Thursday, 25 March 2010

For those Americans that died.

I knew people who have died because ENDA was not enacted in 2007.

For those readers in the USA, please sign this petition. Not because some Aussie Bint asks you to - for that would genuinely be foreign interference in US affairs. But for those American citizens who have died because the bill was not passed then.


Anonymous said...

ENDA will not save lives it will just make stronger punishments.


Zoe Brain said...

What has the Employee Non Discrimination Act got to do with "Stronger punishments"?

This bill, if passed, would do something about trans people starving or freezing to death.

Zimbel said...

Taking one of the present bills as an example, it looks like the punishment would be as under Title VII:

2000e–10 (b) A willful violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $100 for each separate offense.

My recollection is that each day for each person is a separate violation.

Although also note that disparate impact appears to be covered... so that's effectively a 100$ fine/day/individual on top of disparate impact + attorney's fees.

While I'm concerned that class action suits will be much harder to bring up on gender identify than "race", or sex, it seems far better than present law.

Zimbel said...

Also, in the very unlikely case that you're actually concerned about the U.S.A.'s foreign interference laws, I wouldn't be. Unless it has to do with giving money for the purposes of affecting an U.S.A. election (or helping someone else do so), it's pretty difficult to run afoul of them. After all, as far as the U.S.A. is concerned, you're protected by the First Amendment just as much as I am.

There's a helpful web page on the subject here.

Anonymous said...

I live in the SF Bay Area, in a state that already bans discrimination based on gender identity and presentation. And let me tell you, its easy as pie to discriminate against trans and gender variant job applicants-any halfway competent manager can think of a suitable pretext for not hiring a trans person.

I see it mostly as helping people who are already employed and starting to transition, or helping people who are currently employed and already transitioned from getting fired. The rest is a long term process of changing people's minds.


Zimbel said...


I agree; making something illegal is only a step in the process. However, it is an important step, and Title VII has seemed to help significantly over a period of decades.

My main concern is that since some of that has come from class-action suits, and presumably in most cases gender identity will be small classes (if they are accepted as classes), that will reduce the effect of the private enforcement route versus "race" or sex. It shouldn't impact the EEOC itself.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and obviously its a boon for trans Federal employees*
(hello Diane Schroer!!!!) and people who unfortunately live in bum fuck America where there are no local or state laws banning discrimination against trans/is/gender variant folk.

*Though good luck applying it to the military.


Zimbel said...

The military is specifically exempted from each version of this bill that I've seen (including the one I reference above). While I guess in theory it could be bundled with a Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal, my understanding is that it would add procedural hurdles to both bills (and, as the original article states, there are plenty as is for ENDA).

Anonymous said...

What a silly, dishonest post, naturally bereft of any specifics or supporting facts. I highly doubt that you know a single person who starved or froze to death b/c ENDA wasn't passed. For that to be true, literally ever single employer in your "friends'" area would have had to reject them and specifically b/c of gender identity, they would have had to be unable to relocate to a jurisdiction where there are gender identity protections, and for some reason, they would have to have been unable to access food stamps, public housing and welfare, not to mention private charities which provide clothing and shelter.

This post shows very nicely how trans activists feel free to tell any outrageous lie in order to get their way. Just one more good reason among many others not to expend political capital to include gender identity in ENDA.

Zoe Brain said...

In November 2006, I had reconstructive surgery with Dr Suporn. In July 2007, I had a follow-up to correct some complications.

While I was there, there was a gal who was just recovering from her op. She came from Massachussets, and had spent her life savings, and maxed her credit card.

She was on sick leave.

While she was recovering, she got an e-mail saying she'd been fired for being transsexual. HR was very clear on that, it was nothing to do with her sexual orientation or presentation. It was because she'd transitioned.

With her alimony and child-support obligations, she'd be subject to jail for non-payment as soon as she returned.

It was a gay-owned business. She didn't survive her return to the USA very long.

I only knew Jennifer Gale via e-mail contact rather than personally. The situation that led to her death hasn't changed much.

Your cis-sexual privilege is showing. It never occurs to you that transphobic bureaucrats exist, who will delay or lose applications for food stamps. Nor that "crisis accommodation" routinely excludes trans people. You might at least have noticed that many private charities are run by religious groups. Most, such as the Salvation Army, have a policy of excluding trans people from coverage.

This is a matter of public record. You could have easily found that out for yourself.

Anonymous said...

Uh-huh, right. Whenever anyone challenges your delusions and/or lies, they are showing their "privilege". Keep invoking the language of "queer studies". It justifies anything you say or do.

Acknowledgment of reality is not a privilege; it is a prerequisite for sanity. With that in mind, let's turn to your "friend". That story can't be verified and was related by you in a way designed to back your original claim.
Despite this, nothing in your response supports your original claim. Where do you say she starved or froze to death? Did you forget to mention it? Basically, you are saying she was fired b/c she was trans and she had other financial obligations. That describes the financial stress of a lot of people. It doesn't result in starvation.

As to the specifics, even leaving aside the fact that ENDA would not address issues of discrimination in housing or food stamps, and even leaving aside that this person could get a modification of any alimony and child support order based on a material change in circumstances, in order to believe your wacky claim about people "dying", you would also have to believe that your friend could not find any job anywhere in any location. You would also have to believe not that some private shelters sometimes exclude trans people, but rather that every shelter in existence to which she could have access exclude trans people without exception. You also would have to believe that the federal run Section 8 program and any state and local programs also render it impossible for her to find housing.

Finally, you would have to ignore the fact that people in the US almost always apply for food stamps online or on the phone and are accepted or declined entirely on the basis of income and asset information supplied. In 99% of applications, no "bureaucrat" ever sees the applicant. Food stamps are easy to get, and that is why something like 30 million Americans get them. But I guess the forces of transphobia thwarted your friend's efforts and made her the sole non-addicted, employable American to die of starvation in the last 40 years.

Why don't you admit that you think it is OK to lie for a greater political objective and that you did so here?

Zoe Brain said...

You assume everyone has relocation expences.

You assume everyone has a phone - or at least the change to use a payphone.

Such assumptions are unwarranted.

You've never been homeless, have you? Try it for 3 days. Ride a bus to a strange city, where you know no-one. No ID, no money, nothing but the clothes on your back.

Just keeping yourself clean can be the greatest difficulty. Because without that, you won't find employment, even for cash at below minimum wage.

Don't try it in winter in a cold climate though: it could be dangerous for you.

I've never been in quite that bad a situation: I always had somewhere warm to sleep, and to wash my clothes. But I have fainted through hunger before now (no money - waiting for my first paycheque), and have spent a night on a park bench in mid-winter when the college dorm closed.

I recommend it to broaden your horizons. But only for one or two days, no need to make a habit of it.

Vene said...

Anonymous's argument sounds familiar, very familiar.

It sounds like this.