Does ENDA Justify the Means?

The Washington Blade reports that Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi disagrees with some activists
who feel that Congress should refuse to vote on any version of the Employment Non Discrimination Act that doesn't contain protection for transgender people. While Pelosi believes that they have the votes to pass the gay-only version, insistence on including sexual identity could scuttle passage of any bill at all.

I struggle a bit with this question. I personally believe that it is absurd to be OK with one version but not the other. Someone is either human or they aren't. If you acknowledge that you are righting a wrong for one group, how do you continue wronging another?

The practical side of me, and the argument that Pelosi is using, is that the gay-only ENDA bill will help millions of people, and the Trans issue can be dealt with later. Basically, a "bird in the hand."

My problem with this incremental approach is that we're not talking about fuel efficiency standards here. This is a question of basic human dignity. Would we have been OK with an Emancipation Proclamation for "Light-Skinned" black folks only? A Nineteenth Amendment for "Hot Women" only?Nancy Pelosi is buying into the notion that if she asks for the right thing and is told "No.", it is she who is denying rights to gay people. It is this sort of fallacious logic that has led to mistake after mistake for the Democrats. If they vote to de-fund the war, but the President chooses to leave the troops in Iraq anyway, somehow it is not Bush who is hurting the troops.

By settling for a gay-only ENDA bill, the Democrats will be codifying discrimination against transgendered people. While they may feel this is a worthy compromise to get the bill passed, I would urge Nancy Pelosi and
congressmen of both parties to remember that, when considering Civil Rights legislation, they carry around with them the ghosts of martyrs like Emmitt Till, Matt Shephard, and Brandon Teena. These were people who were killed, not fighting for a cause, but just for being who they were. I wouldn't dream of speaking for them, and they can't speak for themselves, but I have a feeling that these conversations would go a little differently if both sides felt these souls looking over their shoulders.

My brother, Jesse, has been trying to bring me up to speed on LBGT nomenclature. He refers to the larger LBGT community as the "Queer" community. We had an argument about this, as I felt that the term "queer" might sound fine coming from an insider, but to everyone else, it might sound derogatory. Jesse explained to me that some people would rather identify as "queer" rather than get into very personal, clinical definitions of their identities. This makes sense to me, but I still feel uncomfortable, even as an ally, using the term. He suggested I go with "LGBTQ". Sounds good to me.

He also tells me that there are several levels of schism in the LBGTQ community, that a lot of gays and lesbians think nothing of marginalizing and/or deriding Transgender people. This never ceases to amaze me. It seems some people in every group need to have someone they feel superior to. I hope to get him to chime in in the comments section here, so do check back.

Part of the problem, too, is that people don't really understand sexual identity issues. I'm the first to admit that I I'm not even close to getting it. Our leaders, then, need to step up and say, "You don't need to understand anything but this: These are human beings, deserving of equality with all other human beings." ENDA story.