I don't see what the fuss is. Pass what you can when you can, and if the fight isn't finished then pass another bill next year. That's how it always is.

It may come as a surprise to some who are ensconced in the queer scene, but everyone, even if they're as gay as a cinder block, benefits directly and immediately from a bill like ENDA passing, in any form. Liberty is a tide that raises all boats. We all should want to see it flourish any time we can.

So what's really going on here? What nobody seems willing to come out and state is the underlying presumption that "the gays" will dump "the trannies" and go their separate way as soon as they get their version of ENDA passed. This is the real reason for the objection to Barney Frank's maneuver.

Why are the Ts so insecure about this? Surely it's not a rational concern — if the history of civil rights has taught us anything, it's that a world in which ENDA is part of the cultural landscape is one which will be much easier for the trans community to find acceptance.

It really doesn't seem like it's about legislative priorities at all. It's about T-versus-non-T queer politics, and ENDA is being used as a hostage. John Aravosis is right on the money, though he may not realize it, in revealing the issue to be a dispute over identity group membership.

Maybe the name "Sylvia Rivera" rings a bell. It should, since she's pretty much the reason we have a gay liberation/pride movement today at all.

John asks why we should treat transfolk as siblings of LGBfolks rather than cousins. But it strikes me a plainly obvious: they are all the targets of heterosexism that excludes from political and social rights anyone who does not conform to "typical" categories and roles regarding sexuality and gender. They're siblings precisely because our straight-dominated culture doesn't hate gays and transpeoples for different reasons. The gay rights movement is not about rights for gays as a single interest group. It's about ending discrimination against people who are queer in general.

This doesn't resolve the question of political expediency versus principled stands and doesn't resolve whether this round of ENDA should includes the various T's of the world. Nonetheless, I would add that ENDA or no ENDA, gays won't have full rights as long as our laws and culture default to an assumption of full rights only for people who do the "normal" thing with their genitals and act like "normal" males and females.

I'm always surprised when I hear things like this. While he is certainly allowed to have his opinion, I find it rather disappointing. Regardless of the difference between gay men and trangendered women, there is still one giant similarity: you are all treated as second class citizens in this country because of sex and gender issues.

It reminds me of when I see Latinos speaking ill of African-Americans, African-Americans of Jewish people, Jewish people of Muslims, Muslims of women, and so on and so forth. Regardless of all the differences between all the groups who are not rich, heterosexual white males, we still have the one huge similarity: we are counted as less than rich, heterosexual white males. If only everyone could come together to try and change the status quo in this country (which, yeah right.)

It all reminds me of one of my favorite lines from the Simpsons, in the episode where Bart becomes Catholic: "Instead of focusing on the little stupid differences, let's focus on the big stupid similarities."

Well, I'm a straight, old, white-ish married male, but still, I might suggest the gay community not get TOO hincty about the lawmakers excluding the T's.

After Stonewall, the gay marchers refused to allow the transvestites to march along side them in the parade.

I was told this by a pre-op transsexual in 1971 while doing extensive interviews for an article on sex change. And his/her pain of situation and rejection was visibly real.

So it seems as if everyone has a tendency to kiss up and kick down. Everyone's oppressed and one's own group is the ONLY one worth fighting for, right?

And since it seems the transsexuals are still on the lowest level, and the laws of physics as to which way excrement flows have not changed (downhill), the transsexuals could all have signs made up saying "The Crap Stops Here."

Sort of like Clarence Thomas, slamming the door shut behind him, i.e., "I got in but I can't let THEM get in too."

Perhaps the younger gay males don't remember but Barney Frank is old enough. Apparently, though, he's not compassionate enough to understand that these others differ from him only in the particulars of the prejudicial crap thrown at them.

It's not about what one is or does, but about what people do to those who are different.

It's not enough to do what's politically proper, whether it's "we can only give so much health care to so many children" or "we can only say it's wrong to fling crap at these particular sexual minorities."

The idea is to deal with the actual problem.

So no, the gay community goes too far only in not remembering what nasty little "I'm for me first and everyone else can go to hell" poseurs they used to be.

Which is why I sometimes feel like beating my head against a wall every time I see a good piece of legislation fall in the dirt because no compromise is allowed.

I remember well the first reactions of the gay community to the AIDS epidemic. Many gay organizations fought furiously, and with good reason, to make sure they were not pushed back 100 years by the potential epidemic. They were right because gay prejudice was making bad science. Nobody stopped to ask what there was about gays and their lifestyle that would make them the EXCLUSIVE carriers or victims of AIDS. Then it was discovered that it could be transmitted by blood. The Red Cross asked that gays, and Haitians not donate blood. I don't think they added the needle part until later. Some members of the gay community went ballistic at this seeminly reasonable request. At the time I was a little surprised. I had donated blood for many years and the Red Cross had had temporary stops on certain blood types or people with potential disease transmission for years. I didn't see that they had a choice, but I read articles were advocates insisted that their rights were being violated. What rights? Since when is donating blood a right? It was a red herring, and one that diverted attention from the main problem. How could EVERYONE be protected from AIDS transmission?

Which goes back to the original quote. Most victories are piecemeal. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was very bold and sweeping, but LBJ had to call in 30 years of favors and literally strong arm members of Congress and the Senate in order to get it passed. It's not often that one person is able to do that. Many more victories are by default, slipped into another bill, or happen because the time is right - such the right of women to vote.

I'm sorry I have not had the chance to read all the posts, and I will definitely try to catch up. However one post pointed out that transgendered people were part of the gay rights fight from the very beginning. If that is so, why did it take so long for the "T" to become part of the acronym or part of the bill now in Congress. No sarcasm, an honest question.