Hello,
I thought I'd post this here. It's a link to site that is not only a petition for ENDA, but will also send a letter to your Senators and Congressmen.

http://www.rallycongress.com/enda/

Please go and show your support for the community!! We need all the voices we can get!!!
~Jasmine

The Government can not enforce the laws it has now. We do not need more laws we need better government and much better enforcement or just get rid of the laws they will not enforce.

Yeah, Lisagurl, let's work against legal reforms for trans equality. That works. 

On a serious note, I signed the petition with a lengthy personal note, and fleshed that out into a personalized letter for Pelosi, Feinstein and Boxer. Done and done.

I also signed it.  Yes there are laws on the books that are not enforced, but they are still there and enforceable.  I agree with a better government, but until then we have laws, and ( shutter ) lawyers.

"but they are still there and enforceable."
==============
It is called selective enforcement which is worse than no law at all.

Quote from: lisagurl on April 27, 2010, 04:15:05 PM
It is called selective enforcement which is worse than no law at all.

I would disagree with this statement. Currently, there is no legal recourse for discrimination of TG people at the federal level. Not only would ENDA allow one to seek reconciliation through the courts, it would also send a message to the entire world that the US, at it's heart, does not condone discrimination.

Instead of the current message of 'well, it depends.'

But, I'm under no illusion that it's going to change much of anything.

Look, good law (and I think this is what Lisa was trying to get at) is organic.  It comes from the bottom up, not the top down.  Law works, and it only works - see: marijuana - when everybody believes in it and works to enforce it.  To get to that point, you need to work it out, rather than just impose it - see: marijuana.

So that (or at least in my understanding) working it out, on a basic level, with the citizens of that community coming to a common understanding is not only the best way, but pretty much the only way, to bring about real change.  So that, in fact, the places that will really benefit from EDNA are places where it's already the local law, then it became the state law.  Places like San Francisco - there the entire majesty of the law from top to bottom will read the same way, and there is a real power in that.  Being wrong under local, state and federal law means you have no other court to take refuge in.  You lose.

But, in places where there is no local or state law in place, it does not make it much better on a day to day basis because it's awful damn hard to just up and start a federal case.  Just because it's against federal law don't mean the power of the Federal Government is yours now to command.  That would be a total misunderstanding.  So it's not going to have a real power in changing places where EDNA is really needed in the short run.  Over the course of decades, sure.  And law is not only about the short run, but also about the long run too.

Quoteit would also send a message to the entire world that the US, at it's heart, does not condone discrimination.

To discriminate is very useful and important human activity. We discriminate on products we buy on food we eat the cloths we wear and on the culture we live. I would not want to live in a world without discrimination. I would not want to work with people that did not want to associate with me. I would not want to have to worship a with a universal religion. I prefer to have the right to discriminate between people and things I think that are important in life. The world would think us as weak and none cultured if we did not discriminate.

  Lisagurl, you know what Jasmine meant. Don't be a prig.

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on April 29, 2010, 02:06:53 AM
Lisagurl, you know what Jasmine meant. Don't be a prig.

Discriminating people are no different. Would want to be forced to provide a service to a rapist or anyone who you disagree with?

Lisagurl, I can respect your opinion but I disagree with you.

I strongly believe that no person should be forced into economic hardship because of their expression or past. Firing someone for being TG is no better than firing a GG because she's a girl or firing someone based on the color of their skin. We are all entitled to employment and, once employed, should be judged on the merits of our accomplishments rather then personal prejudice.

As a nation, we've been dealing with the issue of civil liberties since our founding. We've come a long way, but still have a ways to go. Historically, laws and court orders have proven to be the most effective method for ensuring them.

Comparing TG's to rapists is just plain wrong.

Quote from: lisagurl on April 29, 2010, 09:06:37 AM
Discriminating people are no different. Would want to be forced to provide a service to a rapist or anyone who you disagree with?

You should, and I should. Laws that force people to provide goods and services to people they don't like are what prevent racists from putting up "whites only" - or "no transgender people" - signs in their businesses.

Laws can't prevent racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc., but they can to a certain extent prevent people from acting on those things by, for example, preventing someone from entering their bar or restaurant because they're trans.

This is different from expelling a trans person from a bar or restaurant because that trans person is shouting and yelling, or harassing other customers. That's perfectly fine; that's a sort of "discrimination," if you will, that's still valuable and needed.

Keeping society somewhat open to a criminal such as a rapist or bank robber is important, because we all need to try our best to help such people re-integrate into society and lead a life free of crime. It's important to be cautious around such people, of course, but spurning them entirely will tend to lead them towards committing more crime and becoming more involved in the career criminal lifestyle.

So at bottom, this is not an argument about whether "discrimination" is good or bad per se, but what kind of discrimination is good, and what kind is bad.

I said "don't be a prig" because Jasmine was clearly using the shorthand definition of "discrimination" - referring to racism, sexism, homophobia etc.

QuoteFiring someone for being TG is no better than firing a GG because she's a girl or firing someone based on the color of their skin.

The fact is people are hired to make the business money. If you do not fit that mode you are fired. No employer is firing anyone who is making them money. I have been in many business and have seen many workers. Some are very strange. They do not work with the public. Making money with public exposer means you need to be neutral and fit a general description that everyone accepts. Why do you think many news hosts come from the Midwest because they have a no accent. A business can not afford to put people with certain attributes in situations that are not congruent with that job. One size does not fit all. Gender and sex should not interrupt the work place. Many live lifestyles that will not let them control themselves on the job. Those are reasons for firing. You will not find a securities salesman with a big star tattooed on their forehead.

---

Post Merge: April 29, 2010, 03:58:02 PM

---

QuoteYou should, and I should. Laws that force people to provide goods and services to people they don't like are what prevent racists from putting up "whites only" - or "no transgender people" - signs in their businesses.

No shoes, no shirt, No service. Business has a choice of who they want to do business with. As a consultant I will not work for people who are polluting the environment. Why would anyone want to give money to someone who hates them?

---

Post Merge: April 29, 2010, 05:09:10 PM

---

QuoteThat's perfectly fine; that's a sort of "discrimination," if you will, that's still valuable and needed.

That is the discrimination that is practiced. If a bar has a reputation for having certain clientèle and someone comes and disrupts the setting they are removed. If a person comes into a mostly male bar dressed like a prostitute and flirts, the owner has a right to remove them as his reputation could be tarnished. Life can not be determined by national laws. Each case is a special issue and deserves special attention.

I have transitioned in the so called bigoted south and never I repeat "NEVER" been discriminated against. The secret is to be normal and not flaunt your status.

Quote from: lisagurl on April 29, 2010, 04:53:50 PM
I have transitioned in the so called bigoted south and never I repeat "NEVER" been discriminated against. The secret is to be normal and not flaunt your status.

The secret is to be secret, in other words. It's impossible for queers or trans people to be "normal." "Normal" people are cisgender and straight (and white, and upper- or upper-middle-class, and Christian, etc.).

If you wouldn't consider it reasonable to ask a straight cisgender person to hide who and what they are - and I sure as hell wouldn't - why would you ask that of a transgender person?
The fact is that the reasons for passing are social and safety-related: if people find out you're trans they'll spurn you and cease to regard you as the gender that you are, and you may be in physical danger as a result.
In other words, if the South wasn't by and large bigoted, you wouldn't need to pass.

Also, what about people who simply can't pass? Are their needs less valid? What about androgynous/intergendered people, for whom expressing their gender has the unfortunate side effect of standing out?



Most disturbing to me is that you dodged the assertion of the difference between kicking someone out for making noise or being shirtless and kicking someone out for being black, or gay, or trans. You pretend that everyone has the choice to go to a different establishment at all times: a competition-based model of civil liberties.
However, this fails on two accounts: first, that getting kicked out and having to go somewhere else is itself an inconvenience and takes an emotional toll if it happens constantly; second, that people often do not have the choice to go to a competitor.
My neighborhood has only one large supermarket, and I do not drive; my shopping is therefore limited to what I am able to transport relatively short distances on foot and via public transit. I can purchase a variety of items at small local ethnic markets, but there are many items that only the Safeway carries. If they were to bar me entry because I am transgender, I would be effectively unable to cook with those items. On a greater level of severity, what if the electrical company were run by a very right-wing owner who decided that the company would turn away transgender customers? How would I fight that except by recourse to the courts?

You seem to be making the classic mistakes of naive free market economic logic that (a) businesses are always perfectly rational profit-seeking actors and (b) competition will always develop for every product and service, unless the government interferes. "Whites only" signs on yesteryear's businesses disprove the first idea - after all, black and brown customers' money fuels profits just as effectively as white customers' money - and the local electricity monopoly of Pacific Gas & Electric in our very minimally regulated energy market disproves the second.

Remember, businesses are run by people, not computers, and people can be quite irrational.

QuoteIt's impossible for queers or trans people to be "normal."

No they just want to impose their cultural on everyone else. I can go to any foreign country and be respectful of their culture and not have problems.  Life is cooperation not resistance with society.

QuoteIf you wouldn't consider it reasonable to ask a straight cisgender person to hide who and what they are - and I sure as hell wouldn't - why would you ask that of a transgender person?

These situations happen all the time outside your home culture. When in Rome do as the Romans. What happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas.

QuoteAlso, what about people who simply can't pass? Are their needs less valid?

"
They need to think long and hard as to what life has instore for them. That is why many commute suicide as they are unprepared to live as a freak in the eyes of culture. It costs over 100K to get some people to pass. Some can not afford transition. Those who DIY  are in for a big surprise if they survive the unsupervised drugs.

Life depends on society. If you want to be an out cast then live with the result of your choice.

---

Post Merge: April 29, 2010, 07:42:54 PM

---

QuoteHow would I fight that except by recourse to the courts?

Move. Your inconvenience is not anybodies problem but your own.

QuoteYou seem to be making the classic mistakes of naive free market economic logic

You are free to start your own business. No mistake about it business depends on customers who have the choice to shop with you or not. If I were you I would vote with my money at those places that accommodate your needs and not spend a penny at those you do not like.

QuoteRemember, businesses are run by people, not computers, and people can be quite irrational.

Welcome to the real world. I hear solar works well in CA.

If you even need solar.  I've lived in this place for over five years, never turned the heat on once.  Mediterranean climate and all.  That and being on the upper floor of a multi-floor building.  But the pool was nice and warm for my afternoon swim and the hot tub is very hot in the evening when I take my tub.  Financial problems on the state level aside, its still better to be here then in New Jersey.


If you know your history
Then you would know where you're coming from
Then you wouldn't have to ask me
Who the 'eck do I think I am
  -Bob Marley.

As a matter of fact businesses refusing to do business with you is a very old tradition.  The old South knew it well as Quakers, a very predominate business/merchant class in the antebellum era absolutely refused to do business with slave holders, or anyone who made their money in the slave trade.  That, to them, was a matter of honor.

Another fact is that all over SF there are guys standing outside of clubs like Ten15 deciding who gets in, and who does not.  Sure it's discrimination when the group of 4 cute hot chicks get in and the 2 dweeb guys don't.  Life in the big city and all.  I'm sure Lisa could not get a job being a cocktail waitress in a lot of those clubs, not because she is trans, but because she is too old, and doesn't wear those kind of clothes.

Heck, some forms of discrimination are still A-OK, like fat people.  Lots of people who would never think about posing a 'no blacks' or 'no gays' sign have no trouble telling other people to go be fat somewhere else.

What is forbidden is not discrimination.  It's class-based discrimination.  If I banned 'all gay', or 'all blacks' or 'all trans persons', that might be bad.  If I only ban you because I don't like the cut of your jib, or the color of your hair - then that's just standard 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone' something I think every business has a right to do.

Lisagurl, I think you're blowing hot air, and I think you know it. If you were really such a damned conformist, you would suffer in silence instead of transitioning, wouldn't you!

Anyone can see that it's eminently illogical to do whatever the culture dictates just because the culture dictates it. We must all struggle as individuals to figure out what makes sense to us, and what we find ethical and logical. You cannot honestly ask a scientist to abandon her pursuit of the scientific method and her promotion of the theory of evolution just because she lives in a deeply religious area. That's plain silly. If it makes her neighbors uncomfortable, well, that's what standards of civility and tolerance are for. A culture that values satisfying others' expectations over critical thinking is a culture of sheep, a culture without innovation or substance. It may be stable, but it goes nowhere, explores no new directions, fulfills no major goals aside from social sustainability and cohesiveness.

The only way for me to avoid resistance, to avoid rocking the boat, is for me to stay closeted and hidden at all times - and I'm not doing that. If you prefer such a life, that's you're prerogative. Don't expect me to do the same.

Lisagurl,
While I strongly disagree with your position, I have learned something from this thread....

I think we get so wrapped up in therapists and support groups and forums and the community that we sometimes forget there's a real world out there, full of real world implications and real world people that are going to discriminate against us, whether we like it or not. It's shocking when one of our own calls us freaks, insists we conform and compares us rapists. The reality is, these things happen to TG's all the time. Just look at the links that Zythyra posts everyday. 

The lesson? Be prepared for serious bigotry should you choose to openly transition, even within our own community.

As I believe every person should be entitled to legal recourse in cases of discrimination, I will continue encouraging people to back ENDA. I fully support it's cause and believe it's the best path forward.   

~Jasmine

QuoteYou cannot honestly ask a scientist to abandon her pursuit of the scientific method and her promotion of the theory of evolution just because she lives in a deeply religious area. That's plain silly.

Bush stopped stem cell research ,many were not happy. He used the government to do it. If you use the laws beware of the things you do not expect. If you set precedents you will find your enemy using the same tactics.

Quote from: lisagurl on April 30, 2010, 08:36:49 AM
Bush stopped stem cell research ,many were not happy. He used the government to do it. If you use the laws beware of the things you do not expect. If you set precedents you will find your enemy using the same tactics.

Which is not the point I was addressing. What I was talking with the scientist comment was the individual's right and duty to reason out their own path and follow that path, and the duty of everyone to respect and tolerate those differences instead of expecting everyone to conform. That has nothing to do with your opposition to government intervention.

Speaking of which, "government power can be used badly" is simply not an argument. Private sector power can be, and is, used badly all the time. You've said as much in previous posts, when talking about corporate abuses and things like modern-day slavery, if I recall. Hell, nonprofit power can be used badly!

Simply saying that government power can be used badly, ergo it shouldn't be used, is therefore silly. If you're going to argue in that direction, you should at least make an effort to balance the potential abuses of government power vs. market power, the advantages and disadvantages of, say, nonprofit organizations vs. governmental methods of achieving social justice.

All power can be used badly. People have died at the hands of governments, corporations, religious organizations, even charities. That isn't a reason not to, in the case of your example, regulate scientific ethical standards. It also completely fails to address the thrust of my original "scientist" example, which was about social dynamics, not government.