The legislation without inclusion of the transgendered community is defective enough where I think opposition is justified. The most vulnerable people in our community are not the organized gay and lesbian community, but the fractured trans community. Often gay and lesbians can blend into society, but those of use who identify as transgendered or transexual, particularly those of us on hormones, are easily spotted, and easily dismissed and politically weak.

I see no great benefit in supporting a group who is so easily leaves their fellow sex minorities wounded and dying on the political battlefield, in a self defeating attempt to save themselves.

But at a company I once worked for we ran into the horribly divisive issue of transgendered transition and bathrooms.

When a male colleague transitioned to female but had not undergone surgery there was a point in the process when she had to stop using the male restroom and start using the female restroom. Now, a lot of the women in the company were extremely uncomfortable because this colleague was still technically a man. But the men were really equally uncomfortable because ... well to tell the truth it was kind of dumb. We had *stalls* in the ladies room. But a lot of people really struggled with it.

Almost all the women adjusted after a few days, but was it fair to the handful of women who didn't to be *forced* to share this restroom? They didn't think so, and ... interestingly ... neither did the transgendered lady, who graciously offered to go downstairs and use the bathroom in a nearby restaurant.

But the company and the city ordinances said, no, this was how it had to be and this was how it was. I think it made it harder for this lady's colleagues to accept her because of the divisiveness over the restroom issue - an issue she did not even want to push!

So there are ways in which transgendered employment situations are not quite the same as GLB situations. I mean, God forbid we ask for nuance I guess. After all, nobody should ever be fired for anything other than failure to conform to their job requirements.

Dear Anon,

You know, despite your claims to examples of homosexuality in nature, straights continue to point to the fact that there is no "gay gene" or other medico-phsyical "cause" of homosexuality identified, and thus continue to label us as having "psychological problems," just as you to with the transfolk.

And there are, in fact, numerous examples in nature of animals who change sex or who assume the social roles of the opposite sex, which you can find with all the Hurculean effort of a google search. So your cited difference between gay and trans people turns out to be a distinction without a difference.

Anon writes: "I'm sorry but all this just points to psychological problems to me, and I have yet to see or hear or read anything otherwise and I've read ALL the postings here.

I'm sorry, too, but that's exactly what they said about us (gays and lesbians) for many, many years. And, as you know, homosexuality was an official "psychological disorder" as set forth in the DSM III. It was only political pressure that got homosexuality finally removed from the DSM IV. Too bad the T's (and transsexual is only one of the many groups under the general T umbrella, and as far as I know, the only one still in the DSM IV) don't have the political clout by themselves to effect a similar change. Hey, perhaps that's why they ought not be carved out of ENDA, you think?

Kettle, meet Pot.

This is the politics of division. Don't fall for it! First they will object to the protection of transsexuals. Then they'll say Bisexuals and part time gays don't deserve protection. Then they'll claim that women aren't really gay at all. Finally they'll exclude the blacks on some pretext or other. Once they've done that they'll refuse to pass the bill because it doesn't have "broad community support."

There is something else going on here than John Aravosis starting a petty squabble over who he thinks is queer and who isn't. We must all hang together or it is certain that we'll all hang separately.

Che

I'm sorry but most of what you said doesn't want to fly with me. I get what you MEAN, but...

You seem to be crossing over from factual definitions (sex=male & female, the description of chromosomal sex and some of its abnormalities & aberrations such as XYY syndrome, Triple-X Syndrome, etc) to more touchy feely definitions on gender and how you "feel" and things like social constructs and gender expression (which have definitely changed with the times) and expect me to treat those two as on an equal footing.

Barring genetic abnormalities (a straw man argument if I ever saw one!), if you are born a healthy boy, you have XY chromosomes, and likewise for a healthy girl with XX chromosomes. These chromosomes then express themselves to give you the body you have, washing your brain in male or female hormones.

THEN you come tell me you don't "feel" like the sex you were born. There's my disconnect.

"You tell me, Anon, do you have to look between your legs to know which gender you are? If you lost your prized member in a tractor accident or at war, would you then by default be a woman?"

Exactly! If I lost my penis in an accident, I WOULD STILL BE MALE. Any fiddling with my bits does not make it so!

And what does being "male" or "female" really mean anyway? It certainly doesn't mean anything to me except a classification of my body. For me to deny what is simple fact doesn't make sense. I neither want nor don't want to be female, my sex just IS and there is no mental disagreement.

Once again, if you come to me and say "my physical body is lying, I should be the gender that I FEEL" that to me means there's something wrong with how you feel.

You know, there are some rare people who feel they are handicapped even though they are fully able. Should they get their legs amputated (or otherwise mutilate themselves) so that they match how they feel? Or should they get treated for a body image problem?