Transgender Rights Reinserted in Controversial Gay-Workplace Bill
By Daryl Hannah
October 18, 2007
The fight for equal rights for LGBT employees almost ended earlier this month over the inclusion of gender identity in the proposed federal bill. Now, Rep. Barney Frank has reintroduced the rights of transgender people into the bill, which will reach the House floor by the end of the month.
The House Education and Labor Committee is set to meet on the controversial Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) today. Frank's decision to include transgender people comes two weeks after Democrats announced a plan to remove transgender people from the original version of the bill and introduce a separate bill, Gender Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), aimed to protect transgender employees. Despite having support from leading Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the move drew criticism from LGBT community leaders who feared separating transgender people was unfair.
"We are one community, and we demand protections for all of us, and nothing else will suffice," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in an article by The Associated Press.
On Oct. 1, 300 LGBT groups signed an open letter to Pelosi saying they opposed legislation "that leaves part of our community without protections and basic security."
The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) was among the groups that cosigned the letter and issued a statement on its web site: "GLSEN supports non-discrimination policies that include enumerated protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. We hope Congress will recognize the unacceptable shortcomings of a bill that is deliberately exclusionary and leaves gaping loopholes for discrimination based on sexual orientation."
Out & Equal Workplace Advocates also cosigned the letter and used its web site to urge individuals and companies to add their names to the letter.
However, one major advocacy group that opted not to add its name to the list was the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). "We didn't sign the letter because it makes absolutely no sense to oppose a bill that is going to be voted on by the House of Representatives, that is going to move forward in the interest in securing protections for the entire GLBT community in the most expeditious way possible. It doesn't make sense for us to further the cause," says Daryl Herrschaft, director of Workplace Project for HRC.
"The HRC's position is that we stand absolutely in favor of a fully inclusive bill, and that is exactly what we are working toward. We want one inclusive bill to pass," he adds.
Last week, Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress, defended his plan to separate the bill into two bills, saying the inclusion of transgender people could significantly hurt the progress of the bill. "We do not have the votes to pass the bill with transgender protections," said Frank in a press conference on Capitol Hill. Frank further accused LGBT groups pushing for the one bill that included transgender people of wanting to "kill the bill."
"I have a very profound difference of opinion," said Frank.
However, Democratic caucus members met Tuesday morning and agreed to introduce a "gender identity" amendment to the bill once it reaches the House floor, and Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin, the other openly gay member of Congress, should be the author of the amendment. After the meeting, Frank said he was convinced this was "best way to advance the cause of nondiscrimination."
"We are 100 percent very excited and supportive of the Baldwin amendment," said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, reports the Windy City Times. "We still greatly, greatly prefer an inclusive bill coming out of committee; however, we will be supporting the Baldwin amendment."
Some Democratic members are leery that the move to include gender identity will still weigh down the bill as it attempts to wend through the House. Many fear the tactic will be a repeat of 1996, when the bill was originally voted on by both chambers but failed the Senate by one vote.
More Legislation >>
Send Your Comments About This Article Now
©DiversityInc. Reproduction in any format is absolutely prohibited.
|
