Cher calls out trans-exclusionary group of so-called "feminists" https://t.co/QNvwe2zDfT— huffpostqueer (@huffpostqueer) September 6, 2016
Cher criticizes trans-exclusionary radical feminists, or TERFs. Good for her. As for the person who wrote the HuffPost headline putting "feminists" in quotes and preceding it with "so-called," I do not see what is accomplished by suggesting that a feminist with offensive views is on that account not really a feminist. That is like saying music you dislike is not really music, which many said about rap.
Instead of wasting our time on fruitless gatekeeping, we should focus on persuasion, on making our case and connecting with people. This is not easy. But the alternative is name-calling. Getting to change requires going through uncomfortable encounters, challenging one another, listening and learning. When we make the struggle about which group is going to be excluded, we evade the essential work.
Update: The tweet that was automatically generated for this message on GLAA's Twitter account, @glaadc, included a link to this blog entry generated using Google URL Shortener. Our friend Julius informed us that clicking on the short link produces this error message:
http://goo.gl/fb/5v1paH – this goo.gl shortlink has been disabled. It was found to be violating our Terms of Service. Click here and here for more information about our terms and policies respectively.
Really, Google? What term offended you. "Trans-exclusionary"? "Feminist"? This is absurd.
One more reminder that we are not done. This is just a temporary hold, not a ruling on the merits. But we have so much work left to do.
Wayne Grudem, a Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona, writes at the conservative website Townhall.com about why he supports Donald Trump. His article, "Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice," acknowledges several of Trump's character and behavioral flaws and then says it doesn't matter if the alternative is worse. He goes into a long list of issues on which he claims that Trump is better than Hillary Clinton.
I could not disagree more with Professor Grudem, so here I will respond to several of them. Given the enormous gulf between the candidates with regard to experience and qualifications, this election should not be close. The fact that the race is close should be a stark reminder not to treat the frightening prospect of a Trump presidency as something to dismiss lightly. Perhaps you may find some of my arguments useful in making the case to friends and family members who are sticking with Trump despite his almost daily barrage of appalling statements. Here goes, for what it's worth.
Abortion. I am sick of the religious bullying on this issue. The utter contempt for people making different choices in this area is very disturbing. I am personally troubled by abortion, and think that the ideal situation is for unwanted pregnancies to be prevented through contraception. But the question of whether to continue or end a pregnancy is not my decision. It is up to the woman. You can say a thousand times that this makes me pro-abortion, but that is not true. Respecting people's right to make a different choice than mine does not mean I agree with that choice. The point is that IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS.
As for contraception, the Catholic Church, in which I was raised, is stoutly opposed to it. A leading anti-choicer, former senator Rick Santorum, has made it clear that he does not just want to overturn Roe v. Wade, but also Griswold v. Connecticut, which legalized contraception for married couples, and Eisenstadt v. Baird, which did the same for single women. I find it stunning that people in this day and age are willing, much less determined, to mind their neighbors' business in such an intrusive way. The constitutional separation of church and state protects everyone by prohibiting us from imposing our religious dictates on one another.
Brava to Sarah McBride, who just became the first openly trans person to address a national convention. I remember the day of her husband Andy Cray's funeral, and how sad beyond words it was, though leavened with grace and joy at the remarkable life Andy had lived. It is just great seeing Sarah's poise and positivity in addressing the convention.
My new Blade column gapes at Trump's fascist rally in Cleveland, as well as the growing scandal over Russian interference in the American election. And I examine the sharp contrast between the two parties' vice presidential candidates. Have a gander while you watch self-defeating leftists trying to sabotage the proceedings in Philadelphia.
Chelsea Manning violated the Espionage Act. She released vast numbers of documents in a reckless fashion. That being said, it does not justify abuse of a prisoner. Those who say that appropriate transgender healthcare should be withheld as punishment are damnably wrong. I hope that Manning will get the care that any prisoner deserves, as well as respect for her gender identity. Healthcare is a right; its denial is not a legitimate part of punishment.
REMINDER: Politicians who want to inspect your genitalia before letting you pee still call background checks for gun buyers "too intrusive"— The Daily Edge (@TheDailyEdge) May 23, 2016
Please join us at 6:30 pm on Wednesday, June 1 in the Martin Luther King Library for a community discussion on LGBTQ social justice and rights. It is an interesting panel of participants. GLAA President Rick Rosendall will moderate.
I was going to agree with this criticism, and it will do me no shred of good not to, but on reflection I think too much is being made of this. I myself (echoed by my GLAA colleagues) called for legalizing sex work eight years ago, which is one of the questions in the 15-page questionnaire; but Hillary is in a race against Trump with grave implications for our country, and must pick her battles. Anyone who doubts her commitment to trans equality should check out the positions page at Trans Equality for Hillary.
Time magazine's rainbow cover sparks outrage https://t.co/Rbu8t99qpF— Washington Blade (@WashBlade) May 25, 2016
This article quotes one objection to the Time cover:
“Dear @time this is a gay pride flag, not a trans pride flag. This is erasure and a failure of basic due diligence,” one person tweeted.
Erasure? Really? The cover of Time Magazine is the opposite of erasure, whether you like the illustration or not. According to Wikipedia, "Unlike within the wider LGBT communities worldwide which have adopted the Rainbow flag, the various transgender individuals, organizations and communities around the world have not coalesced around one single flag design. Instead there are several flags used and endorsed by the varying transgender individuals, organizations and communities." The cover design is a striking graphic inspired by the far better known rainbow flag, which our enemies certainly regard as including the T even if you don't. This is the sort of fake controversy that causes people whose support we need to roll their eyes and turn away.