Time to decouple from the far left trans people!

 

cropped-r3594340217.jpgA letter to my fellow trans people:
About the recent Caitlyn Jenner controversy regarding her support for Ted Cruz and her conservative views: It is true that not all transsexuals are in the tank for the far left, or are “feeling the Bern”. Some of us are not even voting for Hillary. Continue reading

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year 2016!
liberty wolf
In spite of the PC madness on college campuses, the growing and very real threat of ISIS and assorted Islamic terror,  the relatively sluggish economy and the comical chaos of a presidential race that may come down to Trump vs. Clinton (OH NO) — the American people are resilient, ornery and innovative.  In other words, the whole nation isn’t going to hell quite yet.   Continue reading

And, Jenner is a Republican too!

US flag

I’ll admit that I have yet to watch the Bruce Jenner interview with Diane Sawyer that is making headlines today.  I am very burned out on trans issues and mostly I yawn when I hear of a news story.  Even so, I have to admit that apparently, we are making progress.   There’s no question that today it is easier and more acceptable to medically transition than it was when I began in 1989.   Certainly, people who change their sex and legal and social gender are still pariahs, on both the left and the right – but we are more accepted than we have ever been and certainly more visible.   Continue reading

This makes me want to live in a shack in Montana with a shotgun and a Min Pin

_80283917_oldlady
Apparently, the “Vagina Monologues” have been canceled and for this reason at Mount Holyoke College:

“Since the 1990s, students from Mount Holyoke College, an all-women’s school in Massachusetts, have staged an annual production of The Vagina Monologues. Not this year. The college is retiring the ritual over concerns that the play—penned by Eve Ensler in 1996 as a way to “celebrate the vagina” and women’s sexuality—is not inclusive enough.

In a school-wide email from Mount Holyoke’s student-theater board, relayed by Campus Reform, student Erin Murphy explained that “at its core, the show offers an extremely narrow perspective on what it means to be a woman … Gender is a wide and varied experience, one that cannot simply be reduced to biological or anatomical distinctions, and many of us who have participated in the show have grown increasingly uncomfortable presenting material that is inherently reductionist and exclusive.” ”

Ah, OK. Apparently because some trans people have not yet had, or do not wish to have SRS (sex reassignment surgery) for whatever reason, medical or personal or financial, and this makes them different from non-trans people… so this play must be canceled.

Look I am not particularly a fan of “The Vagina Monologues” — I have never seen it and don’t possess a burning desire to do so, though I might see it if the opportunity presented itself. If it was within walking distance of my house…

Apparently, the opportunity won’t be there for anyone attending Mount Holyoke who wants to see it there. And, worse, it is for stupid reasons. Here the well-reason article in “Reason” that I learned this from:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/15/womens-college-cancels-vagina-monologues

This is so egregiously stupid that I am nearly speechless. “Inclusiveness” and even “diversity” are overrated. Not every play or performance is pertinent to every person, that’s life. Also, the vast majority of people with vaginas are born female women with female congruent gender identities. This is a fact of life, and I actually see no problem with it at all. Most likely some bullies on campus, waving the flag of PC “non-binary” gender got a hold of the board and rammed this through. That said, hey — it’s their school, whatever! I am against this on principle however. And, would certainly like to make it known that not all trans men agree with this. Also, I do live my life, day to day, identifying largely with MEN who were not born with vaginas, meaning non-trans men. In other words, someone does not have to be exactly like me to be someone I identify with. Which is good, otherwise, since I am a mixed race, man of transsexual history, who is mixed race in such a way that I have met very few people exactly like me, except for siblings, I honestly don’t think I would ever have anything at all in this world to identify with. A long time ago, I decided to be my own person, and I don’t solely depend on my race, class, ethnicity, sex or gender to define who I am. Those things are not even always the important things… I know we live in a strange world now, which increasingly says otherwise, and I am against that line of thinking, which is narrow and which puts people into boxes that are constricting — all often in the name of “inclusivity”. Of course, it is also good that more art is coming out made by so-called trans people, but that doesn’t mean that art made by people who are not “trans” has no bearing on our lives. This is insane.

The HHH – Hamas/Hezbollah Huggers on the Left, LGBT Rights Deniers on the Right

Between the Hamas and Hezbollah Huggers on the left and the gay haters on the right, it can get lonely.

Let’s call the Hamas/Hezbollah Huggers the “HHH”. And, then, there are the “gay haters” on the religious right? Are they merely strong “dislikers” of The Gay and LGBT in general?

OK, these gay “dislikers” claim they don’t hate, they just think the Gay is a “lifestyle” that can be cured or prayed into non-existence. Good luck with that.

I’m not always inclined to eschew hyperbole, but in political discourse a person must tread carefully, if he or she wishes to communicate and not simply engage in rhetorical grandstanding. But, it is hard having to hear nonsense about LGBT people on one hand, and on the other – to hear the most radically hateful torturers of gay and lesbian, and sometimes trans people lauded, often by LGBT people themselves.

But let’s start with the facts. The Christians who are anti-LGBT are easy targets. Which isn’t to say they aren’t dangerous or at least — very irritating, but they are sitting duck targets. Call them stupid, hateful and misinformed and you’ve won the day. Not only because you are right as per their views on LGBT rights and people, but also because they are now becoming easy pickings. Even prominent conservative Republicans are beginning to see that gay people have rights and can’t be prayed to straight salvation. I mean Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Rob Portman, and of course, the fighter for gay marriage — Ted Olson. So, it is easier now, with the tide turning, to ridicule the conservatives who cling to gay hating, and you can kick their imagined or real Hillbilly ways and government funded wheelchairs, as in this post:
When your godless Marxist president and his thuggish fascist cabinet officers and his entire godless liberty-hating socialist democrat party and sicko sycophant complicit leftist mainstream media and the god-hating, constitution-twisting black-robed socialist liberal activist judges continue conspiring to promote homosexualism and perversion as not only normal but a healthy, wholesome, desirable activity and way of life and then force it into the curriculum of even our youngest school children, that is tyranny!

You can, poke fun at their perceived inability to distinguish Hitler from Stalin, as some commenters on the above rant do. Certainly this will prove that you are very smart…right? But then, what do you do with the LGBT activists who are often unable to distinguish Hamas from the NAACP?

In the universe of left wing Hamas huggers, anyone who would chide Hamas and deign to point out that women in Gaza are being jailed for having out of wedlock babies, and that people who smoke Hashish are being executed, after a year in prison, are simply being “racist. Hamas and Hezbollah don’t want simple peace and a beneficial co-existence with Israel; they want Israel’s complete and utter destruction. You don’t even want to know how they kill gay people. Let’s leave it at that. These left wing sophisticates seem to want to ignore willfully, that Islam is not a race, and that the radical Islam of Hamas is anti-woman’s rights, and very much anti-gay rights. In fact, it is anti-human rights, and so anti-equality. The concept of “human rights” appears to be missing altogether from the Hamas charter; the idea that every last Jew on earth must be killed, is not.

But I can already hear the cries, the Hamas and Hezbollah Huggers screaming, “But, what about the horrible Christians!” It is true, of course, that there are indeed “horrible Christians” walking amongst us, or at least, Christians who are against gay marriage, or possibly — against even any semblance of gay rights. Most extremely, again, there are Christians who believe that lesbians and gays are “perverse”, and can be prayed to a “cure”, their numbers are dwindling, but they are around. I won’t deny it. These same Christians are most likely not friendly with transsexual people either, or transgender. They are a problem in my universe, don’t get me wrong, I have real issues with this particular Jesus fandom.

However, it is also true that some of these Christians while having reprehensible or just plain mistaken beliefs about LGBT people are otherwise, decent and good people. I know at least one online, and I have known a few in passing, I am related to a few.

Hamas and Hezbollah hugging (“HHH”) left-wingers may also otherwise be decent, intelligent and even – “educated”. Take for example, the well known and influential Hamas/Hezbollah hugger Judith Butler! That woman is obviously “educated”, she now teaches gender performativity at Columbia, but apparently still can’t distinguish Hamas/Hezbollah from social movements that are part of the progressive left. Here:

“Understanding Hamas/Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left, is extremely important. “

Below, a nuanced and fair denouement of Butler’s views by Michael Totten. The entire statement from Butler above is quoted and put in context, and her latter statements are also considered. Totten points out that to her credit, Butler has stated she is not in favor of violence, although, as he also points out, violence is certainly being used by the most un-socially liberal Hamas and Hezbollah to accomplish their stated goal of erasing Israel. There is no other way to eradicate a country. And, how Butler can conflate Hamas or Hezbollah with social progress is an obscure point indeed.

Anti-Imperialism Fools

Butler later attempted a facile and smug de-construction of her statements with her usual rhetorical slight of hand, but I can’t help but feel cynical about her smug quibbling. To be fair, she may be denouncing violence, but she is not denouncing Hamas or Hezbollah, and she must if she is to come out on the righteous end of human history. And it is impossible to separate these two organizations from violence. Here a very good assessment of Butler’s inability to tell the good guys from the bad guys, here from writer Petra Marquardt:

“Unsurprisingly, Butler has reacted to criticism of her views regarding Hamas and Hezbollah by complaining that her remarks “have been taken out of context.” Butler mainly emphasizes now that she has “always been in favor of non-violent political action” and explicitly declares: “I do not endorse practices of violent resistance and neither do I endorse state violence, cannot, and never have.”

But it is arguably revealing that Butler chose the Mondoweiss website to publish her most recent rebuttal. Surely an academic of her standing had many other choices and did not have to turn to a site that has often been criticized for posts and as well as antisemitic cartoons? On such a site, it is somewhat strange to read Butler’s lament:

“For those of us who are descendants of European Jews who were destroyed in the Nazi genocide (my grandmother’s family was destroyed in a small village south of Budapest), it is the most painful insult and injury to be called complicitous with the hatred of Jews or to be called self-hating.”

And how come that somebody who evokes such a family history has nothing to say about the Jew-hatred espoused by Hamas and Hezbollah, and their acknowledged ideological sponsors, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian regime?”

Butler is not alone. There are more than a few Big Q – Queers who welcome Hamas into their bag of lefty tricks, and I regard them with as much opprobrium and bewildered angst as I regard the religious, conservative anti-LGBT right. Big Q Queers are, after all, more than simply LGBT, they regard their mission not as gay marriage or gay soldiering, but as a queer transformation of society, an in-your-face adolescent attitude that is as much uptight curmudgeon/snob and disdain of the ordinary or “normal” as it is visionary or leading edge. While I certainly believe it is important and life affirming to always be leading to the future from a place of new possibilities, the facts often lead just as often to older certainties. Sometimes Queer is a posture and a pose and not about leading us all to a better world. But again, let us distinguish between big Q Queers who wish to abolish marriage altogether, and those lesbians and gays who want the option to get married and have legal recognitions, responsibilities and rights — and who wish to lead productive lives, whether or not these lives are perceived as “in your face” or – well, normal. We can’t all be naked and polymorphous perverse in happy communes and not all of us want to be. I, for one, hate long meetings. Some of us are resigned to an LGBT normalcy that is not trend following, but often, profoundly satisfying to live. As a trans guy, I’m mostly just a normal dude. You wouldn’t think twice if you saw me on the street, and that suits me fine.

So, possibly, since they are “in your face” and hate to think of themselves as anything other than special and trendy, it is only logical that the far left Queer contingent would feign a friendly comradely relationship with the extreme and violently queer hating Hamas/Hezbollah. I mean, Hamas and Hezbollah both hate Amerikkka, and maybe, that’s enough.

Even so, I have always expected more discernment from high riding lesbians like Butler and Sarah Schulman. Schulman has been described thus by Daniel Greenfield… (she) was declaring that gay rights in Israel were part of a conspiracy to “pinkwash” the evil Zionist entity.

Sarah Schulman, a gay rights activist, had to make the confusing argument that gay rights activists should support anti-gay Islamists over Israel. And Schulman was predictably incoherent in trying to make that case. While Sarah Schulman accused pro-Israel advocates of pinkwashing Israel, Schulman was the one actually pinkwashing Hamas.

Butler, Sarah Schulman and other high visibility left wing Hamas huggers are a disappointment, a profound one. As a leftist in my not so distant past, I always had expected them to come down on the right side of human rights. But, possibly I was happily deluded. In fact, I now know for sure that I was. I mean, really now, when has the far left ever come down on the humane side of human rights? I don’t mean the moderate left of center of the Democrat party, I mean the far socialist left, and that’s why Jim from the first blog is not confabulating or confused, when he conjoins Hitler, Mussolini, Mao and Stalin – fascists and communists both in an alignment of tyrants, he’s actually absolutely correct. We can thank Jonah Goldberg’s book
Liberal Fascism for his uncovering of this similarity and conjoinment at the waist of Fascism and Communism. In hindsight, one can certain see the family resemblance.

Conflating the tyranny of National Socialism and Communism is not the sign of an uneducated, drooling rube, but of someone with more than a little common sense and possibly even, some historical acumen. If nothing else, it indicates that a person has a bedrock understanding that liberty, fascism and communism, are not bedfellows. Liberty is not aligned with communism or – fascism. Unfortunately, this simple, straightforward and utterly reasonable understanding does not extend to some of the most politically prominent if not actually astute, LGBT intellectuals. Possibly this is because ultimately, liberty is not their chief concern? It is not a core value. I think the same people who are now making positive, warm-feeling statements about Hamas would have been the same people making positive statements about Stalin. They would have declaimed Stalin as an important part of the “social movements” of the “progressive left”.

Now, this is odd, since you would think that Hamas/Hezbollah and the Christian religious right would make good bedfellows, since they are both not exactly queer friendly, however, obviously — this has not proven to be the case. I have found it confounding that the religious right hates Hamas as much as the queer left appears to embrace it. Even though Hamas and Hezbollah would happily make sure that gays are not only unmarried, but also not alive. This gave me pause; did this mean that our own religious, socially conservative right was different from what I come to believe? Well, yes, and also – no. There is a spectrum… some on that side are only critical of the use of the word “marriage” but would grant civil unions, and while not super keen on gayness or trans people are nevertheless of the understanding that LGBT people are not inherently deranged, evil or bad. Some conservatives are fine with gay people, but these cannot be understood as strict social conservatives. However, on the other hand, there are those on the religious right who don’t give two hoots about gay or trans people, make no mistake. They don’t understand us, they don’t like us, they clearly would rather we did not exist, however, they won’t join with Hamas and Hezbollah to kill us. The story is always more complicated, and in this blog I will attempt to shed the light I’ve found.

Certainly I have come to know, with some painful recognition, that the far left was different than what I had always believed. . Although there are also nuances on that side, and complications.

Complications, nuances, and deconstructions aside – the cold fact remains. Many, if not all, on the socially conservative and religious right are still in opposition to basic LGBT civil rights. The far left is infested with the HHH, Hamas/Hezbollah Huggers, who are oblivious to facts and apparently to basic human rights and liberty. Folks like me who see liberty as extending to all, and who believe in individual rights as bedrock to that fundamental liberty — have an issue. For me, neither the Hamas/Hezbollah hugging left, nor the social conservative religious right, are comfortable places to be. I remain an outlander, an outlier, and an outsider… I think both sides are nuts. And, I can’t decide which is more dangerous to my own personal mental health and peace of mind.

Voter ID Laws and Trans People

So, my big coming out here, in public as not a left winger or even a Democrat is here… I was interviewed by a reporter for The Daily Beast. Of course, on a trans issue as it relates to possible Voter ID laws. Never had a problem myself with ID and voting, even when I was earlier into my transition. I think I say it best in the article, and it is toward the end.

For Max Wolf Valerio, a transgender man, the political transformation from a Democrat to a Republican was more daunting than transitioning from female to male. Valerio, author of The Testosterone Files, a memoir about his transition, said obtaining a state ID is part of every adult person’s life in the U.S. and not an additional challenge. “Trans people are not hothouse flowers who wilt at the slightest obstacle or pressure. We are resourceful, resilient, and often, extraordinarily strong people,” he said.

While I fully support educating poll workers for the possibility of trans people being ambiguous, if there are Voter ID laws established, just as they would be educated for any oddity or stray possibility, I honestly believe that this issue is being blown way out of proportion. I mean, trans people use state issued IDs for getting jobs, buying booze, entering a nightclub, traveling, picking up an airline ticket — and well, driving a car. Many things… in many states, it is not that difficult to change your F to M, if you have a note from a doctor. In some states it is a bit more difficult, and name change is more difficult. But, we manage. There are trans advocacy organizations that are fighting to make these laws more reasonable or to liberalize them. I support these efforts by and large. I do NOT agree with the trans guy, the lawyer speaking in the video, Dru Levasseur, who states that it is a “privilege” to be able to have an ID congruent with your gender, the gender or sex (actually) that you change to. If that is true, it’s news to me… Anyone who reads my memoir would know… I was mostly unemployed and certainly without savings,living hand to mouth, when I got my ID and name changed on my California State ID in 1989. And, that was way before “FTM” had any credence as hip or trendy. Things were far more difficult then. Listen, if I can do it, just about any one can. Yes, California’s laws are fairly liberal but even so… This hysteria over Voter ID, and this painting of trans people as victims, well – it doesn’t wash. I hate and despise this constant portrayal of us as weak, inept victims. We can manage to get IDs, we are adults, we’ve been doing it for a long time now…

Further, please, Democrat party, please stop using us for your ridiculous political agenda! In this case, being against people showing an ID at the polling place! It is not that big of a deal, really… trans people can manage, yes — we can! To borrow a slogan.

I say it better in the article…

 

No binary gender for Occupy San Francisco!

I”m watching a livestream of arrests being made of Occupy San Francisco protesters who  occupied a building on Turk Street in San Francisco last night. The camera man observing, who is an Occupy SF person, states as he observes a protestor being led away by police from the building to the police van, “Another protestor, a woman, being led out of the building… I say “woman”, ah – just to make a judgment but ah, I’m not too much into the binary gender thing…”

I think it was a dude (as in a man) talking but don’t quote me on that.

Funny now how people feel they have to apologize for calling someone, who looks female, a woman. Which may mean they recognize that people are men or women, a no no.

Guess the far left, at least in San Francisco,  has absorbed the anti-binary sentiments of various political gender benders. Please, do LEAVE ME OUT OF IT!! I hope to never be blamed for this silliness. I do believe in the binary. A loose and slightly bendy binary, but  — a binary.

All those reading who have no idea what I am talking about, you are not missing out on much. Believe me on this one!

Corporate America does trans healthcare insurance

So apparently, while some fight for the government to cover trans surgeries and healthcare, quietly, large corporations have been expanding their health insurance to cover that area. I can remember that one of the first was Goldman Sachs of all companies, a few years ago. Well, the trend continues with large corporations like Walt Disney and Coca Cola wanting to appear to be behind the human rights eight ball, as well as to compete for trans employees. While the left paints us primarily as victims, the truth is that often we are valued for our talent and expertise! I think this is fantastic. Here, from The Daily Caller:

With little fanfare, more and more large corporations, including Coca-Cola, Campbell Soup and Walt Disney, have expanded their insurance coverage to meet the needs of transgender workers. The trend follows a concerted push by transgender rights advocates to get employers and insurers to see sex reassignment the way the American Medical Association does — as a medically indicated rather than an optional procedure.

“We understand people simply get appendicitis, and it is something our community deals with through insurance,” said Andre Wilson, who counsels companies on transgender issues as a senior consultant with San Francisco-based Jamison Green & Associates. “That’s what we need to understand about transsexualism. Not everybody will be diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder, and in fact, few people will be. But the people who are diagnosed with it really need treatment.”

Among the corporations providing transgender-inclusive health benefits are some leading Wall Street and Main Street brands.

American Express, Kraft Foods, AT&T, Yahoo!, Eastman Kodak, Sears, Morgan Stanley, Price Waterhouse, General Motors and State Farm are among 85 large businesses and law firms that cover the cost of at least one surgery, according to a 2010 survey by the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights group.

From here:
Read more: More US companies covering transgender surgery

smoke a cigar for liberty

Save liberty — smoke a cigar!

Apparently, cigarettes or cigars are being rubbed out in the UK from photographs of Winston Churchill, The Beatles, and FDR. No cigarette holder set firmly, squarely between the teeth of an attentive looking FDR – no. That would influence someone to take up the deadly cancer sticks. Possibly, your children could be removed from your home for seeing you smoke, if they haven’t already been removed for being fat, at least in the UK.

The UK and all of Europe is ahead of us in this niggling yet fiery war against improper offensive speech and dangerous unhealthy imagery, but since so many people I know want the USA to be just like Europe, this may change soon. In fact, it is already changing. Speech codes proliferate on campus. Young people, at least “well-educated” ones tend to take for granted the idea that speech should be censored and expression pulled through a wire mesh of politicized ideology to sift it down to its least offensive, most palatable — pap.

Here, Dennis Prager, a conservative who actually understands the difference between transsexuals and transgender people, as shown here in an interesting column on the “T” in GLBT and why it is not always the same as “transsexual”, writes about the growing list of words and phrases considered too offensive or dangerous to write or say or apparently, think…

First, his column on transsexuals and transgendered people, which particularly impressed me. You don’t find many people out there who begin to understand the difference. While “transgender” has been used as an umbrella term, and I try not to niggle too much about language, the fact remains that transsexual people are actually quite different in many respects from many who would consider themselves “transgender”. Prager appears to understand this:
Here:
And few people, conservative or liberal, have any trouble accepting a transsexual, i.e., someone who has surgically changed his or her sex.

But what does any of this have to do with the transgendered, i.e., people who do not psychologically identify themselves with their biological sex, who act as if they were a member of the opposite sex, and who have not changed their biology? Why does the Left include the transgendered in its activism on behalf of gays?

Why activists connect men in dresses to same sex marriage

While we may not agree on his opinions in that column regarding same sex marriage, (I believe in it strictly from the perspective of liberty), Prager is absolutely right that the left believes that differences between the sexes are socially constructed and therefore actually part of a greater paradigm of power and powerlessness; everything, even biology, is seen through a mesh of oppression/oppressor. Transsexuals are actually not necessarily interested in destroying binary gender — as it’s called, but this is often conveniently ignored.

And, since the world is viewed by the left as a veritable booby trap of sensitivities and oppressions, language is examined first from the perspective of who it might offend or harm.

Here, in a more recent column, Prager notes the left’s growing attack on speech. And, remember, an attack on speech is ultimately, an attack on — thought.

Dennis Prager writes:

“Graphic torture and frontal nudity may be shown on screen, but smoking cigars or cigarettes may not. A Churchill museum in London has removed the cigars from wartime Churchill photographs, FDR has had his ubiquitous cigarette holder removed from his photographs, and the cigarettes have been removed from the Beatles’ hands in the famous photo of them crossing Abbey Road.

The list of forbidden words and behaviors due to Leftist activism is quite extensive.
The latest example is the left’s war on any words or imagery that come from the worlds of war or guns.

Already, “crusade” has been removed from Americans’ vocabulary — lest it offend Muslims. Overnight, the left effectively banned the use of a perfectly legitimate word that usually described an admirable preoccupation with doing good — “that newspaper is on an anti-corruption crusade.”

Now, the left has announced that words such as “target” and “cross hairs” are offensive — on the idiotic pretense that such imagery causes people to murder. If I were the CEO of Target stores, I would be concerned — will my company be sued because of its name and logo?”

From this article:
Put left-wing speech control in the cross hairs

And, yes, I know it is old news by now, but I was particularly impressed by Palin’s spirited defense of free speech in her post-Arizona shooting speech. I don’t think I have ever heard an American politician speak with such fervor and clarity about speech and why it is important that it remain free.

Caroline Glick had some interesting comments in this regard, even noting that Palin is a “revolutionary leader”, and that the Tea Party movement is also “revolutionary” in its fierce and unapologetic call for more liberty.

“In certain ways, Palin is a revolutionary leader and the Tea Party movement is a revolutionary movement. For nearly a hundred years, the Left in its various permutations has captured Western policy by controlling the elite discourse from New York and Los Angeles to London to Paris to Tel Aviv. By making it “politically incorrect,” to assert claims of Western, Judeo-Christian morality or advocate robust political, economic and military policies, the Left has made it socially and professionally costly for people to think freely and believe in their countries.

What distinguishes Palin from other conservative leaders in the US and makes her an important figure worldwide is her indifference to the views of the Left’s opinion makers. Her capacity to steer debate in the US in a way no other conservative politician can owes entirely to the fact that she does not seek to win over Leftist elites. She seeks to unseat them.

The same can be said of the Tea Party. The reason it frightens the Left, and the Republican leaders who owe their positions to their willingness to accept the Left’s basic agenda, is because it does not accept the Left’s policy agenda. “

From here:
The Aim of Blood Libels

I’m playing catchup here folks, but I did want to note these articles and ideas

Don’t those right wingers HATE transsexuals? And why it doesn’t matter when it comes to Free Speech

When it comes to light that I’ve made the switch, oh – not that one, but the apparently even more mind boggling and scandalous switch from left to somewhere on the right — my left leaning friends will always exclaim, “BUT THOSE PEOPLE HATE YOU!”

And, what they mean is, you’re a transsexual, those right wing people hate you! I remain calm and state that actually, I have not encountered that really, well, not as they imagine I have. However, I have to admit, after a sigh, that yes, I do see blog posts now and then that appear to indicate less than a — perfect understanding of transsexuality. OK, damn it, yes, even a couple of my favorite bloggers have expressed disgust and confusion, and condemnation, on a couple of occasions. Maybe, it is possible then that some of them do – hate me or hate what I am. However, I don’t know if I would take it that far, to “hate” — but certainly, a few are disapproving and have weird ass ideas about trans people.

Of course, since I’ve been transitioned for over 21 years, however one counts these things, I am possibly a bit less sensitive. I am a man first and foremost, although I got there in ways that most men do not. I am confident of my masculinity and manhood, even while remaining aware that I am different. And being different in and of itself is not so bad. After all, there are many things about me that are “different”. I am half American Indian, half Latino (Hispano) and even so – light skinned and with light eyes and even – when I leave it alone, light hair (before it grayed). I am a poet and punk and bohemian and I prize difference and individuality, even eccentricity. I mean, I’m not the run of the mill non-trans straight white male if there is such a thing. And, yes, I have nothing, against straight white males, I am often mistaken for one. And, I am — straight, or at least, heterosexual. So, I have grown a bit of a thicker skin over the years. Like most men, I’ve learned ya gotta roll with the punches and a “victim” attitude is not real manly. The majority of people don’t sympathize.

I am also aware that many kinds of people are confused by or are upset by me, not just the right. The left wants me to “queer gender” and just “queer” period. I can understand that my difference makes me “some kind of queer” but I also feel just like an average straight dude a lot of the time, and not queer gendered at all. And, for me, that works just fine. My life project is not to create a world without binary gender, and I actually have little interest in such a world. However, I certainly don’t mind if someone else feels “non-binary” or gender queer, but it could also be – that we are in two different worlds, even if in some ways, our worlds are related.

I have always been in awe of the ability of the human sexual imagination to create and generate possibility. So, I respect actually, the gender queers of the world. However, I also understand that all possibilities are limited by the actual world we inhabit of flesh and blood. For me, transsexuality is very much about flesh and blood.

I have radically altered, changed my biological sex, and for me, that transformation is the root of my understanding of transsexuality. Not so much an identity as a process, although the process does help to contextualize my identity as male. And, while it is an imperfect process and helps to create a complex identity, that male identity is also more coherent, than some give it credit for. Additionally, the process of sex change is again, simply a process and does not dictate politics. That process of sex change does not make one a Democrat or a Republican or a left winger or a right winger, it is not a cult or a political party. It is a sex change. (I’ve said this elsewhere, like in a book I wrote)

But that’s an aside… but it is by way of background to my perspective on this perplexing matter of allies and people who are, not necessarily allies. I can write more on this as the blog goes on, it is beyond a single entry.

What I mean to say mainly is this — it is true that sometimes, the people I otherwise agree with or even admire do not apparently understand or approve of transexual people. I was shocked today to see this post by Kathy Shaidle, someone I have featured here on Liberty Wolf. I was thrilled when Kathy noticed one of my first posts, one where I pulled a story about Johnny Rotten being an apparent Israel supporter from her blog. We both have at least a couple of things in common, we were punk rockers in a past life, and I can attest that the punk never really rubs off. And, we are both former leftists. But here she writes and quotes from a news story:

‘Human rights’ are crap, and transexuals are sick, lonely and confused
A renowned human rights lawyer allegedly pushed to his death under a Tube train was living a secret life as a transsexual escort.

David Burgess, 63, who was also known as Sonia, offered his services on a website, where he advertised himself as a ‘pre-op’ transsexual escort looking for paid encounters with men.

As you can see there is a link there to a wrenching story about a trans woman who was murdered by being pushed underneath a train in the UK. This is apparently being investigated as a murder and a suspect, a young woman, is already in custody. The article refers to the trans woman as “he” and I was unsure as to whether she was transitioned or cross living part-time and still living as male, but – it does appear that she had transitioned (although relatively recently) and also– apparently, she was a secret prostitute or escort. The paper was simply being disrespectful and sensationalistic. Of course, sex workers or escorts/prostitutes are often killed and their lives are seen as next to worthless. This is true regardless of whether they are trans women or non-trans women.

What struck me about this particular post was that it appeared to be so callous about the loss of a human being’s life, someone who was apparently murdered. I was shocked that her death was not noted as being brutal and wrong, nd that she was simply written off as “confused”. As though transsexuals deserve to die if we are confused or lonely. This woman, no matter what one may think of her life or identity, was just murdered in a horrible way. She has friends and family, and I am stunned to see her death written about like this.

Certainly, this is what my dismayed friends on the left have been warning me about all along: “those people hate you!” You can’t be on their side, they hate you and — even, would sneer over your dead body if someone killed you for being trans. Or even if someone just killed you. They hate you that much. (it has not been established that Sonja was murdered for being trans)

Now, I know Sonja, was a Human Rights attorney, and maybe this explains at least some of Shaidle’s vitriol. While it looks as though she did some work for cases involving North Korea, work that is likely to be a very good thing — the association with Human Rights are often grounds for suspicion given the Canadian Human Rights Commissions and their attack on speech. I can well understand Shaidle’s dislike of Human Rights attorneys and the machinery of Human Rights activism. I mean, she has been brought before the Canadian Human Rights Commission for hate speech, and now, her husband is also being sued for his anti-Section 13 activism and the contents of his blog Blazingcatfur. His crime? He linked to the website of Mark Steyn. The story here: :

Richard Warman Sues Blazingcatfur for Linking to Mark Steyn

_______________________________________________________________________________

Now, Shaidle did not get pulled in for speech against transsexuals, like the remarks above. What happened was more of a confusing amalgam of weirdness from one former HRC employee named Richard Warman who is using Section 13 for all its worth. He’s also sued Ezra Levant, a Canadian publisher, for publishing the Danish Mohammed cartoons. He lost that one, but it was a long three year circus. Here from Ezra Levant:

The Circus of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Free Speech

That post is from 2008, but it is a detailed rundown of the effect of Section 13 and how some, like Warman, intend to use it to shut down diversity of opinion in Canada. And, when I say diversity of opinion, I mean just that.

While I find Shaidle’s remarks about the horrible murder of this transsexual woman in the UK hateful and wrong, I also will defend her right to state her beliefs in her blog, or to write them in articles, or to put them in emails to friends. While I disagree and am personally mortified, I also recognize that she has a right to her speech, just as I have the right to disagree on this blog. The remedy is not censorship but more speech. Otherwise, I have no illusion that my right to speech, might be curtailed as well at some point in the future, and maybe, right now if I was a Canadian.

Thankfully, I am an American, and I have the protection of the First Amendment. But, we live in times when the term is “hate speech” is increasingly used to shut people up in spite of that. When people are bullied when they express opinions not in line with certain sensibilities, right or wrong. There is always that threat that speech could be curtailed and on campuses, it is – often unconstitutionally. There are organizations like FIRE that fight that fight and usually win.

Recently, here in the USA, in another recent blog post, Shaidle also clued me into another interesting battle around speech. Radio show hot Dan Fagen was pulled off the air after Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski threatened him with legal action for “illegal electioneering” when he satirized her write-in campaign for Senator. Sarah Palin, in a recent Facebook entry, is taking up his cause. According to Palin, this type of on air satire is not electioneering but an exercise of free speech. She could be right, but Fagen was pulled off the air because lawsuits are costly and he is not on a radio station with deep pockets. Sarah Palin writes of this on her Facebook page here: Lisa, are you going to shut down my Facebook page for writing this? . I quote:

“Yesterday, Lisa Murkowski’s hired guns threatened radio host Dan Fagan, and more importantly, the station that airs Fagan’s show, with legal action for allegedly illegal “electioneering.” The station, unlike Murkowski, who is flush with millions of dollars from vested corporate interests, does not have a budget for a legal defense. So it did what any small market station would do when threatened by Beltway lawyers charging $500 to $1000 an hour – they pulled Dan Fagan off the air.

Does all this sound heavy handed? It is. It is an interference with Dan Fagan’s constitutional right to free speech. It is also a shocking indictment against Lisa Murkowski. How low will she go to hold onto power? First, she gets the Division of Elections to change its write-in process – a process that Judge Pfiffner correctly determined had been in place without change for 50 years. She is accepting financial support from federal contractors, an act that is highly questionable and now pending before the FEC. And today, she played her last card. She made it clear that if you disagree with her and encourage others to exercise their civic rights, she’ll take you off the air.

The concept of “electioneering” involves several issues, but typically refers to campaigning at the polls, which is appropriately banned. Under federal law, it can also mean paying for advertising on broadcast media during a federal election cycle, and it requires disclosures if done by groups and corporations. Fagan used satire to mock Murkowski’s write-in efforts and encouraged Alaskans to run as write-in candidates. That is not illegal. That is free speech.

Individuals like Dan Fagan have a fundamental right to speak their minds without threats from the incumbent Senator from Alaska. It is hard to find a constitutional right Americans cherish more than the right to free speech.”

_______________________________________________________________________________

She continues to say that Fagan has often insulted her and her family in the past, he is no friend of Sarah Palin. His remarks have been hurtful and possibly quite unfair, here:

“Dan Fagan has not always agreed with me, but I will gladly defend his right to speak freely on his radio show, which he has often used to criticize me. In fact, Fagan has actually used his radio show to attack and insult me, my husband, my children, and my family in just about every way possible. He was especially insulting to my son, who left for a war zone to defend Fagan’s right to attack our family. But when I was his governor, I never would have dreamed of threatening his right to free speech. I support him in this fight because this D.C. Beltway thuggery, as exemplified by Lisa Murkowski’s latest threat, is ruining our country.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

I agree with Palin that free speech must be defended in this country even if the speaker is someone we violently disagree with, or find personally hateful. Even if they insult your family, or — your manhood or womanhood. Because without free speech, the gates are opened for all kinds of governmental abuses and eventually the dumbing down of debate. As a writer, I understand the stakes are high. As a trans person and a member of at least two more minorities, I know that censoring “hate speech” will only work against my interests and even the interests of my group in the long run. It is all about who has the power and who gets to say something is officially off-limits, and that tends to shift with the winds.

I wish Kathy Shaidle’s husband all the best in fighting this suit, and I urge anybody who wishes to support her and her husband Arnie in this cause to contribute here: Contribute here and read his thanks ahead of time from Blazing Cat Fur

Maybe someday Kathy and I can talk about trans people and the whole kettle of fish can be sorted out in a different way. Or, maybe not. Maybe if I’m pushed into the path of a moving BART train she will sneer that at the time of my demise my bedroom was found to be a den of chaos, I was not working and died dead broke with a small three legged dog as my only companion, and of course, it should come as no surprise then that I was — transsexual!

However, let it be known even so that I was not a fan of the Human Rights Commission in Canada, and I am, in fact, quite suspicious of them here or anywhere they pop up. And, I sincerely hope that Canada rids itself of Section 13 before I get my dual citizenship (as a Canadian Native from my mother’s side, I’m eligible) and some loony uber-left feminist calls me a misogynist, woman hating, notorious gender queer hating trans man and hauls me in front of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for “hate speech”. Yes, that happens. The vitriol runs not only one way, but from the left as well. Why do you think I started reading right wing blogs? Hah.

Or, maybe, upon obtaining my Canadian citizenship, I will be hauled before the HRC for — linking to Kathy Shaidle!

Stranger things have happened.