The Record Says Nothing…

April 29, 2008

And I don’t mean an LP featuring the ghost of Nipsey Russell reciting the coke-snorting, draft-dodging rich brat’s mental abilities.

I mean Crawford v. Marion County Election Board:

The record says virtually nothing about the difficulties faced by either indigent voters or voters with religiousobjections to being photographed. While one elderly man stated that he did not have the money to pay for a birthcertificate, when asked if he did not have the money or did not wish to spend it, he replied, “both.” App. 211–212.From this limited evidence we do not know the magnitudeof the impact SEA 483 will have on indigent voters in Indiana. The record does contain the affidavit of one homeless woman who has a copy of her birth certificate, but was denied a photo identification card because she did not have an address. Id., at 67. But that single affidavit gives no indication of how common the problem is.

In sum, on the basis of the record that has been made in this litigation, we cannot conclude that the statute imposes “excessively burdensome requirements” on any class of voters.

Not familiar with this opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court?

Not even familiar with mandatory voter photo-ID laws?

Well, this litigation didn’t appear to be familiar with transsexuals.

But, I’d suggest that you get familiar with Crawford and any law in your state that Republicans have enacted to ensure that people who tend not to vote Republican aren’t able to vote.

Because, come November, those who will be enforcing such laws at polling places will be familiar with transsexuals.

And they will challenge your ID.

And they will indeed make voting “excessively burdensome” for you.

And your vote will never count.

As I stated over at Pam’s House Blend, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board will be

Why the Republicans Just Won the 2008 Presidential Election

And it was decided whilst the Democrats (read: HRC’s HRC) fiddled.


April 29, 2008

From Queer Channel Media, gushing over an impending subscription video blog entitled, wait for it…

Daily Drag Queen Affirmations

Oh, but it gets better.  According to Rebecca Armendariz, the J-note sub fee will be the

Best $20 you’ll ever spend

Here’s a thought.

Donate it to NTAC instead.

Yet Another Reason to Barf at the Sight of the Scampaign’s Purple-n-Yellow Lie, err…, Equal Sign

April 29, 2008

And it has nothing to do with ENDA!!!

In the gay political universe HRC doesn’t only stand for the candidate working with John McCain to tear down the Democrat McCain will face in November. It also stands for something far more loathsome and treacherous than Hillary, the Human Rights Campaign. HRC is an Inside the Beltway kiss ass advocacy group for gay people.

When it comes to electoral politics, you can almost always expect the worst from HRC.

This past February their in house magazine prominently featured Republican rubber stamp and fake moderate Susan Collins (R-ME), including a 2 page spread giving the false impression that Collins is not the enemy of gay people.

Today HRC announced its endorsements for Senate races around the country. They are asking the gay community to donate money to 10 cash-rich incumbents and four Democratic challengers, Jeanne Shaheen (DLC-NH), Mark Udall (D-CO), Tom Udall (D-NM), and Al Franken (D-MN). Among the incumbents is Collins, of course, who is running against a Democratic congressman, Tom Allen, who’s voting record on gay issues is excellent and who is a true friend of the gay community and someone who, again, unlike Collins, will never ever, vote to confirm rabid homophobic judges.

Did the Scampaign learn nothing from endorsing Al D’Amato ten years ago?


Silly me…

What have they ever learned about anything other than how to line their pockets with money that could be going to affect real change?


April 28, 2008

Pee Wee Solmonese is scribbling over at the Huffington Post:

At the Human Rights Campaign, we are acutely aware of just how much hangs in the balance for the GLBT community.

And you know how to make it hang out of balance too.

You can’t polish a turd, Joe.

I suggest you stop trying.

Why the Currently-Voiceless Among Us Need to be in Charge

April 28, 2008

Another story about the ‘pregnant man,’ another several quotes from people presented as being representative of the trans community but who are not.

Case in point: an item in the current issue of the Shamvocate asking “Has Thomas Beatie’s public exposure hurt the transgender movement?”


I don’t seem to recall the Shamvocate worrying about how the trans community would be hurt when it ran Norah Vincent’s extermination manifesto back in 2000.

And, lets not forget that the Shamvocate actually got the media ball rolling with the story of Thomas Beatie, when it ran an online item by him back in March.

But, right now, its the Shamvocate in high ‘journalism’ mode, excreting shit and passing it off as legitimacy.

Now, the current item on Beatie does have a salient observation about Beatie from Jamison Green:

“I wish he didn’t turn himself over to the media.”

But look where the article eventually goes: Shamvocate-proclaimed trans legal expertise from self-professed specialist in trans rights.

“I don’t imagine there will be negative legal consequences for [the Beaties] personally,” says Dean Spade, a lawyer who specializes in transgender rights. After all, the couple is legally married and therefore has all the parental rights a marriage provides. “The idea of someone challenging this doesn’t make sense. The biological tie is generally respected in court.” Spade adds that Beatie’s legal gender can’t be questioned, and because this is a marriage between a legal man and woman, he doesn’t see how the story could have any impact on heterosexual marriage laws in Oregon.

No negative legal consequences?

Legal gender can’t be questioned?

Doesn’t see how the story could have any impact?


Should there be consequnces?  Should Beatie’s gender be questioned?  Should it have any legal impact?

Those are different questions.

But, if Spade really believes there are no possible legal consequences (does he really think some enterprisng political opportunist – even in Oregon or, perhaps, with the feds – won’t try?), and if Spade really believes that Beatie’s legal gender can’t be questioned (it won’t even take an opportunist to arrange some venue in which Beatie’s post-transition-to-male pregnancy will yield a de novo examination of not just Beatie himself but of all statements, documents, etc., that went into getting his gender legally changed in the first instance). and if Spade really believes the story will have no legal impact on heterosexual marriage (as in whether or not an FTM can marry a woman, and whether or not an MTF can marry a man) in Oregon (yeh – I can see all that gay money and energy  to fight against legislative action ‘clarifying’ that marriages such as the Beaties’ are invalid same-sex relationships flowing into Oregon right now…NOT), then Spade has abdicated any and all right that he may have ever had to speak for anyone on trans issues – in court or anywhere else.

Queer Channel Media: All Marriage, All the Time

April 25, 2008

Yes, marriage is the measuring cock – the standard by which a state is to be judged as being either progressive or backward. 

As po’ pi’ful Kevin Naff laments:

Maryland, my backward Maryland

Of course, you’ll find nothing in his snifflefest about the fact that Maryland still is a state that gives people such as himself the special – backward – right to discriminate against trans people.

AFTER LAST YEAR’S high court ruling upholding straight-only marriage in Maryland, many residents of the state — including me — had high hopes for the 2008 legislative session.

Surely, many of us thought, the state’s Democratic lawmakers would right the judicial wrong inflicted by the slimmest of majorities, 4-3. But instead of courageous leadership on a pressing civil rights issue, the state’s politicians quickly reverted to type, abandoning progress and embracing the safe confines of the status quo.

No marriage. No civil unions. Not even domestic partnerships for gays living in a so-called “blue state” where Democrats enjoy monopolistic control of both houses in the legislature and the governor’s mansion.

So, you can work in Maryland without fear – even without the fear of ever having to endure the indignity of accepting the notion that a transsexual woman is equal to you.

T’aint good ’nuff, eh?

So, certainly, if Maryland had taken away your special right to discriminate against trans people, that would not change your view of Maryland as “backward”? 

Ya gotta hand it to Queer Channel Media.  Its consistent.

Of course, there is one new wrinkle in their ‘all gay marriage, all the time’ programming: a slight doff of the hat to the notion of ‘incremental progress’ on the issue of gay marriage.

Of course, it comes from a dubious source.

Given all the Democratic opposition to marriage, why didn’t Equality Maryland pursue more realistic goals, like civil unions?

That question was posed by Stephen Clark, a professor at Albany Law School who is gay and tracks civil rights issues. The answer to that question is that Equality Maryland’s board members and donors wanted to pursue an all-or-nothing strategy — and they got just about nothing. Civil unions are an imperfect solution, as evidenced by the legal mess they’ve created in New Jersey, but they’re a start.

Ah yes…Stephen Clark.

You remember him, I hope.  He’s the spinmeister who Queer Channel Media allowed to put forth the patently inaccurate ‘theory’ (some will say ‘theory’; I say ‘lie’) that most trans-inclusive state civil rights laws have only come into being because the trans aspect has benefitted from “concealment.”  His analysis was so far off the mark that, were it part of a representation of a person or entity, said person or entity would have a good case for a legal malpractice claim (and was also, in my view, actually unethical – probably to the point that it would have put his law license in jeopardy.)  Recall that I conclusively ripped his ‘theory’ to shreds back in November.

To be fair to Clark, I can say one quasi-positive thing: He does appear to be one of the few incrementalism addicts who is wiling to apply ‘incremental progress’ to the issue of gay marriage.

At the end of the day, that doesn’t make him – or Queer Channel Media – any more accurate, honest,  ethical, or even sane, of course. 

For what all of this boils down to for Kavin Naff is: If Iowa, to take an example from middle America, says no to gay marriage, even though it has recognized transsexual existence for 32 years and even though it enacted a trans-inclusive civil rights law last year, it would still be “backward.”

 Trans-Jim Crow-ery is still bigotry. 

Shilling is still shilling. 

And bullshit is still bullshit.

To them, trans people are still nothing.

And to them, our legal victories are just as non-existent as a pile of Munchkin shit.

No Uncertainty Needed (or Warranted)

April 22, 2008

Over at Bilerico, Becky Juro has a rather salient – and, IMHO, rather calm – post about the Scampaign.  Here is a highlight:

[H]ow is it that after all these years of claiming to represent gender-variant Americans and our interests in Washington, this organization still needs to hold trainings to educate its own membership on transgender and gender-variant issues? How is it possible, or even rational, that such an organization, which is clearly incapable of even getting its own membership up to speed on these issues, could be relied upon to advocate these issues to the United States Congress? The obvious answer is that they can’t, not by any reasonable stretch, and anyone who tries to claim otherwise is either lying or or clueless.

Who could seriously argue with that?

Unfortunately, Nancy Nangeroni decided to in the comments to the piece.

I fail to see how this attack does anything to further dialogue or progress. It’s all too easy to attack a person or group for their failings; actually doing something constructive to move us forward is more challenging.

And, as if to prove to the world just how much kool-aid she’s downed, she tacked on this doozy:

HRC has made tremendous progress since my first experience with them, when Shannon Minter and I did a presentation on trans-inclusion for a combined board meeting over 10 years ago.

Such as?

Completely abandoning all fear about the degree to which they can lie to our faces and get away with it?

Maybe using some suped-up, newfangled MIT engineerin’ calculatin’ thingamajig you can work out that calculus to equal ‘progress,’ but this simple ol’ lawyer gal who lives in the real world (and doesn’t use scientific notation or the Heisenberg Principle except when trying to figure out how I’ll pay back my student loans) sees it as exactly the opposite.


And for anyone who thinks I’m being harsh to Nancy, take a gander at what Monica Roberts had to say about it:

HRC has shown as much improvement in terms of transgender inclusion as the LA Clippers have in becoming a consistent NBA playoff team and title contender.

Now that’s harsh.

And earned.