How does leaving out the people who it has been documented to need the civil rights coverage far worse than straight acting GLB males and females, and who are facing the brunt of discrimination and violence advance the cause of GLBT rights?

With all due respect, how would denying protections to some GLB people advance the cause of transgender rights? And what does insisting on this stance say about our ability to collaborate with others – including the ability to make strategic compromises where necessary, in order to move forward?

-Nancy

I think it is common sense to fight tooth-and-nail for a bill that covers gender identity and gender expression, but I don’t think the decision on veto or not is nearly as straightforward. It’s a hard decision between immediately granting equal rights for some people vs. delaying those equal rights, for a potentially indeterminate period of time, on the hope that you can get equal rights for more people.

Imagine if last year’s ENDA debacle had NOT occurred in an environment where it was a symbolic measure sure to be vetoed. Would it have made sense to campaign against the non-inclusive ENDA? Would United ENDA have even come to be?

As a trans person, I have a lot at stake here. I fought for inclusion last year, and I’ll fight for inclusion when the next version on ENDA comes about. And I fully realize that if a non-inclusive ENDA becomes law, employment non-discrimination for me may will not arrive in my lifetime. But I don’t think that vetoing a non-inclusive ENDA is “common sense”; it’s a really tough decision.