Clearly something with the finger prints of Mrs. Srivastav and/or GOProud?
I haven’t seen such clear evidence yet.
Or, to be fair even to those whackadoos, any evidence of their involvement.
Likewise, however, I’ve yet to see any evidence whatsoever that anyone connected with the Vancouver incident was trans.
False flag, at least of some color or crest?
Well, given the degree to which The John is avoiding admitting that the title of his post:
was a knowing lie on The John’s part as to the “because he supports” clause…
I have to wonder.
And I also have to wonder what caliber of lawyer The John really is. If, based solely on the text that Evan above is scratching his head over, The John had ascribed the intent language of his post’s title in, say, a brief submitted to a court, he’d have been slapped with sanctions.
It is not a reasonable interpretation of the statement in question.
Since anyone – well, any honest person – who compares the prioritazation critique with the intent that The John imagines likely would come away feeling as though The John was not being honest in his reportage about the intent, why shouldn’t anyone – well, any honest person – also seriously doubt the “trans activists” part of it?
If he’s only going by the Xtra web piece, then he can’t possibly know – because there’s nothing there about whether any/all of the alleged group who allegedly did the glitterbombing were trans-anything.
Or, beyond the woman very calmly – and non-glitteringly – handing out anti-Savage flyers, anything-anything.
I thought it was the HomoMilitia?
Or was it the Trans Mafia?
Or did Bil Browning make that up to feed his own political addiction? Or did Bil Browning make up the appearance of Joe.My.God making it up?
It is, after all, so hard to see the forest for the…
I’ve said it elsewhere and I’ll say i again here: Other than what I presume was a fake Facebook invitation from someone who snapped up the name ‘Fister Limpwrist,’ I have no connection to anything related to what is alleged to have taken place in Vancouver; nor am I making any definitive assertion either way about whether the alleged events actually took place.
But I am finding it quite amazing that the seemingly-countless, apparently-unique blog commenters who are demanding ‘proof’ of Dan Savage’s transphobia – well, above and beyond the proof that has been out there for some time (some of that indeed a few years old now) – are not demanding ‘proof’ of what happened in Vancouver and of who was involved in it above and beyond a single truly poorly-written and poorer-still sourced – yet amply copied on eagerly-receptive American gay male sites – item from the website of a Canadian LGB(t) paper that, based on its recent track record, would appear to have a vested interest in negatively influencing popular opinion about trans people.
Yes, every last bit of it could be true.
Some elements of even the most obnoxiously transphobic comments at The John’s site and others do contain nuggets of usefulness. No, Savage is not an ally. However, even if his record warranted the first glitterbombing (or even the first two), at this point it is getting old, and it really isn’t serving any constructive purpose (Particularly if the marriage issue he was plugging was that of Washington State. C’mon, folx, that state did it right by passing a legitimate civil rights law before moving on to marriage. Yes, contrary to the well-oiled propaganda of the Marriage Derangement Syndrome elite, marriage is not what a majority of LGBT people want as a top priority and it will not lead to employment protections – but it isn’t unreasonable for it to be on the agenda somewhere.)
Yes, every last bit of this story could be true.
But it also might not be.
Run that up your pole.