Pot…Kettle…Black…Game Over

January 27, 2012

This morning I heard something about the surviving members of Monty Python getting back together to work on a new project.

Silly me…

I presumed it would be a movie.

Apparently, they’re actually just scripting the dialogue at a transphobic gay male website:

I hope that’s the main feature, because if its just the neo-Crimson Permanent Assurance, I think that the laughter ensuing from whatever is the main feature will cause me to perpetually hemorrhage.

That’s what I think she meant, but it’s not what she said.

And folks warned her about it, so she knew what she was doing.

And folks have warned him about this, yet he refuses to conform it to reality.






Not so much.

Game over.

A History Lesson

January 26, 2012

If the goal is to decrease tensions between the two communities rather than fomenting a civil war, then we need to be able to talk about this stuff, recognize it, and address it.

Does the author of that have any awareness (or even care) that the politico-economic, slaveholding elites who actually fomented rebellion and then fired on Fort Sumter to start the American Civil War – and their descendants and their apologists – refer to the American Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression.

John Aravosis Makes the Case That it is the Responsibility of Gays and Lesbians to Add Trans People to Existing Gay-Only Rights Laws and to Prevent Any New Gay-Only Rights Laws From Coming into Existence

January 26, 2012

Unintentionally, of course.

From a comment in which The John further attempts to arrogate to himself an unfettered right to completely disregard facts per se (as well as allegations as reported) in his desire to demonize people who he increasingly seems to believe are to gay politics what white supremacists believe miscegenation is to racial integrity:

Every attack until now has been done by trans people, and the attacks are happening because the trans community decided to demonize Dan and make him public enemy number one.  So, yes, if you are responsible for motivating the people who attacked him, and they’re doing it in your name, and the previous attacks were done by you, then yes you are responsible for putting a stop to it.


If you’re responsible for motivating legislatures to pass laws that leave trans people unprotected from discrimination by people whose attitude toward trans people is reflected in the above-quoted paragraph (as well as the other comments at your blog, and those at Bilerico and Joe.My.God and Towleroad), and that motivation is done in the name of gays, and previous motivation to pass gay-only rights laws was done by you,  then yes you are responsible for putting a stop to the passage of gay-only rights laws.

Trans people will help, of course. 

We always have been there to help (its just that gayrights organizations have seemingly had either a ‘no trans people need apply’ policy or a hard quota of one trans employee and no more than one trans employee under any circumstances, so we have to earn a living in the real world and then play the political games that gays and lesbians of your atitudinal disposition have rigged against trans people.)

But, clearly, its your job.

you are responsible for putting a stop to it.

I look forward to The John’s first column in which he acknowledges that his years of defending the politically psychotic and morally bankrupt strategy of ‘incremental progress’ on ENDA were, well, politically psychotic and morally bankrupt.

Shit (Still More) Gays Make Up Out of Thin Air

January 26, 2012

Alas, how could I have forgotten the fourth font of anti-trans foment?

Now, to be fair to Towleroad, the title of its piece accurately reflects that trans concerns were not the only thing that the alleged glitterbombers were allegedly concerned about at the alleged glitterbombing of Dan Savage that allegedly occured in Vancouver this week.

That’s a good thing.

But, lets remind ourselves of the Xtra item that Towleroad was parroting:


Well, “variety of ‘isms'” might seem at first glance be read to equate to “among other things, support of marriage equality.”

But remember the actual quote:

He’s part of a broader [group] of gay, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied gay men focused on gay-marriage priorities. We want to say those priorities are messed up.

I don’t see anyone criticizing Savage merely for supporting marriage equality.

You don’t see me criticizing Savage merely for supporting marriage equality (if he’s angry about the crypto-fascist Harper government in Canada possibly erasing his Canadian marriage, he’s right to be; if he’s drumming up support for marriage in the state of Washington, I’m cool with that because the state of Washington took a reality-based approach and first addressed the basic economic and societial equality needs of all LGBT people and then turned its attention to the subset thereof that want to get married.)

You don’t see me criticizing anyone for merely supporting marriage equality.

What you do see – whether or not Towleroad saw it or wanted to see it is a different matter – in Xtra is someone expliclty only expressing dismay over gay marriage prioritization.

What you don’t can’t see is that someone – or any of the “Homomilitia” – being identified as trans-anything, in the title or anywhere else in the Xtra piece…

because such an identification is not there.

Are any of them trans?  I have no idea – but if, as it certainly appears to be, the Xtra item is the only source that Bil Browning, Joe Jervis, The John and Andy Towle are utilizing to pontificate about the alleged Vancouver glitterbombing, then neither Bil Browning nor Joe Jervis nor The John nor Andy Towle know either.

But why let (a lack of) facts get in the way of an opportunity to whip up more anti-trans hatred, eh?

  • Can we glitter bomb the trans activists, please? They are really getting on my nerves.
  • These glitter-bombing idiots are just working against themselves and the cause. I don’t get why they are g-bombing Savage for SUPPORTING marriage equality?
  • Im getting tired of “Trans Activists”, you are either 100% with them or 100% against them and they seem to have no middle ground. They are apparently not interested in working together, and neither am I really. Marriage is important to a lot of Gay and Lesbian and Bisexual couples, so that is our focus. We have made a grave mistake in this alphabet soup business. LGB is more than enough to handle. T and Q can handle their own business.
  • I think it’s a bit selfish of trans activists to be angry about him supporting marriage equality.
  • I don’t know their language or their problems. It is time to let them take the reigns on their own issues.
  • T can take care of themselves. Their issues are incongruous and their behavior is demonstrably against what we are attempting to fight for.
  • [W]here does a group like this get off dissing and denigrating people based on skin color, sexual orientation, or ability–even if Dan is white, gay, and able-bodied? Does that somehow make him “less” of a person to these activists? Isn’t that also a form of intolerance, hatred, and discrimination?)
  • The people are annoying.
  • So trans activists, are you happy now that you’ve alienated a big % of your natural allies?
  • Professional ‘victims’ attacking an ally with their made-up BS is seriously as destructive as our enemies at FRC AFA etc. GET A CLUE ‘activists’. Want to protest someone? Pick a target that ACTUALLY wants you dead, stupid!
  • So, this trans fringe that opposes marriage equality reminds me of women who oppose rights for women, cuz women are so beaten down.
  • I think those “activist” are crazy and act like a sect, just conviced of their cause just because is sounds logical to them and them only without listening no one else. Sadly their attitued will taint those trans people who don’t think like them, the crazy mini group.
    And by the way, that’s what we gays/lesbians get for mixing with a lot of groups that don’t exactly have the same claims
  • These trans political kooks do not speak for me
  • These activists need to back up and look at this irrational pursuit of Dan Savage–the facts just don’t back up their claim….

Oh the irony…

Why indeed should Andy Towle let facts – or the lack thereof – get in the way of an opportunity to whip up more anti-trans hatred among the obnoxious, history-deficient, over-privileged subset of gays and lesbians who already hate trans people and need a reason to feel justified in doing so? 

If lying and then justifying a lie is good enough for The John…

The Implication?

January 25, 2012

I can only interpret the posting of that video – sans any negative comment (“dumbassery” tag or otherwise) by the posting party about the action taken against the particular person who is the subject of that video – as being an implicit approval of this form of assault…

so long as whoever is on the short end of this form of assault is someone who the person who posted that video feels is worthy of being assaulted in that form.

That kinda reminds me of an old joke.

One person asks another: “Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?”

The other person responds: “Yeh, I guess so.”

The first person then asks: “Would you have sex with me for five dollars?”

The second person’s reply to that: “Of course not! What do you think I am?!?!?”

The first person states: “I think we’ve established what you are.  Right now we’re just haggling over a price.”

My first question: Which of the two screensnaps above is the five-dollar shot?

My second question: If someone does something far more serious than glitterbombing to Frothy and all resulting news headlines read “Gay Mafia Attacks Santorum” even though there is no proof that anyone involved with said attack is gay, will The John be willing to apply his own ‘reasoning’ and say that media branding all gays and lesbians as being responsible is justified because there is allegedly a trend of gays and lesbians eviscerating every person who says one thing out of line with the PC rule book of how one is supposed to speak about gay issues?

As I already explained in numerous comments below, the trans community created the environment in which the attacks on Dan have happened – it’s because the trans community thinks he’s the enemy that this is happening.  Now you can quibble about whether these are just some activists in the community and/or their NGLTF-loving gay buddies (and both are a problem), but the fact remains that they’ve created a culture of demonization of anyone who doesn’t see the world in their weird-PC-nouns kind of way.  This latest attack on Dan (and I use the word in a general sense) is part of the continuing attacks that the trans community, or trans activists, have made on Dan, and they’re part of the larger ongoing trend of eviscerating every gay person who says one thing out of line with the PC rule book of how one is supposed to speak about trans issues.  This problem goes far beyond this one incident.  That’s why I’m writing about it.  You guys need to take your own community back from the crazy activists and your PC allies in the gay community

I think we all know the answer…

He’ll either say nothing at all…

or figure a way to blame trans people for the fact that Dan Savage googlebombed the surname “Santorum” into oblivion. (Tuff shit for anyone with that surname who has no connection to Frothy, eh?  Eggs and omelettes, right?)

Shit (Certain) Gays Don’t Say

January 25, 2012

Kathy, at The John’s gay marriage-primacy propaganda site, re: what must now be presumed to be a calculated, anti-trans disinformation campaign being waged by Bil Browning, Joe Jervis and The John about what, even on the face of the single poorly-sourced ‘news’ item about it in Xtra, was a non-trans-specific, alleged glitterbombing of Dan Savage by a non-trans-specific group that has in no way been confirmed as even having had any trans people whatsoever in it:

The news story does not identify the protestors as trans. They identify themselves as queer & cite many other concerns besides trans issues. There has been [no] single person identified from that group as trans at all. Of the entire huge group of six kids.

You’re purposely misrepresenting the facts when you say it does. And knowingly doing so.

Don’t support glitterbombing – It’s silly and doesn’t achieve anything.

But – I do look forward to your many articles taking gay guys to task over using the tactic.

Regarding immaturity – one merely needs to look at the guys commenting here to see the apotheosis of that quality

Well, that’s one thing that certain gays will never say.  The other, of course, is an admission that the single poorly-sourced ‘news’ item in Xtra about the Vancouver incident provides no trans-specific basis whatsoever for this headline:

VANCOUVER: Transgender Activists Glitter-Bomb Dan Savage Again

or its subtitle:

Ho hum. More misdirected anger from the Trans Mafia

Or this part of this headline:

Trans activists glitterbomb Dan Savage again

Or this part of the same headline:

this time because he supports marriage equality

Or this headline:

Trans Mafia: Savage Glitterbombed Again

Or this headline:

Transgender activists glitter bomb Dan Savage again

What is served up instead?

Actually, the best example of immaturity I’ve seen lately is sabotaging a piece of civil rights legislation that has been pending for 40 years because there weren’t enough votes to include every last little detail of restroom rules in it, something that could easily have been accomplished by administrative regulations implementing an enacted law.

The decision to adopt a perfect-or-sabotage strategy is one that I assume the transgender community made fully cognizant that the sabotage option (the only one that was ever realistic) would alienate a large segment of the LGB community. And the strategic decision was made anyway. So I won’t personally tolerate a solitary peep of complaint now about the inevitable consequences. I won’t show one more iota of concern now than the transgender community showed then.

That Rubicon was crossed in 2010.

Well, thus far, that’s the only response to Kathy – and it didn’t come from The John.

I nevertheless do look forward to the many upcoming articles from Bil Browning, Joe Jervis and The John taking themselves to task – as I look forward to the many articles from The Advocate and all of the other Gay, Inc.-approved ‘news’ sources taking the three to task – for amplifying a single ‘news’ item that, even if 100% accurate as to the literal substance underlying the exact wording that it does contain, does not say what one has to assume the three hope that their transphobia-dog-whistle-friendly readership will not bother to find out for themselves that it doesn’t say.

It Does Beg the Question….

January 24, 2012

Clearly something with the finger prints of Mrs. Srivastav and/or GOProud?

I haven’t seen such clear evidence yet.

Or, to be fair even to those whackadoos, any evidence of their involvement.

Likewise, however, I’ve yet to see any evidence whatsoever that anyone connected with the Vancouver incident was trans.


False flag, at least of some color or crest?

Well, given the degree to which The John is avoiding admitting that the title of his post:

Trans activists glitterbomb Dan Savage again, this time because he supports marriage equality

was a knowing lie on The John’s part as to the “because he supports” clause…

I have to wonder.

And I also have to wonder what caliber of lawyer The John really is.  If, based solely on the text that Evan above is scratching his head over, The John had ascribed the intent language of his post’s title in, say, a brief submitted to a court, he’d have been slapped with sanctions.

Or worse.

It is not a reasonable interpretation of the statement in question.


Since anyone – well, any honest person – who compares the prioritazation critique with the intent that The John imagines likely would come away feeling as though The John was not being honest in his reportage about the intent, why shouldn’t anyone – well, any honest person – also seriously doubt the “trans activists” part of it?

If he’s only going by the Xtra web piece, then he can’t possibly know – because there’s nothing there about whether any/all of the alleged group who allegedly did the glitterbombing were trans-anything.

Or, beyond the woman very calmly – and non-glitteringly – handing out anti-Savage flyers, anything-anything.

What’s that???

Lavender Menace????

I thought it was the HomoMilitia?

Or was it the Trans Mafia?

Or did Bil Browning make that up to feed his own political addiction?  Or did Bil Browning make up the appearance of Joe.My.God making it up?

It is, after all, so hard to see the forest for the…

false flags?

I’ve said it elsewhere and I’ll say i again here: Other than what I presume was a fake Facebook invitation from someone who snapped up the name ‘Fister Limpwrist,’ I have no connection to anything related to what is alleged to have taken place in Vancouver; nor am I making any definitive assertion either way about whether the alleged events actually took place.

But I am finding it quite amazing that the seemingly-countless, apparently-unique blog commenters who are demanding ‘proof’ of Dan Savage’s transphobia – well, above and beyond the proof that has been out there for some time (some of that indeed a few years old now) – are not demanding ‘proof’ of what happened in Vancouver and of who was involved in it above and beyond a single truly poorly-written and poorer-still sourced – yet amply copied on eagerly-receptive American gay male sites – item from the website of a Canadian LGB(t) paper that, based on its recent track record, would appear to have a vested interest in negatively influencing popular opinion about trans people.

Yes, every last bit of it could be true. 

Some elements of even the most obnoxiously transphobic comments at The John’s site and others do contain nuggets of usefulness.  No, Savage is not an ally.  However, even if his record warranted the first glitterbombing (or even the first two), at this point it is getting old, and it really isn’t serving any constructive purpose (Particularly if the marriage issue he was plugging was that of Washington State.  C’mon, folx, that state did it right by passing a legitimate civil rights law before moving on to marriage.  Yes, contrary to the well-oiled propaganda of the Marriage Derangement Syndrome elite, marriage is not what a majority of LGBT people want as a top priority and it will not lead to employment protections – but it isn’t unreasonable for it to be on the agenda somewhere.)

Yes, every last bit of this story could be true.

But it also might not be.

Run that up your pole.

Google It – All of It

January 24, 2012

Memo to The John’s Transphobic Greek Chorus at AmericaBleech

January 9, 2012

Well, memos actually:

…all being comments to this, from the Detroit News:

Shelley Hilliard, 19, a transgender woman, was about to be arrested for possession of marijuana Oct. 20 when police offered a way out, according to testimony during a court hearing Thursday. She could set up a drug deal.

With the police listening on speaker phone, Hilliard used her cellphone to call Qasim Raqib, telling him she had someone (an undercover agent) who wanted to buy $335 worth of cocaine and marijuana, according to testimony during Raqib’s preliminary examination Thursday in 36th District Court.

When Raqib arrived at the Motel 6 in Madison Heights 20 minutes later, police arrested him.

Raqib, 30, of Detroit, was released several hours later. Three days later, the mutilated body of Hilliard was discovered ablaze in the street on Detroit’s east side.

But the comments are also memos to the self-important transphobic turds who commented on The John’s recent attempt to rise above it all – you know, the way an angel rises above the afflicted….

Floaters such as this one:

The stupidity and ignorance of fundamentalists has never been of interest to me in determining my rights.

which was a preditably clueless bark from someone who seemingly has never actually had to attempt to find redress against discrimination using the suffocatingly pro-hegemony – and increasingly Rube Goldbrg-esque – legal system of America (and, equally likely, possesses sufficient privilege to have never have experienced any real discrimination on any level.) 

In fact, the bark was against this reality-based observation that could well have been an analytic distillation of the aforenoted Detroit News comment-spewings.

Transphobia against transwomen (speaking as a member of my subgroup) is often us being being included with gay men.  “You’re just a man”, “your gay”, “gay man in a dress”, “f*g” etc.  That is not only transphobia, it is also homophobia.  We experience the same homophobia as gay males – hatred because of sexual orientation. 

Homophobia must be fought on all fronts.

But lets not forget the most significant reason of all that trans people have demanded, are demanding and will continue to demand inclusion – no matter how much of a crimp it puts in the superiority desires of The John and/or any member of his chorus of gay (The?) John Birchers who would be perfectly happy with America’s socio-legal system as it existed circa 1930 just so long as it was tweaked to allow them to tweak and fuck as they please: We demand anti-discrimination protection not just from the likes of the christianist bastards who made those comments at the Detroit News, but from the equally transphobic gay men and women who have fought tooth and nail for decades to keep us out of gay rights discrimination.  No one who fights that hard to make laws gay-only can be presumed not to  be ready, willing and able to use – or presumed to not already have used, where applicable – the combination of gay protection and a lack of trans-inclusion to benefit themselves by ensuring that they will never have to suffer the indignity of seeing qualified trans people judged on their own merits and on an equal footing with non-trans gays and lesbians.

The Gay Rights boat floats others. IF the trans boat is truly a different boat – it is still raised with ours.

A question to trans people: How many of you out there consider your boat to be “floated” by a legal regime in which the John Aravosises, the Chris Crains, the Cathy Brennans, the Stephen Clarks, the Hilary Rosens and those of like mind as the author of that soundbite have – per the operation of law – the absolute, unfettered rights to NOT hire you, NOT rent to you and NOT even let you into their places of business while you, as trans people, if employers, landlords and/or proprietors, are, by operation of that same law, absolutely prohibited from making, even as an education-related form of protest, similar negative employment/rental/business-related decisions against the class of people responsible for such apartheid?

How ‘floated’ do you feel in Wisconsin?  New Hampshire? Delaware?  New York?  Maryland? 

How floated do you actually feel in Massachusetts?

Floating our boats, eh?

I guess all of the qualified trans people who have never been considered for employment by NGLTF during the time period that Sue ‘I openly supported discrimination against trans women when it was convenient, but now I want to continue to make a living claiming that I’m floating their boat along with mine’ Hyde should view ourselves as being comfortably ensconced in the royal quite of an Oilvia cruise, eh?

Oh wait…

Floating our boats?

More like a greed-addled iceberg, I say.

The stupidity and ignorance of fundamentalists has never been of interest to me in determining my rights.

To be quantitatively fair to the author of that remark, there is one thing trans people need more than protection from those fundamentalists.

Its protection from people like the author of that remark.

Every remark like it just adds to the tally of transphobia reparations that we are owed.

People like that whine about the possibility of waiting a bit for a trans-inclusive ENDA?

You deserve the wait – and while you’re waiting, think about all of the ahistorical nonsense that you’ve been snorting for the last few years (you know, like the clear implication in your we-must-wait-on-a-trans-inclusive-ENDA-because-the-needs-of-the-many-outweigh-the-needs-of-the-few psychosis, that somehow, there are fewer trans people than there are gays and lesbians who both want to and actually can, even under objective criteria,serve in the military) in order to convince yourselves that you deserve to get everything you want when you want it and that there is no rationale whatsoever for sacrifice to achieve trans-inclusion but that gay marriage – and nothing less – must be achieved at all costs…

particularly especially the possibility of ever dealing with trans rights.

Yes, transphobia reparations.

You could have done what was right 30, 20, 10 – or even five – years ago, but you wouldn’t.

Transphobia reparations.

Get used to the idea.


January 6, 2012

A question:

An answer:

And evidence that, on teh Aravosis front, whatever year next a legitimate ENDA is introduced will be the next 2007:

I’ve been on the receiving end of a lot of hateful crap from gay people too about this.  People I know and considered friends, who still don’t treat me the same after years since I dared express an opinion.  I’m not talking about some people in the trans community being mean. I’m talking about a culture being created where no one can question anything the trans community says or does, even if it direct affects our civil rights, such as the ENDA battle. We weren’t even entitled to an opinion on that one, even though it was our civil rights bill being debated.  You express an opinion and you are destroyed, and continually destroyed again and again and again to pay for the sin of disagreeing with the collective, or simply asking a question that they don’t approve of.

You mean like the 99.99% of trans people who are equally or better qualified than those non-trans people (gay and straight) who are allowed to be gainfully employed by the corporate gay rights industry but who were blacklisted from the corporate gay rights industry for daring to question the wisdom of the HRC collective on trans-inclusion in ENDA as a purely educational (you know?  education?) during a time when there was no chance of any ENDA getting any closer to enactment than Barney Frank’s underwear?

Po, po, pi’ful John.

He’s just like those oh-so-financially-emaciated, oh-so-politically-excluded corporations that have bought convinced judges that a horde of 297,000,000 Snidely Whiplashes have tied them to the railroad track of ideas and a train of evil democracy is headed their way – well, not all courts anyway:

[T]he notion that corporations are disadvantaged in the political realm is unbelievable. Indeed, it has astounded most Americans.

The notion that whte gay men – whether named Aravosis or Savage or Crain or whatever – are disadvantaged in any way whatsoever within the LGBT political realm is unbelievable.

A question of a different sort:

Am I allowed to bring up that time you blamed evil trannies for ruining ENDA for everyone else? There’s a reason people think you’re anti trans…

…gives way to an answer of the same old sort:

Do you mean the time you decided to sabotage employment protections for millions of gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans, and when gay people dared to voice an opinion about the future of their own civil rights bill that their community had been working on for over 30 years, you excoriated them and called them haters, telling them that they had no right to voice an opinion on the future of their own civil rights – is that the time you’re thinking of?  By the way, has the trans community decided to hold off on marriage until gay people get that same right nationwide?  I seem to remember top trans activists getting married, for years now.  Which confused me, since supposedly we’re all supposed to wait until everyone else “in the community” gets the same right too.  Can you explain that to us, why straight trans people are getting married?

…and another:

But it’s not really all or nothing, as straight trans people continue to get married while many gay people can’t (and no gay married couple enjoys rights at the federal level, while married straight trans people do). And I’m sure it’s “hateful” to point out that hypocrisy.


You mean like ‘marriage or else’ being mandatory but ‘trans-inclusion or else’ being insane?

 I have found, sadly, that the PC police go a lot farther than just some fringe in the trans community.  Their allies include a lot of senior people in the gay community who to this day still treat me differently because I dared, several years ago, to ask questions publicly that no one is supposed to ever ask.

Maybe I’m being too serious here.  The weekend approaches, after all.

Lets end with a joke, shall we?

Two people walk into a bar…

Wait, lets re-work that.

Two lawyers walk into a corporatist gay cesspool of transphobia on Rhode Island Avenue in D.C.  The two are applying for a position that the corporatist gay cesspool of transphobia on Rhode Island Avenue in D.C. will fill that day – and the two are the only two applying for the position.

One of the two is a gay man.

The other is a transsexual woman.

The punch line involves who gets the position.

But I don’t need to type out the punchline, because you know who will get the job – no matter how qualified the transsexual woman is – whether named Katrina Rose or not – and no matter how qualified the gay man isn’t – whether named John Aravosis or not (and lets face it: the outcome would be even more of a certainty at the allegedly more-trans-friendly NGLTF.)

Oh yes…

We’ve all heard the rumors that a certain corporatist gay cesspool of transphobia on Rhode Island Avenue in D.C. might actually go the Michael Trans Steele route when it coronates a new head later this spring.

And that would change the reality-based punchline of that joke about as much as five years has changed The John.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers