And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ - Matthew 25:40
It's depressing to see someone who's blog you enjoy (and will continue to) just go in the wrong direction.It's important that people be able to disagree without feeling that others are "slamming" them or "eviscerating" them. Indeed, the whole point of trying to have some gay lobby institutions is to achieve something greater than a gaggle of opinions, to support some institutional memory and put in place some decisions processes, precisely to avoid having to recreate the wheel, every time an issue comes up.
There is a little too much that is fancy-free factually in this article, but I'm not going to do a fisking.The most important is that the history of transgender legislation for inclusion is a lot longer than just this year. Much longer (by a decade, for efforts that might be described as concerted). Companies continue to adopt gender identity and gender expression policies at an accelerating rate. Hate crimes amendments (and new bills) have increasingly included gender identity, even at the Federal level.
Politicians, even Democrats, don't get to hide indefinitely from having a public opinion on issues of import - or that should be of import - to the Democratic leadership (some political parties actually have commitments to rights associated with gender identity in their platforms ...).
The sub-argument is this:
- Transgender rights are something worth fighting for. Transsexuals have no protections in Federal law.
- Accordingly, there is no meaningful principled position to the contrary. (Those who take one are going to be on the wrong side of history and the receiving end of a lot else besides, justifiably so).
- If you want to run a coalition, you take care of those in it, I think. (see more / details below). In other words, one's first, best instinct is to try to reach out to "them", not to push them out on principle (i.e. 'you don't belong, here, afterall') just as soon as the ship hits some tough weather.
It's hard to be in agreement with those "well-placed journalists" who may believe that "we've" done our work, "you" do yours. That's smug. What's more, it suggests a corruption of a kind. The rights (and acceptance) that we are seeking are not a "reward" of work, although they may be the result of it. These rights should be available for the asking. To suddenly feel entitled to something because of work done is to miss the boat. It's a tough concept to swallow, but that's the sad way it is.
To those who cannot wait, one could pose this question. Are you willing to compromise, yourself? What I mean is, can you wait two or three years, just not "forever", like five, seven, or ten? A lot can happen in 2-3 years. After that period, given maximal effort, couldn't one say with clear conscious, "time enough, let's try something different"?
I'll just throw out something I posted in another thread.
It would be nice if we could get to a point where exchanges of views didn't all morph into perceived 'power struggles' and 'scoring points' or attacks on people's reputations or whatever.
Meanwhile, I've had time to listen to Barney's interview with Signoreli. Here's what I'm thinking (for what it is worth).
His main points are:
(a) it's easier to gather votes behind the scenes
(b) something is better than nothing
Everything is tied together, but these do seem like procedural issues, just as he described.
However, there are limits to (a). If we had a sense that things were truly in flux in the background, then strategic patience is in order. However, if there is a sense that what persuasion there is has been tried and nothing is doing, then elected officials, unfortunately, do need to be *pressed* into having a public face, a public view on issues, a vote, sometimes. I do think it is easier for someone, who once said "no", to change a vote on transgender than on some other topics (depending on the reasons for saying, "no" - and we need to know those reasons - most of them, so far, seem based in practical grounds, i.e. what effect will this have? How will certain employers cope? which is way different than, "God says to me I have to vote 'no'").
On the second, (b), this may be where procedurally things might have been handled better (reminding all that hindsight is 20/20, of course).
If circumstances come along whereby it might be *expedient* or *tactical* to move part of a coalition ahead of another part, it stands to reason that you go to the part of the coalition that is doing the compromising and deliberately involve them in the decision. You ask them what they want to do and you offer them something to do it and you listen.
That offer might include bringing an up/down vote so they feel a true sense of commitment or trial from the legislative process; or promising to bring one every year; or including some money in the bill for awareness. A commitment to have additional hearings. Money to spearhead a 'model legislation' effort, for those who think that the route through the States is faster.
You can be creative as I can, on that score. The idea is to generate a give-get, rather than rush to a push-shove.
It seems to me that there is plenty of time to continue to pursue this, even as far back on the near-term calendar as the next session of Congress.
Meanwhile, I've had time to listen to Barney's interview with Signoreli. Here's what I'm thinking (for what it is worth).
His main points are:
(a) it's easier to gather votes behind the scenes
(b) something is better than nothing
Everything is tied together, but these do seem like procedural issues, just as he described.
However, there are limits to (a). If we had a sense that things were truly in flux in the background, then strategic patience is in order. However, if there is a sense that what persuasion there is has been tried and nothing is doing, then elected officials, unfortunately, do need to be *pressed* into having a public face, a public view on issues, a vote, sometimes. I do think it is easier for someone, who once said "no", to change a vote on transgender than on some other topics (depending on the reasons for saying, "no" - and we need to know those reasons - most of them, so far, seem based in practical grounds, i.e. what effect will this have? How will certain employers cope? which is way different than, "God says to me I have to vote 'no'").
On the second, (b), this may be where procedurally things might have been handled better (reminding all that hindsight is 20/20, of course).
If circumstances come along whereby it might be *expedient* or *tactical* to move part of a coalition ahead of another part, it stands to reason that you go to the part of the coalition that is doing the compromising and deliberately involve them in the decision. You ask them what they want to do and you offer them something to do it and you listen.
That offer might include bringing an up/down vote so they feel a true sense of commitment or trial from the legislative process; or promising to bring one every year; or including some money in the bill for awareness. A commitment to have additional hearings. Money to spearhead a 'model legislation' effort, for those who think that the route through the States is faster.
You can be creative as I can, on that score. The idea is to generate a give-get, rather than rush to a push-shove.
It seems to me that there is plenty of time to continue to pursue this, even as far back on the near-term calendar as the next session of Congress.
