I think you’re right that the pro-inclusion folks haven’t done as well at articulating the strategic reasoning for demanding inclusion, but that case is being made by the United EDNA coalition to Congress.

Unfortuantely, Barney Frank (who I respect and appreciate for his past leadership) has framed this debated as being between “emotional purists” and “political realists.”

As an advocate working in the South, I think I (and my colleagues in other states) have definitely learned to be realistic. In fact, that’s exactly why nearly all state equality groups are insisting on an inclusive ENDA. We’ve learned from the political realities in our states that it’s the right thing to do both morally and strategically.

Thanks for sparking this discussion!

This is just observations from a media standpoint and from a public standpoint. I’m not saying strategy debates aren’t happening, I’m just saying that perhaps they aren’t being heard among all the bickering.

My observations come from what I’m primarily hearing from the two main sides of the debate. Unfortunately, a lot of what is being pushed by one side is the morality of the situation. Likewise, a lot of what is coming from the other main side of the debate is pragmatism.

Those aren’t the only opinions, but they certainly are among the loudest.

I apologize if I ignored a portion of the debate that is larger than it seems.

I meant no harm.

Perhaps we should all focus more on strategy debates now. Perhaps that has been lacking a bit (along with reconciliation)?

But my main reason for opposing an exclusive bill is strategic, not purist:

History shows us clearly that, if we actually want protections for trans-folk, we either get it at the same time or wait ten or twenty years. Wisconsin’s been waiting for 25 years! It’s worth taking a little bit of time to get the handful of additional votes that are needed.

By running this substitute bill, congressional leadership is essentially telling nervous Democrats that it’s okay not to support the inclusive version. Their actions are actually sapping votes away from the inclusive bill, which according to several members of Congress DID have the votes before all this blew up.

The political reality is the alternate, exclusive bill is moving us back, not forward.

Finally, I have to point out that the “deal” Pelosi offered is actually just the same thing we’ve been dealing with for two weeks: moving forward with an exclusive bill, but promising to consider an inclusive bill when we can “prove” we have the votes. I’m glad they aren’t ruling out hearing the good version of the bill, but it’s nothing new.

Of course, never being wronged is different from being vindicated – but do you really think that simply passing ENDA, of whatever stripe, will be enough to stop such things from happening? Laws aren’t magical behavior modifiers – they just let there be remedies to wrongs. In the article you linked to, the bouncer clearly had no interest in any laws that might exist – hence his statement that her ID didn’t matter. That wrong was gonna happen no matter what. What we’re discussing is whether she’s likely to win without T-inclusive ENDA… and I’m pretty sure she is, which means Lambda, by presenting this as an open and shut case, is in error. (Not to mention the blatant misinterpretation of the case law authority they rested on in their open letter to Rep. Frank, which I think was borderline unethical). Fact is, gays have been lobbying for employment protections for decades – if this gender identity question was that critical, it would have been included in the bill much sooner than just this year. It wasn’t. Why is that, Esquire?

I’m not opposing Lambda because I don’t want a t-inclusive bill voted on – I do. I’m opposing that argument because it is a scare tactic of the same breed as the slippery slope argument used by our opponents who say that marriage equality leads to the downfall of western civilization. Both arguments depend on the ignorance of the audience, and on the ability to demagogue people into fear. It’s immoral no matter who does it, and should be confronted.

By the way… My new apartment in Charlotte is just off Lawyers Road. How appropriate.

As for Carpenter — who has been thoroughly refuted by more than one Title VII expert — here’s an example of what I don’t know about “how the American legal system works” —

Being wronged, suing and being vindicated is NOT the same as never being wronged in the first place.

So to the extent that a clearer protection in a statute serves as a deterrent to wrongful behavior (i.e., keeps a single “Lambda’s skilled lawyer” from having to be involved at all in a lawsuit that would not happen under a different statute), Carpenter’s argument is invalid.

Guess who wrote that, long before this post was published.

And remind me again how you know more about this issue than I do?