Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 145

Call Me A Columnist...For A Second Time

Gay & Lesbian Times -- a magazine that had been in publication for over twenty years -- ceased publishing. Sadly, we know this is the fate of many LGBT publications of late as it's a tough market out there for LGBT Media.

With Gay & Lesbian Times demise, so went my irregular column Transgressive. Finally when I could say I was a real writer -- writing articles printed on ink and paper instead of web only blog diaries -- my career in publishing came to an end.

Well, there's now a new LGBT magazine in San Diego -- the LGBT Weekly. It's website isn't up as yet, but will be soon.

So now I have a new gig writing under the column name of Trans Progressive. It's not as cool a name as Transgressive was, in my humble opinion, but I've lost the ability to use that column name -- at least for awhile. My first contributed an article to the LGBT Weekly was entitled Bullying, Suicides, And Purple - Including Those In The 'Silent T', and I scanned in the article for y'all -- if you're interested in looking at the piece. If I post any more articles from LGBT Weekly, it'll be from the publication's website, and not from a scanned in PDF.

One plus of writing for this new publication is I have the joy of writing for a magazine is that in its title, the publication acknowledges that transgender is a subcommunity of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. I can't tell you what a pleasure it is to write for a publication that acknowledges the T in its title -- it feels like home.

The publisher for the LGBT Weekly is Stampp Corbin, and the editor-in-chief is Christina MacNeal. I'm pleased as all get out to be part of their team.

Still Waiting For Peter LaBarbera's Follow-On Piece On "Obama-Care" And "Sex Change Operations"

Recently, Peter LaBarbera wrote a piece for his Americans For Truth About Homosexuality website, entitled New HRC Corporate Scorecard Demands Coverage of Transsexual 'Sex-Change' Operations. (I responded in the PHB piece More "Truth" On "Sex Change Operations"?)

In LaBarbera's October 23, 2010 piece, he stated:

Next week: how the Obama administration is telling LGBT activists to lobby for "sex change" operations to be covered under "Obama-care."

By my math, "next week" has pretty much come and gone; today (November 6, 2010) is the last day of "next week."

But hey, LaBarbera's piece on LGBT Activists, "Obama-care," and "sex change operations"  would be better late than never, right?

If you'd still like to read that Americans For Truth About Homosexuality piece on how "the Obama administration is telling LGBT activists to lobby for 'sex change' operations to be covered under 'Obama-care'," you can go to the Americans For Truth About Homosexuality Contact Us webpage, and get the information on how to call its Executive Director, send the Executive Director email, or send the Executive Director snail mail.

Hey, I'm about darn sure Executive Director of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (and you knew that the Executive Director was Peter LaBarbera, right?) would like to hear how this delayed piece on LGBT Activists, "Obama-care," and "sex change operations" is of interest to you, and you're waiting with baited breath to read it.

I know I'm still waiting to read this upcoming piece -- I'm sure the piece is going to be a hoot!

Saturday Open Thread...miscellany plus Rachel on KO, and a grave injustice for Oscar Grant

It's an open thread, chat away...here are some things I've been Facebooking and Tweeting about since yesterday:

The benign:

* I finally finished paying off my Subaru Outback! (Yes it's a stereotypical lesbian household - both of us have Subarus)

* WTF happened to Fall in the Triangle? @durhamncalert "FREEZE WARNING IN EFFECT FROM 2 AM TO 8 AM EST SUNDAY." http://s3z.us/cm.htm. The Good News: we broke out the flannel sheets...nice and toasty. The Bad News: the furbabies got me out of bed to feed them. Brrr.

The hardcore:

* Lesbian 'Corrective Rape' Victim has her day in Court.

This is the face of South African lesbian who was beaten and raped for five hours by a man who told her he wanted to "turn her into a woman".  This is the face of a warrior who despite all odds, trauma, and police victimization, found her way to Court today by public transportation, to testify against her brutal attacker, who remained free on bail  to in essence board the same bus. The Police were simply not willing to give this young woman a ride to the Court. A spokesperson for Millicent Gaika contacted us back in April and we have been shedding light on the plight of Lesbian "corrective rape" in South Africa ever since.  Today was Millicent Gaika's day in court.

* Cop Johannes Mehserle receives 2 years w/credit for time served for shooting Oscar Grant, an unarmed, subdued man, at point blank range. (San Francisco Bay View) The judge tossed out gun enhancement charge.

Today we had a gross miscarriage of justice. Judge Robert Perry threw out the gun enhancement clause that could have added 10 years and then gave Johannes Mehserle a sentence of two years with credit for 292 days for time served. Football star Plexico Burris did more time shooting himself than Mehserle. Michael Vick did more time [for dog fighting] than Mehserle.

* Rachel Maddow on the suspension of Keith Olbermann . "On cable news and cable not-news":

Which Pejoratives Do We Put To A Vote? Apparently Antitransgender Ones

For those of us who don't watch Glee or The Jersey Shore much, we might have missed the use of the pejorative tranny (which will henceforth be referred to as tra**y in the rest of the piece) being used in both shows.

GLAAD reported about Glee's use of the pejorative tra**y in their glaadBLOG piece Glee Episode Hits The Wrong Note. They noted:

The show's inclusion of the word "tra**y" was made all the more confusing by the decision to change the word "transsexual" to "sensational" in the song "Sweet Transvestite." As many commentators have pointed out, it seems strange that Fox would want the word "transsexual" cut from a well known song, but find "tra**y" acceptable.

This inclusion of this slur is particularly alarming given last season's powerful episode in which Kurt's father chastised Finn for using the word "f*g." That episode sent a powerful message to the show's young fan base that words have power and they can hurt.

Jersey Shore was a far worse example of transphobia, in that it was real people making bigoted, derogatory comments about trans people while using the pejorative tra**y. From glaadBLOG's MTV Airs Disturbing Transphobic Jersey Shore Reunion Special:

MTV's hit reality show Jersey Shore featured one of the most blatant examples of transphobia seen on television during its Reunion Special Thursday night.

The offending incident began with a montage of clips from a previous episode, in which Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino is shown flirting with an unidentified club patron, followed by his castmates repeatedly claiming the person was "a tra**y," and that "if you have to think about it, it's a tra**y. Stay away."

However the instance was made much worse by both the show's host and producers, who intercut with shots of cast member Ronnie Ortiz-Magro wearing a dress and MTV's own footage of a large man in a bikini and a Halloween mask in an attempt to add more "humorous" context. Host Julissa Bermudez started off the interview segment by making fun of Ronnie for wearing a dress, and asking Mike Sorrentino, "Who was that tra**y?! What was up with that?!"

The segment can be seen here and the full episode is here. WARNING: This video is extremely offensive.

MTV has since apologized; the glaadBLOG reported on the apology in their piece MTV Apologizes for Transphobic Jersey Shore Reunion Segment. Text of the MTV apology:

We appreciate GLAAD voicing concern about the "Jersey Shore" reunion special. The segment in question was certainly not meant to be insensitive, but in retrospect we realize that it was offensive to some viewers.  We sincerely apologize.

GLAAD's comments on both shows was in alignment with it's mission statement, which states:

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) amplifies the voice of the LGBT community by empowering real people to share their stories, holding the media accountable for the words and images they present, and helping grassroots organizations communicate effectively. By ensuring that the stories of LGBT people are heard through the media, GLAAD promotes understanding, increases acceptance, and advances equality.

For me, another disturbing part of this story has been how some media outlets have turned GLAAD's efforts over the use of the word tra**y into a question to the public -- Is tra**y really a derogatory word? Three examples of this tact are found in Entertainment Week, PopWatch's GLAAD vs. 'Glee': Is 'tra**y' a bad word?; Inside Blip's Did 'Glee' Cross The Line With 'Tra**y'?; Gay rights group up in arms, but is this much ado about nothing?, and SodaHead's Was 'Jersey Shore' Wrong to Use the Word 'Tra**y'?

SodaHead actually has a poll up on their question, which was posed by someone on their staff. The three answers to their pole question are 1.) No, there was nothing wrong with it; 2.) Yes, that was offensive; and 3.) Undecided. As of 12:30 PM PDT, seventy-five SodaHead voters thought there is nothing wrong with using the term tra**y, while thirty-nine voters thought the term is offensive -- twenty-five voters were undecided.

Media outlets wouldn't be asking if the n-word is offensive to African-Americans; we wouldn't be asking if the b-word or the c-word is offensive to women; we wouldn't be asking if the-other-f-word is offensive to gays. Somehow though, Entertainment Weekly, Inside Blip, and SodaHead believe phrasing a headline to ask if a antitransgender term is really offensive when used in television shows is a reasonable question on which to base an internet discussion.

And bizarrely, Inside Blip indicates with in the text of their article that it's not the responsibility of Glee to point out that the term tra**y is seen by many trans people as offensive. That Inside Blip's Michael Hinman (the writer of the commentary, and the founder and site coordinator for the entire BlipNetwork) believes somehow that this is appropriate commentary -- in a climate where anti-LGBT school bulling has become a national issue due to numerous deaths by suicide -- is...well, it's just unbelievable.

Darren Franich appears to speak from cluelessness regarding trans community in his Entertainment Weekly commentary, where he stated:

[C]an we meet in the middle somewhere? Do you think that "tra**y" is a bad word? More to the point, do you think that Glee's use of the word was offensive?

I'm sure I'm not the only trans person who believes "No, we can't meet in the middle; yes, tra**y is a bad word; yes, Glee's use of the word was offensive." Did Franich or Entertainment Weekly even reach out to transgender activists before posting that that series of questions? Somehow, I doubt it.

I am aware that there are drag performers that use the term tra**y to refer to themselves, and I am aware that there are transgender-identified people who use the term tra**y to refer to themselves. And too, I'm aware that a good number of trans people are working to reclaim tra**y in the same way a good number of people in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community work to reclaim the word queer. But just because some African-Americans refer to others in their community by the n-word, and just because many women refer to themselves by the b-word...Well, that doesn't mean white Americans should use the n-word to refer to African-Americans, and doesn't mean that men should be referring to women by the b-word. Pejoratives such as the n-word, the b-word, and the-other-f-word are used to dehumanize people; and so is the word tra**y.

And, there is doubt that as the term tra**y as used on Glee and The Jersey Shore, was meant as a derogatory, dehumanizing term -- which is why the GLAAD Media Reference Guide refers to the term tra**y (along with a few other terms) this way...

Defamatory: "she-male," "he-she," "it," "trannie," "tranny," "shim," "gender-bender

These words only serve to dehumanize transgender people and should not be used.

It's bad enough that tra**y was used as a dehumanizing term in these two television shows, but having a few websites put that term up for a vote -- a vote as to whether or not the term is a pejorative and/or offensive -- is just incredibly insensitive to trans community. And, it indicates that these websites feel they should be able to dictate to trans community which words are antitransgender pejoratives and which terms are not.

So let's let the non-transgender people in society decide which terms offend trans people and which do not because, of course, trans people are too ignorant, too inferior, and too stupid to recognize for themselves what terms are used as antitransgender pejoratives...right?

[Below the fold: Responding to the usual derailments of posts on antitransgender pejoratives -- especially tra**y -- before the derailing begins.]
~~~~~

For those who wish to put up some standard arguments as to why my writing on this subject seems to be unnecessary, let me pre-give some Derailing For Dummies inspired answers for you to consider before posting a comment. Trans people are used to these arguments when we bring up our issues -- even within the broader LGBT community.

• You're Being Overemotional:

It is very likely that the whole reason the Marginalized Trans Person™ in question is debating with you is because they've made a conscious decision to speak out about these issues, despite the pain and heartache it can often cause them.

Therefore, the "you're being hostile" bomb can often lead to an increase of anger and/or hurt. Sometimes it just leads to greater emphasis and exasperation in the argument.

It really doesn't matter, because you can still use it against trans people by accusing them of being overemotional.

You may wish to use the word "hysterical" or "mentally disordered" instead of overemotional. "Hysterical" or "mentally disordered" are words laden with negative connotations, so these terms can be particularly effective. Using these in discussions with trans women is often effective, as the opinions and feelings of trans women have historically been denied as mere "hysteria" or as an outgrowth of "Gender Identity Disorder." A great one to use with trans women as well is to ask them if they're taking estrogen -- yes, it's an oldie, but it's a classic.

Implying people have mental health issues is a great way to dismiss their concerns; it's also insensitive to people with actual mental health issues -- such as depression, bipolar conditions, or schizophrenia.

After all, proper "intellectual" discussions always involve detachment and rationality. What is "rationality"? It's a way of approaching emotional matters devoid of sentiment, particularly prized by Privileged People® as it enables a continuing inequity of power that favors them. After all, if Privileged People® aren't emotionally attached to this topic of antitransgender pejoratives by way of Lived Experience©, it is easier for them to be "rational" on the subject

• You're Just Oversensitive:

This is very similar to You're Being Overemotional, but this one has a slightly different nuance. What you're implying is that Marginalized Trans People™ are looking for offence where none exists.

Here, you can disown any of your own responsibility in minimizing or dehumanize trans people -- and minimizing and dehumanizing any marginalized people and de is absolutely the crux of any derailment. So no matter what, none of this is your fault -- nothing you or anyone else has said that was hurtful, offensive, bigoted or discriminatory.

No one apparently is really to blame here except Marginalized Trans People™, because anything that was said was said in innocence.

After all, what reason have you ever had to examine your ingrained prejudices? Why should you start now?

This is a means of telling Marginalized Trans People™ that you believe the responsibility is all theirs - if they weren't looking so hard for offence, everything would be a lot more pleasant...

But just for you -- not Marginalized Trans People™.

• You Just Enjoy Being Offended:

This is closely related to the above point. A privileged Person&reg: may make sure the Marginalized Trans Person™ knows that people more privileged than Marginalized Trans People™ consider trans issues to be completely trivial. It's insensitive in the extreme - it also exemplifies a lack of awareness and empathy.

By demonstrating you have absolutely no concept of what a particular issue or point may mean to them both within their conversation with you and beyond it, you get to show off just how cocooned and protected in your Privilege® you really are. Remember how maddening this is for a Marginalized Trans Person™ -- it's a Privilege® that they don't share and may never know. So, to witness privilege being so blithely owned and used to diminish their experience, a Marginalized Trans Person™ may just get angry.

You may even be obnoxious and hurtful enough to Marginalized Trans People™ outright that they enjoy facing discrimination and prejudice. Enjoy it so much, in fact, that they "look" for reasons to be hurt and offended.

This is almost breathtakingly perfect as a derailment tactic, as it lacks any sort of conceivable class and humility -- it goes straight to smug viciousness. The very idea that anyone enjoys being hurt and discriminated against as a daily practice is so preposterous it could only be believed by a Privileged Person® who's never hasn't experienced to the level of Marginalized Trans People™, and have no idea what it's like to have one's humanity diminished every day of their lives.

The fact is, many Marginalized Trans People™ go out of their way to avoid these sorts of debates and confrontations because it's such a painful and unenjoyable experience. Those you are encountering in this circumstance have likely made a conscious choice to confront bigotry and prejudice, even knowing it will often go badly for them.

For you to spit in the face of their choice in putting themselves on the line by suggesting it's all fun and games for them just adds a particularly piquant insult to injury.

• Don't You Have More Important Issues To Think About?:

As with the best of all these techniques, this step operates on several levels. First of all, it communicates to Marginalized Trans People™ that you think the entire debate is trivial and below consideration, indicating you entirely disregard their feelings and emotions.

Secondly, you disown responsibility for your part in the debate and anything that you've said that may have been discriminatory or offensive.

Finally, you reinforce your Privilege® by suggesting that it is Privileged People's® job to set the agenda for the Marginalized Group™. After all, how could Marginalized Trans People™ possibly know what issues they should prioritize for themselves as Marginalized Trans People™ are far too inferior and stupid to figure it out for themselves

With your objective, rational Privileged® perspective, on the other hand, you know exactly what is most important, and it is definitely not confronting people who display bigotry and ignorance towards Marginalized Trans People™.

• You're Taking Things Too Personally:

Similar to You're Being Overemotional, but with particular uses of its own.

When you say "you're taking things too personally," you demonstrate your ignorance that these issues ARE personal for Marginalized Trans People™.

That's highly insulting and usually will rub Marginalized Trans People™ the wrong way. That you're already refusing to consider their reality is giving them a pretty good indication of how the conversation is going to digress, yet the natural human need for understanding will probably compel them to try and reason with you, or at least to point you in the direction of some educational resources that will help you gain insight into their experiences. This can enable you to make a demand for them to personally educate you instead taking responsibility to educate yourself.

By denying the conversation is personal for them, you also reveal your own detachment: there's really nothing at stake for you in getting into this argument, you're possibly having this conversation specifically because Marginalized Trans People's ™ issues really seem pretty unimportant to you. Marginalized Trans People™ will be all too aware of this too, and it will begin to work on their emotions.

• Your Experience Is Not Representative Of Everyone:

If a Marginalized Trans Person™ gives you a personal testament, you can immediately assume they are speaking on behalf of their entire group of people and be very quick to point out that it's wrong for them to do so.

It's a diversionary tactic, designed to get Marginalized Trans People™ to deny your accusation -- and then, of course, Marginalized Trans People™ don't continue arguing on their main point of discussion.

Privileged People® have routinely lumped them all together as one great big monolithic group who all look the same, act the same, think the same, speak the same, dress the same, eat the same, feel the same -- you get the idea. And, of course, all of those monolithic behaviors are "other" than those of the Privileged®. Othering is a process that permits Privileged People® to consider the Marginalized Trans People™ as less than human, thereby justifying discriminative and stigmatizing behaviors against them. So naturally, it is imperative to a Marginalized Trans Person™ to make it understood their group of people are as diverse in expression and experience as Privileged People®.

So, there is a truth to stating that a issue that is very important to many Marginalized People™ is not important to all Marginalized Trans People™ -- stating Marginalized Trans People™ are not all the same. In other words, after Marginalized Trans People™ have all been regularly lumped together, you can break the pattern of lumping them all together for a short period of time, and isolate out a single Marginalized Trans Person™ as not being representative of the whole. Heck, you can say that an individual Marginalized Trans Person™ is just representing their own opinion, but their opinion can't possibly be the opinion of any sized group of Marginalized Trans People™. You can even play on this concern by implying that you think a Marginalized Trans Person™ is homogenizing all trans people.

It also works to suggest to them that their experience and viewpoint is worthless because it doesn't align with every trans person's experience and viewpoint -- and particularly if their experience and viewpoint isn't one you've decided to favor.

That is, you can take the positionthat the experiences and viewpoints of the Marginalized Trans Person™ doesn't match the experiences and viewpoints of the trans person you already know -- this is convenient if the experiences and viewpoints of the trans person you already know back up your prejudices.

Rejecting the new point of view can be belittling and offensive in the extreme to the Marginalized Trans Person™, as you are essentially denying Marginalized Trans People's™ their experiences and viewpoints if they disagree with you. Marginalized Trans People's™ personal experiences are important to them, so it's likely they will, whilst getting increasingly hurt and upset, continue to try and defend and "prove" that their experiences are real, and that they belong to a community with viewpoints that are held in common with many, if not most, of its members.

• Unless You Can Prove Your Experience Is Widespread I Won't Believe It:

If you can establish that trans experience is not a monolith, and just because people come from the same Marginalized Trans Community™ does not mean they will all have exactly the same thoughts, feelings and experiences.

Yet with Unless You Can Prove Your Experience Is Widespread I Won't Believe It, you can make it an essential proviso of your agreement that they have to PROVE what they're claiming is definitively representative of a majority of their group of people.

If at this point you have a Marginalized Trans Person™ so upset and frustrated that they are not carefully articulating their points, you can distort what a Marginalized Trans Person™ means so that if you see an opening where you they're speaking "on behalf" of all people from their group, you can go right back up to the prior point, Your Experience Is Not Representative of Everyone, and start all over again. You can repeat these two over and over again -- it can increase the feelings of anger and frustration of a Marginalized Trans Person™, and then you can throw You're Taking Things Too Personally or You're Getting Hostile at them in the process of arguing in a circle.

• Well I Know Another Person From Your Group Who Disagrees:

If, for example, the Marginalized Trans Person™ is making sense and you're beginning to get the unpleasant feeling that you might be wrong about something, just whip up your trans friend and vehemently express how they completely and stridently support your opinions on these issues.

You must discount in your own mind though you that your friend may have internalized transphobia, or how your friend may have been adversely affected by discrimination wielded by the Privileged® that you're unaware of. And, as established above, it is imperative that you discount the diversity of experience whilst seeming to support it.

After all, your trans friend is proof that there are different opinions amongst this Marginalized Group™ but the fact they agree with you means you don't have to in the least give credence to ideas alternative to your own, and certainly not from the Marginalized Trans Person™ in question.

Plus it gives you that handy progressive veneer -- see, all their accusations of transphobia are totally groundless because you have a friend who is a representative from that group -- which shows that you are open-minded.

• You Have An Agenda:

This implies that the Marginalized Trans Person™ could never be speaking from a position of integrity, or with pure intent, because they have "an agenda."

Popular for use in discussions about homosexuality or transsexuality. For example, there's the "The Homosexual Agenda®" -- the claim that lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people's fight to be recognized is simply a desire to "recruit" people into the "Gay Lifestyle"/"Transgender Lifestyle" and turn them "against" the "wholesomeness" of heterosexuality.

And you can separate the "The Transgender Agenda®" from "The Homosexual Agenda®," or "The Gay Agenda®" -- or even your own personal agenda.

In this way you get to both undermine the Marginalized Trans Person™ as a human being and further subject them to discrimination through your refusal to take them seriously. After all, if you characterize the Marginalized Trans Community's™ struggle for acceptance and equal rights as acts worthy of a comic book supervillain, and not part of the real Gay Civil Rights Movement®, you further dehumanize and demoralize trans people. Hey, it can strengthen your position.

Ultimately, you can simply dismiss out of turn any and all of Marginalized Trans People's™ points, no matter how valid, because you can just proclaim that they "have an agenda."

• A In B Situation Is Not Equivalent To X In Y Situation:

The Marginalized Trans Person™ may attempt to be patient and reasonable by using analogy. If you are yourself a member of a Marginalized Community™ exercising privilege over the group you're arguing with, the Marginalized Trans Person™ may use an example of discrimination towards your community and how there are parallels in discrimination towards theirs. This will be to try and appeal to your basic humanity and provide you with an experience you can relate to, hoping you will use that relation to apply compassion.

By simply becoming indignant, emphasizing that your marginalized group's experience is absolutely and one-hundred per cent unique, and that there are no similarities whatsoever between the two situations. Be sure to be very derisive of their trans experience, thereby indicating you believe it's unworthy of consideration. Behaving insulted will indicate their issues are so worthless that it's deeply offensive your own would be compared to them.

Of course, the Marginalized Trans Person™ was not trying to equate the two, simply trying to provide grounds for commonality. It's very important not to give an inch, however, so feign utter ignorance of this at all costs.

• Who Wins Gold in the Oppression Olympics?:

Following on from this, if you are a member of another marginalized group, you can also exploit it to indicate to the Marginalized Trans Person™ how absolutely disdainful you are of his, hers, or hirs concerns and issues by making out that yours are far more important and imperative.

You can even suggest that your issues are more valuable than theirs, implying a hierarchy of oppression in which you always win.

You see, as a marginalized person yourself, it will be all the more infuriating to the Marginalized Trans Person™ that you're exercising the exact same prejudices and discrimination that Privileged People® exercise against you. The Marginalized Trans Person™ will be tearing their hair out at your obliviousness and lack of perception.

• You Have A False Consciousness:

In conversation, there are few things as degrading, enraging and hurtful than to tell someone their experiences are false, or that their perception of them is -- You just tell transgender people that transgender identity is a false identity.

The idea behind this one is usually that oppressed people are simply too oppressed to know they're oppressed, and therefore people who are more privileged than those Marginalized Trans People™ have to share their wisdom and insight with them.

• You Have No Sense Of Humor:

This is where the Privileged Person® tells the Marginalized Trans Person™ how he, she, or ze taking himself, herself, or hirself too seriously -- what was said that the Marginalized Trans Person™ took offense to was only meant as a joke, or that the particular Marginalized Trans Person™ -- or the Marginalized Trans Community™ -- just has no sense of humor.

Y'know, because what was said was really, really funny, and the Marginalized Trans Person™ should just recognize the humor of the situation -- and of course this comes with the claim that there was no offense intended.

So, have at it in the discussion thread; but just be aware trans people are used to being derailed regarding their issues, and the means of derailment are pretty well known and observed.

.

Friday night political video: The New Freshman Class of Extremist Senators

People for the American Way gives us a primer on the nutbags, yahoos and fringe tools who have some how convinced enough voters that they deserve to have the power to pass legislation affecting millions. Meet The New Freshman Class of Extremist Senators. Learn more about them in the Rogue's Gallery.

In PFAW's latest video after the 2010 elections, we introduce the new class of extremist Senators that will arrive in Washington in January.

Interview Magazine - Stand Up for Your Rights: activists, organizers and political voices

You might recall that back in September, I blogged that I had to make a quick trip to NYC because I was selected to be part of a photo shoot and feature for Interview magazine 's November issue. It's on newstands now.

The article is called "Stand Up for Your Rights: activists, organizers and political voices" -- it doesn't appear to be on Interview's web site yet, though portions of the issue are up. The project is the brainchild of photographer David Mushegain and Dustin Lance Black, Academy Award winner for Best Original Screenplay in 2009 for "Milk," and board member of the American Foundation for Equal Rights.

From Dustin Lance Black's introduction:

Back in 1973, Harvey Milk said something that's become one of my favorite quotes: "Masturbation can be fun, but it does not take the place of the real thing. It is about time that the gay community stopped playing with itself and get down to the real thing."

From long-time organizer David Mixner's bold call for a march on Washington in May 2009, to fellow activists Jones and Robin McGehee's answer to that call in the face of Congressional opposition later that year; from openly gay serviceman Dan Choi chaining himself to the White House in March and April, to the American Foundation For Equal Rights' move to fight Prop 8 at the federal level, rejecting the self-loathing sentiments behind a piecemeal approach, it's clear the gay movement is shifting back Milk's way.

In short, the LGBTQ movement is doing what no other movement has previously done. It's emerged from a corporate culture and given birth to a new grass roots. But how can this new energy be captured in images or words? Inherent in the term grass roots is the notion that there is no single leader or prevailing philosophy. Instead, there are thousands of voices with differing points of view and strategies, often speaking in opposition to one another and occasionally at each other's throats. (Lord knows I've got the bite marks to prove it.) But it's these disagreements that are making this movement strong again.

In a country as diverse as this one, it's going to take a multitude of approaches and voices working concurrently and aggressively to win full equality in our lifetimes. And yes, I want to get married before I die, but more important than that, none of us want to see another LGBT kid grow up being told he or she is less of a person - or deserves fewer rights - than anyone else. So let me be clear, in no way do these profiles define the new grass roots. It would take an encyclopedia to do that. These are simply some of the new grass roots, representing thousands just like them, and hopefully inspiring more men and women to take singular stands or to form their own bottom-up organizations to take on city hall or the United States Supreme Court. Because the new gay movement isn't playing with itself anymore. It's after the real thing again.

Also featured in the piece are Dan Choi, Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign, Robin McGehee of GetEqual, Chad Griffin of AFER, Cleve Jones, activist David Mixner, actor Alan Cumming and other newsmaking members of the LGBT community.

As always, I feel humbled by being included with so many people who are making an impact on LGBT equality; it's not always clear to me that what I do online (knowing that I am standing in for LGBT  citizen journalists/Cheetos-stained, PJ-wearing bloggers in this piece) is meaningful. Sometimes it can have an impact - by extending the voice of non-professional LGBTs to the ears of those with access. Other times you do feel like you're shouting into a void and cannot effect change precisely because we don't have direct access to power. I don't think there's any single answer to the question of how we impact the movement. I give it a bit of a shot in this article (the text of mine is after the jump),

As you can see by the photo (I'm on page 101 with Gavin Creel of Broadway Impact and Constance McMillan), I don't look like my normal blogmistress self -- no glasses, in a form-fitting wool dress, and wistfully, about 15 lbs lighter than I am now. That's because I've had to boost my insulin levels prior to surgery, and it puts the weight on quickly (thankfully it's leveled off and not still increasing at the present time). Sigh. Hopefully back to the weight loss after the alien uterus is ripped out in a couple of weeks.

Below the fold, amusing background on the photo shoot and a larger version of that photo with the full text.
The photography took place outdoors on the rooftop of a Lower East Side apartment building. From my earlier post:

I wasn't told much in advance other than to have 1) blue jeans, 2) a black T-shirt, and 3) a white button down shirt. The latter I had to go out and buy because I don't wear button-down shirts because my boobage usually causes irritating gaps. I didn't know if I needed to wear any makeup, so I showed up bare-faced. Anyway, I arrive and David greets me. He's an incredibly nice guy, btw. Very laid back. There were stylists that we waited for. Of course I was hoping they could do something to ensure that I looked fabulous, or at least not embarrassing.

But there was a complication -- they didn't have my clothing or shoe sizes, so they had to guess. I think to myself, "oh no, nothing will fit." Stylists are not used to working with short, top-heavy, overweight women. I cringed to myself. They opened the bag of clothing options and most were fall/winter things (it's November issue). One item that looked like it might fit was one of those designer "little black dress" outfits - the all-purpose kind that I prayed would get over the boobage and not look like ass on me.

I came out and lo-and-behold, the size L fit well enough to do the job. Thank goodness for stretchable fabric. It wasn't like sausage stuffing, but still. And there was no makeup person, so I was going to be shot as-is. OMG. All I had on me was lip gloss. Imagine the terror. Oh well, go with the flow. So we went onto the roof...

David's theme is a 1950s B&W Polaroid look. What was fascinating about it was that he was using a 1950s camera that he had rebuilt, and David was using film that he acquired via auction. This stock was really old - as in the boxes had expiration dates that were over a decade old. Also, this particular size of Polaroid film is no longer made. He was going to work from the negatives, not the prints themselves, and took some digital shots for backup.

The weather was very nice - not hellish hot as it had been the last time I was in NY - and I was shot in full sun. We took many photos with my glasses on, since that's how most people recognize me, and several with them off, standing and seated.

So after he went through quite a few of those old Polaroid cartridges, David was happy with the look he wanted. Now I don't know which one will end up in the magazine, but it seemed everyone agreed on two that were without my glasses, so it's quite likely you'll see me without specs, my hair down and not smiling. Very different look. But you know how those old photos no one seemed to smile, so I understand what he's going for. I have a hard time not smiling or laughing. Modeling is hard work.

I was the last shoot of the day; he had already photographed David Mixner as well as Pam SPAULDING,

Blogger, pamshouseblend.com

Pam Spaulding didn't set out to have one of the most popular blogs dedicated to gay civil rights, but pamshouseblend.com quickly went viral. "When I launched the blog in 2004, it was really just to personally vent about the state of the political situation at the time," the 37-year-old 47-year-old North Carolina-based blogger says. "[George W.] Bush was up for reelection. I was seeing the level of rancor on the side of the religious right over LGBT rights. When I started, I wasn't thinking about people reading my work." Soon, Spaulding was serving on panels to speak about the discriminatory political landscape and guest blogging on sites like the Huffington Post. She became what she terms an "accidental activist," with a blog that racks up almost 250,000 visitors a month. Part of the site's draw is that it allows readers to submit diaries about what's going on in their cities. "I think the Internet has given voice to people who are terribly frustrated, with feelings of isolation. Now they can go on and see what other people are doing by reading blogs like mine," she says. Spaulding knows it's not just people in the gay community trafficking her site. "The first time I was called by the White House communication over a year ago, I nearly dropped my phone," she remembers. "The [White House is] reading the blog and responding to either criticism or praise that I have." It would be easy for bloggers to hide in anonymity - especially when the government is watching - but Spaulding purposely uses her own name. "I feel like I have to speak for people who are unable to, just to show that you can do this," she says. "I have a full-time day job. I can't quit and just blog. I like to have more voices than silence. Everyone needs to speak." -LS

Log Cabin Republicans take DADT fight to the SCOTUS

Wow.

Didn't see this coming. Dan Woods, partner at White & Case, the firm representing the Log Cabin Republicans have asked the Supreme Court of the United States to consider reversing the stay imposed on Judge Virginia Field's worldwide injunction of the military's implementation of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law.

From the Log Cabin Republican's press release:

Dan Woods, White & Case "We have today filed an application with the United States Supreme Court asking it to vacate the Ninth Circuit's order staying Judge Phillips's injunction pending appeal. We argue in this application that the Ninth Circuit order was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion and should be vacated immediately. We continue to look forward to the day when all Americans can serve in our military without regard to their sexual orientation," said Dan Woods, White & Case partner who is representing Log Cabin Republicans.

Q: Will the entire Supreme Court be involved in considering whether to vacate the Ninth Circuit order? A: That is up to Justice Kennedy. He may decide himself or he may refer the application to the full court.

Q: How long will the review take? A: That is also up to the court. The Court may allow the government the opportunity to respond to our application.

Q: What are the next steps if the Court vacates the ruling/doesn't vacate the ruling? A: If the Court vacates the stay order, DADT is dead pending the appeal, and we have for all inteappeal from Judgnts and purposes won. If it doesn't, we will next move in the Ninth Circuit to expedite the e Phillips's decision.

Now THAT's Fierce Advocacy.

R. Clarke Cooper, Executive Director, Log Cabin Republicans "It is unfortunate the Obama Justice Department has forced the Log Cabin Republicans to go to the Supreme Court."

Unfortunate indeed.
More from Politico:

The Log Cabin move appears to face long odds at the Supreme Court, at least right now. In major cases, justices usually refer such applications to the full court. In this instance, Justice Elena Kagan would be expected to recuse since she played some role in strategizing about the case. In the eyes of many observers, that would leave four conservative justices (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas) likely hostile to a legal challenge to "don't ask" facing down three liberal justices (Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg) who might be open to it. Supreme Court handicappers consider Kennedy the possible swing vote in such a case, but even if he joined the liberal wing, the Log Cabin application would likely fail on a 4-4 tie vote.

Still, you can never win a battle you never don't show up for. Good luck, Log Cabin Republicans. (I still can't get used to this.) Win or lose, Politico author Josh Gerstein makes an excellent point:

However, filing the application would possibly have the effect of drawing the White House and President Barack Obama further into a fight they don't have their heart in and which has caused strife between the Obama administration and gay activists who traditionally support Democrats.

BREAKING: Raw Story Reports "MSNBC Suspends Olbermann After Donations To Dems Disclosed"

From Raw Story's MSNBC Suspends Olbermann After Donation To Dems Disclosed:

News network MSNBC has suspended host Keith Olbermann indefinitely after a news report stated he donated to the campaigns of three Democratic candidates.

Mediaite quotes MSNBC President Phil Griffin as saying, "I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."

Raw Story then quotes Politico's Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Dems:

Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 - the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann's "Countdown" show.

Grijalva, a prominent liberal who was just declared a winner in his race Thursday night, was in a tight contest against tea-party-backed candidate Ruth McClung when he appeared on "Countdown" - one of several appearances he made on the show.

NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions - considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover

Apparently, the story is still developing.