Sorry, but my rage is up and my ire aroused, as yet again Slippery Joe gives begrudged lipservice. So if you really want to be nice to the HRC, skip this one. Cause I won't be.
And this time, He gives a clue as to why.
Today, in EDGESanFrancisco, its reported that at a gathering at Fire Island Pines in NY, Joe Solomonese had this to say:
Solmonese maintains a trans-inclusive ENDA simply did not have enough support on Capitol Hill.
He conceded the subsequent debate over ENDA has been challenging for not only his organization but the entire movement. Solmonese maintained, however, the HRC remains committed to securing Congressional support for a trans-inclusive bill.
Solmonese further categorized United ENDA’s mission as “trying to kill the bill.” Solmonese added more trans people have come to the HRC to see what they can do to help advance a trans-inclusive version of the bill.
He conceded, however, ENDA still faces a difficult road.
“Our community needs to understand… nothing gets done in a one- shot deal,” Solmonese said. “That’s never been a way we’ve built complex and sweeping legislation in this country.”
Below the fold, I go into what I see in that bit.
Full disclosure: I do not trust HRC. They have never given me one reason to trust them in the almost a year since they essentially told me that the lives of my brothers and sisters — gay, lesbian, bisexual, and straight — are unimportant to them.
Indeed, it would not be a stretch to say that I have a very strong dislike for the HRC, and that I have a *personal* stake in the subject.
So, I read that less than 30 minutes ago as I type this sentence, and I am seething, and it suddenly hit me that many people would never understand why it makes me so angry, and why it enrages me to a point where I cannot honestly say that I do not wish harm to some one.
Which, for me, is a *horrible* thing.
First off, out of the gate, is the statement that an inclusive ENDA did not have enough support.
No specifics, ever — just that it didn't have enough support.
THis line is fed to us time and time again, as if it excuses the effort, justifies the betrayal. But what's worse is that its a lie.
Go back over the history of big bills. After jockeying, a bill loses less than 10% of its sponsors when it comes time to vote on it, becuase when someone signs on to sponsor a bill, they are placing their support for it in writing.
House Bill 2015 — the Inclusive ENDA — currently has 174 Sponsors. It *had* 191.
House Bill 3685 — The non-inclusive — had 9 .
the Bill needed 216 votes to pass. It passed with 235 Votes
Let's take the current number for 2015, deduct our 10%, rounded up, and see that we have a need for 60 votes.
The inclusive bill passed with 19 votes to spare.
The numbers do not add up — they are saying that with that much support, they couldn't get 60 people to go along with it, but they could get 79 to go with the non-inclusive?
Sorry — not only do I not buy that, but given that the way to check this info (such as through THOMAS) is rarely known and requires abit more due diligence than many people will put out, and that they never say *why* or in *what way* they were unable to get those votes they somehow managed to get, I smell a lie.
He claims the bill was challenging for the movement — a very nice way of saying its damn near started a civil war. 300+ LGBT orgs took a stand against them — that's pretty much *every single org out there* — and he calls it “challenging“? The speechwriter needs a better thesarus.
They are committed to a trans-inclusive bill, he says, but then he uses the incrementalist statement ““Our community needs to understand… nothing gets done in a one- shot deal,” Solmonese said. “That’s never been a way we’ve built complex and sweeping legislation in this country.” “
Say it ain't so, Joe — surely you ain't talking out both sides of your mouth.
And he isn't. He's saying that they will keep them separate.
Yeah, they are committed to it — but not now — its “too hard”. Its a Difficult Road. Apparently so, given that unless its part of an SO bill, GI/GE don't get added for at *least* ten years (and that's almost 11 eleven now).
That's lip service.
Given what I've encountered over at Bilerico recently, where one person used the same statements he used above with me and yet refused to actually talk about things and dismissed the fact that trans people have to have employment just to be able to be themselves, becuase transition costs money.
There is no priority at HRC for this. The fact that for Transfolk this issue is *as important* as marriage — indeed, I go so far as to say its more so, becuase what's the use of being able to marry if you can't be yourself?
The part that hits me the most, though, that tells me that the HRC is driving a wedge, is the way that he says the United ENDA coalition was trying to kill the bill.
That's horseshit. Not the nice clumpy kind, either, but the wet, runny kind that makes a mess on the horse taking a dump.
And right now, the HRC's tail is *caked* with it.
now, yes, there are some transfolk who have gone to the HRC. They, like their predecessors, will not be involved in final decisions and will be cut out of meetings. More readily so, now, since they are in positons that are not as high profile or important.
Like me, they are relatively recent transitioners. They seek to work to make a change in the HRC culture and meet the challenge of the dishonorable Rep. Frank of educating.
For their efforts, the trans community has often vilified them.
I do not do so. I think that their interest in doing so is admirable. Few are willing to walk into the camp of the enemy and work to make them your friend.
There is a limted scale meeting in the earliest stages of planning, where trans-activists who have long held grudges against the HRC will get to meet wtih the HRC people. I have offered — no, insisted, actually — that I be given an invite. (probably won't happen, but surely hope so now).
I'm willing to face them. Peacefully even.
but although I was firm in my lack of trust before, now I think I see what's underneath all of this. I see a wede being driven, and this is the basis for that wedge, and the thing that pisses me off the most is that the HRC can do it, too.
Perhaps not culturally but the HRC holds *all* the cards. THey are the gatekeepers in DC.
They can use the righteous fury of my brothers and sisters to split the T from the LGB.
ANd that's what it looks like they are doing.