By the Way I was at that 1975 Stones Concert at the Forum
By the Way I was at that 1975 Stones Concert at the Forum
Have you ever noticed how transsexuals who use the term transsexual as a descriptor for themselves are the only group the Transgender Borg Stalinists abuse.
In the Transgender Borg Mothership one is free to be transgender, two-spirit, gender-queer etc. But one is not free to be anything that could be sexual.
Leaving aside the Ayn Rand sort of self-righteousness on the part of the Sisters of Transsexual Purity, it takes two sides to make a war.
The World of Transwarcraft, really doesn’t have all that many serious players and mostly seems to take place in Blogs, including their comments sections and occasionally over Social Media networks.
In reality most transsexual and transgender people aren’t all that involved.
Those that are get too much attention. They are sort of like the AFA and Focus on the Family. When they pontificate I find myself wanting to ask these self appointed experts, “Who the fuck died and made you god?”
From the start Tina and I proposed the same simple solution that gay men and lesbians arrived at in the late 1970s. We proposed the usage of transsexual and transgender. How fucking hard could that one be?
Right from the start, maybe as early as the 1980s, one of the arguments for using transgender was that the word sex was the root word for transsexual.
Those coming out of the heterosexual transvestite part of Gender World have always been scared shitless of anything implying any sort of sexuality being attached to their cross dressing. That includes running away from implications that they might want a man to stick his dick in them, or that they might experience any sort of thrill from clothing, even when that clothing is designed to arouse the woman wearing it as part of the heterosexual sexual dance.
Oh no… Everything has to be absolutely asexual.
Tina pointed out to me last night how Christine was important to people even 5 years older than me because she was the first. She wasn’t but she was the first we really heard about in the USA.
My big problem with Christine was her asexuality. I didn’t learn about how problematic her surgery was until later.
(By the way… Richard Docter, a friend of both Christine and Virginia Prince wrote biographies for both. Christine and Prince seem to have traveled in the same circles of shared writer/experts. Writer/experts or trannie chasers, using research as a cover? You make the call.)
Has anyone noticed how the Transgender Borg who insist on including transsexuals under their smothering umbrella aren’t so inclusive when it comes to drag queens, trans-porn actresses, and sex workers.
Why they hardly get mentioned, at all and two of the words that are common to their advertising, hence means of employment have become forbidden among polite company by both the TG Borg and the Sisters of Transsexual Purity.
I guess if you don’t talk about the sexual sex workers they go away, unless they are killed in which case they become martyrs to be used to push some law that would have had zero impact on their lives.
Transsexualism is about medically changing sex. It’s not about clothes and gender performance.
Why are the Transgender Borg so damned afraid of sex?
Is this the real reason they get so weird about the sexy queens and sex workers being included under that umbrella? Is fear of sex the reason they want transsexuals to deny their cultural heritage at the same time the Borg use them as some sort of ultimate transgender warrior?
This ant-sex thing gets ridiculous. Blather on about gender until every person who has ever had a trans-prefixed word used to label them nods out from boredom, but mention that some of us actually enjoy hot sweaty sex and everyone has a freaking fit.
I may be lesbian identified and married to a woman but my life history has been bisexual and I am proud to say free loving and promiscuous.
I enjoyed sex.
I loved the hell out of it when Jerry, the first real love of my life used to fuck me when I was pre-op. My girl friends described me as wiggling around purring after I got together with him.
There were many others over the years both male and female. I’ve loved freely and enjoyed the hell out of it.
I love the hell out of some of the sisters who make themselves into sex objects, if they do so with self awareness.
I didn’t get a sex change operation to be a subservient Christian right wing Republican suburban housewife.
I knew full well I was going to have fun being a wild child living in the alternative cultural circles where free love wasn’t stigmatizing.
People freaked out when Drew DeVeaux, Natalie Reed and Sable wrote about the “Cotton Ceiling”.
The subject quickly died even though pre, post or non transsexual and transgender people have experienced being rejected because of their genitals or the nature of their genitals.
Even post-transsexual women worry about having a lover freak out because our genital are “unnatural”. Yet talking about sex is so taboo that when the cotton ceiling was brought up the topic was quickly changed.
Here’s the deal: If thinking about sex or associating sex with surgery to change your sex makes you feel all icky, then you are free to use transgender. But leave those who are more comfortable with the word transsexual the right to use that word and talk about the process of physically changing sex their freedom to speak candidly about what physically changing sex means to them.
Being transsexual or being transgender isn’t some sort of competition. They are different words for describing different things.
These wars will go on and on as long as people insist their paradigm is the only correct and true paradigm.
I’m tired of people trying to pretend transsexualism doesn’t exist and that everyone is really transgender.
We have our rights too. Those rights include not having a bunch of people who are afraid of the word sex telling us we have to think the same way they do.
This bullshit has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with people on ego trips pushing their trip on to other people, the same way the right wing and Taliban Christians do.
I loved Vidal Sassoon’s approach to hair styling in the 1960s. I hated the whole big hair trip.
I wanted hair that was blow, brush and go.
When he opened a salon in San Francisco in the early 1970s it was actually affordable and I used to get my hair cut there. I also wore Mary Quant and Yardley makeup at that point and very short skirts.
Ah the joys of being young, hot and slightly slutty.
When I moved to LA I think his salon was in Westwood and I could still afford it then he moved to Beverly Hills and I couldn’t.
But he revolutionized women’s hair styling by getting rid of those fucking rollers and back combing.
And created some style that are iconic 1960s references.
From The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/fashion/2012/may/09/vidal-sassoon
Vidal Sassoon, who has died aged 84 after suffering from leukaemia, became the most famous hairdresser of the 1960s, creating styles that caught and then boosted women’s new feelings of personal freedom. In doing so, he changed the craft of hairstyling for ever.
Before Sassoon and his three-storey, glass-fronted Bond Street salon arrived, women were piling their hair up in beehives that were back-combed and lacquered into a consistency of candy floss: the fashionable stylist of the day was Raymond Bessone, “Mr Teasy-Weasy”. Sassoon transformed women’s hair with his geometric “wash-and-wear” cuts, so carefully shaped that a woman could shake her head and the style would fall back into place. And she needed a cut only once every six weeks, instead of the tortuous weekly visits that had been de rigueur until then.
Sassoon’s client list soon included most of the young models and film stars of the day – including Twiggy, Jean Shrimpton, Terence Stamp and Mia Farrow, notably for her look in Rosemary’s Baby (1968) – as well as most of London’s fashionistas.
Although hairdressing was the trade that took Sassoon from a tenement block in the city’s East End to a house in Beverly Hills and a considerable fortune, he was much more than a clever crimper. He was also a militant Zionist – though not a religious Jew – who at 17 joined the Jewish ex-servicemen of the 43 Group movement in street battles against Sir Oswald Mosley’s fascists in London. In 1948 he went to Israel, worked on a kibbutz and joined the army there, fighting in the new nation’s independence war.
Both experiences gave him a lifelong passion for human rights, and he later financed the Vidal Sassoon International Centre for the Study of Antisemitism at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
Continue reading at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/fashion/2012/may/09/vidal-sassoon
I have been totally sickened and disgusted with the actions of this vile man and his utter disregard for compassion and decency.
First his abuse of the family dog.
His callous disregard for the lives Bain Capital destroyed to enrich Mitt.
Now we learn he engaged in the vilest sort of thuggish bullying and expression of homophobia by joining a gang of thugs to attack a man because they thought he was gay.
Mitt Romney is too vile to be President
From Huffington Post:
By Benjamin Hart
An anonymous former high-school classmate of Mitt Romney’s told ABC News on Thursday that many fellow students have “really negative memories” of the Republican presidential candidate, and that his behavior during those years was “like ‘Lord of the Flies.'”
The interview came on the heels of a Washington Post report that detailed Romney’s behavior as a student at the Cranbrook School, a prestigious institution in Bloomfield Hills, Mich. In the article’s most explosive revelation, multiple classmates of Romney’s recall how he led a group of students that forcibly cut the hair of John Lauber, a student who was thought to be gay.
Romney countered the allegations quickly, making a surprise appearance on Fox host Brian Kilmeade’s radio show Thursday morning.
“They talk about the fact that I played a lot of pranks in high school,” he said. “And they describe some that you just say to yourself, back in high school I just did some dumb things, and if anybody was hurt by that or offended by it, obviously I apologize.”
“I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school, and some might have gone too far, and for that, I apologize,” he added.
From The New Yorker:
Posted by Amy Davidson
May 10, 2012
What is the defining image in the Washington Post’s story on Mitt Romney, as a student at the Cranbrook School, bullying a gay teen-age boy? Maybe it’s Romney, the eighteen-year-old son of a governor, spotting the student, John Lauber, with, as a classmate remembered, “bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye,” and saying, “He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” Or Romney, a few days later, “marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair.” Or the Post’s description of the attack itself:
They came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.
It is hard to forget that scene after reading it; how easy could it be after living it? For the five former students who spoke to the Post’s Jason Horowitz —four of them allowed their names to be used—it seems to have been impossible, becoming the sort of indelible, awful wrong that haunts both sides. “It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me,” Thomas Buford said. “What a senseless, stupid, idiotic thing to do.” “It was vicious,” said Philip Maxwell. “He was just easy pickins,” said Matthew Friedemann. He told the Post that he wondered if they’d get in trouble. They didn’t; nor did Romney when another student thought to be gay spoke in class and he called out, “Atta Girl!” Lauber, however, was kicked out of Cranbrook, a private all-boys boarding and day school, when someone saw him smoking a cigarette, alone.
A fourth boy who was there that day, David Seed, still had it on his mind when he stopped for a drink at a bar in O’Hare Airport thirty years later, and “noticed a familiar face”:
Continue reading at: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/05/mitt-romney-bully.html
By: Jason Easley
May 10, 2012
Romney was asked by Fox News host Neil Cavuto if the he thought the Obama campaign planted the bullying story, and he answered, “Well, I think you’re going to find, throughout this campaign season, that the president’s team will be doing everything in their power to try and hold up very shiny objects many of them will be with regards to me…”
According to Romney, this was all an evil Obama plot to distract the American people, but the facts don’t support his claims. While political folks and conspiracy theorists alike are speculating that Obama’s announced support for same sex marriage was choreographed, the reality is that Vice President Biden’s comments got the president to make his announcement a little ahead of schedule. CNN reported that Obama wasn’t supposed to make his support publicly known until his appearance next week on The View.
If this was a diabolical setup, the Obama campaign managed to set up an unscheduled network news interview, have the Washington Post get the entire story including background research and interviews with Romney associates in about 48 hours, and have the finished story appear the morning paper after the unscheduled interview ran.
This was no plot by Obama.
By SHARON OTTERMAN and RAY RIVERA
Published: May 9, 2012
The first shock came when Mordechai Jungreis learned that his mentally disabled teenage son was being molested in a Jewish ritual bathhouse in Brooklyn. The second came after Mr. Jungreis complained, and the man accused of the abuse was arrested.
Old friends started walking stonily past him and his family on the streets of Williamsburg. Their landlord kicked them out of their apartment. Anonymous messages filled their answering machine, cursing Mr. Jungreis for turning in a fellow Jew. And, he said, the mother of a child in a wheelchair confronted Mr. Jungreis’s mother-in-law, saying the same man had molested her son, and she “did not report this crime, so why did your son-in-law have to?”
By cooperating with the police, and speaking out about his son’s abuse, Mr. Jungreis, 38, found himself at the painful forefront of an issue roiling his insular Hasidic community. There have been glimmers of change as a small number of ultra-Orthodox Jews, taking on longstanding religious and cultural norms, have begun to report child sexual abuse accusations against members of their own communities. But those who come forward often encounter intense intimidation from their neighbors and from rabbinical authorities, aimed at pressuring them to drop their cases.
Abuse victims and their families have been expelled from religious schools and synagogues, shunned by fellow ultra-Orthodox Jews and targeted for harassment intended to destroy their businesses. Some victims’ families have been offered money, ostensibly to help pay for therapy for the victims, but also to stop pursuing charges, victims and victims’ advocates said.
“Try living for one day with all the pain I am living with,” Mr. Jungreis, spent and distraught, said recently outside his new apartment on Williamsburg’s outskirts. “Did anybody in the Hasidic community in these two years, in Borough Park, in Flatbush, ever come up and look my son in the eye and tell him a good word? Did anybody take the courage to show him mercy in the street?”
By Amanda Marcotte
May 9, 2012
Back in February, things started to look dire for the Romney campaign’s ability to attract female voters. Every day brought another story about Republican attacks on reproductive rights: attacks on insurance coverage for contraception, transvaginal probes, all-male panels called in Congress to discuss contraception, attacks on Planned Parenthood’s funding, and the candidate himself increasingly afraid to say a positive word about contraception when asked directly in the debates. A gender gap opened up between the candidates in the polls, with Obama outpacing Romney with womenby 19 points. The Romney campaign responded by trying to change the subject, to jobs and the economy. But if Romney wants to close the gender gap, he should rethink that strategy. After all, the polling data suggests that his stance on economic issues – specifically the size of the safety net and amount of economic support the government provides to citizens – is what’s really hurting him with female voters.
The real war between the sexes may not be over feminism or sex so much as whether or not our tax dollars should go to social spending. Research conducted by Pew in October 2011showed women support a strong, activist government in much larger numbers than men. On the question of whether the government should offer more services, women said yes by 9 more percentage points than men.
The gender gap on social spending remained when pollsters asked about specific interest groups. Women wanted more spending on the elderly than did men by 11 percentage points, more spending on children by 10 percentage points and more spending on the poor by 9 percentage points.Female voters respond much more strongly than male voters to government providing pragmatic solutions and real-world support for ordinary citizens, which helps explain why women flock to Obama and to the Democrats in general. In fact, with college-educated white voters, the gender differences are nothing short of astounding. In this group, female voters prefer Obama 60 to 40, and male voters prefer Romney 57 to 39.
As the lingering downturn puts economic issues front and center in the election, a ballooning gender gap was entirely predictable. Voters cite healthcare and economic issuesas their top concerns, and with all the discussion of the student loan crisis of late, that will likely become part of the larger concerns about jobs and the economy. Knowing this, Romney wants to keep talking about these issues.
President Obama announced his support of same-sex marriage in an interview with ABC.
By Sarah Seltzer
May 9, 2012
On Wednesday, less than 24 hours after North Carolina\’s passage of the discriminatory Amendment One which bans gay marriage and curbs civil unions, President Obama announced his support of same-sex marriage in an interview with ABC.
Earlier in the day, the rumors began to circulate that this kind of announcement was coming. But nothing was confirmed until the 3pm publication of the attention-grabbing, much-sought-after headline: “Obama: \’Same-Sex Marriage Should be Legal\’ followed by “President says his position on marriage has evolved.”
The president\’s actual words in the interview “…it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” He also credited his family for helping him move forward on the position.
Shortly thereafter, Rick Jacobs, President of the Courage Campaign, emailed supporters that “this day will go down in history as the beginning of the end of legalized discrimination against LGBT people in America.” It is the first time a sitting president has come out for marriage equality.
By William Rivers Pitt
Wednesday, 09 May 2012
top me if you’ve heard this one before.
A holy man stands before his flock and says, “Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male.”
And then the pastor says, “And when your daughter starts acting too butch, you rein her in. And you say, ‘Oh, no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play them to the glory of God. But sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl, and that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up.'”
But here’s the funny part: after that Pastor gets called out for his psychotic, virulent, hateful rhetoric, he says, “I was using hyperbole in an effort to communicate the importance of the gender distinctions that God created. In the context of the scripture, Mark, chapter 9, Jesus conjures up violent images as well, when he says, ‘If your hand is causing you to sin, cut it off.’ He’s not speaking literally. He’s speaking figuratively, using hyperbole to convey the importance of the offense.”
Beat your fag boys, your butch girls, beat them into line in the name of God…but if you get caught doing it (or espousing it), wave it off as ‘hyperbole,’ quote holy Scripture to defend yourself, and compare yourself to Jesus…and be sure to make it a non-apology apology by using phrases like “the importance of the offense,” i.e. it is the limp-wrist son and the butch daughter who are actually offensive, and not the exhortation – delivered in church, mind you – to beat them because of who they are.
From The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html
By James Hansen
Published: May 9, 2012
GLOBAL warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do.”
If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.
Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.
That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.
If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is why we need to reduce emissions dramatically. President Obama has the power not only to deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast refining, which Canada desires in part for export markets, but also to encourage economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty fuels in the ground.
Continue reading at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html
From Common Dreams: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/08-6
– Common Dreams staff
Published on Tuesday, May 8, 2012 by Common Dreams
Rising carbon dioxide CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will continue to grow and cause an increase of 2°C in global temperatures by 2052 and could rise as much as 2.8°C by 2080, according to a new reportsponsored by the international think tank Club of Rome. Such drastic temperature shifts are faster than other studies have predicted and would be high enough to trigger self-reinforcing climate change much sooner than previously thought. “Humankind might not survive on the planet if it continues on its path of over-consumption and short-termism,” the report suggests.
The main cause of global warming and climate change — and a panoply of future problems facing mankind — is the dominance of excessively short-term political and economic models, suggests the report’s author, Jorgen Randers.
“We already live in a manner that cannot be continued for generations without major change,” said Professor Randers, speaking in the Netherlands for the book’s launch on Monday. “Humanity has overshot the earth’s resources, and in some cases we will see local collapse before 2052 – we are emitting twice as much greenhouse gas every year as can be absorbed by the world’s forests and oceans.”
He continued: “We need a system of governance that takes a more long-term view. It is unlikely that governments will pass necessary regulation to force the markets to allocate more money into climate friendly solutions, and must not assume that markets will work for the benefit of humankind”.
Published in the run-up to the Rio Summit this June, the report, 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years, looks at issues first raised in The Limits to Growth, 40 years ago. This earlier report, authored by Donella Meadows (Randers was a co-author) and sponsored by the Club of Rome, created shock waves by questioning the ideal of permanent growth.
Continue reading at: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/08-6