Alex Blaze

Lady Gaga's 'Gay Anthem' to Be Distributed by Target

Filed By Alex Blaze | February 11, 2011 9:30 AM | comments

Filed in: Entertainment, Politics
Tags: born that way, exploiting tragedy, lady gaga, Target, tom emmer

Bil's been writing about commercial exploitation of gay teen suicide lately, lady-gaga-born-this-way.jpgbut any discussion of the recent phenomenon isn't complete without talking about the over-hyped single expected from Lady Gaga, in which she co-opts a decades-old gay phrase that's safe enough for the mainstream now now safe for pop stars, "Born This Way." The slow trickle of information about this song framing it as a gay anthem "for the next 100 years," as if everything from the Stonewall riots to gay teens committing suicide were publicity stunts for Gaga, should be enough to inspire projectile vomit.

So one should wonder why Gaga feels the need to give gays the middle finger too:

Lady Gaga is teaming up with Target to offer fans an exclusive deluxe edition of her forthcoming disc, Born This Way -- and a freebie. Starting this Friday at 9 a.m. ET and running through February 26, fans who pre-order the album at Target.com/gaga will receive a free download of the title track.

As previously reported, the title track will hit digital retailers Friday morning, but why pay for it if you can get it for free with the pre-order?

Target's exclusive deluxe edition of Born This Way will include three bonus studio songs and five remixes. The album will be released May 23.

Great for Target to get such a deal with Lady Gaga, because they're so gay-friendly and do nothing to contribute to making life tougher for gay teens... oh wait. There was the whole "funding anti-gay candidates with hundreds of thousands of dollars of reported money and who knows how many millions in unreported cash and not stopping even when gays were all like, 'Hey, that's not cool'" thing.

Now Gaga's making sure Target will have more money to give to anti-gay candidates by giving the store the exclusive rights to distribute a song that co-opts gay rights rhetoric! Who dreamed up this scheme... O. Henry?

Here's part of the lyrics to that song:

NO MATTER GAY, STRAIGHT, OR BI,
LESBIAN, TRANSGENDERED LIFE
I'M ON THE RIGHT TRACK BABY
I WAS BORN TO SURVIVE

NO MATTER BLACK, WHITE OR BEIGE
CHOLA OR ORIENT MADE
I'M ON THE RIGHT TRACK BABY
I WAS BORN TO BE BRAVE

"Transgendered"? Seriously? I guess it's less offensive than referring to latinos as "chola made."

As I posted a while back, Target's defense for their donation was that they supported anti-gay candidates for business reasons, not because of social issues. The most prominent of these candidates was Tom Emmer, whose fiscal conservatism included a proposal to cut funding for the Department of Human Rights and the Housing Funding Agency. That was his idea for the budget, and his budgetary ideas were the part of his candidacy Target explicitly supported.

Now, does it help or hurt gay people in Minnesota if the Department of Human Rights were eliminated? Does it help or hurt homeless queer youth if help for low-income housing is eliminated? Other cuts Emmer proposed came from education - will schools be more or less likely to take anti-gay bullying serious if their budgets are cut?

Tom Emmer didn't win, fortunately, but Target paid for lots of his ads selling fiscal conservatism as the only way to save the economy (it isn't - that's a lie used to justify government service cuts). Even in losing his extreme ideas were promoted, and that wouldn't have been possible without corporate help.

I don't expect Lady Gaga to care about all this, but there were lots of orgs and LGBT people calling for a boycott of Target and I would expect people who generally keep up with the queer news to have a vague recollection of these events. She should feel free to support an anti-gay business, but maybe she could lay off calling the whole thing "unapologetically, gay-in-you-face gay"?

But that's half the point of corporate synergy, to mix audiences and esprits to the point of confusing consumers about who's doing what and what their best interests are. Target could use some pro-gay street cred right about now, and what better way to get it without actually supporting gay people than to get exclusive distribution rights to a certain gay anthem by Lady Gaga? I'm sure they made a great deal with her to get the rights and she's getting paid too.

Not that any of this is unheard of or uncommon. But maybe we could tone it down when it comes to referring to Lady Gaga as some sort of gay advocate? It's like Elton John doing Rush Limbaugh's wedding for $1,000,000, which Limbaugh immediately used to turn around and say, "See? I'm not a homophobe." Target can do the same thing now.

The point of this post isn't to get Lady Gaga to stop doing what she's doing, since I don't have enough money to have a say in the matter. The point is that we go forward with a little less confusion about who she is and what she stands for.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

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.


As an Asian American, I also find the term "Orient Made" offensive. Really Gaga, who calls Asia the Orient anymore? Yes it's a historical term, but c'mon. I can see people taking the leap from that lyric and then, and once again, calling people of Asian descent Orientals. Not cool.

Not to dispute the point you're making, but British people still use the term "Oriental" to refer to East Asians, while "Asian" refers to people of South Asian descent.

It's all culturally relative. But she's from the U.S. I would expect her to know better. But she doesn't. I mean, her song is also being distributed at Target. Tsk, tsk Gaga.

That's my thinking too..."Orientals" in an American context is sort of like calling black people "Negroes."

Do we?

As far as I'm aware, Orientals is offensive in any context. An item can be Oriental, a person cannot. If someone is from East Asia, they are Asian, and if someone is from Central Asia, they are Asian - in the same way that it doesn't matter if someone is from Spain or from Lithuania, they're European.

I was wondering about that too, but hesitated since I've been in France too long where "orient" is used all the time to refer to everything east of (and including) Istanbul. "Middle East" is translated as "moyen orient" and the first town I lived in here was "Lorient," literally "The Orient," because it was a major port in the 1700's.

But, yeah, America, context, etc.

I learned that from some of my British friends in China and was kind of surprised because I'd grown up considering "Oriental" to be an antiquated and non-PC term. They also refer to Native Americans as "Red Indians."

its a pop song. i think its pretty damn awesome myself.

And so because Elton John did Rush Limbaugh's wedding he is no longer a gay advocate? Seriously? Wow.

I can't think of a major huge popstar acknowledging the transgender community in the lyrics of a song that is going to be on every top 40 major market radio station in the country.

I'm no little monster- but I think its pretty impressive.

Elton and Gaga both do funders - good for them.

Elton's politics are too over the map to consider him an advocate for anything. He's in favor of civil unions and against same-sex marriage one day, all about marriage the next. He's pro-immigrants then anti-immigrants.

Gaga mentions "transgendered" people on the radio and then, on the other side, gets money for conservative Republicans to get elected and take away housing from low-income folks, which is a group that includes LGBT people.

Her work is far to confused to consider her an advocate of anything. She's there to get paid first. Changing the world is further down the list. There's nothing inherently wrong with that; but we should be more skeptical when we hear about celebs taking up civil rights causes for publicity.

I just disagree. Elton John foundation started raising money for AIDS long before many others were even caring about the disease.

Just because you don't agree with someone on an issue doesn't mean they are not an advocate.

As to target- I believe your outrage is misplaced. It might be helpful to be outraged at the Supreme Court and demanding that Congress revisit the heinous decision. Where should she sell her album- Wal-Mart, which has a 40% rating on HRC's rating system?

Many other corporations did they same thing Target did- and it is only going to get worse. Attacking Target while not attacking the larger structural problem is simply swatting at a fly while ignoring the giant pile of poo in your living room.

Lady Gaga and Elton John are of course artists who make a lot of money. That is what mass-marketed pop culture artists do. That their work can have a positive impact and open eyes is also true.

To me it seems to be a damned if you do argument. So Eminem sings nasty homophobic tracks we yell at him. Lady Gaga sings about empowering people to be themselves- and we yell at her because of her being too commercial.

That is like being angry at a turtle for having a shell.

I'm not particularly outraged here, actually. Perhaps asking for a "little less confusion" seems outraged? I dunno.

Anyway, if Gaga is an advocate and we can take the profit motive out of her actions and statements around lgbt issues, then there's we should also say that she's an anti-LGBT advocate by giving Target this deal. I don't see how one of her actions is value-positive - "about empowering people to be themselves" - while another is without value - "what mass-marketed pop culture artists do."

Just because you don't agree with someone on an issue doesn't mean they are not an advocate.

In that light, can we consider her an advocate for, at least, shopping at Target? It's not something I agree with, but she's still advocating it.

If she's advocating that, can we discuss the impact of that advocacy, like money being funneled into the pockets of homophobes? Why is discussing the product of that advocacy off-limits while we're supposed to praise her for using the word "transgendered" on the radio?

Anyway, yeah, she was going to distribute it through Target eventually. The point of this post is how far out of the way she went to promote Target specifically by giving them this exclusive deal and to wonder about Target's motivations behind seeking it.

And I don't have a particular problem with getting mad at a turtle for having a shell; I do understand that a lot of what I advocate on Bilerico will never happen. But the alternative is uncomfortably nihilistic.

I just find this to be hyperbole Alex, "If she's advocating that, can we discuss the impact of that advocacy, like money being funneled into the pockets of homophobes?"

1. The donation happened in the past. No further contributions have been given to said homophobe. So how can she be funneling money to a homophobe?

As to, "And I don't have a particular problem with getting mad at a turtle for having a shell; I do understand that a lot of what I advocate on Bilerico will never happen. But the alternative is uncomfortably nihilistic."

I only have a limited amount of anger to throw around- so I just choose my targets. There is so much to be angry about in this world that if I focused on it all, I would go insane. Its not nihilistic- just self-preservation. That said, if this is yours- go for it!

But speaking of the opposite of anger- what about some joy for the people of Egypt? It will be a bumpy ride but sure as hell exciting to see people rising up and enjoying freedom for the first time.

Smartest post yet on this subject. We DO need to choose our battles.

And here's the main point, Alex:

The REST of the world thinks Gaga is fervently pro-gay.

The song is stirring, the beat is great. She had nothing to do with Target's past transgressions; I've stopped shopping Target because of it, and sold my Target stock. Guess what? They survived.

Know what other corporation's execs patently court our community, and throw money at our steadfast opponents? Many. Start with Gold's Gym, and go on.

On a good day, target donates a million dollars to local community projects all across America. Their executives are neocon zealots who have a PAC that gives to fellow neocon zealots.

Well, stop the presses.

They also employ a great number of GLBT folks, and provide domestic partner benefits, and so on...some of their top execs have nasty political contribution habits. Should we roll over? No. Should we boycott? Maybe.

I'm also betting Gaga had little to do with the actual Target deal--the song's on iTunes, too--are we supposed to be mad at them, also?

Your point is made, Alex. But if the non-friendly community painted us with a brush this broad, we'd be screaming bloody murder.

Kathy Padilla | February 11, 2011 11:40 AM

"I can't think of a major huge popstar acknowledging the transgender community in the lyrics of a song that is going to be on every top 40 major market radio station in the country."

Sure - if you don't count Sting, John Lennon, the Kinks, Joe Jackson, Aerosmith, David Bowie, Boy George...I'll just stop now.

yeah not a fan of the use "orient" either. #colonialismfail

Gaga is an advocate for Gaga, nothing more. Like you said, there's nothing wrong with that, but to co-opt a civil movement for financial gain is pretty low. I agree we need to stop focusing on celebs who are using social causes as forms of their branding, and start paying more attention to the real work being done by the people on the streets.

Well said, Melissa!

Is it just me or is the song just a different tempo of "Express Yourself"?

I thought this, too. Perhaps Madonna will sue for intellectual (haha) property and give the proceeds to the Pride Foundation or a homeless lgbt youth program.


Growing up in Southern California "Cholo/Chola" wasn't racist. It was self ID'd statement of Mexican Pride. The word was reclaimed nearly half a century ago.

I am not a fan of gaga, and I could say plenty of negative things about her, but accusing a bisexual woman of 'co-opting' a 'gay' phrase is problematic (as is using 'gay' as an umbrella term for LGBT or queer). Talking about her 'selling out', trying to whitewash queer history to appeal to heteros, using racist lyrics is fine (and rather accurate), but a lot of the discussion of gaga by gay and lesbian groups makes the assumption that bi women, and femme bi women in particular, are not queer and are not a part of that history. Now that pisses me off.

"The point is that we go forward with a little less confusion about who she is and what she stands for."

Alex lady gaga is young, having a great life and I enjoy her frock shock antics. I don't expect her to be politically perfect on issues but I do think her intentions are good.

Aha: the soft bigotry of low expectations! One of the best ways of condescending to the young.

yeah, what k.e. said: saying she gets off the hook because she's young is a fairly easy way to write off young people everywhere, many of whom have lots to offer the movement.

Plus the people who arranged this aren't that young.

Well you can read her however it tickles your fancy. I personally think she did more for the repeal of DADT than Get Equal managed to accomplish. Its the Mubarak equation. She has thousands if not millions of fans chanting her on while Get Equal chained 6 people to a fence. Which do you think was more effective?

And Yes K.E. I have great tolerance for the young. Insipid remarks will not curtail my appreciation or respect for the process of matriculation.

I thought I'd cross-post this comment from a friend on Facebook:

it's not just irony: it's confirmation that the symbol has replaced the real. Symbolic politics trump actual politics these days. Fake transgression has replaced material solutions and authentic counterculture.

Her shout-out to LGBT people in the song is supposed to count for more than her lucrative deal with homophobes. Sounds about right to me.

wow, pomo! awesome! :)

Alex;

Your Fb friend articulates the situation quite eloquently. Kudos.

Alex;

Good points made, 95% of which I'm in total agreement with, and the most salient point is ~~~
L.G. will totally "get paid" BIG TIME, both in cash AND in free PR (I wouldn't have known about this, save for YOUR posting?).

Kathy;

Tee-hee... That's TWO in a row for you, girlfriend. "BADDA-BOOM!"

Cap Pig:

PUH-LEEZE!

First off, HRC's INequality index is, for the most part, a JOKE, particularly where trans-folk are concerned (speaking from repeated personal experience).

Second, clearly you speak as a member of the music industry's (keyword) biggest asset ~~ an uniformed fanbase. Oh well.

This is far from the first time a major star's business maneuvers flew in the face of their srtidently self-proclaimed "commitment" to basic human rights.

To wit; HRC's moderately successful "True Colors Tour", which made plenty of money from thousands of politically UNconcious fanboyz and gurlz (sic). They INTENTIONALLY chose to exclude ANY type of professional (keyword) transgender presence (with the solitary exception of the lead vocalist of Canadian pop band "Cliques", who didn't really know any better until it was too late to back out of the contract), because this self-serving fundraising extravaganza was scheduled to kick-off in the midst of the outrage over the ongoing ENDA debacle, right after "Jivin' Joe" blatantly lied thru his pearly-white caps to the world in Sept. 2007 about HRC's position on ALL-INCLUSIVE legislative language. (Many people have seen it in Youtube --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_GhTiBO8Cw
I was THERE, lighting his smarmy butt as he stood at the podium.)

Chalk up another one for "Gay Inc."!

The reality (keyword) is that at the lofty level of the delightful business we call "show" that is referenced here, almost ALL performers, led by their mega-buck management organizations (with very few notable exceptions), are first and foremost watching out for "#1", literally AND metaphorically. The amazing Ms L.G. probably wasn't even aware of this potentially windfall-producing decision till long after the ink had dried on the paperwork.

Based on my 3 decades (plus) of experience in the entertainment industry, I know this to be true in the overwhelming majority of cases.

BTW: Stonewalled Repugs called, and they want their bullhorn back.

Well, whether you like to admit it or not, HRC's workplace index will do more to bring trans-inclusive health care coverage to this country than anything that has happened previously.

Companies desire their 100% rating- and that will move the ball forward.

And yea, I'm totally a republican.

It's happening at my work. They have put things in place, will start covering 'trans stuff' (not entirely sure what) in I think 2012 or 2013 to comply with HRC. So I guess they aren't as evil as I tend to reflexively think.

On the downside, they aren't going to make it known--it won't be explicitly listed in things that are covered--b/c they don't want heat from ppl saying "I don't want to help pay for those perverts!" but the GLBT group is pushing back.

One other point, they found that although the cost for individual ppl is very high (no big news to us trans ppl!), the overall cost to the plan is extremely low, due to the rarity (at least in their current knowledge of how many ppl transition here, which I doubt they have a good handle on) of ppl needing the coverage.

And on a personal down note, I already went thorugh all mine, paid out of pocket except for hormones and therapy (still not bad, most plans won't pay for homomes for sure).

So the LGB got an anthem. What about the T? Once again we are left out of the headline when it comes to LGBT.

BTW, Alex, this isn't directed at you. It is the public perception of the LGBT community. Lady Gaga seems to not be able to understand that T doesn't mean LGB. Everyone uses LGBT but then only focus on Gay Rights. It is very frustrating.

There are always people working for the ACLU trying to get donations and memberships from people and all I hear is 'Gay Rights". That is it...they stand where I smoke at (and I am a heavy smoker) so I am pretty sure they never include the T.

C.P.;

GASP! I would have never deciphered your paradoxical political affiliations had you not deigned to share. In the words of another over-publicized and under-qualified celeb - "how's that working for you?"

Apparently YOU haven't missed any Lexus payments.

Based upon over a decade of their action (keyword), as opposed to their well-funded rhetoric, it is QUITE clear that Gay Inc. (store-fronted by HRC) has very little interest in providing ANYTHING of value to trans-folk. With all due respect to your obviously under-informed and overzealous blind loyalty to that which presumably keeps YOUR life comfortable (keep on watching out for #1, dude!), your perception of the reality (keyword) of "equal opportunity employment" is skewed (far to the right) at best, which renders your obtuse observation about "transgender health care" meaningless.

How does one obtain health care when one cannot even get an interview, much less an actual JOB?

Maybe you would be better served by actually becoming acquainted with a couple of real, live trans-people who can fill in some of the profound gaps in your knowledge of the reality (keyword) of life in Amerika (sic) for individuals with a "non-conforming" gender presentation.

Of course, it's highly unlikely that you'll find any trans-folk (that you KNOW of?) where YOU work, huh?

C.P.;

GASP! I would have never deciphered your paradoxical political affiliations had you not deigned to share. In the words of another over-publicized and under-qualified celeb - "how's that working for you?"

Apparently YOU haven't missed any Lexus payments.

Based upon over a decade of their action (keyword), as opposed to their well-funded rhetoric, it is QUITE clear that Gay Inc. (store-fronted by HRC) has very little interest in providing ANYTHING of value to trans-folk. With all due respect to your obviously under-informed and overzealous blind loyalty to that which presumably keeps YOUR life comfortable (keep on watching out for #1, dude!), your perception of the reality (keyword) of "equal opportunity employment" is skewed (far to the right) at best, which renders your obtuse observation about "transgender health care" meaningless.

How does one obtain health care when one cannot even get an interview, much less an actual JOB?

Maybe you would be better served by actually becoming acquainted with a couple of real, live trans-people who can fill in some of the profound gaps in your knowledge of the reality (keyword) of life in Amerika (sic) for individuals with a "non-conforming" gender presentation.

Of course, it's highly unlikely that you'll find any trans-folk (that you KNOW of?) where YOU work, huh?

C.P.;

GASP! I would have never deciphered your paradoxical political affiliations had you not deigned to share. In the words of another over-publicized and under-qualified celeb - "how's that working for you?"

Apparently YOU haven't missed any Lexus payments.

Based upon over a decade of their action (keyword), as opposed to their well-funded rhetoric, it is QUITE clear that Gay Inc. (store-fronted by HRC) has very little interest in providing ANYTHING of value to trans-folk. With all due respect to your obviously under-informed and overzealous blind loyalty to that which presumably keeps YOUR life comfortable (keep on watching out for #1, dude!), your perception of the reality (keyword) of "equal opportunity employment" is skewed (far to the right) at best, which renders your obtuse observation about "transgender health care" meaningless.

How does one obtain health care when one cannot even get an interview, much less an actual JOB?

Maybe you would be better served by actually becoming acquainted with a couple of real, live trans-people who can fill in some of the profound gaps in your knowledge of the reality (keyword) of life in Amerika (sic) for individuals with a "non-conforming" gender presentation.

Of course, it's highly unlikely that you'll find any trans-folk (that you KNOW of?) where YOU work, huh?

1. I was being sarcastic. I'm not a Republican.

2. I understand that most people, including you, believe that Gay, Inc. is just HRC, but there are over 20 national LGBT organizations, not mention the hundreds of state and local based organizations that make up Gay, Inc.

You might remember them, they were the ones that came together, over 200 in fact, who created the UNITED ENDA coalition - who pushed back on HRC and made it very clear to the powers in Congress that HRC does not speak for the community and made it clear that we would not accept a non- trans-inclusive ENDA- and thus we have not seen another 2007 debacle again.

And yes, I drive a lexus.

Sorry about the multi post ~~~ I dunno what happened there?

I have a problem with the creationist and sexual essentialism messages that the message of this song hinges on. If I don't believe I was "made" or "born this way" is being queer morally okay?

Excellent critique. I disagree with one passage, where you write:

"I don't expect Lady Gaga to care about all this, but there were lots of orgs and LGBT people calling for a boycott of Target and I would expect people who generally keep up with the queer news to have a vague recollection of these events."

My issue is that very few non-queer people, and even many queer people, do not keep up with LGBT news sources. I am 29 and although I came out of the closet at age 19, I only discovered online LGBT news blogs at the age of 26. My relatively late discovery was not due to lack of interest. There was simply no one in my social circle discussing these sources and I was completely ignorant that they even existed. For many, many years, my only LGBT news source was the hard-copy publication, Bay Windows (I live in Boston). It was only when I met my current boyfriend at age 26 that I discovered all these interesting online gay media outlets, because he follows them on a daily basis.

What I'm saying is, I think it's quite unfair to bash Gaga over a news item that many gays and non-gays are completely unaware of. Not everyone reads special-interest news blogs. It's quite easy to be openly gay or openly gay-supporting and yet not know about or read these blogs or other LGBT media outlets.

My guess is that Gaga had little to no idea about Target's record and that, had someone informed her of the corporate fuckery, she would've made different choices.

Comments tl;dr

But transgendered is a word. People use the word "transgender" as every component of speech, and half the time it just sounds silly!

Danielle Ni Dhighe | February 11, 2011 7:17 PM

I suppose Gaga's record company should have found a retailer that donated to Obama's campaign, even though he and most Democrats won't back marriage equality and are just as anti-working class as the Republicans.

Just about every pride event these days is corporately sponsored, and those corporations are doing it for the same reason Target is doing this: they want LGBT people to buy their products.

That's a big problem, too, but I think for some people it's easier to sling arrows at a big target like Gaga for being what she is, a pop star who wants people to buy her music, than to perhaps look closer to home.

I also have a problem when an out bi woman like Gaga is accused of "co-opting". She's not "co-opting" anything and this song is sincere on that level.

The real "co-opting" comes from gays and lesbians who talk about the LGBT community, but then stab bisexuals and transgender people in the back when it's politically expedient.

Hey C.P.;

@1: Clearly the "sarcastic" part of your political declaration is NOT reflected in your choice of screen names, and the tenor of your dialog thus-far would lead any reasonable (keyword) person to easily accept that you ARE in fact a member of the right-wing faction.

Whatever your affiliation may be is really insignificant, particularly when one acknowledges the American political reality. There's only been ONE "party" in the US for the last 40+ years ~~~ it's called the "Money Party".

Regardless of whom you choose to support, the puppet on the right or the puppet on the left, the fact remains that their respective strings are pulled by the SAME corporate entities, who are donating hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars in campaign funding. There may be TWO puppets, but since the final days of a highly prescient Dwight D. Eisenhower there's only been ONE collective corporate master behind the curtain here in our once-great nation.

Look it up.

It's the misinformed opinions you posted on this thread that compelled me to respond to YOU directly, and my purpose is to inform you, not insult you, so don't take it so personally.


@2: Apparently you missed the part where I mentioned that "Gay Inc." (a euphemism, NOT an actual entity) was "store-fronted BY HRC", which IS, for better or worse, the most well-funded and well-publicized LGB(t) organization in North America. I never said it WAS them exclusively, did I?

Now let me think here for just a minute...

Hmmm, did you invoke the name United Enda?

Oh yeah, I vaguely recall them. That might be a result of the fact that I, as chairperson of a substantial state-wide activist organization, was one of the first 25 signatories when they were getting off the ground, and then proceeded to help further their limited progress here in that little ditchwater town of Chicago.

Of course, that was a shortly after I had spent a couple of years and quite a bit of out-of-pocket expense personally assisting in making precedent-setting gender-identity inclusive language a reality (keyword) in the anti-discrimination legislation that was passed by the state of Illinois, the county of Cook, and the city of Chicago, as well as several other IL municipalities such as Oak Park and Champaign, so I really couldn't give you an exact date and time.

Perhaps your condescending sarcasm would be better spent on someone who hasn't been personally "in the trenches" of that particular battle for equal employment opportunity pretty much since the beginning, which was LONG before the debacle (or was it a fiasco?) of 2007.

Look it up if you like.

Once again, it seems that the overall credibility of your reactionary comments could benefit from some FACT-checking, but I digress.

One thing you got right ~~~ subsequently we haven't seen a duplication of the unfortunate events of 2007. I would attribute that irrelevant fact to a temporary "strategic retreat" on HRC's part, at least until they were relieved of the burden of having a couple of extremely savvy bona fide trans-people (Donna Rose and Jamison Green) on their board as "technical consultants" (so to speak?).

The powers-that-be in the "ivory tower" on Rhode Island Ave. wisely chose to take a brief "time-out" in order to re-think their strategy while the controversy "petered-out" (!).

Note: I never said they were stupid, either.

Since they've successfully "shuffled the deck" (with Joker Joe still at the top) and covertly "re-branded" some of their activities, they seem to regaining some of their lost momentum.

I'm already seeing signs of their resurgence here in the Windy City, much to my dismay.

Needless to say, this all has NOTHING to do with Adam Sandler (remember him?) and his stupid schtick, and EVERYTHING to do with people not recalling their own recent history, which WILL be repeated if the truth remains unspoken on fine forums such as this.

So which Lexus do you have in the double-wide driveway of your secure undisclosed location anyways? The sexy sports car to get you back and forth to the Gulfstream's hangar, or the monster SUV, which you probably need to tow your twin-engined cigarette boat to the harbor?

Now, THAT'S "sarcasm", except it COULD be true too. Please know that I begrudge NO ONE the fruits of their honest labors, I simply wish that more trans-folk had a chance at a seat at the table where those fruits are currently served in abundance to a select few, which may or may not include you. The main point is, one should be cautious when speaking about things they know little or nothing about, which is one thing that you and Adam Sandler seem to have in common.

I'm just sayin'...

And yes, I do realize this thread began with Lady G, but Alex's other consciousness-raising post about A.S. dissing trans-folk on Letterman seemed germane, hence the reference. I apologize if I confused anybody by "connecting the dots" between two recent posts about celebs and trans-people by the same author on the same blog.