John Aravosis Makes the Case That it is the Responsibility of Gays and Lesbians to Add Trans People to Existing Gay-Only Rights Laws and to Prevent Any New Gay-Only Rights Laws From Coming into Existence

Unintentionally, of course.

From a comment in which The John further attempts to arrogate to himself an unfettered right to completely disregard facts per se (as well as allegations as reported) in his desire to demonize people who he increasingly seems to believe are to gay politics what white supremacists believe miscegenation is to racial integrity:

Every attack until now has been done by trans people, and the attacks are happening because the trans community decided to demonize Dan and make him public enemy number one.  So, yes, if you are responsible for motivating the people who attacked him, and they’re doing it in your name, and the previous attacks were done by you, then yes you are responsible for putting a stop to it.

So…

If you’re responsible for motivating legislatures to pass laws that leave trans people unprotected from discrimination by people whose attitude toward trans people is reflected in the above-quoted paragraph (as well as the other comments at your blog, and those at Bilerico and Joe.My.God and Towleroad), and that motivation is done in the name of gays, and previous motivation to pass gay-only rights laws was done by you,  then yes you are responsible for putting a stop to the passage of gay-only rights laws.

Trans people will help, of course. 

We always have been there to help (its just that gayrights organizations have seemingly had either a ‘no trans people need apply’ policy or a hard quota of one trans employee and no more than one trans employee under any circumstances, so we have to earn a living in the real world and then play the political games that gays and lesbians of your atitudinal disposition have rigged against trans people.)

But, clearly, its your job.

you are responsible for putting a stop to it.

I look forward to The John’s first column in which he acknowledges that his years of defending the politically psychotic and morally bankrupt strategy of ‘incremental progress’ on ENDA were, well, politically psychotic and morally bankrupt.

13 Responses to John Aravosis Makes the Case That it is the Responsibility of Gays and Lesbians to Add Trans People to Existing Gay-Only Rights Laws and to Prevent Any New Gay-Only Rights Laws From Coming into Existence

  1. Name says:

    Aravosis isn’t just a dick; he’s a bag of dicks. He’s such a colossal douche; Massengill sould put his picture on the box.

  2. "Vic" says:

    Dum-Dum, “gay rights laws” cover sexual orientation – gay, straight, and bi. Trans people are gay, straight, and bi. Thus, gay rights laws cover all trans people and protect them against discrimination based on real or perceived sexual orientation. Removing them from the books removes one form of protection for trans people.

    I wonder if all trans people are as breathtakingly dumb as you.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      Have a nice day!

    • friday jones says:

      “Removing them from the books?” Astrawmansayswhat?

    • Kathy says:

      Ahem – and gender identity laws cover gay, lesbian, straight and bi people based upon their gender identities.

      Would you consider that adequate protection for yourself as a gay man?

      • "Vic" says:

        No, because gay is not a gender identity. But it might very well protect me if my boss had some issue with my gender identity, regardless of my sexual orientation. So I would welcome it as providing protection for one aspect of my being. I wouldn’t view a law that provides me with X benefit as an attack on me because it doesn’t also provide Y benefit.

  3. Vic, since you’re so smart, provide me the list of federal, state and local legal cases that emphatically prove that transpeople are covered under ‘sexual orientation’ only laws.

    ……

    It’ll be as futile a search as a Dallas Cowboy Super Bowl trophy won in the 21st century.

  4. […] John Aravosis Makes the Case That it is the Responsibility of Gays and Lesbians to Add Trans People … […]

  5. Kathy says:

    Vic says:
    January 28, 2012 at 9:08 am

    No, because gay is not a gender identity. But it might very well protect me if my boss had some issue with my gender identity, regardless of my sexual orientation. So I would welcome it as providing protection for one aspect of my being. I wouldn’t view a law that provides me with X benefit as an attack on me because it doesn’t also provide Y benefit.
    ==================

    Thank you for confirming that sexual orientation laws don’t cover trans people in the way you first implied – and that – were the situations reversed – you would not accept such.

  6. "Vic" says:

    I implied nothing. You just have trouble reading and understanding. And in the scenario provided, I would accept gender identity protection and enjoy the benefits that that provides. Following passage of that protection, I would work for sexual orientation protection. I would not actively oppose getting gender identity protection on the grounds that it didn’t come packaged with sexual orientation protection.

    And I certainly wouldn’t harangue, harass and insult trans people if they pursued gender identity protections and then graciously offered to help with sexual orientation protections later on. I’d show some class and gratitude. Maybe you can buy some on eBay.

  7. friday jones says:

    “I’d show some class and gratitude.” -Vic Bug Brimmin’ With Hate

    Low class and gratitude to Goldman-Sachs for your blood money, Cathy?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: