How History Gets Perverted

The corporate media is willingly propagating the Tim Pawlenty re-creation interview.

Now, its the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

Pawlenty was lauded by gay rights activists in 1993, when as a freshman Republican legislator, he supported adding sexual orientation to categories of employment, housing and other discrimination prohibited by state law. He has since said he regrets that vote, a position he reiterated to Newsweek’s Howard Fineman.

He went on to spell out a change he wants made in the statute: It should not outlaw discrimination against “things like cross-dressing, and a variety of other people involved in behaviors that weren’t based on sexual orientation, just a preference for the way they dressed and behaved.” He continued: “If you are a third-grade teacher and you are a man and you show up on Monday as Mr. Johnson and you show up on Tuesday as Mrs. Johnson, that is a little confusing to the kids. So I don’t like that.”

In fact, there’s no mention of cross-dressing in the definition of sexual orientation as it pertains to the state’s Human Rights Act. But Pawlenty’s utterances on the topic are bound to encourage gay rights opponents to mount an effort to make that 16-year-old anti-discrimination law less sweeping. With DFLers in charge at the Legislature, they won’t get far — but they could get far enough to force DFLers to cast politically sensitive election-year votes.

And just to save you the trouble of going over to the State of Minnesota’s website:

“Sexual orientation” means having or being perceived as having an emotional, physical, or sexual attachment to another person without regard to the sex of that person or having or being perceived as having an orientation for such attachment, or having or being perceived as having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one’s biological maleness or femaleness. “Sexual orientation” does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult.

Well, that highlighted portion is always referred to as the transgender clause – and transgender includes crossdressing, right?

Well…

That is where the language first entered the legal lexicon: as an amendment to a gay-only rights bill in the Minnesota House of Representatives on May 8, 1975.

The amendment failed – as did the entire bill.

But the language was added to the Minneapolis Civil Rights Ordinance later that year – and that modified definition became part of Minnesota state law in 1993…

and now The Paw is trying to squirm out from under the vote he cast for it…

…by using the gay transphobe game plan of demonizing all trans people by ignoring what more than a few gay men still do and coverting all known cases involving people who were transitioning into cases involving gender flip-flopping.

Interesting, though…

given that flip-flopping is exactly what The Paw is now doing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: