In Case You’ve Ever Wondered Why Things Took so Long in Massachusetts…

[T]he “bisexual community” is not alone in its demand for recognition. We also have the addition of “transgender” to the title. This is curious. A straight friend of mine asked me what “transgender” means, and I had to confess I really didn’t know. I always thought that ‘transgender’ involved an individual with gender identity issues, like David Bowie or Hillary Clinton.

Bay Windows, on May 21, 1998, allowed that festering chunk of skunk excrement to see the light of day – as part of a column by Jim Gilbert, entitled “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender…(yadda, yadda, yadda).”

Ever so strangely, that column has disappeared from the internet.

Anything to Avoid the ‘T’


In fact, there’s not a T to be seen on it (L or B either for that matter), making it quite appropriate as HRC-logo-emblazoned crap.

Irony, Much?


…coming from a Queer Channel Media that appears to have not yet acknowledged the internal report that validates the criticism of the white, male (not to mention non-trans) hold on the actual power at HRC?

A Question

The John sez in 2014:

I know from bisexual friends that people who are bi often get a bad rap.

The John said in 2007:

Bisexuals, who were only part-time gays….

So, my question: Who exactly are these bisexual friends of The John?

I’ve personally never understood the problem — some people are gay, some are straight, some are in between, so why can’t someone be exactly in between?

Okay, I have another question: What exactly all was The John not able to understand in 2007?  We he didn’t have a clue about ENDA or trans history.  It looks as though the list is mounting.

A Sure Sign That it is (A) Pride Time or (B) Gay, Inc. is Gearing Up to Move Forward on Some Initiative that Screws Trans People

…or (C) both.

What might the sign be?

The end of gay history

The John is revving up his transphobia machine…

And the Gay Inc Lies Begin

…and we all know where that goes.

The Shameless Scampaign, Part 2 (Or, If You’ve Ever Wondered Why I’m Working on a Doctorate in History, Look no Further)

I focus on trans history, but I have no use for fake history in general – and what Queen Elizabeth III is trying to pull pisses me off on at least three different levels.

First, she engages in the patented HRC brand of fake trans-inclusion (by using ‘LGBT’ where it is not historically accurate.)

Second, more generally she’s re-writing history and, in the process, erasing not just trans people but some early allies of trans people.

Third, she conclusively demonstrates how necessary it is for me to be, on this historical issue anyway, 100% behind someone as otherwise loathsome as Andrew Sullivan, someone who just this morning I’ve seen described – not inaccurately I’ll add – as a “condescending, self-righteous jerk,” a “peddle[r of] the disgusting myth that Matthew Shepard was a meth dealer,” “beyond disgusting,” “a walking talking blogging piece of excrement,” “attached at the breast to Margaret Thatcher,” and “the Prime Cheerleader for the Iraq War.”


Those last two actually come from Queen Elizabeth III.

The difference is that her ‘stopped clock twice-a-day’ moment just qualifies her as Madame Capt. Obvious, whereas Sullivan’s is actually substantive – calling out hagiography that is being passed off history.  Recall how Sullivan introduced Jo Becker’s take on the gay marriage movement:

Here’s how the book begins – and I swear I’m not making this up:

This is how a revolution begins. It begins when someone grows tired of standing idly by, waiting for history’s arc to bend toward justice, and instead decides to give it a swift shove. It begins when a black seamstress named Rosa Parks refuses to give up her seat on a bus to a white man in the segregated South. And in this story, it begins with a handsome, bespectacled thirty-five-year-old political consultant named Chad Griffin, in a spacious suite at the Westin St. Francis hotel in San Francisco on election night 2008.

Now here’s Queen Elizabeth III’s opening shot at Prince Andrew:

Andrew Sullivan is getting a lot of play from his latest rant against an author’s (in this case Jo Becker’s) failure to bow down to Sullivan’s runaway case of “GGS” (Gay Grandiosity Syndrome).

Maybe I’ve been wrong about the number of trans employees at HRC during QEIII’s tenure there.  After all, it takes balls for someone who converted what was left of a civil rights organization (albeit one that was transphobic from its inception – and for several years before that, don’tcha know) into little more than an LGB( ) Ponzi scheme – while doling out a six-figure salary to herself (and I don’t even want to think how much her ex, Hilary Rosen, has vacuumed up over the years) for the better part of a decade to accuse anyone of any kind of grandiosity syndrome.

When Sullivan was still attached at the breast to Margaret Thatcher, young gay couples here in the U.S. were seeking justice in places like Minnesota and Hawai’i in the early 1970s. Sullivan takes special pride in completely distorting the history of the Human Rights Campaign, while embellishing his own role in U.S. LGBT history. (Did anyone else notice no less that four of Sullivan’s books are pushed in the opening paragraphs of his diatribe against the Prop 8 team? So much for collective credit.)

Yes, I noticed him pushing his books.

It seemed as though he was using their existence as evidence for his point.

Are you upset that he wasn’t pushing HRC-logo-emblazoned water bottles instead?

Here is what really happened. In the beginning marriage was created as a way for men to track offspring and property. Ok, that was cynical. Flash forward to U.S. history circa early 1970s. A few gay couples (against the advice and counsel of the LGBT Legal organizations like Lambda Legal Defense) sought licenses in their home states. It is true that Dan Foley, a heterosexual Buddhist lawyer in Hawai’i took up the first major case that ripened about the time I became head of the Human Rights Campaign. (Andrew, that would be 1995, not the early 2000s.) Because I had run away to Hawai’i as a young lesbian teen (I put myself through University of Hawai’i studying Oceanography, Political Science and Hawaiian was my undergraduate language) and because the HRC team understood that modern Hawai’i had a unique history of valuing equality (Hawai’i was the first state, for example, to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment), we believed we had a reasonable chance of success at achieving the right for same gender couples to acquire a civil marriage license.

Way to not insert yourself into the discussion, Liz.  So I’m presuming now that what you’re upset about is that you don’t have your own book(s) to push?

Oh, and BTW…

Hawai’i was also the fourth state to enact a transsexual birth certificate statute.

And that was in 1973 – which would be two decades before the Baehr case, Liz – but I wouldn’t expect you to actually know anything about trans anything (as opposed to conveniently claiming to have, in a year’s time, gone from not being “not focused” on trans issues to having done “as much if not more” than anyone.)

During the heat of the campaign when we badly needed resources, I asked Andrew to help us raise money. He agreed and then promptly raised not a dime.

I dunnow….

Maybe he just thought that he could raise money on par with the degree to which HRC educates on trans issues.

I’m just speculatin’ (which would be more than HRC ever did in the way of educatin’)…

Now, however, comes QEIII’s money shot:

If we are going to talk about LGBT history and the true heros of marriage equality, remember these names: Henry the Eighth who made it popular — and then: Evan Wolfson, Mary Bonauto (our Thurgood Marshall), Edie Windsor, Thea Spyer, Robbie Kaplan, and, yes, the entire Prop 8 team. Why? Because when everyone was screaming “NO”, they said “YES” and fought their way through to a victory for the State of California. It is true that the Windsor case has had a far more profound impact in terms of actual jurisprudence in this nation, but any effort is of more value than a single one of Andrew Sullivan’s self-righteous rants.

Liz, please refer back to my remark about balls.

Afterward, understand that that paragraph just proved Sullivan’s point (and I again feel the urge to point out: I still find my flesh crawling at the thought of defending Sullivan, but he happens to be dead on the money on this one.)


First and foremost: LGBT history? NONE of those names have squat to do with T history (probably Bi history either, but I’m less certain on that point.)

Second: Jack Baker.

Third: Mike McConnell.

Or is Queen Elizabeth III unwilling to ‘go there’ because in 1970s Minnesota gay marriage was looked down upon with even more ferocity (though, for the most part, by the same people) that trans-inclusion was looked down upon with and the non-Gay,Inc. types of Minnesota in the 1970s, simply by virtue of being non-Gay,Inc-ers in Minnesota, were opponents of Steve Endean, the Dr. Frankenstein (and to complete the analogy, QEIII would stand in for Igor, who gave Endean’s incarnation of HRC the Abby Normal brain that causes it to care more about money than it does even Endean’s constricted, transphobic concept of civil rights) of the monster that is now HRC?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Maybe Andrew Sullivan will want to be one of them…

but I doubt it.

Still, that doesn’t mean that you’re anything but wrong, Liz…

as usual.

[ADDENDUM – 4/18/14, 3:15 PM CDT]

From Politico:

Prominent journalists who have been involved with or covered the gay rights movement endorsed Sullivan’s column.

Dan Savage, the gay rights activist and columnist, added: “You can’t write Evan Wolfson, Andrew Sullivan & Mary Bonauto out of the marriage equality mvmnt—but Jo Becker tried,” he wrote on Twittter, later calling it a “bullshit ‘history’ of marriage equality movement.”

Frank Rich, the New York Magazine columnist and former Timesman, wrote: “I often disagree with Andrew Sullivan, but he is 100% right about this travesty of gay history.”

Now I’m really pissed off.

I’m forced into agreeing with Dan Savage!

Reached by email, Becker told POLITICO that her book — “Forcing the Spring,” due for release on Tuesday — was “not meant to be a beginning-to-end-history of the movement.”

I have a question for you, Jo: Are you also going to claim that you didn’t mean to write this?

It begins when a black seamstress named Rosa Parks refuses to give up her seat on a bus to a white man in the segregated South. And in this story, it begins with a handsome, bespectacled thirty-five-year-old political consultant named Chad Griffin, in a spacious suite at the Westin St. Francis hotel in San Francisco on election night 2008.

You know…

something that only a mentally defective paramecium could not interpret as you comparing Chad Griffin to Rosa Parks?

Or did the same person who Anthony Weiner claimed had hacked his Twitter account hack your word processor and put that in after you’d finished the book but before you shoveled it toward your publisher?

Creating Chum

Seen recently on Facebook:

Sue Hyde just said to a group of 250ish that houstons host committee is the best host com ever. And a whole bunch of other great things about houston.

I wonder if she’ll say anything about how she was an active participant in the campaign to bully Olivia Records into committing employment discrimination against a trans woman and, by extension, being a midwife at the birth of the twin festering sores of trans employment policy in Massachusetts and in Gay, Inc.?

And I wonder if she’ll say anything about NGLTF’s worse-than-pathetic record of employing trans people?

Because No One Else is Eeeeeeeeeeeever on the Short End of Propaganda

…certainly not trans women, right?

Remember the pseudo-academic (and likely closet TERF) complaint about all of the big, bad, establishment-accepted, discrimination-free trans women who (rightly) said that one need not even open the radioactively transphobic cover of Michael Bailey’s fraudulent nugget o’ ‘science,’ The Man Who Would be Queen?

Well, here is the latest example of something that can (rightly) be ripped to shreds without going beyond the title.

From HuffPo:


I have no idea what he says in the body of the piece and I don’t care.  (See anything B or T specific in the ‘follow’ glob?  I didn’t think so.)

The LGBT Community needs to confront anti-gay propaganda?

Welcome to Gay, Inc.-ism 201: The Erasure Shuffle!

Nice trick – but getting away with it ends here.

The title is the exact opposite of what needs to be transpiring.  It is those elements of ‘LGBT’ who have overly-benefited from the unjustifiably skewed 21st century priorities of Gay, Inc. who should be tearing out their pockets to support measures and programs which confront anti-trans propaganda…

including trans-movement-suicidal ramblings of some clueless Ts.

There, I said it.

The authority of the first judge to get a trans case who decides to issue a ruling that the EEOC’s trans-inclusive interpretation of Title VII was wrong.

Now that may be a bit overly cynical even for me; plenty of judges have been ruling in that general direction and those rulings helped nudge the EEOC toward its pro-trans ruling…

but nine who sit in D.C. have yet to do so.

Their authority (actually, just 5/9ths of their authority) exceeds Title VII if they want it to…

just as the EEOC’s can – when next a not-so-enlightened EEOC panel decides to ‘revisit’ the Macy decision…

you know, as soon as the next Republican president gets to make some appointments to the Commission…

which, if the current crop o’ “Why do we need to bother with ENDA when we can be spending our time, energy and money erecting altars to rich, trans charlatans and quislings?”-meisters have their way, will occur while statutory law – you know, law that an administrative body can’t rewrite on its own – contains a gay-only ENDA.

It is factually accurate to state that the EEOC interpreted “sex” in Title VII to include trans people.

It is a fact to say that that’s a good thing.

Of course, it is also a fact to state that one of the earliest federal appellate decisions to say that trans people were not included uner “sex,” Holloway v. Arthur Andersen & Co. (9th Cir. 1977), came to that conclusion in no small part because, even by 1977, Congress had rejected all of the Bella Abzug/Ed Koch-era bills to add “sexual orientation” to the Civil Rights Act – bills that, even had they become law, would not have – thanks to the Gay, Inc. of the day (same as it ever was – and is) – covered trans people – meaning that trans people have, in large part, Gay, Inc., to thank for the cobbling of the boot of anti-trans law that has so magnanimously just recently been quasi-removed from on top of our necks.

There, I said that too – because…

This is an important fact that all trans Americans need to know.

There is nothing in the Macy v. Holder decision that can’t be erased judicially and/or administratively without any of the overpaid, underworked non-trans people who are foerver allowed to earn their livings in Gay, Inc. (without, of course, ever having had to compete for their jobs against equally-/better-qualified trans applicants ) ever seeing it coming (mucg less having to even care) and without any of the oh-so-well-educated-on-trans-issues-by-all-of-those-non-trans-Gay-Inc-employees congresscritters ever having to take a position on it.

Macy v. Holder does exist.

It is useful.

It is substantive.

But it is also an illusion.

There, I said that too.

It is suicidal to crank out nonsense that seems to have emanated from the wet dreams of Gay, Inc. and TERFs (as if there is no substantive overlap, right?) who have never quite been able to get over the hump in their goal of completely sanitizing ENDA (you know, the desired gay-only successor to those Abzug-Koch gay-only Civil Rights Act amendment bills) of The Trans Stain™…

without getting a handful of overly-visible, lacking-in-legal-training, overflowing-with-self-importance trans clowns – and quislings, of course – to begin laying the groundwork for acceptance on behalf of a community (that they in no way shape or form represent) by ‘centrist’, ‘moderate’ ‘blah blah blah’ trans-oids of the ‘compromise’ of excluding trans people from ENDA yet again…

but this time forever.

The psychotic Republican Party of the 21st century can’t accomplish any of its treasonous, anti-LGBT, anti-anything-other-than-white, anti-woman goals without its token self-loathing blacks, its token self-loathing gays (I’m sure the search is on for a token self-loathing Republican T) and its stable of stable of legislative June-Cleavers-on-steroids to pollute the airwaves and political discourse in general by providing an illusion of non-uniform-white-male control for tele-consumption by the too-busy-earning-a-living-in-order-to-survive-masses-to-actually-pay-attention-to-how-fucked-up-things-really-are rabble…

and Gay, Inc. can’t accomplish its goal of sanitizing ENDA of The Trans Stain™ without help from a handful of well-placed trans people – some (all?) of whom perhaps are actually too stupid to realize that they are being used as fifth columns – who seem to be get off on conning their own people.

There, I said that too.

There Must Actually be a Move Afoot on ENDA


The John is back to his gay-primacy shtick, longing for the days when “gay” was understood as a modifier for “man” and only “man” (you know, the way that “American” carried undersood silent modifiers of “white,” “male” and “christian”) only now he’s framing it as ‘everyone in ‘LGBT’ who is not a gay male is forcing po’ po’ pi’ful John into a closet against his will’.

It’s not a huge secret that I’m not a big fan of the ever-expanding abbreviation LGBT for what used to be the “gay” community.

Once upon a time (the mid-1990s, in fact) we were gay, then “gay & lesbian,” then “gay, lesbian and bisexual,” then “gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans,” then “lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans,” and now, depending who you talk to, we’ve added on the letter Q (having multiple meanings), I (having multiple meanings), and a few As to boot.

Putting aside the argument about who is and isn’t a member of the gay community, and whether “questioning” is even a legitimate category at all (are there questioning Jews? – yes – so perhaps we should rename Judaism “JewsQ”).

But let’s not even get into any of that.  One of my biggest concerns with the abbreviation LGBT, or whatever your preferred alphabet soup, is that fact that’s basically shoved ourselves back into the closet.

No, John – the only into-closet-shoving is done by out-of-touch quasi-Republican elitists such as yourself who, if a lie detector could be allowed to do its work, would be shown to be not only transphobic but also to actually oppose civil rights laws in general.

How so?

I’m glad you asked.

Plenty of trans people who might like to be out aren’t because they know that they don’t have anti-discrimination protections – and in places like Wisconsin, New York, New Hampshire and Maryland they don’t have them whilst arrogant elitist snotbags like The John do.

Advocates see momentum for ENDA, other bills


Told ya.

Group of White Men Who Have Never Not Had Access to Healthcare Opposes Obamacare

They just happen to be gay…

Log Cabin denounces ‘tyrannical’ Obamacare

…and as obnoxiously self-interested as ever.