Betcha can’t in a million years guess who pecked this in defense of opposition to the Slow-bama LGB(T) rights (non?)agenda?
What’s naive is thinking that the best way to win a negotiation is to make a major concession as your opening move.
If you said ‘the ghost of Quentin Crisp,’ you’d be wrong.
If you said ‘The John,’ you’d be mostly right – because, technically, The John was referring to healthcare reform with that precice line. Of course, on plenty of occasions he’s voiced the same good-enough-for-the-tranny-freaks-but-don’t-you-dare-expect-us-to-wait hypocrisy about his gay purity agenda.
And what’s truly a scream is that the post in which The John typed the above quip is entitled:
Yes, that Adam Nagourney – the co-author of Out For Good, the prime text used in all classes in which gays and lesbians learn how to write trans-erasive gay history.
How trans-erasive is Out For Good, a 1999 book purporting to chronicle the gay rights movement from the days immediately prior to Stonewall up until 1988?
Well, not surprisingly, it includes the events in Minnesota leading up to the 1975 Carlson Amendment.
Also not surprisingly, Nagourney and his co-conspirator, Dudley Clendenin, paint the 1970s Minnesota trans activists as evil interlopers with no real goal other than to make nice straight-acting gays – such as the vignette’s hero, future HRC founder Steve Endean – cry and have to wait for their right to be free (and free to discriminate against trans people in Minnesota.)
Nagourney and Clendenin also point out (here I don’t say ‘also not surprisingly’, because it is something that is objectively accurate) that all of the state-level gay rights efforts in Minnesota in 1975 failed.
Also not surprisingly for a trans-erasure tome, Nagourney and Clendenin do not point out that, only a few months after the debacle in St. Paul, the city of Minneapolis added the trans-inclusive Carlson Amendment language to its 1974, Endean-manufactured gay-only rights ordinance – making it the first city in the nation to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation without also giving gays and lesbians the special right to discriminate against trans people.
Also not surprisingly for a trans-erasure tome, Nagourney and Clendenin for all practical purposes do not point out that that Carlson Amendment language – that their hero Steve Endean fought tooth-and-nail to keep out of the 1975 statewide bill – did become part of Minnesota state law when the state finally did pass a gay rights law in 1993.
But Kat, I thought the book only covered up to 1988?
Officially, yes. But, of course, it wasn’t written and published for a decade after that. It does contain mention of certain things that happened after 1988 – notably the deaths of people interviewed for the book, including Endean, who died in 1993, just months after Minnesota passed that law.
However, the only mention of that law’s trans-inclusivity comes not in reference to Endean’s passing or anywhere in the main text of the book.
As an afterthought in the bio-blurb of Susan Kimberly (among bio-blurbs of all people interviewed for the book), interviewed for the book but, so far as I’ve been able to tell, not actually quoted therein.
Never be fooled: It terms of presenting ‘gay’ history, The John and The Nag are trans-exterminationists of a feather.