Thanks for this - I'm working on a post myself for our "No On 102" blog and I'm focusing on hope and moving forward - it's the only thing to do.

Very nice and insightful piece, Jillian.

I'd only add that perhaps one of the best forms of education is that employed by the Obama campaign: meeting people where they live and not simply mailing them "educational lietrature."

Placing ourselves into the context of our mutual humanity comes about through actually knowing people, or at the very least thinking you know them because you've shaken their hands or shared a meal or discussion.

"The ground offensive" clearly pays dividends.

Dr. Weiss, a few observations here if I may.

I think that it is very notable for you to address the issue of our advocates not taking responsibility for dropping the ball concerning these legislations, but let us not forget that it was this type of advocacy ideology which had caused the ball to inflate in the first place........ So my question is, the names and faces stay the same, but what has changed ???

To illustrate my point, please refer back to another discussion I had with you concerning that Harvard Business study in which you willingly admitted that the one- size-fits-all approach to transgender education just doesn't work. Yet in your above article you state:

"I am going to start contacting the new Representatives to extend my congratulations, and to send them information on ENDA and gender identity in the workplace (including a copy of my book and a clip of the hearings last year in the House). I am going to call on them and schedule meetings with them so they can meet a real-live transgender person. I'm going to do the same with other Representatives. I'm going to post the contact info for our public officials........"

In every action item that you list above, the central figure remains, YOU. Did the notion of approaching any of these important figures as a COMMUNITY, with EVERYONE involved in the effort ever cross your mind ??? And have any lessons really been learned or points been made concerning one individual speaking for all of us ?? or will this just be a repeat of the same old names and celebrity faces with the same old ideas resulting in the same old results in congress or at the polls which spells one word, DEFEAT.

As we did as a country to unite together to change history in electing our first African American president, perhaps we as a GLBT community should unite to elect ourselves new leadership and advocates in our community to finally achieve some tangible results and not false hope and rhetoric.

Thank you for your time.

Dr. Weiss, I really can't make my point any more clearer than I already have.

If everyone is going to help do the work then EVERYONE should be provided an equal opportunity to do so and should be recognized for their efforts, not just a select few advocate celebrities who want to bask in all of the media fame and glory.

Certainly, I would love to express my opinion to those lawmakers, politicians, corporate big wigs and others, but there has to be a system in place which allows me to do this............

Thus far, I have had my voice covered-up, censured, debased, and anything else you can think of in these activist circles by some influential community activists who didn't want me to uncover some corruption that is going on and these folks use the same textbook consensus that I am this undesirable voice who does nothing but "criticize" others because I may disagree with them. Sure there is the blogsphere, however how far does a voice or opinion go here other than a few attacks here and there from crony protectionists.

Lastly, I don't accept "challenges" to do anything. I will, however be receptive to helping out if the effort is accepting and open to diverse opinions, which as I had said prior, I do not think this is even possible under the current closed activist celebrity system.

I'm curious as to how those trans folks were selected to be "spokespeople" at the last senate hearing. I highly doubt they were simple everyday bloggers......

Just for reference. There is a small group of trans people who have been writing to legislators and have reached over 235 supporting a fully inclusive ENDA. This is before the election added those 19 seats, and I know a few of these support it. So, should the inclusive bill be brought up again, there are enough to keep Barney and the HRC from doing "it" to s again. I know that United ENDA has been tabulating this, also, and probably has similar numbers. It is not fair to say that trans people "are behind" in being active in this. It is fair to say we stupidly relied on the promises we received from HRC that they "had our backs" on this issue. We should not have believed them, but "fool me once....." We will not be so trusting again.

I think the problem will be to get the issue scheduled for action, rather than whether it has support. They have quite an avalanch of problems to rectify from the Bush years.

I only hope those putting it forward approach it as, "Hey, Look, here is something that is a no-brainer, (no offence to Zoe) and doesn't cost us anything! Let's just do it and get it over with!"

Regarding all the marriage equality - it came up rather fast, we weren't ready. It came out of the court system and although court judgments should hold, the best social policy should be legislative. I have heard the argument that a constitutional change can only be achieved by 2/3 vote of the Calif. legislature. How does the referendum system over ride this function? I don't believe there is a legal standard that a mear "tight" majority in a popular vote can over ride that standard legal requirement of legislative vote. A little help???