Actually, S. Bear, I don't get the first slice of ENDA when it passes. I live in Washington, DC, I'm white, and have a reasonable income. I don't need the protections in this bill, I'm already covered by DC law and I work for myself so my employer isn't going to do jack to me. So, in fact, I'm taking this stand for the millions of gays and lesbians who don't live in big liberal cities, but actually live in real America where having and keeping a job, and providing for themselves and their families, is a real concern, not just a political football. It's ironic that the all-caring far-left of the community seems to care so much about the transgendered community, and that's great, but they don't seem to care too much about the 25 million members of our own community.

Dear John,

The Talented Tenth doctrine has never worked yet, and it will not work now. And if that article/title doesn't ring a loud, clear bell for you, I would say that you don't know enough about civil rights movements in the US to have an informed opinion about ENDA, gay rights, or gender expression (I won't belabor the point about discrimination and assults against gays being largely about gender expression that others have made quite well enough in other letters).

Half-a-loaf, indeed. Of course you'll take it - you get to take the first cut. Perhaps instead we should do it like my mother used to, when my brother and I wanted to split a piece of cake: one made the cut, the other got first choice of the pieces. You cut the loaf, I want first pick.

Toss enough people into the mix and you have a movement. Seems obvious.

Oddly enough, I recently asked a (gay) friend why the "T" was in there, and what I - as a gay man - had in common with the Transgendered community. He didn't have an answer, but I always figured the question had a similar dynamic to the one about Gay Pride parades - why does the media always focus on the leather crowd and the drag queens and present an image of extremism to the world, while the majority in the crowd are indistinguishable from our straight brothers and sisters in how we dress and carry ourselves. These questions - at least in my mind - aren't about passing judgement on any group, no matter how extreme their stance, but rather an inquiry as to why - for political and cultural purposes - I must always be labeled as part of a group which includes many members I have little or nothing in common?

Thanks for asking.

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

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

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.