Mitt Romney appeared on CNN’s Starting Point with Soledad O’Brien this morning to gloat over yesterday’s win in Florida and instead told her he doesn’t care about poor people. Romney said his “current focus is not on the poor”….

Real people see and hear what Republicans really believe.

That’s not good for ‘da brand…

Not at all.

Next up: Mitt’s hour-long, prime time infomercial informing the American people about magic underwear, post-mortem baptisms, the extent to which his church thinks it has the right to control the lives of non-mormons via secular law, and the actual amount and location(s) of his money….

Not.

Well, unless you live in – and are a participant in the perpetuation of – the Gay Marriage, Inc.,™ bubble, you’ve heard that the original story upon which The Bil based his “Trans Mafia” slur has been conclusively debunked (at least as to the trans-participatory and trans-specific nature of the Vancouver incident; and even the glitterbombing aspect is in doubt at this point.)

But when has Gay Marriage, Inc.,™ ever let facts get in the way of drumming up energy against useful, substantive, legitimate trans progress?

[UPDATE]

Adam Polaski updated his piece to reflect what the Xtra report actually said about the Vancouver incident:

Unless you weren’t online on Monday, you probably heard that Dan Savage was glitterbombed for the third time in the past six months. Bil wrote a post about the incident (“Trans Mafia: Savage Glitterbombed Again”)….

But there’s that parenthetical – and the eagerness to demonize trans people that underlies it.

(Channels Ben Stein voice)

Bil?!?!?

Bil?!?!?

Bil?!?!?

Bil?!?!?

(Releases Ben Stein voice).

The correct question: What is Republican Party economic policy, 1981-present (though we also would have accepted: What is Gay, Inc. policy regarding trans issues, 1973-present?)

Still…

Methinks any pro bono help they’ve already gotten must have come from Maryland.

…and their scriveners:

“Gender identity” means the consistent, public manifestation of that identity in the gender-related appearance of an individual; in other words, it’s all based on your looks.

The definition is based on appearance only, since “identity” is internal, it cannot be proved or disproved. Opponents, and even supporters, are likely to amend this vague definition, and that process takes time. The more time that is spent with amending and voting on the amendments, the more likely the bill will fail.

The language requires a “consistent public manifestation” of a sex-role stereotype, “Gender-related appearance,” is just that, a sex-role stereotype.

Re-write…

Make it:

Death, Taxes, Trans-Exterminationists, Their Scriveners, and Stockholm Syndrome

Rather…

Wow…

Someone pointed out how claiming that “trans activists” were responsible for the alleged glitterbombing in Vancouver was, at the very least, an error in reportage…

And the party making the claim actually followed up and acknowledged that the claim was inaccurate and – perhaps most importantly - did not thereafter claim that it was still okay to brand trans people as being responsible for the alleged incident.

That was Xtra – from Canada.

This, however, was Queerty:

Canadian gay paper Xtra reports that six members of a group calling itself Homomilitia were behind the rainbow raid. Activist Fister Limp Wrist accused Savage of “ableist, racist, transphobic, fat-phobic, sero-phobic and rape-apologist attitudes and views.”

Hmmm…

That actually seems to be accurate reportage of what Xtra had originally had to say.

However, this appeared a few lines above that quote:

Dan Savage got glitter-bombed by trans activists at an appearance in Vancouver.

WTF?

Oh…

Silly me.  There is much more anti-trans hatred among gays that needs to be whipped up:

• Amen. I’m so tired of trannies trying to crucify people who actually aren’t their enemies. It’s foolishness and they’re only further isolating themselves
• [T]he REAL people who demonize the trans community seem to get off glitter free by the trans commnity activist
• glitter bomb the trannies
• Now u have gone and done it… this thread will be up to 100 responses in an hour or two… The Trans community will be typing like crazy
• After listening to a year’s contempt of trans people for gay culture and gay leaders, I’m done. If I had my way, we would remove the trans protections from enda. That was probably what destroyed it last time it was considered. And the trans community don’t deserve any more help from us
• Sometimes it seems its easier for trans activist to glitter Savage than actually fight for the passage of ENDA
• Radical trans activists are some of the most anti-gay human beings I’ve ever seen. They demand that we stop pushing our own agenda, drop everything, and rush to aid them in their pathetic little war on the heteronormative cisgender patriarchy. Any gay male who dares to speak up and tell them, “no, fuck off, it’s not our job to fight your battles for you” is immediately attacked and bombarded by a barrage of buzzwords like “ABLE-BODIED WHITE MALE PRIVILEGED CISSEXIST!” It’s sickening. Adding the T to the acronym was the dumbest, most politically suicidal decision gay activists ever made
• Someone explain why T is even included in GLBT?
• what a buncha hormonal bitches

This is just serving to convince me that the Democrats’ October (or whenever) surprise to shore up gay support going into the election is going to be a push for a gay-only ENDA.  These (now) five major American gay blogs that have - in the process adding glaring trans-specificity and trans-exclusivity that in no way is factually supported by the text of the original report – amplified that original Xtra piece with such complete disregard for facts that they have to be an advance move to manufacture a faux-gay-populist uprising against trans-inclusion.

50,000,000 Elvis fans can’t be wrong….

and (now) five major gay blogs can’t be this wrong without any expressed remorse (remember: The John not only isn’t concerned about being wrong; he tried to justify it and to justify maintaining his factually inaccurate phraseology) over being wrong without some organized objective underlying it. 

Maybe its not a push for a gay-only ENDA.

Maybe its just to thoroughly undermine any possibility of any gay energy being expended on Maryland’s trans bill until (years after) Maryland gets gay marriage to go along with its existing gay-only rights law.

Or, maybe, its because, when it comes to entrenched, organized gay transphobia…

it really doesn’t get better.

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.

• Now Gay Men Are Declaring That Trans People May Only Lash Out Against Those Who Gay Men Can Accept as the “Worst Enemy” of Trans People
• The Implication?
• Shit (Certain) Gays Don’t Say
• Shit (Still More) Gays Make Up Out of Thin Air 
• 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
• A History Lesson

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.

Pot…

Kettle…

Black…

Truth?

Truth?

Not so much.

Game over.

[B]ased on reading all that she said, she certainly sounds bi- to me, only she resists using the word “bisexual” because, well, she seems not to like the word. Or something.

Or something?

I don’t know what Cynthia Nixon’s issue actually is, but…

I can’t imagine why anyone would worry about how identifying as bisexual might get them treated by Royal High Gay-Purity Mucketymucks, can you?

Bisexuals, who were only part-time gays, insisted that we add them too, so we did (not without some protest)

Or the ghosts of dead Gay Purity Mucketymucks?

[Y]ears ago, when I wrote something skeptical about bisexuality, I got three indignant replies from “bisexual” women—all of whom admitted that they were in relationships with men.

Over the years I’ve actually noticed a slightly higher higher level of hatred toward bisexuals among gays and lesbians than of hatred toward trans people; just as in the America-as-Rand-Paul-Would-Have-Us-Return-to, there actually were some people – though not enough to matter – who truly believed in both prongs of “separate but equal,” some of the inclusion-haters are truly not trans-haters per se but simply think that both are valid but simply are not connected.

But not enough to matter; the ones who do matter really do hate trans people.

You know it.

I know it.

They know it.

Ditto for bisexuals.

Yet, I still feel justified in saying that the hatred of trans people among gays and lesbians is a more serious issue than the hatred of bisexuals because, somehow, in spite of the rampant bi-phobia, “bisexuality” always ends up as part of the definitional parameters of civil rights laws (I guess Gay, Inc.-oids were never willing to take the chance that, with a “homosexuality or heterosexuality”-only definition of “sexual orientation,” proof of even a long-ago date with a member of the opposite sex would keep Gay, Inc.-oids from being protected in their six-figure jobs, eh?  We couldn’t have a member of the Elizabeth Birch class interrogated - as suspected transsexuals are interrogated about their birth designations and medical histories are whenever they find themselves in court about anything, much less what their sex status will be recognized as – as to whether or not her body has ever co-mingled with a man’s body even once if she was suing for redress against six-or-seven-fugure job discrimination in a jurisdiction that might happen to define “sexual orientation” as “only homosexuality or heterosexuality,” now could we?)

Bisexuality…

Its just another pet bigotry of gay purity crowd.

Whether that reality is why Cynthia Nixon is playing the word games she’s playing right now, I don’t know.

But a gay man who thinks “part-time gays” are worthy of derision – as part of a screed demonizing trans people no less - has no more standing to express shock or dismay about what she’s saying about herself than he does over how trans people have pushed back against not only his separate-but-unequal desires but also his sub-Fox-’News’ willingness to completely make shit up (and subsequently justify making the shit up) in order to demonize trans people.

Or does he really just want to be a toaster?

Robert Hegyes, an actor whose Jewish-Puerto Rican character Juan Epstein was one of the Sweathogs on the 1970s TV sitcom Welcome Back, Kotter, died Thursday of a heart attack in New Jersey. He was 60.

Im feelin’ a bit old tonite.