Pot…Kettle…Black…Game Over

This morning I heard something about the surviving members of Monty Python getting back together to work on a new project.

Silly me…

I presumed it would be a movie.

Apparently, they’re actually just scripting the dialogue at a transphobic gay male website:

I hope that’s the main feature, because if its just the neo-Crimson Permanent Assurance, I think that the laughter ensuing from whatever is the main feature will cause me to perpetually hemorrhage.

That’s what I think she meant, but it’s not what she said.

• Now Gay Men Are Declaring That Trans People May Only Lash Out Against Those Who Gay Men Can Accept as the “Worst Enemy” of Trans People
• The Implication?
• Shit (Certain) Gays Don’t Say
• Shit (Still More) Gays Make Up Out of Thin Air 
• John Aravosis Makes the Case That it is the Responsibility of Gays and Lesbians to Add Trans People to Existing Gay-Only Rights Laws and to Prevent Any New Gay-Only Rights Laws From Coming into Existence
• A History Lesson

And folks warned her about it, so she knew what she was doing.

And folks have warned him about this, yet he refuses to conform it to reality.

Pot…

Kettle…

Black…

Truth?

Truth?

Not so much.

Game over.

The Bigotries of Certain Obnoxious Gay Men Coming Home to Roost?

On the ‘Only Nixon Could Go to Gay’ controversy, someone at The John’s site remarks:

[B]ased on reading all that she said, she certainly sounds bi- to me, only she resists using the word “bisexual” because, well, she seems not to like the word. Or something.

Or something?

I don’t know what Cynthia Nixon’s issue actually is, but…

I can’t imagine why anyone would worry about how identifying as bisexual might get them treated by Royal High Gay-Purity Mucketymucks, can you?

Bisexuals, who were only part-time gays, insisted that we add them too, so we did (not without some protest)

Or the ghosts of dead Gay Purity Mucketymucks?

[Y]ears ago, when I wrote something skeptical about bisexuality, I got three indignant replies from “bisexual” women—all of whom admitted that they were in relationships with men.

Over the years I’ve actually noticed a slightly higher higher level of hatred toward bisexuals among gays and lesbians than of hatred toward trans people; just as in the America-as-Rand-Paul-Would-Have-Us-Return-to, there actually were some people – though not enough to matter – who truly believed in both prongs of “separate but equal,” some of the inclusion-haters are truly not trans-haters per se but simply think that both are valid but simply are not connected.

But not enough to matter; the ones who do matter really do hate trans people.

You know it.

I know it.

They know it.

Ditto for bisexuals.

Yet, I still feel justified in saying that the hatred of trans people among gays and lesbians is a more serious issue than the hatred of bisexuals because, somehow, in spite of the rampant bi-phobia, “bisexuality” always ends up as part of the definitional parameters of civil rights laws (I guess Gay, Inc.-oids were never willing to take the chance that, with a “homosexuality or heterosexuality”-only definition of “sexual orientation,” proof of even a long-ago date with a member of the opposite sex would keep Gay, Inc.-oids from being protected in their six-figure jobs, eh?  We couldn’t have a member of the Elizabeth Birch class interrogated - as suspected transsexuals are interrogated about their birth designations and medical histories are whenever they find themselves in court about anything, much less what their sex status will be recognized as – as to whether or not her body has ever co-mingled with a man’s body even once if she was suing for redress against six-or-seven-fugure job discrimination in a jurisdiction that might happen to define “sexual orientation” as “only homosexuality or heterosexuality,” now could we?)

Bisexuality…

Its just another pet bigotry of gay purity crowd.

Whether that reality is why Cynthia Nixon is playing the word games she’s playing right now, I don’t know.

But a gay man who thinks “part-time gays” are worthy of derision – as part of a screed demonizing trans people no less - has no more standing to express shock or dismay about what she’s saying about herself than he does over how trans people have pushed back against not only his separate-but-unequal desires but also his sub-Fox-’News’ willingness to completely make shit up (and subsequently justify making the shit up) in order to demonize trans people.

Or does he really just want to be a toaster?

One Last Note From Epstein’s Mother?

Damn…

Robert Hegyes, an actor whose Jewish-Puerto Rican character Juan Epstein was one of the Sweathogs on the 1970s TV sitcom Welcome Back, Kotter, died Thursday of a heart attack in New Jersey. He was 60.

Im feelin’ a bit old tonite.

A History Lesson

If the goal is to decrease tensions between the two communities rather than fomenting a civil war, then we need to be able to talk about this stuff, recognize it, and address it.

Does the author of that have any awareness (or even care) that the politico-economic, slaveholding elites who actually fomented rebellion and then fired on Fort Sumter to start the American Civil War – and their descendants and their apologists – refer to the American Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression.

John Aravosis Makes the Case That it is the Responsibility of Gays and Lesbians to Add Trans People to Existing Gay-Only Rights Laws and to Prevent Any New Gay-Only Rights Laws From Coming into Existence

Unintentionally, of course.

From a comment in which The John further attempts to arrogate to himself an unfettered right to completely disregard facts per se (as well as allegations as reported) in his desire to demonize people who he increasingly seems to believe are to gay politics what white supremacists believe miscegenation is to racial integrity:

Every attack until now has been done by trans people, and the attacks are happening because the trans community decided to demonize Dan and make him public enemy number one.  So, yes, if you are responsible for motivating the people who attacked him, and they’re doing it in your name, and the previous attacks were done by you, then yes you are responsible for putting a stop to it.

So…

If you’re responsible for motivating legislatures to pass laws that leave trans people unprotected from discrimination by people whose attitude toward trans people is reflected in the above-quoted paragraph (as well as the other comments at your blog, and those at Bilerico and Joe.My.God and Towleroad), and that motivation is done in the name of gays, and previous motivation to pass gay-only rights laws was done by you,  then yes you are responsible for putting a stop to the passage of gay-only rights laws.

Trans people will help, of course. 

We always have been there to help (its just that gayrights organizations have seemingly had either a ‘no trans people need apply’ policy or a hard quota of one trans employee and no more than one trans employee under any circumstances, so we have to earn a living in the real world and then play the political games that gays and lesbians of your atitudinal disposition have rigged against trans people.)

But, clearly, its your job.

you are responsible for putting a stop to it.

I look forward to The John’s first column in which he acknowledges that his years of defending the politically psychotic and morally bankrupt strategy of ‘incremental progress’ on ENDA were, well, politically psychotic and morally bankrupt.

Did it Count as a Conference Game?

Shit (Still More) Gays Make Up Out of Thin Air

Alas, how could I have forgotten the fourth font of anti-trans foment?

Now, to be fair to Towleroad, the title of its piece accurately reflects that trans concerns were not the only thing that the alleged glitterbombers were allegedly concerned about at the alleged glitterbombing of Dan Savage that allegedly occured in Vancouver this week.

That’s a good thing.

But, lets remind ourselves of the Xtra item that Towleroad was parroting:

Okay…

Well, “variety of ‘isms’” might seem at first glance be read to equate to ”among other things, support of marriage equality.”

But remember the actual quote:

He’s part of a broader [group] of gay, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied gay men focused on gay-marriage priorities. We want to say those priorities are messed up.

I don’t see anyone criticizing Savage merely for supporting marriage equality.

You don’t see me criticizing Savage merely for supporting marriage equality (if he’s angry about the crypto-fascist Harper government in Canada possibly erasing his Canadian marriage, he’s right to be; if he’s drumming up support for marriage in the state of Washington, I’m cool with that because the state of Washington took a reality-based approach and first addressed the basic economic and societial equality needs of all LGBT people and then turned its attention to the subset thereof that want to get married.)

You don’t see me criticizing anyone for merely supporting marriage equality.

What you do see – whether or not Towleroad saw it or wanted to see it is a different matter – in Xtra is someone expliclty only expressing dismay over gay marriage prioritization.

What you don’t can’t see is that someone – or any of the “Homomilitia” – being identified as trans-anything, in the title or anywhere else in the Xtra piece…

because such an identification is not there.

Are any of them trans?  I have no idea – but if, as it certainly appears to be, the Xtra item is the only source that Bil Browning, Joe Jervis, The John and Andy Towle are utilizing to pontificate about the alleged Vancouver glitterbombing, then neither Bil Browning nor Joe Jervis nor The John nor Andy Towle know either.

But why let (a lack of) facts get in the way of an opportunity to whip up more anti-trans hatred, eh?

• Can we glitter bomb the trans activists, please? They are really getting on my nerves.
• These glitter-bombing idiots are just working against themselves and the cause. I don’t get why they are g-bombing Savage for SUPPORTING marriage equality?
• Im getting tired of “Trans Activists”, you are either 100% with them or 100% against them and they seem to have no middle ground. They are apparently not interested in working together, and neither am I really. Marriage is important to a lot of Gay and Lesbian and Bisexual couples, so that is our focus. We have made a grave mistake in this alphabet soup business. LGB is more than enough to handle. T and Q can handle their own business.
• I think it’s a bit selfish of trans activists to be angry about him supporting marriage equality.
• I don’t know their language or their problems. It is time to let them take the reigns on their own issues.
• T can take care of themselves. Their issues are incongruous and their behavior is demonstrably against what we are attempting to fight for.
• [W]here does a group like this get off dissing and denigrating people based on skin color, sexual orientation, or ability–even if Dan is white, gay, and able-bodied? Does that somehow make him “less” of a person to these activists? Isn’t that also a form of intolerance, hatred, and discrimination?)
• The people are annoying.
• So trans activists, are you happy now that you’ve alienated a big % of your natural allies?
• Professional ‘victims’ attacking an ally with their made-up BS is seriously as destructive as our enemies at FRC AFA etc. GET A CLUE ‘activists’. Want to protest someone? Pick a target that ACTUALLY wants you dead, stupid!
• So, this trans fringe that opposes marriage equality reminds me of women who oppose rights for women, cuz women are so beaten down.
• I think those “activist” are crazy and act like a sect, just conviced of their cause just because is sounds logical to them and them only without listening no one else. Sadly their attitued will taint those trans people who don’t think like them, the crazy mini group.
  And by the way, that’s what we gays/lesbians get for mixing with a lot of groups that don’t exactly have the same claims
• These trans political kooks do not speak for me
• These activists need to back up and look at this irrational pursuit of Dan Savage–the facts just don’t back up their claim….

Oh the irony…

Why indeed should Andy Towle let facts – or the lack thereof – get in the way of an opportunity to whip up more anti-trans hatred among the obnoxious, history-deficient, over-privileged subset of gays and lesbians who already hate trans people and need a reason to feel justified in doing so? 

If lying and then justifying a lie is good enough for The John…

The Implication?

I can only interpret the posting of that video – sans any negative comment (“dumbassery” tag or otherwise) by the posting party about the action taken against the particular person who is the subject of that video – as being an implicit approval of this form of assault…

so long as whoever is on the short end of this form of assault is someone who the person who posted that video feels is worthy of being assaulted in that form.

That kinda reminds me of an old joke.

One person asks another: “Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?”

The other person responds: “Yeh, I guess so.”

The first person then asks: “Would you have sex with me for five dollars?”

The second person’s reply to that: “Of course not! What do you think I am?!?!?”

The first person states: “I think we’ve established what you are.  Right now we’re just haggling over a price.”

My first question: Which of the two screensnaps above is the five-dollar shot?

My second question: If someone does something far more serious than glitterbombing to Frothy and all resulting news headlines read “Gay Mafia Attacks Santorum” even though there is no proof that anyone involved with said attack is gay, will The John be willing to apply his own ‘reasoning’ and say that media branding all gays and lesbians as being responsible is justified because there is allegedly a trend of gays and lesbians eviscerating every person who says one thing out of line with the PC rule book of how one is supposed to speak about gay issues?

As I already explained in numerous comments below, the trans community created the environment in which the attacks on Dan have happened – it’s because the trans community thinks he’s the enemy that this is happening.  Now you can quibble about whether these are just some activists in the community and/or their NGLTF-loving gay buddies (and both are a problem), but the fact remains that they’ve created a culture of demonization of anyone who doesn’t see the world in their weird-PC-nouns kind of way.  This latest attack on Dan (and I use the word in a general sense) is part of the continuing attacks that the trans community, or trans activists, have made on Dan, and they’re part of the larger ongoing trend of eviscerating every gay person who says one thing out of line with the PC rule book of how one is supposed to speak about trans issues.  This problem goes far beyond this one incident.  That’s why I’m writing about it.  You guys need to take your own community back from the crazy activists and your PC allies in the gay community

I think we all know the answer…

He’ll either say nothing at all…

or figure a way to blame trans people for the fact that Dan Savage googlebombed the surname “Santorum” into oblivion. (Tuff shit for anyone with that surname who has no connection to Frothy, eh?  Eggs and omelettes, right?)

Shit (Certain) Gays Don’t Say

Kathy, at The John’s gay marriage-primacy propaganda site, re: what must now be presumed to be a calculated, anti-trans disinformation campaign being waged by Bil Browning, Joe Jervis and The John about what, even on the face of the single poorly-sourced ‘news’ item about it in Xtra, was a non-trans-specific, alleged glitterbombing of Dan Savage by a non-trans-specific group that has in no way been confirmed as even having had any trans people whatsoever in it:

The news story does not identify the protestors as trans. They identify themselves as queer & cite many other concerns besides trans issues. There has been [no] single person identified from that group as trans at all. Of the entire huge group of six kids.

You’re purposely misrepresenting the facts when you say it does. And knowingly doing so.

Don’t support glitterbombing – It’s silly and doesn’t achieve anything.

But – I do look forward to your many articles taking gay guys to task over using the tactic.

Regarding immaturity – one merely needs to look at the guys commenting here to see the apotheosis of that quality

Well, that’s one thing that certain gays will never say.  The other, of course, is an admission that the single poorly-sourced ‘news’ item in Xtra about the Vancouver incident provides no trans-specific basis whatsoever for this headline:

VANCOUVER: Transgender Activists Glitter-Bomb Dan Savage Again

or its subtitle:

Ho hum. More misdirected anger from the Trans Mafia

Or this part of this headline:

Trans activists glitterbomb Dan Savage again

Or this part of the same headline:

this time because he supports marriage equality

Or this headline:

Trans Mafia: Savage Glitterbombed Again

Or this headline:

Transgender activists glitter bomb Dan Savage again

What is served up instead?

Actually, the best example of immaturity I’ve seen lately is sabotaging a piece of civil rights legislation that has been pending for 40 years because there weren’t enough votes to include every last little detail of restroom rules in it, something that could easily have been accomplished by administrative regulations implementing an enacted law.

The decision to adopt a perfect-or-sabotage strategy is one that I assume the transgender community made fully cognizant that the sabotage option (the only one that was ever realistic) would alienate a large segment of the LGB community. And the strategic decision was made anyway. So I won’t personally tolerate a solitary peep of complaint now about the inevitable consequences. I won’t show one more iota of concern now than the transgender community showed then.

That Rubicon was crossed in 2010.

Well, thus far, that’s the only response to Kathy – and it didn’t come from The John.

I nevertheless do look forward to the many upcoming articles from Bil Browning, Joe Jervis and The John taking themselves to task - as I look forward to the many articles from The Advocate and all of the other Gay, Inc.-approved ‘news’ sources taking the three to task – for amplifying a single ‘news’ item that, even if 100% accurate as to the literal substance underlying the exact wording that it does contain, does not say what one has to assume the three hope that their transphobia-dog-whistle-friendly readership will not bother to find out for themselves that it doesn’t say.

It Does Beg the Question….

Clearly something with the finger prints of Mrs. Srivastav and/or GOProud?

I haven’t seen such clear evidence yet.

Or, to be fair even to those whackadoos, any evidence of their involvement.

Likewise, however, I’ve yet to see any evidence whatsoever that anyone connected with the Vancouver incident was trans.

So…

False flag, at least of some color or crest?

Well, given the degree to which The John is avoiding admitting that the title of his post:

Trans activists glitterbomb Dan Savage again, this time because he supports marriage equality

was a knowing lie on The John’s part as to the “because he supports” clause…

I have to wonder.

And I also have to wonder what caliber of lawyer The John really is.  If, based solely on the text that Evan above is scratching his head over, The John had ascribed the intent language of his post’s title in, say, a brief submitted to a court, he’d have been slapped with sanctions.

Or worse.

It is not a reasonable interpretation of the statement in question.

Period.

Since anyone – well, any honest person – who compares the prioritazation critique with the intent that The John imagines likely would come away feeling as though The John was not being honest in his reportage about the intent, why shouldn’t anyone – well, any honest person – also seriously doubt the “trans activists” part of it?

If he’s only going by the Xtra web piece, then he can’t possibly know – because there’s nothing there about whether any/all of the alleged group who allegedly did the glitterbombing were trans-anything.

Or, beyond the woman very calmly – and non-glitteringly – handing out anti-Savage flyers, anything-anything.

What’s that???

Lavender Menace????

I thought it was the HomoMilitia?

Or was it the Trans Mafia?

Or did Bil Browning make that up to feed his own political addiction?  Or did Bil Browning make up the appearance of Joe.My.God making it up?

It is, after all, so hard to see the forest for the…

false flags?

I’ve said it elsewhere and I’ll say i again here: Other than what I presume was a fake Facebook invitation from someone who snapped up the name ‘Fister Limpwrist,’ I have no connection to anything related to what is alleged to have taken place in Vancouver; nor am I making any definitive assertion either way about whether the alleged events actually took place.

But I am finding it quite amazing that the seemingly-countless, apparently-unique blog commenters who are demanding ‘proof’ of Dan Savage’s transphobia – well, above and beyond the proof that has been out there for some time (some of that indeed a few years old now) – are not demanding ‘proof’ of what happened in Vancouver and of who was involved in it above and beyond a single truly poorly-written and poorer-still sourced – yet amply copied on eagerly-receptive American gay male sites – item from the website of a Canadian LGB(t) paper that, based on its recent track record, would appear to have a vested interest in negatively influencing popular opinion about trans people.

Yes, every last bit of it could be true. 

Some elements of even the most obnoxiously transphobic comments at The John’s site and others do contain nuggets of usefulness.  No, Savage is not an ally.  However, even if his record warranted the first glitterbombing (or even the first two), at this point it is getting old, and it really isn’t serving any constructive purpose (Particularly if the marriage issue he was plugging was that of Washington State.  C’mon, folx, that state did it right by passing a legitimate civil rights law before moving on to marriage.  Yes, contrary to the well-oiled propaganda of the Marriage Derangement Syndrome elite, marriage is not what a majority of LGBT people want as a top priority and it will not lead to employment protections – but it isn’t unreasonable for it to be on the agenda somewhere.)

Yes, every last bit of this story could be true.

But it also might not be.

Run that up your pole.