No No only We get to have equal rights

Yes Larry is laying the smackith downith on a gay news source.... Stay with me this all works out

REFUSING TO SUPPORT ENDA without trans protections also makes no sense legally. HRC has made the peculiar claim that gay people sometimes endure discrimination because they are effeminate men or butch lesbians and won’t be protected unless ENDA is trans-inclusive.

But they have not offered up even a single case to back up their claim. In fact, HRC and the trans activists have it exactly backwards, and they know it.


Ok here is a thought spanky, now lets stay with me here

So because people view their gender display as manish ( and discriminat against them for that) then they are screwed

"Oh gee gosh we did it cause you were so mannish"

helllooooo

Courts have already ruled that existing federal and state laws that protect against gender bias protect transgendered people. Those rulings aren’t universal, but they offer more federal protection than gays currently enjoy.

So if i were to go to work in a dress your saying i wouldn't be fired

cause i can tell you if i acted gay people at work would for a while be peeing themselves for fear i accused them of firing me fore being gay

What’s more, if ENDA passed without explicit protections for “gender identity and expression,” transgendered people would still in many cases be winning newfound workplace rights.

If they are gay

what you mean you don't care about the ones who are straight

well how enlightened of you

Which is a more likely scenario: HRC’s worry that a gay man might be fired by a boss who is gay-friendly but nonetheless intolerant of effeminate men? Or an anti-gay boss who fires a male-to-female transsexual because “he’s a faggot”?


well, considering the effeminate man doesn't make people "comfortable"

or is "disruptive"

transgender people actually have to have medical treatment done usually ya gay folks just say "hey i'm gay" like Saul on the road to damascus

A transgendered person fired for being perceived as gay or due to anti-gay bias would be protected under ENDA even if it only adds actual or perceived “sexual orientation” to federal civil rights law.

even though in Boston a judge ruled that such actions empower those people and thus cannot be used as a legal protection for people who aren't gay


If legislation can be achieved that wins some civil rights for some people — in this case, almost all of HRC’s constituents — that is better than nothing. Just as domestic partner registries are better than nothing, civil unions are better than DP registries, and neither should be sacrificed indefinitely until gay couples can marry

all GBLT people are equal, some are just more equal then others

If HRC and the Task Force are right, then civil rights laws for African Americans and women should have waited for gay rights and trans protections as well. And existing federal hate crime laws based on race and religion shouldn’t have been passed until they could be amended to add protections based on gender, handicapped status, sexual orientation and (of course) gender identity and expression.


hey ya know what, each of these previous groups had a single organization to represent them

HRC represents BOTh

so thats an irrelivent argument

if gay people were part of the naacp fighting for gay rights then your argument would have a basis in reality

It would be wrong and immoral for us to expect others to be treated unfairly until we are treated equally. And it is just as wrong and just as immoral for transgendered people and their P.C. allies in gay rights groups to expect the same.

so, in an organization they are members of, it is wrong to expect their organization will fight for them

ya know what, that happened in the women's suffrage movement. the people who wanted more rights didn't want to push for sufferage

the sufferagetts broke off and they got the job done

so would HRC be better or worse without transgender people?