tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3878677187737032554.post-85446328283346946222007-11-12T15:25:00.000-05:002007-11-12T15:25:00.000-05:002007-11-12T15:25:00.000-05:00Groups such as GLAD shouldn't be placed in the same category as HRC. HRC agreed to take the lead on the ENDA legislation. It made consistent promises, publicly, that it would not support a trans-free ENDA, though insiders within HRC would tell you a couple of years ago that HRC would sell out trans people in a heartbeat.<BR/><BR/>As time passed and HRC repeated its promises, HRC lulled folks into believing the promises were true.<BR/><BR/>HRC made a calculated gamble, in the face of people such as me who argued that a trans-free ENDA was the way to go from Day One. With that gamble, they undertook a moral duty to work to educate Congressional members about trans people.<BR/><BR/>When the ENDA hearing was recently held, did HRC put forth a single trans witness? I haven't read a single story mentioning any such witnesses.<BR/><BR/>I read a press report earlier this week that said that at the 24th hour HRC OPPOSED the Baldwin amendment. That was the final straw for me with HRC. <BR/><BR/>For groups (other than HRC) that didn't create this mess, supporting a trans-free ENDA when that realistically was the only option left on the table last week was okay with me; indeed, it was the morally-right thing to do. Opposing the Baldwin amendment was morally wrong.<BR/><BR/>The question I would like answered is why a trans-inclusive ENDA was introduced in the first place when the reality was (as amply shown over the last few weeks) that there simply wasn't adequate support in DC for trans people?<BR/><BR/>By introducing a trans-inclusive ENDA and then dumping trans people from ENDA, HRC and Mr. Frank put trans people in a far worse position than they were before.<BR/><BR/>Christine DuffyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com