So What’s The Education Been Done On?

Seen recently on Facebook – a reponse to a letter (e-mail?) in favor of both the marriage bill and the trans bill:

Dear XXXXXXXX,*

Thank you for your e-mail in support of marriage equality legislation. I appreciate your input.

I am pleased to report that I’ve signed on as a co-sponsor of the marriage equality bill [The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act]. I believe this is a civil right and will be happy to vote in favor.

As to protections for gender identity anti-discrimination, I’m not as familiar with the relevant issues, but I’d be likely to support that as well. 

Feel free to contact me again on this or other issues.

Sincerely,

Del. Dana Stein

So, what exactly have the LGB(T) advocates been advocatin’ and educatin’ about for all these years?

Well, in your heart, you know what the answer is.

*I’m not including the name because I’m not sure how public the person wants this to be.  (I know, I know…that just doesn’t fit in with the Seattle Santorum narrative of what I’m all about.  Oh well….)

Whaddaya Expect From the Houston Chronk?

(h/t Cristan Williams)

Apparently Myra Ical’s murderer has been found.

A Houston man already charged in the September death of a homeless woman is now suspected of five fatal strangulations last year, including two other homeless women and two transgender women.

Of course, the Houston Chronk has decided to take up where Lucky Ward left off, attacking what is left of Myra – namely her name – by not using her name and instead using her pre-transition male name.  Moreover, in seemingly referring to the same victims, the Chronk uses both “transgender women” and “men who dressed as women.”

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to go, Chronk-a-rama!

Fox ‘News’ Is as Fox ‘News’ Does

C&L on the ‘Fox News Lies’ chants from the Madison protesters:

When the chant went up Saturday, [Mike] Tobin tried to minimize them:

TOBIN: Now, once again, they’re chanting about Fox News — which as we all know is really a diversion from what’s going on here.

Jarrett then went on to cite a phony Rasmussen poll supposedly showing most respondents disapproving of the legislators staying out of town to fight Gov. Scott Walker’s union-busting schemes — without mentioning, of course, the polls showing strong public disapproval for Walker’s actions as well.

Gee, we wonder why the crowds were chanting as they were.

Fox ‘news’ is as Fox ‘news’ does.

And This is Supposed to Dispel the Notion that Marriage is a Rich Gays’ Issue…How?

And so we now have…

A $363,000 Tax Bill to Widow Led to Obama Shift in Defense of Marriage Act

…

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer had a 40-year engagement and a two-year marriage, starting with a wedding in Canada recognized under the laws of New York, where they lived, and ending when Spyer died two years ago.

Her death triggered a $363,053 federal tax bill from which her widow would have been exempt had she been married to a man, because the federal Defense of Marriage Act bars the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex unions.

…

Both women in the New York case were professionals, with homes in Manhattan and Long Island. The Amsterdam-born Spyer was a clinical psychologist. Windsor, born in Philadelphia, earned a master’s degree in mathematics from New York University and built a career as a manager for International Business Machines Corp., according to a complaint filed in her case.

Now, contrary to the impression that Laurel “Lurleen Blogovitch” Ramseyer’s scriverner at the Seattle Santorum wants the that paper’s readers (and the blogosphere at large) to come away with, neither I nor just about any trans activist is against same-sex marriage (those who claim that we are should pay daily tribute to New York Times v. Sullivan but should also keep in mind that eventually someone is going to convince a version of the U.S. Supreme Court that bullshit per se should be actionable.)  We are, however, simply against the obscene over-prioritization of it as an issue in general and the disingenuous rhetorical corollary which holds that, somehow, same-sex marriage helps trans people more than anti-discrimination protections do.

Does anyone – trans, LGB or merely in the land of functioning brains – who is against the obscene over-prioritization of gay marriage as an issue in general and the  disingenuous rhetorical corollary which holds that, somehow, same-sex marriage helps trans people more than anti-discrimination protections do not think that what is happening to Edith Windsor is at least unjust and, in all likelihood, unconstitutional?

Yet, plenty of those who actively engage in the obscene over-prioritization of gay marriage as an issue in general and who disseminate the disingenuous rhetorical corollary which holds that, somehow, same-sex marriage helps trans people more than anti-discrimination protections do either don’t get – or don’t care – that no DOMA repeal bill and no anti-DOMA decision from the U.S. Supreme Court would benefit 2011 counterparts to Windsor and Spyer if their employers decided that they didn’t want to employ lesbians.

And I won’t even mention how neither would be of any use whatsoever to the career aspirations of any trans person.

So, my question – a question that gay organizations refuse to even make an attempt to offer a stright (pun intended) answer to and which, while not forbidden, if shunted off to oblivion on InsidersOut blogs – is this: How did it become more of an ‘LGB(T) community’ priority to protect the estates of LGB people who managed to earn a living with and/or without anti-discrimination protections than to enable LGBs and, of course, Ts to actually compete in the marketplace for the opportunity to earn money  and create an estate in the first place?

If the answer is not ‘pure, unadulterated greed (with or without a transphobia chaser), then please enlighten me as to what it is.’

Straight answers from gays, only.

Shit-Shovelling Shills and Their Same Old Shams, Scams and Swill: New Faces, No Changes

Take a look at this guy:

Based on the teeth-gritting, is he:

1. Unable to shake off a badger that’s gnawing his foot off?
2. Unable to shake off a badger that’s gnawing his testicles off?
3. Unable to take a piss?
4. Unable to take a shit?
5. Unable to believe the shit he’s shoveling?

Hopefully for his physical well-being it is (5), but that, then, would only beg the question of why he’s shovelling it to begin with.  Oh wait…I bet you can guess why:

Some advocates within the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community have presented a false choice between advocating for marriage equality and the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would outlaw workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The truth is that the steps we take toward one goal also bring us closer to the other goal. Equality begets equality.

In fact, this week’s much-celebrated announcement by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in the litigation challenging the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will likely bolster efforts to secure equal rights both in civil marriage and in employment.

Uh huh…

That sounds a bit like:

Every gain that gays and lesbians have made has positively impacted trans people.

But of course it sounds even more like:

…the current trans-excluding ENDA, when read in conjunction with Title VII, would result in judges having no daylight between the two laws wherein they could allow discrimination against transgendered people.

But Tico Almeida, someone who I suspect has never competed against trans people for employment, can’t stop himself:

[W]hat many people in the LGBT and broader communities do not realize is that under current constitutional law, transgender employees actually have stronger constitutional protections and greater chances of winning workplace discrimination cases than gay and lesbian employees who also work for state government employers.

Funny…he doesn’t look like Cathy Brennan.

Or Stephen Clark, for that matter.

But, the gay marriage industry is the gay marriage industry, and all-gay-marriage-all-the-time InsidersOut blogs are  all-gay-marriage-all-the-time InsidersOut blogs.

Am I the only one who finds it a bit ironic that this particular piece of gay-marriage-primacy santorum (he gets kudos, yes, for mentioning the Jim Trans Crow witness list of the Senate ENDA hearing, but santorum is santorum) materialized a few days after an on-the-outside-of-reality-and-not-even-attempting-to-look-in chunk of nonsense uncritically advanced the notion that having the temerity to notice the gay-marriage-primacy agenda in action falls under the heading of “paranoid conspiracy theories”? (The reality-centric discussion of the specifics of that controversy will never be found at Bilerico, but can be found here.)

While it is tempting to analogize the implicit illegitimate double message about trans people contained in Almeida’s dogwhistle to that which a group of white men in Texas are illegitimtely putting forth about themselves (after all, as gay dogma tells us, trans people are only white and really men – whether MTF or FTM), I can’t think of a better way to end my analysis of Tico Almeida’s entry into the hall of gay-primacy shills than by quoting Cynthia’s comment to the thing:

What a total load of hooey! Trans already have more protections than LGB’S? Not even close! This seems to me to be an attempt to derail, and subvert any chances that Trans persons might have towards also gaining equality. What I still all these years fail to understand is why LGB people feel such animosity towards us.

Seems?

I Wonder if St. Barney Ever Tried to Get Chris Lee on Board for a Trans-Inclusive ENDA?

Considering that HuffPo has had some problems in the past with proper coverage of trans issues, I’m somewhat surprised that it appears to have taken the high road with the latest revelations regarding the Chris Lee scandal – namely the fact that said scandal may well not be over.

Gawker is adding another twist in the trials and tribulations of former Rep. Chris Lee (R-N.Y.) Friday, with a report that two D.C.-area transgender women have contacted the publication with stories about making connections with the lawmaker through Craigslist.

Gawker, which broke the original story about Lee’s contact with a single woman on the site, reports:

In the past 10 days, two D.C.-area transgender women contacted us, each with a separate story about exchanging emails with the ex-congressman. One sent us an ad that Lee allegedly posted on Craigslist in search of trans women; the other sent us a never-before-seen photo that she says Lee sent her after they started chatting by email. Taken together, they present a possible explanation to those who have wondered why such a tame “sex scandal” forced Lee’s hand so quickly.

In January, Lee sought to bring a conclusion to what was largely considered one of the shortest Capitol Hill scandals of all time when he abruptly resigned just hours after the release of a picture and email correspondence with a single Maryland mother.

Fairly straightforward – but what I’m shocked by is the post’s title:

Chris Lee, Craigslist Ex-Congressman, Reportedly Trolled Site For Transgender Women

For, you see, that also is fairly straightforward and not transphobic.  On the other hand:

Of course, to be fair to Gawker, if they’re accurate about the actual text of the ad, then it is not out of line to have some form of the word “crossdress” in the title of the piece.  Moreover, it seems as though two prostitutes have been linked to Lee:

The first woman who reached out to us was a pre-op transgender woman from Arlington, Virginia who we’ll call Fiona.

…

The other person who contacted us shortly after our story was published was a transvestite who lives and works in Washington, D.C. We’ll call her Holly.

I understand the need for catchy headlines, but why do one that’s going to subsume all trans women under the category “crossdresser”?  (And crossdressers, please, don’t barrage me with nasty retorts; this isn’t about turf wars or who is at the top of the ‘T’ ladder; most of you want to be put in the proper category too whenever the subject appears in print and I’m guessing the transvestite doesn’t want to be labeled as a transsexual any more than the transsexual wants to be called a transvestite.)

I Ask Again: What’s Going To Happen if the Maryland Gay Marriage Bill Tanks?

From All Gay Marriage All the Time News:

Dozens of witnesses testified for and against a same-sex marriage bill before a committee of the Maryland House of Delegates in Annapolis on Friday as the bill’s sponsors cautioned supporters not to become complacent.

…

officials with the statewide LGBT advocacy group Equality Maryland expressed concern that an expected vote on the bill in the House of Delegates within the next two weeks appears much closer than originally expected.Backers said that as of this week, the number of delegates who have publicly declared their support for the bill was just short of the 71 votes needed in the 141-member House.

…

A warning signal that support in the House could diminish surfaced earlier in the week when Del. Melvin Stukes (D-Baltimore City), a co-sponsor of the marriage bill for the past four years, withdrew his sponsorship.

Stukes told the Baltimore Sun he thought the bill would have given same-sex couples the right to obtain civil unions rather than marriage. Once he realized the measure would allow gays to marry he determined he made a mistake, he told the Sun.

“I’m very sorry that I got on the bill,” he said.

Activists said privately that they were baffled over Stukes’ change of heart on the bill because he represents a progressive-leaning district in Baltimore where the majority of residents would not object to his support for allowing gays to marry.

Gee…

There’s no history whatsoever in Maryland of gays and lesbians lying to the Legislature to get what they want, now is there?

Now, I don’t profess to know that that’s what happened with Stukes.  Its just as likely that the guy didn’t pay attention to what he was agreeing to sponsor.  I know, I know…they don’t teach you about that aspect of the legislative process in high school government class, but I like to deal in reality here.

Which brings me to the question: Where is the support that ‘Equality’ Maryland claims to have for trans people going to go if the gay marriage bill tanks?

Or, are we just seeing yet another effect of Marriage Derangement Syndrome?  Was ‘Equality’ Maryland so marriage-addled – so blinded by gay marriage greed – that it really didn’t get its ducks in a row for gay marriage while it could have, instead, been expending energy on a legitimate trans rights bill?

Turnabout is….?

No one* seems to like when I pose the question of what the DOMA-non-defense advocates would do if a christianist AG decided to ‘not defend’ a law recognizing the right of transsexuals to secure legal recognition of change of sex. 

Is this more to your liking?  From the American Spectator:

January 21, 2013Barely twenty-four hours after her inauguration as America’s first woman chief executive, President Sarah Palin announced today that Attorney General Mark Levin has been instructed to stop defending Roe v. Wade and abortion in a wave of fresh lawsuits filed in federal courts around the country.

Now, go talk amongst yah-selves.

* Well, I initially posted this on a gay-marriage-primacy blog, so that was directed at the MDS crowd which inhabits that blog.

It Was Never Yours

Seen recently in the bowels of the Seattle Santorum:

The more I hear from trans activists in this thread, the less I want them part of our movement.

The more you keep making illegitimate exclusivity claims on it, the more you’re going to hear from us and the louder we’re going to get.

Public Accommodations

They include restaurants (and would even if there were no such things as excretory bodily functions or places where such issues occasionally have to be addressed.)  Fact-free, 21st Century official gay America – which includes things like Free State Just Us, er…, Inequality, er…, ‘Equality’ Maryland – would have you either believe otherwise or simply not think about it at all, but for every pathetic, mix-n-match pro-HB 235 statement that those who have public accommodations protections already and who will continue to have them even if HB 235 becomes law put forth, I’ll give you a governor of a Midwestern state:

Scott Walker Asked to Leave Local Restaurant

The juicy bits aren’t all there at the moment, though.  As Naomi Houser of Mind Stain has posted:

Come looking for an article about Scott Walker being booted from a Madison restaurant? Yes, you came to the right place, but at the request of the restaurant owner due to abusive phone calls, the article has been hidden for the time being.

This raises a wonderful point. Why should a restaurant owner be afraid to refuse service to any person? Would the same people have started calling that restaurant and making threats if the person they asked to leave was Black? Muslim? Democrat? No. No they would not.

Or, how about, if the incident happened in, instead of Madison Wisconsin, lets say: Frostburg, Maryland.

And, how about, if the incident involved, instead of a teabagger, future-convicted-felon Republican governor of Wisconsin, lets say: a transsexual woman lawyer just driving through and, upon getting hungry whilst driving on I-68, exited off at Frostburg and found a cool burger joint.

If that burger joint had a sign in its window which read:

who would say anything?

Who would have time to say anything what with all the marriage plannin’ goin’ on, eh?

Eh?