quit? (just because an employer can't fire someone doesn't mean they can't get rid of them in other ways!)

from what I am understanding the gender identity portion of this would protect more than just transgender persons it would also protect anyone from being told they are not masculine or feminine enough for certian jobs am I incorrect about this? and if this is the case isn't dropping this part of the bill still leaving even the gay community open to being discrimated against (maybe not specifically for gayness but for not fitting into the sterotypical gender role) so still anyone who was not considered macho or lady like this bill would still not make anything better for them correct?

if the employers can still fire someone by saying we just don't think you fit in with our company because you are not masculine or feminine enough isn't passing this bill with out those protections just a smoke screen because how much would really be changed to most who would discrimate for these types of reasons being gay means that you are less than masculine and being lesbian means that you are less than feminine. so couldn't they just say that the person wasn't masculine or feminine enough for the image of the company just on the basis of sexual orientation with out saying that thier sexual orientation had anything to do with it to begin with!

I guess I am just confussed (not for the first time in my life!) but if any of this could happen I don't see how this bill going through without the gender identity protections would really help anyone at all!

Quote from: Jessie_Heart on October 01, 2007, 01:36:32 PM
I am just courious does anyone have a link to the actual bill

Wiki article, scroll to the bottom for the TG part...

~Kate~

Quote from: Kate on October 01, 2007, 01:43:43 PM

Quote from: Jessie_Heart on October 01, 2007, 01:36:32 PM
I am just courious does anyone have a link to the actual bill

Wiki article, scroll to the bottom for the TG part...

~Kate~

thank you I guess my understanding of this was way off!