I'm very much a layman when it comes to the ENDA debate -- sure, I'm relatively well-read and well-informed on the issues, and gays and lesbians are a huge part of my family and friend groups, but without the legitimacy of a personal stake in the debate, I've largely avoided weighing in. But the discussion of it here has been so interesting and provocative that I can't help but jump in to note my agreement with John and others who would rather see a GLB ENDA pass in Congress than a GLBT ENDA get voted down.
It's been baffling to me to *yet again* see Democrats, progressives, and activists ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Thirty years to get to this point. Thirty years! And people want a symbolic defeat? For what? For what? These things are wars of attrition; any movement one way or the other is important. You don't win wars by giving up territory because it's not big enough, and to put forth a bill that won't pass instead of an almost-as-good one that will is ceding territory. You don't give up a golden opportunity to benefit tens of millions of people just because it's not 100% perfect. Passing the ENDA bill as it's been written for decades isn't abandoning people, it's establishing a damn foot in the door.
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.
There's this idea that rights would go to GLB *at the expense of* T. I think that is a serious mischaracterization of the situation. This debate is not about whether transgender inclusion has to wait -- that is, unfortunately and sadly, a foregone conclusion. Either it will wait because it's not included, or it will wait because it is included and the bill resultingly fails. Again, a GLB passes in Congress, a GLBT bill doesn't. There is a chance, however, to move forward on rights for tens of millions, and it would be a shame (and a decided failure) to reject that opportunity.
Can you imagine if people had told black Americans they had to wait for the right to vote until women got it as well? After all, that's a similar oppression. Or if we had said a disabled person shouldn't have employment protections until gays could too? Partial victories set the stage for further victory; partial failures set the stage for further failures. The right understand that, but we forget it far too often. (On the opposite side, think about the choice battle: Abortion rights have been whittled down time and time again, and it certainly isn't because choice foes refused to pass bills unless they outlawed abortion altogether.)
It's important to note that I have nothing but respect for those who have honest and sound disagreements on this. I think the vast majority of people who reject a non-T ENDA do so for principled and idealistic reasons, and this is obviously an issue that friends disagree on. Still, I would much prefer an ENDA that passes Congress to one that goes down in flames.
