Interestingly Enough, Tim, Plenty of People Think You’re Confused About Your Gender Simply Because You’re Gay

July 27, 2011


[Tim] Gunn referred bitingly to [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] “Jersey Shore style,” and [George] Lopez compared her prints to No Bugs M’Lady. It got worse.

After paying lip service to Clinton’s actual accomplishments, Gunn demanded, “Why must she dress that way? I think she’s confused about her gender!” He added, “No, I’m really serious, she wears pantsuits that are unflattering.”

The really annoying thing is that this is making me take the side of HRC’s HRC.

Maggie Gallagher Srivistav and NOM: A Christianist and Her 10 Percent Solution

July 27, 2011

From MOM’s Number One Numbskull:

Our job is to make sure there is an unshakable 10 percent willing to stand up for the great truths of Genesis: we are made male and female and called to come together in love so children have a mother and a father.

Those of us who think there are no “truths” in fairy tales?

We, of course, (will) have no rights.


10 percent?

Isn’t that the percentage that christianists deny that gays and lesbians comprise even while adding that even if gays and lesbians  do comprise that percentage its so small that society has no obligation to do anything positive for them (you know…like not killing them)?

At What Point Will CNN Do Something About a Gay Transphobe in its Employ?

July 27, 2011

Seen recently on Twitter:

First off, I stand by my earlier juxtaposition between Don Lemon and Jack Lemmon – only to the extent that I’d be willing to bet that Don Lemon has less of a clue about what has happened re: trans issues in the last 100 days (much less 100 years) upon which he can base that quip than either of the dogs pictured here.

I know what the pejorative is for an African-American who is perceived to be white on the inside (no, not “Paul Scott,” I mean an older, more generic pejorative.)

I think we need one that covers someone who is purple and yellow on the inside.

Well, Well, Well…It Looks As Though Christian Victimization Syndrome Isn’t Limited To The Anti-LGBT Set

July 27, 2011

I didn’t think that Bilerico could become any more putrid.

But, never let anyone – particularly christians who demand the special right to never have their mythology called out as such – say that this agnostic can’t acknowledge being wrong:

[W]hat is always ironic to me is how much anti-gay Christians and the rabid anti-faith folks have in common.

I’m actually not going to quote any more of Emily Heath’s special rights-ist crap than that.

Because that’s all that is necessary.

Someone who wants to reap the hierarchical benefits of an anti-philosophical disease of mythology that has oppressed all women and most men for thousands of years begins a whiny rant by equating the disease’s victims with their murderers and would-be murderers.

Yes, that one line is all that’s necessary.

Instead of legitimizing Heath’s illegitimacyt, I’m going to quote from opposing views – things that the anti-philosophical disease of mythology that Heath is acting as apologist for has, whenever it has had the politico-legal muscle to do so, criminalized to an extent that they have been sufficiently erased from history for other apologists for the anti-philosophical disease of mythology to claim that non-christianity-by-choice is a blip of modernity.

Zack Ford points out that Heath:

assumes that faith and nonbelief stand on equal, but opposing, intellectual ground. To assert that faith is unfounded is not an uncompromising standpoint in a “disagreement”; it’s an argument that itself needs to be debated. But believers have no argument for faith except faith itself, so the argument is dismissed. “Fundamentalist” is a heavy word nowadays that connotes radicalism. By your definition, all atheists are automatically fundamentalists, which adds to their demonization in society.

Rodney Hoffman:

Let me tell you why I’m an angry atheist.

I’m a scientist, an environmentalist, a feminist, a free speech advocate, and I’m gay.

I support birth control and family planning and abortion rights.
I believe that religion doesn’t belong in the science classroom.
I support even “blasphemous” speech. Of course, I support gay
rights, including same-sex marriage. I live apart from my Mexican
partner of 18+ years and can’t sponsor him for immigration as
my spouse.

In every case, the overwhelming majority of my opponents base their
opposition on their religious beliefs.

I do indeed consider myself a victim of fundamentalist religion and the
undeserved deference most people give to religious beliefs.

Furthermore, I don’t believe I should be forced to subsidize my political opponents with tax exemptions just because they declare themselves churches.

Damn right I’m angry

Kathy Padilla (and her justifiable sarcasm):

Yes – they are exactly the same. Except one says who you are is not valid & one disagrees with what you think. Except one wants to limit your civil rights and the other actually supports them while they disagree with you.

Of course – none of the atheists actually ever asked me to kiss their ring or call them Reverend when I’m not seeing them in that capacity.

More than a bit of overreach on this article.

Scott Rose (no relation – except via my agreement with his reasoning; I did add some spacing for clarity, though):

Emily wrote in the essay above: “But what is always ironic to me is how much anti-gay Christians and the rabid anti-faith folks have in common.”

1) When did it ever happen that an “anti-faith” person violently attacked an “anti-gay Christian” previously unknown to them personally simply because the Christian was anti-gay? By contrast, how often do we hear about anti-gay hate crimes being carried out by Christian terrorists?

2) When did it ever happen, in Tennessee, for example, that the State Government passed a “Don’t say Christian” law?

3) Senator Jim DeMint, a born again Christian, has said that gay people should not be permitted to teach school. When did it ever happen that a gay elected official fanned the flame of (alleged) “anti-faith intolerance” by saying that no person of faith should be allowed to teach in any American school?

4) When did it ever happen that huge percentages of the LGBT communities shrilly screamed that people of faith should be forbidden by law to marry each other?

And on and on and on. Emily in her essay trivializes the nature of Christian terrorist tortures, including political terrorism that the Christian terrorists relentlessly direct against innocent gay people. Nothing that (alleged) “anti-faith” “intolerant” people do comes even remotely near to being like what the Christian terrorists inflict on LGBTers. Oh and I’ll give you one additional example. Emily is complaining about dirty words in comments. Gay people thrown out of the US military for being gay were stripped of all benefits, thrown out on the streets with no food or housing or health care, though they had performed their job duties in the military at least satisfactorily. And in the military they had been so unfairly booted out of, there remained many vicious bigots, Christian chaplains, demanding persistently that DADT not be repealed. Even now that it has been repealed, the majority of the military Chaplains continue demonizing gay people and fighting tooth and nail against their marriages being recognized in the military. What have “anti-faith” LGBTer ever done to Christians, even remotely comparable?


I am anti-religion sole because of my experience with them. I do not believe in a higher power and believe that religion causes harm to society with its very existence. It provides people with excuses and crutches for their behaviour and I will not take being preached to lying down. I will not start a conversation about faith and religion, but I will not brush aside or ignore the attempts to convert, save and condemn me. I am an ATHEIST and proud of it. I will not be ignored or be labeled a bigot as I attempt expose your religious texts for the fiction they are. I will not ignore violence, tragedy and oppression at the hands of your faith. I will expound upon the virtues of LOGIC and REASON, that we do not need an outside deity to determine our morals. It is my duty as an atheist that upon an individual or group starting the conversation about religion that I do my best to stop them from drinking the Kool-Aid.
With LGBTQ people this primarily done by explaining the historic and current oppression found within their faith. I do not hate those with faith, I pity them. Tolerance works both ways, your attempts to covert, save and condemn me are not tolerant. I will not take them lying down, I will only use words to change your ideas about religion, can you say the same. Or even better, lets just ignore the topic of religion all together.


This essay is nearly on the same level of absurdity as those who claim “black people are racist too.” You’re making connections between two groups which have extremely different histories and, especially, hugely disparate levels of power over one another. If there were a strong history of queer or trans people persecuting people of faith then you might be rummaging in the right attic. But they don’t and I find this suggestion of yours really offensive.


Bilerico publishing something absurd?


Finally, Steve dares to speak logic to mythology special rights-ists:

No, I don’t have to respect religion or beliefs. That’s the whole problem here. Religious people think they deserve respect simply because they are religious. Because they think faith is a virtue. It isn’t. They may deserve respect for what they do, yes. But that’s in spite of what they believe.

As for the various sects and cults. It’s all the same kind of nonsense when you get down to it. Just a matter of degrees. Yes, I certainly prefer a Buddhist, Taoist, Wiccan or nature worshiper over a Christian or Muslim. I generally prefer progressive Jews over the other Abrahamic religions as well. I prefer a Unitarian Universalist over any kind of Christian or a liberal Christian over an evangelical or fundamentalist. They are simply easier to live with. But on a very basic level it’s all the same, even if their followers behave very differently.

This goes towards the idea that many LGTB Christians have, that we are only against religion because or if it’s anti-gay. That’s just one of the reasons why I’m against it. Ultimately I think they are ALL wrong. I think religion is a fundamentally flawed idea. Given that it was our first idea about how the world works, that should be no surprise. I think it did far more harm than good and that we would be better off without it. I disagree with any concept of a creator god, since that just complicates things. I can’t believe that there is any being watching over us, caring about what we do. I can’t believe in the supernatural like gods, angels, demons, invisible places or prophecies (though I can certainly be entertained by it in television and novels).

I think Christianity is fundamentally immoral, since ALL its sects have a human sacrifice as its core. I can’t believe that the torture and death of a human being can absolve others of their crimes. I think Original Sin is one of the most screwed up ideas anyone can possibly come up with. And you can’t have Christianity without the former and rarely without the latter.

But the biggest reason: there is simply no evidence whatsoever for ANY of them and any of their claims.

The difference between Emily Heath and Michele Bachmann?


Perhaps I’d better ask it this way…

We all know – even if far too many of us won’t admit – what Michele Bachmann would use the might of corporeal governmental force to do to all who in any way disagree with her religious beliefs if she believed for a second that she could get away with it as president.

Are we really deluded enough to believe that anyone – including Emily Heath – who needs the “Rev.” affectation to support her fact-free lifestyle would not, if imbued with absolute power, do exactly as Michele Bachmann would, with the tiny exception of (presumably) Heath not cranking up any auto-da-fés for people solely for engaging in same-sex sex but oh so regrettably having to do so for those who simply refuse to otherwise believe as she does?

As Well it Should Be

July 26, 2011

Good news from Michigan:

The recall effort against Rep. Paul Scott, R-Grand Blanc, is officially underway.

The Genesee County Election Commission this morning approved the recall petition’s language, giving organizers the go-ahead to begin collecting signatures, said Doreen Fulcher, Genesee County elections supervisor.

To place the recall on the ballot, organizers will need valid signatures from 25 percent of the number of voters in Scott’s district who voted in the 2010 governor’s election, or 9,604.

You remember Paul the Putz, don’t you? 

The weasely little corporatist turd who, in a state with the worst economy in the country, tried to Sarah Palin his way into the position of Michigan Secretary of State on a specifically anti-transsexual platform (jobs? what are those? who needs such things? I’m a baby lawyer with a starched tie, starched hair and a starched smile; I have millionaire water to carry and funds to hedge) in 2010 but could only manage to get re-elected to a state House seat?

As the Recall Paul Scott facebook page observes:

Paul Scott was elected to his second term as Michigan state representative of the 51st district in 2010 while riding on the coattails of candidate Rick Snyder. As House Education Committee chair Scott has been a massive opponent of teachers and fails to recognize public sector workers as a part of the working class.

He only sees the public sector as a group of individuals who should adhere to his and Snyder’s policies as though they and their legislative colleagues are the board of directors for the corporate Michigan that they envision;

that these individuals have no right to complain about their working conditions, pay, or benefits while handling the public goods and services our tax dollars are supposed to provide for;

that while we pay our taxes for investment in our state services, our services are instead being cut with his full endorsement in favor of investing that money in tax cuts for businesses that make money off our work.

From MLive:

“I’ve been just livid mad when he passed all of this, what I call teacher hate legislation,” said 62-year-old Gary Carnahan, a retired Hartland teacher and Fenton resident who filed the recall language. “This isn’t about the economy, it’s about hating teachers.”

Scott said he’s isn’t going to be intimidated by the effort, which he said is “being conceived by a small number of teacher union activists.”

“I was hired for a two-year job and I’m going to continue doing it to the best of my ability,” he said.

Scott joins a long list of Republican state politicians facing recall efforts, including Gov. Rick Snyder, Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, and House Speaker Jase Bolger, R-Marshall.

Perhaps you better start sucking at some Koch teat, Paul – you know, they way you’ve sucked at Snyder teat:

Scott and Snyder have been particularly close. Scott endorsed Snyder early on in the governor’s race and the two campaigned door-to-door together in Genesee County last year. Snyder is planning to attend a private fundraiser in Flushing next month for Scott’s campaign.

Scott has ignited outrage from educators and the union in recent weeks over his involvement in shaping legislation that will weaken teacher tenure protection.

The bills that passed the Legislature June 30 drastically change the teacher tenure process. The legislation will make teacher evaluations tougher and make it easier to fire teachers deemed ineffective, among other changes.

In response to those reforms, the Michigan Education Association has said they are donating volunteers and money to certain lawmaker recall efforts and may even begin initiating their own recalls.

We all know what Republicans would be doing if the recalls were targeting Democrats – busing people in from out of county, out of state and probably out of country to put fake signatures on the recall petitions.  Don’t do any of that, but please do anything you can to legally aid the recall efforts against these anti-worker, economic treasonmongers.

A More Accurate Title for the Page Might be: Encitement to Murder

July 26, 2011

Seen recently on Facebook:

I’ve chopped out images of human beings – not only those who appear to be being victimized by this neo-Vincent-ism but also those who would appear to be either perpetrators or eggers-on – from these snips.

Ditto for the following, a post as well as the pop-up screen showing who all had ‘liked’ it.

This garbage speaks for itself.

But When They Start Looking For Jobs….

July 26, 2011

The AmericaBlah intro to this is bad enough…

…kinda blowing right by the reality that, thanks to the unconscionable actions of Massachusetts gay elite back in 1989, those ‘LGBT youth’ who survive youthdom get differentiated once they go out into the workforce: The LGBs get all of the civil rights protections imaginable under state law but the Ts are relegated to a legal cardboard box under the statutory law bridge.

However, here is what the Boston Globe item said:

Gay teens in Massachusetts are far more likely to be homeless than their heterosexual peers, according to a new study from researchers at Children’s Hospital Boston.

The researchers analyzed a survey of more than 6,000 public high school students and found that approximately 25 percent of gay and lesbian teens and 15 percent of those who said they are bisexual were homeless, compared with just 3 percent of heterosexual teens who were homeless.

“It may be that their living situation is so difficult that they decide to leave home, and it may be that they are coming out and their parents are telling them, not under my roof,” said the study’s lead author, Heather Corliss, a research scientist at Children’s and an instructor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.

Corliss’ team analyzed the data from the 2005 and 2007 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey, a comprehensive survey conducted every other year by state education and public health officials to assess teen health, such as tobacco, alcohol and drug use, and sexual orientation.

The researchers found that 34 percent of the students who said they were homeless in the survey also indicated that they were either gay, lesbian, bisexual or unsure of their sexual orientation. Of that group, 19 percent said they were gay, lesbian or bisexual.

Other studies of homeless teens have found that anywhere from 5 to 50 percent said they were not heterosexual.

But the Children’s Hospital analysis is believed to be the first one that studied the issue in the general population, in this case, in the state’s schools, whereas other studies surveyed teens on the street or living in shelters.

The Children’s study, which is being published in the American Journal of Public Health, used an expansive definition of homeless — the same one public schools are required to use under federal law to ensure homeless teens are receiving adequate education and services.

Under that definition, teens were categorized as not homeless if they indicated in the survey that they lived “at home with my parents or guardians.” Any other answer was recorded as being homeless.

Other studies have shown that teens who are homeless are much more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol and engage in other risky behavior.

Corliss said she hopes those findings, combined with the results of her team’s analysis, spur more help for gay and bisexual youth.

“I hope these findings will lead to changes in communities to reduce the disparities,” Corliss said. “There has to be changes in communities, in churches, in schools, and in families so that they become more supportive” of these teens.

And here is the abstract of the study:

Objectives. We compared the prevalence of current homelessnessamong adolescents reporting a minority sexual orientation (lesbian/gay,bisexual, unsure, or heterosexual with same-sex sexual partners)with that among exclusively heterosexual adolescents.

Methods. We combined data from the 2005 and 2007 MassachusettsYouth Risk Behavior Survey, a representative sample of publicschool students in grades 9 though 12 (n=6317).

Results. Approximately 25% of lesbian/gay, 15% of bisexual,and 3% of exclusively heterosexual Massachusetts public high school students were homeless. Sexual-minority males and females had an odds of reporting current homelessness that was between4 and 13 times that of their exclusively heterosexual peers. Sexual-minority youths’ greater likelihood of being homelesswas driven by their increased risk of living separately fromtheir parents or guardians.

Conclusions. Youth homelessness is linked with numerous threats such as violence, substance use, and mental health problems. Although discrimination and victimization related to minority sexual orientation status are believed to be important causal factors, research is needed to improve our understanding ofthe risks and protective factors for homelessness and to determine effective strategies to prevent homelessness in this population.

So, lets refresh our memories about a question asked in the AmericaBlah opening:

[T]his is in Massachusetts, a state where same-sex marriage has been legal for seven years.  What’s the situation like for LGBT youth in states viewed as far less gay friendly.


This is Massachusetts…

A state that enshrined a gay-consecrated, anti-trans civil rights apartheid into law 22 years ago.

This is Massachusetts…

A state that was the subject of a study that has as much to do with trans-anything as Massachusetts state civil rights statutes currently do.

What’s the situation like for LGBT youth in states viewed as far less gay friendly

What’s the situation like for trans adults in Massachusetts, viewed by the bullshit-addled masses as being LGBT-friendly because gays can get married on Sunday and then hang signs in their office windows on Monday which say ‘TRANNY SCUM NEED NOT APPLY!’?

If you’re in Massachusetts and not a current beneficiary of the Hate Crime of ’89, you already know the answer.

Need More Be Said?

July 26, 2011

Timothy McVeigh, meet Anders Behring Breivik.

Those two jihadists—two right-wing reactionaries, two terrorists, two anti-government white supremacists, two Christians….

There is more, of course, and it is all relevant – and nothing that you’ll see on corporate media.

Obama Blinked

July 26, 2011

Yes, from what I’ve seen Obama got the better of the Boner in Dueling Speeches last night, but I want to point to the following:

In an interview on MSNBC’s Hardball this evening, tenther Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) admitted that he is using the threat of a catastrophic default to extort the nation into rewriting the Constitution to force a permanent era of conservative governance:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: How many days do you think we have, on the outside, to get this debt ceiling through before we have a problem? How many days?

LEE: I don’t know, maybe ten days.

MATTHEWS: Okay, in ten days you want to change the United States Constitution by two-thirds vote in both houses? That’s what you’re demanding.

LEE: Yes. If possible we can’t change the Constitution just in Congress but we can submit it to the states. Let the states fight it out.

MATTHEWS: And you think you’re being reasonable by saying you want a two-thirds vote in the House, which is Republican, and in the Senate which is Democrat. You want the Democratic Senate, by a two-thirds vote, to pass a constitutional amendment or you want the house to come down?

LEE: Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying and I’ve been saying this for six months.

And this is why I’m now at the point of saying that the Obama Administration is a failed presidency.

Barack Obama is a sharp guy – at least as sharp as Bill Clinton and, even presuming that they are 100% equal in greymatter, the edge goes to Obama because he has no history of housing any of his greymatter in his dick…

which makes him the sharpest guy to hold the office of president during my lifetime.  Sorry, but, even though LBJ was smart, he was primarily mean and that’s where his success emanated from.  And Carter?  Well, Carter demonstrated that honesty and decency are no substitutes for a nice mixture of intelligence and meanness….

which brings me back to Obama and why I must conclude that he has failed.

Look back at what Lee had to say.

And understand that he’s not alone.


The reason I say that Obama has failed is that he either has been strategically unwilling thus far to deal with treasonmongers such as Lee as the treasonmongers that they are or – and this is what I fear more – he failed from the outset to recognize just how willing that the 21st Century Norquistublican Axis is to do what George III, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, Jefferson Davis, Kaiser Wilhelm, Hideki Tojo, Adolf Hitler, Benito Missolini, Nakita Khruschev, Ho Chi Minh, Moammar Khadaffy, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were not able to do – namely, to destroy the United States of America.

Get ready for President Bachmann and her first lady.

Oh Yeah…Not Having a Trans Person Represent Trans Issues Won’t End Up Screwing Trans People, Right? Never Has…Right? Never Could…Right?

July 25, 2011

Uhhhh……well, not exactly.

I’ll say this: Even I didn’t think that the NAACP’s gay corporatist, faux ‘LGBT’ panel would yield something as bad as warmed-over Aravosishit with rancid, vintage 1999 HRC icing.

I guess Lemon’s ‘knowledgeability’ explains how CNN was so willing to foist Susan Stanton on its viewers.


Don Lemon?

I bet that the rotting corpse of Jack Lemmon (only a cross-dresser for hire once upon a Hot time) could come up with a less-offensive sound-fart than “same thing as gay.” (Hell, I’d even wager a few bucks on ‘ditto for Amy Winehouse’.)


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers