It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that countless transgender people's lives have been saved by books. Many of us first encountered others somewhat like ourselves in books painstakingly searched for in libraries, publications ordered through the mail - or more recently, through information located online. Decades ago, personal memoirs and obscure medical text furnished critical information and affirmation for isolated individuals. Recent years have seen an explosion of books on transgender topics - from personal essays to scientific treatises, historical tomes to manuals for helping professionals. These resources are invaluable for individuals who are exploring their gender identities, considering coming out to their loved ones, or contemplating transition.
One of the most crucial values of online resources - and increasingly of online books - for trans people is the ability to access them privately, from one's own home. So it's great news that Google is on the verge of expanding its online books services, Google Books, to make millions of books available for browsing and reading online. But Google's lack of privacy protections for Google Books users should greatly concern trans people. As it stands, the company's system design allows them to track what books users are accessing, what pages they're interested in, and even what notes their making in the books' electronic "margins." Nothing is stopping Google from not only collecting and analyzing this information, but also sharing it with other businesses or government agencies (in the U.S. or abroad).
The ACLU of Northern California is running a public campaign to ask Google to commit to some basic privacy protections on Google Books. You can read more about their campaign, and send a message to Google, through the ACLU NC's website.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Sign the ENDA petition - and tell your friends
While much of our attention is focused on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill, right now is also a critical time to build support for ENDA. We currently have 146 House co-sponsors, but we need many more.
As part of our 9 Weeks for Equality campaign, we've launched a petition in support of a fully inclusive ENDA. Please sign the petition supporting the passage of a fully inclusive ENDA. Then reach out to your friends and ask them to do the same. The online petition will automatically generate a letter that is sent to your members of Congress.
You can also print out a petition and go out and gather some signatures at your local farmer's market, at the student union, among your support group members or wherever people gather in your community. You can fax the petition to your members of Congress (see www.house.gov and www.senate.gov for their fax numbers). Please send us a copy as well so we can give you credit and know how many people are signing.
Petitions need to be signed with people's names; anonymous signatures are not counted by members of Congress. This is a time to take a stand for transgender equality. And, remember, we need as many signatures as possible-not just transgender people, but our co-workers, family members, friends and people in the general public who support equality.
As part of our 9 Weeks for Equality campaign, we've launched a petition in support of a fully inclusive ENDA. Please sign the petition supporting the passage of a fully inclusive ENDA. Then reach out to your friends and ask them to do the same. The online petition will automatically generate a letter that is sent to your members of Congress.
You can also print out a petition and go out and gather some signatures at your local farmer's market, at the student union, among your support group members or wherever people gather in your community. You can fax the petition to your members of Congress (see www.house.gov and www.senate.gov for their fax numbers). Please send us a copy as well so we can give you credit and know how many people are signing.
Petitions need to be signed with people's names; anonymous signatures are not counted by members of Congress. This is a time to take a stand for transgender equality. And, remember, we need as many signatures as possible-not just transgender people, but our co-workers, family members, friends and people in the general public who support equality.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Another Victory and Another Step
Late last evening, a vote was held on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill in the United States Senate. There has been some confusion about the meaning of the vote and what the next steps are, so I thought I’d write and clear it up as best as possible. Please understand that there are still some unknowns working out now.
Background: What Happened Before Last Night
In the House of Representatives, two votes have been held that matter for this discussion. First, on April 29, by a vote of 249-175, the House passed H.R. 1913 (The Local Law Enforcement hate Crimes Prevention Act, which is the House version of the Matthew Shepard Act and essentially identical). Second, the House has also passed it’s own version of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, which I’ll now call the DoD bill.
Also of importance to understand is that the White House has announced that the President would veto the DoD bill if, when it passes, it still contains funding for F-22 fighter aircraft because they consider the planes to be militarily and budgetarily undesirable. Some Senators are trying to remove the F-22 funding from the bill and some Senators are trying to keep the F-22 funding. I’ll explain in a moment how that impacts the hate crimes bill.
Finally, because of how Senate rules work, it was mostly advantageous to the Hate Crimes bill that it be attached to another bill that would be getting a vote in the Senate rather than running as a bill on its own. In previous years the DoD Authorization was selected as the vehicle onto which hate crimes would be attached because it was thought to be a must-sign bill for President Bush who would not want to disrupt the DoD just to express support for radical right people who hate the hate crimes bill. This year, Senate leadership decided that the DoD bill would be best the vehicle primarily because, in their estimation, it was basically the last train leaving the station if hate crimes were to pass this summer.
What Happened Last Night
Last night (Thursday) we had a vote on the Matthew Shepard Act. The vote was 63-28 and it is now attached to the DoD bill which will get a vote approximately next Wednesday or Thursday after additional amendments are considered early next week. Every Democrat voted yes (except Kennedy and Byrd who were absent) and 5 Republicans voted yes (Collins (R-ME), Lugar (R-IN), Murkowski (R-AK), Snowe (R-ME), and Voinovich (R-OH) ). I’ll append the rollcall list at the end of this post.
Here is what happened. A leadership agreement was reached between the Dems. and Reps. that the Matthew Shepard Act Amendment would be considered. The agreement was that last night there would be votes on two Republican amendments and one Democratic amendment, followed by a cloture vote (this stops or closes debate) on the Matthew Shepard Act Amendment and a vote to adopt the amendment. All of these things happened. Two unimportant amendments were adopted simply restated the First Amendment protections that are already clearly in both the bill and the Constitution. Additionally Senator Hatch proposed, but lost, an amendment that would have gutted the hate crimes act by studying it to death.
The bottom line about last night though is that the Matthew Shepard Act got the vote we had all been working for in the Senate and the vote totals were inspiring. Ultimately, all of the people who had called their Senators and all the people who visited their Senators won the support of two-thirds of the United State Senate. That’s spectacular.
What Happens Next?
It does not appear likely that another vote directly on the overall Matthew Shepard Act will be necessary in the Senate or the House. Yet there will be several more votes of significance on related matters that we will be monitoring. We are still optimistic that it will be signed into law this year, but that is probably still a few months away. Here is why.
Come Monday, Senators will offer four additional amendments on the topic of hate crimes. We know that one of these will attempt to add military service people as a protected class. Another is a really horrendous amendment that would add the death penalty to the Hate crimes provisions. NCTE strongly rejects the death penalty and is fervently opposed to the Sessions Amendment and will be encouraging our members to contact their Senators in opposition. NCTE would not support a hate crime law that included a death penalty provision. Regardless, Senator Sessions is trying to add the amendment as a posion pill meant to kill it; he will not vote for the Act with or without the death penalty.
The other debate to watch this week will be around the F-22 aircraft. Just Wednesday, the White House reiterated its seemingly firm intention of vetoing the entire DoD bill if the F-22 funding is retained. Here is a link to a Wall Street Journal blog post about the issue: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/06/26/air-force-secretary-repeats-f-22-veto-threat/. The debate, by the way, is not about whether we need F-22s--it is about whether we need 187 F-22 or closer to 200. The Air Force and the White House think we need 187 of them while members of Congress in whose districts the aircraft and their parts are built think we need to build more.
I am not sufficiently versed in military policy to gauge the likelihood of the F-22 funding remaining in the bill. There will be a robust discussion of this issue and probably a vote early next week and that obviously will impact the prospects of the hate crimes bill to become law.
It is anticipated that at some point later in the week (Wednesday or Thursday probably), there will be a vote on the overall DoD bill. We expect that it will pass with or without the F-22 funding. Again, there is not likely to be another vote directly on the hate crimes bill, but votes on the various amendments are very important and will be followed closely. And NCTE is strongly against the Senator Sessions Death Penalty Amendment.
Assuming that the DoD bill is voted on and passes, it will go to a House-Senate conference committee over the August recess (which they don't call a recess but rather something like a Summer In-District Work period). A conference happens when a bill passes both the House and the Senate but what is passed is not identical. The conference reconciles the differences and issues a conference report that both chambers then approve or disapprove. In this case, we would expect to see a conference report in September so that Congress can vote on the bill and send it to the White House for signing or vetoing before September 30 when the federal fiscal year ends.
At this point, we assume that if the funding for the aircraft is still in the bill, the President will veto it and the Senate will need to strip the F-22 funding or override the President’s veto or do something else thus passing both a DoD Authorization bill and a hate crimes bill. The White House and House and Senate Leadership have assured our coalition over and over that, regardless of a possible veto of this bill, the Matthew Shepard Act will be included in the bill that is eventually signed into law sometime this year.
What can people do?
The first important step people can take is to contact their two Senators before the Monday afternoon vote on the death penalty amendment from Senator Sessions and ask them to defeat it. If they voted for the Matthew Shepard Act Amendment last night, thank them for their support and leadership. NCTE will update people as additional actions are necessary.
Thanks to everyone who called, wrote to or visited their Senators.
For another take on last night’s win read this Associated Press piece
The full roll call vote of how Senators voted begins now.
Akaka (D-HI), Yea Alexander (R-TN), Not Voting Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Begich (D-AK), Yea Bennet (D-CO), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Nay Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Bond (R-MO), Not Voting Boxer (D-CA), Yea Brown (D-OH), Yea Brownback (R-KS), Nay Bunning (R-KY), Not Voting Burr (R-NC), Nay Burris (D-IL), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Cardin (D-MD), Yea Carper (D-DE), YeaCasey (D-PA), YeaChambliss (R-GA), NayCoburn (R-OK), NayCochran (R-MS), NayCollins (R-ME), YeaConrad (D-ND), YeaCorker (R-TN), Not VotingCornyn (R-TX), NayCrapo (R-ID), NayDeMint (R-SC), NayDodd (D-CT), YeaDorgan (D-ND), YeaDurbin (D-IL), YeaEnsign (R-NV), NayEnzi (R-WY), NayFeingold (D-WI), YeaFeinstein (D-CA), YeaFranken (D-MN), YeaGillibrand (D-NY), YeaGraham (R-SC), Not VotingGrassley (R-IA), NayGregg (R-NH), Not VotingHagan (D-NC), YeaHarkin (D-IA), YeaHatch (R-UT), NayHutchison (R-TX), NayInhofe (R-OK), NayInouye (D-HI), YeaIsakson (R-GA), NayJohanns (R-NE), NayJohnson (D-SD), YeaKaufman (D-DE), YeaKennedy (D-MA), Not VotingKerry (D-MA), YeaKlobuchar (D-MN), YeaKohl (D-WI), YeaKyl (R-AZ), NayLandrieu (D-LA), YeaLautenberg (D-NJ), YeaLeahy (D-VT), YeaLevin (D-MI), YeaLieberman (ID-CT), YeaLincoln (D-AR), YeaLugar (R-IN), YeaMartinez (R-FL), Not VotingMcCain (R-AZ), NayMcCaskill (D-MO), YeaMcConnell (R-KY), NayMenendez (D-NJ), YeaMerkley (D-OR), YeaMikulski (D-MD), YeaMurkowski (R-AK), YeaMurray (D-WA), YeaNelson (D-FL), YeaNelson (D-NE), YeaPryor (D-AR), YeaReed (D-RI), YeaReid (D-NV), YeaRisch (R-ID), NayRoberts (R-KS), NayRockefeller (D-WV), YeaSanders (I-VT), YeaSchumer (D-NY), YeaSessions (R-AL), NayShaheen (D-NH), YeaShelby (R-AL), NaySnowe (R-ME), YeaSpecter (D-PA), YeaStabenow (D-MI), YeaTester (D-MT), YeaThune (R-SD), NayUdall (D-CO), YeaUdall (D-NM), YeaVitter (R-LA), NayVoinovich (R-OH), YeaWarner (D-VA), YeaWebb (D-VA), YeaWhitehouse (D-RI), YeaWicker (R-MS), NayWyden (D-OR), Yea
Background: What Happened Before Last Night
In the House of Representatives, two votes have been held that matter for this discussion. First, on April 29, by a vote of 249-175, the House passed H.R. 1913 (The Local Law Enforcement hate Crimes Prevention Act, which is the House version of the Matthew Shepard Act and essentially identical). Second, the House has also passed it’s own version of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, which I’ll now call the DoD bill.
Also of importance to understand is that the White House has announced that the President would veto the DoD bill if, when it passes, it still contains funding for F-22 fighter aircraft because they consider the planes to be militarily and budgetarily undesirable. Some Senators are trying to remove the F-22 funding from the bill and some Senators are trying to keep the F-22 funding. I’ll explain in a moment how that impacts the hate crimes bill.
Finally, because of how Senate rules work, it was mostly advantageous to the Hate Crimes bill that it be attached to another bill that would be getting a vote in the Senate rather than running as a bill on its own. In previous years the DoD Authorization was selected as the vehicle onto which hate crimes would be attached because it was thought to be a must-sign bill for President Bush who would not want to disrupt the DoD just to express support for radical right people who hate the hate crimes bill. This year, Senate leadership decided that the DoD bill would be best the vehicle primarily because, in their estimation, it was basically the last train leaving the station if hate crimes were to pass this summer.
What Happened Last Night
Last night (Thursday) we had a vote on the Matthew Shepard Act. The vote was 63-28 and it is now attached to the DoD bill which will get a vote approximately next Wednesday or Thursday after additional amendments are considered early next week. Every Democrat voted yes (except Kennedy and Byrd who were absent) and 5 Republicans voted yes (Collins (R-ME), Lugar (R-IN), Murkowski (R-AK), Snowe (R-ME), and Voinovich (R-OH) ). I’ll append the rollcall list at the end of this post.
Here is what happened. A leadership agreement was reached between the Dems. and Reps. that the Matthew Shepard Act Amendment would be considered. The agreement was that last night there would be votes on two Republican amendments and one Democratic amendment, followed by a cloture vote (this stops or closes debate) on the Matthew Shepard Act Amendment and a vote to adopt the amendment. All of these things happened. Two unimportant amendments were adopted simply restated the First Amendment protections that are already clearly in both the bill and the Constitution. Additionally Senator Hatch proposed, but lost, an amendment that would have gutted the hate crimes act by studying it to death.
The bottom line about last night though is that the Matthew Shepard Act got the vote we had all been working for in the Senate and the vote totals were inspiring. Ultimately, all of the people who had called their Senators and all the people who visited their Senators won the support of two-thirds of the United State Senate. That’s spectacular.
What Happens Next?
It does not appear likely that another vote directly on the overall Matthew Shepard Act will be necessary in the Senate or the House. Yet there will be several more votes of significance on related matters that we will be monitoring. We are still optimistic that it will be signed into law this year, but that is probably still a few months away. Here is why.
Come Monday, Senators will offer four additional amendments on the topic of hate crimes. We know that one of these will attempt to add military service people as a protected class. Another is a really horrendous amendment that would add the death penalty to the Hate crimes provisions. NCTE strongly rejects the death penalty and is fervently opposed to the Sessions Amendment and will be encouraging our members to contact their Senators in opposition. NCTE would not support a hate crime law that included a death penalty provision. Regardless, Senator Sessions is trying to add the amendment as a posion pill meant to kill it; he will not vote for the Act with or without the death penalty.
The other debate to watch this week will be around the F-22 aircraft. Just Wednesday, the White House reiterated its seemingly firm intention of vetoing the entire DoD bill if the F-22 funding is retained. Here is a link to a Wall Street Journal blog post about the issue: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/06/26/air-force-secretary-repeats-f-22-veto-threat/. The debate, by the way, is not about whether we need F-22s--it is about whether we need 187 F-22 or closer to 200. The Air Force and the White House think we need 187 of them while members of Congress in whose districts the aircraft and their parts are built think we need to build more.
I am not sufficiently versed in military policy to gauge the likelihood of the F-22 funding remaining in the bill. There will be a robust discussion of this issue and probably a vote early next week and that obviously will impact the prospects of the hate crimes bill to become law.
It is anticipated that at some point later in the week (Wednesday or Thursday probably), there will be a vote on the overall DoD bill. We expect that it will pass with or without the F-22 funding. Again, there is not likely to be another vote directly on the hate crimes bill, but votes on the various amendments are very important and will be followed closely. And NCTE is strongly against the Senator Sessions Death Penalty Amendment.
Assuming that the DoD bill is voted on and passes, it will go to a House-Senate conference committee over the August recess (which they don't call a recess but rather something like a Summer In-District Work period). A conference happens when a bill passes both the House and the Senate but what is passed is not identical. The conference reconciles the differences and issues a conference report that both chambers then approve or disapprove. In this case, we would expect to see a conference report in September so that Congress can vote on the bill and send it to the White House for signing or vetoing before September 30 when the federal fiscal year ends.
At this point, we assume that if the funding for the aircraft is still in the bill, the President will veto it and the Senate will need to strip the F-22 funding or override the President’s veto or do something else thus passing both a DoD Authorization bill and a hate crimes bill. The White House and House and Senate Leadership have assured our coalition over and over that, regardless of a possible veto of this bill, the Matthew Shepard Act will be included in the bill that is eventually signed into law sometime this year.
What can people do?
The first important step people can take is to contact their two Senators before the Monday afternoon vote on the death penalty amendment from Senator Sessions and ask them to defeat it. If they voted for the Matthew Shepard Act Amendment last night, thank them for their support and leadership. NCTE will update people as additional actions are necessary.
Thanks to everyone who called, wrote to or visited their Senators.
For another take on last night’s win read this Associated Press piece
The full roll call vote of how Senators voted begins now.
Akaka (D-HI), Yea Alexander (R-TN), Not Voting Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Begich (D-AK), Yea Bennet (D-CO), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Nay Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Bond (R-MO), Not Voting Boxer (D-CA), Yea Brown (D-OH), Yea Brownback (R-KS), Nay Bunning (R-KY), Not Voting Burr (R-NC), Nay Burris (D-IL), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Cardin (D-MD), Yea Carper (D-DE), YeaCasey (D-PA), YeaChambliss (R-GA), NayCoburn (R-OK), NayCochran (R-MS), NayCollins (R-ME), YeaConrad (D-ND), YeaCorker (R-TN), Not VotingCornyn (R-TX), NayCrapo (R-ID), NayDeMint (R-SC), NayDodd (D-CT), YeaDorgan (D-ND), YeaDurbin (D-IL), YeaEnsign (R-NV), NayEnzi (R-WY), NayFeingold (D-WI), YeaFeinstein (D-CA), YeaFranken (D-MN), YeaGillibrand (D-NY), YeaGraham (R-SC), Not VotingGrassley (R-IA), NayGregg (R-NH), Not VotingHagan (D-NC), YeaHarkin (D-IA), YeaHatch (R-UT), NayHutchison (R-TX), NayInhofe (R-OK), NayInouye (D-HI), YeaIsakson (R-GA), NayJohanns (R-NE), NayJohnson (D-SD), YeaKaufman (D-DE), YeaKennedy (D-MA), Not VotingKerry (D-MA), YeaKlobuchar (D-MN), YeaKohl (D-WI), YeaKyl (R-AZ), NayLandrieu (D-LA), YeaLautenberg (D-NJ), YeaLeahy (D-VT), YeaLevin (D-MI), YeaLieberman (ID-CT), YeaLincoln (D-AR), YeaLugar (R-IN), YeaMartinez (R-FL), Not VotingMcCain (R-AZ), NayMcCaskill (D-MO), YeaMcConnell (R-KY), NayMenendez (D-NJ), YeaMerkley (D-OR), YeaMikulski (D-MD), YeaMurkowski (R-AK), YeaMurray (D-WA), YeaNelson (D-FL), YeaNelson (D-NE), YeaPryor (D-AR), YeaReed (D-RI), YeaReid (D-NV), YeaRisch (R-ID), NayRoberts (R-KS), NayRockefeller (D-WV), YeaSanders (I-VT), YeaSchumer (D-NY), YeaSessions (R-AL), NayShaheen (D-NH), YeaShelby (R-AL), NaySnowe (R-ME), YeaSpecter (D-PA), YeaStabenow (D-MI), YeaTester (D-MT), YeaThune (R-SD), NayUdall (D-CO), YeaUdall (D-NM), YeaVitter (R-LA), NayVoinovich (R-OH), YeaWarner (D-VA), YeaWebb (D-VA), YeaWhitehouse (D-RI), YeaWicker (R-MS), NayWyden (D-OR), Yea
Verdict In Lateisha Green Court Trial
Today in Syracuse, New York, a 12-member jury found Dwight DeLee guilty of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime and criminal possession of a weapon for the murder of Lateisha Green on November 14, 2008. This verdict represents the first hate crime conviction for the murder of a transgender person in the state of New York. We hope that Lateisha's family can find some measure of peace and healing as a result of this decision. Below you will find a statement released by Lateisha's family.
"Teish, a beautiful girl. A wonderful daughter. A brave soul. Teish was all of these things despite the adversity that regularly tried to weigh her down and overshadow her love of life. She was taken away from us too soon. All it took was one bullet.
A bullet from a rifle that pierced her lungs and heart. And it took this one mere bullet to end Teish's life because she happened to be a transgender woman. We have spent months waiting for this day to come.
8 long months that have kept our family captive to our fears, sadness and anger. Afraid to leave our homes, sad to have lost Teish and angry that we couldn't prevent this from happening to our little girl. But today, the jury delivered a verdict that will end most of the horrors experienced by our family and friends.
The jury convicted Dwight DeLee of killing Teish in cold blood. They found him guilty of targeting Teish simply because of her difference. And the jury has made it clear that any loss of life in our city and county because of anti-gay and anti-transgender bias is unacceptable and wrong. Justice has been done.
But we will never get to see Teish ever again. She will forever live in our hearts and minds. And it is our duty to share her story so that Teish's memory will be kept alive. We do this so this series of painful events will never happen again to any other person because they are different.
Our family and friends will continue to talk about Teish so others may know the love and support that every child deserves regardless of their differences. We want to thank everyone who stood behind us and gave our family strength during such difficult times. The overwhelming amount of support has meant so much to us. We want to close by saying life is precious. Teish knew that and that's why she would tell everyone here to be brave. To be authentic and true to yourself. And Teish would give a beautiful and bright smile to everyone here. Thank you."
"Teish, a beautiful girl. A wonderful daughter. A brave soul. Teish was all of these things despite the adversity that regularly tried to weigh her down and overshadow her love of life. She was taken away from us too soon. All it took was one bullet.
A bullet from a rifle that pierced her lungs and heart. And it took this one mere bullet to end Teish's life because she happened to be a transgender woman. We have spent months waiting for this day to come.
8 long months that have kept our family captive to our fears, sadness and anger. Afraid to leave our homes, sad to have lost Teish and angry that we couldn't prevent this from happening to our little girl. But today, the jury delivered a verdict that will end most of the horrors experienced by our family and friends.
The jury convicted Dwight DeLee of killing Teish in cold blood. They found him guilty of targeting Teish simply because of her difference. And the jury has made it clear that any loss of life in our city and county because of anti-gay and anti-transgender bias is unacceptable and wrong. Justice has been done.
But we will never get to see Teish ever again. She will forever live in our hearts and minds. And it is our duty to share her story so that Teish's memory will be kept alive. We do this so this series of painful events will never happen again to any other person because they are different.
Our family and friends will continue to talk about Teish so others may know the love and support that every child deserves regardless of their differences. We want to thank everyone who stood behind us and gave our family strength during such difficult times. The overwhelming amount of support has meant so much to us. We want to close by saying life is precious. Teish knew that and that's why she would tell everyone here to be brave. To be authentic and true to yourself. And Teish would give a beautiful and bright smile to everyone here. Thank you."
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Rep. Frank Speaks Out
"Legislation banning discrimination against transgender people -– that is, legislation that allows them as citizens to get and keep jobs on their merits —- will not by any means make their lives easy. But it is precisely because transgender people through no fault of their own face the degree of prejudice and difficulty that they still encounter that those of us in elected office ought to do what we can to offer them the protections to which they are entitled. ... To some, the notion of transgender protection seems radical. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. What we are talking about here is the right of people in every state to earn a living." --Rep. Barney Frank
Rep. Frank submitted testimony yesterday about a bill addressing gender identity in his home state of Massachusetts. Read a copy of his testimony.
Rep. Frank submitted testimony yesterday about a bill addressing gender identity in his home state of Massachusetts. Read a copy of his testimony.
If Only We Were This Powerful...
On occasion The National Center for Transgender Equality is mentioned in the media. In a recent editorial in the Durant Daily Democrat, a newspaper serving Durant, Oklahoma, Harold Harmon seems to suggest that NCTE is a government entity funded by your precious tax dollars with the power to change federal policy.
As an intern at NCTE, I could not help but laugh when I read this article. While we certainly work diligently to leverage what power we do have to influence federal policy, we by no means have the power to unilaterally change policy (although sometimes I daydream about what the world would look like if that were the case). And, we most definitely are not funded by your tax dollars, but rather largely by your generous donations.
This editorial's rhetoric is also interesting in a different respect. Harmon sets up an us versus them dichotomy, a refrain we are all too familiar with. I do not know what Harmon's intentions are in suggesting that "our country" does not include transgender folks, but I do know how damaging and hurtful such a notion is. The reality is that our country is beautifully diverse and includes our transgender brothers and sisters, the challenge is to change our laws to reflect the realities and experiences of all Americans. This challenge is the reason for NCTE's existence.
I chose to write about this article because I think it reflects a lot of common misunderstandings and frustrations, even if it does not constitute the loudest, most effective, or most painful voice among our opposition. I also think it is important that we, as a movement, know what types of rhetoric are being used against us so that we can be more effective in developing our strategies and arguments.
Here at NCTE we do our best to keep a pulse on the voices that speak out against transgender equality and keep these voices in mind while conducting our very important work.
As an intern at NCTE, I could not help but laugh when I read this article. While we certainly work diligently to leverage what power we do have to influence federal policy, we by no means have the power to unilaterally change policy (although sometimes I daydream about what the world would look like if that were the case). And, we most definitely are not funded by your tax dollars, but rather largely by your generous donations.
This editorial's rhetoric is also interesting in a different respect. Harmon sets up an us versus them dichotomy, a refrain we are all too familiar with. I do not know what Harmon's intentions are in suggesting that "our country" does not include transgender folks, but I do know how damaging and hurtful such a notion is. The reality is that our country is beautifully diverse and includes our transgender brothers and sisters, the challenge is to change our laws to reflect the realities and experiences of all Americans. This challenge is the reason for NCTE's existence.
I chose to write about this article because I think it reflects a lot of common misunderstandings and frustrations, even if it does not constitute the loudest, most effective, or most painful voice among our opposition. I also think it is important that we, as a movement, know what types of rhetoric are being used against us so that we can be more effective in developing our strategies and arguments.
Here at NCTE we do our best to keep a pulse on the voices that speak out against transgender equality and keep these voices in mind while conducting our very important work.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Schroer case shows why we need ENDA
After four years of fighting in court under the last Administration, the U.S. Department of Justice decided last month not to appeal Diane Schroer’s landmark victory in her discrimination suit against the Library of Congress. Diane, a U.S. Army Special Forces veteran and counterterrorism expert, was offered a position at the Library for which she highly qualified, only to have that offer rescinded on the basis of her gender transition.
The decision not to appeal was not really a surprise, coming as it did only days after a White House memorandum that is expected to lead to clearer protections for transgender federal employees. What happened to Diane should never have happened in the first place. Like the rapidly growing number of private employers with explicit nondiscrimination policies on the subject, most federal officials making hiring decisions today would realize that a person’s gender identity or expression is irrelevant to their ability to serve their government. They would realize that what happened to Diane is exactly the kind of irrational, non-merit- based discrimination that the Civil Service Act has long prohibited. Indeed, Diane wouldn’t have been the first out transgender person to work for a federal agency, or even for the Library of Congress.
But the blatant discrimination Diane experienced did happen, and that’s not surprising either. Most employers, even large ones, don’t yet have clear antidiscrimination policies, nor do most states or cities. Even with public and private employers alike increasingly recognizing that gender identity is irrelevant in the workplace, there are outliers, managers who are motivated to discriminate by ignorance or bias. That’s why, even with Diane Schroer winning in court, we need clear guidelines for the federal workforce. It’s why, ultimately, we need ENDA: to set a clear, consistent, national policy that in this country we do not discriminate based on gender identity, any more than we discriminate on the basis of religion, age, race, or disability. Passing ENDA won’t end discrimination once and for all – there will still be lawsuits like Diane’s. But it will establish unambiguously what most Americans already believe: that this kind of discrimination is never acceptable.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Making Calls in Support of ENDA
For the last week, in my capacity as an NCTE intern, I have been making calls to congressional staffers to urge them to have their member of Congress sign-on as a co-sponsor to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). To be honest, it can be slightly nerve racking to make a cold call to a congressional office, and eventually I did get tired of hearing my own voice. Yet, I was surprised with how rewarding the simple act of making a call can be. Over the course of a week I spent several hours calling and witnessed the number of co-sponsors jump quite significantly (we currently have 127 co-sponsors).
Certainly I cannot take sole credit for this, many others in the office were also making calls, and I know many of you at home were doing the same. The rollout of ENDA was yet another example of the power of grassroots action. I had many a staffer tell me that they had met with constituents or received calls from them in regards to ENDA and would be looking into co-sponsorship. The next day I would see their names added to the list.
So thank you to all of you who have already made calls. Let’s keep it up! I promise when you see your member’s name added to the co-sponsorship list you will feel the same sense of satisfaction I have these last few days.
You can find out who your Representative is by following this link. Once you find out who your Representative is you can go to their website to find the number of their DC office or you can call the Congressional Switch board at (202)224-3121.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
