A few minutes ago on a phone call, a NEWSHOUR friend was insisting on a link to prove they were responsive to criticism. Ava and I called them out in "TV: How they lied about Iraq and how they still lie about it" and I called them out in Tuesday's snapshot for another in their efforts at war whoring. They did a segment last night and now they want a link.,
I don't work on your timetable and I don't work for you. That's (a) and (b) when I do get to it, I will either be slamming you again or linking to someone who has -- again, anyone, grab it, send me a link to your piece. I've got other things to do. I'd love it others would critique the pro-war garbage coming from PBS.
If it's news and I'm told of it before I start dictating the snapshot or after I've started, I'll happily include it. That would be, "Hey, we just did a report on the protest in Baghdad taking place right now!" That would be an example of news that I'd want to include right away.
Your attempt -- that I said I'm sure is awful -- to try to improve your own program's image? That's not news. And since the phone call, while trying to figure out who some YOUTUBER is (I'll get to it later in this snapshot), I've also read over the transcript of the interview they want linked to and what a load of more garbage. Lulu -- it was ethnic cleansing, it wasn't a civil war. The ones put in charge by the US government went after the other side. For you to mouth "civil war" so many years later may be an improvement for you and may be a real personal high but it was ethnic cleansing. You might want to pick up the book your colleague at NPR wrote -- still the best book on Iraq from the early years of the war, Deborah Amos' EXILE OF THE SUNNIS: POWER, EXILE AND UPHEAVEL IN THE MIDDLE EAST. We've applauded the book here for years -- it's made at least two of the community's books of the year lists. Here's an interview Deborah did with Terry Gross about it for FRESH AIR. That interview was broadcast on March 10, 2010. I mention that because that was the day Iraq voted in what was the most appalling election -- due to US intervention after an eight month political stalemate -- and though Deborah didn't write about that to my knowledge (about The Erbil Agreement in November of that year), she had already published a paper on the lead up to that election that was the strongest piece of coverage.
In fact, let's note it again. We've got other stuff to cover -- one big thing -- but Deborah deserves credit and her voice is not being brought to you by the mainstream media right now. She wrote her analysis for Harvard's Joan Shorenstien Center on the Press and this is from [PDF format warning] "Confusion, Contradiction and irony: the Iraqi media in 2010:"
The
dramatic
conclusion
of
the
parliamentary
vote
also
played
out
on
Iraqi
TV
screens
when
Iraq’s
Prime
Minister,
Nouri
al‐
Maliki,
appeared
on
the
state‐run
broadcasting
service
to
announce
he
was
challenging
the
results.
Maliki’s
political
coalition
had
won
89
seats
in
parliament,
well
short
of
the
winning
formula
of
163
seats.
Maliki
refused
to
accept
that
an
alliance
led
by
challenger
Iyad
Allawi
had
won
more
parliamentary
seats
than
his
bloc
had.
These
two
Iraqi
politicians
shared
similar
backgrounds:
a
lifetime
of
working
to
overthrow
Saddam
Hussein,
membership
in
underground
political
organizations,
and
being
a
part
of
Iraq’s
majority
Shiite
community.
Each
had
returned
to
Iraq
when
the
Americ
an
military
toppled
Saddam.
But
in
the
2010
national
election,
they
had
taken
different
political
roads.
In
the
2010
campaign,
Maliki’s
party
was
primarily
a
sectarian
political
list
of
Shiite
candidates
with
a
few
Sunni
political
figureheads.
In
contrast,
Allawi’s
political
coalition
was
a
cross‐sectarian
list.
While
Allawi
is
a
Shiite,
he
headed
a
party
consisting
of
Sunni
political
leaders
from
western
and
northern
Iraq
and
some
Shiite
politicians
who
believed
it
was
time
to
move
beyond
sectarian
politics
if
Iraq
is
to
achieve
national
unity.
In
Iraq’s
short
history
of
free
elections,
Shiite
candidates
have
a
demographic
advantage.
Shiites
are
approximately
60%
of
the
population,
and
Iraqis
voted
almost
exclusively
along
sectarian
lines
in
the
2005
national
elections
and
the
2009
provincial
vote.
Maliki
also
had
a
media
advantage.
The
state‐run
national
news
network
did
not
accept
paid
campaign
advertisements,
but
freely
broadcast
extensive
reports
of
Maliki’s
election
appearances
and
campaign
speeches
in
evening
news
bulletins.
On
the
eve
of
the
vote,
state
TV
broadcast
a
documentary
highlighting
the
Prime
Minister’s
visit
to
security
checkpoints around
the
capital.
Maliki
is
widely
credited
with
an
improvement
in
the
day‐to‐day
security
in
the
capital
and
in
the
south,
but
his
pre‐election
inspection
of
the
security
checkpoints
was
seen
as
a
long
campaign
ad.
According
to
domestic
media
monitoring
reports
of
state
‐
run
television,
Al
‐
Iraqiya,
Maliki’s
political
coalition
received
by
far
the
“highest
positive
coverage”
when
compared
with
all
other
political
parties
in
the
campaign. When
it
came
to
the
vote,
Allawi
demonstrated
that
sectarian
voting
patterns
could
be
broken.
A
small
percentage
of
Shiites
voted
for
a
party
that
included
Sunnis
on
the
ticket
which
helped
deliver
the
two‐seat
lead. Prime
Minister
Maliki
charged
widespread
fraud
and
demanded
a
recount
to
prevent
“a
return
to
violence.”
He
pointedly
noted
that
he
remained
the
commander
in
chief
of
the
armed
forces.
Was
Maliki
threatening
violence?
Was
he
using
the
platform
of
state
‐
run
media
to
suggest
that
his
Shiite
‐
dominated
government
would
not
relinquish
power
to
a
Sunni
coalition
despite
the
election
results?
His
meaning
was
ambiguous,
but
his
choice
of
media
was
widely
understood
to
be
part
of
the
message.
Iraq’s
state run
news
channel,
Iraqiya,
is
seen
as
a
megaphone
for
Shiite
power
in
Iraq,
which
is
why
Maliki’s
assertion
of
his
right
to
retain
power
raised
international
concerns.
We've covered it before. Nouri refused to step down. Initially, especially after Gen Ray Odierno was proven right (and Chris Hayes was an undeniable idiot fool), the White House was going to back tot he winner "absolutely." Then Samantha Power and Susan Rice got on either side of Barack Obama's head and convinced them that a second term of Nouri was better -- because, as the CIA had said when Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House -- Nouri's paranoia made him easy to manipulate -- and so it was decided to overrule the voters -- the Iraqi people -- and ignore any lessons in democracy by instead giving Nouri a second term via The Erbil Agreement. And we don't have time this morning to again go into that.
We also don't have time to suffer through Chip Reid's ridiculous -- and unintentionally confessional -- statements about how he identifies with the group he was embedded with. That was the point, you idiot. They would embed you to control your coverage and you're still stupid all these years later. We don't have time for Lulu lamenting that she was recently told -- by the Iraqi man who did all of her work while she stayed in hiding -- that the Iraqi people hated her. Oh, the horror, poor Lulu. To think you reinvented yourself with a stripper name and that doesn't even make them love you. What's it going to take Lulu, what it's going to take to get respect? I don't know, maybe actually doing your damn job.
It's another hideous segment from PBS and its know-nothing staff that just wants to sell the war all over again.
It's time for THUS SPOKE GLENNETHUSTRA. Yes, it's time for Glenneth Greenwald and his transphobia. I'm being told that the link I provided isn't working. Did he pull the piece? I believe I just copied and pasted it. I've got to take a shower after this dictation is done -- I'm on a treadmill right now -- and then a Zoom with a college on the east coast so I'll put a note in later as to the link or if it's gone. [Added, here's the link.] If there are any misquotes, I'm doing this from memory, I read the piece online last night before going to bed. Glenneth writes to an e-mailer who is troubled by his transphobia:
As
you rightly point out, I rarely talk about trans issues, in part
because I generally try to avoid talking about anything where I have
nothing unique to say due to lack of expertise or passion (which is how I
feel about the trans debate), in part because I do think the Culture
War (often by design but always in effect) distracts and divides us from
larger and more consequential questions about how and where power is
wielded, but in larger part because it's mostly an easy issue for me: I
think adults should have the absolute right to do and be however they
want, pursue whatever makes them happiest and most fulfilled, and they
ought be respected both legally and socially regardless of those
choices, including but by no means limited to pronoun use, which doesn't
bother me at all. That's a principle in which I believe strongly: that
society should be constructed to facilitate and maximize the
self-actualization of the individual. That was not only the foundation
of the successful effort to obtain equal rights for gay men and lesbians
but also the core precept on which the Culture War consensus over the
last 20 years or so was based, a consensus now sadly unraveling
primarily over this issue.
The
Culture War? He's a coward. He was a coward in college -- I have the
receipts, him in his too big jeans, walking around campus, farting all
the time -- I'm serious he had some gas problem -- I know all of it and
he's still a craven coward taking what's offered him. He refused to
fight as a gay man and instead cozied up to right-wingers and hoped to
be their mascot. He was pathetic then. The same refusal to fight was
evident in his departure from THE INTERCEPT. He's an attorney. The
term "breach of contract" should be a familiar one to him. He refused
to sue THE INTERCEPT while making his grand stand. And that's because
Glenn never fights. Coward.
Trans
people, he insists, are distractions and divisions pulling "us from
larger and more consequential questions about how and where power is
wielded." Spoken like a true Karen, Glenneth. Trans people are in the
minority, they are oppressed by the government and for you to pretend
otherwise goes to both your cowardice and your stupidity.
If you can't grasp his stupidity, Karen Hunter and her guests rejected that argument yesterday noting that it's target the transgendered right now, develop a blue print to use on others.
Glenneth is speaking of 'self-actualization'?
He really is an idiot. No, self-actualization was not behind Stonewall
or any other major LGBTQ+ protest and/or rebellion. It was about
equality. If you hadn't been so scared of being seen as gay throughout
most of your life, you might know some LGBTQ+ history. But you were a
stupid moron and you were too cowardly to read the books you should have
in order to educate yourself. What if ____ saw you with the book!!!
You know who I mean, Glenneth, the right-winger you crushed on in
college but he was straight. You did everything but doodle his name on
your classroom notes.
He goes to Maslow because Glenneth doesn't believe in equality. So he goes with the best of each own blah blah blah. Amazing how offensive the words equality are too him until you remember that he is a right-winger.
He
then appears to be saying -- read it carefully and grasp that logic is
not his skill nor is presentation -- that gay and lesbian rights -- he
ignores others -- are faltering now "unraveling primarily over this
issue" -- trans people. First off, learn some history you ahistorical
idiot. Second, trans rights are causing a backlash?
Oh
what a shocker. I noted that reality last year. And didn't couch it.
Yes, they are. And I also noted that the backlash was coming anyway.
If anything Ls and Gs are lucky that trans persons have been taking the bulk
of the scorn because they would otherwise be the primary target. Instead, trans persons are the ones taking the hit but this is about everyone that is seen as an enemy of the right -- pro-choice, pro-equality, pro-democracy.
We
progressed as a society throughout the 90s and the 00s and marriage
equality coming in the '10s was a huge step for Americans. Progress is
never a brisk walk down the road. Instead, people throw up barriers and
blockades -- hate constructs that they pursue never grasping how ugly
they come off to the people around them.
An
attack was coming regardless and it focused on transgender persons
primarily (make no mistake, if an anti-trans agenda was achieved
tomorrow, these same hate merchants would be going after lesbians and
gay men).
Glenneth is wrong
about the so-called "consensus" -- it's been ripped apart by liars which
is why you need to call it out. The playbook -- as we pointed out long
before others started noting it -- was a repeat of Anita Bryant in the
70s. Groomers was used to attack gay men back then and it's used to
attack trans people It's why history is important. You need to know
what happened before. The hate merchants of the 70s used lies just as
is happening now. And they're running off support with their ugly
remarks. That happened in the 70s as well. The more hatred emerged,
the more obvious that we weren't dealing with people who were loving and
caring and believed in the best for the country. We were dealing with
hateful, dishonest people who would just as soon turn on your straight
ass as they did on gay men.
FOX
NEWS, as we've been the only ones to note (not bragging, just pointing
out reality -- I'd love it others noted it, we could just link to it and
I wouldn't have to spoon feed repeatedly) has reached its own tipping
point. They aren't sure how to proceed. Basic cable subscribers are
still with them. If this were 1994, that might be a good business
model.
It's 2023 and that
doesn't cut it. FOX NEWS no longer has FOX entertainment to help it out
during tough patches. THE SIMPSONS network is now part of ABC-DISNEY,
et al. To generate revenues, it is important that FOX NEWS has a
streaming service. FOX NATION was born. And it looked like it was
doing okay. That was a mirage brought on by Roseanne Barr. Interest in
her return to stand up led to a lot of people signing up. Some dropped
it without ever paying -- using the trial system. Many more dropped it
six weeks or so after. We noted that reality when it happened and we
noted that in the "reason" for dropping, people were referring to the
broadcasting of hate. There was a Catholic male, for example, who
identified as Catholic, stated he was religious but noted that FOX NEWS'
idea of religious did not fit with him. He stated he did not know any
trans people but even he was offended by the coverage. I've seen
hundreds (thousands?) of the responses. How bad is it? Days ago, FOX
NATION started reaching out with an offer of $1.99 a month if any of
those people would sign back up.
They need subscribers.
DISNEY+
lied about subscribers. The huge drop off they have right now is not a
huge drop off. They've actually stabilized. But they lied for months
about their numbers -- they did lie -- and that's one of the things that
Bob Iger is not going to put up with. They had to get honest. But
they were able to lie because trade papers -- VARIETY, THE HOLLYWOOD
REPORTER, etc -- print any lie. They're not real journalists
(especially at THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER) and NETFLIX would lie that X
number streamed whatever film or series and it would be printed as
fact. No you type up "NETFLIX claims they had . . ." Industry
reporters -- unless they hate you -- do not ask you to back up anything
and run with any claim. So FOX NATION may claim that they're doing well
-- that would keep their stock afloat. But they are not doing well.
That's reality.
Why I was
seeking out the data on that was because of history. If this is
happening to people who would subscribe to FOX NATION in the first
place, this means they're losing from the center and the right. This is
the beginning of a turning point. How long that will take, I have no
idea. But the hate merchants are repelling people that previously
weren't repelled.
Back to Glenneth:
My only interest in trans issues is: 1) whether children are being manipulated, coerced and subject to unsafe and untested medical and psychiatric treatments: a concern we constantly debate when it comes to various age of consent and other child-rights questions, 2) relatively trivial but not irrelevant issues such as sports participation and access to women's only spaces (prisons, shelters, etc), and 3) whether this movement is starting to rely on regressive notions of what it means to be a boy and a girl. I have spent a lot of time talking in particular to lesbians about how butch lesbians in particular are virtually disappearing because so many of them now have their breasts removed, mustaches grown, and declare themselves men.
Are
they your children? Why are you sticking your nose in someone else's
family -- while claiming you're all about self-actualization? Adults
are smart enough to make decisions. I don't need to hear your lies or
your scare tactics. Iowa was the only state that would perform surgery
on someone under 18 (unless they're an emancipated minor, in which case,
they are an adult in the eyes of the law). Iowa has overturned that
law. In the US, parents must give consent. We've heard a lot of
whining via FOX NEWS that was all a bunch of garbage. Scare tactics and
lies. My favorite was probably the 50 something man who came forward
to save children from what he went through. He transitioned while he
was a child?
No, after 20
years in the US military, he decided he wanted to become a woman. It
was awful and he regrets it. Because, it appears, he didn't want to be a
woman, he wanted to be a young girl. Sorry, changing your gender after
forty will not make you a teenage girl. But, more to the point, he
didn't have surgery. He was whining and whining about nothing.
We've
heard a lot of those stories. FOX NEWS loves to pimp the freak in the
UK. You know who I mean, right? He's a she, he's a gay male, he's
whatever will get attention at the moment. Now he has had surgery --
not gender reassignment surgery, no he had surgery to look like his
favorite member of BTS. Freak. Gender is the least of his problems.
Some people are just crazy. Accept it. Time and again, their
'journalism' is revealed to be nothing but what was once called "yellow
journalism." From WIKIPEIDA:
Yellow journalism and yellow press are American terms for journalism and
associated newspapers that present little or no legitimate,
well-researched news while instead using eye-catching headlines for
increased sales.[1] Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.[2]
[. . .]
The term was coined in the mid-1890s to characterize the sensational journalism in the circulation war between Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal. The battle peaked from 1895 to about 1898, and historical usage often refers specifically to this period. Both papers were accused by critics of sensationalizing the news in order to drive up circulation, although the newspapers did serious reporting as well. Richard F. Outcault, the author of a popular cartoon strip, the Yellow Kid, was tempted away from the World by Hearst and the cartoon accounted substantially towards a big increase in sales of the Journal.[7] An English magazine in 1898 noted, "All American journalism is not 'yellow', though all strictly 'up-to-date' yellow journalism is American!"[8]
The term was coined by Erwin Wardman, the editor of the New York Press. Wardman was the first to publish the term but there is evidence that expressions such as "yellow journalism" and "school of yellow kid journalism" were already used by newsmen of that time. Wardman never defined the term exactly. Possibly it was a mutation from earlier slander where Wardman twisted "new journalism" into "nude journalism".[4]: 32–33 Wardman had also used the expression "yellow kid journalism"[4]: 32–33 referring to the then-popular comic strip which was published by both Pulitzer and Hearst during a circulation war.[9] In 1898 the paper simply elaborated: "We called them Yellow because they are Yellow."[4]: 32–33
That's
what FOX NEWS -- and others including THE NEW YORK TIMES -- having been
offering with regards to trans issues. A stupid woman who had her
breasts removed and now regrets it. Boo-hoo. No sympathy. You spent
your entire FOX NEWS segment explaining you were under age. You never
once called out your parents -- or mentioned that they okayed the
surgery (they did okay it). You just wanted to whine about the doctor.
I've
said before, if my children (were underage, they aren't) came to me and
said they wanted to have surgery to transition, my first response would
be that we need therapy. Not because they're sick. Not because
they're stupid. But because this is a big decision. I'm not doubting
them. I am doubting me. Meaning, I don't know all that would entail
life after such surgery. I would want them to explore that with a
trained therapist. Not to 'cure' them but so that they knew what was
entailed. That would not be a series of never-ending Freudian therapy
sessions. There would be a start date and an end date (firm) unless my
child wanted to continue therapy. But if that's what they wanted and
the therapist had spoken to them about the issues in a manner that my
child was comfortable with (discussing issues with your parents can be
embarrassing -- specific issues), that's what would happen.
If
they came to me a day after turning 18 and said they wanted to
transition, I'd explain, this is your life, it's a big decision for 18
but you are an adult so it's your decision.
Tattoos
are often the least of things we regret doing when we were younger.
That's not to say transitioning is 'minor' like a tattoo. It is to say
that we all grow up with regrets. When we get older, we realize more
things.
That's why, as a
parent of a child, I would want therapy first. Not months (unless my
child wanted that) but a few weeks to be sure that all the issues were
addressed with a professional before surgery. (Again, I doubt my own expertise and I
am also aware that when things go from general to specific, children can
be uncomfortable talking with their parents.) It's a huge decision for anyone
but, as the parent, I would be the one responsible and I screw up
parenting enough as it is without having my child come back to me in 10
or 20 years over a surgery.
That's
me. (And I would hope that I would be aware of what was going on and
not surprised by it one day with an announcement. I hope I would be
aware that this was a developing issue. But I could miss that or
anything else.)
I'm not here to parent you or to parent your child. My plate is full, thank you very much.
You
had a kid and it wasn't taken away by authorities? You are
responsible. You handle it how you think it needs to be handled.
(Sadly, that would also mean not allowing your child to transition if
that was your decision. That's why your the parent. Not me. You
parent your kids.) Because it does fall under parental rights. And
it's hilarious to watch FOX NEWS rip apart parental rights while
pretending to be for them.
These
scare stories, this yellow journalism, needs to stop. Shame on the
uneducated Glenneth (I long ago told you he wasn't a very smart attorney
and that he promoted the Iraq War). If they told the truth, they
couldn't whip up a frenzy of hate. They know that which is why they
lie.
Again, no sympathy
for any of FOX NEWS' interviewees who regret their decision. Thus far,
we've had adults who did things as adults and now feel bad. Boo hoo. I
regret last week's hair cut. (Not really, I've got a great stylist.)
Life is about regrets and thrills and hopes and fears and living.
You're going to make mistakes. If you can't take accountability for
your own mistakes, you're not much of a person. And I don't have a lot
of sympathy for you. In addition, they've had adults who did things
when they were not adults. So take it up with your parents, I'm not
here to parent you or your children.
Or in the words of Goldie Hawn's character in DECEPTION, " Oh, for Ch**st's sake! Isn't anybody in charge around here?"
[We
censor the use of any deity's name as a swear. That's out of respect
for others' religion. That's not me pretending not to have a foul
mouth. If you're not a child and you know me, you know I have a wide
range of curse words I pull from frequently.]
I
also should note how cute it is that Glenneth tries to hide behind lesbians.
Glenneth, I find it difficult to believe that "butch lesbians" speak to
you. It seems that, if they did, they'd be slapping your face
repeatedly. So that leaves us with non-traditional lesbians and 'fem'
lesbians. So they're having trouble finding "butch lesbians." Sigh.
Guess they're in the same boat straight women have been in for years --
you know, how that group infamously said for decades that it was hard to
find a man to date who wasn't married or gay?
Life is hard, for everyone. And anecdotal is all Glenneth has to offer.
I really need to pause here a moment.
I
really want to underscore how, in the 90s and 00s, America had to
endure columnist Thomas Friedman who would pimp his own opinions into
mythical cab drivers who populated his writing and now, in the '20s,
Glenneth has introduced mythical butch lesbians to be his sock
puppets.
And I want to also note TERBLS. Glenneth is our modern day Margaret Mead and has discovered a new social participant in the dialogue -- Trans Exclusionary Radical Butch Lesbians. Oh, Glenneth, you are so accomplished. Doing it all from Brazil, are you, all this research? You are amazing, Glenneth, simply amazing.
He then goes on to whine about "parents not assigning a gender at birth"
What is that your business?
You
claim to respect parental rights and now you're whining about how
they're parenting. It doesn't effect you. Get your busybody nose out
of it. The ego on this person is astounding. (As we note in "Read The Tea Leaves" at
THIRD: "In the year 2028 . . . David
Miranda explains why he divorced Glenn Greenwald, 'There just wasn't
enough room in a California king for him, his ego and me'.")
Here he really reaches and we may have to break this paragraph up into sections:
I
regrettably liked Matt Walsh's film because the central question --
"What is a Woman?" -- is impossible to answer for those who deny that
it's about biology and anatomy precisely because any attempt to answer
it in any other way will dredge up gender stereotypes that we -- in my
view, rightly -- have finally discarded (a woman is someone who likes
wearing dresses, playing with dolls, cries a lot, hates sports, and is
more sensitive).
No, it won't. It will if you're uneducated hick named Glenneth Greenwald.
Try
reading Carol Tavris' THE MISMEASUREMENT OF WOMEN: WHY WOMEN ARE NOT
THE BETTER SEX, THE INFERIOR SEX OR THE OPPOSITE SEX. That book came
out in 1992. As usual Glenneth wants to weigh in without doing any
work. This is a topic feminists have dealt with forever and a day. And
that was the point -- last week? -- I was making here about the ones who
are erasing women are not transgender women but people like cis women
in my industry who are rushing to self-describe as "actors." As I said,
actress is a noble profession. If we're not comfortable with that
term, why aren't we using a different one instead of adopting "actor"
which is a term for men. Men are not the norm -- a point Carol makes
repeatedly in her book. "Singer" is a non-gender related term. If we
want a non-gender related term for acting, we need to come up with one.
If we're using "actor," why? Why aren't we asking that men call
themselves "actress" -- why are we bending over to accommodate men? I'm
not joking on this. "Actress" is being walked away from not by
transgender women or transgender men but by cis gender actresses. Who's
really erasing women -- answer that.
Matt
Walsh is a transphobe and that's why Glenneth embraces him. Glenneth
-- friend of lesbians and so worried about gender constructs (which he
can only manage to term "gender stereotypes") doesn't write about women,
do you ever notice that? Do you ever notice how this 'champion' of
women doesn't reTweet women. Maybe one reTweet every 30 or so Tweets is
a woman. But Glenneth is our brave supporter or ally -- in his mind.
He's full of garbage and always has been a sexist pig -- yes, again, I'm going back to his college days.
Feminists
have been addressing gender constructs for decades. Want to go back to
Mary Woolstonecraft Shelley -- because we certainly can. Glenneth's
ignorance of the work, research and literature on this topic is
appalling. What's worse is he's writing this in a 'response' -- not
shooting off the top of his head. He knows nothing and he thinks he can
b.s. his way out with a lot of words. But he doesn't know what he's
talking about and, honestly, owes us all an apology.
What is a woman?
If
you have to ask, I don't think I should have to speak to you. My time
is valuable and limited. I don't have time for your nonsense.
How stupid are you? What is a woman?
Even in the 19th century there wasn't one answer to that question.
How did you get a college degree -- let alone a law degree -- and remain so stupid?
Is
it based on having a period? Well if so, that rules out all adult
women who've gone through the change, who have had surgery that stops menstruation (such as endometrial ablation), women who are not
menstruating due to physical activity and/or lack of caloric intake
(bulimics, anorexics, and some women in certain endurance competitions,
etc), women practicing certain
birth control (such as Depo-Provera) . . .
Again, I'm so sorry that you're so damn stupid.
And
why the hell are you -- a gay man -- so interested in a woman's
gender? Do you think you have the right to ask someone if they're a
woman or not? If they tell you they are, does that mean you have the
right to look at their genitals' to prove they're not lying?
Honestly, what is that your business?
If
Pat comes up to you and asks you the time, and you tell her the time
and Pat responds, "Thank you. Sorry, even as a girl, I never wore a
watch" -- do you think that you somehow need proof to identify Pat's
gender. Pat just told you she's a woman. End of story.
I don't understand it. Are you in a lab setting? Will you be dissecting Pat?
Are
you fearful that you're going to bump into Pat in the ladies room
because, if you are, Glenneth, you shouldn't be in the ladies room.
Again, things that are none of your business.
You are a transphobe and you are using every lie you can think of to justify that.
Why don't you try telling people how Pat being a woman harms your life? And if you can't, why don't just shut the f**k up?
Because that is the reality. Pat being a woman has nothing to do with you at all.
You
have no reason to attacks transgender people. You need to stop it and
you need to stop lying that it's funny or hip. It's disgusting and
hateful.
But attack them is all you do. Again, back to the same paragraph:
That's
why Dylan Mulvaney has become controversial: she's a cartoon of what a
woman in the 1950s was supposed to be, and to see someone who lived her
whole life as a man pronounce herself a woman based upon such
exaggerated caricatures of "what a woman is" does strike me as not much
different than minstrel shows where whites express their caricatured
version of "what it means to be black."
Glenneth wrote that. It would be a man, I think. Well it would, wouldn't it?
Those familiar with actual women are probably smiling.
Glenneth
never bothered reading the work of women. Nora Ephron, before she
became a successful director, was ESQUIRE's media critic. She wrote
about a woman who had surgery to transition. The woman had bought into
stereotypical constructs of women and had become June Cleaver without
any sex drive.
So,
Glenneth, you think you're being clever but you're not. For actual wit
on the topic, refer to Nora's 70s essay "Conundrum." Some would argue it hasn't
aged well. Nora (who I knew) is sending up the woman for
her extreme notions. Transitioning isn't really the issue of the piece
other than that the woman had the surgery.
Dylan
Mulvaney? Sorry. I do have a life. I had to look her up. What's
exaggerated? What am I missing? Or, after Nora's take on the former
soldier who became the dainty, tea sipping woman who couldn't handle the
bonnet on her car (she was British) or mingling with those rough, hairy
men, am I just not seeing it?
Because
I don't see it. I see a young woman. She's 26. THE NEW REPUBLIC
pulled an article on Pete Buttigieg that made a good point regarding
maturity (that's not an insult to him today, he's matured since the
article was published). It was noting that there are 'growth spurts'
when a closeted person comes out. And I mention that because Dylan has
transitioned and she did so after the age of 18. I'd say she's still
young. THE NEW YORK TIMES and others excused Bully Boy Bush's drunk
driving arrest in 1976 as "youth" and he was 30. So I think a young
woman finding her way deserves a lot more latitude than a War
Criminal.
She appears to be doing Amy Sedaris, not a 50s caricature. Maybe I've missed something in the four videos I had to stream this morning to learn of her.
I
don't know why you're acting this way, Glenneth. Well I do. I've
written about PARIS BURNING before, right? About Glenneth in college
and his near vomiting reaction to the film -- even without seeing it? He's also has a real aversion to being seen as femme.
It's his own personal problem.
But
there's nothing wrong with Dylan. And she's not a cartoon of a 1950s
woman. I'm so sick of people who talk about decades and don't know what
they're talking about (see Ava and my "Media: They lie" for more on that). Dylan is
just fine the way she is and she doesn't need a transphobe judging
her.
Again, what is Dylan's life Glenneth's business?
He's
worse than Gladys Kravitz on BEWITCHED. I don't own a gun but, if I
did, and Glenneth and his big nose came looking in my window, I just
might shoot. Maybe that's the only way a buttinsky like Glenneth
learns?
An
apology to Chelsea Manning. When she was trashing him, I did
understand some of it. But the transphobia? I hadn't heard him express
that and I'd never read his Tweets at that point. Having read his
Tweets, I now get her point. She was right on the transphobia, she
nailed it 100%. My apologies to Chelsea for not realizing what he
was.
Back to Glenneth:
And
I absolutely question why someone can simply declare a new gender
identity that must be instantly respected based solely on
self-declaration but that can't be done for racial identity (Ã la Rachel
Dolezal).
Your are just an idiot. You don't understand genetics, you don't understand constructs, you don't know the history -- around the world -- involving third-sex, for instance. I can't help it that you're so damn stupid that you think this is a new development in our society. Surgery is apparently new, less than a hundred years. But we've dealt with and welcomed -- around the world -- larger understandings than we have today.
And we're going to leave it at that or I'm not going to have time for a shower before we go into the morning zooms.
The following sites updated:
-
'When I changed as a woman, my music changed'3 hours ago
-
-
-
Keva Landrum is an awful nominee9 hours ago
-
Huh?9 hours ago
-
AQUAMAN 2 in trouble?10 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
