Sure, he’s not black himself.
But he was at the March on Washington in 1963 and, in spite of not exactly being synonymous with the word “liberal,” he actually was there to support the general goals of the March.
One could say he was an activist who would have listed black rights as a reason why he was in Washington, D.C., in 1963, right?
That he was taking a cue from activists who were black, right?
And while I’d never say that Charlton Heston was black…
I didn’t say the folks who glittered him were transgender. I said they were “trans activists.”
… there are some people around whose ‘logic’ could be used to justify calling him a “black activist.”
Yeh, I know…
That makes about as much sense as, well…, you know….
Soylent green is people, and Taylor may have been in D.C. in 1963 to express support for Dr. King, but, absent some proof – or at least some news source that one can point to as a reference to an assertion thereto – one cannot, therefore, conclude that Moses was Ramses.
Or something like that.
(What would Zira do?)
And while there may well emerge some news source – credible or not – which asserts or perhaps even definitively proves that the people who were involved in the Vancouver incident were trans-something, no such emergence will change the fact that the Jan. 23, 2012 Xtra item on which Bil Browning is now seemingly willing to crucify himself is as accurate in referring to the ‘Homomilitia’ as “trans activists” to the same degree as I am here in referring to Charlton Heston as a “black activist.”
Why can’t the gay male proprietor of a widely-read blog that regularly implores its readers and commenters to engage in civility simply acknowledge that he screwed up in reading that original Xtra item? And in linking to it to it to underscore his assertion that “trans activists” glitterbombed Dan Savage in Vancouver?
Apparently that gay male proprietor would only be interested in adding energy to his own flawed positive feedback loop, not just doubling down on the initial mischaracterization but tossing a few more into the mix by covering his own tracks by characterizing me of engaging in:
online cascade of conspiracy theories claiming several gay bloggers defended Dan Savage to prevent gender identity nondiscrimination laws from passing in Maryland. Rose regularly savages gays and lesbians and stirs up trans animosity on both sides. By spinning the glittering of Savage into a trans vs gays issue, Rose is able to breed friction while attracting attention to herself.
The Rove is strong in this one…
with a little Atwater on the side.
One of the comments to the current Shillerico piece – well, one of the comments that hasn’t already been scrubbed – is from Becky Juro, defending me in part:
I don’t have to agree with every single thing Kat or any other trans blogger says in order to agree with her argument that you posted what amounted to factually inaccurate misinformation. It’s my personal opinion that the inaccuracy was not due to any transphobia on your part but rather sloppy sourcing and inadequate fact checking.
Well, its my personal opinion that there was no transphobia when that same inaccuracy was subsequently reported by Natasha Barsotti at Xtra and even by another conributor at Bilerico – because, immediately upon being directed to what the original Xtra item actually said, they acknowledged their error.
They didn’t scrub the messengers and their messages – such as this one, replying to Becky:
The inability to accept responsibility is strong in whoever scrubbed that comment from Shillerico (and I presume it was not Becky Juro.)
The inability to notice irony is pretty damn strong too – in light of Bil’s professed disapproval of my asking whether all of the whipped-up anti-trans fervor could have any connection to any Gay, Inc. desire to ensure that Maryland follows New York in addressing gay wants before it deals with trans needs.
But I guess that reminding folks who have forgotten – and/or who want to forget and/or who expect everyone to forget – that the scrubbing of comments that didn’t fit with a particular narrative is a hallmark of the Maryland strain of Marriage Derangement Syndrome is just incivility on my part…
an attempt to “breed friction.”
Folks, I’m not the one setting up yet another Gay, Inc., false dichotomy – of having to choose between ‘breeding friction’ and ’embracing amnesia’.
Rather, I’ve been offering Bil Browning, Joe Jervis, John Aravosis, Andy Towle, Queerty and Raw Story every opportunity to self-pry their collective belief in the factual equivalent of a Patriots victory in Super Bowl XLVI from their cold, morally-dead blogs.
This isn’t rocket science, much less conspiracy theory (granted, one might want to try to imagine the Warren Commission report being released initially on the web – with all factual assertions and conclusions featuring links that led back to the same JPG image of J. Edgar Hoover’s ass and then Earl Warren subsequently maintaning that the Commission in no way pulled its conclusions out of, well…, you know….); its third-grade-level reading comprehension (or lack thereof) modified by kindergarten-level obstinancy.
Bil, let me get this straight. You haven’t corrected your original premise in what…how many days? But suddenly Kat is a conspiracy theorist? It isn’t conspiracy to say that you, and all the other blogs mentioned share resources, stories, comments, and the like via InsidersOUT and other venues, and that none of you have altered your posts when confronted with the FACTS. Kat is just asking a question as to WHY. It’s a good question to ask. If you “messed up” as you told Zoe, it would be an easy thing to post (at the very least) a retraction. But you’ve continued to stick with the meme to the point it gets over to Raw Story and The Daily Beast (if memory serves me correctly). Even here you’re saying that the facts don’t really matter
Good questions from Marti Abernathey – and ones that I don’t expect Bil or any of the rest to ever face down.
I would now toss in an old adage about decorum becoming repression, yadda yadda yadda…
but I suppose if I did, the next post at Shillerico would be a declaration that I should have been indicted along with the Chicago Seven – the ‘proof’ being that I was alive in 1968.
Folks, I’m leaving it up to all of you – LGBs and Ts…
If you want the LGBT movement to become as fact-free as any given hour on Fox ‘News,’ then fine…
I’ll even buy the kool-aid for you (no need to limit yourselves to purple; you are fabulous after all!), but once you drink it, don’t get pissed off when I remind you that what you ingested actually was not champagne.