April 30, 2009

The (so-called) Concerned (so-called) Women (cough, hack) for America say:


Here’s some encouragement: Return your body to its (cough, hack) god-given state, shut the fuck up, get married, submit to the guy and start cranking out future christofascists.


Those rules don’t apply to the pretty christofascist girls who want to have bigger breasts than god wanted them to have?

Silly me.

Maybe if HRC Hadn’t Lied So Much, it Might Have a Few More Dollars for Salaries Right Now

April 30, 2009

I’m just sayin’.

Actually, it was Pee Wee who was sayin’ what we all know he actually said back in 2007.   Now, however, according to Queer Channel Media:

The Human Rights Campaign will announce a workforce reduction in the coming weeks, a spokesperson said.

Trevor Thomas, HRC’s deputy communications director, cited economic conditions as the reason for the reduction.

“Like so many other non-profits in this economy, we still have to adjust our budget to comport with economic conditions,” he said.

Yes, but how many non-profits (well, apart from christofascist ones) have as much of a history of telling lies and committing fraud as the Scampaign does?  Lies and fraud which, if HRC’s inner circle of jerks could possibly ever be honest with themselves, have to have resulted in enough of the “economic conditions” to make a difference in the number of employees its going to have to lay off.

In December, HRC President Joe Solmonese told the Blade that the gay civil rights group “has been monitoring the economic climate closely for the past few months and has managed expenses accordingly.”

He said at the time that while contributions had slowed in the last quarter for 2008, HRC had no plans to lay off employees.

Solmonese has since taken a voluntary pay cut of 10 percent, lowering his total compensation from $338,400 to $302,200, according to HRC.


That’s about $302,199 more than he’s worth.

Any wagers as to whether, by some twist of fate (or noose), the layoffs will only manage to affect those few employees of the Rhode Island Avenue Cesspool who actually give a damn about trans people? 

Even if not, for those of you who do get a pink slip from the Scampaign?  Just remember – you have not the Bush-Gramm-McConnell economy to thank for it, but the never-ending stream of transphobic lies and deception by Pee Wee Solmonese and his Purple-n-Yellow Conservaqueens.

We Don’t Exist, Part 683,349,163

April 30, 2009

From Bay Windows – and the headline turns out to say it all:

New Hampshire one step closer to equality

It says it all, because it says nothing…

about the people who were fucked in New Hampshire yesterday the way they were over a decade ago – now aided and abetted by the organized gay rights establishment’s decade-and-a-half-long acquiescence to the ‘demonization of trans women’ narrative.

You see, “equality” no longer needs a modifier – because when they say “equality” they only mean one thing.

They mean  “marriage equality,” which, of course, actually means: “We get gay marriage.  Who gives a fuck whether trans people can find jobs or not?  They’re just trannies.  Oh – you mean we implicitly promised that we’d go back and add them to non-discriminaion law once we got a law that protected us?  Sorry, I don’t have the time, energy or inclination to deal with tranny stuff; I have a wedding to plan and a pre-nup to draft.”

A Sentiment from The John that I Can Agree With

April 30, 2009


Then again, its pretty easy to come to a consensus about how much of an intellectually-diseased nutbag that Virginia Foxx is.

America already has a hate crimes law. We’ve had it for decades. But it only covers race, religion and national origin – in other words, it covers the religious right. It doesn’t cover everyone else. The amendment, which passed in the House yesterday, would add gender, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity to the already-existing law. Regardless of your feelings towards hate crimes laws, if America is going to have one on the books – and it does already – the law should cover everyone, and not just give special rights to the Christian fundamentalists at the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, and the men at the Concerned Women for America.

Preceding that analysis was some other analysis of the gender-transitioned-reincarnation of Jesse Helms:

Oh – and perhaps the most painful thing about the Countdown clip actually isn’t the Foxx Flop but the anti-historical insanity of Michelle ‘My IQ Equals My District Number’ Bachmann.

OK – I might be wrong with that nickname.

6 might be stretching it for her IQ.



Augmented Breasts Are Okay, But Augmented Genitals Aren’t?

April 29, 2009

Presumably – at least it wouldn’t have been in the Miss Universe pageant in 2001.  (Ask Elodie Gossuin why.)

As for post-job boobs?  Well, apparently the only concern – if you can even call it that – is over who pays for them.

Shanna Moakler, Co-Executive Director of the Miss California Organization, has confirmed the group behind the pageant paid for Miss California Carrie Prejean’s breast implants, weeks before she competed in Miss USA.

In a new interview with Access Hollywood’s Billy Bush, Shanna confirmed the news.

“Did you guys pay for it?” Billy asked Shanna directly.

“Yes,” Shanna said. “We did.”

The organization paid for Carrie’s breast enhancement prior to her competing in the Miss USA pageant, which was held in Las Vegas, almost two weeks ago.

“It was something that we all spoke about together,” Shanna said referring to herself, Carrie and Keith Lewis, Shanna’s co-executive director. “It was an option and she wanted it. And we supported that decision.”

Shanna, a former Miss USA herself, defended the Miss California Organization’s decision to pay for the elective surgery.

“Breast implants in pageants is not a rarity. It’s definitely not taboo. It’s very common. Breast implants today among young women today is very common. I don’t personally have them, but you know — they are,” she added.

Well why is it not taboo?

And, perhaps and even bigger question: Where exactly is the focus on what seems to be a bigger matter than her stance on “opposite marriage.”

If I’m reading this right, she is a right-wing nutjob (and, yes, I actually think she has a bit of a legit gripe over being singled out for a really controversial question from someone who, in reality, is probably even more of a waste of DNA than she is; even bigoted morons who view themselves to be superior to the less-perfectly-pretty merely by virtue of even thinking about entering a beauty contest deserve to be treated fairly) who seems to think that marriage being defined as between a man and a woman is unchangeable because its a concept that came from her deity, but that the breasts on her body – which, one has to assume, she believes were created by her preferred deity – are okay to be changed.

If it gets her a tiara.

Her stance on marriage, by itself, would not appear to make her a hypocrite.  A bigot? Yes, but not a hypocrite per se.

But why does she think she has the right to alter the work of the deity that one must presume she believes to be her creator?


That’s right…

Pretty girls with bibles and the right chromosome patterns don’t have to be consistent when they preach to the less-pretty and the less-chromosomally-correct.

And, speaking of the trans issue: Presumably, a woman with a non-surgically-created vagina but with a surgically manufactured bust would be an acceptable contestant, yet a woman with a surgically manufactured bust and a surgically created vagina (or, perhaps, even a vestigal penis) would not be?


The Lie That Keeps on Lying

April 29, 2009

Incremental Progress = Lie:

The New Hampshire Senate today unanimously rejected a bill that would have extended anti-discrimination laws to transgendered people.

House Bill 415 would have protected those with sexual identity issues in areas of housing and employment, much the way the state’s laws protects others from discrimination on the basis of color, race, religion or sexual orientation.

Those who fought the bill said it would open women’s bathrooms, changing rooms and locker rooms to sexual predators who could raise a defense in court that they were sexually confused.

The 24-0 vote to kill it came after Democrats blasted opponents of the bill for dubbing the measure the “bathroom bill,” a move they said created misunderstanding and fear among the general population.

They also criticized the press and media for picking up on the nickname, saying they became an unwitting partner in the effort to continue denying a part of the population its civil rights.


Why didn’t you blast who was really responsible: the gays and lesbians who ensured that their greed – the same senate decided that gays and lesbians only needed to wait a couple of years to move up from civil unions to marriage – superceded our basic need by being complicit in the move of the media’s bathroom gaze away from gay men and onto transsexual women?

Any same-sex couple who takes advantage of the impending same-sex marriage law in New Hampshire is a passive co-conspirator in the ongoing anti-trans economic hate crime that is the state’s gay-only civil rights law.

Looks Like Censorship Hypocrisy is the Least of Virginia Foxx’s Insanities

April 29, 2009

Yes, this was bad.

But, there was more where that came from:

The bill was named after a very unfortunate incident that happened, where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of robbery. It wasn’t because he was gay. The bill was named for him, the hate crimes bill was named for him, but it’s, it’s really a hoax, that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.

You’re telling me that the real-life Mayberry couldn’t have opted for Otis the Drunk instead of this nutjob?