While our interests do diverge, the trangenderd and gay/lesbian communities have always been solid allies when we were both equally ostracized by others. Your logic is the same logic of early feminists who were reluctant to take on causes important to lesbians, instead labeling them a "lavender menace" that would only undo the larger movement. Time has proven them wrong, and will likewise prove wrong more compromising gays like yourself who, after finally gaining some political clout, wish to quickly abandon our closest allies. And for that, shame on you.

If it ain't happening to John, who cares?

I guess straight people shouldn't care about gay issues, either.

Any one else you care to throw under the bus, Aravosis?

(especially seeing that a lot of reassigned women are lesbians)

Thank you for writing this. I've been closely following this controversy and have been amazed at the vitriol and intolerance displayed towards those who dare to question the orthodoxy of inclusion on transsexual issues with dominated the GLB community. You've borne a great deal of criticism during the past couple of weeks for speaking openly on this issue but rest assured - you're right. The transsexual community claims they're "friends" of our community. But what kind of friends work to defeat such an important piece of legislation and make common cause with our worst enemies on the Right like Focus on the Family and Eagle Forum? With friends like those - who needs enemies?

You're correct and the Serious Professional Homosexual Beltway Insiders are wrong. Thanks for continuing to speak truth to power.

What an incredibly disappointing and disgusting opinion piece. Considering you are part of a group that has experienced discrimination, hate and marginalization I would have thought you would be just a tad more sensitive. But, when it becomes apparent that a group of people you are associated with may be holding back the passing of a bill (and by the way they have contributed many, many dollars) you throw them away. Their money is good enough, but when they become an embarrassment, you want them to leave the room. Of course, you claim this is the politically expedite thing to do because you think a bill will be passed that will make it "much easier for all of us -- gays and lesbians, bisexuals and eventually even the transgendered -- to realize all of our civil rights in our lifetime". How generous of you to consider the transgendered. All you are asking of them is they sacrifice the fight so maybe they will get the same rights as you have obtained, tomorrow. Of course the operative word here is maybe. And in the mean time, you will have secured some of your rights with no guarantees for the group you have discarded. I certainly wouldn't put money on it that you will be stalwart supporters and you will probably disavow "those people who can't decide if they are boys or girls" after you finally become part of the power structure. Face it, it is human nature. I got mine, now go get yours.

The mention of women's and black suffrage is interesting and more telling than was explained. Early women suffragists were told that they should work to support voting for blacks and to put their energy towards that, and that the time for women's voting rights would follow after. Argument on the matter created lead to a schism in the movement in the late 1860's that wasn't resolved until more than a generation later.

The "community" (whether it be LGB, or LGBTLMNOP) has historically come to the transgendered community for support, in fundraising and activism. When I worked as a state chair for Stonewall 25, the 1994 march in New York City comemmorating the Stonewall riots, this came up frequently. One of the most common creation myths, if you will, for the gay rights movement is that the Stonewall Riots were the first/watershed event; since the Sonewall rioters included many drag and transgendered folk, it follows that they would be considered part of whatever gay rights movement they started. During one of the national meetings in preparation for the anniversary march, there was a lot of discussion about whether it would be the LGB march, or the LGBT march, or even longer acronyms. (The leather caucus wanted initial inclusion, the People of Color caucus wanted recognition, etc.)

I think what may be bitter-making for the transgendered community is that feeling that when it's money, volunteer hours, or just warm bodies to for marches that the queer community wants, they're certainly "part of the team", but when something like legislation comes up, there are discussions like this one, questioning the value of their inclusion. Will the non-transgendered activists of the LGB community work for transgendered rights once they get theirs? The historical lessons of suffrage in the US suggest not, unfortunately.

About two years ago I endured listening to an interview on NPR by a venerated black civil rights leader who explained why gays had not yet reached critical mass, why they were not a real "movement." It was terribly galling because basically he was defining "movement" to specifically mean "the black civil rights movement of the United States from 1955-1964.") I hear the same haughty tone in your voice that I did from him and it sickens me all the same.

NYU Student, what an ignorant statement. The transgender community is not trying to keep ENDA from passing. They are not the ones hoping to remove gays from the bill. If anyone is finding common cause with Focus on the Family, it is the GLB's that are willing to fall prey to the fundies who have specifically used the fear of "she-males" to scare people. And so, falling prey to their fear-mongering, John and his ilk jettison their allies. Yes, that sure is honorable.

And as for the first comment, even if the transgender community makes up 1/10 of 1%, that's over 1/4 of a million people. It's OK to discriminate against over 250,000 people? It sure doesn't look like much when you say 1/1000th of the country, but think about it. That's a lot of people, and each of them have to worry every day that they may lose their employment for reasons in no way associated with their performance.

The fact that we have to pass a bill at all that makes it illegal to fire people for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to perform their functions is hard to fathom in the 21st century. And maybe the only exposure you've had to transgendered people are on shows like Jerry Springer. But there are thousands and thousands of us and we have a right to work. And I would wager that many of you may have met them and never even know.

You know, a large portion of the transgender community are transmen who were born designated as women, yet it's the "she-male" men in dresses that are used to scare everyone. It's a scare tactic and shockingly disappointing that supposedly progressive liberals would fall for it.