ENDA'S REAL INTENTION
By Rev. Ted Pike
25 May 10
Perhaps thousands of callers have now urged 13 undecided senators
to vote against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Our
anger is fueled by ENDA's potential to allow transgender male employees
not only into women’s restrooms but also showers and dressing
rooms in businesses of more than 15 employees. Every public school
and college in America has at least that many employees, along with
male and female shower facilities used by students and staff.
Yet Peter Sprigg, senior fellow of Family Research Council, says
in the Washington Times that under ENDA naked
invade school locker rooms. “ENDA carves out an exception for
shared shower and dressing facilities in which being seen unclothed
As a result, Christian/conservative groups now pull back from claiming
ENDA will allow transitioning men into women's showers. What is the
truth? Here again is Section 8, paragraph 3 of ENDA.
CERTAIN SHARED FACILITIES—Nothing in this Act shall be construed
to establish an unlawful employment practice based on actual or perceived
gender identity due to the denial of access to shared shower or dressing
facilities in which being seen unclothed is unavoidable, provided that
the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that
are not inconsistent with the employee’s gender identity
as established with the employer at the time of employment or upon
notification to the employer that the employee has undergone or
is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later.
This intentionally confusing section says the government will not
honor any complaint by, for example, transgender males who claim they
are being excluded from women's shower facilities—as
long as the employer provides such men with "adequate" (non-shower
and dressing room) facilities.
But if ENDA is passed, such restriction will infuriate many "transitioning" males.
It deprives them of fully enjoying their new-found female privileges.
If after working out, a transgender “female” at a college
or gym is denied the necessity to shower with members of his new sex,
such exclusion will be considered discrimination—an excellent
basis for a federal lawsuit. If ENDA is passed in its present form,
it will generate a profusion of lawsuits by aggrieved transsexuals.
ENDA itself is in transition. The first stage is
passage of unworkable legislation that discriminates against the right
of a transitioning male employee to full and adequate use of female
shower facilities. For ENDA to guarantee equality, the above section
must be rewritten to become an "equal
Bridgette P. LaVictoire, writing in lesbian website LezGetReal.com,
reflects awareness in the homosexuality community of ENDA's discrimination: “The
largest stumbling block has been regarding transgender protections.
Unfortunately, in order to get those protections in the bill, they
were forced to include a rather discriminatory portion about not allowing
a person to use the bathrooms correct to their gender presentation.
This opens the door to a great deal of abuses and problems unless there
is also a provision that requires businesses to have a unisex bathroom.”
ENDA’s discrimination centers on public showers and dressing
rooms, not bathrooms as LaVictoire confusingly asserts. And this discrimination cannot be
ended by unisex facilities, as she ambiguously contends—whether
a single-occupant, unisex bathroom/shower, or a communal unisex facility
for male and female transgenders.
There is only one thing that transgender activists will accept: full
rights to enter dressing rooms and showers of their new sex. Only this
confirms that they are regarded by society as truly equal and accepted.
Anything less says: “You are still not male or female enough
to be admitted into the confidence of those you now consider your own.
You can’t boldly say, ‘I am a man,’ or ‘I am
a woman,’ in all areas of society and receive respect and dignity
for who you are. Transsexuals are still 'have nots,' isolated by the
sexual apartheid of government, business, and society."
Already, even before ENDA enshrines anti-transgender discrimination
into law, transgenders are proving litigious. In Pennsylvania, a transgender "woman" is
winning a discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, brought
before the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission. She was hired as "James" but
was transitioning to "Kate Lynn." Her employer required her
to use a unisex single-occupancy bathroom until she could medically
document her "anatomically appropriate" gender. This wasn't
enough for "Kate Lynn," who complained about having to walk
five minutes from her work location to the unisex facility. A preoperative
male-to-female transsexual is also currently suing Macy's for being
ejected from the women's restroom.
Masters of Deception
Confused? That's exactly what homosexual activists Barney Frank and
Chai Feldblum, writers of ENDA, intend. Both are highly articulate
communicators. Yet in crafting the transgender provision of ENDA, they
purposely made it so nearly incomprehensible that members of Congress
and the public will give up trying to decipher it. Instead, we accept
the simplistic summary of the bill provided by the very deceivers who
confused us in the first place! Their streamlined explanations to Congress
and the media, of course, do not mention the possibility of men in
women's showers or even restrooms. Congress votes not for the actual
bill but a misrepresentation.
In all this, ENDA ignores the possibility that the civil rights of
children, teens and college students might be violated by intrusion
of lechers into their showers. As Attorney General Eric Holder revealed
in his Senate Judiciary hate bill hearing, the Anti-Defamation League’s "anti-hate" laws
are not about protecting the white, Christian, heterosexual majority
- only small minorities whom liberals consider historic "victims" of
Christian civilization. (Watch the NPN video "Holder
Admits: No Equality Under Hate Bill.")
Of course, ADL, the mainspring of the bill, doesn't truly care about
the civil rights of transgenders. ENDA is a means to an incredibly
evil end. ADL wants ENDA to force showering between all students and
sexual deviants because only then can this legislation reach its fullest
potential to destroy sexual/gender clarity and morality in the next
generation. Jewish ADL and its religiously Orthodox leader, Abe Foxman,
have one goal: tearing down the structure and values of Christian civilization
so that on its ruins a Judaic one-world order may be established by
Israel’s false messiah, Anti-Christ. Foxman says he keenly anticipates
appearance of this messiah. Orthodox Jews believe their messiah will
rule the world from Jerusalem. (See, "ADL's
Foxman: Man of Faith?")
Few things are more corrosive to nations than homosexuality, destroying
basic definitions and protections for “male” and “female.” That’s
why ADL pushes sodomy so hard in every level of society.
Don't think that under ENDA your children will have any protection
from sexual predators in the public school system. Under ADL's hate
laws, devotees of 547 sexual deviancies, or paraphilias, have all the
special rights. Under ENDA, they are the state-supported predators.
Your children are their prey. (Watch the NPN video "Stop
the Pedophile Protecting Hate Bill!")
TAKE ACTION! It is vital that we continue to boldly
describe ENDA as leading to allowance of "transitioning" male
employees into women's restrooms and showers. Call the 13 undecided
U.S. Senators listed at Truthtellers.org's
Action Page. Did you call last week? Call
again toll free at 877-851-6437.