So Lets See if I Have This “Straight”….

July 29, 2011

Pun intended.

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.

Imagine that.

But don’t hold your breath waiting for analysis from the Republicorporate media.

The Difference Between HRC and Sarah Palin?

July 29, 2011

The color of the buses used by their laughable tours.

Queer Channel Media: Trans-Washing the ADA

July 28, 2011

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?

Of course not.

Sec. 12211. Definitions

(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).

That is the text to a footnote in a law review article of mine – as transcribed over at Pam’s House Blah, where voices who claim to speak for us (but who actually don’t) predictably took HRC’s side.

[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….

Interestingly Enough, Tim, Plenty of People Think You’re Confused About Your Gender Simply Because You’re Gay

July 27, 2011


[Tim] Gunn referred bitingly to [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] “Jersey Shore style,” and [George] Lopez compared her prints to No Bugs M’Lady. It got worse.

After paying lip service to Clinton’s actual accomplishments, Gunn demanded, “Why must she dress that way? I think she’s confused about her gender!” He added, “No, I’m really serious, she wears pantsuits that are unflattering.”

The really annoying thing is that this is making me take the side of HRC’s HRC.

Maggie Gallagher Srivistav and NOM: A Christianist and Her 10 Percent Solution

July 27, 2011

From MOM’s Number One Numbskull:

Our job is to make sure there is an unshakable 10 percent willing to stand up for the great truths of Genesis: we are made male and female and called to come together in love so children have a mother and a father.

Those of us who think there are no “truths” in fairy tales?

We, of course, (will) have no rights.


10 percent?

Isn’t that the percentage that christianists deny that gays and lesbians comprise even while adding that even if gays and lesbians  do comprise that percentage its so small that society has no obligation to do anything positive for them (you know…like not killing them)?

At What Point Will CNN Do Something About a Gay Transphobe in its Employ?

July 27, 2011

Seen recently on Twitter:

First off, I stand by my earlier juxtaposition between Don Lemon and Jack Lemmon – only to the extent that I’d be willing to bet that Don Lemon has less of a clue about what has happened re: trans issues in the last 100 days (much less 100 years) upon which he can base that quip than either of the dogs pictured here.

I know what the pejorative is for an African-American who is perceived to be white on the inside (no, not “Paul Scott,” I mean an older, more generic pejorative.)

I think we need one that covers someone who is purple and yellow on the inside.

Well, Well, Well…It Looks As Though Christian Victimization Syndrome Isn’t Limited To The Anti-LGBT Set

July 27, 2011

I didn’t think that Bilerico could become any more putrid.

But, never let anyone – particularly christians who demand the special right to never have their mythology called out as such – say that this agnostic can’t acknowledge being wrong:

[W]hat is always ironic to me is how much anti-gay Christians and the rabid anti-faith folks have in common.

I’m actually not going to quote any more of Emily Heath’s special rights-ist crap than that.

Because that’s all that is necessary.

Someone who wants to reap the hierarchical benefits of an anti-philosophical disease of mythology that has oppressed all women and most men for thousands of years begins a whiny rant by equating the disease’s victims with their murderers and would-be murderers.

Yes, that one line is all that’s necessary.

Instead of legitimizing Heath’s illegitimacyt, I’m going to quote from opposing views – things that the anti-philosophical disease of mythology that Heath is acting as apologist for has, whenever it has had the politico-legal muscle to do so, criminalized to an extent that they have been sufficiently erased from history for other apologists for the anti-philosophical disease of mythology to claim that non-christianity-by-choice is a blip of modernity.

Zack Ford points out that Heath:

assumes that faith and nonbelief stand on equal, but opposing, intellectual ground. To assert that faith is unfounded is not an uncompromising standpoint in a “disagreement”; it’s an argument that itself needs to be debated. But believers have no argument for faith except faith itself, so the argument is dismissed. “Fundamentalist” is a heavy word nowadays that connotes radicalism. By your definition, all atheists are automatically fundamentalists, which adds to their demonization in society.

Rodney Hoffman:

Let me tell you why I’m an angry atheist.

I’m a scientist, an environmentalist, a feminist, a free speech advocate, and I’m gay.

I support birth control and family planning and abortion rights.
I believe that religion doesn’t belong in the science classroom.
I support even “blasphemous” speech. Of course, I support gay
rights, including same-sex marriage. I live apart from my Mexican
partner of 18+ years and can’t sponsor him for immigration as
my spouse.

In every case, the overwhelming majority of my opponents base their
opposition on their religious beliefs.

I do indeed consider myself a victim of fundamentalist religion and the
undeserved deference most people give to religious beliefs.

Furthermore, I don’t believe I should be forced to subsidize my political opponents with tax exemptions just because they declare themselves churches.

Damn right I’m angry

Kathy Padilla (and her justifiable sarcasm):

Yes – they are exactly the same. Except one says who you are is not valid & one disagrees with what you think. Except one wants to limit your civil rights and the other actually supports them while they disagree with you.

Of course – none of the atheists actually ever asked me to kiss their ring or call them Reverend when I’m not seeing them in that capacity.

More than a bit of overreach on this article.

Scott Rose (no relation – except via my agreement with his reasoning; I did add some spacing for clarity, though):

Emily wrote in the essay above: “But what is always ironic to me is how much anti-gay Christians and the rabid anti-faith folks have in common.”

1) When did it ever happen that an “anti-faith” person violently attacked an “anti-gay Christian” previously unknown to them personally simply because the Christian was anti-gay? By contrast, how often do we hear about anti-gay hate crimes being carried out by Christian terrorists?

2) When did it ever happen, in Tennessee, for example, that the State Government passed a “Don’t say Christian” law?

3) Senator Jim DeMint, a born again Christian, has said that gay people should not be permitted to teach school. When did it ever happen that a gay elected official fanned the flame of (alleged) “anti-faith intolerance” by saying that no person of faith should be allowed to teach in any American school?

4) When did it ever happen that huge percentages of the LGBT communities shrilly screamed that people of faith should be forbidden by law to marry each other?

And on and on and on. Emily in her essay trivializes the nature of Christian terrorist tortures, including political terrorism that the Christian terrorists relentlessly direct against innocent gay people. Nothing that (alleged) “anti-faith” “intolerant” people do comes even remotely near to being like what the Christian terrorists inflict on LGBTers. Oh and I’ll give you one additional example. Emily is complaining about dirty words in comments. Gay people thrown out of the US military for being gay were stripped of all benefits, thrown out on the streets with no food or housing or health care, though they had performed their job duties in the military at least satisfactorily. And in the military they had been so unfairly booted out of, there remained many vicious bigots, Christian chaplains, demanding persistently that DADT not be repealed. Even now that it has been repealed, the majority of the military Chaplains continue demonizing gay people and fighting tooth and nail against their marriages being recognized in the military. What have “anti-faith” LGBTer ever done to Christians, even remotely comparable?


I am anti-religion sole because of my experience with them. I do not believe in a higher power and believe that religion causes harm to society with its very existence. It provides people with excuses and crutches for their behaviour and I will not take being preached to lying down. I will not start a conversation about faith and religion, but I will not brush aside or ignore the attempts to convert, save and condemn me. I am an ATHEIST and proud of it. I will not be ignored or be labeled a bigot as I attempt expose your religious texts for the fiction they are. I will not ignore violence, tragedy and oppression at the hands of your faith. I will expound upon the virtues of LOGIC and REASON, that we do not need an outside deity to determine our morals. It is my duty as an atheist that upon an individual or group starting the conversation about religion that I do my best to stop them from drinking the Kool-Aid.
With LGBTQ people this primarily done by explaining the historic and current oppression found within their faith. I do not hate those with faith, I pity them. Tolerance works both ways, your attempts to covert, save and condemn me are not tolerant. I will not take them lying down, I will only use words to change your ideas about religion, can you say the same. Or even better, lets just ignore the topic of religion all together.


This essay is nearly on the same level of absurdity as those who claim “black people are racist too.” You’re making connections between two groups which have extremely different histories and, especially, hugely disparate levels of power over one another. If there were a strong history of queer or trans people persecuting people of faith then you might be rummaging in the right attic. But they don’t and I find this suggestion of yours really offensive.


Bilerico publishing something absurd?


Finally, Steve dares to speak logic to mythology special rights-ists:

No, I don’t have to respect religion or beliefs. That’s the whole problem here. Religious people think they deserve respect simply because they are religious. Because they think faith is a virtue. It isn’t. They may deserve respect for what they do, yes. But that’s in spite of what they believe.

As for the various sects and cults. It’s all the same kind of nonsense when you get down to it. Just a matter of degrees. Yes, I certainly prefer a Buddhist, Taoist, Wiccan or nature worshiper over a Christian or Muslim. I generally prefer progressive Jews over the other Abrahamic religions as well. I prefer a Unitarian Universalist over any kind of Christian or a liberal Christian over an evangelical or fundamentalist. They are simply easier to live with. But on a very basic level it’s all the same, even if their followers behave very differently.

This goes towards the idea that many LGTB Christians have, that we are only against religion because or if it’s anti-gay. That’s just one of the reasons why I’m against it. Ultimately I think they are ALL wrong. I think religion is a fundamentally flawed idea. Given that it was our first idea about how the world works, that should be no surprise. I think it did far more harm than good and that we would be better off without it. I disagree with any concept of a creator god, since that just complicates things. I can’t believe that there is any being watching over us, caring about what we do. I can’t believe in the supernatural like gods, angels, demons, invisible places or prophecies (though I can certainly be entertained by it in television and novels).

I think Christianity is fundamentally immoral, since ALL its sects have a human sacrifice as its core. I can’t believe that the torture and death of a human being can absolve others of their crimes. I think Original Sin is one of the most screwed up ideas anyone can possibly come up with. And you can’t have Christianity without the former and rarely without the latter.

But the biggest reason: there is simply no evidence whatsoever for ANY of them and any of their claims.

The difference between Emily Heath and Michele Bachmann?


Perhaps I’d better ask it this way…

We all know – even if far too many of us won’t admit – what Michele Bachmann would use the might of corporeal governmental force to do to all who in any way disagree with her religious beliefs if she believed for a second that she could get away with it as president.

Are we really deluded enough to believe that anyone – including Emily Heath – who needs the “Rev.” affectation to support her fact-free lifestyle would not, if imbued with absolute power, do exactly as Michele Bachmann would, with the tiny exception of (presumably) Heath not cranking up any auto-da-fés for people solely for engaging in same-sex sex but oh so regrettably having to do so for those who simply refuse to otherwise believe as she does?