“Being Treated Unequally Really Scars Your Soul”

That was uttered Wednesday evening by GLAD’s Mary Bonauto on the Rachel Maddow Show.

Wanna see some scarred souls, Mary?

Try looking into the eyes of all of the relevantly-qualified trans people who’ve been turned away from employment by all of the tentacles of Gay, Inc.

Or, just look into the eyes of everyone being lied to – yet again – by the Rhode Island Avenue Cesspool over the Flag Incident.

Advertisements

Calling Upon the Seattle University School of Law to Replace Dean Spade With a Trans Legal Academic Who Would Not Say Something This Moronic

Like, oh…I dunnow, any of the trans women attorneys who have wasted money going through the AALS process over the last five years and who never even received as much as a peep from Seattle U?

Remember this?

“I don’t imagine there will be negative legal consequences for [the Beaties] personally,” says Dean Spade, a lawyer who specializes in transgender rights. After all, the couple is legally married and therefore has all the parental rights a marriage provides. “The idea of someone challenging this doesn’t make sense. The biological tie is generally respected in court.” Spade adds that Beatie’s legal gender can’t be questioned….

That was five years ago.

We all – yes, all – knew what was eventually going to happen; I damn sure did.  It was just a matter of when and where.

No, I don’t mean the total and complete implosion of the Beaties’ attempt to make money off of themselves and it having a buttload of legal consequences not just for the Beaties’ but for any trans people who are unlucky enough to live in the same jurisdiction where the Beaties’ nonsense implodes (okay, I mean that as well, but on down a paragraph or two.)

Rather, I mean someone making as ridiculous (not to mention worthy of a legal malpractice action had he given it as formal legal advice) of a statement as Spade made ending up with a position in academia; he’s FTM after all and, clearly, all it takes for a trans person to be eligible for employment within Gay, Inc. and the world of legal academia that it feeds is to not be a trans woman (there’s a reason, after all, that the Rhode Island Avenue Cesspool couldn’t trot out a trans token to spew its sub-Nixonian glob o’ propagandgoo in response to the most recent visible evidence of its ongoing institutional transphobia – one actually witnessed and attested to by some who usually defend Gay, Inc.)

Now, here’s what we have today:

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge has denied a divorce to “Pregnant Man” Thomas Beatie on grounds that the transgender tabloid celebrity did not prove that his Hawaiian marriage was not a same-sex marriage.

Beatie, 39, touted himself on TV talk shows as “The Pregnant Man” in 2008 with his first pregnancy. He subsequently had two more children with his wife Nancy, whom he married in 2003.

The couple filed for divorce in March 2012.

In December, Beatie told The Arizona Republic, “I’m clearly a man: socially, legally, psychologically, physically — the whole ball of wax.”

Perhaps he should have said ‘spade of wax,’ eh?  (Or ‘ball of spade’?  Nah – ‘spade of wax’ is probably better.)

In a ruling last June, [Judge Douglas Gerlach] noted that the “marriage was between a female … and a person capable of giving birth, who later did so.”

Now [Thomas] wants a divorce so that he can marry his new girlfriend.

Gerlach denied that request on Friday.

Memo to Dean Spade: Thomas Beatie’s legal gender has, kinda sorta, just been questioned.  And I, in turn, am questioning your standing to hold a law professorship.

This was what I had to say five years ago:

“I don’t imagine there will be negative legal consequences for [the Beaties] personally,” says Dean Spade, a lawyer who specializes in transgender rights. After all, the couple is legally married and therefore has all the parental rights a marriage provides. “The idea of someone challenging this doesn’t make sense. The biological tie is generally respected in court.” Spade adds that Beatie’s legal gender can’t be questioned, and because this is a marriage between a legal man and woman, he doesn’t see how the story could have any impact on heterosexual marriage laws in Oregon.

No negative legal consequences?

Legal gender can’t be questioned?

Doesn’t see how the story could have any impact?

Now…

Should there be consequnces?  Should Beatie’s gender be questioned?  Should it have any legal impact?

Those are different questions.

But, if Spade really believes there are no possible legal consequences (does he really think some enterprisng political opportunist – even in Oregon or, perhaps, with the feds – won’t try?), and if Spade really believes that Beatie’s legal gender can’t be questioned (it won’t even take an opportunist to arrange some venue in which Beatie’s post-transition-to-male pregnancy will yield a de novo examination of not just Beatie himself but of all statements, documents, etc., that went into getting his gender legally changed in the first instance). and if Spade really believes the story will have no legal impact on heterosexual marriage (as in whether or not an FTM can marry a woman, and whether or not an MTF can marry a man) in Oregon (yeh – I can see all that gay money and energy  to fight against legislative action ‘clarifying’ that marriages such as the Beaties’ are invalid same-sex relationships flowing into Oregon right now…NOT), then Spade has abdicated any and all right that he may have ever had to speak for anyone on trans issues – in court or anywhere else.

And it wasn’t just the mean old trans woman who has the nerve to challenge Gay, Inc’s preferential treatment of FTMs who had a bad feeling.  One FTM offered this in response to that ENDABlog Classic piece:

I hate how most FTMs are acting like this is going to have no effect on anyone.  This sucks a ton for me, because I haven’t had chest surgery or anything yet, so the tightening requirements (which is what I forsee) could impact me in a major way.  I think this could very easily fundamentally change the way that government agencies treat us.

Funny that the Beaties’ B.S. found its way to Arizona, eh?

Land o’ papers-to-pee law?

It does give one pause to wonder if either one or both of them were in no way what they were portraying themselves to be.  Radphlegms couldn’t have arranged such a confluence if they tried…

could they?

The bigger question, however, goes to Seattle University: Will there be any consequences for Dean Spade having made such a ridiculous claim five years ago?

I have my bet down as to what it will or won’t do.

Sadly, I’ll probably collect.

I Keep Hearing About the ‘Good, Well-Intentioned HRC Employees’…

So why don’t those good, well-intentioned non-trans employees of HRC do something useful and quit en masse to protest HRC’s near-genocidal discriminatory hiring practices against trans people (particularly trans women)?

“$60 a year down, $39,999,940 to go”

Seen recently on Facebook:

The title of the post comes from Jenna Fischetti’s reaction to that ever-so-slight – yet symbolically significant – tightening of the valve that supplies energy to the HRC monster.

I’ve said it before – here at EB2, at ENDABlog Classic, in the pages of the late lamented Texas Triangle and elsewhere: There will never be an ENDA of any kind so long as Barney Frank is in Congress and so long as HRC exists.

St. Barney has retired to lobbyistland, so that part of the prediction held up.

And remember: St. Barney – as congresscritter – and HRC came into existence at almost exactly the same time, 1980-81.

HRC is not a civil rights organization; it is the heroin addict of inside-the-beltway money vortices.  It only cares about money for itself and its ultra-elite, non-trans gay employees.  If that money goes away, it will go away.

And if it does not go away, we – LGB and T – will remain without federal employment anti-discrimination protections.

We have the power to remove the HRC tumor from the body of equality, which – in and of itself – will advance the actual LGBT agenda of actual LGBT people light years.  That removal can be accomplished only by lawfully convincing real people – not just T and LGB but also the reality-centric non-LGBT folk who have been conned into believing that HRC cares about something other than money – to do what the person noted above did: cutting off the flow of HRC’s heroin money.

Now, go talk amongst yah-selves – but also talk to people who you know or suspect to have been conned into giving money to HRC based on its fraudulent representation of being a trans-inclusive civil rights organization.

Its time to make Chad Griffin and the HRC elite have to find jobs in the real world.

Pic of the Day: March 28, 2013 (Special ‘Only Remaining Legal Restroom for Trans People in Arizona’ Edition)

Actually…

Along Atalissa Road near the Cedar River in Iowa yesterday afternoon, but you get the idea.

Up Next: HRC Denying that it Discriminates Against Trans Women in its Own Employment Practices

From Q Notes:

Various posts on Facebook and Tumblr asserted that an HRC staffer asked transgender community members to remove a transgender flag from the podium area and said, according to one post, that “marriage equality is not a transgender issue.”

Jerame Davis, executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, said in an update on Facebook that he witnessed an HRC staffer asking that a transgender flag be removed, though he did not hear the alleged statement regarding marriage and transgender issues.

“I was there. I saw this happen,” Davis wrote on Wednesday. “It was only the HRC reps asking for the trans flag to be moved. If they’d only asked once, I’d have given them a pass, but they continued to harass this person over a flag.”

Davis described the incident as “really poor behavior.”

I’d describe it as: HRC-oids jockeying for promotions.

And, of course, where the Rhode Island Avenue Cesspool is involved, there are lies, wrapped in obfuscations, wrapped in doublespeak, with hegemony oozing from every pore..

HRC Communications Director Michael Cole-Schwartz issued a statement to qnotes in response to the allegations.

“It was agreed that featuring American flags at our program was the best way to illustrate this unifying issue

Okay, lets stop it right there.  The mere fact that HRC has declared that the shoving of marriage up to the SCOTUS right now is “unifying” is an act of rhetorical assault against everyone who is offended that Gay, Inc. has, in practical terms, killed the issue of employment anti-discrimination outside of those states that already have it (whether legitimate or gay-only.)

And, yes, I expect nothing less from an organization that still feels shocked when it is called out as transphobic – after perfecting the institutional practice that Jean O’Leary and Ron Gold pioneered over at NGLTF.

which is why when managing the area behind the podium, several people were asked to move who were carrying organizational banners, pride flags or any other flag that was not an American flag,” the statement read. “Several people refused and they were allowed to stay. The coalition welcomed the variety of signs and flags that were throughout the plaza that demonstrated the wonderful diversity of our community.”

HRC added, “It is a not true to suggest that any person or organization was told their flag was less important than another

Dude!  In your previous paragraph you all but explicitly stated that all flags were less important than the American flag!

— this did not occur and no HRC staff member would ever tolerate such behavior.

Bullshit.  Now, to be absolutely fair (1) I was not there.  (2) There is the slightest of chances that HRC guy could be telling the truth and that all of the reality-based people got it wrong.  And I genuinely and sincerely assert that, absent conclusive audio/video of the incident, we all should leave open that slightest of possibilities.

But don’t you dare EVER spew out the lie that ” no HRC staff member would ever tolerate such behavior.”  Your organization’s entire history – replete with its 2 1/2 trans employees, none of whom are still on HRC’s staff (and to this I address Q-Notes’ crack staff: Why didn’t you question why HRC had no trans employees available to answer inquiries about the alleged incident?) – is emblematic of gay transphobia.

To be clear, it is the position of the Human Rights Campaign that marriage is an issue that affects everyone in the LGBT community.”

And, once again, HRC is dead wrong.

It does not affect everybody in the LGBT community any more than gays-in-the-military does.  That doesn’t mean that trans people who do fight the marriage fight because of their personal interest in the issue or just because of solidarity are wrong.  But that sentence is just another act – albeit a touchy-feely one, cloaked in inclusivity to hide its poisonous core – of erasing the concerns of all LGBT people who might not have marriage as their first, last and only interest.

Here is the fully encrypted chunk o’ propaganda from Rhode Island Avenue:

Tuesday and Wednesday were historic days for our community, as thousands of LGBT people gathered in front of the Supreme Court and in every state across the country to demonstrate their support for marriage equality. HRC was proud to play a role in these events as a member of the United for Marriage coalition, the group which organized the gathering at the Supreme Court. Marriage equality is an issue that fundamentally impacts hundreds of thousands of LGBT people and families across our nation and is greater than any one organization.

It was agreed that featuring American flags at our program was the best way to illustrate this unifying issue which is why when managing the area behind the podium, several people were asked to move who were carrying organizational banners, pride flags or any other flag that was not an American flag. Several people refused and they were allowed to stay. The coalition welcomed the variety of signs and flags that were throughout the plaza that demonstrated the wonderful diversity of our community.

It is a not true to suggest that any person or organization was told their flag was less important than another – this did not occur and no HRC staff member would ever tolerate such behavior. To be clear, it is the position of the Human Rights Campaign that marriage is an issue that affects everyone in the LGBT community.

The events at the Court featured lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender speakers as well as LGBT families, religious leaders, Republicans, military spouses and civil rights activists. This has been a historic week and truly demonstrated how all of us – lesbian, gay, bisexual and straight, transgender and cisgender – can unite as one voice to advocate for our constitutional rights

No, it demonstrated how what is indeed a legitimate issue for many thousands of people – LGB as well as T – can be turned into just another corporate battering ram by a bunch of disgusting, self-interested greedmeisters who, apart from having never had to compete against a trans person for their current jobs, are so disconnected from life outside of the Islands O’ Gay Marriage that they probably really and truly believe that no one currently adrift on the waves over the horizon and beyond the view of Married Gay Millionaire White Sandy Beach, New York, or Loot-Loaded Lesbian Marriage Beach, Maryland, might want to get to Employment Island rather than one of the Marriage Islands.

I’ll 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 Vancouver non-incident of 2012): It is indeed possible that the folks who have made the allegation against HRC as to the anti-flag incident got it wrong, even without animus; honest mistakes do happen.

However, HRC again portraying itself as an organization that would never do anything anti-trans is actually a more disgusting act of aggression against the entire LGBT community than the anti-flag incident even if it occurred exactly as reported.

We – whether T or LGB or just simply reality-centric – cannot let it go unchallenged.

I Wonder if The John Will Whine This Much When Next He Sees an Image of RuPaul Used to Represent Trans People?

In your hearts – and minds – you know what the answer is.

SCOTUSblog, the Internet’s number one source for information surrounding the Supreme Court, a site that just won a prestigious Peabody Award, has a grand total of one photo on its Web site from yesterday’s huge demonstration outside the Supreme Court for its historic arguments over Prop 8 and gay marriage.

[T]he photo that the most-esteemed site on the entire Internet for Supreme Court news chose to represent our struggle for marriage equality was of an androgynous man with neon dyed hair in a semi-nude mesh unitard flashing his nipples and prancing around like a pixie.

There were hundreds, if not thousands, of people outside the Supreme Court yesterday and only one person – by my count, as I walked around for two hours snapping photos – looked like this.  And the one photo SCOTUSblog chooses for its entire Web site, to represent scores of gay couples across America who want to settle down, get married, have children and a family, and partake in their own slice of the American dream, the one depiction that SCOTUSblog chooses to mark the most important day in the gay civil rights movement since the Stonewall riots in 1969, was that one.