"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."

So, you think someone who is diagnosed with a mental illness (in this case gender dysphoria/gender identity disorder) should have full and unfettered access to their jobs? Grade school teacher? Air traffic controller? Pilot?

Last I heard, no one would want to fly a plane with a psychotic, or bipolar, or a borderline personality pilot.

Lumping gays and lesbians together with Napoleons (i.e., a group of people who deny reality) just doesn't cut it.

Where do you get off deciding what the "folks" in Little Rock think today? Feel free to speak for yourself, but please don't speak for people you don't know. As it happens, you are dead wrong.

-former Central High student in Little Rock, Ark.

Hetero white guy here, very sympathetic to GLBT causes (friends, family, general moral concerns, etc.), with a question for you absolutists out there:

It's either all or nothing, right? And since it's abundantly clear here in America (land of the free, my ass) that all isn't going to happen any time soon, y'all get nothing. For likely a long long time.

Who exactly is getting thrown under the bus here?

I just read here in a comment that transgendered people were involved at stonewall. I didn't know that. I knew one of the participating patrons, Marsha P. Johnson, a transsexual, but she never mentioned transgendered people being present. Does anybody out there have proof of this one way or the other, just for the record, for it doesn't matter really? The label 'gay' was fine. 'Queer' doesn't bug me either, my preference, but IwillBCnUndrag or whatever ridiculous moniker the gay community has to lug around with just seems queer to me, somehow prissy, but that's another sub-group altogether. Transgendered people are not bi, (no such thing anyway) nor are they gay men, or gay women. The transgendered movement is maturing fast as far as acceptance in the broader community is concerned but this is because more people are coming out now. As a sub-class of people, they are in mortal danger, so I say - keep them with us - if they'll have us - we can afford to offer our political power to all who suffer. Protect them and anybody else who needs our formidable unstoppable power. Geeez ... we fags can be so selfish sometimes.

Scott Utley

WE HO CA

We're not talking right and wrong here, we're talking political reality

Reality? What's that?

Let's see... Gay was fine, was it not? Language and the meanings dufferent words take on, especially over a ten or thirty year period of time, change like the tides. Lesbians wanted 'more'. It wasn't enough to be gay. Bi? Why are we even talking about them in any talk of legislation at all? A large percentage are prostitutes, players, or just confused...the rest will make a decision one way or the other, and then hope that they fall on the right side of the applicable legislation. Too many have worked too hard, for too long, to have fringe groups, with little in common, jumping on a bill, like jumping on a sinking boat. Because that is what will happen. The "T"'s will get theirs..in "tttime." Maybe they can jump on board with others who have bad fashion taste like M.C. Hammer or P. Diddy. A bill to help those discriminated against wearing too much gold, too much fabric in their pants, and the wrong sex clothing. Other than that, how much do they have in common with mem who have sex with men, or women who have sex with women? Nada. You'll get yours...but wait out your own d*mned ten years.

the answer is, because the law permits even bigoted idiots to express their opinion. he states, "In simpler times we were all gay." obviously, he can't comprehend his own statement.

we transgendered were "gay, queers, queens, or faggots" way back when the gay rights started. we just didn't start existing last year. we initiated the movement at stonewall and comptons. the trans population was "out and fighting" while rock and the boys were still pretending to be macho heroes making babies with doris day. the closet doors were not even cracked slightly open until the trans community started screaming "bullshit" when the bigots attacked any of us - us being anyone who identified with GLB or T. we have been out and about and donating our often limited funds, donating our time, passion, and energy to secure rights for anyone who doesn't fit the gender or sexual ideal of "mainstream" society. the bigots within mainstream society don't care about the GLB and T. we are all just "queers".

as only a member of the transgender community - a transsexual woman - i cannot speak for all transgender individuals much less the entire gay community. still, it has been my observation that most would welcome any gain in rights that our gay and lesbian and bi-sexual brothers and sisters might attain. having suffered so many injustices, they welcome justice whenever it might be attained. if they are angry about anything, it is not that the GLB portion of our community would gain protections. it is more of a hurt than an anger that any within our community would even consider excluding us. we have worked so hard to defend the rights of all.

Aravosis - and those who share his opinion - have a right to express it. and make no mistake, they are more "mainstream" and socially acceptable to the bigots who have denied justice and equality to us all. it is a pathetic shame that they would now disassociate themselves because it is politically expedient. it is a pathetic shame that they cannot recognize their own family, and even worse that they don't cherish and value it.

jeri hughes, DC

I don't know much about this topic, but it's obviously one of those issues where no matter what comment anyone makes, you get the same explosion of acrimonious debate over and over. So let me foolishly put in an observation after reading a few pages of comments.

It seems to me that both sides want the same thing (even though in the heat of acrimony they let themselves believe otherwise). One side is saying, "now, see, when we break these things down into smaller and smaller categories, we end up with tiny categories that will cause the whole endeavor to fail, so we have to exclude those." And the other side is saying, "no, when we break things down into smaller and smaller categories, we end up with tiny categories that have to be acknowledged and included, or else it's a huge betrayal."

Can't there be a bill that covers everyone without specifically enumerating every category?