WHEN
THE
U.S.
House
passed
hate
crimes
legislation
last
month
that
included
“gender
identity”
as
well
as
“sexual
orientation”
as
protected
categories,
transgender
rights
activists
were
understandably
thrilled.
It
was,
after
all,
the
first
time
that
trans
rights
had
passed
either
house
of
Congress.
But
they
couldn’t
resist
a
little
gloating
as
well.
Mara
Keisling,
of
the
National
Center
for
Transgender
Equality,
told
this
publication
that
the
vote
proved
trans
activists
were
justified
in
demanding
inclusion
of
“gender
identity”
on
other
federal
gay
rights
legislation
because
it
didn’t
hurt
chances
of
passage.
“It
shows
unequivocally
that
those
who
thought
Congress
couldn’t
pass
a
trans-inclusive
bill
were
just
wrong,”
Keisling
said.
“I
don’t
know
of
a
single
vote
we
lost
because
it
was
trans-inclusive.”
Unfortunately,
Keisling
overstates
her
case.
While
the
Sept.
14
vote
was
the
first
time
the
U.S.
House
passed
a
gay
and
trans-inclusive
hate
crime
bill,
it
wasn’t
the
first
time
House
members
had
voted
on
such
a
measure.
A
40-vote
margin
in
the
House
four
years
ago
in
favor
of
accepting
gay-inclusive
hate
crimes
legislation
passed
by
the
Senate
had
shrunk
to
just
24
votes
last
month
for
the
gay
and
trans-inclusive
bill.
And
the
number
of
“no”
votes
this
time
around
was
13
votes
higher
than
just
last
year
when,
in
June,
the
House
again
voted
to
accept
a
gay-inclusive
bill
passed
by
the
Senate.
So
Keisling
might
not
be
aware
of
“a
single
vote
we
lost,”
but
the
numbers
don’t
lie.
THE
BIGGER
PICTURE
is
even
more
important.
A
number
of
us
have
criticized
transgender
rights
activists
for
“trans-jacking”
federal
gay
rights
legislation
by
not
only
demanding
inclusion
of
“gender
identity”
but
also
insisting
that
gay
rights
groups
oppose
even
gay-inclusive
legislation
that
failed
to
include
trans
protections.
But
our
criticism
focused
entirely
on
the
trans-jacking
of
the
Employment
Non-Discrimination
Act,
or
“ENDA,”
not
hate
crime
laws.
Openly
gay
Congressman
Barney
Frank,
who
has
come
under
intense
criticism
for
opposing
a
“trans
or
bust”
strategy
for
ENDA,
has
said
repeatedly
that
he
didn’t
have
similar
objections
to
including
trans
protections
in
a
hate
crime
bill.
In
fact,
Frank
led
the
way
toward
House
passage
of
the
trans-inclusive
hate
crime
bill
last
month.
It’s
one
thing
to
make
the
case
to
crime-control
conservatives
that
violent
crimes
targeting
transgendered
people
require
stiffer
sentences,
and
quite
another
to
ask
them
to
expand
worker
lawsuits
to
cover
those
in
the
midst
of
gender
transition.
The
latter
saddles
gay-inclusive
ENDA
with
an
unreasonable
and
unfair
burden,
especially
considering
that
some
federal
courts
have
concluded
trans
workers
already
enjoy
protection
against
being
fired
because
of
their
gender
identity,
based
on
existing
federal
law
prohibiting
gender-based
discrimination.
Many
more
trans
workers
would
be
protected
by
gay-inclusive
workplace
rights,
since
many
bigoted
bosses
consider
male-to-female
trans
workers
as
“fags”
and
FTMs
as
“dykes.”
WHILE
GAYS
SHOULD
support
workplace
rights
for
trans
people,
the
insistence
on
fighting
for
them
simultaneously
only
confuses
the
arguments
made
for
gay
workers’
protection.
A
basic
principle
of
the
gay
rights
movement,
for
example,
was
the
removal
of
homosexuality
in
the
early
’70s
from
the
list
of
psychological
disorders.
Many
trans
activists,
on
the
other
hand,
still
support
the
inclusion
of
gender
dysphoria
on
the
same
list
because
it
allows
for
insurance
coverage
for
the
medical
expenses
of
transitioning
genders.
At
a
deeper
level,
many
gay
people
feel
no
discomfort
with
their
gender,
even
if
their
romantic
interest
in
the
same
gender
may
challenge
the
broader
society’s
definition
of
gender
roles.
But
the
placement
of
gender
identity
on
par
with
sexual
orientation
in
many
of
our
organizations
has
crippled
needed
activism
against
the
“swishy
fag”
and
“diesel
dyke”
stereotypes
that
still
permeate
the
entertainment
media
and
society
generally.
It’s
not
hard
to
see
where
we’re
headed.
A
growing
number
of
trans
activists
argue
against
any
gender
definitions
at
all,
preferring
their
own
form
of
androgyny.
While
we
can
certainly
support
all
forms
of
gender
expression,
their
efforts
would
make
us
extinct.
After
all,
a
homosexual
orientation
depends
on
gender
as
much
as
a
heterosexual
orientation.
BEYOND
THESE
IDEOLOGICAL
fissures,
the
“trans
or
bust”
strategy
is
every
bit
as
wrongheaded
and
immoral
today
as
it
was
when
the
Human
Rights
Campaign
and
other
national
gay
groups
caved
into
it
last
year.
Asking
gays
to
wait
for
protection
until
it
can
also
be
achieved
for
transgender
people
is
as
wrong
as
it
would
have
been
to
demand
that
blacks
and
women
wait
for
gay
protections.
Progress
happens
incrementally,
and
trans
activists
and
their
gay
allies
have
more
hard
work
to
do
before
trans
protections
are
viewed
as
favorably
as
protections
based
on
sexual
orientation.
Ironically,
many
trans
activists
label
gays
who
won’t
accept
the
trans-jacking
of
our
civil
rights
as
“selfish,”
even
though
the
label
would
seem
to
apply
far
more
squarely
on
the
transgendered
advocates.
We’re
not
asking
them
to
wait
for
our
civil
rights
before
they
can
press
for
theirs.
And
when
the
tables
are
turned,
we
don’t
necessarily
see
the
same
degree
of
forbearance
from
our
trans
allies.
For
example,
trans
activists
are
fond
of
pointing
out
that
couples
that
include
a
transgender
partner
are
already
able
to
marry
in
...
