Jillian Weiss sent a message to the members of Inclusive ENDA.

——————–

Subject: Please email these Senators

Dear Inclusive ENDA members:

After much consideration, it appears that there are 17 Senators to specifically target in the Senate based on party and voting patterns. They are the “swing” votes that will make or break ENDA. If you are in one of these Senator’s states, it is particularly important that you email them and ask them to support an inclusive ENDA that includes both sexual orientation and gender identity.

The list of these Senators is below, with a contact link next to each. Please email those from your state. I have written a blog post on this subject, available at http://www.facebook.com/l/;http://bilerico.com Full contact info of all unconfirmed Senators can be found at http://www.facebook.com/l/;http://bit.ly/45WGMc

Thank you for your support of an inclusive ENDA.

Jillian T. Weiss
Co-chair, Inclusive ENDA

Mark Pryor (D-AR) http://www.facebook.com/l/;http://pryor.senate.gov/contact/

Mark Udall (D-CO) http://www.facebook.com/l/;http://markudall.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

Tom Carper (D-DE) http://www.facebook.com/l/;http://carper.senate.gov/contact/

Sen. Bill Nelson (D- FL) http://www.facebook.com/l/;http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Richard Lugar (R-IN) http://www.facebook.com/l/;http://lugar.senate.gov/contact/

Olympia Snowe (R-ME) http://www.facebook.com/l/;http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorSnowe.Email

Susan Collins (R-ME) http://www.facebook.com/l/;http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCollins.Email&

Max Baucus (D-MT) http://www.facebook.com/l/;http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

Jon Tester (D-MT) http://www.facebook.com/l/;http://tester.senate.gov/Contact/index.cfm

Kay Hagan (D-NC) http://www.facebook.com/l/;http://hagan.senate.gov/?p=contact

Byron Dorgan (D-ND) http://www.facebook.com/l/;http://dorgan.senate.gov/contact/contact_form.cfm

Kent Conrad (D-ND) http://www.facebook.com/l/;https://conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm

Harry Reid (D-NV) http://www.facebook.com/l/;http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

John Ensign (R-NV) http://www.facebook.com/l/;http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Herb Kohl (D-WI) http://www.facebook.com/l/;http://kohl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Russell Feingold (D-WI) http://www.facebook.com/l/;http://feingold.senate.gov/contact_opinion.html

Robert Byrd (D-WV) http://www.facebook.com/l/;http://byrd.senate.gov//contacts/index.cfm?ID=54

At this location.

It has networking tools/help in contacting your representative and other stuff. The news page reads:

***If you would like to help in the education campaign, here is what we are asking you to do***

1. Sign up at http://bit.ly/10Ot47 to meet with your legislator in your district in August. You will need your Representative’s name, which you can find at http://votesmart.org.

2. Call your Senators and Representative to request their support of an inclusive ENDA that protects sexual orientation and gender identity from job discrimination. Contact your legislators by calling the U.S. Capitol at 202-224-3121. If you don’t know your legislators by name, give your zip code, and you will be connected. You can also find out at http://votesmart.org

3. Contact other unconfirmed Senators and Representatives by email, telephone or fax. Contact links for the Senate: http://bit.ly/45WGMc and for the House at http://bit.ly/NUFUd.

4. Post the results of your contacts on the Wall below (even if it’s just that you left a message). (Please use the Wall for information about your legislators only, and post other statements in the discussion section.)

5. Follow the discussion on Twitter by searching #enda

Recent Blog Posts

Why You Should Sign Up To Meet With Your Legislator Now http://bit.ly/sojtr

Click Here To Email 50 ENDA-Shy House Dems Now http://bit.ly/1anPiE

The 9 Unconfirmed ENDA House Votes in Pennsylvania http://bit.ly/398dnm

Click Here To Email 20 House Republicans Open to ENDA http://bit.ly/17cM8U

Click Here To Meet With Your US Legislators in August. Or Bye-Bye ENDA http://bit.ly/1a6YuB

Anyway, I know who the officers are, and I know people have hard feelings toward a couple of them (at least), due to recent and not-so-recent events. But this isn’t about them, it’s about ENDA.

via Monica Roberts:

The day the transgender community has anxiously been awaiting this session has finally arrived. A trans inclusive ENDA was introduced in the House today by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) with bipartisan support.

I’m extremely cautious at this point about expressing any optimism, although the thought of rehashing the last ENDA debacle just leaves me feeling tired.

I’ll just say that I would really like to see things go down differently this time than we saw last time.

Story:

March 26, 2009

HRC: Only Trans-Inclusive ENDA Will Do

By Julie Bolcer

The Human Rights Campaign adopted a policy statement on Wednesday that says the group will not support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act if it excludes protections for transgender individuals. The statement was approved by the HRC board of directors in Washington, D.C.

“It’s the policy of HRC that the organization will only support an inclusive ENDA,” says the statement. It calls the organization’s previous decision to support an ENDA without transgender protections a “one-time exception.”

HRC received heavy criticism in 2007 when it opted to support a version of ENDA that only included protections for sexual orientation, and not gender identity. Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives at the time said they did not have the votes to pass a trans-inclusive ENDA.

“We will not support such a strategy again,” says the statement. “We look forward to Congress sending President Obama a fully inclusive ENDA for his signature.”

ENDA passed the House without transgender protections in 2007, but the Senate failed to vote on it. No vote or debate on the measure is scheduled yet this year.

As usual, the comments are pretty gross and full of transphobia from cis lgb people, so be warned*.

But do I believe HRC? No, not really. It’s the same trip as last time – “we won’t support a trans-exclusive ENDA until it’s politically expedient for us to throw trans people under the bus again.”

Or to put it another way – I won’t believe it until a trans-inclusive ENDA goes up for a house vote, and that HRC at no point faltered, failed to work with trans activists, assisted with lobbying representatives who are opposed to the bill, etc. If you really really really want to include trans people in ENDA, don’t just push for the wording, include actual trans people in the process. Don’t just deliver edicts.

But I still won’t believe you – and neither will many many other trans people. And if you’re earnest about this, you’ll know exactly why, and know why a simple declaration is not sufficient to earn any trans person’s trust.

h/t Stoneself

* I couldn’t make the point I was trying to make about prop 8 without reinscribing the racist narrative, so it’s removed with apologies to anyone I hurt with it.

Ceridwen Troy posted this about prop 8 on Livejournal today:

The situation with Prop 8 in California has really brought to a head something that I’ve been thinking about for a while now. The Gay Rights Movement, such as it is, is dying, and the ugliness we’ve been seeing, both around the passing of Prop 8 and a year ago with the battle over a non-inclusive ENDA, are its very violent death throes.

It’s a movement that I think deserves to die. In its race to mainstream gay and lesbian identity, it has recreated all of the problems that mainstream society already has. We’re seeing its racism in a violent way right now, and over the years we’ve seen its racism, its classism, its sexism, its transphobia, its biphobia, and really, its homophobia played out again and again and again.

The displays of racist hate going on right now in the gay community are sickening, but even worse is the amount of shock and appall coming from white anti-racist gays. You’d think this came out of nowhere, the way so many people are reacting, that gays were never racist until Prop 8, and now that wave of mysteriously sudden racism needs to be condemned so we can go back to being not racist at all. People are literally blind to this, either due to their privilege or due to a willful refusal to see it, they are blind to the fact that this has been going on for as long as there has been a gay rights movement.

Over the past week, a lot of noise has been made about how “No on 8″ needed to reach out to communities of color for their support. But seriously, by the time Prop 8 came up, it was already far too late. futurebird said it: “You can’t wait until something like a vote comes up to build a coalition.” The Gay Rights Movement is an overwhelmingly white one; just as a local example, the agency I work for prides itself on being “at the head of the Gay Rights Movement in Rochester for over thirty-five years.” In those thirty-five years, they hired their first person of color within the last two. Their first full-time staff member who is a person of color didn’t come on board until last month. And yet, people are surprised at the open racism being spouted now. It’s been with us all along, folks, and shit, I’m just an ignorant little white girl. I am so not the first or the only person saying this.

We saw, and continue to see, the transphobia and cissexism of the movement last year surrounding the ENDA bill. Yes, the United ENDA Coalition was a wonderful show of support, but that didn’t change the fact that the largest gay and lesbian rights organization in the country refused to stand with it. That didn’t change the fact that many of the organizations that supported the United ENDA bill could only do so because they realized that gender non-conforming gays and lesbians would be at risk without it; it wasn’t worth their time when they only thought it protected trans folk. That didn’t change the voices of individual gays and lesbians that at best spoke ignorance and at worst shouted hate speech so loudly it’s still ringing in my ears.

And there too, many people thought we were already united, that we were “LGBT” for a reason. The transphobia within the community took many people completely by surprise, when it was there all along. It was there in the way the movement has rewritten history, it was there in the way the movement barred trans folk from its numbers over the decades, it is there today in the way the movement takes legal action against trans folk who stand up for themselves.

In the race to gain equality for their families, the Gay Rights Movement has been all too eager to ignore the needs of others’ families. Single parent families, polyamorous groups, non-married couples; all of these deserve those “more than a thousand rights and privileges” that come with a legally recognized family, and yet the Gay Rights Movement is so single-minded that they will go so far as to assure legislators that they don’t want rights for these families, just for their own.

The situation with Prop 8 has also exposed a disgusting amount of anti-religious sentiment. In the fight to stop people from blaming people of color for its passing, there’s been a wave of “Blame the Catholics and the Mormons!”

They forget, of course, that queer people can have faith as well, and can find a place for that faith within religion. In the movements rabid lust to blame religion for its ills, it forgets the religions that have not shunned us, that have welcomed us, embraced us, loved us. Those places can’t just be a footnote (”Oh yeah, not all churches are bad.”) they need to be the model. People need something to cling to, especially when they aren’t the wealthy white men leading the Gay Rights Movement. For the movement to spout hate of religious groups, pointing their fingers at RELIGION as if it were the monolith keeping them from their “rights,” cuts the movement off from the very heart of many people’s communities.

Of course, the real issue keeping us from our “rights” isn’t religion, it’s homophobia. And what has ultimately doomed the Gay Rights Movement is that the Gay Rights Movement continues to be steeped in the very homophobia it claims to be fighting. Look at the way “No on 8″ was fought. A rush of campaign ads flooded the airwaves, urging people to vote No on Prop 8. Typical scenarios on these ads was the “Surprise! I’m Gay!” moment, where an upstanding young citizen overhears a friend or co-worker wanting to vote Yes, and says “Well, did you know you’d be voting against the rights of people like me if you do?” (It’s problematic enough that “people like me” here excludes people of color, people without a middle class income, people who are visibly queer, etc. etc.) What you don’t see much of in these ads is what the whole fight was about: queer families. This wasn’t a mistake, people make a lot of money putting ads like this together, and the message that they bought into when doing so was that our opposition is right. Queer families aren’t worth defending, they aren’t good enough to show on television, showing them on television might turn people away from voting for the rights of that fine upstanding citizen.

Similarly, when “Yes on 8″ started telling folks that gay marriage would have to be taught in schools, how did “No on 8″ respond? “No, that’s silly! Gay marriage won’t be taught in schools just because it exists!” That is not the answer a person who’s proud of themselves gives. A person who’s proud of their identity challenges the opposition to give proof of why it would be bad for this to happen, why children shouldn’t be taught about our families, about their families.

And how did “No on 8″ respond when they were told that gay marriage would violate the rights of faith groups? “C’mon, folks, that would never happen! Could you just please vote this down? I promise to go back to being a quiet, upstanding citizen afterwards!” What about the religious groups that do sanction same sex marriages? What about their religious freedoms that are also being attacked at the same time gay marriage is? (Of course, that tactic would never take off, cuz the movement’s too preoccupied in thinking that religion is a monolithic evil boogeyman come to get them.)

The movement deserves to die, because in this fight for “rights,” the movement has forgotten about what’s really at stake here: our humanity, our equality, our personhood. It actively denigrates the personhood of those that inconvenience it on its way to “rights”. It gleefully gobbles down the messages about its own members’ personhood, if that will make the issue more palatable for those who hate us. The movement has compartmentalized and sanitized the issues to a convenient gleam, then offers up our mewling gratitude when our oppressors decide they can tolerate the issue as long as they don’t have to acknowledge us in the process. Personhood and humanity and equality are what we need, what every human being needs, and this movement is more than willing to sacrifice that in a game of “rights”.

And algormortis responded:

a lot of noise has been made about how “No on 8″ needed to reach out to communities of color for their support.

i think my problem is more that there was no outreach compounded with the fact that they’re, um, you know, calling us “niggers” now and telling us to “stay out of West Hollywood.” well, i’m not rich enough to be allowed in anyways, but…

i’ve talked to a couple of friends who live in Bayview-Hunters Point in SF (which is, for now, the “black part of town”, though the gentrification is moving in fast) and they didn’t see anyone from the No on 8 campaign with much any presence in their neighborhood. no leafletting, door-knocking, etc. no public education at all. seriously kinda fucked up if you ask me, but i guess they figured we’d just watch TV and see ads full of white people exhorting us to vote no and we’d follow. yeah.

it’s funny you raise the United ENDA Coalition. over a couple of beers last night i explained to one of my starry-eyed friends how, with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate and a Democratic president, i fully expect to see the HRC throw trans people under the bus again.

i can see i now: the logic will be something about “too soon”, all the House members will go on and on about how they have to get reeeeeeeee-electeeeeeeeeed whine whine whine, and then barney frank and his agenda get a shot at it, and boom, y’all are sitting by the curb wondering where the bus went. as the bus peels out, the HRC asks you for money, telling you that your day will come soon, too. of course there’s no timeline, and in another two years, “well, it’s too soon” will come up again. (”Well, we don’t want to lose the PRESIDENCY, now do we?”) the sad part is that to a group like the HRC, it’s always going to be “too soon”. there’s a place and a time for an incremental approach, and that’s not when you’re messing with peoples’ rights.

Quoting Autumn Sandeed at Pam’s House Blend again:

by: Autumn Sandeen

Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 14:47:34 PM EDT

For those who don’t remember, Diane Schroer was told she was going to be hired by the U.S. Library Of Congress, and saw the decision to employ her rescinded after she told her hiring agent she was going to transition from male-to-female in the workplace.From the ruling of United States District Judge James Robertson:

After hearing the evidence presented at trial, I conclude that Schroer was discriminated against because of sex in violation of Title VII. The reasons for that conclusion are set forth below, in two parts. First, I explain why, as a factual matter, several of the Library’s stated reasons for refusing to hire Schroer were not its “true reasons, but were pretext[s] for discrimination,” Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Second, I explain why the Library’s conduct, whether viewed as sex stereotyping or as discrimination literally “because of . . . sex,” violated Title VII….None of the five assertedly legitimate reasons that the Library has given for refusing to hire Schroer withstands scrutiny.

And…

ConclusionIn refusing to hire Diane Schroer because her appearance and background did not comport with the decisionmaker’s sex stereotypes about how men and women should act and appear, and in response to Schroer’s decision to transition, legally, culturally, and physically, from male to female, the Library of Congress violated Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination.

The Clerk is directed to set a conference to discuss and schedule the remedial phase of this case.

What a wonderful decision.

Great work by the ACLU on this case so far — I hope this civil rights ruling holds if there should be an appeal of the decision.

Via Feministing by way of Helen G.

The Chicago Tribune has a story about backlash against trans rights – specifically, against a measure enacted in Montgomery County in Maryland, forbidding discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

From the story:

What was different in Montgomery County was what happened next. A group called Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government launched a campaign called “Not in My Shower” to repeal the measure through a voter referendum. Last month, a judge ruled that the county must put the question on the ballot in November.

Proponents of the bill have promised to appeal. If they fail, this will be the first time voters decide the fate of gender-identity legislation.

This potential precedent has groups on both sides of the issue watching closely. Transgender rights advocates say it is dangerous to allow the majority to decide which minorities deserve rights. Conservative activists view the Maryland fight as a test case for overturning transgender protection laws nationwide.

As usual, anti-civil rights people make the argument about something that is so not the point – in this case, fearmongering about men in restrooms. After all, it’s not as if trans women are distinguishable in any way from men in dresses, and it’s certainly the case that laws can keep men from invading women’s restrooms and committing rape:

In January and February 1998, Rosales carried out a series of sexual assaults and robberies in a women’s restroom at a Riverside grocery store, according to court documents.

They’re trying to paint this as opening a door that will allow sexual predators free and easy access to women and children in restrooms. But the anti-discrimination measure doesn’t do this and the lack of such a measure doesn’t protect against it. Men who want to rape women are already unconcerned about breaking laws.

They also invoke the possibility of voyeurism, and the example they use is that of Robert Johnson, who was caught in a women’s locker room at a Tampa area gym (Lifestyle Fitness). It is important to note that Robert Johnson was not dressed in women’s clothing, nor was he claiming to be a woman. He just walked in:

TAMPA, Fla. — A man accused of peeping at a woman in a Tampa area gym claims he didn’t realize he’d gone into the women’s locker room.

“I’m actually admitting I was in there. I made a mistake. I was just scared to come out,” said Robert Johnson.

Investigators said Johnson ran out of the locker room when a woman spotted him and then he started lifting weights. The victim pointed him out to a deputy.

Gym officials said Johnson didn’t have a membership and matched the description of a suspect in a similar incident reported the day before.

As is normal, these attacks on trans civil rights are based on sowing fear, uncertainty, and doubt. They’re not based in truth, but in distorting the truth. They’re not about protecting restrooms, but preventing trans people from having civil rights that should be guaranteed to every US citizen.

And of course, it’s not just Maryland, and not just local groups opposing rights for trans people:

In Colorado, conservative groups waged a similar campaign last month to block a bill that bans discrimination against gay and transgender people in housing and public accommodations. Radio ads urged listeners to tell Gov. Bill Ritter he shouldn’t sign the bill, though he proceeded to do so on May 29.

“Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence,” wrote James Dobson, founder of the conservative ministry Focus on the Family.

Edit: Kristen posted in the comments:

There is an organization trying to stop the MCRG’s BS, if any one from Montgomery County is interested in donating or volunteering.

http://basicrightsmontgomery.org/

Marti Abernathey efiskerates HRC’s condescending plan for transgender inclusion and regaining trust.

The plan, without comment:

#1

Comments/Edits: 1 of 3.
Suggested Action Steps:

1. A professional survey to teach us just what the American people understand about trans and what they don’t. By region, by demographics, by religion, etc. Let’s do the state of the art survey so we know what we’re starting with. Questions like “what does transgender conjure up in your mind”? “What is the difference between gay and trans”? “Do you know that just as many females transition to male as vice versa”? Let’s get down to the core issues.

2. Then we research the 110+ jurisdictions with protections and characterize what was done right and what was done wrong. We need to work with other groups that have been doing this. I also don’t think it would hurt for Joe to sit down with them, apologize and begin the rebuilding. Trust is essential but will be hard to come by, and it would be a terrible waste of energy to try and go this alone. UnitedENDA should be a resource.

3. Use the above info to assist those states that have s.o. only laws such as MA, NY, MD and WI as a first step, or those states with active lobbying efforts.

4. Work with NCTE to find trans persons to target those 50 or so Congresspersons, and give them the data to help them lobby. But remember that nothing beats face-to-face contacts, and that means the rep and not the chief-of-staff or LA.

4. Work with GLAAD to develop video and PSAs for the targeted states and Congresspersons. We need to show them that we have materials that will help them withstand any hypothetical attacks.

5. Redouble the corporate work — they’ve been doing a great job.

6. Work with John Isa on the health insurance survey to increase coverage for medical and surgical transition.
7. Offer to assist NCTE for psychiatric members and those who would have contacts that could help us remove GID from the DSM. The APA Task Forces for the revision are now being formed.

#2

Attached is comment document 2 of 3. (These intro sentences include edits)
In the wake of the House vote on ENDA, the Human Rights Campaign recognizes in a new and profound way the important role it must play in advocating in Congress, among the general mainstream population, and even within the GLBT community, for transgender protections.

We recognize that HRC’s decision to follow a different strategy to secure a fully-inclusive bill was hurtful to some members of our community and we regret that. Because we share the same goal of a fully-inclusive ENDA, HRC is immediately launching a new public education campaign designed to continue the mainstreaming of transgender issues, with three initial priorities:

o To forge stronger collaborations within the GLBT community
o To convincethe GLBT and progressive community of the necessity of understanding transgender issues
o To advocate for transgender acceptance among mainstream Americans

To meet these goals, HRC will engage with an organization-wide effort to redouble our educational efforts around gender identity and expression, while also continuing to enact changes that help build fairness and equality for transgender people at home, at work and in their communities.

I. Research
II. Completing Targeted State Non-Discrimination Laws
III. Legislative Work – a 50 District Plan
IV. Redoubling our Corporate Work
V. Communications, Advertising and Media Promotion
VI. HRC Family Project Transgender Education
VII. Continued Publication of Educational Materials on Transgender Issues

Other thoughts (not sure where these fit above):

* Repositioning all of HRC’s messaging to be more inclusive of transgender people, and more humble/apologetic about HRC’s past exclusion of the transgender community

* Recognizing that transgender people are not “new” – that they were present at Stonewall and other early uprisings, and what kept them from being visible for many years (I’d be happy to elaborate about this)

* Encouraging transgender people to come out and tell their stories, perhaps providing forums where they can do so safely

* Requiring each HRC Regional Steering Committee to undergo transgender awareness training, and to actively work to increase transgender participation on the Committee

* Holding “lunch and learn” sessions at HRC headquarters, where staffers can hear from transgender people directly on topics such as trans law, history, insurance, healthcare issues etc.

* Urging HRC staffers to consider transgender people for job openings

#3

This is the third of three comments/edits to our DRAFT Transaction Plan.

The first step in rebuilding our trust in HRC must be for HRC to own up to the fact that we were promised one thing and the promise, for whatever reason, was broken. Members of the transgender community I’ve spoken to want an apology and an explanation, and the explanation must be sincere and convincing. They want to see a stop to public announcements that contradict private activity which many believe is still going on. Until that is done, it will be near impossible to get increased participation from the transgender community.

And this is a sad state of affairs. Sure there are 200-300 organizations in United ENDA (depending on how you count them), but so many of them are small. None of them has the resources to mount a nationwide educational campaign about transgender. HRC does. Mainstream media has been wonderful to us this year. Barbara Walters 20/20, Larry King Live, Opera, the Discovery Channel, Ugly Betty, All My Children, and others have done a largely commendable job of bringing a positive view of transgender issues before the public. Yet we still have to overcome the image that Jerry Springer shows them on TV and the image we ourselves give the public with our Gay Pride and Halloween parades. We can tell our stories all we want on HRC’s web site and on Donna Rose’s proposed website. The only people we will reach there are those who are specifically looking for this kind of information.

At this time, I believe that only HRC has the resources to help us get the message out to mainstream America.

The second step would be to truly understand the transgender community . As you well know, many in the transgender community are unemployed or underemployed. They cannot afford the time or the money to visit their political leaders and speak for themselves. Many have been denied the opportunity for higher education and thus cannot express themselves as they would need to when speaking to politicians and business leaders. Many have been expelled or shunned from churches and do not know the bible well enough to defend themselves from religious attacks. Many, far too many, live with the internalized self-doubt and self-loathing that result from relentless attacks on their very existence. They cannot represent us as well as others might.

On the other hand, there have been more fortunate transgender individuals, particularly transsexuals, who have survived the attacks, found the strength to go on, found the opportunity for education, and found the conviction to live their lives as they should. They are accepted in their proper gender. These transsexuals are educated, with good paying, respectable careers. These people can speak for the community. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of them, the fight to get where they now are has been too long and too hard. They don’t want to fight anymore. They have changed their gender, their birth certificates, their college records and work histories. They have moved hundreds, indeed thousands, of miles away from home to start new lives. They want to live the years they have left in relative peace, in their proper gender. I cannot fault them for that. Just as no one should be compelled to live in shame or fear, no one should be compelled to ‘come out’ and expose themselves to renewed expressions of discrimination and bigotry.

To come out after successfully living a new life can ruin careers and families for them. HRC needs to appeal to these individuals to come out, but must be prepared to accept that few will heed the call.

Somewhere in the middle of these two groups are transgender and transsexuals who have managed to survive and now live openly. There are transgender who have education and who have careers that are relatively safe from ruin thanks to the work of HRC and NCTEquality, IFGE, and others. The combined efforts on workplace initiative have already resulted a great many employers adding gender expression to their workplace affirmative action policies. This has been wonderful. Capitalize on that. That may be the place for HRC to appeal to the transgender community to speak up and to speak out.

The third step would be to build trust through actions; communicate with our employers, develop new talent, and help us tell our stories to our lawmakers. Those employers who have signed on to equality will most likely listen to HRC. Convince those employers that allowing an employee a few days away from work to fly to Washington or their State Capital would be a good thing for business. There may be employees at those companies who don’t even belong to HRC. Seek out those who would like to speak up if given the chance. Give us some training on how to present ourselves. Help the employees with airfare and lodging when needed. Help us get the lawmakers to receive us and to talk to us. Arrange the sit down time that many cannot get with our lawmakers.

Give us the opportunity to put a face on transgender; to demonstrate to our State and National legislators that we are worthy human beings, worthy of protection from harm, and of freedom from discrimination.

I believe HRC needs these first three steps of rebuilding trust and demonstrating commitment before the fourth step, The fourth step is what you really have asked how to do. By this time transgender who have responded to your call will have acquired the self-confidence of knowing they can speak up for the community. You will have developed new talent in the transgender community. At this point you can ask them to serve actively in HRC and expect them to serve well.

HRC has the political and financial clout to do all this. We have two years to prepare for the next volley in Congress. I think this would be a good start.

HRC took a poll at the 11th hour before the ENDA vote to prove that GLB doesn’t really support T rights wanted to push ENDA through now and stick with the incremental model that means cutting some people out of the political process. This isn’t really news, of course. It happened weeks ago, and there was much discussion about it.

Two days ago, the Washington Blade posted the story Experts question HRC’s ENDA survey:

Experts question HRC’s ENDA survey
Researcher says methodology ‘doesn’t make sense’
By JOSHUA LYNSEN | Nov 28, 4:47 PM

Polling experts are questioning a recent Human Rights Campaign survey that asked gays about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

The survey’s results, circulated last month by HRC when many gays were locked in heated debate over the measure’s lack of transgender protections, show most people who responded support the bill as written.

But John Stahura, who specializes in survey research and directs the Purdue University Social Research Institute, said the survey’s methodology is problematic.

“They’re playing games,” he said after reviewing survey excerpts at the Blade’s request. “It doesn’t make sense.”

The questions were leading and designed to get HRC the results they wanted – which are the results they received, unsurprisingly.

In this post at TransGriot, one of the commenters asks:

OK, How do you explain this Hunter College poll, conducted by the same group (Knowledge Networks), also funded by HRC, which showed that, “when asked about the proposed federal law making it illegal to discriminate against lesbians, gays, and bisexuals in employment, LGBs (by a margin of 60 to 37 percent) said that those seeking to pass the law were wrong to remove protections for transgendered people in order to get the votes necessary for passage in Congress.”

Quoting the specific passage:

When asked about the proposed federal law making it illegal to discriminate against lesbians, gays, and bisexuals in employment, LGBs (by a margin of 60 to 37 percent) said that those seeking to pass the law were wrong to remove protections for transgendered people in order to get the votes necessary for passage in Congress.

The Hunter College Poll was funded by a grant from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation.  Sole control over the design of the study’s questionnaire and analysis of the data were maintained by the study’s investigators.  The survey was conducted among those who identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual to Knowledge Networks, which recruits its nationally representative sample of respondents by telephone and administers surveys to them via the Internet.  The survey has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 4 percentage points.

This poll was funded by HRC, has a larger sample, lists a margin of error (unlike the HRC poll), and gives results practically opposite what HRC published a month ago, and was taken only 2-3 weeks afterward. What’s wrong with this picture?

It’s completely within the realm of possibility (and probability, based on this information) that HRC intentionally manipulated statistics to justify removing gender protections from ENDA. It’s not even controversial to propose this, and I doubt many held any illusions that it was otherwise. The main reason I’m posting this is because of this second survery which – I might add – is explicitly about “GLB” people and not GLBT.

That “GLB” language in the Hunter poll bothers me, as it implies a certain assumption about HRC’s current approach – are they going ahead and dropping the T from their work? Are we going to see HRC continue to try to exclude trans people from future activism? Perhaps as punishment for not quietly going along with Barney Frank’s revised ENDA?

Honestly, it looks like HRC is up to business as usual.

Also, they’re forming a new organization.

Open letter here:

November 27, 2007

An Open Letter To:
                Daryl Herrschaft, Director, HRC Workplace Project,
                Staff of the HRC Workplace Project,
                Members of the HRC Business Council,
                Joe Solmonese, E.D., Human Rights Campaign (HRC),
                Members of the HRC Board of Directors,
                Members of the Transgender Community:

It has been an honor and a privilege for both of us to serve on the Human Rights Campaign Business Council. Since joining the Business Council in 2002 we have both played active roles in advancing workplace equality, providing education, guidance and leadership, and ensuring that workplaces in America are fair for ALL employees. Our collective work has been at the forefront of the successes that HRC has enjoyed in recent years, has affected the daily lives of GLBT employees throughout this country in profound and substantive ways, and is a continuing source of pride for us both.

Rather than rest on past achievements, the Business Council continues to develop critical new initiatives to support transgender employees. We are working to raise the bar on the Corporate Equality Index. We are planning to revise and re-publish the booklet Transgender In the Workplace: A Tool For Managers. We are planning a Female-to-Male educational DVD. We have been working on insurance issues affecting transgender employees. Never before have so many important efforts for transgender workers been underway and we are both heavily involved in all of them. That is why the decision we are announcing today is an extremely difficult one.

Recent HRC policy decisions – to actively support a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that excludes our transgender brothers and sisters as well as gender-variant lesbian, gay, and bisexual people – have placed us in an untenable position. On November 8, the day after the ENDA vote in the House of Representatives, we requested an opportunity to meet personally with HRC President Joe Solmonese to share our concerns and to discuss HRC’s strategy for addressing recent legislative shortcomings before making a decision to stay or go. As the only transgender representatives on the Business Council our community expects us to have some influence, or at least to receive the courtesy of a consultation. Almost 3 weeks have passed since that request and we have heard nothing in response. This lack of response speaks volumes, so we feel compelled to take this stand today.

We are announcing our resignations from the HRC Business Council, effective immediately. Considering recent broken promises, the lack of credibility that HRC has with the transgender community at large, and HRC’s apparent lack of commitment to healing the breach it has caused, we find it impossible to maintain an effective working relationship with the organization.

We have truly enjoyed working with the amazing group of corporate leaders who comprise the Business Council. We thank Daryl Herrschaft, Eric Bloem, Samir Luther, and the rest of the Workplace Project team for their steadfast support, their passion for full equality and inclusion, and their friendship. We are extremely disappointed that HRC legislative decisions have contradicted Business Council efforts to enact only fully-inclusive policies and that we must leave the important work we have been planning unfinished. But principles are not for compromise, so today we do what we feel we must.

The need for education on transgender issues in this country has never been greater or more apparent. In addition, a significant learning from recent events is that, while alliances are necessary, valuable, and often crucial, the transgender community cannot rely excessively on others for success and must assert greater control over its own destiny. Our resignation from the Business Council in no way diminishes our commitment either to the transgender community or to ensuring that workplaces have access to professional training, support and guidance on transgender issues. Rather, it provides new challenges and opportunities.

Since we cannot in good conscience continue these critical efforts in the name of HRC through its Business Council, we will be forming an organization whose sole purpose is to provide ongoing education on transgender issues for businesses, governmental agencies, NGOs, and educational institutions. Our Transgender Education Partnership – TransEducate.com – will be a platform from which we can engage community leaders, develop tools and publications, and establish partnerships with like-minded organizations to work for ALL gender-variant people everywhere.

Although it saddens us to say good-bye to our colleagues on the Business Council we are energized by our vision of the future. We look forward to being a pre-eminent voice in the ongoing effort to provide education about the transgender community. We look forward to the day when the LGBT community can address its issues with a unified voice, and without diminishing any of its constituents. And, we look forward to a day when gender-variance is appreciated as ordinary and non-threatening, and education on these topics will no longer be necessary.

In Solidarity for Equality,

Jamison Green and Donna Rose