The T in LGBT

From John Aravosis at Americablog, who I disagree with quite a bit, comes a good bit on the inclusion of transgendered persons into the struggle over so-called 'gay rights':

If you're hell-bent on passing ENDA this year, then you don't add a provision to ENDA that you know is going to kill it. And if you were planning on eventually dropping transgendered people from the bill from the git-go, then why add them in the first place, when you know darn well that there's going to be hell to pay when you drop them?

...

I would argue that the gay community never collectively and overwhelmingly decided to include the T in LGB (or GLB). It happened because a few groups like NGLTF and GLAAD starting using it, and they and a handful of vocal activists and transgender leaders pretty much shamed everyone else into doing it. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing, and it doesn't necessarily mean that the T shouldn't have been added. I'm just saying that I don't think the T was added because there was a groundswell of demand in the gay community that we add T to LGB. I think it happened through pressure, organizational fiat, shame, and osmosis.

And that is how we got into the mess we're in today.

...

People are simply afraid to ask any questions about this issue, and those unresolved conflicts are coming home to roost. I know I was afraid to write about this issue, and still am. I thought long and hard about even weighing in on this issue last week. Did I really want to have to deal with people screaming and calling me a bigot? And I've got gay journalist friends and gay political friends who have sent me private "atta boy"s supporting my public essays, while refusing to go public themselves.

There is a climate of fear and confusion and doubt about the transgender issue in the gay community. And no one wants to talk about it. And when you don't talk about your small concerns, when you're afraid to talk about them, when it's not considered PC for you to talk about them, one day those small concerns turn into big problems and the revolution comes tumbling down.

Aravosis says some things I think are probably wrong, but I'm not in much of a position to know answer for sure.

What I do think is that he fails to make one connection that would make this whole issue much clearer.

I think a big reason to add 'transgender' into the mix when it comes to working towards other non-traditional gender rights is simply that: it's non-traditional. What was once, perhaps, a movement for 'gay liberation' for one particular group of people has (and again this is a maybe) morphed into a movement that's working to end a heterosexist/patriarchal system and all the attendant and painful consequences of such restrictions not only on behavior, but even physical identity.

In other words, what was once a movement advocating that gay folks have the same rights as straights evolved into a movement that declared traditional sex and gender categories to be a harmful and inaccurate representation of reality, and as such, said constructions should be torn down - and people should be free to live and love how they please. Yes, there is a significant shift in aims - but I like the new iteration much better, as I see it as much more inclusive, comprehensive, and consistent.

Anyway, I'm curious to hear Aravosis' take (and his reporting of the words of others) on this issue, because it suggests that the point I made above is not actually a commonly held opinion. I'd be curious to know if that's actually true, or if there is something I missing in this debate that overshadows my point.