Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper

Jill at Feministe explores the divisions in the progressive community over the Employee Non Discrimination Act and whether it should be supported despite the fact that transgender individuals have been removed from the bill’s protection:

There’s an ongoing debate in progressive and LGBT communities about whether or not Congress should pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would make it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Yes, that’s right: Unless you live in a state with very good anti-discrimination legislation, your employer can terminate you for the sole offense of being gay, lesbian or transgender. And there’s no federal law against it.
Bush will likely veto the bill, but it’s nonetheless an important step. Progressives, though, are divided over a revised version of the bill that omits gender identity from the protected classes. So, should ENDA pass, you can no longer be terminated from your job because you’re gay. But you can be terminated for being transgender, or for not conforming to a traditionally gendered appearance.
…
Pragmatism matters. But throwing an entire group of people under the bus because it’s politically expedient is not an option. And as Pam emphasizes, this bill is largely symbolic. If Democrats can’t even get it together for a bill that has no chance of becoming law, how are they going to get the job done when they actually have power?

I’ll associate myself with Minipundit’s thoughts on this issue:

Adding transgendered persons to the ENDA is obviously a good idea on policy grounds. But the plain fact of the matter is that acceptance of gays and lesbians has come much further than the acceptance of transgendered persons. It’s awful, but it’s true. Tacking on transgendered rights could alienate conservative Democrats and center-right Republicans who might vote for a sexual orientation-only ENDA, and would give Bush more of a leg to stand on in the public eye if he picked a fight over the matter. Again, it’s disgusting, but it’s something we have to deal with, and for the time being non-discimination rights for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals is better than nothing. Far from perfect, but better than nothing.

I think a little historical perspective is necessary here. When Loving vs Virginia was decided in 1969, did it “throw gays under the bus” when it only established protections for interracial marriages? No, it instead was a huge step forward for equality and laid the groundwork for the push for gay marriage, which came more than 30 years later. Hopefully, employment protections for the transgendered won’t come around in 30 years, but ENDA — in its current form — is still a large step forward that should be supported by all of those who care about equality and substantive rights for sexual minorities.

UPDATE:  Welcome femniste readers.  I really liked piny’s post and I have my own rebuttal here.  I also outlined some arguments why keeping ENDA intact and not dropping the transgendered is a good idea here.