The NYT ran an article yesterday with the headline  "Liberal base proves trying to Democrats," in which they discussed Barney Frank's support for the "compromise" that leaves the transgendered out of ENDA. It's an interesting article because it talks about the difference between political expediency (which is something that leaders in congress are often concerned with) and the achieving of ideal goals, which is of course what we activists are most concerned with. But then there was this:

"Sometimes, though, the in-fighting can seem unreal, as with the recent fury directed by gay groups at Mr. Frank.

“Barney Frank is not gay enough?” asked Representative Thaddeus McCotter, Republican of Michigan, one of the most conservative members of the House.

Even Mr. Frank acknowledged the weirdness. “The likelihood that somebody is going to run against me in my district on the grounds that I have been insufficiently pro-gay is not very high on my list of concerns,” he said.

Does anybody think this is about whether the fury of gay rights and trans rights groups is over whether Barney Frank is gay enough? Or even whether he is sufficiently pro "gay rights"? No, the question is whether he is as pro-rights for all sexual minorities as he is for the mainstream gays.

Heterosexism isn't just about preventing gays from achieving equal rights, it's about privileging one very narrow sexual orientation (monogamous heterosexual marriage without too many toys or porn or kinky stuff) over all others.

I've come to believe that the gay rights movement and the sexual freedom movement are two separate, if intersecting, things.

...because public space really matters!

Elizabeth