ralston6000 wrote:

You say "The last time I checked my dictionary, homosexuality had something to do with people of one gender tending to fall in love with people of the same gender. The meaning of homosexuality thus depends on the definition of gender. THE MEANING OF HOMOSEXUALITY THUS DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF GENDER? This doesn't actually mean anything. What the hell are you trying to say.

I wasn't the original poster, but I'll give it a go.

I have a birth certificate saying "boy". I always will have, pending a change to UK law, or a million-dollar High Court challenge.

I'm attracted to men. Now.

That makes me gay by some definitions.

In 1985 I was diagnosed with "undervirilised fertile male syndrome (PAIS-1)" that meant that my body was incompletely pubertised as a male because of insensitivity at the cellular level to the male hormone testosterone. I was attracted to women then, so that made me straight by some definitions.

In 2005, the diagnosis was radically revised as a result of some drastic somatic changes consequent to my Intersex condition. It was now "severe androgenisation of a non-pregnant woman". This was long before any treatment that could have changed my body. 5ARD and 17BHD deficiency are the most common Intersex syndromes that cause a spontaneous apparent sex-reversal, but there are others.

OK, so that made me straight, right? Except that at the time the diagnosis was made, I was weakly attracted to other women, and not at all to men. So it actually made me Lesbian, by some definitions.

I'm still getting used to the idea that I have a Libido now, something I never had before the change. So by some definitions, for much of my life I was Asexual.

Now this may seem funny to you. I find it hilarious myself. But also deeply disturbing and disorientating. I just have to go with the flow, and let the neural re-wiring caused by a one-in-several-million Intersex condition (smoothed out by artificial hormones) take me where it will.

For what it's worth, I identify as a straight woman with a transsexual past, and piles of psychological baggage which means I'll probably die a virgin. For the first time in my life, my mind and my body are consistent. The psych tests show I've always been female in terms of my personality, if not body.

Whether others look upon me as a celibate gay man, or a traumatised straight woman, is really not of much concern to me. Take it up with my OB/GYN if you think I'm male. She can argue the case against better than I can.

Now in addition to all this.... used food... that life has piled on my plate, there's the matter of being liable to be fired because of who I am, and unable to pay the continuing medical bills.

For those who are not Intersexed from HBS (Transsexuality or Congenital Neurological Intersex, CNI) or other conditions, "gender" is a simple, obvious, common-sense thing, be they Gay or Straight. But for people like me, it's anything but. Our existence makes intellectually ossified people uncomfortable, as it contradicts their simplistic world-view. They really want us to go away, to disappear somewhere. The legislative equivalent of "resettled in the east".

There's too much heat, and not enough light. A common situation when people feel passionate about Justice and Human Rights.

Please, let us cut out opponents in this debate some slack, until they've shown themselves to be unreasoning and unreasonable.

bobbyjoe made a plausible argument in another post that GLB rights now would likely lead to T rights sooner rather than later. There was not the slightest hint of anything transphobic about that, quite the contrary.

I hope I showed in my reply http://letters.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/11/transgender/permalink/21a8ce2e93eca3e224ee4591f485eda4.html

that the historical record showed that his thesis is wrong.

I would feel far better if Rep Frank's state, Massachusetts, had not had GLB-only protection for over a decade, even same-sex marriage, but with zero sign that the GLB lobby in that state will ever support a T-inclusive bill.

For him to state "we'll come back for you later" when he knows, he can't help but know, that this will not happen makes TS people question his other statements about Whip Counts. We've already found some anomalies there. It makes us doubt his statement that there is insufficient support.

To only give a mere two weeks to drum up the needed support, when no corresponding bill has yet been introduced in the Senate, is inexplicable - unless the decision was ore-ordained a while ago. The, not exactly panicky, but certainly hasty statements that have emanated since certainly indicate they had no idea of the firestorm this would cause. TS people had been shoved under the bus so many times before without anyone saying a word, why should this time be different?

Now I'm a Rightist, with a natural distrust of the "all aid short of actual help" habits of the DNC. I'm certainly biased, and may be far too cynical. Though I'm not sure that's actually possible with todays House and Senate Lineup, on both sides.

My reading of the Signs and Portents suggest that this was the game plan all along: that powers in the DNC thought that they could rid themselves of a vexacious and damaging issue by a quiet piece of backstabbing, as had been done in the past with no-one objecting. The backlash took them by surprise, but they figure in 2 weeks it will all blow over, and a bill trimmed of difficult issues such as narrow church exemptions, one that will protect GLBs who can pass as straight, will sail through without too much effort, effort they want to divert to important issues, not expend on special-interest groups that vote for them as a bloc anyway.

But I'm Australian, and maybe in the US your politicians are far more noble, honest and upright (not to say naive) than ours are.