Wednesday, May 5, 2010

ENDA: Prelude to a Nightmare

ENDA: Prelude to a Nightmare
Paul E. Rondeau

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service summarizes the intent of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) introduced by Rep. Barney Frank as "prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity by covered entities (employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees)." CRS notes that religious organizations, but not religious people, are exempted as is the military.
   Advocates claim that heterosexuals--that is the other 97% of America-- are also protected under the term sexual orientation. Theoretically true but any benefit that might inure to heterosexuals is obviously incidental out of pragmatic political necessity.  ENDA's sole purpose is protect and advance homosexuality, all of its variant behaviors, and the sexual worldview called gender identity.  In short, ENDA is an employer's (and society's) nightmare.

Is ENDA intellectually honest?
ENDA  is the result of powerful forces that desire to further codify variant sexual behaviors disguised as minority rights. (Hence the gay-friendly media repetition ad nauseum of terms like gay rights, sexual rights, and sexual minority. It doesn't really matter that pedophiles, rapists and so on also qualify as sexual minorities. Attaching words like minority and rights to gay serves the "civil rights rhetoric" political purpose.)
   What is intellectual honesty? Well, supporters pretend ENDA is anchored in the "universally accepted understanding" that sexual orientation is normal, innate and immutable, i.e. the same as race or ethnicity. However, when gay supporters say universally accepted,  they mean by the most intelligent, enlightened, important people: i.e. themselves.
   Even after torturing science for three decades with millions of dollars of targeted research, not one recognized association of scientific, medial, or mental health professions says more than, "We don't know for sure what causes homosexuality."
   No matter. Led by the almost militantly pro-gay American Psychological Association, many mental health associations take the oxymoronic position, "We don't know what causes it but we know it is normal and can't be changed." (The APA tends not to disclose that they proactively make sure that any research that may run counter to their position is unwelcome, unfunded, and unpublished.)  With political cover like this, gays co-opt and spend the legitimate civil rights political capital of African-Americans and other minorities as if everyone knows it to be true.
   But forget that sexual orientation is not proven to be innate like race.  The whole "born that way" debate is a red herring anyway.  Pedophiles also claim to be born that way. The innateness debate is contrived to foster  sympathy and distract from the real issue: "What is healthy sexual behavior in a healthy society?"

And the Real Question is...

Should sexual behaviors and identities be singled out for special protection by ENDA?  Other employees can be terminated for perfectly legal sexual behaviors like adultery, affairs with coworkers, and pornography.  Employees can also be terminated for just not fitting in.  This may be because of trivial reasons like being perceived as a sloppy dresser, ugly, weird, or socially awkward.
   None of these reasons threaten anyone else's right.  But LGBT behavior is not trivial and may encroach on others' rights.  That is why gay activists never ever talk about LGBT sexual behavior. They insist that LGBT rights are not about sexual behavior.  But, there is no such thing as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transsexual without the identifying sexual behavior.  Is there a thief without the act of stealing?   This is indisputable.  ENDA is about controversial sexual behavior and alleged sexual identities.  That is the intellectual honesty.
   Forcing acceptance of this behavior into any and all workplaces may not be inconsequential to an employer's corporate values or personal religious beliefs that ENDA treats as irrelevant.

ENDA: Protecting a Plethora of Sexual Personas

   Although gender identity is thrown around in serious tones by academics and activists as some sort of scientific enlightenment, gender identity is just a sexual worldview that cannot be proven but much more importantly, never disproven. ENDA codifies "gender identity, perceived or real," as a protected class. So how do social engineers define these so-called gender identities?

   Gender Identify is an ideology that what humanity accepts as male or female gender in all of recorded history are merely social constructs in no way related to biological sex. These social constructs are prisons for a person's real; gender identity. The root "evidence" to support this bizarre enigma seems to be that in some non-western cultures, eunuchs are regarded as a third gender.
   An objective person would rightly say "So what? Some cultures still ritually mutilate prepubescent girls." But hold your horses: three genders is nowhere near enough for ENDA activists. ENDA would protect a gender identity such as a man who identifies as a lesbian who insists he was mistakenly born in a male biological body who gets a sex change so 'she' can have sex with other women as a woman. Did you follow that? It describes a true sexual reassignment surgery (SRS) case even though it sounds more like a mental illness.
  Oops...that's because it is.  ENDA says sexual psychopathology is a right.

From Sexual Psychopathology to Protected Class

The American Psychiatric Association defines Gender Identity Disorder as a serious and treatable psychopathology--as it does transsexualism (Gender Dysphoria). Nevertheless, with the stroke of a legislative pen, two sexual psychopathologies are transformed by ENDA into a federally protected class status with the burden to accommodate it placed on employers.
   Imagine how many gender identities that can be concocted by mixing male and female biological bodies with lesbian, transvestite, cross-dresser, homosexual, eunuch, intersexual, transsexual, and bisexual. I count 16 just combining two at a time: male or female biology with eight sexual behaviors.
   Simply put, ENDA ushers in sexual anarchy in the workplace as a federal right. Employers must accommodate a dizzying combination of biological sex, sexual preference, and sexual identity.
  1. How do you accommodate the difference between transvestism,cross-dressing, transsexualism, intersexuality, and transgenderism? Is there any?  How about a transvestite lesbian in a male body? 
  2. Which restroom, changing area, or locker room are they legally entitled to use?  Both, neither, depends?
  3. The hiring decision is ultimately subjective and often goes beyond a candidate's skills and experience. Even if sexual orientation or gender identity is not a hiring issue, do you risk legal costs and potential liability if you hire the candidate you believe is overall a better fit for your team? Can you even prove you don't discriminate under ENDA unless you purposely do hire LGBT people as evidence?
  4. K-12 schools are also workplaces.  Just what will Billy and Sally's cross-dressing transsexual kindergarten teacher be wearing to class tomorrow?   The day after?  
  5. What must we 'teach' Billy and Sally about their 'teacher?'
   How about the rest of your employees? Are female employees (you know, the kind as understood for millennia) forced to accept a male who identifies as female, bisexual, or some other identity in their changing room? Is providing separate 'but equal' facilities to accommodate a cornucopia of gender identities discriminatory? Will other employees sue you claiming that their own religious, free speech, or association rights are being infringed? Or will valuable employees just leave?
   Who the hell knows?  But, if you get in the way of their ENDA gender identity "rights," you can be sure their ACLU or EEOC attorney will be happy to educate you in court. ENDA is an employer's nightmare.

The Elephant in the Room: Gays are Affluent, Educated, and Powerful

Making allowances for these disorders, vis-a-vis American Disabilities Act, might make sense if gay activists were seeking protection based on disability. But just the opposite is true: gays insist that they are perfectly normal, it is society that is sick. That is why they need protection! (Is Nurse Ratched in the building? Cuckoo, cukcooo, cuckooooo.)
   Research published in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology concludes that "Gay activists paint a bleak picture of employment discrimination against homosexuals" but "the relative success of gays suggests that occupational discrimination against them is either mild and ineffective or that it is counterbalanced by other factors. Studies actually show that GLBT Americans are twice as likely to have graduated from college, twice as likely to have an individual income over $60,000 and twice as likely to have a household income of $250,000 or more."
   That puts gays among the most affluent, educated, and influential in America. Not bad for an oppressed minority who likens its gay rights movement to Africa-Americans!
   African-Americans rank near the bottom in affluence, education, and influence, have no choice whatsoever on being in or out of any metaphorical closet, and make no demands insisting that their identifying associated controversial sexual behavior is a right that society must redefine family, gender, and morality in order to accommodate.
   Historically, gays had to be "closeted" because they were bullied and got hassled by police in bars and bathhouses that frequently had drug traffic and glory holes for anonymous public sex. Whole black families were kidnapped, auctioned off piecemeal as property, not paid a penny for a lifetime of forced labor, barred from voting and education, counted as a fraction of a human, had to sit in the back of the bus, and could only eat, drink, or even relieve themselves at places designated for "coloreds."
   Other than that, the similarities in the gay and Black struggles for civil rights are truly striking!

Society is Not Simply the Sum of Individual Rights.

   Gays have the right to feel entitled to ENDA's enumerated rights and protections. Likewise, the rest of our society has the legitimate right to say "NO" just as it has to presumed rights like polygamy, incest, pederasty, and underage sex.
   The very nature of all laws is to prohibit (discriminate against) certain behaviors and protect or promote others. We seem to have forgotten that laws don't just protect the minority from the majority.  Most laws are required to protect the majority from the minority whether that be criminals, corrupt politicians...or even groups who fervently believe their presumed rights outweigh everyone else's.
   Society by its nature is defined by but also defines acceptable behavior, values, and norms. Society as a whole has the power and duty to arbitrate the rights and freedoms to which certain individuals (or groups) perceive they are entitled. Unless Society has rights too, all that is left is the anarchy of competing individual rights. Society ceases to function.  And without the protection of Society, individual rights vanish. All that is left is the rule of force.
   So what makes LGBT behavior and no-rules gender identity so important to society that the Barney Franks of the world intend to enforce them as a right and curtail the rights of others in the process?

   You already know:  money, education and power.