It seems to me that the only thing the phrases "special oppression" and "special rights" have in common is the word "special." The one is intended to denote privilege, the other extraordinary victimization. If Doug prefers the term "extraordinary oppression", I would be glad to adopt it.
I also notice that Doug implicitly, but quite rightly, associates particular interest group struggles with reform, and workers' struggles with revolution. I'm not telling anyone to "wait for the revolution." But I am saying that calling for the abolition of wage labor is the same thing as calling for a new kind of society, while abolishing sexual, sexual preference and race discrimination, while certainly worth fighting for, is not. It's not simply that there are "some women, queers and people of color who do the Man's dirty work." It's that sectoral reform struggles, unless linked to a conscious fight for general social emancipation (i..e. the class struggle), more often than not wind up attempting to advance the interests of a given group within the existing social hierarchy at the expense of others. The struggle of the working class, on the other hand, must encompass the fight against all forms of oppression to attain its maximum potential. It's not that class struggle "trumps" all others. It's that it potentially includes them, while interst-group battles don't commonly include it. The ruling class knows this instinctively, and often encourages interest-group narrowness to prevent the emergence of wider working-class consciousness. The condition of blacks, women and gays has improved markedly since the turmoil of the 60s. The position of workers has generally deteriorated. Some kinds of amelioration are more acceptable to capitalism than others, and some kinds of struggles are potentially more radical than others.
The discussion we just had on picket lines is a perfect illustration of the pitfalls of interest-group exclusiveness. Some who argued against the don't cross rule simply pointed out that all picket lines don't represent labor actions, while urging respect for those that do. But at least one person argued from a "queer resistance" perspective against respecting picket lines unless striking workers were somehow supportive of his own cause. And, from his standpoint, doesn't this make perfect sense? If the exploitation of workers is one oppression among many, why should I scratch your back if you don't scratch mine?