Mike the Usurper wrote:
Now, if you'd like to explain how having gender protected and orientation protected fails to protect TG/TS, I'm all ears...

While you and I might consider "gender" (within the context of current civil rights laws) to include gender identity, many do not. Without getting into a long discussion of the differences between the terms "sex" and "gender," many legislators, judges, and employers interpret either term as "being male or female" and do not extend the definition to include those who are transsexual. From their perspective, being transsexual is another category.

Applying your logic, homosexuals wouldn't need ENDA, either. If an employer were to discriminate against an employee because of the sex/gender of his significant other, wouldn't that be discrimination on the basis of gender, and therefore, already covered under current law? If you have a boyfriend and you're female, that's O.K., but if you have a boyfriend and you're male, that's not - the only difference is the employee's gender.

So, it stands to reason that if society can see that homosexuals are not being afforded equal protection by use of the term "gender" in current anti-discrimination law, then the same should hold true for transsexuals. To suggest that one group, but not the other, needs ENDA seems illogical.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
The law is clear, concise, and if you're taking your cues from Rush Lameass, you need your head examined.

The law is not clear. If it were, we wouldn’t need ENDA. And I doubt that anyone here is taking cues from Rush Limbaugh. He simply pointed out what some in the House failed to recognize (or care about), and sometimes the truth hurts.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
...then have a nice hot morning cup of shut the fuck up.

After you. ;)

RE: Limbaugh - 'Democrats Shaft Transgenders'