The dems have a much better chance of getting elected without the dead weight of GLB's dragging them down at the polls. Don't worry, they'll get back to you in 10 years or so.

1) Perceived sexual orientation -- MAYBE this would work if the case could be made that the boss thinks being gay includes gender non-conformity. I'm not a lawyer but I could drive a truck through that loophole. I'd rather not risk it, thank you.

2) When I mentioned gender-nonconforming straight people I wasn't looking to include them in the legislation, though it wouldn't hurt. I was looking to expand our pool of allies with Congress, because Congresspersons respond best to people like themselves. While the closeted Congressional Gay Caucus might require a large conference room these days, Barney and Tammy only need so much room and can only do so much.

3) States without gender protections do have a serious problem, and I have friends in Maryland and even progressive Montgomery County who continue to have difficulty finding employment. Maryland has had s.o. protections since 2001 and it hasn't helped them one bit.

4) Once a non-inclusive bill passes and is signed into law there will be no effort to prioritize trans protections. The average wait on the state level has been fourteen years, but that's a lower bound because some states are still tacking them on. Wisconsin is 26 years and counting, Massachusetts 19, etc.

But I distinguish between passing the House and then dying versus becoming law. Since I do NOT expect passage before 2009 I'm not living in an existential panic these days and am instead spending my time educating this online community as well as my local, state and federal legislators.

5) Please, let's put this "dress code" stuff behind us. We have dealt with it repeatedly on the state and local level, and no one opposes reasonable dress codes for men and women. This is not about destroying the gender binary. Trans women are women who present as women and therefore are subject to the women's dress code.

Two observations:

1) The discussion on this blog and John's almost always seems to revolve around trans women, and not trans men. Does anyone find that interesting? Do you think it might have something to do with misogyny underlying homophobia and transphobia? I do.

2) This entire debate was ignited by Barney's reading that he couldn't manage to hold a trans-inclusive bill against a potential Republican motion to recommit. This is HYPOTHETICAL, people. I like Barney and he's come a long way but I'm not happy with him being the lead sponsor on trans-inclusion. He's from the wrong generation, a generation that went to great effort to exclude us, and his sensibility is not attuned to our community.

You're not settling for "half a loaf." You're settling for "a full loaf for me and none for someone else." That's not a compromise, it's a grab at the expense of people who would want to be your allies.

As a bisexual man (who is bisexual all the time, not a "part-time gay") who is living with a transgendered man, I'm not very impressed with your willingness to drop any portion of a bill that doesn't benefit you personally.

Would you call a law that gives rights to transgendered people but leaves gay men behind a good first step, too? I wouldn't.

You say that there's something that conservatives know that liberals don't - how to make incremental changes. There's something else the conservatives do better right now, sadly - how to form a coalition with allies.

didn't seem so to me - and neither to John Aravosis. i only met ONE lesbian whose most prominent emotion wasn't dislike of men. gays seem entirely different - they seem to be motivated by love for men. as for those "bluhzillions of straight men" i don't know where you hang out, but very few do. oh maybe a few like howard stern for shock and some teenage boys who are imagining a menage a trois (harem envy). who would get off on watching shaved siliconed lesbians cavorting? (ok, perhaps it's my age showing). the only picture that is any way attractive is an old poster, http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Kiss-Posters_i1534971_.htm and that only because it is very artistic - the composition, the juxtaposition of hands, the contrast between black and white. it stopped being really *lesbian* and is, instead, art.

The topic of discussion is whether the transgender community has the right to, along with elite gay activists, kill gay rights progress for the next twenty years because their movement is years behind ours. You took ENDA hostage, and now are playing the bereaved party.

That is the truth. I am tired of people beating up on Aravosis over this. I note that Phoenix Woman (of the Firedoglake blog, I assume) called John "a horrible person" today. Okay, Phoenix Woman, if you're so adamant that gays and lesbians give up their right to ENDA in order to stand in solidarity with the trans, then why don't you, and all of the other straight people that are criticizing us, make your heterosexual marriages null and void until such time as those of us who are gay and lesbian AND transgendered are allowed to marry? You want to talk about solidarity? Then why don't you set an example and give up something to stand with us?

I won't hold my fucking breath.

Dana, first off, let's try to leave the "you're a misogynist"-style arguments out of this. :-)

As for Barney's hypothetical, when it comes to managing the floor of the House of Representatives on gay issues, yes, I trust Barney.

And finally, okay, you're willing to gamble with the motion to recommit. (For folks who don't know, it's kind of like the House version of a filibuster - but only kind of. Basically, the minority party gets a chance to offer ONE amendment to a bill before passage, and if the amendment passes, the bill goes back to committee, effectively killing it at this late date. The concern is that the House Republicans will offer some hideous motion to recommit that will slur transgendered people and force Democrats to vote on, say, for example, whether they want to permit men in dresses to pee in the girls bathrooms of nursery schools. I wouldn't expect a real profile in courage form the Dems, or our Republican allies, if something like that came to a vote. Either they side with us and face withering ads in the next election, or they vote against us and kill the bill.

You're willing to gamble with legislation to protect the rights of 25m gays and lesbians. Okay. What exactly do you plan to tell those gays and lesbians if and when the bill is killed because you were wrong and Barney was right? Sorry? It's not a compromise when the bill can pass without you and it may very likely die with you. All of us going down in flames together is not a compromise.

I appreciate that you don't believe the situation is as dire. I'd suggest that you underestimate the ability of House Republicans to be evil. But I could be wrong, and I'm happy to hear you out. What's your plan for bringing a trans-inclusive ENDA to the House floor and not losing a vote on the motion to recommit? If you want us to risk our rights for you, then tell us the plan. Because currently, I trust Barney's analysis of the political environment in the House.