I appreciate the feedback, everyone. Including the negative stuff, most of which isn't too personal, which I appreciate. Obviously, in an article like this, you can't include everything, and I wanted to pull put out one aspect of the debate - how we got to where we are today - and focus on that, rather than hit every single argument. So, there are a few things I left out. Like.

1. We have the votes in the House for the non-trans ENDA, and it's very close in the Senate. Bush has, oddly, not threatened a veto. He has threatened a veto of the Hate Crimes bill, but not ENDA. That's interesting. But even if he does veto, the legislation can be added on to other must-pass bills that he would be loathe to veto. So, this isn't just an esoteric debate.

2. I support transgender rights and passing a transgender ENDA, among other legislation. My argument in the piece above is whether we should stop the gay ENDA in its tracks, tell gay people that they can't have any more civil rights until America accepts trans people to the degree it accepts gay people (which could be decades). The discussion isn't whether I or anyone else accepts trans rights, whether we welcome them into the community of humanity, the civil rights community, or anywhere else. We (at least I) do. But, blacks are also members of the civil rights community, as are people with disabilities, for example, and we don't tell them "no more civil rights bills for you until America accepts the gays." The main discussion point of my piece, and the main issue in this debate, is whether gay people should put their civil rights journey on hold until the trans community catches up in public opinion and lobbying. And I'd suggest that that's a huge thing to ask and expect - or in this case, simply force by fiat.

I will add one point, however. I think that if folks are going to talk about who is throwing whom under the bus, then they should ask 25 million gays and lesbians if they consented to have their civil rights journey put on hold for two decades. I certainly didn't, nor did any of my friends. I'm feeling a little thrown off the bus myself at the expense of someone else.

And one more thing. I don't think anyone should be so presumptious as to assume that we all live in such great parts of the country that we can afford not to have this bill become law. A) All of us don't live in such great pro-gay locales. And B) some of us would like to see at least one federal civil right in our lifetime. We're all not in our 20s :-)

3. You'll be hearing a lot about how this bill isn't a 'real' gay rights bill, it's only ENDA "lite." Well, it's the same bill we've always had, but suddenly everyone thinks it's weak. Uh huh. Supposedly, the critics argue, without gender identity in the bill, employers will be able to fire gays who are fey and lesbians who are butch by saying they don't like fey or butch employees, but they're fine with GAY employees. Well, this hasn't happened in a single state or municipality that currently has local ENDAs on the books. Zero. And to the degree it does happen, we can amend ENDA later on - and frankly, if it does happen, then we'll proof to show Congress that gender identity IS a necessary addition to the bill even to help gay people, which was the intent of the bill in the first place. I.e., it will help get gender identity in. But as it currently stands, this argument is a red herring. It just hasn't happened in real life. (Also, the bill covers real or perceived sexual orientation, meaning, if your employer THINKS your gay, whether or not you are and whether or not your employers knows your real orientation, it would still be a violation of ENDA - so a lot of the fey and butch stuff would likely be covered under the perceived orientation clause). And finally, there's been concern about the "broad" religious exemption in ENDA - for example, the Catholic church could fire gays from Catholic hospitals even with ENDA as law. Well, news flash: We're not going to be able to pass anything in my lifetime, I fear, that tells the Catholic church that they have to hire gay people. Sorry, but we're living in the real world here. It sucks, but come on, that simply isn't a rational complaint about this bill.

I'll keep checking on the comments, and weigh in again. Thanks again for the feedback.

JOHN

say that civil unions are good enough...and gays shouldn't fight for gay marriage, these are usually the same guys who think maybe we can work out a compromise over abortion...

as if the people fighting against gays...and abortion are going to accept a compromise...

And like these straight men, John is willing to bargain away other people's rights, out of some irrational belief that this will help gay people.

Somehow Aravosis seems to think that throwing Transexuals out of his precious movement will actually help gays get equality. That transexuals have nothing in common with gays.

They have only have been in the Gay Liberation Movement before John was born.

And the average homophobe doesn't care about the differences between transexuals and gays. But somehow they aren't good enough to march next to John Aravosis.

Well, it sounds like that private little club you want to be a member of is one I would have a lot of trouble defending.

Well, seems to me that one fairly significant difference between LGB and T is that the first 3 describe issues around the way you relate to other humans, while the 4th is about issues one deals with in relationship to their own identity.

Important issue, but not exactly the same.

My guess is that, at the end of the day, T will be included in the legislation and

1) T's will be scapegoated

2) There will be no progress for anyone.

An John's analysis of why incremental battles win wars is brilliant.