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.

As opposed to you, who seem to be willing to "bargain away" the rights of gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the irrational belief that this will help the transgendered and transsexual.

After 30 years there are apparently finally enough votes in Congress to pass some kind of rudimentary civil rights legislation for millions of gay, lesbian and bisexual citizens. It would be tragic - not to mention idiotic - to derail this legislation at this late hour over the inclusion of similar protections for the transgendered and transsexual, who apparently weren't even included in this legislation until earlier this year.

Dropping the T from the bill and from our movement is heresy to me. I appreciate the reasons the Dems made the decision and I like that they are attempting this and I won't castigate Barney Frank. However, I can't be behind something that is denying protection to those who need it the most. Transgendered people are routinely beaten, harassed and killed. Yes, routinely, start scouring non-mainstream news sources and you will discover how physically dangerous it is for transgendered people to simply walk down the street. They are also more likely to be discriminated on the job. There were some stats out there last week about only 25% being able to find jobs.

What this article represents is the view of the beltway Democratic insider, the HRC, Hillary loving type, who have embraced amorality in their politics. Whatever works right?

I appreciate pragmatism. But that is not what voters and passionate advocates should do. This was the same argument that was thrown at us during all of the Iraq war voting, torture, FISA and every Democratic capitulation of the last 7 years.

Howard Zinn spoke eloquently about this problem in his article "Are We Politicians or Are We Citizens? " He said "We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress."

See http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032607J.shtml

We should speak up for what is right. The right wing people spoke up for what they thought was right, even though many times over the years it seemed preposterous. And you know what? They moved public opinion, they forced politicians to support their radical agenda and things have happened in this country that that we all laughed at 15 and 10 years ago--we thought nothing so far right could happen. They've won the abortion war, to name just one victory. But those people, as much as I despise them, have earned some respect from me for their tenacity and their willingness to go to the mat and organize and fight politicians to get their bogus agenda. At a grassroots level they are so much better than we are.

These days, it seems like most Democratic voters only sneer at idealism, at grassroots organizing, at standing up for what is right even if it means you will not win. They've given up on the art of persuasion, they have no confidence and no ability to talk about difficult issues. If they had any backbone at all they would see the value in standing before a crowd and saying "you may disagree with me but this is what I believe." They simply cannot win respect without doing this. The GOP does this all the time.

Instead, they (and the writer of this article) look for the easy way out. They look for some sneaky way around the problem, like writing the T out of the picture. Out of sight, out of mind. It's sneaky Clintonism and I hate it. (The DLC always talks about their lone victory--getting Bill elected--conveniently forgetting that Ross Perot stole enough GOP votes to swing it).

I've written elsewhere about the way our straight allies have failed us. I challenge them to put their money where their mouth is on gay rights. I see Democrats and progressives fawning over the Civil Rights Era, because it's so easy for a liberal to say they support civil rights when it comes to racism. But discrimination against gays....ah...not so much. It makes them nervous and frozen, but this is the civil rights struggle of this generation and they are mostly on the sidelines. Whining about how we gays are ruining their ability to get elected so they can... so they can... um, what are they doing again? Capitulating to the lame duck president and the GOP on FISA, the Patriot Act and the war.

While I certainly respect John's right to state his opinion, I again must take issue with what he has written. In my opinion, his argument is fataly flawed and simply wrong.

First of all, I take issue with the fact that John and others seem to think that a trans less ENDA will pass Congress. Perhaps it will in the House, but it's chances in the Senate are not that good. But I'll give him that and say that yes, Congress might pass such a bill. But rest assured, Bush will have that Veto pen ready the moment it gets passed. If he is willing to veto the Hate Crimes Law and the Childrens Health Care Law, he will certainly veto this, trans or not. So what kind of statement are we making again? None that I see, especially if it can't even pass both houses of Congress.

Second, why is it such a stretch to have the T in GLBT? Last time I checked, sexual orientation is clearly about blurring the gender lines. By being attracted to a member of the same sex, one is violating that one important rule of our society and that is that we are supposed to fit nice and neatly into our expected gender roles. By identifying as gay, lesbian or bisexual, you are violating the binary gender rule that is required of you. The same is true of transgender individuals, though certainly to a greater degree.

Look, our society has a rigid binary gender system in place. Men are supposed to be men and women are supposed to be women. Any deviation from the so called norm and you are violating that system. John's attraction to other men is no more or less a violation of that gender system than a man who becomes a woman or vice versa. In the eyes of the gender police, we are all the same. All of us who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender break the rules by our very existence. That puts us squarely in the same camp.

Third, John says we need to wait another decade or so to get an inclusive ENDA passed. Why? All of the Democrats running for President have said they support a fully inclusive ENDA. If Democrats don't blow it, always a possibility, they should greatly increase their numbers in both the House and Senate. Add in a likely Democratic President and a decade or more becomes waiting till early 2009. It's not going to become law this year, regardless of the language, so why not work hard this next year to get more progressive officials elected and move this in 2009 when we have a pretty good shot of getting it all passed?

Finally, I live in Louisville, a fairly progressive city, but still not a place that anyone would confuse with San Fran, Seattle or New York City. But you know what, even here in the south, smack dab in the middle of one of the reddest states, we overwhelmingly passed a fairness ordinance that extended protections in employment, housing and public accomodations based upon sexual orientation AND gender identity. Our law goes a lot further than ENDA ever dreamed about and it passed overwhelmingly with bi-partisan support. That was in 1999 and nearly a decade later, it's proved to be among the most non-controversial laws ever passed by the metro council.

Lest you think that it's a big city thing, I remind you that Lexington, with 500,000 less people and certainly more conservative, became the 2nd city in Kentucky to pass the same legislation. A few years later, the even smaller Covington did the same. We worked hard here in Kentucky to get these laws passed and from the get go, our local GLBT advocacy group, Fairness Louisville, insisted that the law be all or nothing. Sounds pretty amazing if you ask me.