A conversation can never have enough mensches...and you're one. That was a manly apology. Womanly too. Ahh, it was adultly...and quite nice.

How the heck can I get the gig that John got? I write well, I am an authority in the areas of civil rights and sexual identity, and I can articulate important points that need to be heard but are largely lost when placed as limited rebuttals in the "letters" section.

And besides that, Holly thinks I rock. (So do you, Holly! You go, girl!)

Somebody gimme the microphone for a minute, please. I'm fired up and I got me some testifyin' to do! Grrrrrr!!! :)

The liberal credo of questioning assumptions is used as a trojan horse to get a lot of ill-founded assertions and personal distastes into policy debates. Any article that uses the phrase "a man who wants to cut off his penis" and ignores F2Ms makes the writer's preoccupations quite apparent.

John, no one is asking you to cut off your penis.

To any to whom John's argument ("ditch the T's because they're too damned freaky") seems self-evident, please give a few moments to Professor Lynn Conway's web site, notably her case studies of trans success stories. The fact that it is even notable that there *are* success stories is a testament to the incredible difficulty and dire risks of transitioning and the bravery of those who attempt to do so.

I've never bought into the idea of an insidious left-wing "political correctness," but the hysterical reaction to John's article that I see here is making me think twice. The caricatures and distortions of his argument and the reflexive insults are really amazing to read.

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. Well, as a gay man I can tell you that it isn't true. Believe it or not, when my boyfriend and I have sex, neither one of us wants to be, or pretends to be, a woman. Not that there would be anything wrong with that, as they say, but an apple is not an orange and no amount of screaming and vitriol will make it so.

I read with great interest John's article since it is rare to find many mainstream articles dealing with transgenderism. I was born a man many years ago and have been living and working quietly as a woman for the past ten years. I fully respect John's opinion and I can appreciate his rational approach to the ongoing prejudice gays have faced for so many years.

There is no doubt that some kind of national recognition of the abhorent lack of protection that gays face in the area of housing and jobs is needed, and it is needed now.

I know that right about now you are waiting for a "but." Truthfully, I can't in all conscience refute your position. Transgenderism is a tricky subject and can easily become confusing. I regretfully, have to say that I agree that the inclusion of the "T" in the ENDA bill would probably doom it to extinction under a deluge of ignorant protest.

However (does that qualify as a "but"?) I hope we don't wait too long to pick up that discarded "T."

We may not have the luxury of time that was granted to previous generations. The increased focus on identity since the 9/11 attacks has placed many of us in jeopardy. This affects those of us who are "pre-operative." Since only 5% of all transgendered people actually undergo gender reassignement surgery, that is quite a large number of us.

The Social Security Administration, under the direction of The Department of Homeland Security, has been routinely outing thousands of transgendered people at their places of employment for the last few years. They do this by means of a "no-match" letter. This letter is sent to the employer notifying them that their record of that particular employee's gender does not match the gender marker on record with the SSA (surgery is the federal requirement to officially change the gender marker in a Social Security record). If the employee is unfortunate enough to live in a state without protections in place for transgendered people, they can find themselves in the head-turning predicament of being forced out of a job without any warning.

Unfortunately, this is only the beginning or our troubles.

Many states allow a change of the gender marker on their driver's licences to allow a pre-operative transgendered person live a normal, safe life. As soon as the Real ID law is implemented, transgendered people are going to be forced to carry identification that marks them as opposite from the gender in which they present themselves. In short, we will be forced to out ourselves whenever we do something even as inconsequential as writing a check or renting a DVD.

Obviously, this places us in great danger and forces us to carry an incredible burden as we negotiate even the most mundane situations in life.

I'm all for the passage of a GLB protection bill without the "T", but please don't forget us out here. We, too, did not ask for this lot in life and we, too, deserve the most elementary of protections that are enjoyed by the rest of our fellow Americans.

I've read many posts that ask sarcastically if the article is claiming that leaving some behind for the good of others is the theme of Aravosis' article. Then, saying "how noble of you."

Where in the hell did anyone on this planet ever get the idea that politics had nobility in it, or wants it, or can even be introduced to it? Nobility has absolutely nothing to do with politics and if people are going to turn to politicians for solutions to their problems then don't be disappointed if you don't find the nobility factor on either side.

I also find appalling the idea that it is not healthy to look after one's own self-interests. Martyrdom is highly over-rated and its influence is very short lived.

And about that point that Kerry was not willing to compromise for short term gain? The possibility of being the most powerful person in the U.S. for eight years is hardly short-term gain.