A Photo of a Black Activist?

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.

So…

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.”

Black Activist Elected President of National Rifle Association

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.

11 Responses to A Photo of a Black Activist?

  1. Guest says:

    A guy gets glitter thrown at him by people who aren’t trans – he can’t stop talking about it.

    A trans woman is murdered in his City & the slurs people used in blogs reporting towards all trans people regarding the glittering by persons unknown are used by the media towards the murder victim – he’s suddenly silent.

    I see what you did there!

  2. "Vic" says:

    After reading his rationale, I have to revise his diagnosis.

    Thought disorder

    In psychiatry, thought disorder (TD) or formal thought disorder (FTD) is a term used to describe incomprehensible language, either speech or writing, that is presumed to reflect thinking.

  3. "Vic" says:

    Heston would be accurately described as a civil rights activist or a black rights activist. The glitterers are without a doubt trans rights activists.

    And because “trans” is a term that has never been clearly defined – sometimes but not always including transvestites and intersexed, sometimes but not always including all people with even the slightest gender nonconformity and those who identify as genderqueer – they are properly described as trans activists as well. If you object, then you have only yourselves to blame because you deceitfully introduced the term “transgender” and schemed to keep the defintion vague.

    So now you can own the consequences of your scheming. These thugs who assault people because they disagree with their political views are trans activists. Own it.

    • Bianca Lynne says:

      “These thugs who assault people because they disagree with their political views are trans activists. Own it.”

      What is it that smells like post-prop 8 Mormons crying about having their donations published?

      But, you know, keep on keepin’ on Vic-Troll-A

  4. friday jones says:

    There you go, defining trans FOR us like the typical cis supremacist. Since it happens so often (cis gays ‘splaining to trans people what trans is all about) we ought to name that phenomenon. Perhaps we could call it “rongolding,” or “pulling a rongold.”

  5. Chairman Vic says:

    Sir Vic: “…Exactly. So, logically…”
    Peasant 1: “If she weighed the same as a duck… she’s made of wood.”
    Sir Vic: “And therefore…”

    Let a thousand pedants bloom!

  6. Praetor Vic says:

    Man – Carson Daly, the Queer as Folk cast & the Queer Duck are going to be pissed to learn that they’re all trans by fiat.

    Who knew?

    I am QueertIcus!

    • Katrina Rose says:

      I learn so much from transphobic gay bloggers – and their apologists – who are desperately trying to cover their tracks.

      What have I learned over the past few days, courtesy of Bil, et. il, err…, al.? Aside from the fact that many of these bloggers are apparently auditioning for Fox ‘News’, I’ve learned that if you have the same interest in trans rights as trans people, then you’re a “trans activist” even if you’re not actually trans.

      So, therefore, I’ve learned that my mother’s older brothers – who were raised in Mississippi and born in Mississippi to people who’d been in Mississippi for generations – were actually French soldiers during World War II.

      Not French-American (which would be curious in and of itself given their Irish heritage).

      No, not French-American, but just French – because when they served in the US Army in Europe during World War II they fought for the same general goals that the soldiers and sailors who were born and raised in France who were wearing the uniform of France were fighting for.

      And so I guess that also means that Charles DeGaulle was an American general.

      And Eisenhower……………..?!?!?!?

      Sacre bleu!

  7. Fabu Vic says:

    “Glitter makes anything more joyous, celebratory and fabulous. The gentle ‘Glitter-Bombings’ we have seen recently are non-harmful, non-threatening, non-lethal and non-violent manifestations of immense fabulousness. Furthermore, it is an organic and heartfelt statement that increases the joy of all people endowed with a sense of humor. It also brings attention to the dearth of joy in the hearts of the offended parties. I hope we see more of it, for in these times we should share laughter more often, not less often, and I heartily look forward to any attempts by my critics to glitter-bomb me, so long as they also agree to share a drink with me. Fabulousness would be had by all.”

    Dan Choi

  8. Oh Dear:

    Katrina, I am confused!

    I thought that Charlton Heston was an American activist who just happens to be a Mexican cop, and even though he’s right, he’s wrong, because Orson’s unerring “game leg” means he always frames the guilty party?

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: