Lawrence King

February 20, 2008

Remembering Lawrence 

That should say it all.

Of course, it doesn’t.

“He would come to school in high-heeled boots, makeup, jewelry and painted nails — the whole thing,” said Michael Sweeney, 13, an eighth-grader. “That was freaking the guys out.”

Well, boo fucking hoo.  We can’t let a bunch of allegedly hetero morons get ‘freaked out,’ now can we?  Gotta kill anyone who freaks ‘em out, now don’t they?

Student Juan Sandoval, 14, said he shared a fourth-period algebra class with the suspect, whom he described as a calm, smart student who played on the basketball team. “I didn’t think he was that kind of kid,” Sandoval said. “I guess you never know. He made a big mistake.”

Uh….no.  You’re the one making the mistake by trying to rationalize a muder away like that.  Yes, you’re 14.  Hopefully, you’ll acquire a brain before you’re old enough to vote or serve on juries.

And I won’t even bother mentioning that this is a prime example of why all gay rights laws – including hate crimes laws (which, yes, I oppose on principle) – MUST be trans-inclusive.  Had this occurred in Texas, it would NOT be a hate crime – and it wouldn’t even be a close call.  From the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure:

Art. 42.014. FINDING THAT OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED BECAUSE OF BIAS OR PREJUDICE. 

(a) In the trial of an offense under Title 5,  Penal Code, or Section 28.02, 28.03, or 28.08, Penal Code, the judge shall make an affirmative finding of fact and enter the affirmative finding in the judgment of the case if at the guilt or innocence phase of the trial, the judge or the jury, whichever is the trier of fact, determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected the person against whom the offense was committed or intentionally selected property damaged or affected as a result of the offense because of the defendant’s bias or prejudice against a group identified by race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, gender, or sexual preference.

(b) The sentencing judge may, as a condition of punishment, require attendance in an educational program to further tolerance and acceptance of others.

 (c) In this article, “sexual preference” has the following meaning only:  a preference for heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

ONLY.

Nothing about

 high-heeled boots, makeup, jewelry and painted nails  

Oh yeh…

Gender?

Right.

Not even in Judge Wilchins’ court.


Non-Kudos to Daily Kos As Well

February 20, 2008

Another allegedly-progressive site that thinks cross-dressing is worthy of scorn.

Yup. More entertaining sleeze from the conservative movement.

Pensito Review and All Spin Zone are both carrying this story about a Bush judicial nominee who was picked up for DUI wearing a little black dress, fishnet stockings and stilletto heels.

I hope the dems bring him up the next time Bush threatens them with a recess appointment.

Actually, I’d say that one dem in particular – I won’t mention Barney Frank by name – will mention it when next the issue of trans-inclusion in ENDA arises.

I’m going to repeat this yet again: THE FACT THAT THIS GUY IS A CROSS-DRESSER IS NOT A PROBLEM! AND IT IS NOT “SLEEZE”!

Hypocrisy?  Probably.

Sleeze?  No.

Luckliy, some commenters over there see the problem. 

Forget the fishnets on the conservative nominee.

What is really disturbing is the DUI.

And…

[W]hat is the harm in what he was wearing?  The DUI thing is serious, though.

Well, the coke-snorting, draft-dodging rich brat didn’t think so once his joyride with John Newcombe was uncovered – a few days before the 2000 election. 

BTW – as many of the postings on the various sites are pointing out, the guy isn’t an Article III federal judge; he’s a bankruptcy judge.  The upshot: He’s not a Dubya appointee, but I somehow find it hard to believe that the Ton-Ton Ma-Dubya didn’t have this dirt on that guy.


Non-Kudos to ‘Crooks and Liars’

February 19, 2008

I quote from Crooks and Liars here as much as quote from any web source.  Its a great resource that highlights the, well, crooks and liars who have illegally taken over America’s government.

However…

An item that C&L has up right now is problematic.  Here’s the title:

More Republican Follies: Bush’s Crossdressing Judge & Kiddie Porn

Are ya queasy yet?  The problem is that this is actually two separate stories.

Robert Somma (pictured left [NOTE: top in some formatting]) a Bush-appointed federal judge was in full drag when he was arrested for DUI after rear ending a pickup truck in New Hampshire on February 6th

Robert McKee(pictured right [NOTE: bottom in some formatting]), a Maryland Republican Delegate, anti-child porn crusader and former bigwig in Mitt Romney’s MD campaign was arrested after police found kiddie porn at his Hagerstown home

Two different right-wing-oids, each worthy of ridicule in his own right. 

I’m even okay with some jabs at Somma for being in drag; after all, considering his nomination pedigree, I can only presume how this closet case would handle any legit case involving any legitimate trans person.  However, 99% of the ridicule should be aimed at the fact that he was DWS (driving while shitfaced.)  THAT is illegal.  Crossdressing is not – even for someone appointed to the federal bench by the coke-snorting, draft-dodging anti-constitutionist rich brat. 

In short, both of these clowns are worthy of being skewered by C&L and any other website that actually believes in the concept of legitimate government. 

However…

Crossdressing has no business being implicitly equated to child molestation (hell, for that matter, even drunk driving isn’t in the same league as kiddie porn; but, I’ll leave that to drunk drivers to worry about.)  At least one commenter at C&L sees the problem:

I am not liking at all the implication in this story and some comments that cross-dressers, homosexuals, pedophiles, and general sexual predators are all the same.

I second that.

Again – I like C&L. It is a great website, but even the best fuck up now and then.

And ‘More Republican Follies’ was a big fuck up.


When Susan Comes to Town…

February 17, 2008

I don’t live in Iowa City anymore, but I do work there.  Lets just say I’m viewing the possibility of this with a bit of trepidation.  From KWWL:

Iowa City residents got the chance to meet the five finalists for the new city manager. One finalist’s already drawn national attention. Finalist, Susan Stanton, used to be known as Steve Stanton when he worked as the city manager of Largo, Florida. But Stanton was fired when he, became a she with a sex change.

Well, no.  Actually, he was fired when word of his intention to transition was divulged.  But, lets not quibble, shall we?

Stanton feels she was fired from her Florida job because of her choice to get a sex change.

Well, this isn’t a direct quote.  So, I’ll withhold the remarks I’d like to make.  Still, it does seem in line with the land in which she’s been living.

Stanton hopes people in Iowa City focus more on her skills than a personal choice. “I am absolutely confident everybody who I have met and certainly everybody on the city council are looking at my skills, knowledge, ability, education and my work history, that is the most important thing,” said Stanton. City leaders also focused less on Stanton’s past and more on her 17 years of experience as city manager in Largo.

Well…Isn’t that the past, too?  The relevant past to be sure, but it is the past, no?

Stanton says Iowa City’s welcoming community isn’t what attracted her to the position, but she’s glad to have such a reception. “I would expect in a university community that there is going to be a greater appreciation for the importance of having an inclusive community, that embraces difference,” said Stanton.

Well, I wonder how many transsexuals in Iowa City appreciated her ‘men in dresses’ comment as little as I did?

A look at the Iowa City Press-Citizen‘s website shows that, on the substantive issues, she hasn’t exactly bowled everyone over:

I really wanted to be impressed with Susan Stanton. I just wasn’t. She didn’t seem to know that much about density issues, form based zoning, walkability and cycling issues.

Of course, someone else put the Jerry Springer spin on it – and views it as a positive:

I find it unusual that nobody commented on the blurb about a candidate born as Steven and now going by Susan. Maybe Iowa City is ready for a change…go Steven or Susan or whatever your name is! If this makes the “Daily Show” it will sure put Iowa City on the map.

BTW – the Press-Citizen seems to have a writer with a more of an ability to get the facts of a story straight:

Stanton, former city manager of Largo, Fla., population 78,000, said she is the only candidate to serve as city manager for a community the same size of Iowa City and the candidate with the most experience at the city manager level.

Born Steven B. Stanton, she was the city manger in Largo for 14 years until she disclosed to the city that she was a transsexual and was pursuing sex reassignment from male to female. The Largo city commission voted 5-2 March 23, 2007, to terminate Stanton as city manager.

I repeat: I’m viewing the possibility of Susan coming to town with a bit of trepidation.  But, out of the sense of fairness that transsexuals are generally not afforded, I’m extending an open invitation to her.  If you get the gig and start before the end of UI’s Spring semester, contact me and I’ll be happy yo have you in as a guest speaker in my class on trans history.


Exception That Proves The Rule: When Barney’s Right About History

February 15, 2008

(Cross-posted at Pam’s House Blend

From a posting on TransAdvovate entitled ‘Back to Oz’:

frankoz.jpg

Yeh – that’s gratuitous, but, when it comes to the Oz wars, there’s no question: St. Barney threw the first ruby slipper.

In response to Matt Foreman’s shot at St. Barney on Signorile on Wednesday, St. Barney saieth:

In 2002, when he was the head of Empire State Pride Agenda, he lobbied hard to get through the New York legislature a bill that did exactly what our bill did last year, it covered discrimination based on sexual orientation, but excluded people that were transgender. Some people didn’t like that. Tom Duane said at the time that Matt Foreman excluded him from meetings on the subject. Matt Foreman not only helped get that bill through, frankly, and this I disagreed with, as part of the deal to get it though, that year the Empire State Pride Agenda endorsed the Republican George Pataki for reelection over an outstanding African American Democrat, Carl McCall. So you had Matt Foreman guiding to passage an ENDA bill that didn’t cover transgender….

And of course, on this compartmentalized historical moment-oid, St. Barney is right – not that this isn’t something that pro-inclusionists (including myself) haven’t brought up on numerous occasions.

Marti Abernathey remarks:

Since Foreman has said in the past that he regrets that choice and thinks it was a mistake, I’m not sure why Congressman Frank is bringing this up, except to smear him.

Its making me ill to say this, but I’m going to have to side with St. Barney on this.  Sure, it is a smear, but its a legitimate smear.  Its factuality makes Foreman a hypocrite (even if he truly has had a change of heart since 2002.)

Of course, St. Barney couldn’t leave it at a moment-oid of historical accuracy – the exception which proves the transphobic rule.  He had to add:

I don’t usually talk like this, but no one in the history of the United States Congress has advocated explicitly for including transgender poeople in legislation as much as I have.

With that, I must conclude the posting.  I’m now going to lock myself in my basement for a few hours.  I sense a laughing jag coming on so strong that, were I to be even remotely in public view when it commences, would cause me to trucked away to the happy farm (though I will tack on the follwing questions to ponder whilst I laugh: Didn’t Queen Elizabeth of Birch say essentially the same thing about the Human Right Scampaign almost a decade ago?  Hasn’t that been proven to be bullshit – over and over again?  Does even St. Barney believe what he’s saying?)


This Couldn’t Have Happend on FOX…Could It?

February 15, 2008

From Crooks and Liars:

FOX’s Tom Sullivan compares Obama to Hitler

No real comment necessary.  I just had to pass it along.


I Actually Don’t Think ‘Squeamish’ is the Right Word

February 15, 2008

From Page One Q:

On Wednesday’s installment of Sirius OutQ’s Michelangelo Signorile Show, Matt Foreman, outgoing director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, calls out Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) on his ‘squeamishness’ on the issue of transgender rights in the recent battle over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

“I think what really happened,” says Foreman of Congress’ handling of employment discrimination protections for LGBT people, “is [Speaker Nancy Pelosi's] people said ‘Look, Congress has a terrible reputation right now, they’re not delivering for any progressive causes… What do we have to do to deliver to our progressive allies?’ That means labor and health and environment and gays. And, so, I mean, I don’t know this for a fact, but I would bet my life that this is what happened: They went to Barney Frank and said ‘What do we need to pass ENDA?'”

“Representative Frank,” continues Foreman, “who has always been pretty squeamish on the trans issue, and I guess I can say these things because I am leaving my job…”

“That’s what we hoped you’d do,” Signorile says to Foreman.

Foreman goes on: “…You know, said ‘Look the best way to pass ENDA, and the easiest way is to — let’s take out gender identity,’ and I don’t think the Speaker’s people thought this through–didn’t think it through–and then they said ‘OK, let’s do it’.”

A spokesman for Rep. Frank told PageOneQ the comments were “absurd”….”

Though I appreciate the sentiment, I think “squeamish” is simply not the right word.  Barney Frank is transphobic – and in this he is aggressively, consistently and malignantly obnoxious where trans people and trans issues are concerned.  He is a product of his political upbringing – and gay-politically he is a product of the 1970s, when assimilationists sought to politically exterminate trans-everything and all but succeeded.

He can’t stand transsexuals or trans-anything.  His support for trans-inclusion in hate-crimes proposals is not because of any pragmatism on the trans issue; its because of the residuum of his generally liberal political make-up.

He is Janice Raymond in man-drag.

What is “absurd” is any contention otherwise.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers