Again I Ask: Was Barney Frank Ever Right About Anything?

Almost two years prior to the Dec. 15, 1976 issue of The Advocate in which St. Barney promised that the Massachusetts state gay rights bills would pass in 1977, he had this to say about the 1975 session.

Advocate - 19750312 - Barney

No link, of course, but that is from page 5 of the March 12, 1975 edition of The Advocate.  In case the image is fuzzy, this is the money shot (paragraph spilling over from the bottom left column to the top right):

Rep. Frank has stated that because of the new and important differences between the 1974 and 1975 local political climates here, the general anti-discrimination measure’s chances of passage are “pretty good” this year.  Frank, who did not think the bills would pass during 1974, is considered one of the most astute political observers in Massachusetts.

I wonder what happened between 1974 and 1975.

Did the Democrats get 15-20 more seats?  Because we all know that that will guarantee passage of even a trans-inclusive anti-discrimination bill (and we all know that St. Barney did not even pretend to support one of those until 2007 – and we all know how little he really supported it.)

#sarcasm (but not as to The Advocate excerpt; that’s totally real.)


Was Barney Frank Ever Right About Anything?

From the Dec. 15, 1976 issue of The Advocate (page 8), please note the quote at the beginning of the paragraph halfway down the third column:


For those who can’t make it out:

The bills will pass in ’77.
– St. Barney

For those not keeping score, Massachusetts did not pass a gay rights bill until 1989.  By then, St. Barney had been in Congress for eight years (though he was spending 1989 calling in every political favor, marker and chit he could unearth in order to avoid getting kicked out of Congress.  Google ‘Steven Gobie.’  Just sayin’….)

Thirty years after his declaration of what would happen in 1977 he bullied the LGBT community – trans people most pointedly – with what he *knew* was capable of passing and not passing.  And then he professed to know for certain that 15-20 more Democrats would make a legitimate (read: trans-inclusive) ENDA a sure thing.

Between the Massachusetts Legislature and Congress, St. Barney drew a legislative salary for forty years.

In all of that time, was he ever right about anything?

To No One’s Surprise, The Roseanne Revival Will be TERF TV

From EW:

Darlene’s son Mark (Ames McNamara) likes to dress up in girl’s clothing. But it would be wrong to assume the 9-year-old character is transitioning or is gay. We asked executive producer Sara Gilbert (Darlene) to explain why she created the role of Mark….

SARA GILBERT: He doesn’t. That’s something that got out in the press that’s not true. He’s not a transgender character. He’s a little boy. He’s based on a few kids in my life that are boys who dress in more traditionally feminine clothing. He’s too young to be gay and he doesn’t identify as transgender….

So, to recap: An obnoxious, Trump-worshipping Roseanne Barr allows lesbian Sara Gilbert to create a 9-year-old character and defining said character in a way that insults LGBs (maybe Gilbert didn’t realize she was gay at nine – and I am not criticizing her if she claims that she didn’t; some people don’t but plenty – and probably far more – do) and erases trans people (most of whom realize that they are trans long before nine) in a way that only TERFs truly love.

One truly has to wonder if the character was not concocted in some sleazy law office in Maryland.

What made you want to create this character?
It represents the world.

No. It represents the obnoxious, Trump-worshipping Roseanne Barr’s TERF-on-steroids view of trans women.

At this point I’ll just pass along Toni D’Orsay’s response:

It is extremely bad. It means that we are going to have to go after this representation by attacking the thoughts and ideas that support it, especially since it will rely, in part, on the desistance myth, and will function in direct opposition to all the science…

… while still allowing folks for whom this is real to exist.

Yes, they explicitly say he isn’t a trans character, but do you think the media will be able to project that nuance, and do you you expect the very subtle transphobia of Barr to not be involved?

The only part of that I disagree with is her description of Barr’s transphobia.

It is anything but subtle.


#TERFIsNotASlur – never has been, never will be.

Has the Future Already Been Forgotten? A Post-2007 Transgender Legal History Told Through the Eyes of the Late, (Rarely) Great Employment Non-Discrimination Act

The article is now available on the website of the William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law.  Please read before all of the pro-HRC revisionist crap is shoveled into officially-approved discourse this fall.

Has the Future Already Been Forgotten

Remember 2007: The Bait-and-Switch Began Early

On the day that H.R. 2015 was introduced:


First, Solmonese repeated the lie that the Human Right Scampaign was, in 2007, “the nation’s largest gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender advocacy organization.”  (Remember, at that time it had NO trans employees, had NEVER employed a trans woman in any capacity, had just recently been proven to be fraudulently inflating its membership numbers and – of course – was not really advocating for trans rights.)

Then, he immediately referenced the first federal gay rights bill – which was a GAY-ONLY rights bill – yet he immediately followed that with a sentence utilizing “GLBT.” (Tell me that that was not fully calculated to confuse the issue.  And, also, lets not forget that the bill he referenced, not only was not trans-inclusive, but it also was not employment-inclusive! Bella Abzug’s first bill was comprehensive – as to all areas of civil rights law other than employment.)

After his usage of “GLBT” he whips back around to mixing and matching in ways that he can later mold to mean anything he wants:

nearly 90 percent of Americans believe that gays and lesbians should have equal employment opportunities. Furthermore, a healthy majority of Americans support congressional action to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Which ENDA is he referring to?

The one that was then just introduced?

Or one that would only cover gays and lesbians?

Yeh, yeh…

We know how the story ends.  But follow along.  Maybe you can convince yourselves that the Solmonese Scampaign really gave a damn about whether we lived or died.

Appletinis for all!



Remind Me Again of How ‘Incremental Progress’ Helped Trans People in Wisconsin?

WI State Detransitioning Trans Employees

But, Wisconsin has statutory sexual orientation anti-discrimination protections and Wisconsin has same-sex marriage via Obergefell v. Hodges, so all is well…

for all who matter.

I Guess it All Depends on Who “We” Are, Eh?


There has not been a day in my memory when we have not been better off than we were the day before.
– Daniel Zingale, Director of Public Policy, Human Rights Campaign Fund, in an interview in North Carolina’s The Front Page, June 9, 1995.

Daniel has/had a short memory. Five years before that date, trans people were not, via language that equates trans people to pedophiles, statutorily excluded from federal disability anti-discrimination law.

Then came the day that the ADA became law.