The Hearing

I haven’t written anything about ‘the hearing’ because I was on the road when it happened (not that I was contacted about testifying, of course; I guess those who know what’s best for us because they say they know what’s best for us don’t want someone testifying that trans people need protection from discrimination by those who know what’s best for us because they say they know what’s best for us even more than we need protection from discrimination by heterosexuals.)

Monica Roberts points out that there is apparently something else that those who know what’s best for us because they say they know what’s best for us had no interest in being visible at the hearing.

As usual, Monica’s dead on.

The World According to ENDA 3685

Pam is one of the best friends that trans people have right now, so I’m linking to the Pam’s House Blend posting about this. 

Our trans brothers and sisters are human beings. How difficult is this concept to grasp for the bigots out there? I’m sick and angered by story after story about grown adults — in this case a law enforcement officer sworn to serve and protect everyone — acting like violent brutes out of fear and ignorance. And all the while they are enabled by others who look on and do nothing. Memphis station WMC-TV has the video. You must watch it.

She’s not exaggerating. From WMC:

The video, recorded February 12th, shows Duanna Johnson in the booking area at the Shelby County Criminal Justice Center after an arrest for prostitution.   The tape clearly shows a Memphis police officer walk over to Johnson - a transsexual - and hit her in the face several times.

Now, here is a comment I added over at PHB in response to someone putting out a call to contact the Rhode Island Avenue Cesspool of Transphobia about this.

Make it clear that, if ENDA 3685 becomes law, Duanna Johnson would still be eligible to be relegated to prostitution.

Yes, under the verson of ENDA that St. Barney, Lame Crain and The John have wet dreams about, people like St. Barney, Lame Crain and The John who live in Memphis would still be free to hang signs in their windows proclaiming that transsexuals need not apply.

That means Duana Johnson - and everyone like her.

Including me.

That means that, in order to eat, Duana Johnson - ane veryone like her - could still be relegated with impunity by six-figure-salary-addled gay men to what she was alleged to have been doing on the night of February 12.

Here is another comment I made over at PHB:

From the WMC story:

 

Meanwhile, the Memphis Police Department confirmed to Action News 5 that the officer holding Johnson was on probation, and has been fired.  The officer who threw the punches is currently on non-enforcement status pending an administrative hearing.

Why should these thugs act any differently if they know that the worst that will happen to them is losing their jobs?  If Duanna Johson had fought back and killed (or, for that matter, even seriously injured) one of these wothless pieces of garbage, she’d already be convicted of capital murder and on her way to the death chamber.  Criminals with badges know that - ultimately - no civilian has any power to stop them from beating the shit out of anyone they want to any time they want to.

 

A copy of the tape was reviewed by both the FBI and the District Attorney’s office, the latter of which dropped all charges against Johnson.  An FBI investigation into possible civil rights violations is still underway.

The Bush junta’s FBI doing anything about this?  That’s as funny as the video is sad.

That is a serious aspect of this story as well.

However, when I look at that video, in addition to seeing Duanna Johnson being mercilessly beaten by criminals with badges, I see all trans people being mercilessly beaten by criminals with copies of ENDA 3685 and purple-n-yellow equal signs.

And What About Some AcTion?

From Queer Channel Media:

The only open lesbian in the U.S. House of Representatives is predicting that in the next session of Congress, bills related to employment non-discrimination and hate crimes will be more successful than legislation aimed at repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) made the comments today at a Center for American Progress forum geared toward highlighting the importance of the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, which would grant the partners of gay federal employees the same benefits that are available to the spouses of straight counterparts.

…

Baldwin said she is “very optimistic” that ENDA and a hate crimes measure would pass Congress next session, particularly if Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, who has supported these initiatives, take the White House.

…

Baldwin told the Blade she did not “have a perfect crystal ball” for what would happen in the next Congress, but said she thinks it would be easier to “hit the ground running” with ENDA and a hate crimes measure as opposed to other initiatives.

 

She noted that Congress has already taken some action on ENDA and hate crimes this session, so lawmakers are familiar with those issues and more willing to take up the matters again next year.

 

“Some action.”

That’s an interesting way to characterize it.

Also interesting: that Queer Channel Media piece had nothing about T-inclusivity in all/any of that.

I guess one can assume that that issue has already been decided in St. Barney’s smoke(or whatever)filled room.

If Its Barney, Its Bullshit

From an interview with St. Barney in the May 2, 2008 edition of Just Out:

SMB: You took a lot of heat for your work on ENDA.

 

BF: Not much. The overwhelming majority of opinion in the gay and lesbian community was supportive of what we did.

Is it mandadory for politicians to lie with every breath?  Or does St. Barney really believe this?

Now, if his answer to that question makes you want to sell the Fourth District of Massachusetts to Uruguay just to take it (and its rep) out of the congressional mix, I don’t want to speculate about what  the next question’s answer will inspire you to want to do:

SMB: If you had to go through the process again, would you change anything in your approach?

 

BF: No. I  understand the problem of having [transgender protections] put in the bill and taking it out. It would have been better not to have put it in the bill in the first place and to have two separate bills in the beginning…. Unfortunately, people in the trans community and their allies didn’t want to accept reality. 

And by the way, in terms of accepting reality, there are now three states which have nondiscrimination laws without trans coverage, where the issue has come up, and in none of them has the effort been successful to include it: Massachusetts, New York and Maryland. So we say to people if we can’t win on an issue in Massachusetts, New York and Maryland, why do you think [you’ll win] once you bring in Nebraska, Mississippi and Utah?

Barney, did you always lack the ability to consruct a logical argument?  Or, did you once have such ability and trade it for…Steven Gobie’s phone number?  I do hope it was something worthwhile.

Think about the following:

1. Members of Congress votes on the federal ENDA, not the the legislators from the 50 states.
2. There are other states besides New York, Massachusetts and Maryland - and they have representatives in Congress.
3. Just as there were Congresspeople from New York and Massachusetts who were inclined to support federal gay rights before the legislature of either state was inclined to enact a gay rights law, it is certainly conceivable that some of the Democratic congresspeople from those states might be more inclined to consider federal trans-inclusion than their state-level counterparts are now.
4. More of those states that have gay rights laws have trans-inclusive laws than have gay-only ones.
5. If you’re going to talk about what the state legislatures are willing to do and not do, lets consider that the legislatures of Nebraska and Utah - as well as Maryland and Massachusetts - have enacted legislation recognizing the legitimacy of transsexualism.

But, taking all of that into consideration would mean that you might have had to construct an intellectually honest explanation for your transphobia.

Meaning, of course, you’d have to give up on passing your objections off as having any political basis and just flat out admit that you’re a male Janice Raymond.  You just don’t like trans people.  Period.

And, if he’d just go ahead and say that, he wouldn’t have to try to pass this crap off:

SMB: In an open letter you posted on the news Web site The Bilerico Project, you write that “there is more resistance to protection for people who are transgender than for people who are gay, lesbian and bisexual” and that the transgender community’s quest for equality is “a fairly recent addition to the fight” and “faces a steeper climb.” Has it been an historic mistake to include transgender people as part of the gay and lesbian rights movement?

 

BF: No. No more than I thought it was for people writing the equal rights amendment not to include us.

 

By the way…in the ’70s, as a member of the Massachusetts Legislature, I  campaigned hard for an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution which protected people against gender discrimination, and people said, “Let’s include gays and lesbians,” and we said, “No, because it would lose that way.”

 

Once again, he’s saying we are where gays were in 1975.  Sorry Barn, that turd still don’t float.

Was it a mistake not to push for gay rights in the ’50s and ’60s? No, it just hadn’t occurred to people. 

Well, trans people pushed for recognition of our existence in several states back then - and succeeded. 

Where were you?

Oh…I think that would be the closet, right?

Movements take time. There was not a lot of self-awareness of people being transgender in the ’80s and ’90s. You can’t artificially create these things; they come up. The transgender community organized and came forward, but it’s only been less than 10 years.   

And you can’t take advantage of a tragedy that you yourself cause.  We were expelled from the gay movement by 1973.  With your position, you have stepped into their shoes.  You are the successor in interest to those early transphobes who ensured that there would be nothing ‘organized’ until (your time perception, not mine) less than 10 years ago.  You caused this problem.  You cannot now be heard to say it was something you had no control over and no responsibility for.

 

 

I filed a gay rights bill in 1972, and none of us at the time in the Massachusetts House, we did not say, “Oh, we’re gonna do gays and lesbians and bisexuals but not transgenders.” Nobody brought up transgender. The people who were transgender weren’t yet at the stage of self-awareness or self-assertion that we could do it.

Oh really?????????????

You were in the Massachusetts Legislature until your election to Congress in 1980.  There were other gay rights bills in Massachusetts between 1972 and 1980.

Here’s something else that popped up in Massachusetts between 1972 and 1980.

May 28, 1975

The Honorable Paul Guzzi Secretary of the Commonwealth State House Boston, Massachusetts 02133Dear Secretary Guzzi:On May 7, 1975, you requested an Opinion of the Attorney General concerning amending the birth records of transsexuals pursuant to Chapter 46, section 13 of the General Laws. Specifically you wanted to know:a) whether town clerks and registers of vital statistics are required under Chapter 46, section 13 of the General Laws to correct facts not correctly stated in the birth records of a person who has been granted a legal name change and who has completed surgical sex reassignment upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of those facts as required by Chapter 46, section 13 ; and  b) what proof is relevant to establishing the correctness of facts respecting a person’s sex and name. With regard to the first of these questions, I am of the opinion that, in certain circumstances, town clerks and registers of vital statistics are required to correct facts, as to sex and name, in the birth records of post-operative transsexuals.

That’s a portion of an official opinion from Massachusetts’ then-Attorney General, Francis X. Bellotti.

I wonder…

Was there any opinion at that point from any official of the state that accepted any aspecy of gay life to that degree?

Yah…

I didn’t think so.

And, its not as if the issue of transphobia within the gay community did not appear in gay publications in Massachusetts during your time at the State House.  (For my readers, do some research on Gay Community News, a woman named Margo Schulter and the now-disused phrase “transsexophobia.”)

 

 

Part of the problem, I  have to say, is this: I’ve never seen a worse job of lobbying done by the transgender community. They seem to think that all they had to do was to get the gay and lesbian community to say “OK.” I  think they thought that this was a train, and that they were a car on the train. I  said to them, “You’ve got to work this, you’ve got to lobby people.” They did a terrible job of lobbying, and so we didn’t have the votes.

Send that paragraph in to your favorite ‘educators’ over at the Rhode Island Avenue Cesspool of Transphobia - along with a question: What the fuck have you people been doing since you first started claiming that you were doing ‘educating’ on trans issues?

What Has Barney Frank Been Smoking?

[UPDATED with an incredibly fact-based illustration; h/t TransFM and Kathy]

 

[cross-posted at Pam's House Blend]

From the Boston Globe:

Rep. Barney Frank said he plans to file a bill to legalize “small amounts” of marijuana.

No - its not April 1st yet.

Unfortunately.

Frank said he’d filed a similar bill in the Massachusetts Legislature in the 1970s, but hasn’t tried since he was elected to Congress.

“I finally got to the point where I think I can get away with it,” he said.

Frank said he thinks “its time for the politicians in this one to catch up to the public. The notion that you lock people up for smoking marijuana is pretty silly.”

Barney Frank is not willing to go to bat for basic civil rights for transsexuals and other trans people, but he is willing to do this in a presidential election year?

Count me in with C&L:

I am totally for legalization of marijuana, but I have to differ with Frank on this: to think that at this time with this administration that you could get away with a bill legalizing pot actually is what sounds silly.

Silly - and, to trans people, quite insulting.

But, that’s par for the course with St. Barney.

Random Ridiculous Pro-HRC’s HRC Gay Gushings

From tomorrow’s lead Queer Channel Media outlet, a pro-HRC’s HRC puke-fest from Peter Rosenstein:

For the columnists and prognosticators who counted Hillary Clinton out — and gay blogger Andrew Sullivan who writes hate columns — maybe you should rethink your role in trying to bring a woman down.

Compartmentally, I actually agree.  After all, why should they bother expending energy when Hillary’s own people - I won’t mention Geraldine Ferraro by name - will effectively sabotage the campaign from within?

On a different subject:

I understand what having Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin at the table with personal commitments to GLBT rights in Congress means to me.

Uh huh.

So do I.

It means decades more of being legally unequal to people like Peter Rosnstein, Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin.

Nice try, Peter.

Still…

Grade: F.

Kudos to Sharon McGowan

From Bay Windows:

 Trans conference debates merits of anti-discrimination laws

Okay, the mere fact that (ostensibly) trans people are having a “debate” on this adds fuel to the belief of some that the true needs of trans people are being subverted in favor of exercies in queer theory (some legitimate, some rather loopy.)

Dean Spade, a teaching fellow at Harvard Law School and founder of the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, argued that in practice it is almost impossible to bring a successful case under such laws.Spade said that for the past several decades a series of Supreme Court decisions has made it nearly impossible for someone pressing a discrimination claim to prove intent on the part of his or her employer, blunting the effectiveness of the laws.

So I guess he’d be in favor of completely abandoning efforts to secure same-sex marriage, given that there have been a mega-series of court decisions (and ensuing state laws and constitutional amendments) foreclosing that?

“And I think all of us as lawyers recognize that a lot of these laws don’t really work,” said Spade, speaking on a Feb. 29 panel that presented an overview of the trans legal landscape. “I think we know that anti-discrimination laws aren’t enforced. I think we’re pretty aware that racism and able-ism and national origin discrimination, all other things that have been illegal for a while, haven’t gone away because the law changed.

All of us?  All of who?  All trans attorneys?  No one consulted me on that pronouncement.

What a fucking moron. 

This is the type of clown who has appropriated the ability to make a living as any form of representative of trans people? 

Tell ya what.  Lets take a legit poll of African-Americans and see if they think things are better now than they were prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - not perfect, but better, perhaps even much better.

Now, I’ve been a major critic of some categories of civil rights laws - most notably the genre of local ordinances and state/local executive orders that aren’t enforceable at all.  That’s a different issue  - and, if that’s what he was talking about, then he really didn’t make himself clear.

Its never going to be perfect.

All civil rights laws have loopholes that are clear.

All civil rights laws have loopholes that christofascist judges can use to re-write said laws into virtual non-existence.

So give up?

Why not give up and let St. Barney of Frank do whatever the hell he wants to subjugate trans people politically?  Why not give up and never say anything about how major gay rights groups have a worse track record on hiring trans people than do most inhuman multinational corporate monoliths?  Why not just give up live as the sex you were designated as birth and why not give up and adopt the sexual orientation that your parents undoubtely expected you to have?

I don’t think there’s any kind of naiveté amongst lawyers about that. And yet we are still wedded to those strategies in part because I think sometimes we think maybe they have another role. Maybe when we pass these laws they have a symbolic role, they change what people think of us. … And those are questions I want to keep on the table

Symbolic…

You mean like their presence on the books inspiring employers not to discriminate in the first instance when, otherwise, they would have?

Sorry, dude.  That’s not symbolic.  That’s substantive.

What a moron.

At a forum later that day on sex segregation and gender regulation Lisa Mottet, director of the Transgender Civil Rights Project for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), provided a different perspective, arguing that the 13 state non-discrimination laws that cover transgender people have provided no major court victories because no one has yet tested them.

Well, not no one.  Of course, when you get down to it there has been only one - the Minnesota catastrophe: Goins v. West Group (though there have been a few cases following that one, all ending at lower levels.)  And with each day that passes I’m more convinced that that decision was not an honest one (my suspicion is that Republican Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz - a state legislator when the law was passed - was not too thrilled to know that she had voted for a law that was more than GLB; during floor debate in 1993 she had indicated that she thought the law would be the same as that which existed in Wisconsin - which, of course, it was (and is) not.)

She said the solution is to test those laws in court and establish case law around gender identity discrimination, but for people facing discrimination there are many factors that prevent them from filing a lawsuit.“I am troubled by the fact that there aren’t a lot of lawsuits under these laws. Part of it is they’re new. We passed four laws last year, so a year ago we only had nine state laws for example, so that’s part of it,” said Mottet. “But I think it’s also that people don’t know they have rights, that people aren’t in the financial position to hire an attorney, and [when] there’s still a lot of other discrimination happening in a person’s life, their highest priority isn’t going after an employer that fired them. Their highest priority is finding a new job, finding a place to live that they can afford.”

I can’t say I disagree with any of that (though I feel obligated to add that, despte Mottet being good at what she does, I still feel it is a sickening travesty that NGLTF continues to employ a non-trans person as its trans legal expert.)  And though I increasinlg find myself at odds with the Phyllis Frye’s reasoning on many issues, she did saliently add to why the laws don’t generate as many high-profile cases with published decisions as might be expected:

“One of the reason why there is [little litigation under the non-discrimination laws] is that as litigators our primary duty is to represent our client, not to make case law, as much as we would like to. And if we can browbeat or otherwise get an employer or city or somebody else to actually follow the law, if we can sit down with their council and explain to them, ’A, B, C - oh, light bulb! - and get them to comply or settle, then that is our goal,” said Frye.

I’ve found Phyllis to be out of touch on some things of late, but this is basic attorney-client stuff.  She’s on the mark.

The debate over non-discrimination laws was part of a larger debate during the conference between two strands of the transgender movement. Paisley Currah, associate professor of political science for the City University of New York- Brooklyn, said during the legal overview panel that one political stance within the movement is to push for state recognition of transgender identity and transgender inclusion in structures like non-discrimination laws; a more leftist stance is to advocate for an end to all state efforts to define gender and for a more equitable redistribution of resources rather than equality under the law.

Gee…

And who might be playing the leftist theory game?  Transsexuals (disproportionately MTF) who have a very real fear of ending up living under a bridge if they get fired - or never hired - for having identification documentation that has a sex marker discrepancy?

Or folks (disproportionately FTM or gender-queer) who are privileged to rest comfortably each night knowing that they collect a paycheck espousing theory-oids that may or may not be in the best interests of those they purport to speak for?

Then, up to the plate stepped Sharon McGowan.

The divide was particularly evident during an exchange between Spade and Sharon McGowan, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) LGBT Project, during the legal overview panel. An audience member asked panelists to compare the ways that governments define both gender and race, and Spade answered, “As a trans person I feel frustrated that the state uses gender categories to administer everything that I need, and I’m really aware of that, and that can allow me to build a critical analysis of how the state administers wellbeing, period, right? So that I can have an ally politics as well with all the other sets of people who are misclassified and who experience this maldistribution that is what the state is administering.”

This is less than one step removed from Janice Raymond / Norah Vincent transsexual exerminationist philosophy. 

But McGowan, who also sat on the panel, countered that some transgender people may not want to do away with gender categories. She said while some may argue that the push for legal recognition of transgender identity means being co-opted by mainstream society, for others that recognition is important.“I get so inspired when I hear Dean’s rhetoric, but the way in which I think it assumes that there is a vision that everybody would just be going towards if we just stopped being such pussies about the whole thing and just did it and gave up the man - and my question is, at some level, for trans folks who feel very strongly as though a female gender identity in a world in which female identity means something, are they just co-opted, or is there something there that is also something worth fighting for, and can the two exist at the same time? … There is for me a tension in figuring out what is co-optation versus what are sustainable parallel tracks, if such a thing can exist.”

Not to place myself in the radical HBS camp (although I share some of the HBS folks’  views, there are some aspects of their posture of late that do bother me - and other transsexuals who, by physiology and identity, would seem to qualify as HBS), but it is people like Spade who are co-opting. 

Unlike most HBS folks, I see no problem with transsexual and transgender co-existing.  My being a woman who happens to be of transsexual experience is not inherently incompatible with gender-queer/third-gender folks.  Unfortunately, I feel that my position may be solely the product of the fact that I am an incredibly cynical attorney who has never really bought into the kum-bah-ya shit of either HRC or the radical gender leftists. 

However, I believe that time will prove me right.

In the mean time, thank you Sharon, for at representing the voice of those who, increasingly, have no voice at gender conferences.

OK, Nick - Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

Saieth Nick, in the comments section of a post at Towleroad:

I think it’s time we stop lumping all of us together. I am 100% supportive for transgendered rights, but it has nothing to do with lesbian and gay rights, unless transgendered people are in a same-sex relationship with someone and then it is still an issue of sexual orientation.

Fine, Nick.  Put your money where your mouth is.  Oppose ENDA 3685 and support an ENDA with the following coverage scope:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer–

1. to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation; or
2. to limit, segregate, or classify the employees or applicants for employment of the employer in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment or otherwise adversely affect the status of the individual as an employee, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation.

 …

In General- In this Act:

The term `sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality or the fact of the employee’s being transsexual or otherwise transgendered, so long as the employee (1) is in a life relationship which, by societal perception of operation of law, is a homosexal relationship;  (2) has a history of being in such a relationship or relationships irrespective of whether the employee may also have a history of being in a relationship or relationships which, by societal perception or operation of law, are opposite-sex relationships; or (3) , if not in a relationship, has a history of expressed desire to be in such a same-sex relationship.

Otherwise, STFU!

Non-Kudos to Daily Kos As Well

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.

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

(Cross-posted at Pam’s House Blend) 

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

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?)