I have advocated for including the "T", but over the years I have come to the understanding that the "T" really is different than "LGB." Butchy lesbians and queeny gay men are not evidence of membership in the "T" community. Legislators know when they pass LGB legislation, they are helping these butchy and queeny people and they pass the legislation anyway. When it comes to the "T", these same legislators get cold feet. Why? It's because being butchy or queeny isn't the same as living one's life as a different sex.

I used to advocate for "T" inclusion in "LGB" because there are good theoretical reasons for doing so. When I started to think honestly about the lived reality between being gay and being trans, I saw that there are critical differences that warrant a separate movement.

By the way, if you dig around, you'll find that there is and was TRANS resistance to being tacked onto "LGB." They didn't think their situation was the same as being gay (since most do not identify as gay).

Women are supposed to dress like pretty princesses and have sex with men. Men are supposed to dress like construction workers and have sex with women. Break these rules, and you're violating 'the rules.' It's just that simple.

It's easy to say you have nothing in common with transgendered people, but it's not true. You break the rules by your desires, and they break the rules by their identity, but the same rulebreaking makes you a target for discrimination, anger, and violence. And, as many have pointed out, a good portion of the transgender community is also gay or lesbian and even-- gasp!-- bisexual.

I have to admit, I'm glad you got eviscerated for asking this question on your blog. Your 'these people have nothing to do with my comfortable life' attitude is alienating and incredibly insulting, especially to transgender people who've been fighting this fight for a very long time.

And I also think it's absurd to imply that this bill would pass with flying colors if it weren't for that pesky "T"-- or further, to imply that the bill might have passed ten years ago without it. The movement-- whatever letters you choose to put on it-- has made real progress very quickly, and I'm delighted it has. But don't pretend a simple "T" is all that's in opposition or holding you back.

I absolutely support a trans ENDA, have supported it, and will support it. I've said repeatedly that for every single gay person I've talked to who agrees with me on this, no one - NO ONE - has said that they don't empathize with transgendered people, and no one has said that they don't support transgender civil rights legislation. What they have said is that they don't want to kill ENDA for the foreseeable future, put the gay rights movement on hold for years if not decades, in order to let the trans community catch up. No one has said "screw the trannies," no one. That doesn't mean this situation doesn't stink, it does. And if I got added on to the bill and then dropped, you bet I'd be ticked. But I fault our leaders for that. Someone should have sat down and had a serious talk about adding T to the bill THIS YEAR when they knew that we had the votes without T and they must have known that by adding the T it would kill the bill. It was naive, and bizarre, that they added it then took it off 5 months later. That's why I tried to write a piece more about the mindset of the community on this issue, how we got to where we are.

This article has missed the point. Maybe the LGBT community should drop all its letters and simply adopt the premise that people should not be discriminated for personal sexual factors that do not harm anybody else. This would include sex addicts, don juans, promiscuous women, ugly people who like sex, old people, as well as all the letters of the "movement." All of the above have led to issues of unfairness in the workplace and in society. Sex of any stripe bothers some people and makes them react when they encounter forms of its outside of their own comfort level.

It is all too true that same-sex sexual identity attracts the most discrimination, but the issue is one of rights. A more inclusive society demands a broader understanding of the impact of sexuality in general on our prejudices. Laws that look realistically at the impact of sexuality in society and ensure that persons' prejudices about it are not allowed to infringe on our fellow citizens' rights need not use any letters.

To simply cut off the "T" (excuse the reference) is to suddenly and arbitrarily ostracize one group from a broad movement to respect the private lives of all citizens.

This respect for rights, by the way, includes people who talk about sex in a manner that does not threaten others (oh boy....here comes the PC backlash!) Freedom of speech is a right as well and we can teach respect along with the ability to understand that we cannot control what comes out of other mouths. Sexual harrassment as an issue of rights, and must be strictly enforced to ensure that advantages and disadvantages are not the result of the intrusion of one person's sexual life onto another's ability to enjoy their rights. But limits must respect freedom of speech. Being hurtful with words is another fundamental right and thick skins are needed to live in a truly free society.

The only thing I am sure of is that human sexuality has always been screwed up. Quick searches on the internet will quickly uncover weirdness if not total depravity regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. A quick search of rape statistics, jealousy murders and violence, viagra sales, penis, boob, or butt enlargement, other plastic surgery, divorce statistics, marriage and relationship counseling, and not to mention media and advertising manipulation of societies wacked out dance with it's own sexuality are all pretty good indicators of where humanity is with sex.

Passing laws against sexual descrimination should be a no brainer, however society is certifiably insane when it comes to sexuality. The reality is we are a society insecure, fearful and sacredly protective of sex on the one hand and totally obsessed with sexual naughtiness and/or pervisity on the other. Damn, what I am trying to say is we are asking the asylum inmates (regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity) to come up with the new rules.

This is not to say people who are descriminated against should give up, but considering the field they are addressing impacts an individuals imperfect relationship with sex, going slow and patiently accumulating small victories may get them there quicker in the end.