Tempest In A Transgender Teacup

The Rest of the Story on HRC Support for HR3128

 

It's hurricane season and another storm is brewing. Like last year, and the year before that, and for every year in recent memory, those who dislike and distrust the Human Rights Campaign are mobilizing for another fight. But this year things are different.

 
The fight that I'm describing is this continuing grappling match between HRC and some activists within the transgender community.   Let's start off by saying that last year there was a category 5 hurricane. This year, it's more like a tropical storm.


For those watching what is unfolding, you'll see that the transgender community is loosely divided into four distinct camps:  

There are those in our community who have demonized HRC for years and who will continue to do so regardless of the many things HRC is doing to support and engage the transgender community.  I'm not disputing that these feelings of distrust and anger may not be well-deserved.  History is history.  I am, however, disputing the contention that things today are the same as they were a year ago.  They most certainly are not.


My goal in writing this opinion is not to impugn any of these esteemed peers.  I have no quarrel with anyone having an opinion that may or may not be contrary to mine, or with being vocal about sharing it.  In the end we all want the same things - we just have differences in interpretation, or on how best to achieve them.


Rather, my goal is to provide a balanced perspective so that others who may not be on the front lines of day-to-day politics can form their own opinions based on the full story. That's what I think is missing here - the full story.


The current battleground is a small piece of legislation known as HR1328.  The title of the legislation is "Clarification of Federal Employment Protection Act".  As the title indicates, this legislation is a clarification of existing protections - it is not NEW protections.  It repudiates Presidential Special Counsel Scott Bloch's contention that current protections do not cover sexual orientation. Secondly, to clarify matters, it does explicitly add that wording to the statute in question.


The original legislation that included these protections was the Civil Service Reform Act, passed in 1978. This bill provides a variety of legal workplace discrimination protections for Federal Government employees and also ensures that "whistleblowers" are protected.  Part of the law implicitly covers sexual orientation.  The interpretation of sexual orientation protections was upheld by the Reagan administration in 1980 when an agency in Mississippi wanted to fire a gay employee. In fact, an entire opinion was written supporting the understanding that these protections include sexual orientation.  


The problem is that President Bush's current Special Counsel, Scott Bloch, is suddenly refusing to enforce it.  He has single-handedly decided that these protections do not/should not cover discrimination based on "status," specifically your status as a gay, lesbian or bisexual federal employee.  As a result, Congressman Waxman (D - CA) has introduced legislation that would prevent a roll-back of protection in two ways:  it would clarify this law, and it would explicitly write these protections into law to remove any ambiguity that may exist.


The specific source of contention is that this piece of legislation - HR 1328 - is not trans-inclusive. The problem is that the protections that are being rolled back are explicitly "sexual orientation" protections. Since Scott Bloch took over, there has been a dismal lack of enforcement for these protections.  HR 1328 simply seeks to force Scott Bloch to enforce 25 years of legal precedent.   If passed, the proposed legislation would only bring things back to where they were before Scott Bloch took over in 2004.


The trouble that has been brewing is over HRC's support for this bill, and what this means. Last summer HRC announced a major policy shift when it promised to support new workplace legislation ONLY if it included trans-inclusive language.  Of specific concern is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which HRC will support only if it's transgender inclusive and is working to build support for on Capitol Hill as we speak. Unfortunately, this bill came before an inclusive ENDA was introduced.


HRC did not write this legislation.  HRC isn't happy about this issue. They would much rather be spending time on proactive bills than having to work on legislation that simply seeks to protect hard-fought gains the community made over 25 years ago. When they received word that it was being introduced back in mid-June one of their first concerns was about the fact that it did not include provisions for "gender identity."


They investigated the opportunity to make his bill more inclusive but the entire goal here was not to create NEW policy but to clarify existing policy to prevent a rollback of existing protections. In addition HRC reached out to a number of leaders and advocates in the transgender legal/political community to get their input on this legislation. Some were contacted individually, and subsequently a conference call was held.


A number of key organizations, including The National Center for Transgender Equality, The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and HRC itself, have recently provided public statements on this bill.  None implied that HRC was somehow going back on the commitment it made to the trans community last year.  NONE.  All are dismayed that our energies are being spent trying to retain our current footing, but that's the position we find ourselves in.  Would we rather that this bill were trans inclusive?  Of course.  But, realistically, do I feel slighted or somehow otherwise duped because it is not?  No. 


On the surface, it may appear to some to some to be the same old HRC that has let us down in the past.  But those who dig a little deeper will see a much closer connection than we've ever seen before.   They will see that our community leadership was engaged, that we were consulted, that we provided input, and that our input was important in the ultimate strategic decision to support this legislation.  HRC's support for this bill came with the knowledge and input of a key group of trans leaders.   That's huge.


Over the coming weeks, monthly calls with HRC are being planned to provide direct access to what's happening and why.  It will help clear the air over these kinds of misunderstandings, and it will help each of us make up our own minds on things.  We'll be discussing any number of other ways to keep people informed and engaged.  Communication is critical, and the thing that is broken here is communication, not relationship.


As a transgendered American, I do all I can to support our community in the ways I feel best suited.  I set high standards for myself and for the groups that I support.  I have no problem criticizing when it is warranted, or defending when that is warranted as well.  In this case, I am doing the latter. This is not what others might paint it to be, and the facts will bear that out.   I expect more bumps in the road as far as this relationship is concerned - relationships are like that - give and take, compromise, spats, misunderstandings, and disappointment come with the territory.  We're working with a larger community here and not everyone always gets everything they want.  But, realistically, in order for us to move forward and mature socially, politically, and economically - we need HRC and HRC needs us.


Sadly, in the minds of some, anyone who defends the enemy becomes the enemy themselves.  This is unfortunate, and unnecessary.  Those of us who have been supportive of HRC need to continue on that path - they want and need our input and perspective more than the $40 it takes to become a member.  We need to ensure that our concerns and issues are heard, and the best way to do that is to be actively involved, not to retreat back to the relative safety of an isolated transgender community.


Whatever you believe, the time is here to stand together.  We will be facing attempts to divide us as a GLBT community, and to splinter us as a transgender community.  We cannot help others succeed in that goal. Certainly each of us is entitled to an opinion, and to share it with whomever we want.  But in the end, we need to have all the facts in order to make intelligent decisions.  If we can do that, we'll be able to see these things for what they are and not let them cloud the ultimate goal - full inclusion and equality.

 

Donna Rose

 
=====

 

Published:  July 18, 2005

Additional supporting documentation is available at:  www.donnarose.com/oped/Tempest