Question:
Today’s asterisk: That question would also be the correct response if the given answer is:
A blog so chock-full of dodging that one can be excused for wondering whether, via some bizarre time warp, the National League baseball franchise that now resides in Los Angeles was actually named after it/
Today’s illustration:
Well, lets see…
[A]ffluent? I have to go back to Indiana next week for my house foreclosure and I’ve been reduced to posting pleas for readers to donate to cover the rent. I’m hardly rolling in the dough.
I’m aware that Bil isn’t affluent, so there is at least one problematic word in Ashley’s post.
But wait…
[T]o set Ashley straight on the facts… GLAAD isn’t honoring me or Dan Savage.
I actually don’t know who all GLAAD is honoring – and I’ll take Bil at his word about Savage. But I had actually heard that GLAAD is honoring Bilerico. Am I mistaken?
They chose to honor Bilerico Project – the work of a lot of people.
That’s why the blog is named The Alotofpeoplerico Project, right?
Oh…
That’s right…
Its named The Bilerico Project.
But, a lot of people Bil was just getting on a roll:
The article on Transadvocate was written by the same person I highlighted in “The Stupid Burns Files: No 3842” and regularly features Katrina Rose – the trans woman who thinks that bloggers who say glittering allies is a stupid idea are only doing it to prevent a transgender nondiscrimination bill from passing in Maryland.
Lets refresh everyone’s memory about what a lot of people Bil was lying about in the last clause of that passage:
What Then…
…does this say about the silence of non-trans gay men and lesbians regarding an elite handful of gay male bloggers who (to maximize gay animosity toward the notion of any energy being expended on the more legitimate of the two bills currently being considered in Maryland, perhaps?) lie through their teeth about trans participation in an event that may or may not have actually happened and then not only refuse to acknowlege the inaccuracies but go further and claim that the lies were justified because, to them, trans people have it coming?
Okay…
There it is…
Do you see me go directly from the ‘Point A’ of “thinking that bloggers who say glittering allies is a stupid idea” to the “Point B’ of “[said bloggers] are only doing it to prevent a transgender nondiscrimination bill from passing in Maryland”?
Can anyone find anyone on the internet saying that?
I doubt it.
But on Alotofpeoplerico Bilerico you can find Bil Browning using his affluence-apologism-centric worldview (memo to Ashley and others: use that phraseology instead; that covers a wider range of sins and incompetencies and, most importantly, actually doesn’t demonize people who are affluent who actually happen to be our allies) to factually undermine any discussion of what did (or did not) happen in Vancouver by delegitimizing any analysis of anything starting at ‘Point A’ that isn’t willing to accept the underlying claim that Dan Savage is an ally.
So…
‘Point A’ on Alotofpeoplerico Bilerico: Me asserting that “thinking that bloggers who say glittering allies is a stupid idea.”
Wrong.
I – and shitloads of other people – refuse to accept the gaysplaining declaration that Dan Savage is an ally.
And my opinion of the stupidity of glitterbombing him in Vancouver (I think I may well have given a rah-rah to the first incident)?
Even if Savage is worthy of a defense – which he isn’t – the glitterbombing is getting old and, perhaps most importantly, is and always has been a criminal act…
I guess I imagined writing that over at Queerty.
Now lets look at ‘Point B’:
According to Alotofpeoplerico Bilerico, I’m asserting that the bloggers who are saying that glitterbombing Dan Savage (well, lets quote Alotofpeoplerico Bilerico exactly: “allies”) are “only doing it to prevent a transgender nondiscrimination bill from passing in Maryland”?
Really?
Well, if you’re in the Alotofpeoplerico Bilerico camp and have drank a heapin’ helpin’ of ‘chock full o’ we-know-who-are-nutjobs’ coffee (kool-aid would be indelicate, eh?), then you would already know that my head-scratching about the Fab(rication) Five’s malcharacterization of what occurred in Vancouver began with this assumption:
In the Works: A Faux-Populist, Gay, Inc.-Engineered Push for a Gay-Only ENDA in 2012?
Oh…
Did you notice the question mark?
Punctuation matters.
Of course, to be fair, I made it clear that the question I posed in the title of that post emanated from conclusions I’d drawn from what was, even by then – and by any objective standard – evidence of a bizarre unwillingness of the American gay male bloggers who seemingly wrote into a Canadian report something that they must have simply wanted to see to in any way simply acknowledge that the Canadian report did not say what they were saying that it said.
[O]nly Canada’s Xtra, the publication which put out the original story about the alleged Vancouver glitterbombing – a story which, had it been written more clearly and been better sourced, might not have provided The John, Bilerico, Joe.My.God, Towleroad, and Queerty (as well as Raw Story) the wiggle room to claim that the incident, if it happened, was perpetrated by “trans activists” – has not only acknowledged that that original report said nothing about the alleged glitterbombers being “trans” activists and that the original report made it clear that the alleged glitterbombers did not have a trans-specific agenda but also has made such an acknowledgement without nevertheless claiming a right to blame it all on trans people in spite of all of the facts to the contrary.
My interpretation was a surface image; it was what it appears as: organized Nixonian disinformational propaganda designed to (further) demonize a group of people – trans people – for a specific purpose, which, given that the loudest, most obnoxious voice of the bunch was the loudest, most transphobic 2007 voice, I figured to be an insider-provoked (lets face it: we still don’t know if there actually was a glitterbombing committed against Dan Savage in Vancouver; someone handing out anti-Savage leaflets, yes, but the glitterbombing……?) pre-emptive strike against the non-Gay, Inc.-ers, who likely would be the first (only?) people to come out against the possible election-year thrown bone of an allegedly pragmatically-necessary, ‘incremental progress’-addled ENDA.
But, for purposes of proving Alotofpeoplerico Bilerico wrong yet again – this time re: “only” – the fact that I was referring to ENDA at all there and to marriage in general in the following paragraphs, well…
you know…
Yes, you do know.
Just like you do know what this paragraph actually says:
[W]e all know how repulsed most of Gay Marriage, Inc.,™ is by the mere notion of gays and lesbians no longer having legal superiority over trans people.
Yes, we all do know it; some of us simply aren’t willing to admit it.
And the italicized “most” wasn’t sarcastic; not all people who wrongly prioritize gay marriage are transphobic.
But shitloads of them are.
And not all gay men who run blogs are liars who mischaracterize news stories and, when called out for doing so, respond with more lies and other unfiltered multi-species excrement, spewed with an ‘eviscerate the messenger’ ferocity that would make Newt Gingrich wet himself with glee were his HRC sister to pass all of this along to him…
I didn’t say the folks who glittered him were transgender. I said they were “trans activists.”
The main folks advancing the theory that all gay men hate transgender women…
But at least one (well, one in addition to The John) is.
According to Alotofpeoplerico Bilerico I’m a nutjob who thinks that bloggers who say glittering allies is a stupid idea.
Well, this Alotofpeoplerico Bilerico-consecrated nutjob is going to end this post with a question and a purloined observation.
The question: If “trans activists” are anyone who even remotely activisms for trans issues as part of a laundry list of concerns irrespective of whether they are trans themselves and if, as you assert, Dan Savage is an ally of trans people, is he then a “trans activist” too? And, if so, why didn’t the first line of your trans-mafia-meme screed of January 23 (which, to remind everyone, had as its only source a news item from Canada’s Xtra which only described the alleged glitterbombers as “six activists, who named themselves The Homomilitia”) read:
A trans activist was glitterbombed again by other trans activists
Or, perhaps:
Trans activist Dan Savage was glitterbombed again by other trans activists
What say you, Bil?
Well, that’s the question. Now, the Dan Savage-themed observation – from Ethan St. Pierre:
I’d really like to know how it’s going to get better for our youth while these prominent, gay bloggers are spewing such rabid hatred aimed at our whole community?
I’m a big boy, I can take this crap but it’s our youth and the message it sends to them I worry about the most.
You’d think that in their defense of Dan Savage, that would be first and foremost on their minds. The fact that it’s not is disgusting and reveals nothing more than self absorbed arrogance.
I seriously fear for our youth.
After all, it was that rabit hatred – sprouting from the comments sections of the Fab(rication) Five blogs like mutated Monsanto mushrooms – that concerned me even more than the factual malrepresentation that spawned them. ENDA? Marriage? Maryland? Those are indeed just theories. They were attemps on my part to fathom prcisely why trans activists like Bil Browning, The John Joe Jervis, Andy Towle, and whoever the fuck wrote the Queerty piece (trans stuff is one of a long list of things that they activism for, right? that makes them trans activists, right?) would refuse to, in any way, correct the error of their reportage which had unleashed some of the worst anti-trans hatred ever seen this side of Free Republic, RadFem Hub, Chuck Colson, Dirt, Paul McHugh and AROOO – and then refuse either to police their comments sections while The Bil, The John and The Joe are not only refusing to correct their errors but instead doubling down byclaiming that whatever others did in the past justifies whatever broad brush they might paint with in the present.
Janice G. Raymond, Ph.D.
Janice Raymond is a professor at the University of Massachusetts. Her ideas of feminism appear to have been influenced by her Catholic Christian background. She is infamous for having written her doctoral thesis attacking transsexuality, denying its medical reality, and for viciously attacking individual transsexuals, notably Sandy Stone and Angela Keyes Douglas in her book, based on her dissertation, The Transsexual Empire, 1979, 1994. Her quoting out of context a letter written by Douglas was tantamount to intellectual dishonesty. The letter origanally written as political satire of misplaced lesbian separatist hysteria over Sandy Stone�s employment at Olivia Records was misquoted as representing typical transsexual hatred of women. The book uses insensitive and transphobic language thoughout, while vilifying feminine MTF transsexuals as tools of patriachy for upholding stereotypes of women, and vilifying androgenous lesbian identified MTF transsexuals for being tools of patriachy, fifth columnists infiltrating womens�space and �raping womens� bodies�, a typical �damned if you do, damned if you don’t� trap. She dismisses FTM transsexuals as deluded and misguided lesbians, afraid of the label �homosexual�. Her thesis rests entirely on arguments that sex/gender indentity are fixed within the genitals at birth, an essentialist theory that excludes the possibility of transsexuals being a form of intersex, a topic which Raymond never addresses.
The book, while it did not create the transphobic attitude in the lesbian community, did tap into and �validated�, as least for the transphobes themselves, the discrimination they practiced. Thus, what began in the ’70s, occasional attacks on individual transsexual women, became institutionalized discrimination against all transsexuals in the ’80s.
The book is not the most damaging writing that Raymond has penned. Far worse is a United States federal government commissioned study in the early 1980’s on the topic of federal aid for transsexual people seeking rehabilitation and health services. This paper, not well publicized, effectively eliminated federal and some states aid for indigent and imprisoned transsexuals. It had a further impact on private health insurance which followed the federal government’s lead in disallowing services to transsexual patients for any treatment remotely related to being transsexual, including breast cancer or genital cancer, as that was deemed to be a consequence of treatment for transsexuality.
Scoreboard – if that’s what you really want.
Its not what we want, but if you don’t stop lying about us, what is our incentive to stop telling the truth about you regarding the present – much less the past (given that all of the malreportage, misrepresentation, lies and rabid (see, Bil…I can use that word too) transphobia enshrined in the comments sections of the Fab(rication) Five gay male bloggers are now part of the past, part of the historical record)?
Oops, I think I actually ended with a question instead of an observation.
My bad.
I made a mistake.
You see, Bill…
That’s all you – an the rest of the Fab(rication) Five ever needed to do.
I shudder to think why – or how – anyone could disagree with what Ethan had to say (originally in a comment at TransAdvocate.)
And yet…
3…2…1….
ENDAblog 
I think there’s affluent and there’s affluent. To a TWOC, perhaps the sheer luxury of flying back to another state in order to deal with the foreclosure on a house that has an underwater sales value strikes her as being much better than sleeping in one’s car, or the park, or even an SRO transient hotel because one has never been able in their lives to even contemplate the possibility of getting a home loan from a bank.
I have no idea why someones’ economic situation would relate to their ability to understand the issue. Though it is true that mentioning you have better paying consulting work that you would like to focus on this week and knowing that your partner is E.D. of an organization might seem more impressive to someone without a stable place to hang their hat than reality warrents. By a very long way.
If she had asked who the consulting work was from or observed that calling someone crazy is something that say a disability activist might question or something that has a history of being used against disempowered women – it might be more germane.
I’m reminded of some Bilerico writers needing to be corrected for calling Gags an ally when she suppported LGBT rights vocally – she is of course bi. And of course – Bil doesn’t refer to say – President Obama or Secretary Clinton as gay activists. Even though they’ve supported gay rights.
This rather basic distinction, reading into a news story what you want to see and not correcting an obvious mistake when pointed our to you – even when you admit privately to dome it was a mistake?
I think you should ask yourself if it’s really so strange some question you given that fact pattern.
Damn phone autocorrect Gaga for gag, some for dome
Maybe this can help some folks having difficulty with the concepts?
http://www.diagrammr.com/
Though I hear it’s less useful with even moderately complex sentences.
It is very common for abusive bullies with low self-esteem to attack those people who try the hardest to be kind to them. The kindness is seen as a sign of weakness and a willingness to accept abuse, so the kind person becomes an attractive target.
Bilerico perhaps more than any other “LGBT” blog, bends over backwards to accommodate trans activists. It has lost readers because it insists on allowing vile, hate-filled trannies to post ridiculous nonsense on the site. It supported a vicious attack on a gay writer several years ago when he dared state his confusion about the need for sexual reassignment surgery. It is about as kindly toward trans activists as any “LGBT” blog in existence. So that is why Kat Rose attacks it and its founder. You can put on a dress and lipstick, but underneath you have an abusive male mindset.
The signs don’t apply to illiterates.
Have a nice day!
(Or, ask someone to read that to you.)
“Silence is a woman’s best garment.”
Gotcha, Vic.
Unlike some, who prefer to revel in theirs as only befitting their station. Sing it cister!
For ‘Vic’, I think “cistern” might be more appropriate.
Ron Gold wasn’t just talking about vaginoplasty, you do realize, yes? He was expressing concern at the whole notion of transition and identification at variance with one’s CASAB.
Actually, Val, condemning surgery seems to have been Ron Gold’s primary focus…
I managed to find the original post preserved on Zoe’s blog along with an extended email dialog Zoe conducted with him in an effort to wean him from cluelessness (which is why I love and admire Zoe… but alas this dialog evidently bore no clue-fruits for Mr. Gold).
… Vic referring to Gold’s Bilerico post as stating his “confusion about the need for sexual reassignment surgery” is pretty funny, given that Gold’s intransigent position is made baldly clear by its title:
“No” to the notion of transgender
… where he’s using “transgender” to mean “transsexualism”…. I’m not sensing any “confusion” there, Vic!
LOL!
– bonzie anne
It’s very common for people to make pop psych shit up and then claim that it’s very common behavior without providing any citation or attribution to that claim. And look, there’s Vic up there, doing just that in the service of transmisogyny.
Yep, Vic loves misogyny, as long as it’s directed solely at trans women!
By the way, this line:
“You can put on a dress and lipstick, but underneath you have an abusive male mindset.”
is the tipoff that what “Vic” is is one of them there lesbian separatists what with the genetic essentialism and the misandry and suchlike. If not Cathy “Bug” Brennan, then one of her fellow travelers, like Dirt. Obviously not a gay dude, gay dudes don’t say shit about “an abusive male mindset.” And that whole “You can put on a dress and lipstick” prologue is right out of the AROO playbook.
Do I need to make a sockpuppet and go hang out at Radicalhub and balance out the sockpuppetry you’re doing here, “Vic?” I’m pretty sure I would be a lot more subtle than you and make far better use of Poe’s Law than a mo-ron like you can with your tiny little radfembrain.
His whole point was that if there is no particular way for a man or a woman to look and behave, the concept of transgender is rendered meaningless. This may be right or wrong or wise or foolish, but it isn’t a crime to think about gender in new ways.
If I remember correctly, the deranged tranny commenters at Bilerico compared Ron Gold’s post to murder and rape. After a few days, it was compared to the Holocaust. Naturally, he was declared to be an enemy of humanity, so vile that his presence on the blog could not be tolerated.
This modern-day Hitler wrote: “Perhaps it isn’t needless to say that a No to the notion of transgender does not excuse discrimination against cross-dressers or post-op transsexuals in employment, housing and public accommodation; and I strongly support legislation that would forbid it.” But that didn’t matter. It was time for another human sacrifice on the altar of trans activists’ mental illness.
Have fun with your obsession!
If I remember correctly, people citing what other people have said usually are able to copy and paste a URL…
And I’m sorry, just as lesbian has a meaning even when there are no longer political implications but only a history of them, to the word, trans will have meaning. So long as sex is assigned based on cursory inspection of genitalia, we will have trans people and cis people.
… and they usually will, but Valerie!, it is such a downer when the source to which one would link contradicts one’s claims?
“No” to the notion of transgender –
Filed By Ronald Gold | December 10, 2009 4:00 PM | 364 comments
Vic – “[Ron Gold]… another human sacrifice on the altar of trans activists’ mental illness” – the thought keeps occurring to me that this has GOT to be a Poe, but on further reflection, I suppose not… because such ludicrous over-dramatizations are actually pretty common among the transphobic crusaders…
@Valeriekeefe:
Dummy, the link to the full Gold piece is in Blayk’s comment above. That is how I found Gold’s very clear statement of support for trans civil rights. I notice that you have nothing to say about that.
This guy supported your civil rights and trans activists went after him like he was a murderer. Just as Bilerico supports trans rights and it gets nothing but hostility from Kat. As I said, the abuser goes after those who are most kind to him. Kat should have played the husband in the Burning Bed.
Big fan of those Lifetime Movies, eh Cathy? Augh! You should have sockpuppeted with the name Irving! Didn’t the comic strip version of Cathy also obsess over marriage to the point of absurdity? SO MUCH in common!
When it’s built on a foundation of fundamental disrespect? Yeah, You’re damn right, I will. But Mr Gold’s piece is not so supportive as that:
I hope I’ll be forgiven for rejecting as just plain silly
the idea that some cosmic accident just turned these people into
changelings. What happened, more than likely, is that, from an early age, when they discovered that their personalities didn’t jibe with what little boys and girls are supposed to want and do and feel, they just assumed they mustn’t be real little boys and girls.
So, parents of such little boys and girls, do not take them to the
psychiatrist and treat them like they’re suffering from some sort of illness. Explain to them that, whatever the other kids say, real
little girls do like to play with trucks and wear grimy jeans, and
real little boys like to prance around in dresses and play with dolls.
And make sure the teachers are on the same page.
Advocating that parents refuse medical transition, since the only medical transition a trans child can get is (overly) psychiatrically supervised… Interesting start from someone ‘supporting our rights.’
Reading on:
Perhaps it isn’t needless to say that a No to the notion of transgender does not excuse discrimination against cross-dressers or post-op transsexuals in employment, housing and public accommodation; and I strongly support legislation that would forbid it. I would, however, get after the doctors – the psychiatrists who use a phony medical model to invent a disease that doesn’t exist, and the surgeons who use such spurious diagnoses to mutilate the bodies of the deluded.
Wait? How did cross-dressers get in here? I thought earlier he’d said that real little boys like to prance around in dresses and play with dolls. And many doubtless do. And many real little girls like me liked to tear around in their big wheel and explore the giant field in the back of their house and build canals in the wet playground sand in the spring the cleanliness of our pants be damned and lob foam footballs at piles of boxes in the basement, imagining the former artillery and the latter shattered walls. Of course, that last one was more my cis sister’s thing.
At any rate, Ron Gold has, at this point, decided to go after the medicine instead of the medical model. He’s advocating the Janice Raymond solution of morally mandating us out of existence, just at what he believes to be the heteronormative source, (That’s cute, too since there are more trans lesbians than straight trans women, by about a 7-6 margin.) the doctors.
We’re not just talking vaginoplasty. When it comes to spironolactone, Ron Gold doesn’t think doctors have any business prescribing milligram one, and he will work, as he says, to put them out of business. Or do you somehow have a more charitable reading of: I would, however, get after the doctors – the psychiatrists who use a phony medical model to invent a disease that doesn’t exist, and the surgeons who use such spurious diagnoses to mutilate the bodies of the deluded.
Going after the less sympathetic side of something they hate is not new to the prescriptive left. Look at Sweden and how they make life more dangerous for sex workers by criminalizing not what they do with others, but what others do with them. It’s not new to the right either. Henry Morgentaler went to prison, not the women he helped, but his imprisonment did endanger the lives of many women.
And that, ultimately, is the point… kill trans people as a community… without even leaving a mark.
if there’s a modern-day Hitler, she’s a radfem.
It’s such a shame too… if you ever wanted to find a group of people who would be willing footsoldiers in the war on manhood, there are quite a few trykes who’d be happy to help.
As I’ve said, heterosexists and cissexists shouldn’t start a culture war where we lesbians, trans and cis, can retaliate with a thirty-dollar course of estrogel and spironolactone.
If a trans contributor posted on Bilerico a screed entitled “Just Say No to the Notion of Homosexual” and then proceeded to tell gay and lesbian people that they are really just either Bisexual or Trans people who were too self-deluded and self-hating to admit it, well shit, I bet the clacking of all the pearls being clutched throughout the LGBTosphere would be deafening. Think it might have gotten even more heat than Ron Gold’s post did? I do.
SKEPTICAL CICADA HAS LEFT THE BUILDING!
Well, no, his posts are still there… but now they’re all labeled “Guest”.
[…] at ENDABlog] No related content found.Transadvocate contributor: Kat (161 […]
Burn Chest Fat Men…
[…]Answer: Fact-Free Blogging « ENDAblog[…]…
[…] say it again (if for no other reason to distinguish this blog from the five gay-male-run blogs that still refuse to acknowledge that they were dead wrong about the Van…): It is indeed possible that the folks who have made the allegation against HRC as to the anti-flag […]