Tweet
This is a “connect the dots” post. It’s an hindsight argument as to why HRC’s/Logo’s VisibleVote*08 choice of Jonathan Capehart was perhaps an LG choice for a journalist/questioner, and not an LGBT choice for an LGBT debate.
1.) Today, the Washington Post published an editorial entitled A Civil Rights Law; Employment discrimination against gays and lesbians should be outlawed.:
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-Mass.) is set to introduce two versions of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in the House Education and Labor Committee. One would extend civil rights protections based on sexual orientation. The other would do so for gender identity, which would cover transgender people who have changed their sex, are living their lives as the opposite sex or who do not conform to traditional gender roles. This will be done because within the past few days it became clear that an inclusive bill would be defeated because of the transgender protection. Mr. Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress, deserves credit for devising the plan that might well save the basic bill.
It requires time and patience to educate the public and lawmakers about how prejudice harms some people. That’s what gays and lesbians have been doing in their quest for equality for nearly 40 years. And that’s what transgender people will have to do. Delaying passage of ENDA, which was first introduced in the House in the mid-1970s by Rep. Bella Abzug (D-N.Y.), until the transgender community changes enough hearts and minds would be a mistake.
2.) Jonathan Capehart is an editorial writer for the Washington Post.
3.) Back when Jonathan Capehart was a writer for the New York Daily News in 2002, he argued against including transgender protections in New York’s Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA):
[New York State Senator Tom] Duane [(D-Manhattan)] and his gay constituents already are protected by [New York] city’s human rights law. The transgendered, too. The senator’s fight puts the protection of gays and lesbians throughout the state at risk.
“I’m not trying to stop SONDA,” he said recently. “What have I been in office for? It’s been a part of my platform.”
But the eleventh-hour amendment could undermine that platform. That’s why Duane should put off his transgender activism until after the bill is passed. Untold numbers of gays and lesbians around the state need legal protection. It’s long overdue.
When the HRC and LOGO picked Capehart as a panelist/questioner, they picked someone who in the past of advocating against transgender inclusion in a non-discrimination act. Now the Washington Post, with Capehart as an editorial writer, is advocating against transgender inclusion in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). I believe Capehart’s previous commentary on SONDA and the Washington Post‘s current editorial on ENDA are too similar in perspective to be disconnected.
I guess no one should be surprised to learn that Jonathan Capehart asked no transgender specific questions at the VisibleVote*08 forum.
Should I be inferring anything about the HRC’s position on transgender exclusion from ENDA because LOGO and the HRC chose Capehart as an LGBT community representative for the VisibleVote*08 forum?
Again, the HRC’s silence so far is deafening.
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
–Martin Luther King Jr.
4 Comments
Basic Bigotry“It requires time and patience to educate the public and lawmakers about how prejudice harms some people.”So – why isn't Capehart doin' some educatin' about how HRC and Ol' Barn have a long, proven record of prejudice against “some people.”Some people, ya know, like…all trans people.”The last time Congress took up ENDA was in 1996…”Huh? I know there hasn't been a floor vote since then, but (1) there's been a bill every session since then, and (2) there wasn't really a vote on it in 1996; it was a theatrical vote to allow some fence-sitters to cast a seemingly pro-gay vote to balance out the vote for DOMA (the bill to which ENDA was allegedly almost attached to.)”Mr. Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress, deserves credit for devising the plan that might well save the basic bill.”The “basic bill.”That says volumes.No matter what, our issues and our very lives are add-ons to all that gays might desire first – our presence is always something that we must genuflect to our gay masters over.”All Hail Barney! We thank thee!”?”All Hail Tammy! We praise thee!”?Never.Never.Never.Kat
The “basic bill”Sure does say volumes. Apparently, not discriminating against transgender people is a flashy option, like leather seats or a sun roof.The main underlying assumption of the column says volumes, too: “it's YOUR responsibility to convince US not to hate you.” People who want to be ethical rather than just conveniently privileged need to step up and educate themselves, not demand that the people they're discriminating against do their homework for them.
If you wait for people to educate themselves, you will be waiting for generations. That's human nature, sad to say. It's no fun to have to go through being the token “x”, particularly if you have been the token “y” before . Too bad. Individuals just have to suck it up and do Trans 101 for their neighbors, politicians, etc. Any given individual doesn't need to do it full time, but most people who can do so safely need to give a little of their time to education and lobbying, even if it is something small like answering a neighbor's probably well-meant but ignorant questions. And it seems likely that one of the early education targets needs to be the general gay and lesbian community. Remember, there are new members of the LGB community all the time, tabulae rasae (?) on trans issues. All I knew before a few years ago was that some tennis player had had a sex change – probably the only well-known example in the media of the 70s. And that the local hospital where I worked did elective bilateral mastectomies occasionally.
Your point is valid……and I hope I wasn't interpreted as discouraging anyone from doing exactly that. It's what has worked for gay and lesbian people (if our movement can be said to have “worked” to any extent.)It's so ugly to hear the idea used, though, as a justification for abandoning transgenders to discrimination, which is what I perceive Capehart to be saying.