I've posted here before about the HRC, and my ambivalence regarding their policies and tactics. I understand enough of politics to know that no one, anywhere gets everything all at once, particularly when it involves changing social "acceptability." However, that is not to say that people, groups and organizations are doing themselves or anyone any good by backing off their end goals-which is what theHRC did with ENDA (I am giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming that full inclusion is their actual end goal.) I'm not so ambivalent anymore and this is a major reason why:
This week, the Human Rights Campaign released its 2009 State of the Workplace report and Corporate Equality Index (CEI) ratings of large US employers for GLBT inclusive policies and practices. Perfect 100% ratings were awarded to a record 260 major companies, up from 195 in 2008. In a press release from Workplace Project Manager Samir Luther, the HRC boasted that 175 of the Fortune-500 businesses and 60 of the Fortune-100 firms now have gender identity protection in their employment policies.
Sounds pretty good...but then there is this:
Despite years of objection by health advocates for the trans-community, the HRC continues to omit medically necessary transition care as a requirement for a perfect 100% CEI score. Employees who suffer distress with their physical sex characteristics or ascribed gender role (often termed gender dysphoria) are singled out by many employers for exclusion from coverage for corrective procedures that are not excluded for other employees. By rewarding these employers with 100% scores, the HRC perpetuates this discrimination.
I am a pragmatist and to me being pragmatic is not the same thing as throwing someone else under the bus in order to get the crumbs that most serve you on a personal level. Even if we don't get it right out of the gate...we still have to demand it.
And here is the rest of it.