MomsRising

While MoveOn.org cofounder Joan Blades and feminist author Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner initiated a truly successful movement with their creation of MomsRising--the language still chokes me up.

Two years and 150,000 members later, MomsRising is at it harder than ever--even winning paid sick leave in New Jersey, and organizing constituent meetings with members of Congress in over 44 states regarding the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The list of national campaigns continues.

The strategy behind the organization is compelling: reframe progressive policies through the lens of motherhood, and unite women across cultures, economic brackets, and political orientations. This potential has been long-sought throughout feminist discourse, and with the correct framing, perhaps it is more realistic.

Despite all of these successes, I still cannot get over re-enforcing family issues as mothers' issues. Do we really want to drive home the fact that women are responsible for children? What about fathers?

Perhaps this is the cultural climate in which we live, but it still kills me every time. The real discussion is ignored when we continue to explore issues of women and poverty by rooting them in the family un-friendliness of the workforce.

No. The real problem here is that women are given the burden of motherhood. Strangely, it takes two people to make a baby, but only one is expected to deal with it on the day-to-day. As long as we fail to distribute parenting equally, women will always be disadvantaged.

Clearly, the distribution has somewhat improved, but when we keep calling family issues mom issues--that is evidence enough for me.

The Equal Rights Amendment and the Three-State Strategy

Campaign Strategy:
The Equal Rights Amendment

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) expressly declares men and women as equal under the law, and if passed, it would serve as a necessary and fundamental step in both the women’s movement, as well as a larger humanist struggle for the equality of all people. In order for the ERA to succeed as soon as possible, the “Three-State” campaign strategy must be maintained and expanded vigorously across the nation. This strategy focuses on collecting the three final state ratifications necessary to achieve the three-fourths state majority (thirty-eight states) mandated by the amendment process. Despite opposition declaring the thirty-five previously ratified states as null due to expired congressional deadlines, the Madison Amendment and other Supreme Court rulings, the language and body of the ERA itself, as well as powers granted in Article V of the Constitution, support the ERA as viable before the states. Although the Three-State approach is controversial, the women’s movement has never been, nor will ever be, free of controversy. All factors considered, the Three-State strategy is the most efficient plan for passage, given the political climate. The Equal Rights Amendment does not have the cultural or political capital necessary to infiltrate mainstream discourse and create a national narrative powerful enough to motivate Congress in favor of re-introducing and passing another version of the ERA. What is more, proponents of the ERA are not powerful or vocal enough in the national debate to frame legal equality of the sexes as a pressing issue of our time.

If enacted as the 28th Amendment of the United States, the Equal Rights Amendment would mandate equal application of the constitution to both men and women. It includes three sections:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

For a constitutional amendment to pass, it must gain a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of Congress, and then must be ratified by three-fourths of the states, or thirty-eight out of fifty states. Although the ERA passed in both the Senate and House and was sent to the states for ratification in 1972, only thirty-five out of the thirty-eight necessary states supported the amendment. The 15 states that have yet to ratify are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. As the seven-year deadline drew closer, ERA supporters petitioned Congress and were granted an extension until June 30th, 1982. While the ERA has been before every session of Congress since 1982, the debate remains as to whether or not the ratification process is still open, whether the previously garnered thirty-five states should remain, and whether or not states can rescind ratification.

In the 1940’s, freedom from legal sex discrimination was a politically viable cause; both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party added the ERA to their platforms. While professional women such as Amelia Earhart, organized labor, and other mainstream groups supported the passage of the ERA, it still met opposition from social conservatives who sought to maintain traditional and gendered relations of power, as well as labor reformers who wanted to “protect” women in the workplace. Right-wing leader of the Eagle Forum/Stop ERA movement, Phyllis Schlafly, warned that the Equal Rights Amendment would eliminate the traditional familial model of women as homemakers, integrate women in the draft and military careers, create government-supported childcare, give fathers paternity leave and restrict the scope of maternity leave, eliminate the assumption that a woman must take on her husband’s name, create sex-integrated schools and organizations, and substitute language such as “manmade” with artificial.

In 1980, the Republican Party removed ERA support from its platform. The change in political tide has not only made further state ratifications more difficult, but has also kindled the issue of rescission. What is more, the conservative right has emboldened opposition through equating ERA passage with tax-funded abortions and the legalization of same-sex marriage, thus “wiping out” the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) . Given these difficulties, it is simply not feasible to dismiss the state ratifications already collected and begin the state ratification process all over again. Considering that only twenty-one states have established men and women as equal in State Constitutions, it is hard to imagine that thirty-five ratifications can be easily won again; if this were the case, many more states would already have such protections. Clearly, political support for the ERA has drastically changed since its introduction, and in order to gain success as soon as possible, the process must resume from its previous status rather than start over.

In order to pick up where it left off, the ERA must withstand arguments that it has expired, as well as oppose a state’s ability to rescind ratification. The feasibility of the Three-State strategy relies on legal precedent that allows Congress--not the Supreme Court or an arbitrary deadline—to determine whether an amendment is still open for ratification. In 1921, the Supreme Court ruled in Dillon v Gloss that proposal and ratification are “succeeding steps in a single endeavor,” that nothing in Article V of the Constitution declares that the ratification process is open for all time, and that Congress may indeed impose deadlines for state ratification. However, this was later modified in the 1939 case of Coleman v Miller, where the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the power to determine whether or not too much time has elapsed between the proposal of the amendment and the final state ratification based on “an appraisal of a great variety of relevant conditions, political, social and economic.” Furthermore, Dillon’s assertion that proposal and ratification must take place contemporaneously was discounted as dictum. Thus, a congressional deadline alone does not determine the viability of an amendment; rather Congress itself has the final say.

This power was first exercised in the passage of the twenty-seventh Amendment, where Congress promulgated the Madison Amendment despite a 203-year ratification process, which Congress found to be a reasonable period of time. This rationale has lead proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment to believe that Congress will likewise recognize the timeliness of the ERA, and deem state ratifications made prior to the extended deadline valid. Additionally, although the ERA passed in both chambers of Congress with a time limit for ratification, the time limit is in the proposing clause and not the text of the amendment. In sum, the states did not ratify language including any deadline, but rather the pure text of the ERA . What is more, Article V of the Constitution grants Congress the power to propose Amendments whenever both Houses find necessary. The Article fails to mention time limits in the process of state ratification, and therefore there is no constitutional foundation upon which to dispute the validity of the thirty-five states that have already ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. Therefore, state ratification is not bound to a deadline.

In addition to the issue of timeliness, the question of rescission must also be addressed. Four out of the thirty-five ratified states (Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Tennessee) have rescinded their ratifications, with a fifth declaring its ratification void if the amendment did not meet full ratification by its extended deadline (South Dakota). However, just as Article V is silent on the matter of deadlines, it is also silent on the matter of rescission. Article V only grants states the power to ratify—not to rescind. Consequently, the five states seeking to rescind their ratifications have no constitutional basis to do so. As with the issue of timeliness, rescission also has legal precedent. The fourteenth Amendment was ratified by the Ohio and New Jersey legislatures, both of which attempted to rescind their ratifications—but these rescissions were not effectual. Congress included Ohio and New Jersey as having ratified the Amendment, which consequently became part of the Constitution.

Aside from the Three-State strategy, other alternatives are being pursued; members of Congress continue to sponsor and cosponsor the ERA eighty-five years after its birth. In 2001, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts reintroduced the amendment, stating “Enactment and ratification of the ERA is essential to ensure that the law reflects our country's commitment to equality by guaranteeing equal rights for women.” In 2007, Senator Boxer, Senator Kennedy, Representative Maloney and Representative Nadler reintroduced the Women’s Equality Amendment (H.J. Res. 40), and planned hearings in the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil rights and Civil Liberties, chaired by Representative Nadler. Although H.J. Res. 40 has 202 co-sponsors (with four Representatives withdrawing co-sponsorship) , and the related Senate bill, S.J. Res. 10, the support does not come close to the two-thirds majority necessary to send the ERA to the states. While these efforts are praiseworthy and keep the issue of sex-based inequalities alive, re-introducing and re-passing the ERA through Congress and beginning the state-ratification process all over is not a politically realistic or expedient strategy.

While there is ardent support for the Equal Rights Amendment, there is simply not enough for re-introduction and passage. The Three-State strategy is the most promising because it does not demand a national narrative that is impossible to achieve in this socio-political moment—it needs only support from three state legislatures. If the battle is to be won, it must be won in the Supreme Court once the three final states have been ratified. It is much more feasible to argue over the constitutionality of state ratifications on legal terms than to frame a debate capable of gaining national support and congressional approval. Mainstream American culture has lost the momentum gained through the first two feminist waves, female suffrage with the nineteenth amendment, and equality in the workplace achieved with Title VII on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Public discourse simply cannot support the level of sophisticated dialogue necessary to explore sex-based equality and its implications. Most notably, Eagle Forum/Stop ERA crusader Phyllis Schlafly warned that the ERA does not seek to create equality for women in the Constitution—because the word “men” is not even in the Constitution. Rather, Schlafly claims, “It was obvious that the ERA’s goal was not to benefit women, but to force us into a gender-neutral society.” Her fears of gender-neutrality reflect an inability to challenge cultural norms and cultivate deeper understandings of the artificial social constructions of “man” and “woman.” While the socially conservative may be phobic of such discussions, de-bunking gender constructions is simply off the radar of mainstream America. An issue that holds little weight cannot create the attention or public space to delve into the distinctions between sex and gender, challenge compulsory heterosexuality, and question the normative family model—all possible implications of gender-neutrality.

That only 21 states include equality of the sexes in their respective State Constitutions showcases the fact that the ERA is not considered a national issue, and any change in frame will necessitate another change in political tide—and who knows how long that will take. Therefore, this is a battle that must be won in the Courts after straining for the final three ratifications.

Sources:
"19th Amendment." A Digital Archive of New Jersey History. 2004. Electronic New Jersey. 9 Apr. 2008.

Equal Rights Amendment: Ratification." Online Map/Still. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 9 Apr. 2008 .
"Female protestor campaigns against the Equal Rights Amendment." Online Archive of California.Walter E. Bennet Photographic Collection. 9 Apr. 2008 .

Francis, Roberta W. "The History Behind the Equal Rights Amendment." The Equal Rights Amendment. 9 Apr. 2008 .

"Frequently Asked Questions." Equal Rights Amendment. 9 Apr. 2008 .
Held, Allison L., Sheryl L. Herndon, and Danielle M. Stager. "The Equal Rights Amendment: Why the ERA Remains Legally Viable and Properly Before the States." Law Article. 9 Apr. 2008. Path: Full Article.

"H.J. Res. 40." Thomas. 27 Mar. 2007. The Library of Congress. 9 Apr. 2008 .
Kenedy, Edward M., Senator. "Statement of Senator Edward M. Kennedy on the Equal Rights Amendment." Newsroom. Mar.-Apr. 2001. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, US Senator for Massacusetts. 7 Apr. 2008

.
Macleod, Jennifer S., Dr., ERA Campaign Network. E-mail interview. 2 Apr. 2008.

Maloney, Carolyn, Representative. " Senators Kennedy & Boxer, Reps. Maloney & Nadler Begin New Push for Women’s Equality Amendment, Women still have no guarentee of equal rights in the Constitution." Press Release. 28 Mar. 2007. Representative Carolyn B. Maloney. 7 Apr. 2008 .

"Proposing a Constitutional Amendment." Find Law for Legal Professionals. 9 Apr. 2008.

Schlafly, Phyllis. "How ERA Would Change Federal Laws." The Phyllis Schlafly Report 15.4 (Nov.1981).

Schaffly, Phyllis. "Left Schemes to Revive ERA." Human Events. 16 Apr. 2007. 9 Apr. 2008.

Schlafly, Phyllis. Stop ERA. Eagle Forum. 9 Apr. 2008 .

"The Constitutional Amendment Process." The Federal Register.The National Archives. 9 Apr. 2008.

"US Supreme Court Cases." US Supreme Court Center. Justia. 9 Apr. 2008 .

"U.S. Supreme Court, Coleman v Miller." Find Law for Legal Professionals. 9 Apr. 2008 .

"Why the ERA Remains Legally Viable and Properly Before the States." Three State Strategy. Equal Rights Amendment. 9 Apr. 2008 .

CA puts anti-cruelty farm bill on the ballot

This is great news, especially as CA state legislation tends to set trends:

A measure that proponents say would provide basic protection for 20 million farm animals in California has qualified for the November ballot.

California Secretary of state Debra Bowen certified the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act for the Nov. 4 general election.

The measure would mandate that farm animals including cattle, pigs and chickens would be given enough room to turn around and extend their limbs in the crates and cages in which they are confined by food producers.

If approved, the law would not take effect until 2015, allowing seven years for compliance.

Seven years is a bit much.

FISA without retroactive immunity?

This brightens my morning:

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that the Bush administration is “now in a position where they want to talk about a possible compromise” on controversial electronic surveillance legislation, signaling a possible breakthrough in the stalled negotiations over the bill.

Hoyer said the White House was “surprised” that House Democrats had the votes to pass an update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that did not include immunity for telecom companies who aided the government in the program. As a result, Hoyer said, the White House has been forced to rethink its position.

Both President Bush and congressional Republicans have been calling for the House to vote on a Senate-passed FISA update, which includes the immunity provisions for the telecom companies.

But House Democrats have refused, instead choosing to hold a vote on their own version. It remains unclear if, or when, a potential reconciliation of the two bills will take place.

the House can't move on FISA

Nearly three weeks after the expiration of controversial electronic surveillance legislation, Congress remains deadlocked on the issue, with a divided Democratic caucus scrambling to find a solution and Republicans once again boycotting talks.

Equitable Insurance Coverage for Mental Illnesses

Although eating disorders are based on genetic components and certain bio-chemical predispositions, they are grossly marginalized as psychiatric diseases in ways inhibit awareness, treatment and outreach.

Two bills have been introduced in Congress that would eliminate the ability of insurance companies to discriminate and cherry-pick which mental diseases deserve treatment coverage. In the House, this would be The Paul Wellstone Mental Health & Addiction Equity Act of 2007 (H.R. 1424), and the Mental Health Parity Act (S. 558) in the Senate. However, the House version is stronger because it includes language specific to eating disorders.

Ask your Representative to sign on
Ask your Senator to sign on
or thank members of Congress that have already done so

Since The Colonic is balanced and well-rounded...

The Baptist Press has a few words on ENDA. Somehow I don't think that sexual minorities are going to be up and running to work at bible-beating institutions and businesses.

Opponents, though, say the bill itself discriminates -- against people of faith.

"[S]mall businesses, schools, non-profit groups, hospitals, clinics, counseling centers, even certain religious institutions would be required to hire homosexuals...," Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council wrote in an action alert. "An employer's faith, moral view, the sensitivity of their work or service or the makeup of their clientele is of no consequence. Private schools, daycare centers, scouting organizations and quasi-religious organizations will not be exempt."

The bill does exempt some religious organizations, such as churches, but experts say those exemptions are narrow.

"It would not seem that Christian schools would fall under the exemption for ENDA," Maureen Wiebe, spokeswoman for the American Association of Christian Schools, told Focus on the Family's CitizenLink. "So ENDA could seriously affect the hiring rights of a Christian school."

Interview with Barney Frank

Logo hosted an online interview of Barney Frank regarding ENDA, its recent division into separate bills, and the politicial viability of a single bill.

What is not addressed is just how badly protection of gender identity will sink without the momentum of sexual orientation.

And you know what? MANNNYYYYY people with minority sexualities also perform non-heteronormative gender, so one half of their identity will be protected, but they are still vulnerable.

GENDER IDENTITY IS NOT JUST ABOUT TRANS PEOPLE. EVEN STRAIGHT PEOPLE CAN LOOK GENDER QUEER.

never thought HRC would let me down...

Here is the letter of resignation of Donna Rose, former board member of the Human Rights Campaign--which is failing to oppose a split in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that would leave trans communities unprotected and vulnerable.

October 03, 2007

A statement from Donna Rosa 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.

My participation on the HRC Board has been a heavy burden. The relationship between HRC and the transgender community is one scarred by betrayal, distrust, and anger. I have become a focal point for much of that frustration and I accepted that responsibility with the hope that I could help to change it. In some very real ways I think I have been able to do that, or at least to help make that happen, and am tremendously proud of all we have achieved.

HRC has done some wonderful work to support the transgender community. Workplaces around the country are recognizing the unique challenges faced by transgender employees and are moving in record numbers to protect them as valued members of an inclusive workforce. Educational tools to help demystify our lives and to provide a human perspective have paved to way to a better understanding of who we are and our challenges. We have set high standards and we have held others accountable to them. The question at hand is whether we, as an organization, hold ourselves accountable to those same high expectations.

Transgender is not simply the 'T' in GLBT. It is people who, for one reason or another, may not express their gender in ways that conform to traditional gender norms or expectations. That covers everyone from transsexuals, to queer youth, to feminine acting men, to masculine appearing women. It is a broad label that cannot be confined to a specific silo of people. It is anyone who chooses to live authentically. To think that the work that we are doing on behalf of the entire GLBT community simply benefits or protects part of us is to choose a simplistic view of a complex community. In a very real way, the T is anyone who expresses themselves differently. To some it is about gender. To me, it is about freedom.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a core piece of legislation. It would guarantee that GLBT people will not get fired from their jobs because of discrimination and prejudice. It makes a strong statement that discrimination of any kind is unacceptable, and it recognizes the critical role of employment and career as something more than simply a paycheck. It is a source of pride, of achievement, of belonging, of security, and in a very real way it is a validation of person-hood.

Unemployment and under-employment is the single most significant issue facing transgender people today. The high-profile case of Susan Stanton, city manager from Largo, FL who was fired early this year after an exemplary 17-year career there simply because she was outed as being transgender, demonstrates the continuing experience that many of us continue to face each and every day in workplaces around this country. Although workplaces have made tremendous strides in enacting supportive policy, bad things still happen and the overall message being sent is that we're somehow expendable. In years past these things happened quietly, going unnoticed. Those days are numbered.

That's why ENDA is so important. It is more than simply a statement that it's not ok to fire GLBT people for reasons unrelated to work performance. It's a statement that we are a community. It's recognition of people who may not express their gender in traditional ways does not affect a person's ability to contribute as simply another part of a diverse workforce. It's a validation of those foundational pillars that line the moral high ground. And, it's recognition that each of us has value, and none of us will be left behind.

The current situation regarding ENDA is nothing short of a politically misguided tragedy. A tool that could and should be a unifying beacon on the heels of the historic passage of fully inclusive Hate Crime legislation has been split. Transgender brothers and sisters again find themselves separated, isolated, and disempowered. People in positions of power have decided that their personal legacy and the promise of political expediency are more important than protecting our entire beautiful community. The time is here to make a strong statement to demonstrate to them that they are wrong.

In 2004 the HRC Board voted to support only fully-inclusive Federal legislation. That decision paved the way to my participation with the organization, and was a significant step in the healing process. Since that time we have worked together tirelessly towards a goal of Equality for all. Less than a month ago HRC President Joe Solmonese stood before almost 900 transgender people at the Southern Comfort Conference in Atlanta to pledge ongoing support and solidarity. In his keynote address he indicated that not only would HRC support only a fully inclusive ENDA, but that it would actively oppose anything less. That single pledge changed hearts and minds that day, and the ripple affect throughout the transgender community was that we finally were one single GLBT community working together. Sadly, recent events indicate that those promises were hollow.

An impressive coalition of local and national organizations has lined up to actively oppose the divisive strategy that would leave some of our brothers and sisters without workplace protections. This effort has galvanized community spirit and commitment in ways few could have imagined, and it has demonstrated to those who would divide us that anything less than full inclusion is unacceptable Organization after organization has seized the moral high ground knowing that this is a historic opportunity that cannot be squandered, and that it is our moral obligation to ourselves and to generations that will follow to make a loud, clear, unmistakable statement that we are a community and we will not be divided. There is a single significant organization glaringly missing from that list. The Human Rights Campaign has chosen not to be there.

It is impossible to remove passion and emotion from what has happened. Indeed, those are the fuels that propel us. That being said please know that this entire situation has affected me deeply and profoundly. Still, I will not sling mud at the organization to who I have given my heart, my energies, and my trust. I will not give in to my frustration and disappointment that Joe's words of less than a month ago have proven to be hollow promises. This unfortunate turn of events has forced me to make some very difficult personal decisions about integrity, character, community, and leadership. Although I can find any number of logical and personal reasons to continue in my capacity as a board member, I cannot escape the moral implications of the decision before me. Using that as my guide, as difficult as it is for me to make, the decision is an obvious one.

I hereby submit my resignation from my post on the Board of the Human Rights Campaign effective Monday Oct. 8, 2007. I call on other like-minded board members, steering committee leaders, donors, corporate sponsors, and volunteers to think long and hard about whether this organization still stands for your values and to take decisive action as well. More than simply a question of organization policy, this is a test of principle and integrity and although it pains me greatly to see what has happened it is clear to me that there can only be one path. Character is not for compromise. I cannot align myself with an organization that I can't trust to stand-up for all of us. More than that, I cannot give half-hearted support to an organization that has now chosen to forsake the tenets that have guided my efforts from day one.

I align myself and my energies with the groundswell of community sentiment that has universally stood to oppose this divisive strategy. I wish my friends and colleagues from the Human Rights Campaign the best, and I expect that time will prove their decision to take a neutral stance and to fracture our community to be short-sighted and misguided. I accept the notion that we all want the same thing. It's just that I couldn't disagree more with this destructive strategy to get there. I urge the board and the leadership to reconsider their position and the join a unified community that supports a single all-inclusive bill.

History teaches painful lessons. Any celebration of rights gained at the expense of others is not a celebration. It is a failure of effective leadership. It is to offer the promise of a tomorrow that you know in your heart will never come. It is to choose to turn your back on those who need you most, who do not have the voice or the stature to speak for themselves.

The time is here for leaders to lead, for those who say they stand for community to act forcefully and with purpose. Anything less is to forsake the pillars of Equality for the empty promise of something less. The word that we have for that in our language is "Courage". It's the kind of courage it takes for GLBT people to show up for work each and every day, living authentically, wondering if that will be their last day. I call on my brothers and sisters at the Human Rights Campaign, for Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Frank, and for equality-minded leaders everywhere to lead by example and to do the right thing.

In Solidarity for Equality,

Donna Rose

Civil rights for LGB...and T

Democrats tried to get away with a discrimination bill that left out transgender persons. Big mistake.

By Christine Daniels
October 10, 2007

The basketball expression for it is "low-bridge." It is the dirtiest foul in the sport, the act of suddenly taking out a player's legs as he or she leaps for a rebound, pass or jump shot. It's a cheap and devious move, in that it may look spontaneous but is almost always premeditated -- and almost always a prelude to a fight.

That's what happened to the transgender community on Sept. 26. We were low-bridged. By -- of all people -- Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

But, in a shocking upset, the transgender community picked itself up, rubbed its newly scraped elbows and fought back. Frank, Pelosi & Co. didn't know what hit them.

The impetus for this brawl was the struggle over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that is the proud product of some hard battles won by a unified coalition of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists and advocates. ENDA seeks to protect civil rights so fundamental -- and so fundamentally American -- that it seems absurd we are still haggling over this in late 2007. ENDA would make it illegal to fire or refuse to hire or promote anyone based simply on the employee's sexual orientation or gender identity.

On paper, Frank, an openly gay Democrat, seemed the right person to lead this game plan. But as September rolled on, surveys of House members showed that ENDA did not have the votes to pass if it protected transgender people, but it did if it just covered gays and lesbians. So Frank huddled with Pelosi and other Democratic leaders and decided to play Solomon with ENDA -- only with half the wisdom. On Sept. 26, Frank announced his plan to split ENDA into two bills -- one bill protecting sexual orientation, which would get introduced immediately to Congress, and another bill protecting gender identity, which Congress would get to somewhere down the line. Maybe in a year or two. Or six or seven.

Ordinarily, self-interest dominates everything and everyone in Washington, and it often rolls right over decency and ethics. With ENDA, congressional thinking seemed to go: "This boat is listing. We better do something! But what? We really have no stomach for this sort of fight ... so let's throw the transfolk overboard! So what if they are the minority that needs ENDA's protection the most? Nobody knows a transgender person anyway; decades of intolerance and ignorance have kept them closeted. Who'll miss them in this bill?"

Big miscalculation. The strategy did not yield the usual we-got-ours run for safety. Lesbian, gay and bisexual activists stood alongside their trans sisters and brothers, and together we raised the roof. It was a beautiful noise, let me tell you.

It was so much noise -- about 140 gay and trans rights groups told Pelosi in no uncertain terms that protection for the transgendered needed to stay in the bill -- that she and Frank consented to delay a House vote until later this month. In these intervening weeks, Congress and America need to hear from the transgender people who live and walk and work among them -- you're reading one now -- and listen to what Barbara Sehr of the Ingersoll Gender Center told me last week.

"Until now, the problem has been that nobody has ever seen a trans person," Sehr said. "Before, the thinking was, 'Oh, they're just men in dresses and girls with beards. They're not worth the effort.' In their minds, this was not a civil rights issue. People saw it as a totally sexual thing, when nothing could be further from the truth. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with gender identity."

This generation, Sehr said, has more experience with the issue because more transgender people are being public about it.

"The same thing happened with the gay community. Twenty or 30 years ago, not that many gays were out, and people didn't realize they might be living next door to a gay person. Once people realized that the gay agenda included doing their laundry and driving their kids to school and getting their hair done, the thinking changed to, 'Hey, they're normal! They deserve civil rights.' "

You are reading this right now, in no small part, because in 2003 California passed a state version of ENDA, the Gender Non-Discrimination Act. In early March, I scheduled a meeting with a person in our human resources department to do some exploratory research about transitioning at The Times. I was told: "Well, The Times cannot discriminate against you because California has a law in place."

Well. That was worded somewhat more bluntly than I wanted to hear. But it also was comforting. I had protection. I could be myself, and I could continue to draw a paycheck. From those crude beginnings, I was able to work with HR and my editors on a transition strategy that enabled me to keep my job, change my byline and, as it turns out, boost my career to a new level of personal fulfillment. I now write three or four columns a week for The Times' Sports section along with two blogs, including Woman in Progress, about the experience of transitioning from male to female.

I realize I am lucky. California is one of nine states that currently bar discrimination against transgender employees. My friend Susan Stanton did not have that kind of protection in Florida. In February, she lost her job as city manager of Largo despite a long and outstanding record of public service.

So I have a personal and professional stake in what's happening to ENDA right now. So do you, if you care about the most basic rights being extended to a neighbor, a co-worker, a friend who might be transgender but afraid to tell anybody because a national ENDA is still but a concept being picked apart by some shortsighted political opportunists.