It Must be Nice… (UPDATED)

…to get paid to berate your own people by calling recognition of the fakeness of a ‘progress’ that Gay, Inc. has forced us to accept in lieu of a real progress wherein our people are legal equals to the owners and operators of Gay, Inc. “learned helplessness.”

It must be even nicer if, by chance, you have enough inherited wealth to do it for free if (as I hope but am not holding my breath on) no one is willing to pay for such nonsense.

Here’s a FACT: Trans people’s protections are no more ‘robust‘ than the next judge says they’re not.

Anyone who tells you differently either can’t tell the difference between an M.D. and a J.D. or is trying to sell you something – or both.

UPDATE – 9/16/2016

It looks like someone over at what used to be the Advocate shares my disdain for Wacky Ol’ Doc Beyer’s nonsense:

She claims, by citing several articles, that there is a sense of learned helplessness in the trans community, and uses articles to say that they portray a world where trans people are “always the victim, are always suffering, and deserve pity, rather than liberty.” I’m afraid she could not be further from the truth.

So no, not just The Advocate but no LGBT publication, feminist website, or minority activist is going to quit complaining, quit calling attention to issues, or stop rocking the boat because there have been a few victories. To think calling attention to the issues that remain is learned helplessness is completely wrong. As long as you are still fighting, you’re not helpless.


The John is Back! And Just as Disingenuous as Evah!

From AmericaBlah:

Clinton’s presidency was historic for LGBT rights


For LGBT rights?

Well, two of the three Ninth Circuit judges who signed onto the decision in Schwenk v. Hartford were appointed by Bill Clinton (the author of the opinion was a Carter appointee.)  So, I guess that’s something.

But what else was there?

Interestingly, The John couldn’t even be bothered to mention that in a long string of points that he uses to attempt to Viagra-ize this thesis:

Those who lived through a particular moment in “history,” tend to remember it, for better of worse. Those who were too young at the time, read about it instead. What they read, the source and its biases and overall accuracy, impacts what they end up believing. And what they end up believing isn’t necessarily what actually happened.

Which takes us to Bill Clinton’s presidency, and more generally Hillary Clinton’s progressive bona fides. Bernie Sanders had an interesting predicament running for president. How do you run against a liberal icon who has not only the entire party apparatus behind her, but who’s married to a sidekick who had one of the most successful presidencies, and thus is one of the biggest campaign draws, in modern memory?

Answer: You rewrite her history.

Now I’ll state up front: I’d prefer a Democratic nominee who espouses Sanders’ policies.  But I also knew going in that Hillary was to going to allow herself to lose again.  Moreover, the Dems would need a strong wave to defeat whatever con artist the Republicans might come up with.

Doubly so in light of the con artist who managed to con the Republican party out of its nomination.

So, I am not writing in defense of Bernie.

I’m writing in defense of what The John want you to believe he’s writing in defense of: history.

[A] discussion of Bill Clinton’s and Hillary’s record on LGBT rights.

I’ve been surprised, as someone who has worked in the top wrungs of LGBT activism at the national (and international) level for over twenty years, to read lately about how a number of lefty youth think Bill Clinton’s LGBT record is the worst ever. They usually — only — mention Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), conveniently glossing over every other quantum leap Bill Clinton took on behalf of our civil rights back in a time when it still wasn’t terribly cool to embrace the gay.

So is The John talking about “the gay”?  Or the “LGBT”?

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Gay people were ecstatic when Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992. Clinton had already made clear that he wasn’t just the most pro-gay (we used the word “gay” back then, rather than LGBT) president in history, but he was more pro-gay than American society at large, and even many Democrats. Clinton had promised that the first thing he’d do on assuming office would be lifting the ban on gays serving in the military.

Looks like The John hasn’t lost a step in his disingenuousness game.

Notice the sleight of hand there?  Throwing in a fake historical declaration as universal fact.  Yes, some people used “gay” to refer to everything – even up to the 1990s.  However, some other people used “gay” to mean “gay” and only “gay” because they didn’t (and still don’t) believe that anything else is worthy of mention (much less civil rights coverage.)

And all of that is in addition to the re-writing of history to refer to “LGBT” when, in reality, at most only the “LGB” are the proper historical subjects.

Speaking of….

Bill Clinton’s historic advances on gay rights

I wrote about this earlier, and listed a number of the Bill Clinton gay/LGBT successes, but I’ll repeat a few of them here:

  • 1997, Clinton endorsed adding sexual orientation to the Hate Crimes bill.
  • Appointed first-ever openly-gay US ambassador.
  • Had an openly-gay person with AIDS speak during prime time at the Democratic Convention in 1992. This was a multiple “first.”
  • Tried to lift the ban on gays serving openly in the military.
  • Ended discrimination against gays in the federal workforce.
  • Ended discrimination against gays in getting security clearances to work for the feds.
  • Endorsed ENDA.
  • Blocked Republican efforts to pass legislation prohibiting unmarried couples from jointly adopting children in the District of Columbia, and legislation which would have denied certain federal funds to localities with domestic partnership laws.
  • Issued first-ever presidential gay Pride Month proclamation.
  • Dramatically increased funding for HIV/AIDS.
  • Worked to stop discrimination against people with AIDS.
  • Opposed anti-gay ballot initiatives in Colorado and Oregon.
  • Fought discrimination against people with AIDS in the military.
  • Directed the Justice Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to vigorously prosecute those who discriminate against people with AIDS, leading to actions against health care providers and facilities that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  • First administration to help asylum-seekers based on sexual orientation.
  • First president to grant asylum for gays and lesbians facing persecution in other countries.
  • Fought harassment of students based on sexual orientation.
  • Fought for and signed the Kennedy-Kassebaum Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which bans insurance discrimination against people with pre-existing medical conditions including HIV/AIDS. In addition, President Clinton issued a directive that ensures that all providers of Federal health insurance abide by non-discrimination rules including sexual orientation.
  • Under President Clinton’s leadership, the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention commissioned scientific panels to study lesbian health issues and to suggest research methods for scientists who want to study specific lesbian health issues. This is the first time a U.S. Government agency has commissioned an examination into this subject.
  • Appointed more than 150 openly-gay appointees to his administration. Again, this simply wasn’t done before Clinton’s presidency.
  • Appointed first-ever White House gay liaison.
  • Appointed the first-ever White House AIDS Czar.
  • Appointed the first-ever openly-gay federal official confirmed by the US Senate. (Roberta Achtenberg, Jesse Helms’ “damn lesbian.”)
  • Convened the first-ever White House conference on HIV/AIDS.
  • First president to speak before a gay organization.



Now, bear in mind the following: My post here is not a criticism of Bill or Hillary.

But it is a criticism of someone…

someone who looks to be up to his old tricks.

Let’s Face It: A Certain Jenner-Defender/Enabler Has Gotten Something Else Wrong

From the Windy City Times:

Let’s face it: mainstream and LGBT media do not always get it right—especially when referencing transgender lives.

Uh huh…

Decorated New York Times columnist and best-selling author Jennifer Boylan has made her life an open book, quite literally, in an effort to facilitate positive change from within—and outside of—the community.

“We’ve seen great progress made,” she said. “I’d like to see that progress continue. Stories of trans lives, in all their many different permutations, need to become more commonplace.[“]

Well, accuracy would also be nice.

Case in point:

Also thriving is Boylan’s commitment to the media machine GLAAD. The 57-year-old currently sits on the board as co-chair.

“I think we’re [GLAAD] the best organization on the country on [transgender] issues, outside of nonprofits like National Center for Transgender Equality…

Okay, let me stop there for a second.  Saying you’re the best – at anything – outside of The Quisling’s Sell-Out Circle is like saying that the 2008 Detroit Lions are best winless NFL team outside of the 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers.  But I digress.

…whose work is solely focused on that one issue,” she said. “We have been doing this work for years and years now, long before trans advocacy was even on anyone’s radar. GLAAD’s longest serving employee is trans man Nick Adams, who for well over a dozen years now has been one of our community’s guardian angels. He is now director of transgender media. But there are plenty of trans people at GLAAD…

Well, I can think of a trans woman (and, no, I don’t mean me) who applied for a job at GLAAD – a job that she was by far the most qualified person in the nation for – about ten years ago who is not part of that “plenty.”  But, you probably already knew that. (And, if you didn’t, well – that’s a whole other story.) How about coming clean about GLAAD’s own HRC-esque history of employment discrimination (hint: tokens are not amulets)?  But I digress again.

…throughout our staff as well as on the board of directors. We have four trans women on the board, including the legendary Marci Bowers. We are the first LGBT nonprofit to have a transgender woman as co-chair of the board of directors. That would be me.”

No, Jenny.  That would not be you.

November 5, 1998

National queer lawyer group elects transgender co-chair

by Vicky Kolakowski

Santa Cruz attorney Melinda Whiteway has become the first openly transgendered person to be elected co-chair of a national lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) organization. On October 17 members of the National Lesbian and Gay Law Association (NLGLA) elected her as their female co-chair at the eighth Lavender Law Conference, held in Boston.

A longtime NLGLA board leader, Whiteway is one of six openly transgender members on the group’s board.

Whiteway told the Bay Area Reporter that she considered possible negative responses to her election, but was assured by her colleagues on the board that they considered such responses secondary to her qualifications and leadership.

Surprisingly for a nationally-known leader in the transgender rights movement, Whiteway downplays the historic nature of her election. “Although not intended as such, my election appears to be a milestone in the evolution of the LGBT community” she told the B.A.R.

But look at it this way, Jenny.

You just earned yourself a mention in my dissertation.

Eleven Years Ago (Give or Take a Month)

Where is this Dodo bird of an employer who loves gays but detests gender nonconformists?
Dale Carpenter, in 2004, seemingly doing his best impression of a different kind of bird whilst complaining about the justification put forth by the Cheryl Jacques-era HRC for withdrawing support (until it became convenient for Jacques’ successor unwithdraw it, of course) for gay-only ENDA bills.


How about the entity that, in 2004, employed Cheryl Jacques?

Perhaps the Washington Blade will finally get around to doing some reporting about the internal report which demonstrated that, a decade after Carpenter’s histrionics, as an employer, HRC “loves gays but detests gender nonconformists”?


We, of Reality, Take Credit

From Jezebel:

It turns out that hundreds of reviews trashing Stonewall, Roland Emmerich’s wildly misguided, whitewashed parody of the Stonewall Riots of ‘69, were effective in their goal of steering weekend moviegoers in literally any other possible direction.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the latest outing from the director of bombastic, wildly successful box office fare such as Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow grossed a truly miserable $112,414 from 127 theaters for an location average of $871. That’s a wicked bomb, especially for a project whose architect was explicit in his desire to make a story central to LGBTQ rights accessible to the cis white masses

Get thee to a Black Tie Dinnery, Roland….

and stay there.

Why the Silence About the HRC Internal Report Matters

From the Sept. 14, 1989 issue of Bay Windows – coverage of the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which hardwired transphobia into federal anti-discrimination law (in the process, effectively erasing a small amount of trans-positive precedent under the Nixon-era Rehabilitation Act):



Now, here is basically the same item as it appeared about two weeks later in the Southern Voice:


The SoVo image might be difficult to make out, but look close.

Still, no matter how close you look, you will not see the quote from HRC(F)’s Steve Smith praising the anti-trans (which, do note, was not just anti-transvestite; it included anti-transsexual language) and anti-gay amendments by Jesse Helms and William Armstrong.

“By and large we’re quite please with it,” stated HRCF lobbyist Steve Smith of the Helms and Armstrong exclusionary amendments.  “Homosexuality and transvestism and bisexuality are not disabilities and we are very happy to hear that Sen. Helms has taken this position and we agree with him 100 percent.”

Readers of Southern Voice didn’t see the that in 1989.

That means that readers of Southern Voice had a decision made for them.

That decision meant that they didn’t get to see HRC(F) praising Jesse Helms after HRC(F) got what HRC(F) wanted – namely, a non-exclusion for AIDS.


How much of the SoVo readership, had it had the opportunity to read the Bay Windows version of the news item, would have had their opinion of HRCF – to become HRC six years later – sufficiently altered in the negative to significantly alter the historical trajectory that has led to HRC’s position as being both the LGBT community’s money vortex and the biggest practical obstacle to passage of federal LGBT anti-discrimination legislation?

I don’t know.

I do know that, as of this writing, the Washington Blade – “America’s Leading Gay News Source” – has not offered its readership (which, unlike in 1989, includes an internet component) any substantive coverage of the HRC Internal Report – a report which exposed the organization’s entrenched culture of misogyny and transphobia….

you know, pretty much everything that the trans community has been saying has been entrenched in HRC’s corporate DNA for two decades or more.

Historically, that will matter 25 years from now.

In all practical terms, it matters now.

What they decide not to report on, people (how many? I don’t know, but the number is higher than zero) cannot use in deciding how to view not just HRC but its critics…

you know, the people whose criticism of HRC was validated by the internal report.

I’m Sure the Coverage of the Internal Report that Proved the Trans Community’s Allegations Against HRC to be True Will Follow Shortly