DEBATE: Anti-Gay Marriage Activist Calls Gay Rights Activist Dangerous

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on DEBATE: Anti-Gay Marriage Activist Calls Gay Rights Activist Dangerous

Radical Feminist Insane Vanguardism

I late 1969, a couple of months before three people in the Weatherman Faction blew themselves to bits, Bernadine Dohrn gave a rant that should have been a warning sign to anyone involved in Weatherman, thatthe leadership had strayed into the realm of the insane.

In her rant at the Flint War Council meeting Bernadine Dohrn praised the Manson Family and their insanity.

A month or so later a number of feminists led by Robin Morgan took over the East Village underground paper, RAT.  Robin Morgan dropped her rant, Good-bye to all that, upon the world.

Now as rants go, Good-bye to all that, was a truly great world class rant. Unfortunately it didn’t wear all that well.

For one thing Robin Morgan winds up matching Bernadine Dohrn by embracing Valerie Solanis, the woman who tried to murder Andy Warhol.

At the time Andy Warhol was a leading figure in 20th century American Art, experimenting in various media and someone who was a major contributor to the Sixties zeitgeist.

Valerie Solanis’ main claim to fame was writing SCUM Manifesto, a poorly written psychotic rant, more a pamphlet than a book, which argued for the elimination of men.

I watched in dismay as SCUM Manifesto became part of the radical feminist canon.

From Wikipedia:  “She was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic and pled guilty to “reckless assault with intent to harm”, serving a three-year prison sentence, including psychiatric hospital time. After her release, she continued to promote the SCUM Manifesto, initiating modern radical feminism. She died in 1988 of pneumonia, in San Francisco, California.”

While she was lionized by radical feminists she died alone.  Seems shooting one of the major figures in 20th century art made people a tad antsy about giving her a place to crash and so she was homeless at the time of her death.

It seems like several of the radical feminists who wrote works that were taken extremely seriously in the feminist canon had bouts with mental illness, that were serious enough to merit institutionalization.

Shulamith Firestone’s Dialectic of Sex is another work in the canon and she was institutionalized with schizophrenia and spent the last thirty years of her life living in solitude and on medication.

Where was the feminist support network?

BTW I tried to reread Shulie’s book a few years ago and all I could think was this sure read better back when I was getting stoned.

Cristin Williams has a piece up about  BeBe J. Scarpie and her encounter with Jill Johnston, a radical feminist lesbian author:   See: 1974: RadFems and Trans Folk


At a recent feminist conference, drag queen Bebe J. Scarpie successfully was able to infiltrate the question line, from which men were excluded, in order to challenge Jill Johnston, the radicalesbian columnist. Miss Johnston, is primarily noted for a recent letter to the National Organization of Women, in which she proposed that mothers neglect to care for male babies. She also attacked drag actress Holly Woodlawn, when the latter was making a public appearance. At this conference she wanted to allow only those males necessary for artificial insemination to exist. Bebe accused Jill of being a a Neo fascist and dictating to women as well as men. At this point however, a radicalesbian recognized her from previous encounters, and screamed out, “Jill don’t answer it’s a male Question.” The audience, composed 50% of college students and 50% of Jill’s entourage, was left In total amazement. It was interesting since with their close cropped hair and full denim outfits, the radical women were more transvestites than Bebe!

Finally one of the straight women present. picked up Bebe’s line of questioning. Jill again demonstrated an inability to build any logic sequence of thoughts and she succeeded in boring half the college students into leaving while she was trying to explain that sleeping with a male made a woman a male, to which this straight sister replied then it made her boyfriend a woman.

It was overheard by one of Babe’s friends that the radical panel had muttered that they couldn’t believe this was happening to them. Drag Power!

Jill Johnston’s books also seemed quite whack when I tried to read them some thirty years later.

Over the years I’ve come to realize that those people with the most radical sounding rants are part of the problem not part of the solution.

The radical feminists in the 1970s treated transsexual and transgender people like dog shit.

Today the texts that were part of the foundation of their ideology often seem really pretty disturbed.

While those feminists who were condemned as reformers and sell outs still have followers.

Lately the folks over at RadFem Hub decided that Pussy Riot doesn’t deserve feminist support.  Partly because they rightfully have the support of mixed sex groups like Amnesty International and numerous other human rights advocated in the media, some of whom happen to be male.

Also perhaps because they discovered that many TS/TG Bloggers support them.

See:  Pussy Riot: whose freedom, whose riot?

One thing that seems to have them upset is Pussy Riot’s use of the word “pussy.”  Any proper radfem who has has politically correct gene therapy would see the obvious problem.  The should have used the name Vagina riot instead.

Now I consider the vanguardism of the RadFem set to be reactionary rather than progressive.  Elitist rather than inclusive.

It is exactly the crap that killed Feminism in the 1970s.

Why would anyone in their right mind want to join a movement that promises to combine puritanism with Stalinism?


The next fight in gender rights

From The New York Daily News:

A tennis great who shattered stereotypes says New York can do more to combat discrimination

Published: Friday, August 31, 2012

Almost 40 years ago, Bobby Riggs and I played what was called the “Battle of the Sexes.”

He was a former No. 1 player in the world, but as a 55- year-old man, he was well past his prime — and I was at the height of my tennis career. Still, the notion that a woman could win a match against a male opponent was seen as laughable.

Riggs thought so, telling Time magazine: “Billie Jean King is one of the all-time tennis greats, she’s one of the superstars, she’s ready for the big one, but she doesn’t stand a chance against me.”

He was wrong, of course. But my victory was also more than just a point of athletic pride — it was about social change, part of a growing movement to convince society that women were the equals of men. Today, things are definitely better, with a few women rising to the top in politics and the corporate world.

But there is still progress to be made and battles to be fought.

More than tennis, I am concerned with equality for all, which is why I’m calling for my fellow New Yorkers to support a law that would offer transgender persons the protections the rest of us take for granted.

Known as the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act, the proposed law would explicitly ban discrimination based on gender identity and expression. It would primarily help transgender individuals, people who identify their gender differently from what is traditionally associated with the sex assigned at birth.

It should go without saying that all New Yorkers — including transgender New Yorkers — deserve to be treated fairly and equally by the law. But too often, they are not.

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on The next fight in gender rights


Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Say

Transgender Activist Janet Mock to Give Keynote at LGBTQ Youth Empowerment Conference

From Huffington Post:


Janet Mock, People.comStaff Editor and nationally renowned transgender activist, will give the keynote address at the Hispanic Black Gay Coalition’s 2012 LGBTQ Youth Empowerment Conference. The free conference, which takes place Saturday, Oct. 20, 2012, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., educates and inspires LGBTQ youth of color under the age of 25 to use their ideas, knowledge, and skills so that they can create personal and social change.

Mock, a transgender woman of color, uses media as a platform to explore and challenge “society’s limited portrait of womanhood.” Her #GirlsLikeUs campaign empowers trans women to speak up and out about their experiences and lives.

With school back in session, the LGBTQ Youth Empowerment Conference is an important opportunity to create dialogue about what it takes to help LGBTQ youth of color be informed and aware of resources, make healthy and safe decisions about the way they live their lives, and feel supported by the greater community.

According to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network’s 2009 report “Shared Differences: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Students of Color in Our Nation’s Schools,” across all non-white racial and ethnic groups, sexual orientation and gender expression were the most common reasons LGBT students of color reported feeling unsafe in school. The report also highlights how verbal harassment, physical violence, and/or discrimination because of sexual orientation, gender expression, and/or race/ethnicity often have more negative effects on the classroom performance and overall attendance of LGBTQ youth of color than their white counterparts.

As a transgender woman of color, Mock understands and empathizes with the struggles LGBTQ-identified youth experience. “In my freshman year of high school, I began transitioning from Charles to Janet. So I had a choice to make. I could pretend to be something I was not, butch up and blend in with the crowd, or I could fight the hardest fight there is: stick out and live my truth and be my authentic self. I chose the latter.”

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Transgender Activist Janet Mock to Give Keynote at LGBTQ Youth Empowerment Conference

Trans woman shot to death in Miami — police lacking leads

From Guerrilla Angel Report:

By Lexie Cannes
August 29, 2012

THE GUERRILLA ANGEL REPORT — Miami Police say Dewayne “Deja” Jones was shot to death Sunday morning. Neighbors heard gunshots and shouting — including someone yelling “give me your purse!” Jones was killed 7 blocks from where Jones lived, reportedly hanging out with a friend.

The police released a recent picture of Jones, asking for the public’s help, citing a lack of leads. They are also trying to determine if it was a hate crime. The police also say the shooter probably did not want Jones to survive.

It was reported that Jones previously served time in prison and was recently cited for carrying a concealed weapon. Jones had also recently moved into the area.

The police also noted that another trans person was assulted, but survived. It is not clear if this is related to the same shooting.

This is pretty much all the info on the shooting at this time.

(Trigger warning — misuse of pronouns) Exclusive: Miami Police Look For Killer Of Transvestite « CBS Miami.


Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Trans woman shot to death in Miami — police lacking leads

Ethics Complaint Filed In Anti-Gay Regnerus Scandal

From The New Civil Rights Movement:

by Scott Rose
on August 31, 2012

Reposted with Permission

Mark Regnerus is an anti-gay-rights figure at the University of Texas at Austin.

The NOM-linked anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute gave Regnerus $785,000 to execute a study ostensibly, but not actually, on gay parents’ child outcomes.

The legitimate scientific community is united in concerns about the Regnerus study’s lack of intellectual integrity, and the fact that prior to publication, the study did not receive ethical and appropriate professional peer review.

Brad Wilcox is a Witherspoon Institute official. He also serves on the editorial board of the journal that published the Regnerus study, Social Science Research.

Wilcox had proven fiduciary conflicts of interest in serving as a paid Regnerus study consultant and also, apparently, as a peer reviewer of the Regnerus paper.

There follows a COMPLAINT against Brad Wilcox, filed with the American Sociological Association:

Dear Dr. Hillsman:

In this COMPLAINT, I shall make allegations against ASA member Dr. Brad Wilcox (aka W. Bradford Wilcox); Wilcox has egregiously violated the ASA’s Code of Ethics.

Wilcox is associated with:

1) The University of Virginia  (Director, The National Marriage Project; Associate Professor, Sociology)

2) The Witherspoon Institute   (Director, Program on Family, Marriage and Democracy; Editorial Board Member, Witherspoon’s “Public Discourse”)

3  Elsevier journal Social Science Research (Editorial Board Member)

These allegations relate to Wilcox’s unethical behavior involving a study by ASA member Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin; “The New Family Structures Study.”

Salient, documented facts of the matter include:

1) Wilcox’s Witherspoon Institute is the chief funder of the Regnerus study;

2) Wilcox, an editorial board member of Social Science Research, which published the Regnerus study, served as both a paid Regnerus study consultant and a peer reviewer of the Regnerus study;

3) After the sociological and scientific communities united in expressing concerns about the intellectual integrity of the Regnerus study, and about the suspicious process by which it was approved for publication, Wilcox signed a letter in support of the Regnerus study, which letter was promulgated by Baylor University, and which letter contains many deliberate distortions of the scientific record



Number 1 of the ASA’s Code of Ethics, “Professional and Scientific Standards” says that sociologists: “rely on scientifically and professionally derived knowledge; act with honesty and integrity; and avoid untrue, deceptive, or undocumented statements in undertaking work-related functions or activities.”

Where Wilcox as I) a highly-placed official with Witherspoon, which funded the Regnerus study; II) acted as both a paid study consultant and peer reviewer of the Regnerus study for the journal Social Science Research, where he is an editorial board member, Wilcox failed to act “with honesty and integrity.” In acting as both a Regnerus study consultant and peer reviewer, Wilcox had multiple fiduciary conflicts of interest. As a paid study consultant, he had a conflict of interest in being a peer reviewer, because paid study consultants want studies for which they have consulted to be published so that their services as paid consultants will be in high demand. Moreover, the Witherspoon Institute as the chief funder of the Regnerus study is promoting it very aggressively, in anti-gay-rights political contexts, at least in part to be able to stimulate additional donations to Witherspoon; Wilcox as a paid Witherspoon official therefore had that additional fiduciary conflict of interest in acting as both a Regnerus study consultant and peer reviewer.

2) Number 1 of the ASA’s Code of Ethics, “Professional and Scientific Standards” says that sociologists: “rely on scientifically and professionally derived knowledge; act with honesty and integrity; and avoid untrue, deceptive, or undocumented statements in undertaking work-related functions or activities.”

In signing the Baylor University letter in support of the Regnerus study, Wilcox did not avoid deceptive statements, or act with honesty and integrity.

The Baylor University Institute for Studies of Religion letter in support of the Regnerus study was promulgated to counter the legitimate scientific community’s expressions of concern about the intellectual integrity of the Regnerus study, which Wilcox’s anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute had funded. The Baylor letter incorporates multiple deliberate distortions of the scientific record, in a propagandizing and fraudulent attempt, scientifically to legitimate the Regnerus study to the public; an example of such a distortion will be given below.

The lead signer of the Baylor letter, Baylor ISR Director Byron Johnson, like Wilcox is an official with the Witherspoon Institute, which funded the Regnerus study. Two additional Witherspoon officials signed the Baylor letter; none of them disclosed their direct connection to the funding of the Regnerus study. Wilcox had a fiduciary conflict of interest in signing the Baylor letter and therefore should at least have disclosed that conflict of interest. The Witherspoon Institute is heavily engaged in promoting the Regnerus study and through promotions of its activities hopes to solicit and receive monetary donations to the Witherspoon Institute.

Here is but one example of the distortions of the scientific record contained in the Baylor letter. In its sixth paragraph, the Baylor letter alleges that the Regnerus study’s findings parallel findings of Daniel Potter’s paper “Same-Sex Parent Families and Children’s Academic Achievement,” which was published in the Journal of Marriage and Family.

The aim of the Baylor letter signers in alleging that the Potter study’s findings “parallel” those of the Regnerus study was this; Regnerus alleges to have proven correlation between same-sex parents and bad child outcomes; not only does the scientific community question whether Regnerus proved such correlations; it questions whether he actually studied children of “same-sex parents.” The majority of Regnerus’s test group respondents were born to and substantially raised by married couples of opposite genders; their parents therefore are their mothers and fathers; they do not have “same-sex parents,” though that term is written into the Regnerus study. The Baylor letter signers hoped to make the public believe that like Regnerus, Potter is alleging that he proved correlation between same-sex parents and bad child outcomes.

However, Potter in reality says that the differences his study found between children of same-sex parents and children of heterosexual parents are “nonsignificant net of family transitions.” The Baylor letter quotes from the very same sentence in which Potter says that the differences he found are “nonsignificant net of family transitions” but truncates the sentence, not including the phrase “nonsignificant net of family transitions,” and then the Baylor letter tacks on language clearly intended to get the public to believe that the differences Potter found were not “nonsignificant” but rather, significant.

The Baylor letter misrepresents the scientific record that is the Potter study in other ways. For example, the Baylor letter alleges that the children Potter studied had same-sex parents who “lived together.” In documented reality, however, Potter’s data came from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study—Kindergarten cohort(ECLS – K). That data does not allow a researcher scientifically to determine whether parents of the children studied are “same-sex parents” living together.  Potter speculated that some of his study subjects’ parents might have been same-sex parents living together, on the basis of unsound methods. What is more is that even supposing that some of Potter’s study subjects’ parents were actually “same-sex parents,” the Baylor letter is demonizing of actual same-sex parents by implying that same-sex parents who live together have scientifically been proven to correlate to bad child outcomes, though Potter says that differences found are “nonsignificant net of family transitions.”  If same-sex parents truly are living together, then there are no family transitions, are there?  The Potter study did not purport to compare stable gay-headed families with stable heterosexual-headed families. But the Baylor letter made a point of telling the public that Potter’s same-sex parents lived together and correlated to bad child outcomes.

The Baylor letter verifiably does distort the scientific record in an attempt to mislead the public about the Regnerus study. On multiple counts, Wilcox violated the ASA’s Code of Ethics by signing the Baylor letter. It must be mentioned in passing that Baylor University views homosexuality in a non-scientific manner. It thus is not appropriate for a sociologist to sign his name to a letter distorting the scientific record on studies involving homosexual persons. For reference, in a New York Times article about gay students at Christian colleges, a Baylor spokesperson said “Baylor expects students not to participate in advocacy groups promoting an understanding of sexuality that is contrary to biblical teaching.” And, in November, 2011, Baylor University was criticized for hosting a special sociology course of study titled Homosexuality as a Gateway Drug.

While individual schools, and individuals, might have first amendment rights to demonize homosexuals, doing so is inconsistent with many points of the ASA’s Code of Ethics, as promulgating demonizing lies against homosexuals as a class of persons is inconsistent with scientific knowledge about homosexuality. In signing his name to a letter containing deliberate distortions of the scientific record, in favor of a study his organization The Witherspoon Institute funded and is promoting in anti-gay-rights political contexts, Wilcox should have considered what the “Baylor University” brand represents vis-a-vis scientific knowledge of homosexuality, and civilized, respectful treatment of homosexual persons.

3)Section 10 of the ASA’s Code of Ethics is titled “Public Communications.” The section is introduced with: “Sociologists adhere to the highest professional standards in public communications about their professional services, credentials and expertise, work products, or publications, whether these communications are from themselves or from others.”

This allegation involves publication of an essay by Robert Oscar Lopez about the Regnerus study on the Witherspoon Institute’s venue “Public Discourse,” where Wilcox is an editorial board member. Since shortly after the publication of the Regnerus study, Lopez had been making comments on multiple internet sites, expressing irrational prejudices against gay persons in support of the Regnerus study. Regnerus saw Lopez’s comments and contacted Lopez first, to commence a correspondence with him about the study and “LGBT issues.” Shortly thereafter, an essay by Lopez appeared on Witherspoon’s “Public Discourse.” The Lopez essay is full of harsh, negative, and sometimes ridiculous judgments and inferences against gay people. For example, Lopez, who alleges he was raised by a lesbian mother, complains that he spoke with a lisp, and that the reason for his lisp was that he did not have any male role models. More seriously, the Lopez essay contains multiple misrepresentations of what the Regnerus study says. All of those misrepresentations are skewed in the direction of inciting readers against gay rights.

Wilcox, with editorial authority over Witherspoon’s “Public Discourse,” violates the ASA’s Code of Ethics, which says that “Sociologists adhere to the highest professional standards in public communications about their . . . . publications, whether these communications are from themselves or from others.”

Furthermore, Section 3 of the ASA’s Code of Ethics, “Representation and Misuse of Expertise,” letter (d), says: “If sociologists learn of misuse or misrepresentation of their work, they take reasonable steps to correct or minimize the misuse or misrepresentation.”

The Lopez essay, with its distortions of what the Regnerus study says, is being publicized to the four corners of the earth, largely by Wilcox’s Witherspoon Institute and/or Witherspoon officials who also have authority at other anti-gay-rights organizations.  Neither Regnerus nor Wilcox have made any effort to correct Lopez’s false statements about what the Regnerus study says. Regnerus appears to have recruited Lopez for the purpose of cultivating him for promotions of the Regnerus study. Documentation should be examined to determine which Witherspoon figures were involved in processing the Lopez essay through to publication. Wilcox should have made an effort to correct to the public the very widely disseminated distortions of Regnerus made in the Lopez essay published on the Witherspoon site. But additionally, Wilcox in association with Witherspoon would have had multiple fiduciary conflicts of interest in promoting the Regnerus study through “Public Discourse,” as Wilcox served as both a paid Regnerus study consultant and a Regnerus study peer reviewer.  If Wilcox personally was directly involved in processing the Lopez essay through to publication, then he was, essentially, promoting his services as a paid study consultant. That the Lopez essay verifiably contains distortions of what the Regnerus study says, makes especially troubling that Wilcox would in any way promote his study consultant services by means of that scientifically inaccurate vehicle.

Upon request, I shall furnish further matches between Wilcox’s behavior and items listed in the American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics.


Scott Rose

New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on,, The New York Blade,, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account.

You might also like:
Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Ethics Complaint Filed In Anti-Gay Regnerus Scandal