This is What We Get When Our Over-Privileged, Gay Inc.-Approved Elite Lies About How “Robust” Our Protections Are

From the Detroit News:

House Speaker Jase Bolger’s office on Wednesday declared legislation prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians dead for the year because Democrats refused to vote for it without legal protections for transgender people.

“The extremists on the left were successful in preventing civil rights protections for gays and lesbians in Michigan,” Bolger spokesman Ari Adler said late Wednesday.

Bolger, R-Marshall, has opposed Democratic demands that “gender identity or expression” be added to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, arguing transgender individuals are already protected from discrimination under the classification of “sex.”

“They demanded extra language for a group that is already protected,” Adler said. “By taking a hard line and insisting that we provide double protection for transgender individuals, they blocked protection for gays, lesbians and bisexuals.”

Its as if Bolger and Adler had their scripts written for them by Stephen Clark.

Imagine that.

Oh, wait…


Well, that’s the Gay, Inc. prong – but there’s a second prong.

A trans elite prong.

I’ve never been a Buyer of the as-yet-to-be-ruled-upon-by-the-Supreme-Court – the only ruling that will count – theory that any trans people other than “retired” millionaires have any kind of “robust” protection.

Sure, there are some good Title VII rulings – judicial and administrative.

But because the theory that trans Title VII protections are good enough to warrant non-inclusion in ENDA (or state equivalents) is far less “robust” than the arrogance of certain Gay, Inc.-approved (and Queer Channel Media-approved) yammerers claim that they are, we still need inclusion.

We don’t need rich, bloviating elitists – whose legal reasoning on trans rights is even more detached from reality than a certain exterminationist transphobe defender of payday loansharks and whose de facto need for civil rights protections is less than HRC’s need for an endless supply of worthless membership trinkets and 30-ish kool-aid-soaked trans tokens – telling the world that we’re already robustly covered.

Because when we have that, we get Republican legislators spewing it back to mainstream media in a voice tailor-made to ensure that it will be repeated by Republicans and Democrats in New York, New Hampshire and Wisconsin as a collective excuse to never make any legitimate attempt to rectify those states’ gay-only rights laws…

you know, an issue that matters to trans people (well, those of us who can’t buy a private world of protected privilege anyway) because, until the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly signs off on EEOC or lower federal court rulings, trans people are only as covered as the next judge says we aren’t.


1 Comment

  1. Stevie – another argument against tenure?

    Wouldn’t you love to be a trans woman who got stuck with him as your adviser or just prof? What fun….

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a reply, but don't be a troll. Have a nice day!

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

You are commenting using your 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