September 30, 2007
After many years working as a bartender for Harrah's Casino, Darlene Jespersen was fired for failing to conform to the Casino's new 'personal best' grooming policy. As a female bartender, Jesperson was required to have her hair "teased, curled, or styled," and to wear stockings. Jesperson was also suddenly required to put on makeup everyday: lipstick and nail polish mandatory.
It was a regimen she found burdensome and demeaning, and while sexual orientation was not an issue in her case, I know quite a few lesbians who might feel the same way. What would Ellen Degeneres do if NBC decided she needed to wear skirts on her show everyday? What would KD Lang do if her record label demanded she adopt a 'less masculine' haircut?
While this may not have happened to Ellen or KD, this kind of discrimination happens all the time. Darlene Jespersen lost her job because she did not live up to the female-specific requirements of her new dress code. And when she fought her termination in court, she lost.
Congress is now looking at two different versions of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. One would make this type of discrimination illegal. The other would not.
Congressman Barney Frank has chosen to introduce a straight-acting-only version of ENDA which bans employment discrimination based on sexual orientation but not gender identity and expression. This version may protect gays and lesbians based on their sexual orientation, but it won't protect gays and lesbians who don't adhere to society's view of what men and women should be.
It won't protect the gay guy who dresses up in drag on halloween. It won't protect the lesbian who doesn't want to be forced to wear a skirt as part of a company uniform. It won't protect any gay man who can't live up to society's standards and "act more like a man". It won't protect any lesbian who can't live up to society's standards and "act more like a woman."
We should be outraged that Barney Frank is considering a bill that excludes the transgender community, but let's be honest, the transgender community are not the only ones being thrown under the bus. Some may argue that we should start protecting straight-acting gays and lesbians, and then come back for the rest of the LGBT community later. As the Task Force other organizations have documented by looking at state laws, this simply does not happen. It is always easier to stand strong and stand united and pass an inclusive bill than it is to go back later and try and pass protections based on gender identity and expression.
Make no mistake, a straight-acting-only ENDA ais a hollow victory one that is not worth achieving because it takes us further, not closer towards the goal of protection from employment discrimination for all of us.
Posted by David Mariner at September 30, 2007 04:23 AM
It isn't just Barney Frank who is behind this. Nancy Pelosi is the one who engineered the whole thing to divide and politically weaken the queer community.
I lived in the Bay Area when she first ran for the House. She queer baited openly gay Supervisor Harry Britt at a time when the queer community was being absolutely devastated by AIDS. She got the seat in the most hateful and dirty way possible.
When I found out she would be House Speaker, I dreaded the news. I irrationally hoped that time and being immersed in SF politics would mellow her heterosexist bigotry.
I was a fool to hope for such a thing.
Frank's role in this is as familiar as it is reprehensible. I remember all too well how he gave political cover to another homophobic Democrat, Bill Clinton, who was trying to get the military ban written into statute law and to increase the number of witch hunts.
Don't ever, ever trust Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi.
This is just immature "pie in the sky" whining.
In politics - like in the real world - you work for what you CAN GET. The gay community should be applauding the efforts of Frank and Pelosi to increase hate crime protection in the areas they believe will be successful at this time.
THEN you come back and make another round as society and the right leaders have been elected.
I think it is SHAMEFUL that any transgender advocate would want to undermine gay and lesbian hate crime legislation because the trans words are not there.
The gay community has a great deal to be thankful to the transgendered. They will not be forgotten.
Protection for a woman (lesbian) who doesn't want to be forced to wear a skirt as part of a company uniform.
This is why the trans part was taken out - corporations will not be able to enforce standard requirements / dress codes if trans was included in the legislation. How could they require any woman to wear a skirt, if a lesbian is exempted - since when does being gay mean I can wear a skirt to the office and not be fired ?
Never ... taking this out was a great idea.
If this was MUCH more specific - like a proven medical situation where someone is pre-op or going into sex change .... but not just anti-skirt lesbians who want to wear pants. That does not need federal protection.
APPLAUD says the gay man.
i say we must stand together with those who helped get us to where we are today in terms of equal rights - the 'T's' in GLBT. Afterall, wasn't it the drag queens and transgendered who started the Stonewall Riot (known as the birth of the modern day GLBT movement?)
The issues of gender AND sexual orientation are separate only in their definitions. Practically speaking, the two issues usually occur together.
There was a time when I thought - let 'them' (the transgendered folk) wait while I greedily grab my rights. I don't believe that way anymore. I have grown to know and love many 'differently gendered', middle-sexed and 3rd-sexed individuals.
So, I don't know about you but the only bill I'm willing to accept is the one that protects my gender orientation as well as my sexual orientation (lesbian). I think gays ought to realize they too could very easily be discriminated over gender issues, just as easy as the sexual orientation ones, especially since many gays don't perfectly fit the stereotype of their gender!
With Bill Clinton's contribution to Global warming with NAFTA and GATT(a.k.a. Chinese and Indian industries). The poisoning of american children and pets; and his past booming economy propelled by the manufacturing of industrial equipment and the logistics of sending them overseas along with industrial and technological jobs; plus his capabilities managing Hillary's interns, should be a great asset to Hillary.
Yes, Hillary should be a great President.Supporting Bill's policies, allowing illegal aliens to work replacing middle class american jobs, driving down wages, and helping the flow of drugs and possible terroists into the country.
Oh yes, and lets not forget about the graft of the medical industials to structure her health plan.
And remember we get two for one so we can save money on Presidential Libraries.
As Dylan said: "He said his name was "Columbus'. I just said "Good Luck"".
