Antonia D'orsay

Drag queens and transgender activists

Filed By Antonia D'orsay | March 10, 2010 5:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Politics
Tags: employment non-discrimination, LGBT, Traditional Values, trans awareness, Trans history, Transgender Anti-Discrimination

Hello Citizens of Bilerico.

I'm coming to you, by delay, from the realm of personal martyrdom and finance calling known as TVC land.

Yes, that's right -- your SPLC-identified Hate Group has begun the battle against ENDA.

They want to kill it, you see, because them darn gays will, I don't know, be thought of as entitled to equal rights or something. Which as we all know is just not going to happen -- am I right or am I right?

In any case, the TVC -- that's Lou Sheldon, one of the several people behind the Alliance Defense Fund, and his daughter and the thousands of churches they purport to represent (which is really just a way of saying they send them email blasts to pass out among the congregation and hope to raise a buck or two off the suc-- err, faithful thereby) -- has recently issued a release that is, as usual, full of all manner of poisonous thinking in their battle to stop ENDA.

You know, the thing that will help gay and lesbian and some bi folk to get work. Let's take a look at what they say!

They've recently issued a pretty little memo. Its got a link that they urge everyone to go to in it.

it's a scary thing, and let me tell you, that's the point all along.

Here's how it opens:

Do you want men dressed as women teaching your kids? Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their liberal allies are quietly trying to make that happen under the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

Yep, you know that those minions of Satan, that spawn of hell who are seeking to bring through the Antichrist himself (himself because we all know that men are evil and women are saintly vessels only really good for making more men to fight the evil men that we all are), the veritably communist Pelosi, Reed, and that other fella, Obama.

They are trying to sneak past us the possibility that drag queens and transgender activists will be teaching your children!!

OMG the sky is falling and the heavens shall part and we shall all be destroyed in the fires of purgatory for our sins in allowing this. Amen.

Yes, friends, we must stop this terrible thing called ENDA.

It goes on:

Under ENDA, your children will be trapped in classes taught by drag queens and transgender activists. Students will be indoctrinated that "alternative lifestyles" are no different than traditional lifestyles. Every public school in America will be forced to comply-regardless of state law. Young children will be forced to learn about bizarre sexual practices - and you will have no say in the matter. It's already happening in some states and concerned parents can't do a thing about it - until now

TRAPPED, I tell you! Locked inside small rooms for hours on end with people in clothing that is just not supposed to be on that kind of body! The horror, the shame, the amazing and incredible terror of it all!

INDOCTRINATED, because we all know the foul and terrible reaches these people will go to teach our children their sick and perverse "values."

FORCED, no matter what the law really says, this one will change it. And we all know how those evil hedonists force changes in laws by bending the very rules on which the universe was founded! Space! Time! Artistotle and Plato!

BIZARRE sexual practices, like tongue kissing and condoms and birth control -- stuff which only comes from the poisons of the world around us today that these foul and disgusting gays have created.

And it closes, in part, with:

P.S. On your behalf, the Traditional Values Coalition is leading the fight against ENDA. We're walking the halls of Congress, rallying the grassroots and buying ads in key Districts. But we cannot win this critical battle without your help.


OK, enough of the not so funny silliness. This is a real missive emailed out within the last couple of days by the TVC. The are, of course, asking for money -- 25, 50, 100 bucks this round -- but the ask is preceded by something that might just shock a few of you:

Notice they didn't say anything about "homosexuals"?

I left out some of it, but nowhere in the message do they talk about homosexuals. Yes, it's dog whistled into it with the whole "alternative lifestyles" thing, but that's a dog whistle, nonetheless.

A lot of us "angry trans people" -- the Trans Mafia (not to be confused with the Gay Mafia, or the Lesbian Mafia) -- have been seeing this coming for some time, and now it's here.

From here, it will get only worse -- as trans becomes the new wedge in order to avoid picking on those "powerful" gay people. Because one of the effects of the Prop 8 trial (win or lose) is that it made it clear that they can't demonize the LG because it will, eventually, cost them all the victories they've had.

So they have to find another group. Bisexuals don't exist to them (or, technically, they are saying that all of us are bisexuals. Depends on your perspective), so that's not a possibility.

Leaves the trans peeps.

And they are going after ENDA on that basis. They will seek to kill it on that basis.

And they will use drag queens and transgender activists. Because they also know that those things annoy the LG folks.

What, you think they don't read Bilerico or Joe.My.God or Pam's or Daily Kos? They do. They read all of it, and they learn from us and they pay attention.

Ron Gold's words about trans people were used recently. We've seen people write in comments here about reasons for dropping trans people from legislation.

And when I asked if people thought that trans only legislation would pass, the answer was no, and mostly because there wasn't any political will behind it.

Well, ENDA is going to be all about the transfolk. In effect, it will be trans legislation. That's how it's going to be argued, that's what is going to be talked about, and that's the direction our opponents are going to take.

And if you think we were angry before, be aware that it was nothing compared to what will happen if trans stuff is stripped this time.

TVC is fringe, I'll give you that -- but they are part of the same coalitions that have been fighting all of us for a long time, and they are not the only ones putting out this message, floating it out there to see how this kind of approach works.

Time to get that political will.

Time to listen to trans people. Some of us actually have pretty good ideas how to fight this kind of messaging. But this affects all of us.

And that's not how the messaging on our side will go. On our side, odds are pretty good the powers that be will decide to only talk about the gay part -- to stay away for the trans issues entirely.

Because instead of listening to us and learning from us, we've been told we are too angry, too few, and we're all just a bunch of scared gay men (and way too butch women) anyhow.

And when they do that, it will come down to a choice that someone will say at one point sooner or later, so let's get it over with.

We will have to choose between giving protections only to some gay and lesbian and bisexual people and giving protections to none of them.

Unless, of course, you want to listen to trans people and add a third option.

Give protections to all of them by getting ENDA passed without any of us being taken out.


Recent Entries Filed under Fundie Watch:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Well then, let me be the first to say there is no way in Goddess' green earth I'd want you or the typical trans-activist teaching my grandkids.....so it's an effective campaign, nothing to do but strip the CD's, TG's and DQ's from ENDA I guess.

Given the resumption of the whining about all the cis-sies oppressiong all trannys plus the widespread tranny bashing of feminism, I sure am glad I'm not one of them there trans-testicles.

Nice attempt to forget yourself from that. You are included, C. To them, you are even worse, as well.

Whatever, I think I'll book my trip to Michigan, get me a loudspeaker and practice yelling "penis on the land!"

Ok, just can't resist, although I tried mightily...

And this is different from your normal routine in what way?

SarasNavel | March 10, 2010 6:23 PM

catkisser, you *do* realize that those same people feel the same way about, and in fact refuse to recognize any differences between, the following: GLB, TS, TG, IS, *HBS*, TV, DQ, GQ...right?

In their world view someone either properly and with Grace lives his or her life as the sex they were assigned at birth, in the role provided by His Word or you are turning away from God's love, blah, blah, blah...and that includes behavior, body, and soul. They are your foe as much as mine and they will use you against me as readily as the other way 'round, as well as the LGB, the DQ and on.

We are all fodder for the same Canon.

Navel, you do know I have full civil rights under the ADA and Title VII via Tronetti v TLC Healthnet and the Richards decision right?....not to mention I am over sixty, physically diaabled and live on at our Goddess Compound in the Catskills? And I regularly entertain those evil rad fems you all hate so much as honoured guests? Not to mention I was charming the pants off of right winger politicos before all the newfangled "I got a penis but I'm a woman" activists showed up waving their willies in congressional offices and terrorized me out of activism?

"They all hate us equally" is the big TG lie. They might hate me because I'm a feminist, Pagan, self assured woman..... but not because of my medical history...and I've been around long enough to know that for a fact. You trannys spent all that goodwill with the LGB's with your antics post the 2007 sellout, don't even remember the bigger ones years and years before. It' gonna be a rude awakening when there is no united ENDA this time with teeth.

I told you so.

This is a lie.

In point of fact, they do hate you because of their medical history.

From the site they specifically set up to use as a petition and fundraising vehicle:

"A person can have a so-called sex change operation, but their DNA is unchanged. Maleness and femaleness are in the DNA of a person. No one can truly change from one sex to another."

And should you decide to say that your IS and out of that realm, they've already made it known that if you were raised as a boy, that's what you were.

Sorry, C. THey hate you on those grounds just as much as all the others, You don't get to go around ranking oppressions just because it makes you feel better about yourself or try and escape a few things.

You do not have full rights -- the decisions notwithstanding. But go on pretending you do if that's what you need to do to make yourself feel better.

As the Messenger previously reported, Rep. Scott entered the race for the Secretary of State job by declaring that he would “make it a priority to ensure transgender individuals will not be allowed to change the sex on their driver’s license in any circumstance.” Asked what problem this was intended to solve, he told the Messenger that it was all about “preventing people who are males genetically from dressing as a woman and going into female bathrooms.

This left many people scratching their heads, wondering where there might be a public bathroom where they check your driver’s license before you enter. To add to the confusion, he told the Associated Press that the standard for determining one’s gender is that “you are who your DNA says you are.

At a luncheon hosted by the Gerald Ford Women’s Club in Grand Rapids, Scott acknowledged in an interview that one’s gender designation on a driver’s license is not based on DNA testing. But when asked how he would deal with those whose DNA shows a mixed gender that does not fall easily into line with the simple male or female gender designation, he could only say that we should “take the subjectivity out of it.”

...

An agitated Scott had little to say about the reality of unclear gender for such people and others with similar kinds of transgender traits, declaring that “whatever you’re designated as when you’re born is what the government should recognize you as — no ambiguity there whatsoever.”

Source.

You were saying, C?

Obviously he doesn't know many transwomen, or know of the incredible struggle that is transition for us when we find we need to change in order to continue living.
Subjectivity my ass.

I think you've got this down pretty accurately, Toni. I do think if they succeed in splitting the T off from cis LGB that they'll switch their attacks back to the LGB (affecting cis and trans there). They want to stop ENDA, not stop trans people. It's just that they want to use trans people as the line of attack. If cis LGB people think that the best way out of this is to throw us under the bus again, they'll come under attack again.

That's my overall take, Lisa. It's a variation of the Divide and conquer, and one that they learned from their enemies a few years back.

When engaged in a war -- and make no mistake, they do see this as a war, absolutely and without any metaphorical aspect to it -- one of the things you want to do is turn your enemies against each other.

You bring some of them over to your side -- just enough to create dissension and chaos, and ideally using a guerrilla style attack on who ever is perceived by your enemies to be the weakest link in their chain.

They can't do that readily here, but they can stress the already tenuous alliance by encouraging anger and reprisals among the various parts by playing each segment against the other.

They may sound irrational and they might be highly ignorant, but they aren't stupid, and they've been working on the kinds of organizing we're just getting to for a lot longer than we have.

Yeah, I agree. They're not stupid at all.

Let's say gender identity and gender expression get pulled from ENDA. So ENDA ends up saying that there shall be no discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation.

But then a woman is fired because she doesn't wear dresses and skirts. Or a man can't get a job because he's perceived as being too feminine. And those people are lesbian and gay, not trans.

Under such a toothless ENDA, lesbians and gays are protected, but only as long as they toe the gender presentation line. Lesbians better not be butch. Gay men better not be femme.

Toothless is what it would be. I think it's crazy to think there is any real protection for lesbians and gays in a bill that doesn't include protection against discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression.

Now I wonder if any of my words will be quoted out of context or partially quoted as Keri's were by so-called family values people whose value clearly don't include honesty.

I hate to break it to them, but I know we've had transsexual teachers before -- at least four in Alberta, Canada alone, going back at least two decades.

The number of times students have been negatively affected: zero.

The number of times it's turned into a news story: twice, one of which turned very positive and the other occurring last fall (because the Catholic Church directed a publicly-funded school board to fire him).

It's like we've stepped back into the 1970s and Anita Bryant is fearmongering about teachers again. Been there, done that, and reality prevailed.

Ah yes the sky is falling and them thar T things is all to blame. Yes gotta love the Socialist wing of the Conservative party. Even our good buddy Barney has problems with us so yeah dump us out and you will still see not Gays or Lesbians being bashed but us yep were the evil ones go figure.

Caty
"Politics is a contact sport with no rules."

With Joe still in charge at HRC you know they will cave if the right can build up any pressure with this line of attack.

Yes well, HRC has come up with institutional bottoming anyway and they call it compromise and incrementalism. As they try to incrementally get off the floor.

Keep in mind that with all the awareness that has taken place since 2007, people understand now how many gays and lesbians may still be vulnerable to discrimination under the concept of gender expression. And if we know it well enough, you can bet that the religious right will know how to exploit it.

I wouldn't call ENDA trans legislation -- that's playing into TVC's gameplan. The larger LGBT community has a vested interest in seeing the inclusive ENDA through.

Seth Emmler | March 11, 2010 4:00 AM

One, you only care about ENDA to the extent it affects what you so cloyingly call "trans folk". You don't give a damn about gay people as evidenced by your belittling of our marriage struggle.

Two, while TVC is vile and hateful, their point about drag queen teachers is accurate. You trans activists have defined gender identity to include all manner of behavior, including casual cross-dressing, even bearded men in frilly lace. You define it broadly and then stick it in a bill that prohibits discrimination in virtually all employment settings and then complain when TVC takes the bill at its word? If it was limited to transitioning TS's, it would be much less of an issue, but that wouldn't satisfy one or another wing of your strange movement.

Three, none of these bizarre issues have anything to do with gay people, the vast majority of whom are not trans and would never cross-dress in the workplace. We are only enduring this nonsense b/c of activist bullies and gay leaders who appease them.

Four, what ever happened to your grand campaign for political office so pompously announced on Bilerico some months ago? If you present yourself on the campaign trail as you do on this site, after a few days you might come to appreciate how you come off to others.

My psychic senses are telling me someone somewhere is saying that the only reason I care about ENDA is because it helps trans folk.

And they say my use of that particular phraseology is something like "cloying".

They say that I "belittle" their marriage struggle, claiming ownership of something they don't own.

They are saying something incredibly transphobic. Something like how only transitioning transsexuals are acceptable. They are thinking the words "the TVC is Right".

(and thinking theres nothing wrong with that, as well.)

They are saying that none of this has anything to do with LGB people.

Ah, and they are saying that I come across as a bad person and that will doom my campaign in 2012.

Yep, I've got another member of the anti-fan club.

At some point I hope LGBT people in the USA appreciate that our appropriate battle is to secure rights nationwide for all employees. Employers in the USA can abuse employees in ways that people in civilized countries would find astonishing. Mostly this is due to the myth of "The American Dream." I.E. the idea that with hard work anyone can get to the top.

"The American Dream" is a lie as millions of previously employed middle class Americans have recently found out. Even for the few who do make it to the top (generally via luck, connections or financial resources most of us will never see) happiness often remains elusive. Research suggests that equality rather than a mythical American dream brings more happiness anyway.

The article below refers to spreading the wealth more evenly but it is obvious that other forms of equality contribute to overall happiness of society too. By "equality" it is meant that we can express ourselves with as little restrictions as possible from the "Powers That Be." Employers, for example, should not be allowed to fire anyone for anything not directly job related.

Trans folks would do well to get away from the LGBT/trans ghetto and work within society at large for human rights. Not only would we benefit from exposure to the non-LGBT/trans public but we'd be fighting the appropriate battles.

http://www.alternet.org/story/145955/

YES! Magazine / By Brooke Jarvis
What Makes the Healthiest and Happiest Societies? Hint: It Not Rich People
The healthiest and happiest societies aren't those with the highest incomes but those with the most equality.

RB has admitted here on Bilerico that she has been physically attacked for being trans and has been fired for being trans. As for me, the "horrible tranny with a penis who is not really a woman," I have never been physically assaulted, am called "ma'am" all the time, I just had my 20th anniversary on the job, and I own a house.

She says she has all of her rights and doesn't need ENDA. Maybe so, on paper. Apparently, not everyone are reading those papers. What the law says and what people are willing to accept are always two different things. We all need ENDA. ALL of us.

I agree much with this comment. We all need it.

ROTFLMAOPMP Nice try Helms...

I was denied temp to perm position (not the same as being fired, I've never been fired from a job in my life) after being viciously outted by TGs with hateful anti classic transsexual agendas. I've been raped and physically attacked by transgenders....... and subjected to attempted life destroying terrorism by TGs like you, not the right, political or religious. I'm their polar opposite and yet them I can sit and have a pleasant conversation over coffee with without an attempt on my life, not you.

And in all the years I've been transitioned only two people have ever questioned my using a ladies restrooms, both crossdressers who claimed their wives had a problem, the wives said the CDs were the problem, not me. You TGs cannot even pee (hint, try sitting instead of standing)or buy groceries without causing an incident.

You have a house, I have a place to live the rest of my life at a very nice standard of living and a female body and declared cured. You have a male one, a DSM V mental disorder forever and a mortgage. There is nothing in or about your life I would desire. You live in fear, I do not.

You silly willy waving self loathing men in dresses are the problem, not the solution. The lesbians and gays are starting to figure this out. You live as victims, you get victimized. You TGs want people to stop seeing you all as batshit crazy then first you have to stop confirming you are batshit crazy constantly.

I finally came around to a position of opposing any legislation that enables pyscho-sexual deviants from expressing their fetishistic based deviance on the job. Congratulations! you were a major part of that. No penises in women's space!

While I can believe that people have treated you badly, that's a whole lot of generalization about entire populations, rage and batsh--

You do realize that you're turning people off from the concept of "classic transsexual" more than convincing anybody, don't you?

If that kind of hate and ignorance is a prerequisite, then count me out.

I have to agree with Mercedes. If RB is the poster child of what it takes to be a classical or true transsexual, then I think I'll pass.

(I'm member of a chain health club and use the women's facility to change, with the blessing of the manager. Aaarrrrgg!)

You see Helms, the difference is you negotiated using a single woman's gym, conditional no doubt on no complaints about seeing your "equipment".

I can go anywhere, to any woman's facility on the planet on the exact same terms as any other woman without begging special permission and without a problem. This kills you doesn't it? It's the difference between being a woman and playing one on the internut. That's the reality you TGs will do anything to deny.

newsflash Allen,
I'm a feminist Pagan woman and don't give a wet handful of whatever about what you think about how the world actually works.

I used to advocate for TG rights.....and had it demonstrated over and over they were the ones I should never turn my back on. That's the simple truth. It's not hate, it sure as hell is not ignorance, it's what TGs insisted I take away from my personal experiences for around 15 years. To this day I take people as individuals as I find them, but I do have suspect groups....and TGs are near the top of that list. People did not treat me badly, batshit crazy vicious transgenders did...the ones doing all the advocating. In a life of more than sixty years that spanned extremely varied experiences more than 95% of the discrimination and hatred I have experienced came directly from TGs. http://ariablues.blogspot.com remains an excellent example of the love TGs have for anyone who does not share their exact, total, delusional worldview.

You TGs talk about your penises more than the gay men and wonder why Blanchard and Zucker came up with their theories?

". . . after being viciously outted by TGs with hateful anti classic transsexual agendas." Victim.

" . . . and subjected to attempted life destroying terrorism by TGs like you, not the right, political or religious." Victim.

" . . . it's what TGs insisted I take away from my personal experiences for around 15 years." Victim.

"People did not treat me badly, batshit crazy vicious transgenders did . . ." Victim.

"In a life of more than sixty years that spanned extremely varied experiences more than 95% of the discrimination and hatred I have experienced came directly from TGs." Victim.

And yet, she is a model of fair and respectful treatment of others.

What comes around, goes around. It couldn't happen to a nicer person.

When someone who has been abused speaks out about that abuse, they are anything but a victim...
They are empowering themselves and taking away the power from the abusers. Something that an abuser will never understand.

Bored now......won't check in on this hopeless thread again so bash away to your heart's content and continue to simply prove my point.

I have a stopwatch. I'll see how long you can last being "bored" and not commenting.

This is fun.

Talking about...? You assume I still have one. And that it would be in the forefront of my mind of things to talk about. (Of course, at this point, my surgical status is my own business and does not require or seek your approval)

You also assume that anyone who identifies as transgender is just as vindictive and treacherous as specific people you've encountered. (You also incorrectly assume what my old name was)

Which demonstrates my points about generalizations exactly.

Sometimes what you have to say are things I could respect and agree with, but then you have to break out the hate and remind me otherwise. :S

battybattybats battybattybats | March 12, 2010 10:22 PM

Radicalbitch you were wronged. Your Human Rights abused.

But by oppossing the Human Rights of an entire class of people you are harming innocents. You are not striking back at those who hurt you you are harming innocents.

All too often Trauma begets more traumatising. Harm begets harming. Be wiser than to remain part of the cycle of injustice. Don't pass on your pain to others who will then hurt others who will hurt others. We are all tramuatised people with hair-triggers and reflexive defence mechanisms, deep emotional scars and the legacy of tremendous pain and injustice and oppression.

Someone lashes out from their pain, others lash back, squablling and bickering in desperate attempts to protect themselves that only results in doing wrongs to otgers and holding healling back.

It's time for healling, for ending hypocracy. For breaking the cycle of hate and bigotry and pain.

battybattybats battybattybats | March 11, 2010 8:15 AM

And as we saw with 'bathroom' and 'shower' panic nonsense even when amended so they aren't counted they keep with the lie of it anyway so even if Trans is dropped they'll use Trans to fight it anyway!

Howdy,

out genderqueer transsexual muslim working in education here. :)
It's interesting to see folks arguing whether I should be allowed to have my job, 'cause my boss, my school, my union, and my city human rights laws say that I'm good.
So yeah, those fundies greatest fear? Already exists.

lordshepard | March 11, 2010 10:17 AM

I am a trans FtoM and I have a question for the other trans peeps out there.

I identify personally as a trans however in the community I am seen as a butch lesbian. I love being a part of the community and being welcome at women-only functions because I have not transitioned.

Because of medical reasons, I can never have T therapy...it would kill me. I could transition partially with upper surgery and an official gender change but I am scared to do this, much as I love the idea.

Thing is it rankles badly being referred to as a women but I am afraid of the isolation from the community that seems to come from transitioning. Since I can never do T and am naturally flat-chested for the most part, I can 'pass' and easily do so often.

I do not have to change my mode of dress, as my current style of dress seems acceptable if I am a 'butch lesbian'.

Here is my question...do you think I am betraying the trans community by staying where I am at and allowing myself to be labelled a 'butch lesbian' by many in our community? Do you think I am betraying myself in this? Am I being dishonest with the community by doing this? FYI, I have made it no secret that I identify more with trans than anything else but will not transition. That seems to make all the difference in the world to some people, will I stay as I am or transition into a male?

What I do not get about this reasoning is that I am the same person inside no matter what I do to the outside. I am very much a man in heart and soul, yet I have had girlfriends tell me the loved me the way I was but if I ever transitioned they would have to leave me because I would now be a 'man'.

What makes a man a man? His penis? I think not. Male and female are inherent gender identities that are very, very different from one another. I am a man, penis or no. Yet being able to still be labelled a 'female' saves me from all kinds of heartache, loneliness, and oppression from the gay community.

It should not be this way within our group. Anything gender-queer should be embraced by GLBT advocates.

Transitioning FTM while starting in the lesbian community can be very difficult, and I don't envy anyone that situation. Certainly, lesbians can and sometimes do get it, but I've also known guys to sometimes get badly hurt and/or deserted upon coming out as trans. As awareness grows, this happens less.

Answers on this will probably vary, but my own perspective is that you do what you need to do to be personally happy. Nobody else should decide that for you. That includes both trans and lesbian communities. "Trans" is diverse enough that if you're true to yourself (or as much as you can be in the face of the limitations you have), then you're probably not betraying anything. There's no "one true way."

Of course, life has other things to say on the matter, and you'll be facing pressures from every direction. It may be an option to live gender-neutral, say like Leslie Feinberg (worth looking up, if you haven't heard of hir), or carve your own path.

Dear,
You are exactly who you want to be, My opinion or the opinion of all the brothers, sisters, and others here is not the issue. Not at all. You do what feels good for you. If you worry about how we or any other group, or any other individual for that matter, will treat you, then what joy will you build that is your own. Live in the identity that comforts you. Every other kind of living is filling a sinking boat. I know a man who was very famous as a man, but he never once felt himself to be a man. Every accomplishment of his male persona, every accolade, failed to fulfill him, did not encourage him. For he was always she and never of his gender (to misquote Boy George.)

To those projectors who are reading this and wondering what the hell is going on, a little bit of background.

Radical Bitch does not like me. Or Monica Helms. Or Mercedes. Indeed, she doesn't like many trans people. Which, as you can probably tell, tends to be reflected back at her.

Some of you may be wondering why it is that she is allowed to post some really transphobic stuff here, as well, when, generally speaking, most other projectors commenting would have had it removed already.

I'll tell ya: I don't know. But possibly because I haven't gotten off my hind end and done anything about it.

There's another factor going on here, as well -- for RB, the word transgender (and, oddly enough, Trans) is an insult, and she uses it here in a manner that is misgendering.

That's something that generally will fly under the radar of most folks, and that's part of the reason she does it.

There is a long history of antagonism here, in other words, and yes, that's one of the problems of the trans community.

Fortunately, people such as herself are in the minority. And will stay there.

Because their problems are not social issues, but personal ones.

Oddly enough... I like her.
And you Dyss. And Monica. And Mercedes.

All of you have done things to help. To see one part of humanity attacking another saddens me, but is part of human nature.

All of us have parts of the truth, though the amount varies considerably. Some of us are very personally insecure, and hold on to the appearance of rights while ignoring the lack of substance. Others are insecure because of objective fact, and only see the obvious lack of substance, while ignoring the fact that the framework, the appearance, already exists and could possibly be built on.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time though.

I have no problems agitating for the rights of "true transsexuals", the post-ops, those who blend in and don't make waves, "just women".

That could be because of my medical situation - deemed female, or at least more female than male, before any treatment. Does that make me "more female than them"? SNORT! Of course not, that's ridiculous. Crikey, if I've learnt one thing over the years, it's that sex is between the ears, not the chromosomes or anything else.

But I'm also exceptional, unusual, abnormal compared with most women. I can't hide that, not from myself. Not from others either, every time I change jobs, or even do some casual teaching work, my inconsistent documentation becomes an issue.

That has given me a perspective different from that of others. I'm straight not gay - but I cannot ignore the persecution gays face. I'm Intersexed not transsexual (or formerly transsexual) - but I can't ignore the persecution transsexual people face. I'm cisgendered, boringly staid, priggish, proper - but cannot ignore the persecution transgendered and genderqueer people face.

I can't in all conscience demand rights for myself, if I don't demand rights for others I don't identify with at all. Those who are Black, or Transgendered, or disabled, or gay, or Patagonian for that matter.

battybattybats battybattybats | March 12, 2010 11:08 PM

Hey everyone look at this!

"I can't in all conscience demand rights for myself, if I don't demand rights for others I don't identify with at all. Those who are Black, or Transgendered, or disabled, or gay, or Patagonian for that matter. "

THAT is what integrity looks like. THAT is what a non-hypocritical human rights position is. THAT is the only possible Human Rights position that is not Self-Invalidating.

The required premise of all Rights is Univeral Equality. Anyone who claims rights for themselves while opposing them for others or passively allowing others to not have access to their rights is a LIAR, a THIEF, a CHEAT. Someone who by such an act INVALIDATES their own claim to rights.

So remember what the price is of advocating the people MOST discriminated against in employment be left out of protection... and instead have some INTEGRITY like Soe has shown.

Yyyyeah, so I guess you don't know that there are gay people who are trans? Or that straight people who are trans are still often affected by marriage laws in states that refuse to acknowledge their true gender?

It's amazing that you attack her "belittling" of your marriage struggle, and then turn around and dismiss any of those gay people who aren't part of your non-"bizarre" majority. Maybe you should draft a "Straight-Acting Non-Discrimination Act".

Seth Emmler | March 11, 2010 4:10 PM

"Yyyyeah, so I guess you don't know that there are gay people who are trans?"

I do know that and so what? Gay people fall into every category of humankind. There are gay smokers and gay polo players and gay guys who like to wear leather. That doesn't mean that every category and subcategory that gays belong to should be included in ENDA. There are sound public policy reasons to protect sexual orientation and not protect an amorphously defined "gender identity" which directly impacts conduct and behavior in the workplace. In any event, it is a debate that the gay rights movement doesn't need to have.

Also, Antonia regularly belittles the fight for marriage equality. She once proudly admitted that she is "selfish" (her word) and that she privileges issues that impact "trans folk" to the detriment of issues that impact GLB people. Why any LGB leaders would want to join with people of this ilk is beyond me.

BTW, note the totalitarian impulse of this trans activist. She already helped drive Ron Gold off of this site b/c he said things she didn't like. Now she questions why other readers should have the right to post things that she finds offensive. Ultimately, the world is about her - her needs, her priorities, her sensitivities. And anyone who upsets that delusion is a "transphobe". She has more in common with TVC than she knows.

That doesn't mean that every category and subcategory that gays belong to should be included in ENDA. There are sound public policy reasons....
Wow. What are they?

Do you mean only protect gays who are both a) closeted and b) celibate?

I ask that below, written before the comment was approved.

I'm not expecting an answer, but I do have something in store for Seth, and Dwrek, and others.

That's not a strawman argument - I'm asking because that's not a made-up hypothetical, it's the Vatican's official policy. If you did adhere to that policy, you wouldn't be alone!

No stress. I have a collection of anti-fans who have decided I'm to be portrayed as anti-LGB.

Apparently, they fear me. Which is fine by me -- I'm no stranger to being someone else's boogeyman.

Wow. My psychic senses are trembling again. I sense that about 45 minutes ago, Mr. Emmler replied to this post, prompting this response from me:

Mr. Emmler,

You've made some charges there which I state are fundamentally dependent on arguments that are flawed and without merit.

Thusly, I ask that you substantiate those charges you press herewith, in this court, and, thusly, defend your accusations as something more than merely personal attack on me as a person.

I do find it interesting that you seek to enforce rigid rules by stating that not every category of gay people should not be included in ENDA.

What kinds of Gay folks should not be included in ENDA?

I'm sure everyone here would like to know.

What sound public policy reasons are there not to protect Gender Identity?

I have never denied I am a selfish person. And I can point out that it's kinda the human normative behavior (typified in your case by the above statement regarding who should not be covered).

Where have I belitted the fight for marriage equality? Please, I'd like to see this. As would others, I'm sure.

How, specifically, did I help to drive Ron Gold off this website? Details, please -- this isn't a case of a "well, I think she did that" -- you are stating it as fact, so supply the facts of the matter.

I have not questioned the rights of others thus far. I have questioned the propriety of their statements. You should likely get some education in on the differences between rights and permissions on a private site.

You assert that the world is about my priorities, my needs, my sensitivities. I again ask you for proof and evidence of such a strong statement.

Evidence -- not conjecture, sir.

next, I will ask for evidence that I have a delusion. Be sure to back it up, as well -- I will be reporting the individual making such a statement to their ethics bureau. :D

Lastly, please supply evidence that *anyone* who upsets my needs, priorities, and sensitivities is a transphobe. Not that since anyone merely requires one person to disprove, all I have to do is ask one person whos upset me in the past to speak otherwise.

I suspect that you, like a similar poster, are a sock puppet.

Incidentally, how do you like the Verizon broadband service?

Seth Emmler | March 11, 2010 8:22 PM

My, how whimsical you are. I guess you are trying to cover up the endless anger and hate reflected in your posts. Doesn't work.

I deign to respond to 2 questions. Consider yourself lucky:

"What kinds of Gay folks should not be included in ENDA?"

- This question reflects a shocking level of ignorance from someone who claims to have some degree of familiarity with the law. ENDA doesn't list "kinds of people" it protects; it prohibits discrimination based on a characteristic, sexual orientation. It thus protects every gay person, every bi person, and every straight person seeking employment. The key is that it protects them all from discrimination based on their sexual orientation. If a gay person also happens to be a lover of peanut butter and his employer has a policy of not hiring peanut butter lovers, then his employer can't be sued under ENDA, even though the "victim" is gay. Similarly, a gay trans person would be protected against sexual orientation discrimination. But whether or not he should be protected based on gender identity is an entirely separate issue.


"What sound public policy reasons are there not to protect Gender Identity?"

When gender identity is defined so broadly as to include casual conduct or on-the-job behavior that could be disruptive or that requires an employer accommodation, it raises valid public policy concerns. Employers in most cases are best suited, and are entitled as owners, to decide whom to hire and whom to fire. Legislators are only willing to infringe on that right when there is pattern of unfair discrimination, almost always linked to a characteristic that is fundamental to one's identity and which could not be easily altered to accommodate the needs of the job. That is why Congress might well have little problem providing protection for TS's, but properly balk at providing access to the federal courts for a casual cross-dresser who applies to teach kindergarten.

You, of course, couldn't care less about anything I wrote, since no one else could possibly have any rights that could compete with yours. They are surely all transphobes.

BTW, why do you mention my ISP? Are you trying to intimidate me by suggesting you might come after me through my ISP? It really wouldn't surprise me if that was your intent. And I would have to ask why that passes the civility guidelines on Bilerico.

Seth Emmler | March 12, 2010 6:24 AM

Honestly, when I read stuff like this, I question your mental stability. I have not "lied" to you. I am not part of an anti-Antonia conspiracy. I am not a sock puppet.

I believe I discussed the public policy considerations that would counsel against protecting "gender identity" as it is defined - broadly and amorphously - by trans activists. If you don't understand it or don't like the answer, that is not my problem.

I never said that there are some gay people who shouldn't be covered by ENDA. I don't believe that. If you can cite the place where I said that, please do.

What I did say was: "There are gay smokers and gay polo players and gay guys who like to wear leather. That doesn't mean that every category and subcategory that gays belong to should be included in ENDA." This was in response to the suggestion that trans should be included in ENDA because some gay people are also trans. The point is that just because a gay person has some other characteristic or engages in some other conduct, that does not mean that every characteristic and all conduct of the gay person is covered by ENDA. So gay people might be trans, might be left-handed, might be polo players, but that doesn't mean that ENDA should cover discrimination against trans, lefties, or polo players. It would however, protect everyone - gay, straight or bi - against sexual orientation discrimination. It's not that difficult to understand if you put your mind to it, dear.

You still haven't explained why you brought up my ISP. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing and it really sounds like you are trying to intimidate me with the internet equivalent of "we know where you live". Please explain yourself as I reserve the right to email TPB about your conduct.

In response to the upcoming comment, lol:

I don't have to hide anything -- and, indeed, it's part of my goal to uncover stuff.

But thanks for starting off with yet another unsubstantiated claim.

You deign to answer two, you say?

Well your first response isn't an answer -- but it does directly contradict what you wrote before. So thanks for making yourself a hypocrite on my behalf.

Your second response isn't an answer either -- it's an elaboration of the point you raised that I'm asking a question about derived, like the previous one, from something you've said. You are the one that said there were good public policy reasons, and you are the one that said some gay people shouldn't be covered.

So you've either lied about deigning to answer to questions, or you are still waiting to answer the questions.

You've certainly lied about me, several times. In fact, you've either gone to great lengths to make me think you are a particular sock puppet (for yes, I recognize the style), or you are, in fact, someone who generally dislikes me anyway and has had the displeasure of my attention.

Lastly -- not at all. I use Sprint Broadband and my contract is up at the end of this month, lol.

Just like more than one person can have very similar political opinions, more than one person can hate you, you know. You think it is me, dwerk (whom you name above) that posted as Seth Emmler. Well it was NOT. So, you are actually incorrect in your assumption. Perhaps there's an entire army of people out there who think like Seth Emmler. Perhaps there's an entire army of people out there who specifically hate you. Regardless, I have no thought of you one way or the other to be honest. You barked up the wrong tree on this one, Joseph McCarthy.

Tell me, halfwit -- do you often respond to people who aren't there, being long dead?

Just curious, as I noticed when I came to respond to the other halfwit (get you two together and it's subtraction time) that you addressed your response to a dead man.

Not a living woman with a very different name.

OR were you making a comparison between me -- one transwoman without authority or power to a man who used the office of his senate seat to destroy lives, and send the entire nation into a panic that changed the face of the country during the cold war?

If so -- wow. I must scare the living shit outta you.

More psychic emanations...

Jerk -- err, I mean, Dwerk: no I do not think you are Seth. In point of fact I think Seth is someone else.

You are just a sad and rather pathetic excuse for a human being who is scared witless by the idea of trans people.

I like you that way. Or were you unaware that I have no problem being someone's boogeyman?

Hi. I'm Dyssonance. Let's see why you get that name:

Fascinating. You lack an understanding of language similar to the person I'm thinking of as well.

You can question my mental stability all you want -- however, my mental stability has little to do with the substance of my statements.

Next...

You will note, please, I said specifically that you have either lied or were still waiting to answer the questions. This is an either/or proposition.

I then noted that you have lied *about* me, -- and thusly to everyone here.

Lies you've stated thus far: I'm whimsical, I am trying to cover something up, I have endless anger, my posts reflect hate, your statement that the question reflects ignorance, I regularly "belittle the marriage struggle", that I helped drive ROn Gold off this site, that I questioned other people's rights, that the world is about me, that anyone who upsets that view is a transphobe, I only care about ENDA to the extent it affects trans folk, and that I don't give a damn about gay people.

That is 13 lies in two posts. All of them directly about me, and now we can add additional lies to it. Such as your denial that you've lied to me. You can now change these to merely aspects of your opinion, but note that you did not express them as such, even contextually, and, therefore, they were statements intended to be taken as fact and thusly lies -- intentionally stated -- about me.

Next...

As for the citation, you provided it yourself.

That doesn't mean that every category and subcategory that gays belong to should be included in ENDA.

I asked what kinds shouldn't be. I did not say you said that gays shouldn't be covered. I asked you what kinds. THis is directly related to your statement, as above, and, therefore, is another lie about me, albeit indirect, and, incidentially, a strawman argument.

You did, incidentally, provide a semianswer to the question in your response I'm getting to now -- you said polo playing gay people and left handed gay people.

Those are categories of gay people. You have said, in the above, that not every category of gay people needs to be included. Therefore, you are saying that polo playing gay people and left handed gay people do not need to be included in ENDA.

They are categories, and you did say that not all categories need to be included in ENDA, and, logically and semantically you are saying that those two categories of gay people do not need to be included.

Are there any other categories of gay people you feel should be excluded, or is it just left handed, polo playing, and trans gay people?

I won't even start on the problematic ranking of oppressions involved in that whole statement of yours.

Next...

I understand your *responses* perfectly well -- and my liking them or not is irrelevant (and also a lie, as I am neutral on them).

The question you responded to was:

"What sound public policy reasons are there not to protect Gender Identity?"

In response to that you stated:

What it could do (a hypothetical, and not a public policy point),

Casual conduct (which is not a matter of public policy),

changed your statement to now say it raises valid public policy concerns (which is not a matter of public policy),

Employer ability to hire (which, as a matter of public policy is specifically meant to be limited strictly to matters concering job performance and therfore irrelevant and not a statement of sound public policy),

Then described how legislators feel about passing such laws(which is not a public policy but an opinion),

made comments which essentially state that being trans is not fundamental to one's identity (not a sound public policy but a comments about a difficulty in setting such up and a personal opinion)

stated that accomodation of trans people is not easy to do (not a sound public policy but a description of a difficulty in setting such up and a personal opinion)

Then describing this all as a reason for why congress would have a problem covering trans folk other than transsexuals (which is not a sound public policy reason but rather a description and you last evasion in the response).

I said you did not answer the question -- and to do that you would have had to provide sounbd public policy reasons not to include gender identity. None of your comments is a sound public policy to exclude gender identity, merely your opinions about why other people may do so and assorted nasty bullshit that tells pretty much every trans person here that you are a privileged jackass with a major case of cranial inversion.

Oh, and to show you just how stupid your comments are, they can all be applied to an SO ENDA bill as well, With the same level of accuracy. I leave it to you to try and ascertain what that level of accuracy might be.

Next...

I didn't say you wer part of an anti-Antonia conspiracy, I said you an anti-fan. That you are unable to somehow figure this out is an issue you have, not I, and likely related tot he cranial inversion you are suffering from.

Next...

I'm glad to see you state you are not a sockpuppet. Irrelevant, however, as the suspicion is mine and, thusly, the burden of proof is mine. And I will remind you I said I *suspect* you are -- that hasn't gone away, merely been reinforced, so kiss off.

Next...

Not sure if you were aware of this but trans activists did not define the language in the bill.

That's another lie.

Next...

I did indeed explain why I brought up your ISP, but since you failed to grasp it, let me repeat it more slowly for you so that your brain has the opporutnity to catch up:

I have sprint broadband myself and was wondering how you liked yours since my contract is up at the end of this month.

If that's not clear to you, then the person you should be taking a closer look at is yourself, since you seem to want to apply some sort of paranoid delusion.

In any case, there's nothing in the TOS regarding my noting your ISP -- I checked for you. That said, you are still *MOST* free and *VERY* welcome to write them. I suspect the response will be akin to the one I would give you right now were you to do the same with me.

Just be aware that you have made comments which contain violations of the terms of service here, as well, some of which are noted in this response.

Next...

You had a phrase that applies to all of the above, which is a bit more work than I would normally give a commenter here since I've generally tried not to go all dyssonant on people here for about four months.

You, however, gave me a perfect reason to excercise those very same muscles, and demonstrate to people just how it is that I can take a simple comment and see things usually not intended into it.

You will also note I took the time to most carefully use your own words against you. You do not know me as a person and yet you make these statements as if they are true and expect me not to say you are a lying sack of feces about to be lit on fire?

Are you daft? Is this degree of fuckwittery common for you or is this just a momentary phase that I sorta hope you overcome?

What was that phrase you used?

Oh yeah:

It's not that difficult to understand if you put your mind to it, dear.

Anyone else in the mood to have me demonstrate just why it is I'm gifted with a reputation for being a bitch?

I see this is alive and well even if way off topic now.Oh and for the record most of us here helped drive off Ronnie from this site not just Antonia. Radical Bitch the days of preops and CDs hiding in the shadows til were totaly female is long over so time for you to get with the new reality and Blessed Be.

Have a good weekend everyone!

Caty
Politics is a contact sport with no rules.

I didn't. Run Ron Gold off, I mean. I did however acquiesce to the moderator's judgement without protest, so to the extent it was censorship, I'm as guilty as anyone else.

I did however attempt to continue the dialogue on my own blog, to give him a chance to say his piece. It was most instructive.

He kinda left you hangin' Zoe - I do appreciate the effort. You were far more patient than I would have been. You have any idea if he knows how his post was used recently to frame trans folks as not deserving protections?