It might be my ears from this head cold, but I'm having a hard time actually making out what he's saying and I can't find the moment when he indicates the 2009 ENDA will be non-inclusive.

Anyone feel up to transcribing that statement?

Tobi, no need to be polite. It's the way he speaks; it's this gargling sound that, while amusing, is rather inconvenient.

Still, Frank is the best man qualified to know the proper approach to such legislation. All the protesters lack high-ranking insider experience.

That doesn't seem to be the problem, though; they just don't care. It's about political expediency, which they criticize Frank so much for. They're willing to anchor gay rights for their own benefit.

They're willing to anchor gay rights for their own benefit.

Oh wait, that was Gays anchoring Trans rights for their own benefit. Rights which haven't been granted in the succeeding 2 decades. Not a 2 year delay, but 30 years and counting.

We don't believe you'll "come back" for us. Not when there are so many like Chris Crain and John Avarosis who've said they won't lift a finger once their own rights are granted.

How's that anchoring? Did we advocate for putting a legislative piece which would imminently provide trans protections on hold because the gay rights piece was lacking support?

How can you prove that it would not have been the same 30 years had gays and lesbians gone with an ultimatum demanding that trans rights must be included?

I somehow recall it was you who said that gay issues and TS issues were separate ones. Why is it then unreasonable to dedicate ones' resources for a certain cause over another? Do you cover gay and lesbian issues equally in your blog? Do we hold the African American and Women's Rights movement accountable for not including gays and lesbians, much less TS's?

More importantly, why does the issue really bother you? Is it because you know that support is not widespread enough unless riding the coattails of the gay rights movement? Because you feel that stalling the passage of gay rights until it can pass with TS rights will prevent more TS murders from being treated as manslaughter should these protections be enacted?

Explain to gays and lesbians who could be receiving alleviation from discrimination in many aspects of their lives why they should wait a decade or two more?

Barney Frank is developing quite the reputation as someone who’s no longer on our team, if he ever was. He’s famous, if that’s the word for it, for taking a hatchet to ENDA and for opposing the struggle for same sex marriage in Californian.

He went after ENDA because it would have vastly increased our ability to sue for redress, which was deliberately crafted to be very restrictive by bipartisan obstructionists in Congress. That’s why so many civil rights and legal groups representing women, African Americans, immigrants as well as the LGBT communities liked it so much.

In politics, as Deepthroat famously said ‘Follow the money” It’s the most reliable motive for explaining politics in societies like ours which are run by and for businesses, and certainly not by and for working people.

So whose profit margin shoots off the top of the graph because they can arbitrarily cut wages by holding the threat of discriminatory firing over our heads? They’re the same ones who paid to have it hacked to pieces. It’s the owners and managers of business, big and small, who are represented by those motherless rats in the Chamber of Commerce. They win every time because they have the Barney Frank and his ilk to do their dirty work.

Mark Hanna, a Republican leader in the 1890’s told the Ohio attorney general, who had the audacity to sue Standard Oil, the Microsoft of its day, to drop the suit. 'Come on,' Hanna said irritably, 'you've been in politics long enough to know that no man in public life owes the public anything." Barney’s Hanna’s kind of guy, a politician who once he gets bought stays bought. That’s why Frank said what he did.

Oops.

With Democrats like these who needs Republicans.

It is truly time for someone to run against Barney Frank for his Congressional seat. Either that, or have Obama make him Secretary of the Treasury, and get him out of our way.

Thanks for the answers, Zoe.

I do agree that these organizations should be honest about who they truly represent. Methinks they just emptily slap the T in because inclusiveness sells. They're afraid that if they do not cater to the popular acronym, they might lose donors. Well, it's time for them to learn that fooling people for cash, and experiencing harsh backlash for not producing results on falsely advertised aspects, can be even worse.

You've left me with a question, though: Shall gays and lesbians hang on to the rights that are so close to them, or shall they sit it out in solidarity with the TS/IS movement? I must say I don't quite have the answer for this question. Do I look out for gays and lesbians having it miserably in states like Alabama and others, or shall I wait for protections that cover the Susan Stantons and Angie Zapatas of the world?

unless riding the coattails of the gay rights movement?

Lucrece, if anyone's been riding coattails, it's the mainstream gay rights movement! People like Barney Frank, who as a member of Congress had to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the closet, and John Aravosis, who wouldn't be where he is now but for his white, male privilege and the work of a long line of LGBT activists who risked everything to get us to where we are today. These two and others like them who are willing to abandon trans rights are riding the coattails of the Women's Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the anti-Vietnam War Movement, as well as the early LGBT movement--which, btw, moved forward with transgender activists right in the forefront.

Get your history right.

I have my history right; I just happen to filter through all the tired rhetoric you have to offer.

Really, I would have considered engaging you in thoughtful conversation; but when all you have to say about Barney Frank is mockery about being "dragged out of the closet", or attack him with "white male privilege" buzz words, I can't help but roll my eyes.

For someone advocating sensitivity, you sure seem completely devoid of it, especially with people who have had trouble coming out of the closet. That was just tasteless.

I will point out that, in places like Alabama and Kentucky, Lucrece, to the general public, there is no difference between GLB and T - we are all freaks together, the rednecks don't differentiate. The notion that somehow saying yes to GLB and no to T rights will mollify the 'necks, is a fantasy in Barney Frank's mind, one reinforced by HRC's behavior last fall. The 'necks are going to vote GOP in the South, anyway. "We got 'us a couple queers!" can mean the 'necks catching a well-dressed gay couple leaving an upscale club, a couple lesbians returning from a concert, or a couple transpeople leaving a support group meeting. They don't differentiate. They don't discriminate, they hate us all equally, and they still hate black and Hispanic people, too.

i will say this, as I've said it before: Barney Frank is right when he says that the T community hasn't lobbied well. Barney judges our efforts by the efforts of HRC (how many lobbyists do they have on the Hill at any given time?), or the NAACP, which has many professional advocates on the Hill, or AARP or NRA. What he doesn't understand about the T community is that there is no money, people have no or poor jobs, and our best lobbyists are generally working at state and local levels - that's where the action is, and they have no money to travel to DC more than once per year. As a community, we can talk to our Congressmen at home - I do - but that's not what Barney's looking for.

A local T activist in my hometown used to do T101s for GL groups; her opening phrase in her presentation was "it cost me $50,000 upfront to be my kind of queer - how much did it cost you to come out of the closet as G or L?" That was before the cost of career loss, family loss, etc, in which we share a stake. It opened eyes in our area, to the extent that we were included from that point forward. too bad Barney never saw her presentation. When you have to spend $50,000 to be who you are, then probably lose your career and take many steps backward in societal and career status to be that person, you have the anger and reason to lobby Congress, but not the money to do so. Whether Barney would even care is certainly debatable, what he really thinks is hard to say, but his history with T people isn't a good one.

I don't hate Barney Frank, not the way I absolutely hate the Marilyn Musgraves and Mitch McConnells of the world - people like them, I'd really like to see get crushed by a bus. I wish Barney well in his career path, I recognize how far things have come for him. His time is soon to have passed, and it is time for him to get out of our way and let others do the leading, now. He's a dinosaur and a creature of the past. The present and future includes T.

I'm quite sure Frank isn't trying to get the Southern low class vote. Rather, the representatives sitting on the fence, which see the moving support toward gay rights, but the still absent approval of TS rights.

If the T has to lobby to get an inclusive enda it would help if we knew the names of the congressmen who are against it Democrat or Republican.That is what I meant when I commented that a better explanation from hrc is needed.If Barney Frank won't bring an inclusive enda because of lack of support let him name names instead of "just well it won't pass so I'm not introducing it".I don't hold Hrc solely responsible for this but I do see the politics of division at work here and their being a willing accomplice.While many T's don't have money to lobby at the federal level with names progress may be able to me made in the senators home states through lobbying or protests maybe even the media.A complete list of who's for and who against in both the united enda form and the stripped form would benefit not only the T but the lgb's as well.

Barney Frank owes no one.

He represents a small section of MA that loves him to death.

HE is, pretty much, untouchable.

Especially on the issue of trans inclusion.

HE is also a bigot.

Nothing new -- bigots have been getting elected for years.

In 1994, transfolk could marry in every state in the union.

Today we cannot.

Transfolk cannot *but* work on behalf of lgb issues. We are lgb. And s, too.

Not working for trans issues means you are not working for *all* lgb people.

Just some.

Hello, family members. Diego here. I generally don't get to spend as much time as I desire to read or write on blogs, and today is no exception.

As I write this, mine is the 36th entry to Marti's original post. I'm glad to see the engagement, and I truly embrace the passion, no matter how inspired or how it's manifested. People saying things mean that they're still engaged, even if they are writing to say they're not. Saying something is saying something.

If you want facts from me to clarify some mis-statments (just because people hear history passed along sometimes if not directly involved, I am sure) stuff in some things people have written in 1-35, read 1-13. If you want my brief opinion, go directly to 14-15.

I'm writing only because there are some errebiys things here that I can clarify only because I've been directly involved or know for a fact the things that I'll address here.

1. While most of what I'm reading addresses GLBT issues in those terms, I'm going to use the words of law and policy -- sexual orientation and gender identity [and expression when all is fair or when our brilliant lawyers like Lisa Mottet, Shannon Minter, Cole Thaler, Masen Davis or Kylar Broadus, and others, get their hands on it].

2. The explicit words sexual orientation were joined in the new Democratic Party Platform, by the explicit words gender identity, for the first time. As the first transgender person ever appointed by a DNC Chair (Gov. Howard Dean) to a Standing Committee -- and for me, it was Platform, I had the honor of hearing my own Gov. Deval Patrick tell us our charge of getting the Platform done and approved. He said that the Party Platform is the 'vision of America in the eyes of the Democratic Party that distinguishes our Party from others.' That means that the Democratic Party overtly included the words 'gender identity' connected to workplace non-discrimination, and we did it unanimously, meaning without exception or objection.

3. Gov. Dean appointing me to the Platform Committee indicated the Party's intent to include us, to include people who need the words 'gender identity' to be overtly expressed to be treated equally human for anti-discrimination in employment.

4. Right after my appointment, Ethan St. Pierre interviewed me on TransFM and asked that tough question -- whether I expected for us to be included in the Platform. I said yes, and I offered the explanation in #3 above. His interview is in archive, and you can listen to it if you wish.

5. MassEquality was not formed and therefore was not involved when Massachusetts passed anti-discrimination laws in 1989 in Mass. Think: GLAD in Boston, NGLTF's Sue Hyde and HRC's Mary Breslauer. There were so few of us trans people active that we thought it was inclusive. We weren't at the table (we had no table), and all 3 listed above are involved with getting out state bill done here now.

6. MassEquality was formed, following some of us working in smaller numbers in something called the Freedom to Marry Coalition, along with GLAD, NGLTF and HRC locally nationally, especially HRC funding. Freedome to Marry was started with about 5 of us, and we know who we are -- two key leaders were Josh Friedes now with Equality Washington (state) and Valerie Zachary-Fein, MD. It grew later, and some of the leaders moved to MassEquality (Jeremy Pittman and Marty Rouse now with HRC), and Freedom to Marry sustained and worked in partnership. Some of the Equality groups in states include people who were powerfully formative in the early marriage work.

7. I was heavily involved, as were several other trans leaders in Massachusetts, in negotiating how gender identity protections would be prioritized after same-sex marriage, as well as how and when trans people would be involved in same-sex marriage visibility and work. It was a tiered approach and there are plenty of interviews that trans people I list below and I have talked about it. And marriage leaders who are not trans are included in those stories and verified that what we've said is true. Sue Hyde of NGLTF is one you can Google and find depth about that. If you look at how it was constructed, especially when the concept that later became MassEquality and all of the coalitions and legislative work needed, you'd understand why we wanted to go right after marriage equality. MassEquality came later, well after the community agreements about role and timing. By the time it was formed, we had already been working on marriage for years, but its formation, and GLAD's legal case that Mary Bunato won, were critical, clearly.

8. Matt does not set Policy for MassEquality. Its Board does. I served -- along with 3 other trans people (Grace Sterling Stowell, Gunner Scott and Holly Ryan) along with GLB and straight allies involved heaving in equality work in Massachusetts in a statewide focus group convened by MassEquality's Board to set its agenda post same-sex marriage (also included in the DNC Platform, by the way, explicitly) in MA.

9. The outcome of the Board's decisions following the focus groups are heavily reported in Bay Windows (New England's largest LGBT paper) and are on the front page of MassEquality's website. There are 5 priorities and LGBT including transgender equality is listed first.

10. MassEquality is one of our partners with the Mass. Transgender Political Coalition (www.masstpc.org) to secure passage of HB1722, which adds hate crimes to employment, housing, credit, public education and public accommodations, to add gender identity and expression wherever sexual orientation exists in our anti-discrimination laws in MA.

11. The 'they only have 3 cities in MA' was done by design, by us in MTPC. Our goal was always a state law, and we strategically chose 3 cities to get local laws done here, and to learn to organize testifying and lobbying legislators. We had great and direct help from HRC (national and our local Steering Committee, on which I am Diversity Chair), NGLTF (Mottet), NCTE (of which I'm a Founding Board Member).

12. Congressman Frank at the DNC in the HRC/Victory Fund Forum said 'people who are transgender.' I was a speaker, too, at his table, and my remarks, and his, will appear from a direct-feed mike on HRC's BackStory soon. I'll be writing to HRC's folks today so that this, at least, can be cleared up. It's Labor Day, so I don't expect it up today. We all just got back from Denver and some people went directly on holiday. I spend plenty of time with Congressman Frank and he has given enough attention that he did not say what he used to say. Play the poorer quality recording (and know that the direct feed will sound clearer) and listen for both before falling to the familiar. It's all I ask. Look, I can hear wrong, too. Someday ask me about the ferry over Cape May and me thinking a woman asked me if that was my 'GUY dog' when she was asking about my "EYE dog" as in seeing-eye dog, and she was mortified when I said her daughter could pet him. We're human. Stuff happens.

13. The Democratic Candidate for Pres. of the U.S. Sen. Barack Obama in his home state approved fully inclusive (sexual orientation and gender identity) anti-discrimination laws. He's not a stranger to this, and his words directly in his remarks and in his own Party's Platform are explicit.

14. I am doing this work because I, as a person who grew up not being able to swim in public pools because I'm not white, believe and KNOW that changes that might feel impossible can occur -- well before never. Change takes passion and smarts, like so many have expressed here. It also takes cool, calculated delivery. My expression of the former is the latter.

15. My task is to do the work to help deliver what we need done, and I'll stay focused on that. I won't judge anyone for giving up hope. I would ask that no one judge me for not doing so. My life experience tells me I must keep trying. With respect, Diego

HA -and by errebiys - I meant erroneous. (I can't get my Apple + thing to make the type size bigger. Dang, I am old!). Diego

Well, Marie just told me that the lady on the boat over Cape May asked me about my "GUIDE" dog (not 'eye' dog), to which I still thought it was my "GUY" dog, Campari, who turned 15 on Aug. 1. To his mama Marie, he is 'gender fluid,' and is still always ID'd as 'she' by people who approach Campari to give pats.

My comments were factual corrections with attributions where they were readily available, not a history lesson. I'm no historian, I've just been involved in some of the things mentioned. I corrected what wasn't true.

I'd have to be someone I haven't yet met to know as truth what is asked both about Congressman Frank and HRC. What I do know is that both have been clear about their commitment to delivering a fully inclusive ENDA and their conditions.

I appreciate your comments about the Platform. I have only been involved in Party politics nationally since 1980 and at state levels since 1972. I feel confident from my own experience with the Platform's role and it differs than the doubt someone mentioned.

We have just added gender identity this year. That's progress and the first time we've been included. I can't speak for Sen. Obama, but I believe that both his history and his stated commitment have expressed his position and intent clearly.

While we've done a lot of education, I think we can do more and some of it differently than we have.

The immediate work is to get Sens. Obama and Biden elected, to add to both Chambers the incredible new Dem candidates we met in Denver this week and to ensure that everyone already in office running for re-election who is with us remains in office.

And we need to hit the ground running on Day 1 and stay solid in those valuable first 100 Days.

But first, we've got a very nearby election.

I forgot to say: With all due respect, I disagree about what the bottom line is. I have a former CEO I worked for who always said you never get ahead looking in the rearview mirror. I agree.

For me, the bottom line is that we need, and don't have, an inclusive ENDA bill that protects gender identity and sexual orientation.

And my eyes are on hate crimes, which we also don't have for anyone yet.

Our lives are at risk, and we are not seen or treated as equally human, and that's not right.

We need to focus on the elections so that we can achieve that bottom line, in my view. Diego

As we work on elections, we need also to keep pushing from every corner of our community to keep the volume up to continue to make clear that when leaders say that protections for all Americans is mandatory, that includes us, punto.

I'm going to take today to share a day at the beach with Marie and our aging dog Campari to bring all three of us a little rest and needed shared time. Best to all, and keep up the good fight. We're right to be doing all we do, so let's all keep this a three-dimensional effort with our eyes on the prize.