Why The Advocate Can’t Be Trusted
December 1, 2007Unintentional inaccuracy? Or deliberate subversion?
You be the judge.
In the December 18th edition of the Shamvocate, its ringleaders make another attempt to con the public into believeing it gives a damn about trans issues and trans lives. Part of this attempt is a running sidebar item, attributed to one Ryan Wentzel, entitled “A Transgender History.”
One item in that “history”:
1972: Sweden becomes the first country in the world to allow unmarried transsexual citizens to change their sex; the government will even pay for it. Panama would become the second country to legalize transsexuality, in 1975.
Is the Shamvocate trying to pull a fast one by focusing on country, rather than states? So it doesn’t have to mention the following problems for the Aravosisistic narrative of gay-supremacy history?
- 1955: Illinois enacts legislation recognizing transsexualism
- 1967: Arizona enacts legislation recognizing transsexualism
- 1968: Louisiana enacts legislation recognizing transsexualism
But, guess what? Even if the Shamvocate wants to say it was only focusing on entire countries…
its still wrong!
There is that little matter of Switzerland recognizing change of sex at least as early as 1945 (and possibly as early as 1931.)
As for the Shamvocate’s “history,” it goes on to mention Minneapolis becoming the first city with a trans-inclusive ordinance - in 1975. No problem there - though I think it would have been intellectually honest to point out that it happend only 18 months after the city had passed a gay-only ordinance, and it only happened because Twin Cities trannies bitched very loudly enough to scuttle an effort to enact the gay-only language at the state level.
Then this “history” hops to 1977 and Renee Richards’ victory - in a New York trial court - in her quest to play on the women’s tennis circuit.
Might there have been something between 1975 and 1977? Something other than simply the year of 1976? Like, perhaps, something that happened in 1976 that any legit, intended-to-be-informative-rather-than-deceptive trans “history” would have included?
Like, perhaps, a state appelate court recognizing - clearly and unequivocally - marital rights of post-op transsexuals?
Like, New Jersey?
Like, having done so - in M.T. v. J.T., 355 A.2d 204 (N.J Super. App. Div. 1976) - over thirty years before Lewis v. Harris?
Nice try, Shamvocate.
Posted by translegalhistorian