...are nothing like women, in a vital way, that perspective doesn't matter, as there are tens millions of Americans who believe that men like John Aravosis, men who prefer to kiss and caress other men and who like to be deeply penetrated by other men, are deeply and disgustingly womanly. And I don't care how butchy or straight-acting you are: if you're a boy who kisses boys, then you're the antithesis of a man in countless communities.

And that's what connects John and his gay brothers to trans-folk: this monstrous perception.

Even though I'm monogamously married to someone of the opposite sex, my employer could fire me for being bisexual. On the day Harvey Fierstein gets his horn on the head of all the closeted gays in this country, I wish God would give me an accounting of all the hours of service B/T's have given the L/G community (not to mention a horn on the head of all the closeted bi's in the L/G community). For a number of years I felt it was wrong-headed to hold back progress for one group within the larger queer community, because it might ultimately deter progress for all those groups. I'm still conflicted to be honest, so what brought me around to being unwilling to breach unity on this and most other issues? Reading about how proponents of women's suffrage debated whether they should settle for a compromise that would only give the vote to white women. There are some compromises that are just too ugly. This is one of them.

So I just skimmed all 42 pages of letters, and I just wanted to say THANK YOU to all the people reminding Mr. Aravosis of his history -- once upon a time, we were not "all gay." We were all "freaks" - and the same people who call us freaks today and bash us verbally and physically include ALL of us in that term, L, G, B, and T. And yes, they most often identify us by our gender expression, not by asking who we have sex with, as was mentioned upthread.

I second the calling out of his unacceptable description of a transwoman.

And I also question his willingness to look a friend in the eye and say, "Wait your turn. It's only practical." Maybe it's because he doesn't have trans friends?

Props to Persia for pointing out that he seems to be saying it's those "pesky T's" that have been holding "us" back, when ENDA couldn't have been passed 10 years ago, no matter what.

But mostly, thank you thank you THANK YOU to Ginger of GRAANJ for her letter. I would only add: HELL YEAH!!

Gender rights are human rights, and the most visible and vulnerable gay and trans folks suffer. Remember where you came from, gay folks, and if you don't know, LEARN.

Actually, Kelly, I rely on the experts in Congress to count the votes and they say that we have the votes in the House and are doing quite well in the Senate. As I'm sure you know, there are lots of ways to get this legislation passed - it can be an up or down vote, and if McConnell filibusters, we got 60 votes on the hate crimes bill, and that's all we need to break the filibuster. As for Bush's veto, which you didn't mention, he threatened a veto on the hate crimes bill, but not on ENDA, which is quite telling. And in any case, if he does veto, we can add the legislation on to other must-pass bills that he would be loathe to veto. As you correctly note, I worked for a Republican senator doing appropriations work and other issues back in the late 80s, early 90s - before I came out and became a gay rights activist - so yes I know a thing or two about how the congress works. I appreciate that you don't thik ENDA has a chance of becoming law, but the experts who actually make law in Washington disagree with you.

As for America's support for transgendered people, I wish you were right, but I really don't think you are. Yes, the Dem presidential candidates support ENDA, the ENDA that includes trans. That's great. But I think if you got them up there on the podium and started asking them detailed nasty-Republican-style questions about whether genetic males in dresses should be permitted in your daughter's nursery school bathroom, they would die. And that is the kind of question they will get asked, the kind of amendment that the Republicans will offer, should a trans-inclusive ENDA go before the House and Senate this year. People are not ready for it. YEs, they support ENDA, and yes, they supported it with trans included. That doesn't mean that we have the votes in Congress to pass ENDA with trans included, and it doesn't mean that the Democrats and our Republican allies wouldn't croak if pressed with really nasty questions and amendments by the Republicans.

Again, I could be wrong. But I think you vastly overestimate America's acceptance of transgendered people, transsexuals, and the like, especially when a laser beam is focused on them and their issues. I still think we have a long way to go, much further than the gay rights movement, and it's not like we're very far yet either.

Anonymous writes,

"And yet I'm still waiting for someone to offer a reasonable explanation for why gay people and transgender people should be considered part of the same group. Sure, we're both discriminated against, but so are African Americans and Muslims and a host of other people. Why not add all of them to the acronym?

Those who don't question the connection between gay people and transgender people are simply falling for the common misconception that a man who has sex with men is more like a woman than a straight man. Once you buy into that, it's not much of a leap to assume that gay and transgender people are pretty much the same phenomenon. You're reinforcing the old stereotype that gay=feminine and straight=masculine."

*****

Okay. Although, in fact, several letters have provided the reasonable explanation you claim is so elusive, it doesn't matter - you've answered your own question. It's right there - it is a "common misconception," emphasis on COMMON, that "a man who has sex with men is more like a woman than a straight man." That very common misconception is the reason that gay people are discriminated against. For a man to act in a way that is commonly associated with women - to have sex with another man - goes against what anti-gay people perceive to be the natural order of things, and it threatens them for a man to have sex with a man, BECAUSE they (mis)perceive that gay men are more like a women than like straight men. And it freaks them out that a man might be acting like a woman. No matter how much you protest that you and your boyfriend are more like straight men than like women (and good for you, I'm so relieved), you yourself admit that many people think of things this way. And that fear, the fear that arises out of the perception of gay men or lesbians crossing gender lines, the fear that provokes people like the killers of Matthew Shepard, is the same fear that makes people upset that there might be transgender people in the world, the same fear that provoked the killers of Brandon Teena. We are all oppressed for the same reason - the very "common misperception" you are so incensed about. When that common fear causes employment discrimination, all of us should have a remedy, not just those of us who are more numerous.

Arguing otherwise exhibits a kind of falsely-divided thinking similar to the thinking that plagues a lot of straight people on the issue of marriage. "I don't have anything against gay people," they say. "I just think that they and their relationships are different from us and our relationships, so their relationships shouldn't be called marriage." But gay and lesbian unions do deserve to be called marriage, because fundamentally they are the same kind of relationship - it's a kind of privilege or fear-based blindness that prevents some straight people from being able to accept that idea. And transgender people do deserve to be included in the community we fight to protect, because fundamentally they suffer for the same reason we do. I think it's fair for people who haven't thought about it much before not to understand this immediately, but ultimately, it's the truth. And that truth is evident even in the way you phrased your demand for a reasonable explanation.