Julia Serano has been Targeted for attacks by the RadFem SCUM

First of all embracing SCUM and Valerie Solanis kind of marks people off as nut jobs.

Prior to going on to becoming famous for shooting one of the 20th century’s most important gay male artists (nearly murdering him) Solanis wrote a screed titled The Scum Manifesto.

The RadFem hagiography would have people believe Valerie Solanis was a misunderstood genius with impeccable feminist credentials and not a zoned out homicidal maniac from Alphabet City.

I know there was a movie that tried to paint her as someone cruelty abused by Andy Warhol and the people of the “Factory”.

Reality: She was an abusive stalker.

While SCUM Manifesto has a few viciously funny observations in it it is mostly the blathering of a mentally disturbed person.

After Valerie Solanis was released from prison she wound up dying of exposure while sleeping on a roof top because none of the feminists who lauded her wanted to actually be within pistol range of her.

Oddly enough Solanis wasn’t all that anti-transsexual/transgender or I should say the movie, I shot Andy Warhol, portrays her as being not all that anti TS/TG as it shows her being a friend of the late Candy Darling.

Well, fast forward and the radfem bigots have blogs that invoke Valerie Solanis’s screed.

Like Valerie they are both truth and sanity challenged.

But this blog and others among the radfem and their dubiously claimed intersex male ally Nicky (Komododragon) have embraced Valerie as some sort of icon; they are using this blog and others to attack Julia Serano.

Well not just Julia Serano, but JOS  at Feministing too, as well as a whole range of  highly reputable TS/TG bloggers who have had the audacity to say that the misogyny faced by TS/TG women and transkids is the same misogyny faced by assigned female at birth women and girls.

Unless one is incredibly privileged access to abortion and birth control are not the only issues faced by women today.

This is obvious enough to women who aren’t partners in law offices that defend some of the scummiest corporations in America.

Otherwise the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act wouldn’t be such a big deal.

If women weren’t being fucked over by those Wall Street Banks and Firms defended by the law offices of the above mentioned radfem, then women wouldn’t be out there as part of Occupy.

One has to wonder why the radfems, who sound identical to the Christo-Fascists and radical right, cropped up now to disrupt feminism which is engaged in fighting against the right wing/Christo-Fascist War on Women.  Especially since many TS/TG women are also feminists.  Some, like this Blog regularly keep people abreast of the right wing attacks on reproductive rights.

Julia Serano wrote a serious book that showed the intersectionality of transphobia and misogyny.  A lot of us read it and said, “Fuck Yeah!”

Everyone knows that according to radfems TS/TG women are nothing but mindless fembots controlling the fashion and cosmetic industry forcing women into a subservient position all .001% of us, sort of the same way the Jews supposedly control the world and are responsible for all the evils of the world.

Somehow Julia found time from her busy schedule of perpetuating the patriarchy to write this book that caused a lot of TS/TG sisters to come to the conclusion that transphobia was misogyny directed at a tiny minority group of people who are women in spite of not being assigned female at birth.

Of course the radfems whipped out the disingenuous charge that TS/TG women were some how raping women by taking hormones and having operations that allowed us to feel at home within our very own skins.

Never mind how feminism has chided those who use rape as a metaphor for actions other than actual rape.

Or that TS/TG people can and are often the victims of rape, assault and murder.

Radfem transphobic bigotry is identical to right wing racism and antisemitism, a whipping up of hatred and bigotry using exaggerated claims and  collective guilt.  The same sort of bigotry one finds behind Jim Crow and Apartheid laws.  The same sort of hatred and bigotry one found behind the Nürnberger Gesetze:

The Nuremberg Laws (German: Nürnberger Gesetze) of 1935 were antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany introduced at the annual Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi Party. After the takeover of power in 1933 by Hitler, Nazism became an official ideology incorporating antisemitism as a form of scientific racism. There was a rapid growth in German legislation directed at Jews and other groups, such as the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service which banned “non-Aryans” and political opponents of the Nazis, from the civil-service.

The lack of a clear legal method of defining who was Jewish had, however, allowed some Jews to escape some forms of discrimination aimed at them. The enactment of laws identifying who was Jewish made it easier for the Nazis to enforce legislation restricting the basic rights of German Jews.

The Nuremberg Laws classified people with four German grandparents as “German or kindred blood”, while people were classified as Jews if they descended from three or four Jewish grandparents. A person with one or two Jewish grandparents was a Mischling, a crossbreed, of “mixed blood”.[1] These laws deprived Jews of German citizenship and prohibited marriage between Jews and other Germans.[2]

The Nuremberg Laws also included a ban on sexual intercourse between people defined as “Jews” and non-Jewish Germans and prevented “Jews” from participating in German civic life. These laws were both an attempt to return the Jews of 20th-century Germany to the position that Jews had held before their emancipation in the 19th century; although in the 19th century Jews could have evaded restrictions by converting, this was no longer possible.

The laws were a legal embodiment of an already existing Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses.

Yes I am comparing the thinking of the radfems to Nazi antisemitism.

Not only are they attacking TS/TG women but any AFAB women who support us including those feminist bloggers.

Ironically I have reason to believe that several of the “radfems” are in fact self hating post-op transsexuals who also hold AFAB women in contempt.

Obama for America TV Ad: “Troubled”

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Obama for America TV Ad: “Troubled”

RatFems on Pussy Patrol at RatFest 2012!

By Jody Ann Malsbury:  http://jodyannmalsbury.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/ratfems-on-pussy-patrol-at-ratfest2012/

By Jody Ann Malsbury
July 6, 2012

Reposted with permission

rat  (răt)
n.

1.

a.  Any of various long-tailed rodents resembling mice but larger, especially one of the genus Rattus.
b.  Any of various animals similar to one of these long-tailed rodents.

2.   Slang

a.   A despicable person, especially one who betrays or informs upon associates.
b.   A scab laborer.

3.   A pad of material, typically hair, worn as part of a woman’s coiffure to puff out her own hair.

 

Note:  I posted part of this as a comment on Suzan’s blog Women Born Transsexual back in May.

Dear Ratfesters,

I am a cisgender woman.  I don’t give a rat’s ass whether YOU like the word “cisgender” or not—it’s how I identify MYSELF, and I don’t accept other people’s labels.   But how will you know… for sure…  that I am a cisgender woman  if I show up one if your Ratfests?

Does the RatFest Pussy Patrol plan to inspect my body to make sure I have the “right” genitals.  Or perhaps do DNA testing to make sure I have 2 X chromosomes?  Or maybe look  for scars to make sure I’ve not had GRS? Still, how will you know… FOR SURE?

What if I have Klinefelter’s Syndrome (47, XXY, or XXY syndrome) in which a person is typically considered “male” but who may have 2, 3 or even 4 X chromosomes (and at least 1 but up to 5 Y chromosomes) and whose secondary sex characteristics can be ambiguous?  How about de la Chapelle syndrome (also called XX male syndrome), in which I may have male genitalia but an XX karyotype?  With either of those disorders I’d have 2 X chromosomes.  Wouldn’t having 2 X chromosomes make me a woman?  Maybe I have Swyer syndrome (XY gonadal dysgenesis)—with what appears to be a female body but without breast development (because I have no ovaries, although I do have a uterus), with an XY karyotype.   Having a uterus… wouldn’t that make me a woman?  Alternatively, I could have androgen insensitivity syndrome, in which I may also have the appearance of a woman but the XY karyotype of a male.  If I look like a woman, wouldn’t THAT make me a woman? If you only count X chromosomes you’d be in trouble if I have Turner Syndrome, in which a female has only 1 chromosome (an X).  Tell me, would I be a man because I only have 1 X chromosome or a woman because I have no Y chromosome?  If I am a woman would you be defining me by what I look like or by the lack of a Y chromosome?   Wait!  Lack of a Y chromosome… wouldn’t that be defining a woman based on something she lacks?!!!  I could really add to your trouble if I have Turner mosaicism, in which the other X chromosome is missing in some cells but not in others!  I suppose you’d become even more confused if I had Triple X (Trisomy X), Quadruple X (Tetrasomy X, 48 or XXXX), or XXXXX Syndrome (Pentasomy X, 49 or XXXXXX) in which I would have 3, 4 or 5 X chromosomes, respectively.  Ho,  hum.

Intersex conditions can also result from 5-alpha-reductase deficiency (a genetic mutation affecting hormones necessary for the development of male genitalia, XY karyotype only, may also present with female genitalia) or  aphallia (congenital malformation in which the penis or clitoris is absent; XX or XY karyotype); Addison’s Disease (a rare, chronic endocrine disorder in which the adrenal glands do not produce sufficient steroid hormones, resulting in enlarged clitoris and shallow vagina or ambiguous genitalia in girls);  Fraser Syndrome (an autosomal recessive congenital disorder that results in a micropenis in a boy or an abnormally enlarged clitoris in a girl);  acquired clitoromegaly (abnormal enlargement of the clitoris, which, in an adult woman,  is generally due to endocrine hormonal imbalance such as that seen in polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS);  progestin-induced virilisation (fetal masculinization of female external genitalia due to pre-natal exposure to androgenic steroids); 17-beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase deficiency (a rare genetic disorder that affects testosterone biosynthesis and produces  impaired virilization of genetically male infants and children and excessive virilization of female adults, which can result in ambiguous external genitalia or complete female external genitalia at birth, regardless of karyotype); congenital adrenal hyperplasia (any of several genetic disorders that result in the excessive or deficient production of sex steroids, which can cause ambiguous external genitalia and/or alter the development of primary or secondary sex characteristics); penile agenesis (a birth defect in which a boy is born without a penis, often as a consequence of testicular agenesis); or tetragametic chimerism (the fertilization of a male and a female nonidentical twin ovum in a very early phase of development results in a mixture of tissues; chromosomal karyotypes will be male in some parts of the body and female in others; most chimeras composed of both male and female cells probably do not have an intersex condition, as often most or all of the cells of a single cell type will be composed of a single cell line, i.e. the blood may be composed prominently of one cell line, and the internal organs of the other cell line, so if the sex organs are homogeneous, the individual will not be expected to exhibit any intersex traits; may present with ambiguous genitalia, or both male and female genitalia in rare form of intersexuality formerly known as “true hermaphroditism“).

Would female genitalia make me a woman?  How about the lack of a penis?  Lack of testicles?  Lack of facial and body hair?  The presence of ovaries?   Breasts?  And how would you define me if my genitals are ambiguous or if I have both male and female genitalia—if I’m intersex?  Is it determined by how I was raised?  Is that fair—that some male doctor may have made a bad judgement call and labeled me a “boy” and my parents, not knowing any better raised me as a boy “because the doctor said so” but I’ve always known that I was a girl?

So… will the Ratfest Pussy Patrol require me to strip off all my clothes, or what?  Or  does the Ratfest Pussy Patrol plan to check my chromosomes?  You Ratfesters may have to check various parts of my body.  You might need to examine my body VERY closely.  And how are you going to know… FOR SURE?   Maybe my clit is really a dick.  Or maybe my clit is enlarged to the point where it is mistaken for a dick.  I could be a trans woman who just wants to expose myself to you or I could be a cisgender lesbian with the hottest body you’ve ever seen!  If you took that last sentence seriously, you really are a transphobic bitch.

You RatFems make me prefer to deal with ignorant, homophobic, christian fundamentalist bigots—at least they’re not hypocritical liars and are consistent with their ignorance and hate.  Who died and left you in charge of the dictionary and the right to define what a “woman” is and is not?  Who gave you the right to make arbitrary decisions to exclude people you don’t like, based on stigma, blatantly false information and flat out hate and ignorance?  Who gave you the right to lie about being inclusive of trans women when there are digital records of you stating otherwise?

There is no doubt that men have historically marginalized women. But women are also oppressed due to gender identity, race, religion, social class, perceived attractiveness, sexual orientation, and ability. No one is equal until all are equal, including trans women.  You RatFems call yourself feminists?  Ha!  My father—who hurls the words “liberal” and “feminist” at me as though they are bad things, lol, but with the vitriol usually reserved when people use slurs—is more of a feminist than you are because he believes in equal rights for all human beings.

Trans women are WOMEN.  If you RatFems pulled your heads out of your asses, took some time to educate yourselves on the subject, opened your minds and got to KNOW some transgender women, you’d know that.

There is a special place in hell for women who oppress and marginalize other women.  Have a WONDERFUL day.

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on RatFems on Pussy Patrol at RatFest 2012!

Who—Or WHAT—Are the RatFems?

From Jody Ann Malsbury:  http://jodyannmalsbury.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/who-or-what-are-the-ratfems/

By Jody Ann Malsbury
July 6, 2012

Reposted with permission

rat  (răt)
n.

1.

a. Any of various long-tailed rodents resembling mice but larger, especially one of the genus Rattus.
b. Any of various animals similar to one of these long-tailed rodents.
2.   Slang
a. A despicable person, especially one who betrays or informs upon associates.
b. A scab laborer.
3.   A pad of material, typically hair, worn as part of a woman’s coiffure to puff out her own hair.  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rat

Who are the RatFems?  They call themselves “Radical Feminists.” On one of their blogs, the RatFems state, “We are female-identified, women-born women and are collectively anti-pornography, anti-prostitution, trans-critical, and PIV-critical.”  For anyone who doesn’t know, “PIV” stands for “penis in vagina.” Yes,  for real!  I am 100% serious!)   (http://radicalhub.com/about/)

My immediate reaction to this is to call bullshit because I think the RatFems are a bunch of self-serving, man-hating, bigoted wannabes who are so resentful of other people’s power that they take it out on other oppressed groups by trying to rob them of power (which, by the way, is a classic example of zero-sum thinking—the way men tend to conceptualize power, while women’s conceptualization of power tends to be non-zero-sum) but I am going to approach this in an organized, logical, non-emotional, rational manner (and I promise not to accuse anyone of assaulting me! ;) )

Feminism, by definition, is:

…a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.  In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.   A feminist is “an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women.”  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism)

Feminists are concerned about equal rights for women.  The RatFems do not support equal rights for trans women, therefore, by definition, the RatFems are not feminists.

Radical feminism, by definition, is

…a current perspective within feminism that focuses on the theory of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy oppresses women. Radical feminism aims to challenge and overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and oppression of women and calls for a radical reordering of society.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism)

Blah, blah, blah.  Okay.  Radical feminists focus on the overall dynamic of patriarchy and challenging gender roles.  The RatFems may or may not be “radical” but the  RatFems are still not feminists.

Separatist feminism, by definition, is “a form of radical feminism that holds that opposition to patriarchy is best done through focusing exclusively on women and girls.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist_feminism)  RatFest and the RatFems’ statement in their blog (quoted above)  about who they are should be clear indications of exclusive focus on women and girls. So it would appear that the RatFems may be “radical” and that they are “separatists”… but the RatFems are not “feminists!”

Lesbian separatism, by definition, is a form of separatist feminism specific to lesbians and:

…is posited as a key feminist strategy that enables women to invest their energies in other women, creating new space and dialogue about women’s relationships, and typically, limits their dealings with men….  In addition to advocating withdrawal from working, personal or casual relationships with men, The Furies recommended that Lesbian Separatists relate “only (with) women who cut their ties to male privilege” and suggest that “as long as women still benefit from heterosexuality, receive its privileges and security, they will at some point have to betray their sisters, especially Lesbian sisters who do not receive those benefits.”  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_separatism#Lesbian_separatism)

In  Learning from Lesbian Separatism, Bunch maintains that “in a male-supremacist society, heterosexuality is a political institution” and separatism is a way to “escape its domination.”   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_separatism#Lesbian_separatism    The RatFems cite “Sheila Jeffreys’s [sic] entire life’s work of pro-female, pro-lesbian, PIV-critical radical feminist analysis” on their blog (http://radicalhub.com/2012/06/26/carrying-a-sheila-jeffreys-sign-at-dyke-march-is-inappropriate-what/) and they had invited Jeffreys to speak at this year’s RatFest (although that didn’t work out) so the RatFems clearly see Jeffreys as a role model of sorts.  In a pamphlet that Jeffreys helped write, it is stated, “We do think… that all feminists can and should be lesbians. Our definition of a political lesbian is a woman-identified woman who does not fuck men. It does not mean compulsory sexual activity with women.”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Jeffreys

“Female-identified” seems to be code for “lesbian;”  the RatFems appear to be “radical,” they are apparently “lesbian”and they are “separatists”)… BUT the RatFems are still not “feminists!”

Historically, radical feminists opposed pornography and prostitution,  so that is consistent with how the RatFems describe themselves.  However, Ellen Willis cautioned against making alliances with the political right on these issues, which is quite ironic because the RatFems—with their vitriolic hatred and misogynistic stereotyping of trans women—look and sound just like the rabid right-winger KKKristian fundamentalist bigots we all love to hate.

Misogyny, by definition is:

…the hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women or girls.  According to feminist theory, misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women….    Traditional feminist theorists describe many different attitudes as misogyny.  According to feminists, in its most overt expression, a misogynist will openly hate all women simply because they are female….   In feminist theory other forms of misogyny may be less overt.   Some misogynists may simply be prejudiced against all women, or may hate women who do not fall into one or more acceptable categories.   “Though most common in men, misogyny also exists in and is practiced by women against other women or even themselves….” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny)

Wow.  Discrimination against trans women is misogyny.  (Who woulda thought?)   And, since the RatFems make no secret about their discrimination against trans women, the Ratfems practically brag about being misogynists. The RatFems do a great disservice to everyone.  They exemplify the stereotype that all feminists are lesbians and all lesbians are man-hating bull-dykes who want to be (or think they are) MEN.  If the RatFems discriminate against trans women (who one could say have a disability, i.e., they were born with a medical birth defect that resulted in them being raised the wrong gender and it requires medical treatment), who else are they oppressing and discriminating against?  In addition to gender identity, (and apparently sexual orientation)—categories the RatFems don’t seem concerned with—other radical feminists recognize other categories of oppression  including:   race, social class, perceived attractiveness,  and ability, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism) and in light of more recent events, I would also be concerned about oppression based on ethnicity, color, religion, culture and national origin as well, to name a few.  Do the RatFems care about any categories besides the ones their privileged few belong to?  Do they recognize and acknowledge their own privilege (white, Judeo-Christian, American, cisgender, for example) in our society?   Somehow, I doubt it.

The RatFems are radical, lesbian separatists who believe in equal rights for women who are like them and if someone is not like them, that person’s very existence is a threat because it brings into question the validity of how the RatFems are living their own lives.   If you’re not a lesbian and/or you “do dick,” you’re out.  If your definition of pornography doesn’t match theirs and you aren’t against it and all forms of prostitution, you’re out.  If you don’t clearly identify yourself as a woman 100% of the time (using a binary gender system) or you were not born and raised as a female child OR you recognize trans women as human beings and women who were born with a medical condition that has been or is being corrected medically, you are out.  If you don’t agree 100% with THEIR agenda, YOU ARE OUT.  Sounds controlling, huh?  Sounds a lot like straight, white, cisgender men to me.  The RatFems are NOT Radical Feminists. The RatFems are misogynists. 

Who—Or WHAT—Are the RatFems?

The RatFems are Radical Fauxminists.

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Who—Or WHAT—Are the RatFems?

U. Of Texas Stonewalling On Regnerus Inquiry; TNCRM Reporter Sends Complaint E-Mail

From The New Civil Rights Movement: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/u-of-texas-stonewalling-on-regnerus-inquiry-tncrm-reporter-sends-complaint-e-mail/discrimination/2012/07/06/42985

by Scott Rose
on July 6, 2012

Reposted with permission

The e-mail below was sent by The New Civil Rights Movement’s Scott Rose to the University of Texas, Austin’s Research Integrity Officer Robert Peterson, as a complaint about the university’s apparent stonewalling on an inquiry into Sociological Malpractice allegedly committed, in an ongoing way, by UTA Associate Professor Mark Regnerus. A previously-published TNCRM introduction to the matter may be read here.

 July 6, 2012

Dr. Peterson:

Although UTA attorney Jeffery Graves was kind enough to inform me that I should not send UTA any more information about the Regnerus matter unless UTA requests it, I am writing to you so as to have a public record of things that you have been told about the Regnerus study.

As a baseline matter, there is nothing really to discuss, as Regnerus did not make a valid sociological comparison and therefore, his entire study is invalid. In case somebody doesn’t understand this; it would be valid to compare young adult children of broken heterosexual homes with young adult children of broken homosexual homes, but it is not a sociologically valid comparison to compare broken homes with unbroken homes, as Regnerus did.

In her Huffington Post article, co-authored with additional UTA Sociologists, Debra Umberson said this:

Mark Regnerus claims to have produced the first rigorous scientific evidence showing that same sex families harm children. As a family sociologist at the University of Texas, I am disturbed by his irresponsible and reckless representation of social science research, and furious that he is besmirching my university to lend credibility to his “findings.”

Umberson did not specify that when she references Regnerus’s “irresponsible and reckless representation of social science research,” what she means is that Regnerus DID NOT MAKE ANY VALID SOCIOLOGICAL COMPARISON.

I put that in all caps, because frankly, I am sick of this ridiculous game where Regnerus violated the most basic rules of his own field, other professors at the same school have complained that he is negatively impacting their department’s and school’s reputations, but nonetheless, school administration, which is busy promoting Regnerus’s study, is acting as though one had still to investigate whether Regnerus had made a sociologically valid comparison.

Regnerus appears purposely to be clouding public understanding of the basics of Sociology when he insists on talking about the superiority of his random sampling to the convenience and snowball samplings of past studies on gay parenting. Sampling method is irrelevant if a sociologist makes an invalid comparison with his data.

Furthermore, Regnerus appears to be being highly disingenuous and untruthful when he alleges that at the beginning of the study, they thought they might be able to connect with and to survey an adequate number of authentic gay parents, but that they eventually found that they could not, and so they went ahead and made the invalid comparison anyway. Firstly, why is Regnerus trying to play people for fools, as though all of his blah-blah-blah meant that his study would magically become valid because of the blah-blah-blah, even though he had not made a sociologically valid comparison? This is exactly what UTA Sociologist Debra Umberson is referring to when she says:”I am disturbed by his irresponsible and reckless representation of social science research.”

Why is Regnerus doing that, and why is school administration allowing him to do that, given that its own additional Sociology professors say that this is Sociological Malpractice? The study Loren Marks simultaneously published with Regnerus’s study is in many respects a give-away as to the underhanded dirty tricks that Regnerus’s funders are playing. The Marks study is all about how a random sampling is superior to the convenience and snowball samplings of past studies on gay parents; but nowhere does it mention that *no* sampling method is relevant to research results if an invalid comparison was made with the data collected. Furthermore, Marks’s June, 2012 study was published under exactly the same title in October, 2011, is essentially the same as that past version of the study, though with a few tables thrown in, and it has EXACTLY the same conclusion. Now who publishes research as though it were a brand new study and trumpets it all around as some new discovery, when it has exactly the same conclusion as the previously-published study?

PILOT STUDIES — Any reputable surveying company, including the one Regnerus used, Knowledge Networks, will tell you that if you are going to spend a great deal of money attempting to survey a small population, you must first do a PILOT STUDY that will give you a good idea of how many of your intended target demographic you will be able to reach with the larger study. Knowledge Networks, or any similar company, will advise people looking to spend lots of money to reach a small population to first do a PILOT STUDY because a company like KN does not want to damage its professional reputation by promising results that it is not sure of being able to produce, leaving a client very dissatisfied. “They promised me the moon but delivered nothing!” Knowledge Networks would not operate towards that outcome, because it would severely damage their brand.  And, to be sure, Regnerus wanted to study young adult children of gay parents, but Knowledge Networks did not find an adequate sampling of them for him to survey. Knowledge Networks is not a used car dealership, but Regnerus is presenting his dealings with them, as though they allowed him to spend a huge amount of money to reach a small population which they knew he would not be able to reach with their methods and his budget.

Of course, all of those details are extraneous to the fact that Regnerus made no valid sociological comparison with his study. And that is why four UTA Sociologists signed a published article that says: “As a family sociologist at the University of Texas, I am disturbed by his irresponsible and reckless representation of social science research, and furious that he is besmirching my university to lend credibility to his “findings.”

So far from UTA, I have experienced: 1) probable dissembling about a documentation request being already in progress, before I was told that I would have to file an Open Record Act request. If, as David Ochsner told me, the documentation was already being assembled, why was it not ready as soon as I filed the Open Record Act request? 2) UTA’s Ochsner, who has been placing advertorials for the Regnerus study, sent attack e-mails to my publication containing unwarranted smears against me, and attempts to discredit my reporting and my person, and to intimidate us out of further reporting on the Regnerus matter as though we have never seen such tactics attempted before. 3) UTA attorney Graves told me — “Don’t call us, we’ll call you!” — with any further info related to Regnerus; so my question for you now is, in working on the inquiry, had you ever realized what I told you above about pilot studies, and if so, can you produce any documentation for your having explored that question with respect to Regnerus? That no pilot study apparently was done appears to speak to the whole study being carried out either with incompetence or with evil motives. If a pilot study was done, where is the evidence of that, what was learned through the pilot study and what decisions were based on it and how were those decisions reached?

Nobody needs to investigate anything to understand that Regnerus’s study does not make a sociologically valid comparison, but anybody truly interested in understanding his relationship with his funders would be examining such issues as whether he did a pilot study. UT has made statements of confidence in Regnerus’s independence of his funders, which tells me that UTA is not serious about an inquiry.

Furthermore, that Regnerus would accept funding from the hateful people who got him his planning grant and his study funding says something about his character, because even *if* those funders gave Regnerus true independence, he was responsible for understanding the wicked uses they would make of his study. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which had success suing the Ku Klux Klan, has a 2012 Intelligence Report on the National Organization for Marriage titled: “National Organization for Marriage Continues to Spread Lies About Gays.” The SPLC report centers on NOM’s lies conflating homosexuals with pedophiles, a known falsehood. It is now using Regnerus’s study in similar ways; to say that homosexuals are dangerous to children. And very interestingly along those lines, it is using supposed sexual abuse information from the study to further claim that homosexuals equate to pedophiles. As happens, in the study, most parents incorrectly labeled as gay were from failed heterosexual marriages, one spouse of which appears to have perhaps experimented with same-sex intimacy, perhaps to have been bi-sexual — Regnerus made no attempt to clarify the situations. However that may be, when parents divorce, generally each of them continues playing a role in their children’s lives. Regnerus asked those children of broken homes questions pertaining to whether they had ever experienced sex abuse, but he did not research *which* parent or other adult in or out of the home had committed the abuse; it could as easily have been a heterosexual adult as a homosexual one, but Regnerus is pinning the blame for the abuse on the (supposed) gay parent only. Doing that violates the core principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

NOM, already notorious for its dishonorable dancing around campaign finance laws, clearly is the funding driver behind the Regnerus study. I say that because; 1) NOM head Robert George has authority within both The Witherspoon Institute and The Bradley Foundation, which both funded Regnerus; 2) The Bradley Foundation funds The Witherspoon Institute; and 3) Witherspoon Institute President Luis Tellez is a NOM board member.

The Regnerus study is defamatory of gays as a class of people, is being aggressively used as a political and social weapon against gays, and in particular is being used in deliberately cruel ways against gays by Regnerus’s funders who have a long, long history of caring more about their political gay-bashing than about child welfare.

NOM has held anti-gay-rights rallies where its speakers yell through megaphones that homosexuals are “worthy to death.” Recently in Texas, Mary Kristene Chapa, 18 and Mollie Olgin, 19, a lesbian couple were shot point-blank in their heads while relaxing together in a public park.

But UTA thinks there is no urgent problem, is dragging its feet before deciding whether Regnerus’s study makes a valid sociological comparison, and on top of that, is promoting the invalid study as a shining example of what the school can do.

Scott Rose

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on U. Of Texas Stonewalling On Regnerus Inquiry; TNCRM Reporter Sends Complaint E-Mail

Off and Out With Mitt Romney

From The New York Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/opinion/off-and-out-with-mitt-romney.html

By Paul Krugman
Published: July 5, 2012

In a better America, Mitt Romney would be running for president on the strength of his major achievement as governor of Massachusetts: a health reform that was identical in all important respects to the health reform enacted by President Obama. By the way, the Massachusetts reform is working pretty well and has overwhelming popular support.

In reality, however, Mr. Romney is doing no such thing, bitterly denouncing the Supreme Court for upholding the constitutionality of his own health care plan. His case for becoming president relies, instead, on his claim that, having been a successful businessman, he knows how to create jobs.

This, in turn, means that however much the Romney campaign may wish otherwise, the nature of that business career is fair game. How did Mr. Romney make all that money? Was it in ways suggesting that what was good for Bain Capital, the private equity firm that made him rich, would also be good for America?

And the answer is no.

The truth is that even if Mr. Romney had been a classic captain of industry, a present-day Andrew Carnegie, his career wouldn’t have prepared him to manage the economy. A country is not a company (despite globalization, America still sells 86 percent of what it makes to itself), and the tools of macroeconomic policy — interest rates, tax rates, spending programs — have no counterparts on a corporate organization chart. Did I mention that Herbert Hoover actually was a great businessman in the classic mold?

Continue reading at:   http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/opinion/off-and-out-with-mitt-romney.html

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Off and Out With Mitt Romney

Rep. Joe Walsh: Double-amputee Tammy Duckworth not a ‘true’ military hero

Alleged 100,000 dollar owing Dead Beat Dad and Republi-Nazi Dickwad Joe Walsh

From Raw Story:  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/03/rep-joe-walsh-double-amputee-tammy-duckworth-not-a-true-military-hero/

By David Edwards
Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Tea party-favorite Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) may not have ever volunteered for military service, but he says he can spot a “true hero” and the double amputee running for his seat isn’t one.

Think Progress captured video on Sunday of Walsh telling supporters that Tammy Duckworth wasn’t a hero because “all she talks about” is losing both her legs when the helicopter she was piloting was shot down in Iraq in 2004.

“Understand something about John McCain,” the congressman explained. “His political advisers, day after day, had to take him and almost throw him against a wall and hit him against the head and say, ‘Senator, you have to let people know you served! You have to talk about what you did!’ He didn’t want to do it, wouldn’t do it.”

“That’s what’s so noble about our heroes,” Walsh continued. “Now I’m running against a woman who, my God, that’s all she talks about. Our true heroes, it’s the last thing in the world they talk about. That’s why we’re so indebted and in awe of what they’ve done.”

Complete article at:  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/03/rep-joe-walsh-double-amputee-tammy-duckworth-not-a-true-military-hero/

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Rep. Joe Walsh: Double-amputee Tammy Duckworth not a ‘true’ military hero