Seen recently on Facebook:
If New York can pass gay marriage instead of doing the morally proper thing of rectifying its anti-trans legislative atrocity of a decade ago, then Maryland….
Well, you know….
First, at Pam’s House Blah, Kathleen gets erased (by someone now proven to be a Gay, Inc. sockpuppet who does not operate in the best interests of trans people) for merely asking an abstract question.
Then I get banned there for reporting here about what happened there.
Then I get banned there again for making a non-statement protesting that site’s ban on blanket statements even when they are applicable.
And then there’s….
No, not Maude, but rather Bilerico. The following transpired in the comments to a post about christianist conservafembot scam artist Ann Coulter:
That was a screenshot of the relevant portion of the page as of 11:30 PM CDT last night.
This comment by Kathy (she made others that weren’t erased) – a simple abstract query as to whether she should respond to with fag jokes to Ted Hayes’ him-ing of Ann Coulter – came only four minutes after Ted’s consecration that Ann Coulter is a man. However, over the course of the next 15 hours and 45 minutes, only trans woman Kathy’s response to Ted the gay man’s slur had been removed.
At 7:03 PM, Om Kalthoum observed:
“…personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.”
Okay, so how is Kathy’s “joking” threat to tell a fag joke a violation of the TOS and the poster’s calling a woman a man okay? Quite the double standard, I’d say.
Well, its an InsidersOut blog. The dignity of all that is gay must be defended at all costs – including the diminishment of anything that might possibly be trans. (And I’m left wondering why Om’s “fag”-quoting reference to the remark hasn’t been erased also.)
A comment at 9:14 AM today – well over a full day after the initial remark appeared – commemorated the belated deletion of that initial remark by Ted Hayes. The fact that the 9:14 comment came from a trans woman is, and even by that point already had become, long since irrelevant. Justice delayed is incrementalism orthodoxy enforced.
And I won’t even mention gay apologism:
…followed by the obligatory pill from bil:
Let’s be clear – if you had someone jump up and crash a panel you were moderating, who spouts a bunch of ridiculous charges about things he’d supposedly done (he hadn’t)….
Presumably this will be the exception that proves the rulre re: Crooks and Liars.
Analyzing remarks by lower-my-taxes-even-if-it-destroys-the-world psychopath Judson Phillips, John Amato had this to say:
[O]n Fox Business [Phillips] was asked to comment on a report wherein Nancy Pelosi said this:
“What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget . . . We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.”
A bit of hyperbole to be sure, but if the GOP did implement their plans of a balanced budget amendment, the working class in America will surely suffer great harm.
So instead of just responding like an adult, he attacked Nancy Pelosi in a typical conservative ad hominem and misogynistic way.
Phillips: “I Think It’s Clear The Botox Has Gotten To Her”
Odious is as odious does.
Ad hominem? Yes.
Well, if that is the case for those remarks about the former Speaker of the House, then how does one classify all of the remarks by people of all sexes, genders, et. al., regarding the not-to-be-found-in-nature skintone of the current Speaker of the House?
Sorry John, but…
In 1992, Hillary was relevant to Bill’s candidacy, right?
And in 2004, Teresa was relevant to John’s candidacy, right?
But somehow in 2012, the gay man who pretends to be straight while sucking up taxpayer money to aid him in conning gays into submitting to the barbaric fraud of ‘reparative threapy’ is not relevant to the candidacy of the allegedly-straight woman who hates gays and government?
Party-wise, one of these is not like the others.
But don’t hold your breath waiting for analysis from the Republicorporate media.
The color of the buses used by their laughable tours.
Kathi Wolfe, writing for Queer Channel Media:
Fighting for marriage equality is one of many things that the LGBT and disability communities historically (and today) have in common.
This month is Disability Pride Month, observed to celebrate the history of people with disabilities and passage 21 years ago of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The ADA prohibits disability-based discrimination.
Unless, of course, the ADA brands you as having an impairment but explicitly tells America that you can be discriminated against anyway.
Are LGBs and Ts together in that boat?
(a) Homosexuality and bisexuality
For purposes of the definition of “disability” in section 12102(2) of this title, homosexuality and bisexuality are not impairments and as such are not disabilities under this chapter.
(b) Certain conditions
Under this chapter, the term “disability” shall not include
(1) transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders….
Right up front, gays and lesbians are told that they’re not covered – but specifically because homosexuality is not an impairment.
Transsexuals, cross-dressers and any non-intersex person who might be T-something also are told that they’re not covered. However, (1) there is the implied declaration that everything connected to such folx is an “impairment” generally, and (2) there’s also the shot at the end which brands all of the above as a behavioral disorder.
We queer crips are of all races, classes, genders, orientations and occupations. Our disabilities include HIV, diabetes, cancer and depression (all covered under the ADA).
If you’re LGBT and a recovering alcoholic, you, too are protected by the ADA.
But if you’re out(ed) about being trans-anything?
Then you’re fucked.
And who was cool with that setup back when the ADA bill was being crafted?
Following the amendments to the ADA bill in 1989, which yielded those exclusions, Steve Smith, a lobbyist for HRC (then the Human Rights Campaign Fund (HRCF)), actually offered praise for them: “By and large were quite pleased with it,” Smith remarked. Cliff O’Neill, “Senate Passes Disabilities Anti-Discrimination Bill – Measure Includes Protection for HIV Infected,” Bay Windows, Sept. 14-20, 1989 at 17. “Homosexuality and transvestism and bisexuality are not disabilities and we are very happy to hear that Sen. [Jesse] Helms has taken this position and we agree with him 100 percent.” Id. Peri Jude Radecic was a bit more realistic, agreeing with Smith about homosexuality and bisexuality, but noting, “as far as the other categories are concerned, I think that anytime that people are removed from protections, I don’t necessarily think that’s a good situation. I’m not happy anyone is excluded from the bill.” Id. Smith and Bay Windows neglected to point out not only that one of those “other categories” Radecic alluded to was transsexualism – something about which there is no consensus, even among transsexuals, as to whether it should be classified as a disability – and that some of the few LGBT successes under the pre-ADA, Nixon-era Rehabilitation Act were cases brought by trans people, one who identified as a transsexual and another who was denoted as a “homosexual and transvestite.” See Doe v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 84-3296, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18959 (D.D.C. June 12, 1985) (allowing transsexual woman to bring constitutional claims against post office for rescinding an offer of employment after learning that plaintiff was a transsexual planning a gender reassignment surgery); Blackwell v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 639 F. Supp. 289 (D.D.C. 1986) (alleging that Treasury Department discriminated against plaintiff when it failed to rehire plaintiff because he was transvestite). It is difficult not to wonder whether someone who had, at the time of the pertinent facts of the case, apparently been living full-time as a female since the early 1970s was, in fact, neither a homosexual nor a transvestite but a pre-operative or non-operative transsexual. Moreover, despite initial success, Blackwell’s claim ultimately failed. Blackwell v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 830 F.2d 1183 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
[Y]our evidence does not show that HRC “praised the trans exclusions.” Smith apparently praised the entire bill, and not the exclusions. As noted, homosexuality and bisexuality were also excluded….
Except, of course, that (1) if you are praising the whole bill with full knowledge of exclusions therein then you, whether you like it or not, are indeed praising the exclusions (you know, like praise for 2007’s ENDA 3685 is, whether you like it or not, is praise for its trans-exclusion), (2) the words “very happy” connote praise and that praise included at least the transvestism exclusion, and (3) as I noted above, the social mechanics of the exclusion of the trans-stuff are infinitely more harsh than the exclusion of homosexuality.
Years of prejudice won’t be easily swept away. Yet, let’s make a beginning during this season of Pride. I invite you to get know us queer crips.
I would invite Queer Channel Media to get to know real trans legal history, but….