August 26, 2009

Well, it would appear as though Ted Kennedy’s death has sent enough spikes through the internets that there has been an upswing in views of a Teddy-hater site which, in turn, led to an upswing in views of a piece I – a hater-of-Teddy-for-a-very-specific-reason – posted a while back.

So be it.

I wasn’t going to say anything about the death – and, even now, I’m going to try to be brief and quasi-respectful.

To the folks who are referring to him as a ‘murderer’, get over yourselves.  You’ve got the facts on your side, but don’t overplay them. 

Did he get away with ‘it’?

Of course.

But ‘it’ was, at most, vehicular manslaughter – serious shit which would/should have ended his political career – with a ‘leaving the scene’ chaser. 

It wasn’t ‘murder’.

But, as I noted a few weeks ago:

[L]ets be honest.  The D and R are irrelevant to this; Teddy survived it the same way that another snot-nosed rich Yankee brat was able to cover up a DWI (and, if J.H. Hatfield was right, a cocaine bust): Undeserved inherited wealth and influence – everything that collectively is the antithesis of what this nation is supposed to stand for and be.

For me, this is the bigger issue that people are going to feel compelled to not ‘go there’ on right now.

Yes, everyone is talking about his ‘life of public service’ that he didn’t have to live that way – that he could have just lived the life of a rich kid, outsde of the public eye.

Both Teddy and Dubya exemplify one of America’s worst untamed sicknesses: inherited political power.

I’m sure folks will say the same thing about their money – and I’m not saying I ver have.  But neither of them – nor any of the Kennedys or the Bushes – could help being born to who they were born to.   Shit happens.

But it doesn’t have to be put into power.

Make no mistake, even at his worst, Teddy was no real-life American equivalent of the fictional Brit Piers Fletcher-Dervish (clearly, that equivalency goes to Dubya – particularly given that Piers as a Tory.)  And, aside from ENDA, he’s someone who I tended to agree with on most issues.

But he was where he was for the last 47 years solely because of who he was.

I said this when I was on Trans FM a few weeks back, and I’ll repeat it here.

Take Dubya (please! <rimshot>).

Assume that he turned out to be a Manhchurian Liberal Candidate, becoming the ultimate liberal – championing a real ENDA, healthcare, elimination of unconstitutional influence of religionism on government, etc.

All else from Nov. 2000 to Jan. 2009 being equal, there would still be one problem with that photo-negative version of the Bush Junta.

Its that last word.

It would still have been an illegitmate presidency – for I said all other things from Nov. 2000 to Jan. 2009 being equal, meaning that he didn’t win in either 2000 or 2004, yet still controlled the federal government.

No, I’m not saying Teddy was illegally occupying his Massachusetts senate seat.

But he didn’t earn it either.

Prior to the 2000 election I added to a previous description of Dubya – that of being born on third base but acting as though he got there by hitting a triple – by saying he was trying to get balked home.

Of course, that’s what happened – though the balk was issued by an Eddie Cicotte five-clone masquerading as a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court.


Well, he ended up on third.  One could say he was born there – though, to continue to abuse baseball terminology, it might be more accurate to say that he got there courtesy of being put in to pinch-run after three hit batsmen.



And Bobby.

Well, I’m sure you’re saying, that sounds like a legitimate turn of events.

True enough.  As I said above – Teddy couldn’t help being born into the family he was born into, and he couldn’t help being the last surviving brother.

And I have no doubt that he had strong feeling about the way that the Irish were treated in America as immigrants and that that informed his liberalness.

But the Irish were treated like shit in Ireland too…

by British nobility.

You know – those who live not only by inherited economic wealth but by inherited political power.

Sometimes Erasure is Visible

August 26, 2009

Like here:



Now, given my recent posting about Microschlock, you might think I’d simply give an ‘attaboy’ to The John for pointing this out.

And, to be fair, it is an erasure worth noting.

Of course, erasure of trans-everything is as well.

Irony, much?

If You Don’t Mean It, Don’t Say It

August 26, 2009

There’s a piece up over at Pam’s House Blend by Tanya Domi, a former Army Captain, entitled “When will LGBT people be Free?

The piece is about gays and lesbians being able to serve openly in the military – a legitimate subject, of course, except for one detail.

The title.

I see ‘T’ in the title.

Read the piece for yourself – but you’re not going to find ‘T’ in the body of the piece.

I posted the following comment:

When will LGBT people be free?…

One of my favorite New Yorker cartoons that hangs on the wall of my study is a cartoon drawing of President Lincoln–the iconic image of him standing outside a command tent during the Civil War speaking to General Ulysses S. Grant saying: “Should I free the gays too?”

This cartoon amuses me while it simultaneously angers and saddens me too.

Funny – Domi’s piece has the same effect on me…

Well – the last two of those three emotions anyway.

Speaking about DADT as an issue for “gays” or “gay and lesbian soldiers” or “gay soldiers” or “lesbian and gay Americans” or “[those] negatively defined gay sexuality” or “gays and lesbians” or (my favorite) “we” – the seven separate unquestionably-non-trans-inclusive intonations that she employs – is not inaccurate, because DADT only addreses gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

Tacking ‘T’ onto the title is an insult – certainly to trans people but, if she was actually intending to be inclusive, herself by demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding not only about the policy of DADT but also the gay-trans political dynamic in the non-military world.  Is Domi an aspring A-gay who really does not give a damn but thinks that tacking on that ‘T’ amounts to substantive inclusion of us as people or the concerns of those of us who have served in the military, are serving or desire to?  Is she a Raymond-Daly-Greer-Chiland-Bindel-Bailey-Dreger-Vincent acolyte who doesn’t really believe that there are transsexuals?  Is she an Aravosisist who believes trans-everything has no legitimate connection to GLB?

Go ahead.

Flame me.

But I defy anyone and everyone to point out how the body of her column actually addressed – or for that matter even acknowledged – the fourth of the four prongs of the question she posed with her title.

If you don’t mean it – or understand it – don’t say it.

Predictably, apologists were on the prowl:

if KatRose can’t find an insulT she’ll imagine one

I’ve yet to find the need to conjure up an insult – or a transphobe – with my imagination.

Is it possible that Domi not only is not the latter but also  did not intend the former?


We’ll see.

But, as I said, I’ve never needed to imagine such things.  They proliferate quite freely – and unashamedly.

A Drunk Gay Man Calls a Transsexual Woman a Drag Queen and then Attacks Her – And We’re Supposed to Believe it Wasn’t a Hate Crime?

August 25, 2009

From the Arizona Daily Star:

A Tucson man was convicted of assault and disorderly conduct Monday for attacking a transsexual Vietnam veteran, who testified that her assailant mocked her before the attack.
Defendant Richard Ray Young denied the name-calling but was sentenced to 30 days in jail, a $1,000 fine and three years’ probation for the assault last October at Tucson Greyhound Park.
The victim, Janey Kay, who was born male and had surgery early last year to become female, sustained a cut lip and had two handfuls of hair ripped from her scalp in the incident.
Kay, 60, testified she was withdrawing money from an ATM at the dog-racing track when Young, a man she’d never met, came up and asked if she was a “drag queen.”
When she said she wasn’t, Young delivered an expletive-laced, anti-gay slur and tore her hair out, she said.
While waiting for police to arrive, she said, Young broke away from security staffers who were restraining him and struck her in the face.
While Kay described the attack as a “hate crime” — Young, 49, characterized it as a “misunderstanding.”
Young, who is gay, said he may have made a remark to Kay about his own sexuality, which she misinterpreted. “I let her know that I was one of the family, that I was homosexual,” said Young, who makes his living glazing and firing ceramic tile.
Questioned by defense attorney Richard Bock, Young said Kay grabbed at his face and that he may have reacted to stop her.
Prosecutor Patrick Moran noted that, according to witnesses, Young was the only person who was physically aggressive that night.

Now – here’s the money shot:

Young said he is a supporter of local groups such as Wingspan, which supports gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual people, and said he wouldn’t target someone over gender issues.

First: Does he “support” organizations – locally or nationally – that would view the attack on Kay as ‘not a gay issue’?

Second: Define “supporter” in general, particularly with respect to his “support” of Wingspan.

Third: Being a “supporter” is now supposed to insulate gay men – or anyone for that matter – who gets tanked to such an extent that the person’s transphobia becomes uncontainable?

Now, to be fair:

There were no witnesses when the attack began, [Alison Davison of the Southern Arizona Gender Alliance] noted, so it’s hard to know for sure exactly what was said.

Juries get to weigh the credibility of all who are involved.

Doubts should be resolved in favor of the non-shitfaced.

Luckily, this time it appears as though they were.

From The Onion…NOT!

August 24, 2009

C&L points the way to insanity’s Red Plate Special:

Now the Birthers are demanding to know: Was Obama circumcised?

No – not from the Onion.

But would you believe…from Free Republic?

I knew you could.

An Open Letter to Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, the Crips, the Bloods, the Banditos, the Hells Angels, and Fred Phelps

August 23, 2009

You hereby have my permission to unleash yourselves on Redmond, Washington – and anything and everything that has any connection to Windows Vista.

Still Sewage After All These Years

August 23, 2009

Janice Raymond?


Try Germaine Greer.

Nowadays we are all likely to meet people who think they are women, have women’s names, and feminine clothes and lots of eyeshadow, who seem to us to be some kind of ghastly parody, though it isn’t polite to say so. We pretend that all the people passing for female really are. Other delusions may be challenged, but not a man’s delusion that he is female.

A couple of commenters to Germaine’s festering pool of Greer that the Guardian saw fit to spread over the landscape of trans women’s lives actually seems to echo my previous item about Hannah Mah-Money-Used-to-be-Your-Parents’-Money.  ‘CaressOfSteel’ wrote:

Even though we know that a Y chromosome is only an X that has lost a leg

If that is an example of what you know, I’d give up on the journalism now.

To which ‘Clunie’ replied:

CaressOfSteel: I’d say that level of scientific knowledge probably qualifies her perfectly for journalism, which is depressing and rather alarming.

Actually, it qualifies her for a tenured position in ‘all things trans’ at Northwestern University.