Nexyjo, I would like to know why you categorize polyfolk with pedophiles and bestialists. In explicit detail. Now.

Dear Mr. S__,

Thank you for your letter about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) currently under consideration in Congress. The long, thirty-three year history of this legislation is very meaningful to me, and I am excited that Democrats finally have a majority in Congress that will to bring it to a vote.

In HR 2015, the first ENDA bill that was filed this year, gender identity protections were included for the first time. As a cosponsor of HR 2015, I fully support ending all discrimination in the workplace based on either sexual orientation or gender identity and would have voted for this legislation.

I understand your concerns about passing a bill (HR 3685) that does not include gender identity protections. As I look back on how we have achieved civil rights legislation, I am struck that each accomplishment was both monumental and yet disappointingly incomplete. I appreciate the advocates who push for a comprehensive approach and are unwilling to accept anything less.

As a member of Congress, I have consistently supported extending discrimination protections and feel that any opportunity to expand protections should be pursued, however incomplete. It is my understanding that Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin will be offering an amendment to include gender identity protection when HR 3685 comes to the floor. I will support both HR 3685 and Rep. Baldwin’s amendment to include gender identity protections. I hope that both will be adopted by the House and the Senate. If gender identity is not included, I will continue to fight for the addition of protections for the transgender community in the laws that prohibit discrimination.

Thank you again for your letter. I appreciate your reflections on how we achieve victory and look forward to working with you.

Sincerely,
Earl Blumenauer
Member of Congress

Dear Mr. _,

Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 2015, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which makes it illegal to discriminate in the workplace based on sexual orientation. I am proud to be a cosponsor and long-time advocate of this important legislation.

Throughout my term in public office I have supported the rights of individuals in the labor force, including the rights of gays and lesbians. As a member of the Oregon State House of Representatives, I had the privilege of chairing the legislature’s first hearing on gay rights in 1973. After my service in the State House, I continued to support anti-discrimination initiatives at the county and city level. Now in Congress, I have continued this fight. In addition to supporting ENDA, I proudly cosponsored and voted for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 to advance the ultimate goal of eliminating discrimination in our society.

We have a long way to go to ensure the equality and safety of all citizens. I appreciate your letter and will continue to support efforts to defend human rights for every individual regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.

Sincerely,
Earl Blumenauer
Member of Congress

Notice something missing?

My hope is that this is merely the result of his office sending me the boilerplate response to mentioning ENDA in an email, but it is a bit disturbing that gender identity is completely absent from his response.

What’s your objection to their inclusion in the category of “sexual minorities”? Pedophilia is surely sexual. It is surely a minority preference.

using this logic, i’d argue that trans people are not part of the category of “sexual minorities”. being trans is surely not sexual - it has nothing to do with sexual behavior. i know a good number of trans people who are asexual. nor is it a “minority preference”. most of the women i know wear pants. i’d argue that the majority of people on this planet exhibit some attributes of transgender behavior.

that said, i wouldn’t categorize lgbt people into the same group that includes pedophiles, polyamorists, and bestialists. it’s easy to oppress and discriminate against people when one is free to categorize them as they please, especially when one is part of the ruling class.

Is there a coherent difference between a polyamorist and a transgendered person, in terms of it being legally or morally OK to discriminate against one but not the other?

i’d argue that your suggestion is a typical “bait and switch” tactic. you start your argument with pedophiles, and finish with polyamorists. again, using your line of reasoning, one could argue that religious leaders, like say catholic priests who molest children and evangelist christians who are caught in homosexual activities are part of the white male minority. thus, we should start denying white males jobs, healthcare, housing, and other basic human rights.

before you argue about chalk lines, we should be clear about who is holding the chalk and drawing the lines.

the group to which you belong would call me a “fag” while beating the crap out of me, just like they’d call a gay man a “fag” while beating the crap out of him. the chalk lines you draw around “t” and “g” are based on gay and trans people’s behavior that is outside gender roles you have arbitrarily drawn with that same chalk. the other so called “sexual minorities” you describe are not “fags”.

hatred is easily justified by the people who have the chalk when they have the power to use it. talk about being painted (or in this case, chalk lined) into a corner.

And here, Myca, I think I have to disagree with you a tad. I don’t believe that the “mainstream” groups (e.g., GLAD, GLAAD, HRC, Lambda Legal, NGLTF, and etc.) subscribe at all to “we’re all on the same team” in re: polyfolk. I don’t necessarily think that’s a good thing, but it’s just what it appears to be as I interpret their use of “LGBT.”

Hey, Bonnie, I may have phrased things badly . . . I don’t think they subscribe to that either, I don’t think it’s wrong or weird for them not to subscribe to that, and I don’t think that they threw polyfolk under the bus.

In other words, we agree. :-)

What I was saying is that excluding transfolk from this bill would be throwing transfolk under the bus and would be a blow to professed unity . . . which is why I made the comparison in my PS.

—Myca

Nobody Really, if Robert had limited his comparison to polyamory — as your defense of Robert did — I never would have criticized it. The issue and argument Robert brought up is legitimate; bringing it up with a comparison to pederasty, regardless of his intent, was hurtful and insensitive.

Why did the original bill exclude polyamourous people? I haven’t heard.

I don’t know. Investigate the legislative history yourself.

I suspect that, from a purely mechanical standpoint, it has something to do with the fact that at present polyfolk are not actively represented by any of the groups sponsoring the bill, they do not actively participate (to my knowledge) as a group with any of the groups sponsoring the bill, and thus they have not made themselves a constituent in the groups sponsoring the bill.

And here, Myca, I think I have to disagree with you a tad. I don’t believe that the “mainstream” groups (e.g., GLAD, GLAAD, HRC, Lambda Legal, NGLTF, and etc.) subscribe at all to “we’re all on the same team” in re: polyfolk. I don’t necessarily think that’s a good thing, but it’s just what it appears to be as I interpret their use of “LGBT.”

I reiterate that I do not find polyamory as practiced by consenting adults to be objectionable on any level, nor for any reason. In fact, I think there are numerous aspects of it that are positive. Polyfolk were not thrown under the bus vis a vis the deletions from the original bill as they were not a part of the original bill, good, bad, or otherwise.

If you’ve been involved in political conversations on Alas for as long as Robert has, and if you’ve been reading other feminist and LGBTQ blogs, such as Pandagon, then you have no legitimate claim to ignorance on the issue of why Robert’s comparison between homosexuals and pedophiles is unequivocally unacceptable.

As a polyamorous person, I’d agree that there’s no coherent moral reason to exclude polyamorous people from a bill like this.

At the same time, I think that there are coherent reasons to exclude polyfolk on effectiveness grounds. That is, it seems likely to me that including protections for polyamorous people would make it extremely unlikely that the bill would get passed at all, and I’d rather have half a loaf than none . . . even when I’m the one who gets shorted their half of the loaf.

I think that the same logic could apply to including protection for transfolk in the bill, and that’s obviously why they decided not to include those protections. I don’t see anything wrong with this in theory, but I disagree that in this case this exclusion will be effective in passing the bill. I’ve been convinced by the posts here that 1) excluding protection for transfolk will not significantly increase support/decrease opposition for the bill, 2) excluding protection for transfolk does significantly damage the coalition that has supported this bill all along, and 3) since I believe 1 and 2, I find excluding protection for transfolk from this bill to be morally indefensible. That is, yes, there are compromises, and I’m not opposed to compromises, but I am solidly opposed to throwing your allies under the bus for little benefit, and I think that’s what this is.

—Myca

PS. I also think it’s interesting to look at this in the context of the Michfest ’superheroes’ comic Amp referenced some time back, and the idea that ‘we’re all on the same team’ until it becomes inconvenient.

I sense Amp has it right: to those “in the know,” calling a black man boy is derogatory. And yet in 1987 I did precisely that. I simply didn’t know any better. So I can’t help but feel for Robert here.

Apparently I’m not very “in the know” on these issues either. I did not read Robert’s remarks as an intent to stigmatize gays, lesbians and transgendered people. Rather, I read them as an effort to introduce a note of humility into what was largely a list of uncritical self-congratulatory posts about solidarity (with a side discussion about the need to identify “suspect categories” for purposes of employment discrimination law).

Whatever thoughts people may have about the messenger, I think he makes a fair point: Much of the arguments about the harm of passing a bill that excludes protections for trans people also applies to passing a bill that excludes polyamourous people. Why did the original bill exclude polyamourous people? I haven’t heard.

Not exactly a strong objection, and coming later than I it did from everyone else, but still better than nothing, I guess.

Dear Robert,

Seems your apology is not forthcoming. I’ll proceed anyway.

Why the concern w/ the “T” community and not with the other of your “sexual minorities”? [You know, you’re a real piece of work, you with your faux concern.]

Since you obviously did not notice, the subject of the post is “Queer Rights Groups To Congress: ‘None of Us Without All Of Us!’” To parse: None of us now who were in the original bill without all of us who were in the original bill. The “T” community was in the original bill; your other groups were not. I was posting on, you know, the original topic.

“Well…except that you’re ‘standing together’ with just the people you like.”

How do you know I like any of them? Conversely, how do you know I dislike any of them? You know little of what I like. To paraphrase you, “Let’s try and keep who likes whom clear.” You would do well to practice what you preach. Let’s dispense with the straw-Bonnies, shall we?

“Please note that I’m not trying to argue that for a gay rights activist to be consistent they have to argue for freedom for every other sexual minority” “I don’t know enough about the law in this area to comment.”

Great. Then shut the fuck up and stop this ridiculous, tedious, snitty, snot-nosed, asinine, high-school debate team devil’s advocate bullshit (you know, the shit you pull in virtually every thread on Alas). You bring nothing to the table in LGBTQ discussions.

“I do believe it to be the case that an activist who makes the reasonable decision to firewall their activities must forego the temptation to claim democratic universality for the principles they’re espousing”

I do not believe I have ever made such a claim. Another straw-Bonnie!

“What’s your objection to [pederasts’] inclusion in the category of ‘sexual minorities’?”

What’s my objection?!? Are you fucking kidding me?!? You jerkoff. I’ll defer to Holly’s reasoning: “[C]ategories of pedophilia and bestiality are generally held to be in a different category than other “sexual minorities” because of issues of consent. Minors and animals are not considered, by law or culture, to be capable of making decisions about their own well-being, including ones around sexual activity.”

And further, from Holly: “the line here has been well-tread in many discussions.”

You can read, right? You’ve read threads here before on LGBTQ issues. Are you being obtuse on purpose? Or are you just being intentionally provocative?

“If your objection is that pedophiles are hated and reviled, or that you hate and revile them…well, so? Gays are hated and reviled. Transgender people are hated and reviled.”

I hate and revile pedophiles because they hurt children. The physical, psychological, and emotional hurt they cause children is unconscionable and is why pedophiles will never be included, not because they are hated and reviled. And your “well, so” remark – could you be more of an ass?

“If your objection is that many of the things pedophiles do are illegal, again I inquire as to the consistency between them and gays. Homosexual behavior used to be illegal, still is in some places.”

Illegality is not the argument being made and you generally seem far too sophisticated to believe that it is. Plenty of activities are illegal that shouldn’t be (e.g., selling sex toys in Alabama); I do not now and have never adhered to the idea that just because something has been so in that past that it should forever be so in the future. To sum up your point in a word: specious.

“If your objection is that pedophiles engage in coercive practices. . . . .”

What? You’re really reaching now. Again, specious – the entire paragraph. You’re arguing just for the sake of doing so. As I urged above, drop the high-school debate team argument-for-the-sake-of-argument nonsense. You’re just flapping your (metaphorically speaking) gums for the sake of doing so.

“Is there a coherent difference between a polyamorist and a transgendered person, in terms of it being legally or morally OK to discriminate against one but not the other?”

No. Absolutely not. Of course not. Should Myca desire to, and actually, find multiple consenting adult partners willing to enter a multi-partner marriage, I would fully support them in their quest to do so. And believe me, this sort of marital arrangement is coming. More than likely not in our lifetimes, but in the not to far-off future.

“So you’re welcome to tell me to fuck off and ignore me, but it leaves me thinking you have no response, not that I’m bad and wrong.”

(1) If the only reason you can think of why someone would not respond to your vile trolling [thank you, Holly] is that the person has no response, you’re a damned fool, and further you lack imagination, insight, and empathy.

(2) You are bad.

(3) You are wrong.

(4) Okay: FUCK. OFF.

Robert, do not ever EVER pull this crap with me again. On any topic, but particularly about LGBTQ issues. I find you a vile, worthless hunk of shit for how you conduct your discourse on this site. You do little but delight in inciting anger with your bullshit devil’s advocate wah-wah “but what about all these groups you meanies left out” thread-derailing self-centered bloviating ego-stroking jacking off.

I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns. And I hope I have been perfectly painfully unequivocally clear in my expressing myself to you; however, in case I have not, please:

Do not reply to me. Ever. Do not communicate with me / to me / about any of my posts - ever again.

Hugs and kisses,

Bonnie

P.S. – Do the entire planet a big fat favor and keep your sorry ass and your sorry rhetorical devices out of all LGBTQ and feminist discussions FOREVER. Jackass.

Are you kidding? The idea of banning you for what you said never crossed my mind, not even for a moment. I think what you said was exactly right, frankly.

Thank you.