We sholdn not even have to be argung who is included or excluded in this Democrcy. Everone should have the same rights. Maybe abandon all the Acronyms. Form a new group which includes everyone and name it AERA... Americans for Equal Rights for ALL.

Two questions were recently asked:

1) Does anyone have any facts?

2) What does a national transactivist say?

1) Since I'm a politician, I will deal with political facts.

a) In 2005 the (Republican) House passed a trans-inclusive Hate Crimes bill. No Democrat who supported that bill lost in 2006.

b) Twelve states plus DC have passed trans-inclusive employment laws. No legislator lost his or her seat as a result of the vote for the bill.

c) Ninety other localities -- Lexington and Covington, Kentucky have been mentioned by name -- have done the same. There is a great deal of fear and loathing before the vote; and none afterwards. There is never a backlash or an uprising after the fact. Nobody really cares, which just shows how one can whip up fear based on ignorance.

2) I'm currently the only trans person on the HRC boards. That's pretty sad, but beside the point right now. I understand politics, from the local to national level. I work for my county council, lobby the state legislature, and ran for state delegate last year, coming close. I will win my second attempt in 2010.

I credit John with bringing up this issue for public debate, though I don't think it's really taken that much courage (sorry, John). Most people have simply not been engaged. I recently heard an analogy to bacon and eggs -- the eggs have made the buy-in, but the pig made the commitment. The LGB community made the buy-in by 2004 when HRC joined in, and several major organizations by that time had made actual commitments, such as the Task Force and NOW. This crisis has shown just how many more organizations and people have made the commitment in the past three years.

That being said, there were many at the HRC Gala on Saturday who didn't even know to what inclusion referred, and many more who were surprised by the emphasis on trans issues from the podium. Still, I personally met many who were thrilled to be part of this historical event and who personally told me they had an eye-opening experience. One person at a time, even in a crowd of 3100 people.

This article represents a truly appalling lack of cultural knowledge. How can you even begin to separate sexual orientation issues from gender identity issues?

Victims of homophobic hate crimes aren't picked out because their attacker politely inquires as to their choice of sexual partner. These victims are targeted because they are "not real men" or "not real women," because their gender identity "gives them away," though they may or may not identify as trans or gay. It is the femmy boys, who may not even have been with a boy, who are beat up and called "faggot."

Gender is the social marker of sexual identity, like it or not.

Most of the population couldn't give a fuck who your partner is. When they start to have a problem with you is when your outward appearance, your gender, doesn't fit into the norm. I would really appreciate it if you would step outside your whiny white male privileged box for a second and acknowledge that in the real world, gender and sexual identity are two sides of a coin.

In case of emergency, put on your own oxygen mask first. Then assist children or others to put on their masks.

The article couldn't cover everything. What you're referring to is an argument that the critics have latched on to, claiming that if we drop gender identity then men who are too effeminate might be able to be fired from their jobs.

1) The legislation, even without gender identity, covers sexual orientation and PERCEIVED sexual orientation. Meaning, if your boss thinks you're gay, whether you are or not and whether your boss is sure or not, if your boss fires you because they perceive that you're gay, then you're covered.

2) Some people have argued that this doesn't go far enough. A boss could fire you for being an effeminate man, even though he knows you're really straight. Well, I would argue that this bill was created to protect gay people from being fired, not protect straight people who the boss knows is straight but who has a high voice. Again, we're getting into that mission creep problem again.

3) We haven't had this problem yet, even though several states have passed ENDAs that don't include gender identity. If it's such a serious problem, then why haven't we seen it? And yes, the groups cite one court case in which they lied about what the case says - read it for yourself, the last two pages, it says the plaintiff couldn't prove her case, not that it was okay to fire her for being too butch.

4) If in fact, in years to come, we find that employers have discovered some secret loophole, then we can close the loophole and we'll actually have evidence to prove it. Currently we have none, and we know that the bill WON'T PASS with gender identity tacked on. So again, your solution is to pass nothing and protect no one.

5) Finally, gender identity advocates are entering rather dangerous territory politically, I think, with this argument. I've seen women respond to my posts by saying "I don't wear dresses because I'm a lesbian" and they expect the bill to include gender identity to protect them. I'm sorry, but if my boss wants to make me wear business attire on the job, that's fine with me (so long as women are forced to do the same), and I don't think I have the right to say "I'm a gay man, I don't wear suits." At some point, we really lose track of the ball here, people. And that's the entire point of my essay. The bill was supposed to protect gay people, not protect people who refuse to dress appropriately on the job.

JOHN