Wow

A new comment over at The Dyne’s whine – from Randy Wicker:

It’s amazing to read through these postings and arguments. Most prove that those “talking” don’t know what they are talking about.

Heterosexuals equate homosexuality with trans behavior. The perceived violation of what a “male” or “female” should be is a very large component of homophobia.

I know because I was the first homosexual to demonstrate(1964), go on radio(1962) & television(1964) undisguised as an acknowledged homosexual. Whenever I spoke to groups in the early 1960s, members of the audience always asked if I went home at night and put on a dress and/or did I want a sex-change operation. Because of this (and before I got to know some trans people) I felt defensive & was actually transphobic. I felt “falsely accused” by such questions since they ‘challenged’ my much treasured masculinity. Fortunately, education, knowledge & life experiences have transformed me into a passionate supporter of the trans community today.

…

There are millions of different genders. We all begin as females & we all end up being a mixture of male & female but are afraid to admit it.

Wow – old isn’t always bad.

Somewhere, A Home Has Just Been Condemned

From Pam’s House Blend:

God finally calls 91-year-old Oral Roberts home

Time for some comparative reality:

Joan of Arc – 19

Hank Williams, Sr. – 29

Bill Hicks – 32

MLK – 39

John Lennon – 40

JFK – 46

Jackie Robinson – 53

FDR – 63

And The Oral got 91 years.

I used to think that the existence of Pat Robertson, by itself, proved the non-existence of god.

I was wrong.

This does.

Hail to the Reptiles

Seriously – hail to the still-venemous, yet now ancient, reptiles for sticking their scaly heads out of their caves just long enough to give all of us who are attempting to balance out all of the self-serving, homophile-centric, trans-erasive ‘histories’ of the last half-century of advancement sexuality-based civil rights a nice big (albeit bcsteaming) pile of primary source material that we don’t need to travel to far-flung archives to access.

There has been, of course, The Gold.

Then, there was The Dyne.

And, in a comment to some of the anti-intellectual death-rattling of the latter, The John: The Previous Generation:

Ron Gold wishes the State to intervene to forbid “discrimination against cross-dressers or post-op transsexuals in employment….” I disagree. Employers should not be forced to hire individuals who are delusional or otherwise inappropriate for a job. A man who believes that he is Napoleon or Jesus Christ, or that castration has changed him into a woman, may not make a desirable employee. A man in a dress might not be appropriate for a job that requires client contact. What if a “male-to-female transsexual” were to go to a window, say “SHAZAM”, and jump out, in the belief that “she” would be transformed into Mary Marvel and fly through the air in a red cape?

John Lauritsen

What if a good, strong, virile man were to go to a window, say “SHAZAM” and decide that he wants to engage in deviate sexual conduct with men – or even boys – instead of natural, god-consecrated missionary-position penile-vaginal intercourse with his wife?

Google “David Thorstad” to get an idea of where this trans-exterminationist should be filed – and how much legitimacy legitimate scholars should afford anything he might ever say or write.

The Ordeal of the Privileged, White Gays and Lesbians Who Benefited Professionally From Never Having to Compete With Transsexuals For Anything on a Level Playing Field

I thought about calling this post Twilight of the Whining Dinosaurs.  However, after some thought, I decided against it.  After all, Richard Wagner never did anything to undermine my ability to find and maintain employment commensurate with my education and experience in the 21st Century.

People such as Ron Gold, however….

And people of the same generation and trans-exterminationist midset….

For instance, John Lauritsen:

The question is posed: why in the past generation have pedophilia, pederasty and ephebophilia gone down in favor, whereas transpeople gone up in favor?

One simple answer, in addition to those given by Wayne Dynes, is that there has been an increase in *erotophobia* (fear or hatred of sexuality). (As one example of erotophobia: there is now a generation of boys and men who are ashamed of their own bodies — who are reluctant to undress in the locker room — who wear shorts or bathing suits in the shower, steam room, or sauna.)   The categories which have gone down in favor — S&M, intergenerational sex, incest, and prostitution — are all sexual. But transpeople, at least those who have resorted to surgery, represent the opposite: a total negation of sexuality.

Of course it is impossible to change a man into a woman, or vice versa. A “male-to-female transsexual” is a man who has been castrated, and thereby transformed — not into a woman, but into a eunuch. Such an individual has been *neutered* or *de-sexed*, not changed into the opposite sex. Likewise, a “female-to-male transsexual” has been neutered, not changed into a real man.

That was a comment to a rambling tour through the gay-primacy psyche offered up by Wayne Dynes.  Compare it to the following comment to the same piece:

This post has been removed by the author.

So…

Something was so offensive as to be worthy of removal – but not the trans-exterminationism.

And here’s what Dynes himself had to say about trans people:

For those who experienced them, the twelve years between Stonewall and the inception of the HIV/AIDS crisis in 1981 were a golden age of sexual freedom. With sodomy still against the law in many states, much remained to be done. Yet clearly we gay people were on our way.

With the momentum of liberation up and running, many looked around for new frontiers. What would be the next wave in the ongoing tide of sexual freedom?

…

For some, intergenerational sex was the next Big Thing, a belief symbolized by the founding of NAMBLA. For a variety of reasons this expectation did not pan out, and those with a sexual interest in children and adolescents figure among the most stigmatized persons in America today.

By contrast, thirty years ago there was almost universal condemnation of transvestites and transsexuals. The official line, strongly urged by radical feminists, was that such individuals were engaged in mockery of women. This was thought to be undeniably true of males who assumed women’s dress. Even more so the postop M2Fs, who offered deplorable models of the “constructed woman.” Yet blame could also attach to the F2Ms, who were seemingly deserting the women’s cause.

A seemingly similar phenomenon was represented by small groups of men who affected “gender-fuck” fashions, sporting, say, a beard and mustache, while wearing a skirt, makeup, and a lumberjack shirt. Yet unlike the more usual type of cross-dressers, these men did not attempt a convincing simulation of women. Indeed, in their mockery of masculinity they could be regarded as allies of the feminists.

With some reservations, then, pedophilia, pederasty, and ephebophilia were UP a generation ago; transpeople were DOWN. These days that situation is hard to imagine, so much have the two groups changed in the eyes of the public. The relationship has been turned upside down.

How did this historic shift occur?

Note first: In this narrative, no blame for anti-trans attitudes and/or policies attaches to men of any inclination or to any of the proto-corporate, straight-acting, stright-looking professional gay hierarchy.

Note second: Think about the very notion of the discussion – and what it seems to be justifying.

Now, lets go back to the author of that comment that had been removed, a person who goes by the name Zagria.  I don’t know what the removed post was, but I suspect that it involved the quote I was looking for when I began this post (last nite; I have a copy of the offending pages somewhere, but I couldn’t find them at that moment) given that she has it at a post on her own blog:

In his Homosexuality: A Research Guide, 1987, he strangely chose to open his ‘Transsexualism’ section with an assertion in opposition to the facts:

Follow-up studies have shown that many postoperative transsexuals exist in a state of almost continual depression, and for this reason the operation is now performed less often.

He also gave an amazingly positive mini-review of Janice Raymond and ignored 90%+ of transgendered biographies.

Zagria has the following to say about that earlier Dynes post:

[It] is much better than what he was writing in the 1980s. This is still however a comment from one who participates in gay discourse but does not consult the discourse among trans persons. Note how he uses ‘trannies’ and ‘transpeople’ (without the now required space) – in blissful ignorance of how some trans people react. He also uses ‘M2F’ and ‘F2M’ as nouns. What was it that Gore Vidal said about being homosexual, but not ‘a homosexual’?The essay is then about the gay perception of trans people, not actually about real trans people. It was actually a pleasure to read the essay, locked as it is behind a firewall where the politics that divide the trans scene do not penetrate.

A bit more 411 on Dynes from Zagria:

Wayne Dynes did a Ph.D. in art history at New York University. He taught for six years at Columbia University, and subsequently at the City University of New York. He was a co-founder of New York’s Gay Academic Union in 1973.

His Homosexuality: A Research Guide is one of the better bibliographies on homosexuality. Out of 854 pages, only 10 are on Cross Dressing, Transsexualism and Hermaphroditism, grouped in a category ‘Boundary Crossing’ with ‘Intergenerational Sex’, and a further 8 pages on ‘Theatre and Dance’ which contains many articles on drag. He opens his Transsexualism section with the unneeded contention in opposition to the facts: “Follow-up studies have shown that many postoperative transsexuals exist in a state of almost continual depression, and for this reason the operation is now performed less often”, and then gives a biased selection of mainly anti-transsexuality books, including a positive review of Janice Raymond’s diatribe, The Transsexual Empire. The only biographies included are those of Lili Elbe and Christine Jorgensen. All the others are ignored, even April Ashley’s.

He was the major editor of the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, 1990, where he also wrote about lesbians under a pseudonym, Evelyn Gittone. This was taken to be a female pseudonym, although ‘Evelyn’ was a unisex name to earlier generations. Coupled with the lack of female and transgendered contributors, this was considered scandalous, and contributed to the fact that a second edition or a paperback edition was never issued.

I have to admit I’ve never seen Wayne Dynes and Alice Dreger in the same room at the same time.

They’re probably not the same person – but they do share the same DNA of (non-)ethics.

When Analysis of Hypocritical Incrementalists Writes Itself

Currently on The John’s site, an excerpt from an e-mail to him from Robin Tyler:

Should we give up on fighting for marriage equality, because the Democratic Party has broken their word to us? Never.

No civil rights movement has ever said ‘give us less, and we will be satisfied.’

And yet, in 2007, that same Robin Tyler e-mailed to that same John demanding that trans people accept an ENDA that would protect people such as herself but not people such as themselves:

I support full transgender rights. However, when I have been invited to legal weddings of some of my transgender friends, not one of them has said “we will not get married until Diane and you and other same gender couples can get married”. They did not sacrifice their legal rights on the alter of political correctness to give up the State and Federal benefits of marriage.

And yet, with regard to ENDA, the lesbian and gay community is expected to do so, leaving millions and millions of us in the majority of States, once again, unprotected.

In one example, she is forced to accept less.

In the other, she gets what she wants and we are forced to accept a steaming pile of nothing.

One of them she is willing to accept.

One she is not.

Hmmmm…

I think I now have the punchline to my projectile vomiting joke: Robin Tyler.

The Gay-Primacy Double Standard: Exhibits ‘A,’ ‘B,’ etc.

There has been a follow-up post to Ron Gold’s neo-1973 manifesto – a follow-up intended as an apology (I think) for allowing the Gold garbage to be posted.

Not everyone is willing to accept it.

One in particular is Monica Helms:

I’m not so willing to accept your apology. You have given me crap for the last two years on some of the things I said in the comment section, yet I focused on just one hateful person in each of those comments, and didn’t trash an entire community the first chance I got.

I am willing to bet the farm that if a trans person said some similar things about, say, gay men, it wouldn’t have seen the light of day. But, none of us will ever have any proof of that, except a trans contributor who tries to do so.

I’ll repeat what I said in the other posting for all the public to see. After having 26 Guest Postings, you have still constantly kept me from becoming a contributor because I’m “too controversial,” yet you bring someone on who makes me look like Mary Poppins. If others in the trans community want to let you dodge this bullet with a simple apology, then that’s their business. Me? I don’t think so.

Ask me if I’m bitter.

Better yet, ask trans people if we’re bitter when we see the same and similar double-standards used – sometimes stated, though usually not – to keep us out of positions of gainful employment…

ANYWHERE – though particularly with the homosexually-professional lobbying industry elite that destroyed our independent political viability and now claims to speak for us.

The very idea of a male-to-constructed female is too…you know….radical. We think you should be free from discrimination – but you’re just not the ‘right fit’ for us.

Really?

Examine the following:

Or, another example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The latter was allowed to spend six years gainfully employed at HRC, some years before that with a Maryland LGB(T) organization:

Maryland’s House of Delegates passed an anti-discrimination bill yesterday that provides protection from discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations for gay men, lesbians and bisexuals with passing privilege (who are straight-appearing and acting). However, House Bill 315 does not cover visibly gender variant people, which includes effeminate gay, bisexual and straight men, masculine lesbian, bisexual and straight women, and transsexual, transgendered and intersexed people.

The bill originally contained fully inclusive language that would have provided protection to all gender variant people in Maryland. During hearings for the bill, Liz Seaton, Executive Director of the Free State Justice Campaign (FSJC), was asked by a committee member if her organization would continue to support the bill without the new inclusive language. According to an eyewitness, Seaton chose not to express her organization’s unequivocal commitment toward the new language. The House Judiciary Committee apparently took her answer as a go-ahead to adopt “compromise” language, stripping the section of the bill protecting visibly gender variant people.

…and is now allowed to be gainfully employed at the American Constitution Society.

And how long has…

been allowed to be gainfully employed at HRC?  I lose track.

So – is the male-spectrum-to-female-spectrum equivalent of these persons a fully-transitioned transsexual woman?

No. 

The male-spectrum-to-female-spectrum equivalent of these persons is RuPaul: a man who wears women’s clothing, retains a male name and who makes (rightfully) no claim to be a woman.

Do you think that RuPaul would have been hired – as a gay man dressing like RuPaul – “by the District [of Columbia] to implement the Tyra Hunter Human Diversity Training Series at [the D.C. Fire & Emergency Medical Services Agency] as part of a prior wrongful-death settlement“?  Or, for that matter – particularly since Tyra Hunter was a trans woman – a trans woman of any look, height, race, style or demeanor would have been hired for such?

Do you think that RuPaul would have been hired – as a gay man dressing like RuPaul – by “America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality“? Or, for that matter – any person of the male-spectrum-to-female-spectrum would have been hired by that organization except as pathetically transparent cover for what said organization did in 2007 – and, in all likelihood, is planning to do again in 2010?

And do you think that RuPaul would have been hired by that organization – as a gay man dressing like RuPaul – even if his half-brother was Speaker of the U.S. House at the time?

If you’re keeping score:

Homosexually pure?

Fine-n-dandy.

Female-spectrum-to-male-spectrum?

In any way, shape, form, passability, believability, state of man-hating, state of antagonism toward the gender status quo, degree of transgressiveness, degree of trans-misogyny, it is inherently praiseworthy and acceptable under all circumstances, qualifications, yadda yadda yadda….

Male-spectrum-to-female-spectrum?

Need not apply – because, you know…

The idea of moving in the direction of femininity is inherently and unchangeably…you know….

 

not “authentic” enough for those who claim they know what’s best because they have bought the perch from which to screech what they claim to be best – notably, but not exclusively, including those are allowed to be gainfully employed at NGLTF…you know…

the organization that was one-fifth founded by Ron Gold?

Beyond Absence, Beyond Insanity

First, refer back to “Absence.”

Now, look at how things stand currently:

No Bellamy vs. McDonald’s, but (in reverse order from their appearance in the screensnap):

1. A gay ambassador
2. Gays in the military
3. GLB(T?) employees at the U.S. Agency for International Development
4. N.Y. gay marriage
5. N.J. gay marriage
6. Possible gay California House speaker
7. Homophobic attacks on Annise Parker
8. Christian law school groups
9. The Onion
10. PFAW on the “New McCarthyism”
11. N.J. Marriage
12. Rachel def. ex-gay moron
13. California gay marriage
14. Adam Lambert
15. Gay marriage in general

Taken individually?

I can’t say that any of them are completely irrelevant (though Adam Lambert comes pretty close), and, in fact several are highly relevant (the Houston mayoral runoff is this coming Saturday.)

But…

Of fifteen posts: five on gay marriage and one on gays in the military?  And that’s in addition one on federal employment (which, thanks to the classic HRC-consecrated definition of ’sexual orientation’, can’t legitimately be said to include ‘T’.)

And nothing about a case which should be to McDonald’s what Cheryl Summerville’s was to Cracker Barrel.

Ironic, no? Given that the proprietor of the targeted blog incessantly cites his connection to the Summerville case as authority to declare all who criticize – and repeatedly disprove the legitimacy of – ‘incremental progress’ as “late to the ball“?

I helped Cheryl Summerville, the lesbian fired from Cracker Barrel for being gay, draft her testimony for Senator Kennedy’s Labor Committee hearing on ENDA in 1994. I can’t count too many of my critics who have been working on ENDA since the early 1990s.

And doubly, triply and fourply ironic given the particular justification for worshipping St. Barney that he was hawking back in 2007?

Openly-gay Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) spoke last night on the House floor about ENDA. Among other things, Barney explained why trying and failing is often worse than not trying at all

Gee, John…

You mean how like the rich, white, don’t-have-to-worry-about-employment-discrimination-cuz-we got-that-in-2002 gays and lesbians in New York ‘tried and failed’ on gay marriage last week????

I guess its not just institutional parasites, but individual parasitic mafiosi as well.

And For Those Who Don’t Like Sport We Have…A Modern Spiritual

Remember, THIS is Who the Organizers of the Millennium March on Washington Insta-Sanctified…While, For All Practical Purposes, Ignoring Trans People

And to think…

Bill Hicks dies - and George Michael is allowed to live.

Justice?  I think not.

George Michael has defended his decision to cruise public toilets for gay sex – insisting it’s better than approaching potential partners in a bar.

…

Michael is quick to defend his actions when cruising for sex – insisting the environment is so much nicer than a nightclub.

He says, “The handful of times a year it’s bloody warm enough, I’ll do it. I’ll do it on a nice summer evening. Quite often there are campfires up there.

“It’s a much nicer place to get some quick and honest sex than standing in a bar, E’d (drugged) off your t*ts shouting at somebody and hoping they want the same thing as you do in bed. D’ya know what I mean?”

I’ve proposed this before, and I’ll do so here yet again: Ask any person in this nation – preferably with the help of a lie detector, but even without if need be – what frightens and disgusts them more: what transsexual women do in the ladies’ room or what gay men – such as George Michael (sorry, gay elite; you bought him for MMOW, you continue to own him whether you like it or not) – do in the men’s room.

But to think…

Over the last decade, privileged white gay men have managed to artificially shift the paranoia-gaze of middle America from the notion – pretty much proven, don’tcha think? - of horny, drug-addled men like George Michael roaming men’s rooms to the notion – completely imagined – of sexually predatory transsexual women in ladies’ rooms.

Ordinarly, I’d say send ‘thank you’ cards to Barney Frank – but, here, I’ll admonish everyone to send one to George Michael as well.

Laff of the Day

From a comment to one of the excellent pieces by Jill Weiss over at Bilerico chronicling the slow-walk to oblivion for the 2009 ENDA that is going to make the fate of 2007’s ENDA 2015 seem like a sylvan interlude in a petunia patch – a claim by “Andrew W”:

I do not know a single gay or lesbian person that wants to leave anyone behind.

Dude really needs to get out more, doesn’t he?