Tulsa Gives Gays and Lesbians the Special Right to Discriminate Against Trans People

June 18, 2010

And, of course, there’s cheering in the land of The John:

Sexual orientation, and….?

[ crickets ]

I opted for the screen grab instead of text copy because I thought it would be best to let folks see exactly what the acceptability agenda looks like in action.

Yes, trans inclusion is possible – unless you just don’t want to.

And, of course, those who don’t want to are lining up to do the cheering in John-land:

“If Tulsa, Oklahoma decides sexual orientation should be included with other suspect classes, and our society has evolved to be more equal, then what is holding back the Obama Administration regarding ENDA?”

Maybe it is the fact that in Oklahoma they are smart enough not to insist that sexual orientation protections be linked to transsexual bathroom issues and public cross-dressing. Maybe that has something to do with it. You can be certain that if the gay folks in Tulsa who have been fighting for job protections for 35 years had demanded that the city protect an amorphously defined “gender identity”, the result would have been no job protections for gay and lesbian people for another 35 years. That outcome would no doubt please the “LGBT” gender activists in all the queer studies departments in all of the elite universities on the East and West coasts.

But for the gay and lesbian people of Tulsa who are living real lives at real jobs and who have better things to do than play at gender deconstruction, it would have been a moral and political disaster.

That disastrous path is what HRC and other national gay groups have to date insisted upon. And that is why gay people will get nothing in 2010, 2011, or many years thereafter. That is what happens when you allow yourself to be redefined as “LGBT”.

That reminds me….

How many Ph.D.s in Trans-Eliminationism is it now that St. Barney University has handed out over the last fifteen years?

Steve King is a Treasonous Theocratic Psychopath

June 17, 2010

And  that’s a fact.

From Crooks and Liars:

[T]oday King went on Radio Iowa to defend his comments [about President Obama ‘favoring’ blacks].

During an interview on the G. Gordon Liddy talk show, King said President Obama has a “default mechanism” that “favors the black person.” King also accused U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder of not pursuing a series of cases because those accused were minorities.

“I have no regrets about what I said. I stand by what I said because what I said is accurate. It’s factual,” King said during a telephone interview with Radio Iowa late this afternoon. “I think the president should answer and Attorney General Holder should answer for the justice department being used in the way it is, but what I said was accurate and it was objective.”

I’m not sure who is more deserving of a prosecution for treason: King, or Joe Barton.

And the Weird Thing Is: The Teabagging Treasonists Want to Take Up Arms Against the Government to Aid the Party that Aids Corporations to Create this Neo-Serfdom

June 15, 2010

From Crooks and Liars – and it pretty much speaks for itself:


A fellow blogger tipped me to this article in Business Insider that graphically represents just how wide the income gap has become. And it’s simply staggering: The gap between the top 1% and everyone else hasn’t been this bad since the Roaring Twenties

Psycho Privilege: The Dredge Gets Another Undeserved Platform

June 15, 2010

Apparently, Psychology Today hasn’t gotten the message that Alice Dreger is an ethically-compromised hack with an agenda about as far removed from psychology as BP’s is from giving a shit about the Gulf of Mexico and real people affected by the oil spill.

The Dredge’s blog at PT?

Fetishes I Don’t Get

I shit you not.

She’s touting herself thusly:

Lately, under the auspices of a Guggenheim Fellowship, she’s been writing a walk-about history of scientific controversies in the Internet age. The book includes her own experiences in intersex rights work (she helped lead the Intersex Society of North America for about seven years) and in having done historical research that ticked off a number of transgender activists.

Get it?

Ticked off?

Alice Dreger…

Israel Luna…

Alice Luna…

Israel Dreger…

Its so hard to distinguish between various people who make money off of dehumanizing transsexual women.

She is a guest advisor to Savage Love….

Gee, who would have ever thunk that she’d be an ally of Joe Fudgepacker?

…and her essay, “Lavish Dwarf Entertainment,” was chosen for Norton’s annual Best Creative Non-Fiction volume of 2009.

Well, why stop at dehumanizing one group of people, eh?

As Lynn Conway points out via e-mail regarding this latest publication to legitimize the illegitimacy of the Dredge:

This provides her with quite a pulpit for propagating her pumped-up vita, publicizing her book, glorifying her beloved Bailey and spewing bigotry against trans-activists.
Her biopage signals how she’ll frame the Bailey fiasco as a case of dangerous anti-social behavior by a handful of lunatic activists – when in fact it was a revolutionary internet-based uprising in the wider trans-community against trans-pathologization by the CAMH clique.
It’s also clear that she’s positioning herself as a heroine of intersex rights. Wonder how she’ll explain why she’s become a pariah in the intersex community? By going on attack mode and demonizing a few intersex activists? Probably.
Seems that the LGBTI community needs to position another Psychology Today blogger who can tell “the rest of the story.”


I wouldn’t say that too loudly, Lynn.  I’m sure PT will let RuPaul speak ‘for’ us.

Elena Kagan: Anti-Anti-Discriminationist

June 14, 2010

In short, if the position she took in a 1996 memo is her position, then she might as well be a hand-picked candidate of the christianist dominionists.

Duncan Osborne turned up a 1996 memo from Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan arguing that religious freedom should trump compliance with state anti-discrimination laws.

A case involved a straight couple in California that wanted to rent an apartment so they lied and said they were married until they signed the lease. Afterwards, they admitted that they weren’t and the landlord broke the contract, saying her religion meant hat she couldn’t rent to an unmarried couple. The state of California found in favor of the couple, and the landlord took the case to the Supreme Court to overturn the California court’s decision. She was represented by the Concerned Women for America[], and here’s Elena Kagan, in 1996, arguing that the Clinton Administration should file a brief on her behalf:

“The plurality’s reasoning seems to me quite outrageous almost as if a court were to hold that a state law does not impose a substantial burden on religion because the complainant is free to move to another state,” wrote Kagan, who has been nominated to serve on the US Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, in an August 4, 1996 memo. “[G]iven the importance of this issue to the President and the danger this decision poses to [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act’s] guarantee of religious freedom in the State of California, I think there is an argument to be made for urging the Court to review and reverse the decision.”[…]

In her 1996 memo, Kagan said she was told that the Solicitor General, the office that handles government litigation before the US Supreme Court, was not joining the application.

“The deadline for filing is next week (though the SG’s office can of course ask for an extension), so if we want the SG’s office to reverse its decision, we will have to act very quickly,” Kagan wrote. Quinn’s handwritten response on the memo is indecipherable. It is not clear that the Clinton administration joined the petition.

How many Americans are tired of people getting away with anything just because they say that their religion compels them to do something?

We all know that ‘religious freedom’ means ‘freedom to live the way that christianist dominionists demand that you live – or else.’

Looks like the anti-constitutionist bloc on the SCOTUS is about to get its fifth vote.

So much for believing  that McCain lost in 2008, eh?

Again: Who Actually ‘Recruits’?

June 13, 2010

From the Bowling Green (Ky) Daily News:


Jimmy Harston lives on a quiet farm six miles north of Scottsville, but his messages along some of the busiest interstate highways in America are loud and clear.

“I didn’t really know what to put up at first, and I prayed about it,” he said.

For years, Harston has sought out places for billboards on the private property of landowners who, like Harston, wanted to express their Christian beliefs. The signs, which can be seen from the interstate, bear content such as parts of the Ten Commandments, “Hell is Real,” “If You Died Today Where Would You Spend Eternity?” and “Jesus Saves.”

“I put these up for the people who wants them on their property. They want the signs on their property,” he said. “The Lord put this on me … to do, and it’s not easy to do … and I don’t think I put up as many as I should.”

“I’m just a country boy that the Lord saved when I was a young man,” Harston said. “They’re just religious signs, and there may be some people out there that don’t know, and it may make them think.

In other words, he’s recruiting.

Think about that when next you hear christianists say that they have the right to dispatch certain types of people because said certain types of people allegedly ‘recruit.’

The Wants of the Infinitessimal Percentage of LGBs Who Desire a Career in the Military Trump the Desperate Need of Trans People For Basic Equality – Thank Gay, Inc.

June 11, 2010

From Pam’s House Blend:

I guess Congress can’t multitask. How does it make you feel about the federal legislative body being too feeble to put civil rights on the front burner? The disappointment is felt less in states where there are protections in place, but for those of us in flyover country without state-level ENDAs, any delay leaves LGBTs twisting in the wind, vulnerable to losing their jobs.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday said that a vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act wouldn’t take place until Congress completes legislative action on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

I’ll comment later.

Right now, I’m too angry for words.


June 9, 2010

Well, where trans lives are concerned that would appear to be the case.

A day later:


Incremental progress…

Its a lie.

Always has been, always will be.

ESPA: Organization or Myth?

June 8, 2010

It would have been more appropriate for me to do these screen snaps while the hearing was going on this morning, but the equipment I had access to then didn’t permit me to do so.

So, here we have the front page of the website of the Empire State Pride Agenda as of a few minutes ago:

Yes, there’s a block generally referring to GENDA.

Anything specific which would give anyone a hint that something was afoot with GENDA this week?

If there is, I don’t see it.

How about what one would find on the GENDA-specific page?

Specifics about this week?


BTW, here’s an enlargement of that last bullet point:


Uh huh….

Well, what about press releases?

Uh huh….

I ask all of you: On June 8, 2010, what is more important to your life – passing GENDA or Ross Levi’s big payday?

A Suggestion for a New GENDA Strategy: Tack Gay Marriage Onto the Bill, Then Maybe the Gay Sponsor of the Thing Will Bother to Show Up for Committee Hearings On it

June 8, 2010

From Jill Weiss at Bilerico:

A hearing was held today before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill was voted down 12 to 11.

I listened in on a live webcast, and it was orchestrated very poorly. The first two speakers raised the issues of bathrooms and teachers. The supporters didn’t really seem to know their lines.

I know, we shouldn’t attack our allies; we should be grateful. Yes, thank you. But when they’re frankly unprepared to advocate well, we need to say so.

Oh, and there was the usual New York Senate intrigue and treachery. Senator Lanza originally voted yes, and then, after a harangue from Senator Diaz, changed his vote to no. That one vote change killed the bill. GENDA lay face down on the floor, with Senator Lanza’s knife in its back.

In short, this was Amateur Hour. Clearly, they didn’t bring their A-game to this effort.

The most damning observation comes at the end of her notes about the hearing itself (the audio of which, from what I gather from the NY Senate’s website, will be available soon):

Speaker 8: Where is the sponsor, Senator Tom Duane? I thought the idea of the new committee rules was to make this a better process. If the sponsor isn’t here to hear our thought process, how can this bill be made better?

Yes, there could have been a legitimate reason for him not being there.  No snarks here, I mean that.  People do get sick and/or have real family emergencies.  And if that comment from ‘Speaker 8′ proves not to accurately reflect the situation, I’ll update this post accordingly.

I must, however, note that Duane was in attendance for the floor vote on the don’t-tell-me-that-it-didn’t-suck-all-LGBT-New-York-State-political-capital-down-the-crapper gay marriage bill a while back.

I’m just observin’.

Moreover, I’m also repeatin’: Gay-first ‘incremental progress’ is a lie.  Always has been.  Always will be.