Interesting commentary and she has the experience to understand and express some good suggestions, of which I can only disagree with one. We have and likely will always fight amongst ourselves because of the disparate groups within the umbrella of the community, and each of the groups have their own view and agenda much to the hostility of the other groups. It's the democratic nature of the community. I agree we have to keep the focus on the goal, but when we can't agree on the goal, it's not hard to understand the in-fighting. It's only become more pubic of late because of ENDA.
The windstorm blew the umbrella away and we're all standing there in the rain. My personal view is that if we decide to be nice, we may do more harm now because an all-inclusive (meaning all expressions of gender indentity, expression and presentation) may not be publically swallowable and later because of the differences will surface again. The appearance of winning now may be a loss later. The question is if we're willing to do what was done to us, sacrifice some of the group for some trans inclusion.
And maybe that, as mentioned in the column, is the real issue, talking about who we are than what we want to do. And it may be that we evolve into separate groups with their own agenda or agree to come common values and view to get everyone out of the rain?
Just my thoughts.