comment: >
  
  Yep, and Im not debating that. I probably should've made it a little more clear what I meant, but the association between lgb and t has always been based on mutual support, not identical experiences.  Meaning, you can be talking about one and not the other, without meaning bad towards the other. Case in point, if I write to my rep asking him to support gay marriage, it doesn't mean I'm acting maliciously towards the cause of gender affirming care, etc
  Furthermore, the fight for one is at a different stage than the fight for another, (e:) regardless of the intervowen nature of it. Change takes time, steps. It's not wrong to push for change on one thing. Doesn't mean you can't still support the whole movement outside of that one interaction
context: That's been kind of obvious.  The question is mostly whether she would disrupt the election enough to make the Republican win or if Democrats would mostly ignore her. >
  
  How could you be a Democrat and vote for her after what she’s done? She’s done literally the opposite of what she’s campaigned on. Polls have shown she is the most hated person in the Senate. I don’t think she’s going to pull Dem votes as an independent. >
  
  I'm from Connecticut.  I saw Joe Lieberman win in 2006 after losing the primary.  
  You don't need to swing that many Democrats to fuck everything up, and at least a couple of them are going to see her corporate centrism as a good thing. >
  
  I can attest, live in CT and had to listen to that ahole for many more years then we should have. >
  
  Likewise.  I once wrote to him,  urging his support for legislation to protect LGB civil rights, which were under  attack (again).
  His response: a weasel-worded statement that he'd consider it if the legislation didn't make us "a protected class".  So protection... but only if it doesn't actually protect. 
  On his good days, he was a spineless, self-serving fuck. >
  
  I notice you didn't include the T. I hope that was unintentional >
  
  Thanks for noticing.
  It was completely intentional. I was relating a historical event from an era when trans issues weren't part of any public dialogue. There were no politicians attacking or defending trans people then, so writing "LGBTQ" would not have been accurate. 
  Those issues are alive today of course. When I discuss something current I use LGBTQ. >
  
  It annoys me so much that you had to defend yourself to this, to someone chastising you so arrogantly. Like you did something wrong, by NOT being a trans-rights activist. It's like... "How dare you ask for gay marriage protections and not bring up gender affirming care!" 
  Its like people forget that LGB and T are not the same thing, and that those two respective movements are decades and populations (like, percentage per Capita) apart. There's nothing wrong with strategically pushing for change in small pieces. Unrelated, potentially offensive but honest thought: Sometimes I worry that the push for Trans rights is going to cost me my gay rights, because of how polarized shit has become. It seems like society is regressing about LGBT in general, largely because of the fight over trans rights.
  Edited for clarity >
  
  Just a quick question, who were the main people involved in Stonewall again? The queer movement has always been interwoven with all its parts, the gay and trans portions particularly.