Ladies, gentlemen, those otherwise identified: the most obstinate, most forceful antagonist of trans rights among purported LGBT-rights supporters in the United States Congress will not be returning to serve another term. I wish I could be remotely as effusive as the president, who said, "He has stood up for the rights of LGBT Americans and fought to end discrimination against them."
He hasn't. He's stood up for the rights of some Americans who fall into that acronym. Cis gay and lesbian Americans had his tireless advocacy in guaranteeing them the right to serve in uniform, while trans servicemen and women are still subject to medical discharge for the inexorable sin of seeking treatment.
In 2007 he fought for an Employment Non-Discrimination Act that specifically excluded trans people, when he knew the bill was going to be vetoed by President Bush at any rate. After the massive blowback from the LGBT community (as opposed to those whose interests don't actually cover that whole gamut) ensued, he proposed, in the 111th congress, an Employment Non-Discrimination Act that proposed that some trans people, those a little more cisnormative, be more equal than others. As reported by Karen Ocamb:
"There's no chance of doing it without it," he said of the transgender protections.
Frank said he's told wavering Democrats that "the principle is the same. It's discrimination."
He said concessions were made in the drafting of the language to address moderates' concerns. For instance, Frank said, transgender people with "one set of genitals" would not be able to go to a bathroom for people with another set of genitals.
And, Frank said, they also would have to have a "consistent gender presentation" in order to be able to sue for discrimination.
"They can't sit there with a full beard and a dress," Frank said.
So, having floated this bill, which was going to, essentially, make basic human rights and public accommodations for trans people dependent on surgery, and having again received a backlash from the broader LGBT community, the bill died in committee, its key mover having lost interest. The representative's actions couldn't be any more bald-faced if he had tried.
So, considering his record, it's safe to say that Barney Frank repeatedly scuttled the trans-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and supported compromises that would have entirely excluded trans people, or nominally included trans people while specifically allowing bathroom discrimination against trans people. Without bathroom access, employment protections are a farce. We've been there before.
Jesse Helms insisted on compromises that have excluded trans people with disabilities from the Americans with Disability Act and defamed trans people in the text of the law. All these exceptions and exclusions and compromises only support discrimination, while many trans people face unemployment, homelessness, police harassment, and violence. What if the Civil Rights Act had specifically permitted segregation, and specified, in detail, how government and business could legally discriminate on the basis of race? That's what Frank's bathroom compromises amounted to. And he should not be considered a hero to the LGBT community as a result.
He ought to have known better, and the president ought to have, as well.
Rebecca Juro: Thank You, Barney Frank
Chris Tina Bruce: Transgender Rights or Deviant Behavior?
We're not so far apart.
And hating on Barney Frank of all people won't make that day come any faster.
As a result of that non-inclusive bill, trans people protested HRC events all over the country, forcing activists and organizations to choose sides on trans inclusion and putting the fear of God, or at least the fear of us, into the politicians. The reason you never hear Frank, HRC, or any of the other political players on the left calling for a non-inclusive bill anymore is because they know full well that if they tried it we'd be back out there with our protest signs, all over the web with our op-eds, and calling out Congressional Democrats for bigotry and cowardice with gusto. Their biggest mistake was thinking they could pass a non-inclusive bill without much complaint from the mainstream of the community. The reality was very different and permanently changed how ENDA will be advocated and lobbied going forward.
In short, Barney Frank helped us prove that throwing trans people under the bus is no longer good politics for Democrats or for their political lapdogs, the Human Rights Campaign, and that changed everything.
Rep Rob Andrews (D NJ-1st) who's held hearings on the matter.
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc3=&id=76615&pf=1
How about Jerrold Nadler (D NY-8th), who has vowed since 2007 to only vote for an INCLUSIVE Employment Non Discrimination Act?
http://nadler.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=157&Itemid=79
Or maybe HRC could prove that the lobbying they've done has done something for people in the rainbow who aren't cis and bring on Rep. Jeff Flake (R AZ-6th)
But those are only initial ideas, and yes, it's true, that none of these presumably cis people are openly gay lesbian or bissexual. To me though, that's not a deal breaker. Though I wish that with an incidence of transsexuality of about 1 in 100, (not transition but the conservative lower bound on the incidence of those who wish to be recognized as other than their assigned sex) that the approximately 5 trans members of congress would stand up, I understand that's a frightening proposition.
1. have a consistent full time presentation (that is, if you are a guy during the week and a lady on the weekend, then being a lady is a chosen activity and not something you MUST do. this might inconvenience some in the early stages of transition but no worse than they already are. It's simply part of the process of moving through the part-time stage). This would also cover the "beard & dress" cliche since doing something like growing a beard is obviously not full-time female behavior.
2. do not reveal your genitals to others in semi-public settings (bathroom, locker-room, etc) if they are inconsistent with your presentation (which, frankly, i'm betting 99.9% of us would be horrified to do in the first place).
Then I think that would be entirely reasonable. Yes, it leaves a lot of transgender catagories outside the definition of "gender identity" but i think it's legitimate to distinguish between "identity" and "expression" - protecting gender non-conformity ("genderqueer") lifestyles is no more a function of the law than protecting goth lifestyles. Insisting a recreational crossdreser can dress at work is no more appropriate than allowing a recreational sunbather to wear her bikini to her job at the bank. It is not "more trans than thou" to note the difference in being transsexual (which is not optional), and preferring a non-conformist presentation (which is).
It's demeaning at best.
You are NEVER, in our lifetime or our kids lifetimes, going to see a bill which protects every last aspect of "gender-non-conformity"...there ARE things that are a "bridge too far" for almost everyone not actually involved in it. His example of a "beard and a dress" on the same person is an appropriate one. that's not to say that a lot of people wouldn't agree that "if that's your thing, knock yourself out" but in terms of employment, or public accommodations - it's a non-starter and always will be.
I think it's fair to distinguish between people's condition, and their activity, in terms of legal status. A legitimate transsexual, with an actual physical medical condition is NOT the same as a person who enjoys a crosdressing hobby, or a person who philisophically chooses to defy gender stereotypes. I don't see any problem with understanding that distinction when you write the laws. and i fear that those of us who do have a legitimate condition will spend many years without protections because those with the power to pass them won't do so if they have to also protect the crossdresser in the same act.
In politics you have to stand for something, or you accomplish nothing.
Kevin Chamow
The Matthew Sheppard Act. That's it. You really think repeated throwing of trans people under the bus in other situations got forty house votes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_and_James_Byrd,_Jr._Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act#111th_Congress
(That and don't get me started about how I prefer judges to decide on egregious motivations)
If you just want figureheads then that's all you'll get.
If it were about sullen pragmatism, then he wouldn't introduce that bill in '07 in the first place.
Change comes slowly and by degrees. I wish that it did not, but it seems to me, Frank did what he thought best for the overall cause, at the time, although he had to push something less than the overall cause. Does that make sense?
I'd also add that Frank's bill with Dodd is not a good thing, it just pretends to be a good thing. It's an empty suit of regulation. The only thing good in it was the Consumer Protection Bureau and Frank didn't want that in it. Warren had to fight to get it in. Basically what Frank did on regulating Wall Street was immunize us against real regulation by giving us this phony bill.
Frank has a made a big deal that he is not going to be a lobbyist. Yeah, but he's also said what he is going to do: write books, teach and "lecture a little bit." In other words he's going to hit the circuit with books and lectures where he gets the big money.
I have little respect for this man who worked against my rights as a Transsexual Woman and subtly worked to protect Wall Street.
Does this not demonstrate that he was fighting to get as much as he could? No bill passes without votes, and if that's the only way to get some protections, Frank would take what he could get, and continue the fight from there--he did a lot of good for LGBT causes, yes, including the T, and he got a lot of it done while fighting against huge barriers. If politicians like Frank had stomped their feet and insisted on all or nothing, we would still be decades behind where we are now.
An ENDA that didn't protect trans people, it strikes me, was Barney Frank's idea of a clean bill.
Salt Lake City, by the way, has a trans-inclusive rights ordinance including public accommodations, passed years before Massachusetts ever passed their law which does not include public accommodations.