Re-Use

From Susan's Place Trangender Resources (Registration and a record of contribution required, so you'll have to take my word for it):

To Hazumu And Zoe-Brain
« on: May 11, 2009, 10:54:00 am »

For conduct above and beyond the call of duty, I hereby nominate Karen (Hazumu) and Zoe_Brain for the highest award that can be given to one of our community, our undying support and love! And if I could find a medal to pin on your chests I certainly would!

Karen as one of the news moderators here provides a steady stream of news reports of interest to the trans community and LGB in general.

Zoe_Brain (ZoeB here), has a blogspot http://aebrain.blogspot.com/ and has quite insightful posts about the trans experience.

Many of these news reports hardly qualify for the term and are just thinly veiled attacks on our community. For her efforts in simply in trolling through this muck in the first place and bringing it to our attention she would deserve an award.

However, time and again, she posts a response to these items, where it is allowed, to balance and not allow this terrible "news" reporting to go unopposed. Her voice sometimes is a lone voice countering and correcting misogynist, spiteful, and hateful statements.

On occasion I too would post a response, but the incessant rants, tired phrases, and hateful comments wearies me. Yet these two seem to always have a response that is concise, thoughtful and accurate.

Howindehell do you do it?

Thank you both for your constant efforts! I cannot express how deeply I appreciate what you have done for our community!

You make me humble and proud.

-Sandy

Howindehell do I do it? Persistence, and I take shortcuts, or rather cut-and-pastes.

Example : From the Times Daily :

Don't let it become law
Senate Bill 909, which is called "The Local law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act," is in reality the Pedophile Protection Act. This bill would not only criminalize free speech but provide elevated protection to pedophiles....

My reply:

I find it amazing, and appalling, at how many homophobic people think that pedophilia is a legitimate sexual orientation.

Because that's what this law deals with - it adds "sexual orientation" to the list of characteristics of groups that we know are treated unequally. That's all.

I thought only NAMBLA and other openly pro-pedophile groups said this kind of thing - that pedophilia is a "sexual orientation" rather than a psychiatric condition.

I will give some the benefit of the doubt - for example, the Illinois Family Institute, who wrote:

In the article entitled "Hate Crimes Bill Moves to Senate" (5/5/09), we mistakenly stated that the American Psychiatric Association's actual definition of "sexual orientation" includes paraphilias. The APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) classifies "sexual orientation" as heterosexual, homosexual, and bi-sexual. The 547 mental disorders called "paraphilias" specifically involve non-human objects, physical pain, or unwilling partners as in pedophilia. IFI apologizes for the error.

But assuming the author is sincerely mistaken, he has had 40 years to raise constitutional objections to such laws, and in 40 years, they have never been used to suppress free speech. Anti-semitic and racist groups continue to be able to espouse their noxious views. The author should have no fear that he too can continue to call for the deaths of Blacks, Jews or Gays with equal impunity under this law. He's just not allowed to actually kill them.

These people are very obviously lying, openly and blatantly, out of pure homophobia. They wish to continue to be able to commit violent acts against Gays and escape prosecution, because the local Sheriff or District Attorney is of like mind. Just as used to happen when Blacks were victims, 50 years ago.

On to the Democrat Herald:

Letter: Against hate-crimes bill (May 18)

I would like to comment on the recent editorials on the Hate Crimes Bill S.909 (HR 1913) that is being voted on in the Congress. I would urge everyone to write their representatives to vote against this bill.

Because this bill does not define “sexual orientation,” every form of deviant sexual behavior will be protected.....

And my reply there was almost word-for-word the same:

I find it amazing, and appalling, at how many homophobic people think that pedophilia is a legitimate sexual orientation.

Because that's what this law deals with - it adds "sexual orientation" to the list of characteristics of groups that we know are treated unequally. That's all.

I thought only NAMBLA and other openly pro-pedophile groups said this kind of thing - that pedophilia is a "sexual orientation" rather than a psychiatric condition.

I will give some the benefit of the doubt - for example, the Illinois Family Institute, who wrote:

In the article entitled "Hate Crimes Bill Moves to Senate" (5/5/09), we mistakenly stated that the American Psychiatric Association's actual definition of "sexual orientation" includes paraphilias. The APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) classifies "sexual orientation" as heterosexual, homosexual, and bi-sexual. The 547 mental disorders called "paraphilias" specifically involve non-human objects, physical pain, or unwilling partners as in pedophilia. IFI apologizes for the error.

But assuming the author is sincerely mistaken, she has had 40 years to raise constitutional objections to such laws, and in 40 years, they have never been used to suppress free speech. Anti-semitic and racist groups continue to be able to espouse their noxious views. The author should have no fear that she too can continue to call for the deaths of Blacks, Jews or Gays with equal impunity under this law. She's just not allowed to actually kill them.

These people are very obviously lying, openly and blatantly, out of pure homophobia. They wish to continue to be able to commit violent acts against Gays and escape prosecution, because the local Sheriff or District Attorney is of like mind. Just as used to happen when Blacks were victims, 50 years ago.

I substituted "she" for "he", that's all. I have no compunction about repeating myself verbatim when the writers are obviously parroting identical party lines they've been fed by others.

Finally, another area I care deeply about - Freedom of Speech. From the Valley Advocate :

Between the Lines: Intolerant of Dissent
The treatment of a conservative speaker at UMass should embarrass genuine liberals.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
By Cathy Young

Those who charge that modern-day liberalism has become fundamentally illiberal toward speech and ideas that challenge its own dogma could ask for no better illustration than recent events at UMass-Amherst.

On March 11, the Republican Club at UMass hosted Don Feder, a conservative journalist, addressing the subject of hate speech and hate crimes. Feder believes that legislation which singles out hate crimes with special penalties, rather than treating all violent crime equally, amounts to unconstitutional punishment of bad speech or bad thoughts. He also disputes the notion of a hate crime epidemic in America.

A group of left-wing students announced their intent to protest Feder's appearance. The campus police then demanded the organizers pay an added $444 for security, nearly tripling the costs to the club.

It's bad enough to place a burden on unpopular views by requiring student organizations to shoulder extra costs for hosting controversial speakers. It's doubly outrageous when, even with the extra costs, the controversial speech is still silenced.....

And my reply there may lead to a certain sense of deja-vu.

The speaker has had 40 years to raise constitutional objections to such laws, and in 40 years, they have never been used to suppress free speech. Anti-semitic and racist groups continue to be able to espouse their noxious views. The author should have no fear that he too could continue to call for the deaths of Blacks, Jews or Gays with equal impunity under this law. He's just not allowed to actually kill them.

These people are very obviously lying, openly and blatantly, out of pure homophobia. They wish to continue to be able to commit violent acts against Gays and escape prosecution, because the local Sheriff or District Attorney is of like mind. Just as used to happen when Blacks were victims, 50 years ago.

BUT.....

The antidote to bad speech and falsehood is not to suppress it: it's to answer it with better and more truthful speech, which in turn can be challenged and put to the test.

I have to agree completely with Cathy Young here. And Francois-Marie Arouet de Voltaire.

"Je ne suis pas d'accord avec un mot de ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu'à la mort pour votre droit de le dire."

Which if my schoolgirl French is accurate, is best translated as

"I don't agree with a word you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it".

Melodramatic, but yes, we do have to make a stand for freedom of speech, *especially* when the speaker is so obviously, terminally and completely full of it.

I do feel a little ashamed here. Using the original Francais is pretentious, but I am, after all, dealing with Arts Students. It gives a wholly false impression of my intellectual credentials, and deliberately so. Not exactly lying but.... And not quite technically correct either. It's difficult to imagine, but it should really be schoolboy French. As taught to me by my first Mathematics teacher, who hailed from France. She taught me "Un deux trois" simultaneously with "One two three", that would have been around 1964. But maybe it's not that inaccurate, after all. Even in 1962 having external genitalia seemed weird and wrong. And I did know the original French after all, even if I had to Google it.