Andie, thank your for a very moving letter. You may be the first trans person I've heard from who would support passing ENDA now even without gender identity added, in the interests of helping the most people now and recognizing the political reality. Its comments like yours that make me WANT to do more to help trans people. I really do think that the best thing the trans leaders could have done would have been to make a statement similar to yours from the beginning - something like: yes, it saddens us, but we support our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and want to see them move ahead so all of us can move ahead. I don't think anyone did that. So the message a lot of us got was: if we can't have it then neither can you. So again, thank you. Rest assured that I will continue to support your issues now and in the future, and I won't forget your support.

When I wrote my original response to this post, I hadn't had a chance to look through other people's letters, or to read Mr. Aravosis' letter. I'd like to add a couple of thoughts.

I've noticed that the most confused ('What do I have in common with trans folks anyway?') or the most vicious ("Selfish trannies trying to hold us back!') responses to the protests against the splitting of ENDA seem to come from somewhat privileged gay men. I wonder if this is because so many transmen have historically spent a good deal of time in lesbian or queer women's spaces before transitioning -- so many transmen used to be butch women, and so many gender-normative lesbians or bi women are partnered with gender-non-normative (butch or androgynous) women. I know transwomen do not, for the most part, have the same close relationship to the gay male community that many transmen have with the lesbian community. Is this why it may be harder for gay men to see how the T relates to the LGB?

Three other points, semi-related to Mr. Aravosis' follow-up letter:

1. One, the argument about not being able to force top-down cultural change (instant acceptance for trans folks). If I have my history right, that's exactly what the 1964 Civil Rights Act did - the federal government said that Southern states with Jim Crow laws would just have to deal with the fact that racism was no longer acceptable law in the U.S. That's the aim of federal 'gender identity' protections: it wouldn't immediately change everyone's mind, but it would make clear to businesses what kind of standards they should be held to. (Again, if you can't see how the T fits into the LGBT, this argument might not hold water with you.) That's why the law is so powerful; it doesn't matter if every Floridian thinks that gays shouldn't adopt, if the law says they can, they can. And then social change begins to happen because of the law, because people begin to see that gay parents aren't evil monsters bent on seducing their adopted children into sin. As Mr. Aravosis points out, being gay isn't universally accepted in the U.S. yet, but we're still trying to gain legal acceptance.

2. About no employers being sued and then using the excuse of 'gender identity' to get around 'sexual orientation' anti-discrimination laws. This is one of those things that's hard to predict. It's still legal in so many states to discriminate based on sexual orientation, how do we know what kind of numbers will try for the gender identity loophole once that road is closed? (As I mentioned before, Darlene Jesperson was fired for refusing to wear make-up under a new company policy, and the firing was upheld in appeals court.) At the same time, many state and municipal laws have included 'gender identity' along with 'sexual orientation' -- as does the federal Hate Crimes Bill passed last month. What makes some people so quick to give up on 'gender identity' in this case when it has succeeded in others? Mr. Aravosis says that he wants to see a federal law passed in his lifetime. What makes him so sure one wouldn't be? With a Democratic president, the threat of veto would lessen. Why does it have to pass this year?

The argument is that trans folks and gender-non-normative folks (gay and straight) can wait, but haven't they been waiting for protections just as long as gay folks? Why can't we all wait together? Because people are dying? Trans and genderqueer folks are killed and discriminated against just as often, if not MORE often, than gay individuals.

3. Not necessarily in this piece, but throughout the argument over ENDA, I find the language used to tell trans folks that they should just put up with ENDA passing sans 'gender identity' (the language of 'wait your turn') condescending and short-sighted. Frankly, I'm skeptical that the gays and lesbians who have worked hard for gay rights will put any energy at all into expanding gov't protections to include 'gender identity' after a non-inclusive ENDA passes -- partly because so many (like Barney Frank and Mr. Aravosis) see 'gender identity' as something that has to do only with transsexual folks, and not gay, straight, and trans alike, and partly because history has shown that after getting theirs, they do little in solidarity with the T in LGBT. In New York, the gay rights bill was passed in 2002 and the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) is still waiting for a vote in the heavily Democratic state Assembly. That's why the response of so many state and national LGBT groups to the split ENDA was so heartening -- some solidarity at last!

If you don't think the T should be in LGBT, that's your opinion, fine. But don't sing me a song of solidarity when you feel no such thing. If you don't feel it now, you won't feel it in two years (or five or ten) when the 'gender identity' bill goes up for a vote. So I don't actually buy that it'll be sweet and simple to just go back and "amend ENDA later on" if it turns out gender identity is needed (and who could doubt that it is? Are we only going to go back and try to amend it if it starts to affect fey gay men, as in Mr. Aravosis' example?).

If you can't see that gender identity norms affect gay people (as well as straight and trans people), then I guess you won't feel any solidarity with anyone except those who fulfill your ideas of what it means to be gay and discriminated against. But for many gay and queer people of color, especially youth, the lines between sexuality and gender identity are harder to draw. Although we have our in-fighting, LGBT people sink or swim together. All of us or none of us -- for me, it's a question of morality, not practicality.