Thank you.

Rights in our society seem to follow people's comfort levels. Unfortunately, transgender people still make many people really nervous. But maybe the reason that people are so nervous is that they never get to interact with them, since they have been so shunned.

Or maybe I would be surprised about the number of transgendered people I interact with. The only two I can recall off the top of my head was a professor at a social work school, and the night manager of a hotel (who used to visit her mother at the restaurant I worked in).

Right now, I'm in a small city in Argentina and my friends never fail to gleefully point out people who they think are transgendered on the street, and if they talk about them, it only seems to be in the context of prostitution.

Anyway, if anybody would like to post some educational links about transgender issues, I'd like to know more; I wish it didn't make me uncomfortable, but it does. And I'm sure I'm not the only lib who is not up-to-speed on the latest civil rights frontier. Plus, I don't visit the doctor with the Advocate in his office any more.

I'm willing to be educated, but my perception is that the science is still not complete in terms of determining the extent to which homosexuality and transgender longings are innate vs. chosen. When you compare this to, say, global warming, where the science seems to be much more sound -- and we're still struggling to make enough progress to avoid trashing our planet -- it's no surprise that much of the public is not on board with this.

Well, don't count on any support from Bright(AL). He's a Republican with a D after his name. He voted against the Lilly Ledbetter bill, and Ledbetter was from AL. He's voted with the Repubs on every major bill since he took the oath in January. We're so grateful down here that the national Dem party spent all of that money to get him elected.

Henry Cuellar is akin to Bright. However, is there are a common thread here? Black Caucus linking with Reps who are Cathlolics?

What level of employment does the bill affect (i.e., is there a minimum level of employees, etc.)?

While I support nondiscrimination generally, you do have to balance this against the fact that employment decisions in private companies are about the employer's right to decide with whom to work.

They might be jerks for hating LGBT folks, but in America, you have the right to be a jerk. It's the flip side of freedom.

To be a jerk may be the 'flip side' of freedom but as long as ANYONE in this country is a little less equal than their fellow man in regard to federal and state laws, then we've failed.

The idea that people should not be able to lose their jobs because they are gay or transgender should not be controversial. For some reason that I do not understand, however, it seems to be.

Eadie had the answer, but perhaps you're saying you don't understand how people can be uptight enough about it to fire them, rather than not understanding the 1st amendment right to freely assemble with non-transgenders only.

That said, no company with such a policy should expect a dime of tax money via contract or grant since transgenders pay into the pool and have a right to their fair share of the benefits.

Discriminating against transgenders, albinos, Irishmen, redheads, hammertoed people, bald men, or wall-eyed is a constitutional right. If we don't think it should be, there's a procedure for that and Congress cannot do it alone with ENDA or any other standard law. The Constitution does not promote good or moral ideas in all circumstances.

We're down to 48 on my list, as we now have Scott (VA), and McMahon (NY). "Drjillygirl" - yeah - remind me to change that user name. It seemed a good idea when I was in grad school, but now I'm kind of regretting it. But don't let that stop you from calling your legislators!

Dr. Jillian T. Weiss
Associate Professor of Law and Society
Ramapo College of New Jersey