But Not on ENDA?

The John praising Russ Feingold (who voted against the defense bill that contained the trans-inclusive hate crime provision because of the war spending aspect of it) for being willing to have no healthcare reform at all:

Sen. Feingold: No public option is a “strong reason” not to support health care reform bill

OK – that’s just the title of the piece.

Here’s the first line – and the praise:

If you’re not willing to walk away from a negotiation, then you will get played every time.

So…

Who does The John feel got played in the ENDA debacle in 2007?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Anything to Deny How History Actually Has Taken Shape

Rex Wockner on the aftermath of the Obama speech:

The praise for Obama inside HRC’s fancy dinner and the denunciations of Obama in the streets of D.C. seemed to unequivocally confirm the split that’s emerged in the gay community in the aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8 in California.

Confim the split?

I have no qualms with that.

Its his ‘day one’ that I’m calling him out on.  

Once again, we have a gay man unable to acknowledge when ‘The T’ started a movement. 

The anti-Prop 8 protests were confirmation of the split that HRC, Barney Frank and John Aravosis triggered in 2007 over trans-inclusion in ENDA – and I’m being charitable by saying that the anti-Prop 8 protests were a confirmation of that.  Yes, there was plenty of overlap among the vocal anti-Prop 8 folks and the anti-Aravosisists, but the anti-Prop 8 protests largely ignored how the entire notion of ‘gay marriage primacy’ (1) is one largely concocted by the big-money, don’t-give-a-damn-about-the-street-queers interests that comprise HRC, and (2) pretty much erases transsexual legitimacy.

John Aravosis: Twenty-First Century Hypocritical Man

I know, I’m guilty of King Crimson abuse.  All due apologies to Robert Fripp.

None, however, to The John.

Politico:

“It certainly can’t hurt if people on our side realize the vehemence of the opposition the president faces,” a top gay Democrat close to Obama told POLITICO. “The stuff the right wing is cranking out is horrible, terrible. There are a lot of understandably impatient LGBT Americans…but while all their criticism is well-intended, some of it is politically naïve.”

I’ve been working in politics for 20 years, and quite successfully at that. I know how the system works. And it doesn’t work well when you telegraph cowardice and fear. The Obama administration would like you all to believe that your expectation that he simply keep his promises is somehow “unrealistic” and “politically naive.” And yes, it may be naive that we actually expect Barack Obama to be true to his word. But please spare us the lectures about how politics is just too confusing for we simple gay folk. 

This has actually gone beyond the point where I’m getting a wee bit of satisfaction in pointing out the rank hypocrisy among the Incrementalism Class of 2007 as they whine in 2009 about being broadly told the precise things that they expected us swallow two (and three, and four…) years ago on the specific issue of trans-inclusion in ENDA.

Do I like asking, “Gee, John, how does it feel to be told by some shadowy figure lurking behind a curtain that all of the super-secret info that they have requires maintenance of the status quo?”?

Partially yes, and partially no.

I do enjoy seeing arrogant classists get what they have coming.

But, unlike most of the arrogant gay classists of the Society for Creative Incrementalism – I mean you as well Hillary Rosen, Ms. Incrementalism Class of 2007 Homecoming Queen - I live in reality and realize that what’s going on right now is screwing me as well as even those gays who happen to be transphobic but who, unlike Hillary Rosen, actually have to worry about earning an honest living and paying bills with their own money.

The World of The John: The Only Thing That ‘Incremental Progress’ Should Apply to is Trans Employment Anti-Discrimination Law

All who can be honest with themselves should acknowledge seeing this one coming.

The John on The Healthcare Insanity:

Obama is leaning towards dropping the public option, even though it remains popular in the polls.

Then there’s this:

Sources expect the president to emphasize the message: If Congress passes something now, it will serve as a foundation to pass further reform in the future.

Yes, better luck next time. And when exactly will that future be? The next time we win control of the White House, and both houses of Congress, while the Republicans have been absolutely decimated after having destroyed the economy and the military, and our president has a 70% approval rating that he refuses to use?

It’s rather amazing that President Obama is now suggesting that we should wait until next time, when he hasn’t even tried this time yet. They are going to split the baby in half on every issue for the rest of their presidency, and then tell the folks they betrayed to take it or leave it, because at least it’s better than the Republicans would have done.

Hmmmmmmm….

I seem to recall no problem whatsoever in The John land regarding splitting a certain legislative baby in half and having those who were betrayed stuck with even less than ”take it or leave it.”  In 2007, there was no option to take it.  We were forced to take it.  Our only option was to squeal or not to squeal while it was happening.

I remember a time when Democrats aspired to do good, rather than simply aspiring to be better than the Worst Republican President Ever.

I remember a time when The John should have said that – and it was just about two years ago.

Of course, we’re not even to the real irony yet.

If there was anything that The John – or anyone – should be willing to accept ‘incremental progress’ on, its healthcare.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I think he and I are actually on the same page with respect to abject disappointment over the performance of the Darling Dems on healthcare.

However…

If Obama and the Dem Weaselship cave to their Corporatist overlords, the result will indeed by shitty – but it will be shitty across the board.  No – I’m not asseriting that no one will be worse off as a result of any Rahm-promise; I’m assuming a lot of people will be.

But in terms of classes of people affected, it will not be arbitrarily confined to a class.

There will be no hirdwiring into law of crap such as:  ’no decent option for insurance for women’ or ‘no decent option for insurance for Jews’ or ‘no decent option for insurance for those of Asian ancestry’ or ‘no decent option for insurance for gays’ or ‘no decent option for insurance for transsexuals.’

In short, whether the ‘no decent option for insurance’ angel arrives at your door will be the same crapshoot that it is now.

Its a form of ‘incremental progress’ that is incrementally bad for everyone.  There’s always the potential that a minor illness will destroy you financially – but there’s no guarantee that it will happen.

You know…

Like it is now regarding federal anti-discrimination protection.  If you’re gay or trans, there’s always the potential that a new supervisor where you work will decide to rid the jobsite of queers, potentially destroying you professionally and financially – but there’s no guarantee that it will happen.

But under the ENDA that The John was willing to settle for two years ago, if you’re gay or trans, there would still always the potential that a new supervisor where you work might decide to rid the jobsite of queers, which potentially could destroy you professionally and financially – and there would be no guarantee that it would happen, but if you were gay there would be a guarantee that, if it was to happen, you would be able to fight back in court…

and if you were transsexual there would be a guarantee that, if it was to happen, you would not be able to fight back in court.

The John’s shitty 2007 ENDA would not have been shitty across the board – it would have been shitty for one (de-)enumerated class of people.

‘Incremental progress’ is fine and dandy for The John when he knows that it will not negatively affect him.

But, with healthcare, there’s always a chance that the lie that is ’incremental progress’ will be laid bare and exposed for all the world to see on his doorstep.

And that, apparently, just will not do for The John.

Sometimes Erasure is Visible

Like here:

 

Now, given my recent posting about Microschlock, you might think I’d simply give an ‘attaboy’ to The John for pointing this out.

And, to be fair, it is an erasure worth noting.

Of course, erasure of trans-everything is as well.

Irony, much?

Marriage Derangement Syndrome Mutates

From Gay City News – no, really, this is not from The Onion; its from Gay City News:

The attorney representing two gay men who sued in state court and now in federal court in southern California to win the right to marry hopes the case will spawn a political movement that will result in residents there voting by ballot initiative to divide the state in two.

“We’re hoping to use the case in court as a springboard to get a proposition on the ballot that will break up California into two states,” said Richard C. Gilbert, a partner at Gilbert & Marlowe, a law firm with two offices in California. “We think if we can get this proposition on the ballot, we think we’ll win.”

Gilbert said the ideal result would be that all the counties north of Los Angeles would become New California while the southern counties would remain California.

Now, don’t get me wrong.

I’m not from California and I’ve never lived there – and you don’t have to be either to have heard people from California speak of how NoCal and SoCal at times seem like two different states.

But think about what Gilbert is up to.

First: using a gay marriage case as a springboard to transforming that perception of duality into legal reality.

Second: Someone needs to find out where this character was during the ENDA fiasco two years ago.  And what about his clients – the ones whose Marriage Derangement Syndrome he is clearly exploiting?  Were they living in reality?  Or were they Aravosisists? 

You know – an Aravosisist…

One of those life forms who railed and wailed and whines and huffed and puffed and snorted and contorted about how standing firm for trans-inclusion would sacrifice the rights of so many (no numnbers here; it often changed in the Aravosisist rants) millions of fine, upstanding – fine and upstanding because they aren’t trans – gays.

Well what would bifurcating California sacrifice?

In and of itself, nothing.

But how many reality-based individuals believe that things like gay rights laws (much less trans-inclusive ones) and a law recognizing the reality of transsexualism would be long for a world state whose political axis would consist of San Diego, Orange County, Fresno and Bakersfield? 

But, I guess the existing political and economic rights of gays and trans people in SoCal are a regrettable but necessary potential sacrifice in order for the Marriage Derangement Syndrome sufferers of NoCal to be able to scratch their itch.

You know…

The way that transsexual recognition rights have been sacrificable everywhere?

Life Where the Law is Real

From the Minnesota Department of Human Rights:

When she was hired by Wal-Mart in 2005, Chrissy Nakonsky explained to her employer that she was a transgender person transitioning from male to female, and that she self-identified as a woman. Although her legal name was Jeffrey, she was permitted to dress according to the women’s dress code, and to wear the name “Chrissy” on her name badge. Then one day in January 2006, a Wal-Mart assistant manager informed her that she would no longer be permitted to dress as a woman or to wear earrings or her hair in a ponytail. Some customers had complained and threatened to stop shopping at Wal-Mart unless she dressed as a man, the manager explained. Wal-Mart’s legal department subsequently advised her that she could not dress as a woman unless she had a doctor’s excuse, and that she would be terminated if she violated the men’s dress code without such an excuse.

On February 23, Nakonsky provided her employer with a note from her doctor, explaining that she is required as part of her transition to live full-time in the female role, including presenting herself fully as female. Two days later, her employer told her that despite the note, she would be required to dress according to the men’s dress code until her driver’s license and social security card said “female.” She asked why the rules kept changing. She was later told that she would be permitted to wear blouses and pants, but no dresses, no earrings and nothing too “feminine.” If she wished to wear a wig, it would have to be approved by management. She was also required to wear the name “Jeff” on her name tag instead of “Chrissy.” On March 20, she legally changed her name to Chrissy, and was allowed to use that name on her badge. In mid-April, she was finally allowed to dress according to the women’s dress code. Nakonsky filed a charge with the Department of Human Rights, alleging that Wal-Mart had discriminated against her on the basis of sexual orientation. “My attire did not conform to the respondent’s or its customers’ stereotyped notions of men and women… though I provided information about the Minnesota Human Rights Act and its requirements, the respondent insisted that they were not compelled to allow me to dress in a way that is consistent with my identified gender,” she stated in her charge.

What the Department’s Investigation Found

In answering the charge, Wal-Mart argued that it had acted appropriately and within the law. It had told Nakonsky that she could dress as a woman as long as her attire and presentation was professional, but her woman’s attire was not professional, Wal-Mart determined. The company requires all associates to use their proper name on their names badges, and when Nakonsky legally changed her name, Wal-Mart changed her name badge. Further, when Nakonsky brought in a doctor’s note diagnosing gender dysphoria and was to live full-time as a female, Wal-Mart allowed her to dress and conduct herself as a woman, it maintained.

Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, sexual orientation includes having an identity or self-image not traditionally associated with one’s biological gender. In its investigation, the Department of Human Rights determined that the weight of the evidence indicated that Wal-Mart had failed to treat Nakonsky in a manner that was consistent with her gender identity. It had “belatedly” allowed her to dress according to its women’s dress code, but very conservatively. Although it had required Nakonsky to use her proper or legal name rather than the name she was known by, “Chrissy,” it had allowed other, non-transgendered employees to wear nicknames on their badges. In addition, management knew that co-workers were shunning and harassing Nakonsky because of her gender identity and expression and creating a hostile work environment, but failed to prevent this harassment. Although Nakonsky had eventually left her job at Wal-Mart, she had done so because she had been subjected to intolerable working conditions involving illegal discrimination based on her gender identity. The Department found probable cause to believe that Wal-Mart had discriminated against Nakonsky in violation of the Human Rights Act, and that her termination was a “constructive discharge.”

The upshot?

Wal-Mart to Pay $12,000 in Settlement of Discrimination Charge by Transgender Employee

Case 48335, closed 2-13-09

Charging Party
Chrissy Nakonsky, Brainerd, MN

Respondent
Wal-Mart Stores Inc
702 SW 8th St
Bentonville, AR 72716-8312

…

In a negotiated settlement, Wal-Mart agreed to pay Chrissy Nakonsky $12,000, and to provide training at the store where Nakonsky had worked for salaried members of management on employer obligations under the Human Rights Act regarding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Minnesota is one of those states that don’t exist in the minds of the incrementalism acolytes: Its definition of “sexual orientation” is trans-inclusive and was so from the moment the state enacted it.

Think about that and this case when the Aravosisists again proclaim – and they will – that lack of trans-inclusion is an acceptable outcome for ENDA.

Hypocrisy Much?

By now I’m sure most folx have heard Bill Clinton’s on-the-fly analysis at Netroots of gay rights circa 1993-96:

You want to talk about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, I’ll tell you exactly what happened. You couldn’t deliver me any support in the Congress and they voted by a veto-proof majority in both houses against my attempt to let gays serve in the military, and the media supported them. They raised all kinds of devilment. And all most of you did was to attack me instead of getting me some support in the Congress. Now that’s the truth.

…

Now, while we’re at it, let me just say one thing about DOMA, since you — the reason I signed DOMA was — and I said when I signed it — that I thought the question of whether gays should marry should be left up to states and to religious organizations, and if any church or other religious body wanted to recognize gay marriage, they ought to. We were attempting at the time, in a very reactionary Congress, to head off an attempt to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the states. And if you look at the 11 referenda much later — in 2004, in the election — which the Republicans put on the ballot to try to get the base vote for President Bush up, I think it’s obvious that something had to be done to try to keep the Republican Congress from presenting that. The President doesn’t even get to veto that. The Congress can refer constitutional amendments to the states. I didn’t like signing DOMA….

Now…

Look at the commentary reaction over at The John’s place:

Which party was in control of both houses of Congress when DADT was passed? Democrats. LGBT people need to blame the Democrats for DADT.

…

Clinton’s DoMA statements are crap. He hurt us because he was protecting us?!?

And that was just from one person.

An aberration?

His longwinded “It ain’t my fault! Blame Congress!” response pretty much says it all: No, I will not. I wouldn’t take much of what Slick Willie says at face value. he was never a friend of the LGBT community.

Two aberrations?

No, he was never a friend of the LGBT community, nor of any progressive liberal.

When St. Barney - aided and abetted by his Aravosisist shills – declare that ”You couldn’t deliver me any support in the Congress” ends the discussion about the ENDA fisasco of 2007, we are expected to bend over and receive it as the revealed and unchallengeable  gospel.  But when the person who was president of the United States at the time that the gay rights industry was so full of its own bullshit that it thought that it could shove themselves down the throats of the military with no blowback says “You couldn’t deliver me any support in the Congress” – and, unlike St. Barney and his Greek chorus, is accurate in saying so – it is unacceptable analysis.

And, as for “Clinton’s DoMA statements are crap”?

Meth?

X?

Or stupidity by birth?

Or – and, as you might imagine, this gets my vote – all of the above plus a heapin’ helpin’ of Marriage Derangement Syndrome-fueled arrogance?

Or does it really matter?

Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay

Gay? 

21 times. 

But…

Care to guess what word one will not find in the post from The John touting a more GAY-specific arm of AmericaBlog?

The Autumn of Our Discontent

I’m sure I’ve used that line elsewhere in referring to various bits by Autumn Sandeen, but I think its again warranted here as a guide to a piece she has up at Pam’s about Marriage Derangement Syndrome Central The John.  Its worth a read.