URGENT UPDATE on ENDA from the
National Center for Transgender Equality
October 18, 2007

House committee decides to advance a version of ENDA that cuts out protections for transgender people

I am writing from the hearing room of the House Committee on Education and Labor. Sadly, I write to report that the Committee just passed by a vote of 27 to 21 the substitute Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that was introduced specifically to exclude transgender and other gender variant people.

We are greatly disappointed that the committee chose to move forward with a bill that is not endorsed by a single LGBT organization. It is historically unprecedented that Congress would pass a civil rights law that the civil rights community--including those it is meant to protect--do not want.

Tremendous effort by over three hundred organizations--including NCTE--and tens of thousands of individuals came close to fixing ENDA after it was precipitously gutted to exclude gender identity and transgender people. Unfortunately, we have fallen short at this stage.

It is not over. NCTE will continue over the next few days to look for opportunities to impact H.R.3685 to return to it the original intent of H.R.2015.

Additionally, because it is very unlikely that any Employment Non-Discrimination Act will be signed into law, NCTE and many of our allies will continue to work to demand an ENDA in the next Congress that meets the needs of the LGBT.

NCTE applauds the efforts of the many individuals and organizations who have worked so hard thus far on behalf of all LGBT people. We especially applaud the very brave NO votes cast this morning by absolutely firm LGBT supporters who voted NO as a statement that ENDA without gender identity is not worth passing. These members, who deserve our thanks for standing so strongly on moral principle include Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH).

The National Center for Transgender Equality is a national social justice organization devoted to ending discrimination and violence against transgender people through education and advocacy on national issues of importance to transgender people. The National Center for Transgender Equality is a 501(c)3 organization. For more information, please visit www.nctequality.org.

In the words of the late great Yogi Berra, "It ain't over 'til it's over." The Baldwin Amendment to H.R. 3685 has support, and if nothing else, it's a way to let it be known that we are not accepting defeat.

Additionally, even before all this happened, I had a conversation with Mara Keisling during which we discussed one part of the strategy that even then was being planned for spring 2009, with the expectation that Dubyah would never sign any version of ENDA into law, so do not despair. In the meantime, just keep the pressure up on your representatives to support the Baldwin Amendement to H.R. 3685, and to oppose any version of the bill that does not include gender identity.

Any victory will be symbolic, but will send a clear message to the 2009 session of Congress as to what will be expected of them.

http://www.house.gov/writerep

Yes, an important distinction has been made, but for the wrong reasons, and by the wrong people.

In the final analysis, this whole ENDA thing isn't really about sexual orientation or gender identity at all. It's about conformity. What Congressman Frank and Joe Solomnese don't recognize is that by leaving gender identity out of this legislation, they provide a means for employers to continue to discriminate at will against workers who do not necessarily conform to a social standard of perception based solely on the superficial criterion of their appearance.

The possibility still exists under this legislation in its current state to discriminate against an individual, LGBT or not, because their appearance does not conform to the social standard of the binary gender model. A woman who cannot or will not wear makeup and high heeled shoes, or a man who refuses to wear a necktie in accordance with a company dress code, for any reason, can be terminated or not hired simply because an employer can say "we don't like the way you look."

While this has always been the case, and it's not like this non inclusive version of ENDA has suddenly declared that this can be done, what it has done has been to emphasize to those employers who might be so inclined that it's OK to discriminate on this basis, and in fact, only really perpetuates a "don't ask don't tell" mentality. It says that it's OK to be different as long as you don't look different. In fact, though it maintains the status quo in this respect, it might cause some employers to whom it might not have previously occurred to use this as a means to terminate some workers or deny opportunities to candidates in accordance with their personal perception of what is "normal," thus possibly actually increasing discrimination.

What this is really about is a labor issue. In this land of opportunity, where jobs are being outsourced overseas by the thousands, and many of those jobs that remain are being occupioed by foreign workers in increasing numbers (the federal government is the single largest employer of undocumented aliens), any law that says it's OK to deny American workers, ANY American workers the opportunity to provide for themselves and their families, is harmful to our productivity, our ability to compete in the international marketplace, our prosperity as a nation.

This law is not just wrong to LGBT people, but to all Americans. It does us all a disservice, and expresses a class consciousness on the part of those entrusted to represent our best interest that is just unacceptable and completely inconsistent with the principles upon which this country was founded.

First off let me say I do feel we need fair employment rights, but let me also be the devil's advocate. As someone who has hired and fired hundreds over the years, I see two sides to this debate. One, the gender identity issue which I believe it to be wrong to not hire or fire anyone based simply on that. Two, the employer's right to protect their image.

As an employer, I have an image to uphold to my customers, basically professionalism. A broad based equal rights protection for TG's opens the door for CD's to toss on a wig and come to work looking like a guy in a dress and say to their employer tough cookies you can't fire me because of my gender identity. TG is just to broad of an umbrella to grant across the board protection. Sure you can toss in a lot of "ifs" like what if she only dresses in her free time, but the bill does not say that. There are clear difference between TS's being fulltime and other gender identity gals in the TG spectrum. Laws need to be specific and to the point, they should start off small and broaden as needed. You can't start off broad then take rights away.

There are also clear differences in GLB and T. Gays, lesbians and Bi's go to work looking like everyone else, it is clearly correct that they should not be judged on their away from work lifestyle. But allowing protection for the entire TG spectrum opens the door for it to be brought to work. Therefore I believe protection should be limited for those TS's with proper documentation, and once the employer is provided with that documentation, specific rights become enforceable.

As a business owner I believe I should have the right to hire and fire anyone I want. Some may not like me for this but that is my belief. Obviously I am anti union. It has been talked about jobs going overseas, etc., there are employee rights and there is employee greed. Good employers take care of their employees with or without unions. Therefore any rights need to be specific. I don't believe I should be stuck employing anyone who projects the wrong image for my business.

Kristina, just a quick rebuttal because I understand and don't have any issues with with your opinion.

1. The CD tossing on a wig was an extreme example to point out why the laws need to be specific, a point I made a couple times.

2. I never used the word attractive in my description of looking professional. Professional refers to more than attire when describing looking professional, it also refers to mannerisms how job duties are carried out. Will the customer feel confident that a job was done right. A good example is two companies show up to give a price on a home repair, one has an old truck that looks like it is ready to fall apart, the other has a clean well maintained vehicle. Fact is most people want to do business with the company that projects success. Doesn't matter the two companies are capable of equal quality work. Samething can be applied to the people doing the work.

3. You paint all companies as being evil because they want to make a profit. It is that profit that allows them to hire people in the first place. Ask yourself this, how many jobs do poor people create? As in every part of life there is good and bad. Somehow you think companies don't care, fact is they care more then most people believe because they want to keep their businesses running. If they go broke this topic on equal employment rights is pretty much a moot point because nobody will have a job.

I believe a transitioning TS should have employment protection. I don't believe all TG's should have special protection, nor should they need it as long as they are law abiding and a good worker.

I was going to wait for a few more negative comments to my earlier reply but since I'm worked up on this topic I may as will express more of my OPINION.

My opinion is that everyone is approaching this a&* backwards. The first thing that needs to be done is for the government to recognize this as a medical issue not a behavioral issue. It doesn't matter if they want to call it mental or physical. And as a medical issue they need to mandate that health professionals and insurance companies treat our condition. After we are recognized as having something real, then we should go for the employment rights.

Right now everyone sees this as a behavioral issue, along with being tied to sexual behavior with the GLBT group. No other community gets special equal employment rights based on behavior, so why does anyone expect we should get it.

So once again I say we need to get the GLB out of the T. We are apples and oranges. If you happen to be a TG that is G,L or B, thats fine go fight for that cause. Personally I only care about the T and I see the GLB hurting me.

True that the idea must be advanced that Gender Identity Dysphoria needs to be accurately characterized as a medical condition. Also true that the average crossdresser is not necessarily interested in transitioning in the workplace, so it would seem that the idea of integrating transitioning TS people into the American workplace would be a sort of self regulating process.

However, it's not just transgender people who are affected by ENDA. It's any person who, for whatever reason does not conform to the standard of appearance consistent with the binary gender model. A woman who keeps her hair short and doesn't wear makeup or skirts. A man who has long hair and maybe pierced ears. It's anyone who, despite their proficiency or otherwise professional appearance, doesn't look exactly like everyone else.

Of course, this practice of enforcing appearance of conformity has always been commonly accepted business practice and perfectly legal, but what this ENDA controversy has done has been to emphasize this issue in such a way that some employers to whom it may not have previously occurred that they can get away with terminating someone due to their appearance, or refuse to hire a person because their appearance might suggest a sexual orientation or gender identity the employer is not comfortable with, may take advantage of this.

The issue of appearance suggesting gender identity is the very heart of the problem that the entire LGBT community takes exception with where Congressman Frank and Joe Slomnese, two straight appearing affluent gay men are concerned, as the ENDA bill in its present state really doesn't even provide protection for many of the people it is "intended" to protect. It provides only a token protection to LGB people, as long as they don't "look" LGB. This hasn't opened closet doors fro LGB people any more than it has T people. Unless the legislation includes the entire range of LGBT, it is worthless for anyone in any of these categories.

To address the issue of what businesses are affected by federal discrimination legislation, or most other federal labor statutes, to the best of my recollection, it applies to those employers with 15 or more employees and an annual income of over a certain amount.

Yes, we do need to establish a political identity that is independent of the gay agenda, however in this case, popular public perception has created the necessity for the groups to be included together for the success of this legislation. We've come this far in this fight. It's too late to turn back now. It's all inclusive or nothing.

Support the Baldwin Amendment to H.R. 3685. Oppose a non inclusive version of this bill.

http://www.house.gov/writerep

What city is that, Karen?

Kristina, although we seem to be on opposite sides of the fence, I understand and respect your opinion. I was not always the "owner" and the reason I am now is because I did not like how my former company operated.

I do think you helped make my point though. First off, anti discrimination laws have little if any effect preventing employers from hiring who they want. In most cases they are only enforceable on job promotions within a company. But as far as hiring and firing, with minimal simple documentation it is easy to get around.

Next, you thought it was bad that you did not get holiday pay if you were 6 minutes late. Sounds like you still had a job, I would fire you. I have customers that expect to have a service person there when they are told someone will be there. I bet you complain when the cable guy arrives late, yet for you it should be ok to come to work late.

The reason I included mental is if it were to be handled just like alcoholics, it's considered a disease and employers are obligated to allow for treatment of that disease. It is when the alcoholic does not disclose their situation and allow it interfere with their work that they can justly be fired. I feel our health is more important than our jobs and health insurance should universally cover TS needs. Most insurance policies already cover mental therapy which should be adequate for CD's.

We have different ideas, doesn't mean mine or your's is any better than the others. Maybe shake them together and see what we end up with and try that.

Hi Kristina. I agree fully that hiring is the at the whim of an employer and that is why I feel realistically that an equal employment rights bill does little if anything. It is basically a feel good law with no teeth. A brief moment of glory no better then winning a race which in the end is soon forgotten.

I'm sure there are good and bad unions just as there are good and bad companies. Also there are good and bad employees. Not everyone has a good work ethic and often it comes down to giving employees an inch and they take two. I lived in a big city for 30 years, if it meant leaving a half hour early to be on time, I left early. I never was the type of person to arrive just as the bell rang.

Oh I completely agree this is biological, but I guess the point I was trying to make is our focus should be getting others to understand we are normal people who happen to have a birth defect, and the proper help for us is to allow us to transition and help provide the necessary treatment as they would for any other disorder.

Right now the general public sees us as freaks, and all an employment law does is say you can't fire someone just because they are a freak. The simple answer to that is don't hire them in the first place. That is why laws like this backfire in the first place. What is originally intended to give us equal footing in obtaining work, soon becomes just another thing employers have to deal with as if they didn't already have enough. So you just don't take the problem on in the first place. What many fail to see when they get all excited about laws like this, is you end up hanging a sign around your neck saying "I am a potential problem that you will have a hardtime getting rid of." So once again prospective employers look at that and say I think I will pass on this one. These laws will hurt us more than they will help us.

I think that most of our effort needs to be made from the health issue side. Doctors and Insurance companies need to acknowledge us as real people with medical needs. The general public accepts the opinions of doctors far better than those of people marching around demanding equal rights. What the general public hears in these equal rights issues is that they are being told they have to accept freaks. When a doctor says "No, this is actually a real health issue," more of the general public says "hmm, maybe there is something to all this."

We already have equal rights as normal people. Do you prefer to have equal rights as a freak? With that said everyone should be able to see where I stand on ENDA. I want health care readily available for TS's first. I want more pressure on doctors to let the public know we are not freaks, we were born this way, and there is medical treatment available to take care of us.

In my union local, 15 minutes early was considered on time, and showing up even two minutes late could result in being sent home and replaced for that day. This could mean a loss of several hundred dollars, or if it was a week long show, could cost a couple of thousand. You can bet members of our local learned to tell time in a hurry. Those who were chronically late could be barred from working in a particular theater or venue for some period of time or suspended altogether.

This attitude stays with me to this day, and I have no tolerance for lateness.

Currently, I am engaged in negotiation with my health insurance carrier. My employer listed me as female on my policy, and that's pretty cool, but where my estrogen would not have been covered if I were listed as M, it turns out that my finasteride is not covered because I am listed as F. The estrogen is less expensive, so it seems I might have been better off staying with the other. I have offered to work with them to put together specific policies and procedures applicable to transgender workers.

Anyway, I am still a big believer in collective bargaining. If all employers were on the up and up, it wouldn't be necessary, but sadly, that is not the case. We do need to continue educating people as to the physiological aspects of the trans condition, and eventually, maybe we'll be at the point where they are in the UK. We shall see.

Today while talking about what congress does to waist time, Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh summed things up pretty good. Rush Limbaugh was talking about wednesday's vote by congress to pass ENDA. He did not bad mouth the bill, but he stated that these people (GLBT) talk about equal rights for everyone, but they can't even stand up for their own, the transgendered, transexuals. I can't say it any better. It is time to get the GLB out of our T.

Maybe something good will actually come of this, eventually. The 'T' has clearly been separated which I personally think is a good thing since we now have the opportunity to distance ourselves from the sexual issues of the LGB. We didn't belong there anyway.

We can still be pushing for change but this time it will be specifically for TG people.

Nikki

A little light in a dark corner. I scanned this out of todays paper.

Detroit Mi.
I can't believe I didn't say that.