"Conservatives understand that cultural change is a long, gradual process of small but cumulatively deadly victories. Liberals want it all now. And that's why, in the culture wars, conservatives often win and we often lose."

You're correct that cultural change is a long, gradual process of small but cumulatively deadly victories but you're wrong about who wins. Liberals win in the long term. Look at America today and compare it to the 1950's or before. Or even compare the attitudes today to the 1980's. Is America more accepting of homosexuality today? Are prominent people out today who could not have been out in the past? Is it much less acceptable to "fag-bash" today than in the past?

The anti-progressives work towards short- to mid-term wins based on fear and their victories are short-lived. Liberals work towards long-term victory based on principles and though we always have to defend our ground, our victories become accepted parts of the American character.

"imagine how conflicted straight members of Congress are when asked to pass a civil rights bill for a woman who used to be a man"

The statement above seems to lump all straight people together in a group of people that couldn't possibly imagine protecting a transgendered person. This is not fair. All straight people in the United States don't have the same view on anything, especially transsexuals.

It seems to me that since the entire issue of transgenderism is so poorly understood, even by the gay community (apparently), we should protect them and do it as soon as possible. Even if you think that these people are mentally-ill (which I do not), that doesn't mean they don't need protection from discrimination.

As a minority or marginalized community becomes accepted by the majority, legislation protecting that community becomes less necessary, not more.

I fail to see that a person's sexual orientation or activities or their surgical choices should have anything to do with their rights as a human being. It's shameful that after 30 years fighting for this civil rights law that 'we the people' feel we have the right to sit in judgement of others. It's very disheartening. And I'm a 66 year old white, straight woman so I'm not beating my drum for myself ... just for equal rights for all!

In particular, the comparison with conservative politics is something that people need to read. And a lot of people have to understand the difference between taking a partial victory and "throwing (category X) under a bus".

Here's a question for all the legal-eagles that I know haunt this community. If 'gender' is already a protected category in anti-discrimination law, is there no precedent for using that to protect all under the LGBT umberella? The trannie isn't fired for not having a penis, 'he' is fired for being a man with no penis - so, fired for being a man (i.e. only women are allowed to not have a penis). When the lesbian is fired she is really fired because she is a woman (only men are allowed to love women). That is, it's all about breaking gender rules. So if 'gender' is already a protected category, why can't that legally be used to protect everyone right now?

Because for some reason there must be sub categories specifically designated for all those who don't get the all encompassing phrase of "HUMAN RIGHTS".. The terms 'consenting adults' is all the description I need regarding peoples sexual tendencies. After that I consider it too much information and regulation and an invasion of privacy. do we need an amendment detailing citizens private sexual acts. Easy "as a consenting adult you may have sexual relations with other consenting adults in private ,without fear of reprisal by the gov't, labor market, or any other public entity (you're on you own with the religions) .

Why do I ask? Because my church (Episcopal Church of the USA) is about to explode over the issue of LGs, and our militant members of that subgroup of LGBT keep using the full term when talking about it while asking for marriage rights and the right to be a priest and a bishop.

I hope our LGBT's in the Episcopal Church will educate us on what they expect the church to do for the Bs and Ts.

I mean...how do we accommodate the Bs when it comes to B marriage? And can't surgically altered Ts just be happy with traditional marriage? Or do we have to think about Ts who became Ts so that they could be lesbian or gay?

I wonder how much of our right wing's anxiety about LGs is due to these more complex questions?

" 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."

Really? Coulda fooled me. Look at the title of the article here: "How did the T get in LGBT?" What does that say? I've read all of your posts on this. You don't understand why we are a community. It permeates every post you've written. If we've misread you, maybe you need to take a step back, reread your posts and understand what you have been writing. For me, it's been patronizing and void of any understanding of the historical struggle we have all been through. That's just me. But I haven't been this mad at a part of our community....EVER!!!! To see a subset marginalized, told to play "catch-up" is just abhorant.

You said in a post "where have they been? Where is their organization on the Hill?" or something to that effect. Well they've been a part of OUR organization. Jeez! What do you want? I don't see any separate Bi organizations out there but you're willing to include them. And so, I think, it all comes down to the icky factor. You think trans are icky, bi's not so much.

I've said all along that we need honesty in this debate. I think people in our community need to fess up to the fact that they think transgenders are icky. But I'll tell you this, they're not icky, they're a part of my family.