Friday Night Fun and Culture: Potpourri of 60s and 70s Women Artists

The women I’m featuring tonight are rather obscure, they released albums that sold in the thousands and performed in coffee houses and clubs, not concert halls or arenas.

Since the Sixties I’ve sought out women who perform that sort of intimate music.

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Friday Night Fun and Culture: Potpourri of 60s and 70s Women Artists

What Actually Defines Someone as Being Transgender?

Earlier this week a Transgender Borg Troll left the mother ship and came here to visit, apparently under the assumption I would permit my blog to be inundated with TG Borg Troll abuse.

Of course I was accused of censorship when I refused to let this person use my blog as a platform to abuse me.

Here’s one thing to remember.  It ain’t censorship when anyone with a reasonable set of computer skills can go to Word Press or Blogspot and build their own blog for free or very little money over and above things like Domain Registration.  Mostly it is commitment to be informed and pass on information, even if that information is pointing your readers to material you recently found interesting.

The one thing this person said was “If you aren’t cis then you are trans.”

This needs, calls out for a bunch of unpacking.  Mainly because the entire premise of this argument lacks validity anyplace other than on the Borg Mother Ship.

I had never heard the word “cis” prior to coming on-line some 15 years ago.  When I came on line the Usenet was still the place to go and have interesting as well as often times nasty exchanges of ideas.

There was a transgender person on those groups, someone named Laura Blake Masters, a rather nasty piece of work.

Laura was the prototype for the nastiest of the Transgender Borg.  Absolutely hated transsexuals, thought we were all delusional transgender people who should have followed her example of getting up off the gurney and saying no to SRS.

The trans-wars have been going on since I first came out in 1969.  The main difference has been how many heterosexual transvestites have gotten involved as the Transgender Borg have gained power.

The ever increasing push to substitute gender for sex has paralleled the rise of the ultra right wing and religious fanaticism.  Perhaps because the two share the commonality of reducing woman to performative femininity.

Through out history the patriarchy have used very oppressive gender stereotyping to define who is really a woman.

Stereotyping is what gender is all about.

Historically gender has been coupled with sex: female=woman+femininity=”real woman” or male=man+masculinity=”real man”.

Eliminating sex from that equation by decoupling female from woman or male from man leaves us with a social construct determining who is a “real woman” or a “real man”.

Gender as a claimed identity or performed act is a social construct.

The Transgender Borg have substituted “cis-sexual” and “cis-gender” for the social construct of “real woman” or “real man”.  Embracing this dialectic is extremely reactionary, reactionary on the level of closely resembling the sort of abuse of the concept of gender used by the insane Religious Right.

When I speak out against this I get called a Second Wave Radical Feminist, as though that is a bad thing.  I get called a lot of other things too, like a left wing hippie radical, again, as though that is a bad thing to be.

In case people have forgotten the 1960s and 1970s were really very progressive times, more progressive than anything we have seen since.


  1. The Black Civil rights Movement
  2. The pill and with reliable contraception sexual liberation.
  3. The ending of censorship
  4. The peace movement
  5. The Chicano/Latino Civil Rights Movement
  6. The Native American Civil Rights Movement
  7. The Black Panther Party
  8. SDS and the Student Movements
  9. “The Feminine Mystique” and the Feminist Movement
  10. “The Silent Spring” and rise of the Ecology Movement
  11. The spread of the availability of sex reassignment surgery
  12. Stonewall and the rise of Gay/Lesbian Liberation Movements
  13. Personal freedom to be androgynous and not governed by stereotypes of “real man” “real woman” which translated into it being okay to be a strong woman or sensitive man.

Since 1980 the right wing has openly waged war on all those things and more.

They absolutely hated how the Sixties and Seventies made it okay to be a strong woman or sensitive man.  They hated long hair on men and women who didn’t wear bras, high heels and make-up.

They waged a major anti-feminist propaganda war.  Indeed the Transgender Borg often regurgitate right wing talking points regarding Second Wave Feminism, reminding me how so many of them came out of the Prince founded Transvestite Movement (which BTW also surfaced in the 1960s).  Misogyny and hatred of transsexuals who actually get SRS being a hallmark of the Prince founded movement.

The right wing reimposed and the media reinforced the concepts of “real man” and “real woman”.  Their definition of a real man is pretty macho asshole and their real woman is pretty much limited to girly girl either fuck toilet porn star or good girl baby dropper.

The funny thing is how much in tune this is with the Transgender Borg’s construct of  “cis-sexual/cis-gender” because if you aren’t 100% “real man” or 100% “real woman” then the Transgender Borg have decided they have the right to claim you as transgender.

If you disagree with this, they call you names.  The nicest one of which is “Separatist” and it goes down hill from there.

These folks are touchier than the Christo-Fascists and have absolutely no sense of humor.  They most remind me of the Stalinists that made up The Progressive Labor Party in the 1960s in their exacting level of political correctness and brow beating of dissenters.

But then what can one expect from a group with a high ranked former Scientologist as one of their leading theorists?

The other very reactionary aspect of the Transgender Borg is their adherence to the one drop rule, which means post-transsexuals are never permitted to move beyond where they were as recent post-ops, even when the intervening years have made the period of transition into an ancient memory.

Even more disturbing is a new tendency to claim women who don’t adhere to the feminine mystique stereotype, or feminine men.  I say disturbing because the transgender idea of man and woman is the opposite of liberating as it is dependent upon there being rigid gender roles.

What happens when a “man in a dress” isn’t seen as transgressive but just as a man who prefers skirts over pants.  Sort of the way women aren’t seen as transgressing gender just because they prefer pants over skirts?

In a society with looser expectations of what constitutes a man and what constitutes a woman we pretty much fall back to male or female because the social construct of gender isn’t treated as the most important feature determining who is really a man or who is really a woman.

Even in a freer society transsexuals would still have sex changing operations but if performative gender is less important the idea of transgender some what withers on the vine.

As it stands today the sexism of the right wing and the religious fanatics reinforce the idea of rigid gender roles defining who is a man and who is a woman.  It seems like half the people the Transgender Borg are claiming would have been thought of as transsexual or even transvestite in the 1970s before the constructing of the imperialistic Transgender Borg ideology.

Sometimes I wonder just who constitutes this imperialistic category  “transgender”.  There seems to be this public face they want to represent them comprised of post-op transsexual professionals, or full time folks I might actually consider transgender, yet when people question just who is going to get allowed into  women’s restrooms and locker room suddenly any requirements of proof of the person actually being transgender goes out the window.

Then the Transgender Borg start with the name calling, just like they do when transsexuals point out the differences between people who get sex reassignment surgery and those who do not.

Indeed the Transgender Borg are great at throwing their ideology around sort of the way any ideologue throws around  talking points.  They are great at regurgitating the talking point but really fall down on explaining exactly what they mean with those buzz words.

Gay Dallas Judge won’t conduct marriages because they “can’t be performed for me”

It is rather obscene to expect gay and lesbian people to perform services for straights that they are legally barred from having performed for them.

From The Dallas Voice:

22 Feb 2012

Out lesbian Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker touted her refusal to conduct marriage ceremonies in her courtroom on Tuesday night.

“I have the power, of course, to perform marriage ceremonies,” Parker said. “I don’t.”

The mention of her decision to not perform marriage ceremonies came while the 116th Civil District Court judge addressed the audience at the monthly meeting of Stonewall Democrats of Dallas, of which Parker is a member. While Parker highlighted her progress in her first year as judge in what had been “the worst district court at the courthouse” with more old pending cases than the other 12 district courts, she also spoke about the importance of having an LGBT person on the bench.

Parker is the first LGBT person elected judge in Dallas County and is believed to be the first openly LGBT African-American elected official in the state’s history. As such, Parker said she takes into account the importance of her position to make members of the LGBT community feel comfortable and equal in her courtroom by “going out of my way to do things that other people might not do because they are not who I am.”

Using the example of turning young couples away who want the court to marry them quickly because they are often pregnant and desperate, Parker said she refers them to other judges because of the state’s marriage inequality, informing them that that is why she will not marry them.

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Gay Dallas Judge won’t conduct marriages because they “can’t be performed for me”

Contraception — It’s 2012 and Men Still Decide?

From Huffington Post:


The House panel on women’s health issues that had not one woman on it got a lot of well-deserved attention in conversations and in media the past few days. The main reason why this so universally resonated was because it defied logic. Even if, for some reason, it seems okay to you that only men should discuss women’s health and reproductive issues, did no one have enough sense to say “Well, personally, I think this is perfectly logical, but maybe it won’t look so great.”. Obviously not.

But this whole topic and the ensuing conversations sparked a lot of “where’s the logic?” questions for me.

In this day and age, why would it be okay to have ANY panel on ANY topic that included only men? Note that I am not saying that a panel on women’s issues should have only women on it. There are probably men who could provide knowledge and insight on that topic, as on any topic. But why would there be a panel of only men — on women’s issues or religious issues or any issue? Where is the logic in that?

Women outnumber men in the U.S. Women college graduates outnumber male college graduates. More women than men voted in 2008. Where we don’t outnumber men is in the Congress, in C-level jobs and on Fortune 500 boards.

And as for contraception, while I support a woman’s right to choose, I don’t view (nor should we view) contraception as JUST a woman’s issue. Yes, women are the ones who have to bear the physical burden of pregnancy — and, all too often, the financial and emotional burden of pregnancy and raising the child, if the father does not step up and share those responsibilities. But wouldn’t fathers want their teenage sons to use contraception? Wouldn’t fathers want their daughters to use contraception?

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Contraception — It’s 2012 and Men Still Decide?

Stop Harper before he turns Canada into a Harperland

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Stop Harper before he turns Canada into a Harperland

Get Your Kitchen Out of My Parking Space!

From Slate:

City governments across the country are threatening to kill the food truck revolution with dumb regulations.

Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012

Gourmet food trucks are a business uniquely suited to our times. A global financial crisis has made credit tight for the past several years but left the skills and ingenuity of American workers intact. An obvious response to this: business plans that can be executed with a minimum of up-front capital—a van, not the whole restaurant.

But selling food out of carts has always presented a problem. In principle, mobility ought to be a business advantage, but it’s hard to sell food unless people know where you’re going to be. Twitter, which lets you follow your favorite trucks so they can inform you when they’ll be in your neighborhood, is the ideal solution. So it’s not surprising that upscale trucks have been booming recently, earning plaudits and even their own Food Network show.

The result is a win for entrepreneurs, but a headache for incumbent restaurateurs. There are only so many meals in the day, so proprietors of fixed-location food service establishments worry that every lobster roll that’s handed over from a truck is $18 lost from their own kitchen. In an ideal world, this would trigger a frenzy of competition, as restaurants with walls and chairs scramble to prove that they’re offering a premium service in exchange for their higher fixed costs. In reality, it has sparked a frenzy of lobbying.

In California, for example, Assemblyman Bill Monning has introduced a bill that would ban food trucks from operating within 1,500 feet of a school—roughly a three-block radius.

Ostensibly Monning’s policy goal is to dissuade kids from eating at food trucks rather than at their school cafeteria. Curiously, however, his rule applies exclusively to trucks and not to, say, Burger King. What threat pizza poses to children when served from a truck rather than from behind a counter is difficult for me to say. By contrast, the peril to existing restaurants from a sudden proliferation of nimble, low-cost trucks is clear. San Francisco Supervisor Scott Weiner told the San Francisco Weekly that, as written, the rule would ban trucks from the majority of the city. It would be nice to write this off as perhaps just another instance of America’s spasmodic overprotection of children, but it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that the people really being protected here are the restaurant owners. After all, elementary schools generally don’t even let kids leave the school building for lunch at all. Banning trucks from operating nearby looks a lot like a pretext to shut them down.

Continue reading at:


Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Get Your Kitchen Out of My Parking Space!

Why Teaching People to Think for Themselves Is Repugnant to Religious Zealots and Rick Santorum

From Truth Out:

by: Henry A. Giroux
Wednesday 22 February 2012

Right-wing fundamentalists such as Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum hate public schools, which he suggests are government schools wedded to doing the work of Satan, dressed up in the garb of the Enlightenment. Santorum, true to his love affair with the very secular ideology of privatization, prefers home schooling, which is code for people taking responsibility for whatever social issues or problems they may face, whether it be finding the best education for their children or securing decent health care. Actually, Santorum and many of his allies dislike any public institution that enables people to think critically and act with a degree of responsibility toward the public. This is one reason why they hate any notion of public education, which harbors the promise, if not the threat, of actually educating students to be thoughtful, self-reflective and capable of questioning so-called common sense and holding power accountable. Of course, some progressives see this as simply another example of how the right wing of the Republican Party seems to think that being stupid is in. But there is more going on here than the issue of whether right-wing fundamentalists are intellectually and politically challenged. What makes critical education, especially, so dangerous to radical Christian evangelicals, neoconservatives and right-wing nationalists in the United States today is that, central to its very definition, is the task of educating students to become critical agents who can actively question and negotiate the relationships between individual troubles and public issues. In other words, students who can lead rather than follow, embrace reasoned arguments over opinions and reject common sense as the engine of truth. What Santorum and his allies realize is that democracy cannot function without an informed citizenry and that, in the absence of such a citizenry, we have a public disinvested from either thinking reflectively or acting responsibly. There is nothing more feared by this group of fundamentalists than individuals who can actually think critically and reflectively and are willing to invest in reason and freedom rather than a crude moralism and a reductionistic appeal to faith as the ultimate basis of agency and politics. What Santorum and his appeal to theocracy longs for is a crowd of followers willing to lose themselves in causes and movements that trade in clichés and common sense. This is the Tea Party crowd with their overt racism, dislike for critical thought and longing for outlets through which they can vent their anger, moral panics and hatred for those who reject their rigid Manichean view of the world. This is a crowd that embraces the likes of Santorum and other fundamentalists because they provide the outlets in which such groups can fulfill their desire to be amused by what might be called the spectacle of anti-politics.

Continue reading at: