by Monica F. Helms

Veterans Day is one the three most important days in this country when it comes to patriotism and pride. At the eleventh minute, of the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month, we start the day honoring all the veterans who have served this country, both in peace and in war. Today, we have 26 million military veterans in America, but sadly, we lose 1500 WWII each day and a similar number of Korean War veterans as well. Soon, the Vietnam War veterans will pass away in similar numbers.

The men and women who fought in those wars over the last 230-plus years came from every diverse background this country has ever known. People from every race, religion, ethnicity, economic status, social status and sexual orientation have fought, been wounded or died for this country. A current example of sexual orientation is the first person wounded in the current war in Iraq. Eric Alva lost a leg in the very early days of the war and then came out as being gay after his discharge.

Watching the ENDA debate, I am struck by a number of things:

- During breaks in the proceedings, CSPAN, rather than addressing ENDA, quickly dismisses it with the help of a Capitol reporter who cannot mention the word "homosexual" without stuttering, and who dismisses the "transsexual" rights effort while characterizing the Baldwin amendment as "poison", and instead addresses a pending free trade agreement;

- I am gladdened to see early testimony on recognizing the need for protecting transgender persons as well;

- I feel proud to hear the testimony of Barney Frank, whose courageous leadership as an out gay man in congress deserves our unwavering respect;

- I feel grateful for the testimony of the fair-minded representatives - uniformly democrat - who extend themselves on our behalf; especially those persons of color whose forbears suffered the hideous scourge of institutionalized slavery and systemic denigration;

- I note that there is nothing substantively new in objections to the legislation, but that nearly every objection could have been lifted verbatim from early objections to employment non-discrimination on the basis of sex, race, disability, etc.

- Not one person testifying against ENDA for technical reasons said they would support rights for GLB persons.

From a recent letter to supporters by Riki Anne Wilchins, GenderPAC executive director:

"...there is a good bit of denial among some gay leaders about just how much gender expression is inextricably connected to both gayness and homophobia.

Nowhere is the connection between sexual orientation and gender more clearly illustrated than in the ongoing march of gay and lesbian plaintiffs through the courts system to allege unfair treatment, harassment, or termination because they weren’t considered masculine or feminine enough: Anne Hopkins, a senior manager passed over for promotion for being “too aggressive� and looking "too masculine," Medina Rene, a Latino gay man harassed by coworkers and management who considered him effeminate, or Darlene Jespersen, a lesbian who was fired for refusing to wear make-up and high-heels under a new dress code."

Read the whole letter here.

I didn't see Rep. Frank's speech about trans exclusion from ENDA, but here's a response from someone who did. You can read his speech here. -Nancy

Dear Representative Frank:

I am a retired engineering manager, a former professor, a parent of teenage children and a transsexual woman. I was deeply hurt and disappointed to watch your special order speech to the House of Representatives on CSPAN this evening. I ask that you reconsider your action to remove gender identity protection from ENDA and that youalso reconsider your negative characterization of solidarity within the mainstream GLBT community.

HRC's "Joe Solmonese weekly message 10/5/2007" attempts to clarify HRC's position on the inclusion of "gender identity or expression" in ENDA.

The sad thing about this message is the unspoken truth that it doesn't mention: that HRC does not oppose a non-inclusive ENDA. Joe's message gives us no reason to be confident about what is being said, and what kind of deals are being struck, off the record. Bottom line: does anybody really believe that when a non-inclusive ENDA is introduced, it is being done without the tacit approval of HRC? I sure don't.

Here's the text of the HRC statement:

Dear Friend,

The last two weeks have been the most heartbreaking and gut-wrenching of my life-and I know I'm not alone in that sentiment. Ever since we received word last week that the original, complete version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act was in trouble, many in our community have spent more than one sleepless night tossing and turning, trying to figure out the best strategy for moving forward. And although there were different views on which road to take, I personally received strength in knowing that our goal-enacting one bill that protects the entire GLBT community-would be the ultimate destination.

A statement from Donna Rose in response to the recently announced Human Rights Campaign position on ENDA:

Community. Integrity. Leadership. Vision. These are the foundational pillars of Equality. These are the values that draw many of us into advocacy roles. Those tenets provide a clear roadmap when things like politics, expediency, agenda, and power cloud the picture as they so often do. They pave the way to the moral high-ground, and those who follow them with trust and patience will ultimately find their efforts rewarded.

My name is Donna Rose, and I am the first and only openly transgender member of the Board of Directors of the Human Rights Campaign. I am the national co-chair for Diversity. I am the co-chair appointee-elect for the Business Council. I have spoken at events around the country on behalf of the organization, and I am a respected advocate for the transgender community.

[Updated Oct 3, 3:12pm: Turns out HRC's deception fooled us here at GenderTalk - read Donna Rose's reignation letter, above.]

Over this past weekend, transgender activists were horrified as rumors grew into reliable reports that Nancy Pelosi and Barney Franks were planning to scuttle transgender inclusion in ENDA, the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act. As trans activists reacted with predictable ire, the larger GLBT activist community mobilized in support of transgender INclusion. Virtually every major GLBT organization - with the glaring exception of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the richest GLBT org - signed onto a letter opposing a trans-EXclusive ENDA.

On Sunday, Sept 30, Pride at Work (PAW) called for a picket of Pelosi's keynote speaking engagement at HRC's 11th annual National Gala on October 6. PAW provided this link to a video clip of HRC prez Joe Solomenese pledging to oppose any trans-exclusive legislation.

Meanwhile, in response to a Washington Blade online poll asking "Should gay rights groups support ENDA if transgender protections are removed?" a whopping 88% chose "No, we should stick together."

According to a Washington Post story, gender identity and expression have been stripped from a version of ENDA which will go up for a separate vote in the House Education and Labor Committee. The architect of this dismissal? Representative Barney Frank.

While the trans-inclusive ENDA will still be introduced, the story reports that, in the past few days, it has become clear that the inclusive ENDA would be defeated "defeated because of the transgender protection".

MTPC, GLAD, Pride At Work, and other leading LGBT organizations have called for individuals to contact Rep. Frank to try to stop this divisive action.

Meanwhile, the Senate has passed a trans-inclusive Hate Crimes bill, as an amendment to the FY2008 DOD authorization. The trans-inclusive Hate Crimes act previously passed in the House, and now heads to conference before hitting Bush's desk.