That’s an argument that makes perfect sense for closeted gay people, Andrew. I don’t see how you blackmail someone who is open about what they’re doing.

I gather that the open acceptance of gay people nowadays is one of the things that caused the change in policy. It would be nice to think Thene’s point was another.

Queerness is not a security risk, but homophobia clearly is.

Perhaps they felt it was a security issue; up until very recently, being gay made it harder to get British security classification. The reason generally given was that gay people would be more vulnerable to blackmail.

Heh. I can just imagine how that interview must have gone.

“Welcome to MI5, Mr. Smith. Be aware that if we should discover you to be a homosexual, you will lose your job. So if a foreign agent tries to blackmail you, be sure to give them whatever they want.”

“Give us the access codes, or we tell your employer that you’re a transperson!”

“I told my bosses that last month over lunch. They were cool with it. What else you got?”

Also, trans != gay.

(This was in the news because MI5 has now teamed up with Stonewall to actively seek gay recruits.

So although I’d be thrilled if I’m wrong about this, I don’t expect that we’ll see a federal anti-discrimination law protecting trans people anytime in the next couple of years. However, I do think it’s likely that direct anti-queer discrimination by the executive branch will go way down.

That said, I don’t think your comparison to the first two years of the Clinton administration (that’s what I assume you mean?) holds much water. First of all, Bill Clinton is a centrist (”third way! third way!”), not a liberal, as were many Dems in congress. Second of all, 2008 is not 1992; trans issues have become a lot more mainstream in liberal circles in the last 15 years. (Although of course, there’s still a long way to go.)

Going by election numbers, the 5 most liberal states are Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, and Maryland, while the 5 most conservative are Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.

Four of the five liberal states have laws against employment discrimination against trans people, either from statutes, court rulings, or regulations. In contrast, none of the five conservative states have such laws. (Source) Is that just a big coincidence?

No. If liberals and progressives were in charge of the government, trans activists would be asking “why the hell isn’t this sort of blatant discrimination illegal?” while the liberal and progressive pols tried to hide behind each other. Your politicians are no more willing than ours to actually put political capital on the line for transfolk. I seem to remember a time in the not that fuzzily distant past liberals held the White House and both houses of Congress. They didn’t do shit for transfolk, afaik.

More importantly, if liberals and progressives were in charge of the government, this sort of blatant discrimination by the Feds would be illegal. But the coalition of Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who form the majority of Congress would never allow it; and if such a bill got through Congress, Bush would almost certainly veto it.

Nor has there been, that I’m aware of, any outcry against this crap from the fighting keyboard brigades, or from the National Review and other conservative outlets. On the contrary, the Conservatives in congress, and in the Bush administration, from all appearances are in accord with the Conservative base on these and other anti-queer positions.