Tweet
When a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person supports his, her, or hir own oppression — his, her, or hir own community’s opression — that to me is just a bit sad and depressing. But, there is the libertarian argument rejects the idea that it’s a function of government to involve itself in policing discrimination (emphasis added):
[I]t’s wrong to discriminate against an employee just because he (or she) is gay, but it isn’t the government’s business to prevent business owners from doing wrong.
B. Daniel Blatt, at GayPatriot, wrote a piece entitled Would ENDA lead to forced “outing”? In the piece, he argues that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) isn’t necessary, and may resort in employers outing their gay and lesbian employees in the workplace.
Should [ENDA] pass, how would a liberal Administration enforce it, would the Holder Justice Department bring “disparate impact” lawsuits against corporations that don’t have the proper amount of homosexuals in their workforce. Would a lower percentage of gay people in the workforce (than in the surrounding jurisdiction) be evidence of discrimination as some liberals believe a lower proportion of minorities (than in the population at large) is prima facie evidence of discrimination? (See e.g., Sonia Sotomayor and the Ricci decision).And how would an employer determine how many gays are in his employ (and a judge in his jurisdiction)? Would people be required to identify their sexuality when they take a job?
He indirectly suggests the tool for this would be “outing.” He cites how the HRC’s new Corporate Equality Index (CEI) report, entitled State of the Workplace, indicates that the number of corporations providing benefits for “gay and lesbian employees” is increasing without government mandating antidiscrimination through federal law.
Let me just point out that Mr. Blatt left out that the HRC CEI report also covers bisexual and trans employees; the HRC CEI report, as well as and ENDA, are written to recognize that employment nondiscrimination isn’t only about gay and lesbian employees.
Obviously, Mr. Blatt is not really experiencing discrimination himself, he seems more invested in a libertarian ideology than the people who experience discrimination. So, we have a significant difference of perspective on the function of government: I strongly believe preventing employment discrimination is a function of government.
So let’s focus just on the “transgender portion” of the legislation question that is addressed with the use of the phrase gender identity.
Preliminary findings from The Task Force‘s National Transgender Discrimination Survey (September 2009) indicated about trans people in the general population:
Key findings• Double the rate of unemployment: Survey respondents experience unemployment at twice the rate of the population as a whole.
• Near universal harassment on the job: Ninety-seven percent (97%) of those surveyed reported experiencing harassment or mistreatment on the job.
• Significant losses of jobs and careers: Forty-seven percent (47%) had experienced an adverse job outcome, such as being fired, not hired or denied a promotion.
• High rates of poverty: Fifteen percent (15%) of transgender people in our sample lived on $10,000 per year or less-double the rate of the general population.
[More data on trans employment below the fold.]National Transgender Discrimination Survey continued:
Unemployment and Loss of Jobs• Transgender people are unemployed at alarming rates. Overall 13% of respondents were unemployed, nearly double the national average at the time of the survey. This is even more acute for respondents who are Black (26%), Latino (18%) and Multiracial (17%).
• Forty-seven percent (47%) of survey respondents experienced an adverse job action because they are transgender–they did not get a job, were denied a promotion or were fired — that directly impacted their employment status. A staggering number of the people surveyed, 26%, lost their jobs due to their gender identity/expression. Particularly hard hit were those who were Black (32%) or Multiracial (37%).
And the Transgender Law Center’s State Of Transgender California (March 2009) indicated about trans people in California:
Workplace HarassmentSeventy percent of the transgender community reports some form of workplace harassment or
discrimination directly related to their gender identity.
• 27% experienced verbal harassment
• 22% experienced unfair scrutiny and/or discipline
• 22% were harassed by coworkers
• 17% were harassed by supervisors
• 15% experienced sexual harassment
• 11% were denied access to restrooms that matched their gender identity
• 9% had their access to customers or clients restricted or eliminatedDespite widespread employment discrimination, only 15% of those who reported some form of discrimination or harassment filed a complaint. Of those who did not file any complaint, 44% did not think they could get the assistance they needed or prove their case. Thirty percent did not know if transgender people have any legal protections against discrimination. Of those who did not file a complaint, 27% did not know how or where to file a complaint and 26% were afraid to lose their job. Thirteen percent of those persons were afraid to come out in order to file a complaint.
Job Loss and Career Changes
Almost half of all respondents report experiencing some loss of employment either as a direct or possible result of their gender identity. Thirty percent of respondents reported that they have been unemployed as a direct result of being transgender or gender non-conforming. Fourteen percent report that they were fired because of their gender identity. Another 13% were denied a promotion, 12% were laid off, and 10% were reorganized out of a job due to their gender identity.
People who have lost a job due to their gender identity are more likely to have a lower income. For example, with even one incidence of losing a job due to gender identity, 34% of respondents make less than $10,000 per year. This is twice the rate of those persons who have not lost a job due to their gender identity.
And, this is just the transgender data. There have been recent studies on LGBT employment of late that look better than the data cited in this piece. However, it’s not about which subcommunity of the LGBT community is experiencing the most employment discrimination — the point is to use tools to end as much of it is as possible. ENDA is such a tool.
Mr. Blatt’s ends with this as his “solution” to employment discrimination:
…the solution is simple: freedom. Eliminate laws which discriminate against gay people and don’t enact new ones in order to achieve “full equality” (whatever that is).
My solution is different: Pass ENDA. Provide more civil rights protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Use government as a tool to effect social change; use law to create “liberty and justice for all.”
To quote Cesar Chavez:
“Society is made up of groups, and as long as the smaller groups do not have the same rights and the same protection as others – I don’t care whether you call it capitalism or communism – it is not going to work. Somehow, the guys in power have to be reached by counterpower, or through a change in their hearts and minds, or change will not come.”
In my opinion, we’re back to the opening thought in this piece: When a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person supports his, her, or hir own oppression — his, her, or hir own community’s opression — that to me is just a bit sad and depressing. Mr. Blatt’s commentary at GayPatriot is sad and depressing to me — he puts ideology over people suffering from discrimination.
Understanding one belogs to a community of individuals working as a group can effect change for a broad range of LGBT community members possible; thinking only as a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender individual means you might do well, but not your peer community members. And then, civil rights becomes just about *you*, or those who are not much out of your circle of *you*.
.
27 Comments
“Outing” can be about more than just sexuuality.
In the UK employers are prohibited from revealing personal information about employees without their permission, including sexuality, disability, religious beliefs and marital status. To reveal that kind of information without the employee’s permission is classed as a form of discrimination as it could be done to alienate an unwanted employee from co-workers, creating a situation where they are forced to resign.
If anything, ENDA should prevent employers from outing employees against their will, not force them to do so.
Trans employees who transition on the job HAVE to be outWe don’t exactly have a choice.
I love the way one commenter takes the ONE high-profile case of an out gay person engaging in sexual harassment of coworkers and extrapolates it to a widespread pattern. Now, Bonnie Bleskachek is an embarrassment, both to the LGBT community and to the city of Minneapolis, but one person does not a pattern make.
Affirmative Action??Blatt argues that ENDA would be a form of affirmative action (i.e. making sure that a company hires a representative number of GLBT people based on community numbers.), but the authors of ENDA have specifically stated that is NOT the purpose of ENDA, but merely to protect people from discrimination on the job.
Most of this discrimination, as we all know who have faced it, is based on homophobia, and backed up by religious doctrine, which actually makes it a form of religious persecution, which is prohibited under law. We don’t try to balance work communities based on the surrounding religious population (although sometimes I wonder how powerful it would be to force Christians to listen to their prejudices through the eyes of those they oppress, or work in an environment where they are a minority.), we do by law ensure that a person can’t be harassed at work based on their religious choices. The enforcement of ENDA would not be any different, except that my sexual orientation — gay or straight, or gender identity — male or female would not be a reason to be harassed or fired, as it is under the present situation, as most of us can tell you under the present situation.
“GayPatriot” s full of shitand always has been.
He’s a terrified little neo-fascist closet queen, slining spitballs from the comfort of his computer. In the rela world he wouldn’t last a nanosecond.
Ignore the creep.
I don’t understand…how he says you have to “out” yourself. The bill says “whether actual or perceived” so if you feel the you are discriminated against, in no way does that mean you have to admit that you are LGBT. It means that your employer thinks that you are LGBT.
As someone mentioned before, this is not an affirmative action bill. Employers do not have to prove that they have hired X number of LGBT employees. Therefore, that do not have to ask if you are LGBT.
I love the quote from Cesar Chavez, I’m going to use it on my blog.
Libertarians in generalLibertarians tend to be isolated, selfish individuals who are rejected by their peers. Most are social misfits who don’t have close friends and loving families.
That is why it is so easy for them to reject the concepts fo community and argue so blindly for individual freedoms and lack of government regulation and protections.
These are people who will argue against laws that require putting children in car seats. They use terms like “nanny state” and fail to understand how large numbers of dead and injured children can result in a negative personal impact for everyone. They will argue against anti-smoking laws in support of the “right” to smoke without taking in consideration the right of everyone else to breathe clean air.
Many of the Libertians that I have encountered claim to be “rugged individualists” and believe that if left alone with their guns and property they would have an ideal existence.
In reality, these people are weak and selfish. If their dreams of an unregulated society came true, they would be excluded from the societal groups that would emerge around them. Those groups would quickly see them as a threat for their inabilty to cooperate and kill them.
There is a reason why we encounter so many Libertarians online. They don’t have any friends. People who have selfish political views are typically assholes who don’t get invited to parties. They are the kind of people who will drink all your booze and never bring a bottle to share.
In my offline world, I don’t have any Libertarian friends. I have a couple of relatives who express these views and they are the ones who never come to family funerals and weddings. They fear that someone may ask them to open their wallets or otherwise contribute to the well being of the family.
People like Dan Blatt will die alone and miserable, without ever having contributed anything of value to society.
Do we know for surethat he’s even a queen? Sometimes I wonder if he’s a plant so the bigots can point and say, “see? Even teh gayz don’t want this.”
Off topic for Autumn…Autumn, I just read the following article at Salon.com and would love to see you write about it:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/featu…
Here are some tidbits:
Actually, it is.
When the exclusive ENDA passed the house, the argument was that gays outnumbered trans people so much, that even if trans people were a little bit more discriminated against, that having only gays covered still gave a reasonable result.
Such arguments are still being used in New York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, all places where Gays have employment protections, but trans people do not.
Can anyone imagine the outcry if these figures applied to Gays? Imagine if 23% of GLBs had been fired or otherwise persecuted in their job for being Gay, let alone 47%?
I agree that engaging in a detailed calculus of victimhood is unproductive. Not useful. But when you don’t need details, when the disparity pokes you in the eye with a stick, it’s even more unproductive to ignore it, or even deny it exists.
If Gay Patriot had bothered to……..……..research this, that would have found that “disparete impact” is deliberately excluded as a remedy in this law.
If discrimination protection wasn’t a function of the government,It wouldn’t have been written into the constitution. The fact that it was means that the government should do all it can to make sure that all citizens have equal rights and equal protections. ENDA is just adding 2 categories to an existing law, a law that I’m sure some people would prefer wasn’t there at all.
Ah, but researching would require a trip to the LIBRARY!!!And Libertarians view the LIBRARY as an evil place!
See “The Scourge of Public Libraries” for the Libertarian ‘take’ on the horrors that evil old Socialist, Ben Franklin, wrought upon America with his public library in Philadelphia.
I have a problem with the term “Gay Patriot”In the same spirit in which conservatives (as a group) pathologise the LGBT community–
–How long has Mr. Gay had this case of ‘patriosis’?
(oops, forgot the pseudotag)
/snark
This whole thing is based on the false premisethat there is or ever will be gay quotas.
Since there are states who have had ENDA laws for over 25 years this is so simple to PROVE absolutely ridiculous.
I’m working on my Weekend This & That diary……Sounds like even if it doesn’t get a whole diary, it would be worth a mention in the T&T diary.
I’ll take a look.
Okay, back on topic….
As I a libertarianI do not support ENDA or hate crime laws even though I understand them and support what they try to do. I was even fired at an employer for being gay. I supported these types of bills about 10 years ago, but I realized that you can’t change people or ideas by force. Still I respect what people try to do with these bills.
Has anyone ever seen ‘Gay Patriot’ and Perez Hilton in the same room at the same time?
LibertarianismMy thinking has always been that libertarians are well-intentioned, but misinformed. As an ideology, libertarianism naively seeks to place all of society and its institutions at the mercy of Adam Smith’s invisible hand, postulating that if we simply let those market forces do their magic, we’d end up with as civilized a society as the one we currently take for granted.
In reality, we wouldn’t. Society would be a gigantic mess with extreme economic instability and inequality, with frequent economic depressions and uneven distribution of wealth, both public and private.
Libertarians have very little concept of history. The “socialist” regulations on our economy are a direct consequence of what life was like in this country before they existed. The FDA, for example, was inspired the conditions at the Chicago stockyards described in Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle.” I highly doubt that anybody would want to return to the conditions of that time.
As it pertains to ENDA, the whole reason why anti-discrimination protections are necessary is that without them, there would be a lot of discrimination. We can’t rely on private industry alone to get its act together, and changing people’s minds and hearts is a noble goal, but not one that can be achieved across the board any time soon — note how 45 years after the Civil Rights Act, discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sex still persist.
Libertarians, however, place ideology over reality. To me, that places libertarianism among the ranks of radical left-wing ideologies like Marxism.
I know I work under the MLK Jr. premise…
We have used laws in the USA to make social change; we use laws to effect changes for minority populations.
Out of High School, I used to be a registered Libertarian. Seeing social injustices; seeing sexual harassment from the side of being harassed myself; seeing the effect of hate violence on others and me — these are, in large part, what changed my mind about what is and isn’t a function of well functioning government.
That’s a misunderstanding of the law’s purposeThe purpose of the law is not to change people or ideas.
That’s akin to thinking one can legislate acceptance — you cannot do so.
All the laws like this do is provide a means for consequences of certain actions.
People are still quite free to engage in the actions so long as they are willing to face the consequences that might happen as a result.
Misrepresenting the law’s purpose is not a good thing.
To borrow from Autumn’s quote, the law’s don’t stop someone from lynching anyone. They merely provide consequences for doing so.
My take on ENDAAs someone who has been responsible for my company’s participation in the HRC Corporate Equality Index Survey — as well as getting them to endorse passage of ENDA through the HRC Business Coalition for Fairness — I think I have a little more informed perspective from the “GayPatriot”.
ENDA does something in the realm of employment non-discrimination that is different than for any other minority group — it explicitly forbids the creation of affirmative action types of programs based on sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.
Unlike other protected classes, under ENDA, employers are not required to provide demographic data regarding sexual orientation or gender identity — which are required for women, ethnic minorities, veterans, etc.
This is a completely different approach to employment non-discrimination.
This is in recognition of a few things beyond employee privacy issues — first, that making your workplace GLBT inclusive (objectively and substantively) is not something that can be proscribed by a government one-size-fits-all type of regulation. Second, GLBT people do not want or need redress for historical discrimination. And third — the broad diversity of GLBT people means that in terms of competing for employment, other factors will weigh higher once you take out the ability to make employment decisions based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
In other words, take out irrational discrimination based on GLBT-status and our community will do just fine.
Companies that take the next steps, beyond simply adhering to the non-discrimination law — working to make their workplaces truly inclusive, will have a competitive advantage over those that don’t. GLBT people will naturally gravitate to those companies, just as they do today towards companies with a 100% CEI rating.
Since he was a cheerleader for the illegal war aqainst IraqHe emerged along with many other monsters who called for the blood of a nation in exchange for plunder.
I’m not kidding. If he weren’t gay, he’d be on Fox News along with Michelle Malkin.
Funny how that worked out for him.
You underestimate …… what signal it sends to people that it’s legal to fire gay people for being gay. ENDA and hate crimes won’t change the world on one day, but over longer time. Hate crimes legislation solves the problem that the cases might not investigated at all.
My challenge to libertarians is: Show a completely working replacement that’s OK with your ideology. Otherwise accept that your ideology is less important than human beings.
“…you can’t change people or ideas by force.”What does force have to do with ENDA?
The law will protect people from discrimination. It has nothing to do with force. That is simply hyperbolic rhetoric.
We have laws that “force” people to refrain from masturbating in public. However, people are still free to masturbate in their own homes.
We have laws that regulate how people do business, treat their children, behave in public, and interact with society. If you choose to live in society, you must agree to abide by these laws that govern behavior. You can work to change the laws. Or, you can go live in a cave away from the rest of us. It is that simple.
No one cares what goes on in your mind. It is your actions that are of concern — unless you are alone in your cave and stay there.
So…
It sounds to me as though you’re not a libertarian but, rather, an anarchist – because, with the aforementioned philosophy, I can’t see how you can justify any law proscribing anything, be it jaywalking or murder.
There is the possibility of moderation in libertarian thinkingWhen I was young and idealistic, I tended toward libertarianism as a philosophy of government. Then I read a picture book that changed my thinking tremendously:
“The Good Old Days, They Were Terrible”
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Old…
Your third paragraph is a graphic example of the sort of thing from the book that convinced me to moderate my views of government regulation.
I still maintain a moderate libertarian streak within a somewhat progressive POV, while one of my friends from college YAF is a voice for the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.
A moderate libertarian recognizes the need for government regulation to avoid the abuses inherent in uncontrolled capitalism.
My libertarian streak still hits in terms of approach to some issues – such as things like seat belt and bicycle helmet laws, and even DWI. I think adults should be allowed to make choices for themselves, even those that are harmful to themselves – but when their choice turns out to be one that is harmful to others, they should bear the consequences of the bad choices they make. So, with DWI, I wouldn’t bother with elaborate but spotty enforcement – but would prefer an approach that encourages people to choose to not drive while intoxicated because the consequence in the event of an accident in which there is property damage would be severe (permanent loss of driving privilege as a minimum), and if anyone is injured, in addition to civil damages that would conceivably be covered by insurance, a sentence of imprisonment at labor for a period of time sufficient to earn enough to repay the civil damages to the insurance company – not a consequence that would accompany ordinary negligence.
Sure, it’s idealistic, and goes to consequences rather than prevention. But it allows for maximizing individual freedom.
On the other hand, I strngly support mandatory child restraints and helmets – adults may be able to choose freely for themselves, but not for children.
Indeed, an exception to “consequences” in the DWI situation would be the situation where one drives while intoxicated with a child in the vehicle. Enforcement of DWI would prioritize prosecution in situations where a minor is a passenger in the vehicle.
Apply this sort of “moderate libertarianism” to ENDA, and I wouldn’t see an objection to it. ENDA does not mandate that employers hire LGBT people – but it does provide consequences for discriminating in hiring. A non-exempt employer who never has a gay or trans applicant doesn’t have to establish a quota and actively seek trans employees.
A moderate libertarian believes in maximizing personal freedom while recognizing associated personal responsibility. (A Roman Catholic moral anlysis would lead to the definition of irresponsible freedom as “licentious” – while associating freedom with whatever responsibility is associated with it.)
Most radical libertarians will interpret the Second Amendment as a right to bear arms, but will ignore the responsibility of providing a well-regulated militia that a moderate libertarian will recognize.
In fact, a moderate libertarian might be critical of the extent of religious exemptions in ENDA, only because they seem to recognize religious freedom of employers without the associated responsibilities, and seem to ignore the religious freedoms of employees.
Radical libertarian thought tends toward anarchyIn political extremes, Anarchism is to libertarianism what Authoritatianism is to Populism, and in economics, Leninism is to Socialism as unfettered Capitalism is to a mixed economy.
The extremes all have flaws. Radical libertarianism skirts dangerously close to anarchism – at the extreme, libertarians tend to lose sight of the social contract, as they slide into anarchy.
To see the flaws does not require a rejection of a moderate libertarian POV. Just as capitalism does not work without regulation to temper the excesses and abuses, freedom cannot exist without some limits.