The author needs to take a longer historical perspective. Feminist legal theory was originally routed in the concept of anti-subordination--how laws and society oppressed women (and others) based on their gender, orientation, or identity. But when it needed to go mainstream and be accepted, they quickly cut the gay community from their ranks. Could that be a source of 30-plus years of non-inclusion of the gay community?

Now, the author suggests that we redefine what is the underpinning of our community--our status as sexual minorities. If after 10 years gays who have happened upon him still are expressing a complete lack of understanding of this inclusive definition of our community, then either they are self-serving to a fault, or our leadership really has failed in communicating this message. Then again, gay men thought we had no need for lesbians--until they were the only ones willing to clean up when we were ravaged by AIDS. Sadly, that generation of gay men has failed to share that lesson with the new generation, and we once again are segregated.

So we could pass Gay Civil Rights Law (and we could debate the value of that). But we have to realize that in our attempts to prove that we are just like the rest of America, and we want just what they have and no more, that we are leaving our cousins behind.

I don't even know you and we have to break up!

This piece fails at a profound level to understand how the T and the LGB are intimately related, and have been, since "homosexuality" became a new medical category at the turn of the last century.

I'll say this first and then try and explain why: 'Gender identity' as a legal protection does not only refer to transsexual individuals. It seems like such an easy concept to grasp, but so many folks arguing for the non-inclusive ENDA bill can't seem to do so.

First of all, the T in LGBT can stand for 'transgender', not just 'transsexual', so that might help you in understanding what you, as a gay man, have to gain by including it. Transgender individuals can be butch lesbians and effeminate gay men, drag queens, or anyone who feels, regardless of their sexuality, that they don't fit expectations for what it means to be a man or woman in this society.

Without 'gender identity', the ENDA legislation is profoundly flawed - and it DOES leave loopholes. Can't you imagine an employer saying they fired someone not because of who she or he sleeps with outside of work, but because a woman didn't agree to wear make-up (as has happened - and she was straight!) or a skirt on the job, or because a gay man just wasn't 'manly' enough to fit into the workplace culture? Because 'gender identity' is NOT JUST ABOUT TRANSSEXUAL INDIVIDUALS - it's about anyone who isn't 'straight-acting' (as the gay personals like to put it). It's about anyone, gay, straight, bi, or trans (in any permutation), who doesn't fit into this culture's narrow stereotypes of masculinity and femininity.

Another thing I'd like to say is that although Mr. Aravosis may be right in saying that the T was only added to LGBT fairly recently (although I'd like him to expand on who he means when he writes "we" added it), transgender and transsexual individuals have been on the front lines of gay rights since the beginning. Who suffered the most during bar raids in the fifties and sixties under the three-items-of-gendered-clothing rule? Butch lesbians and drag queens. Who rioted at Stonewall? Drag queens and trans women. "We" may have only accepted the addition of the T recently, but it's been there all along.

Folks who cross gender lines, gay and straight, transgender and transsexual, self-identified or not, are the ones who suffer the most in a homophobic culture. People are attacked because they are perceived to be gay, not just because they are. LGBT AND straight people are boxed in by gender norms - 'gender identity' as a legal protection affects EVERYONE (from a straight man who changes his name upon marrying to a trans woman who transitions on the job).

Gutting ENDA is not a practical decision. It's a narrow-minded approach that fails to understand both how 'gender identity' affects gay, straight, and trans folks, and why it should be protected.

Hooray!!!!!!

So well put and I wish I could have said it so purely.

The basic things I took away from Aravosis' piece (and his followup comments (http://letters.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/08/lgbt/permalink/3a9a6c2977b235d5611bc91ad9bb7ef1.html), which nobody here has bothered to address):

1) For 29 of the past 30 years, ENDA has been LGB, and everyone was happy with it; the T was only added and removed very recently, and suddenly the same people that were happy with now aren't, though it's still the same bill they backed over the previous 29 years.

2) ENDA in its original and now current form stands, according to Aravosis, a lead-pipe-cinch chance of passing the House (and with veto-proof margins) and a good chance of passing the Senate. ENDA with the transgender provisions will go down in flames in both houses.

Assuming that the first point is a fact not seriously in dispute, let's look at the second:

As it stands now, ENDA, even without the T provisions, will fall to Bush's veto as the Senate probably won't override it. But will that be the case two years from now?

Right now, the DCCC is rolling in $22 million worth of dough (http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/09/democrats_outpacing_republican.html) -- three times what it had two years ago, before the historic tsunami that swept the Republicans narrowly into the minority -- and the NRCC is $4 million in the hole. A similar funding situation obtains for the Senate races: http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/09/dems_senate_campaign_unit_held.html

If there ever was a chance to get T-friendly Democrats into even the most conservative Congressional and Senatorial seats, that chance is now -- and with the next president likely to be a Democrat, the veto fear all but vanishes.

So rather than wasting time and breath telling Jon Aravosis what an evil man he is (he knows already, I'm sure), why not work to prove him wrong by working to get electable progressive Democrats in the upcoming primaries, so that even an ENDA with T provisions passes easily come 2009?

That way, everybody wins. :-)