You've Got To Be Kidding

Apparently, the latest catalogue from J. Crew has the wingnuts all up in arms because it shows a five year old boy with his toenails painted hot pink.

Let's start with one Dr. Keith Ablow who posted this screed on Faux News' website:

Well, how about the fact that encouraging the choosing of gender identity, rather than suggesting our children become comfortable with the ones that they got at birth, can throw our species into real psychological turmoil—not to mention crowding operating rooms with procedures to grotesquely amputate body parts? Why not make race the next frontier? What would be so wrong with people deciding to tattoo themselves dark brown and claim African-American heritage? Why not bleach the skin of others so they can playact as Caucasians?

Why should we hold dear anything with which we were born? What’s the benefit of non-fiction over fiction?

For someone who is supposedly a mental health professional, Dr. Ablow is profoundly ignorant about the nature of transgender people and the treatment protocols for them. Worse, he clearly hasn't even bothered to read the DSM-IV (much less the working material for the DSM V on the subject. If he had, he would have a much different understanding things. (Of course, he is being published on Faux News, so it's not as if I expect much here)

Jenna Lyons and J. Crew seem to know exactly what they’re up to. That’s why the photograph of Jenna’s son so prominently displays his hot pink, neon toe nails. These folks are hostile to the gender distinctions that actually are part of the magnificent synergy that creates and sustains the human race. They respect their own creative notions a whole lot more than any creative Force in the universe.

No, Dr. Ablow, it is you who fails to understand that gender is much more flexible than the rigid boy/girl binary that you are propounding. Transgender people all over the world show up the lie in your assumptions every day - just by existing.

Even more ironic is that it is well enough established that painting a little boy's toenails pink (or giving a little girl a toy gun) isn't going to make anybody transgendered. This is another little fact that had Dr. Ablow been paying attention to the research work in his field at all he would have been aware of.

... and of course there's always the predictable outrage from one of the religious "research" think tanks:

J.CREW, a popular preppy woman's clothing brand and favorite affordable line of first lady Michelle Obama, is targeting a new demographic - mothers of gender-confused young boys. At least, that's the impression given by a new marketing piece that features blatant propaganda celebrating transgendered children.

Really? That's "propaganda"? First of all, what's wrong with painting toenails or fingernails? Why is that a "girls only" activity in the first place?

The upshot of this is that it's much ado about nothing really. However, once again it is being used by the wingnuts to attack transgender people by repeating the same tired old lies that are trotted out at every opportunity.

More From The Illogical File

If you haven't encountered Dale O'Leary before, you can be forgiven - one has to tread into the swamps of religiously driven pseudo-science to find his writings. (He was one of the authors of the horrendous paper on the "ethics" of gender reassignment surgery I dissected back here)

He's surfaced again - a year late, it seems, to respond to the APA's study on reparative therapy - and like other attempts at reason from this sector, he's busy cherry picking facts and in doing so gets it entirely wrong. (The actual APA report is here)

1) Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality—in other words, they do not indicate either mental or developmental disorders.

The use the term "per se" confuses the issue. It is true that same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations are not in and of themselves (per se) indicative of anything. Given the variety of human behavior and attractions in different cultures, throughout history, and among the variety of mankind, nothing can be said about all persons with same-sex attraction, everyone who engages in same-sex behavior, or claims a particular sexual orientation. However, there is substantial evidence that same-sex attraction is a sequel of disturbed early childhood, in particular a failure to achieve a secure attachment to the mother1 and a failure to identify with the same sex parent and peers2. There is also evidence that persons with SSA are more likely to have been victims of childhood abuse,3 including sexual abuse,4 or other exposure to age inappropriate experiences. A number of well designed large sample studies have found that persons with SSA are more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, substance abuse problems,5 and suicidal ideation.6 Men who have sex with men are at high risk for contracting an STD, including HIV.7 While not every persons with SSA falls into these categories, a significant percentage do. There is on the other hand no replicated evidence that SSA is genetically or congenitally predetermined and therefore a natural and unchangeable variant.8 Therefore, it can be argued that there is evidence that SSA in some cases (or some might argue in most cases) is associated with a psychological or developmental disorder.

O'Leary makes several assertions here which, had he bothered to actually read the report in its entirety, he would find it addresses.

Assertion: Homosexuality is a result of childhood and/or family dysfunction.

From the APA Report:

Theories that certain patterns of family relationships cause same-sex sexual orientation have been discredited (Bell et al., 1981; Freund & Blanchard, 1983; R. R. Green, 1987; D. K. Peters & Cantrell, 1991).

Assertion: Homosexuality is associated with childhood sexual abuse

From the APA Report:

Some individuals who present with requests for SOCE may have clinical concerns that go beyond their sexual orientation conflicts. These may include mental health disorders, personality disorders, or trauma- related conditions that influence the presentation of sexual orientation conflicts and distress (cf. Brown, 2006; Drescher, 1998a; Glassgold, 2008; Haldeman, 2001; Iwasaki & Ristock, 2007; Lasser & Gottlieb, 2004; Mohr & Fassinger, 2003; S. L. Morrow, 2000; Pachankis et al., 2008; Schneider et al., 2002; Sherry, 2007; Szymanski & Kashubeck-West, 2008). Such conditions may require intervention separate from or in conjunction with the intervention directed at the sexual orientation distress. For instance, some clients who seek SOCE may have histories of trauma (Ponticelli, 1999), and in some individuals sexual abuse can cause sexual orientation identity confusion and other sexuality-related concerns (Gartner, 1999). Other individuals seeking SOCE may make homosexuality the explanation for all they feel is wrong with their lives (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Erzen, 2006; Ponticelli, 1999; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002). This displacement of self-hatred onto homosexuality can be an attempt to resolve a sense of badness and shame (cf. Brandchaft, 2007; Drescher, 1998a), and clients may thus need effective interventions to deal with this self-hatred and shame (Brandchaft, 2007; Linehan, Dimeff, & Koerner, 2007; Zaslav, 1998).

Please note the language of the APA report. Unlike O'Leary, the APA is very careful to describe these conditions as coincidental with, not causally related to, the client's sexual identity. The APA is very cautious about drawing causal relationships between conditions for good reasons - when one looks at the broad spectrum of people who were (for example) victims of child abuse, it's not clear that even a significant fraction of those people turned out to be homosexual.

Assertion: Homosexuals are at a higher risk for other psychological conditions.

The APA Report addresses this concern in the quote I provide above.

Assertion: Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at higher risk for STIs

From a purely psychological perspective, this hardly seems relevant. Although it certainly is indicative of O'Leary's biases, since it is a common assertion made by the religious set to justify their "opposition" to homosexuality.

Assertion: While not every persons with SSA falls into these categories, a significant percentage do. There is on the other hand no replicated evidence that SSA is genetically or congenitally predetermined and therefore a natural and unchangeable variant.8 Therefore, it can be argued that there is evidence that SSA in some cases (or some might argue in most cases) is associated with a psychological or developmental disorder.

Ah ... the classic circularity which confuses correlation with causation. The APA is very careful not to make any assessment of causal factors related to homosexuality because what evidence exists is far from conclusive. Unfortunately for O'Leary, his fantasy that because there has been no "gay gene" found that the causes must lie in other correlations doesn't exactly hold up. (I discussed this in more detail here, here and here.

O'Leary doesn't let reason get in his way though, as he proceeds to try and disprove other basic tenets of the APA's report.

2) Homosexuality and bisexuality are stigmatized, and this stigma can have a variety of negative consequences (e.g., minority stress) throughout the life span.

Sexual acts between two persons of the same sex, along with adultery, fornication, and sexual paraphilias, are condemned by a number of religions as always contrary to God’s law. Since these religions are based on unchangeable revelation, these doctrines cannot be altered. Therefore, engaging in same-sex relations will always be considered by some as unacceptable. Love and compassion for those who struggle with temptation does not require acceptance of these behaviors. Freedom of religion protects the right of persons, who believe that homosexual acts are always wrong, to state their belief publicly and teach this conviction to their children without fear of discrimination. Such convictions are not bigoted, discriminatory, homophobic, or hate speech.

It is true that the realization that a significant portion of the community believes that a person’s behavior is not acceptable may make that person feel bad. Persons engaging in homosexual behavior may wish to silence those who disapprove. They may wish to have their behavior universally accepted; but so long as people have freedom of religion this situation will not change.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry over this self-serving bunch of tripe. Instead of addressing the very real issue of stigmatization, O'Leary provides us with a self-serving justification of why he thinks it's his right to demand that GLBT people be limited in their lives.

I would argue that his interpretation of "Freedom of Religion" is deeply flawed - at least with respect to the Canadian Charter of Rights. I've discussed the principles of how different rights intersect with each other elsewhere on my blog.

... and yes, when those anti-gay statements amount to propaganda, they are no better than what the Nazis spread about Jewish people in the 1930s. Make no mistake about it.

3) Same-sex sexual attractions and behavior occur in the context of a variety of sexual orientations and sexual orientation identities, and for some, sexual orientation identity (i.e., individual or group membership and affiliation, self-labeling) is fluid or has an indefinite outcome.

Gay activists would have us believe that SSA is a normal, and unchangeable variant, but numerous studies have found that SSA is fluid.9 If as the evidence shows it is possible for SSA and behavior to change spontaneously, then why can’t a person seek psychological therapy or spiritual counseling to affect a change in SSA or behavior?10

The APA report doesn't actually say this. What it does say is that the evidence supporting reparative therapy is deeply flawed (big shock there), and that reparative therapy doesn't produce the results claimed.

What the APA does advocate is a therapeutic environment that will help the client achieve a degree of self awareness and self acceptance that they did not have before - in a manner that respects the spiritual, social and sexual context that the client lives in.

4) Gay men, lesbians, and bisexual individuals form stable, committed relationships and families that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships and families in essential respects.

Same sex relationships differ in many essential aspects from a marriage between a man and a woman. Two persons of the same sex cannot consummate a marriage - the one and only act that joins a man and a woman as one flesh. They cannot conceive a child that is the fruit of their union and their joint biological offspring. Every child acquired by a same-sex couple has been separated from one or both biological parents. Such a separation is perceived by the child as a loss. Every child raised by a same-sex couple lacks a parent of one or the other sex. Two persons of the same sex lack the psychological and emotional complementarity that is part of a husband and wife union. Finally, it is interesting to note that exclusivity is not considered essential for male couples.11

The usual "but homosexuals can't procreate" argument. I've heard this a thousand times as an argument against gay couples. It's a crock. This argument is based on a myriad of assumptions about heterosexual relationships and how they differ from homosexual relationships ... and aren't based on a single scrap of evidence that I've ever seen.

As for exclusivity, as much as the religious set likes to get their panties in a twist every time they talk about gay promiscuity, they do so while turning a blind eye to the frequency of what they should rightly call adultery among heterosexuals. Extra-marital affairs (on both sides of the marital bed) are surprisingly common, and to criticize homosexual couples for being open about them is hypocritical at best, and a double standard at worst.

As for offspring, how many children are raised in single parent households? By step parents? ... by adoptive or foster parents?

5) Some individuals choose to live their lives in accordance with personal or religious values (e.g., telic congruence).

Some individuals not only choose to live their lives according to God’s revealed law, but also believe that since truths of revelation and the truths discovered by science come from the same source, when both are properly understood they will agree. The term "values" degrades this belief into mere personal opinion; one person "values" one thing, another "values" something else. Those who believe in the congruence of revelation and science, reject this kind of relativism. They hold that it is possible through revelation and science to approach truth and that certain opinions are simply wrong. However, they respect the right of those who oppose them to be wrong and to defend their beliefs. While gay activists demand universal acceptance and affirmation for themselves, they use every method within their grasp to silence and marginalize those who disagree with them.

More self-serving malarkey from O'Leary. He clearly hasn't bothered to read the entire report from the APA - or if he has, he failed to comprehend a sizable chunk of it. If he had bothered to read the APA's report thoroughly he would have realized that this forms a significant part of how the clinical environment should be managed.

As If They Listen at all...

So, the Conservatives are admitting that they ignore voters who disagree with them.

Ignoring the queer vote is the way to win the Vancouver Centre riding in a possible fall federal election, says a letter from the newly anointed Vancouver Centre Conservative Party candidate.

This comes as no surprise. In Alberta, Conservative MPs do their level best not to talk to anybody who isn't among the party faithful. I haven't seen anything that resembles even a pro forma attempt to communicate from my MP in ages. I'm assuming that most of his communications allotment is being spent on 10%ers.

We already know that there's a streak of bigotry in the Harper government - it's shown up in so many policy decisions they have made you'd have to be deliberately ignoring it not to notice - whether it's the sudden demotion of Diane Ablonczy for daring to provide funding to the Toronto Pride parade, or the plethora of dark skinned Canadians that have been left twisting in the breeze by a Canadian government seemingly uninterested in dealing with protecting its citizens abroad.

Canadians - if we have an election this fall (and it's a big if), ask yourself if a candidate who won't even approach some of their constituency residents is likely to represent your interests at all - especially when your interests run contrary to Big Daddy Harper's ideology or goals.

... and the Screeching Begins

Yesterday, I wrote about the Globe and Mail's article on young transsexuals and their families.

Sure enough, almost like clockwork, the denizens of right wingnuttia came out of their caves squawking about the subject. In this case, the screeching starts at Tristan Emmanuel's No Apologies blog.

Of course, the writers at No Apologies talk in broad generalizations and conveniently fail to cite any real facts to substantiate their bogeyman fears about allowing young transsexuals to transition while still adolescents:

Glossing over the serious moral and ethical dilemmas of gender reassignment, the piece briefly addresses not only the emotional strain of gender confusion among adolescents, but the serious consequences of promoting gender reassignment surgery at young ages.

What "moral and ethical dilemmas" might these be? The fact that transsexuals tend to make the religious right wing horribly uncomfortable? Or perhaps it's the uneasy fear they have that transsexual youth might come to regret their decision later in life?

Being transsexual is, by nature, emotionally stressful. How could it not be? (and it is no easier for the family of the transsexual than it is for the transsexual - nobody expects their child or sibling to pop up one day and announce their intention to transition)

There is an implicit accusation that the treatment community has ignored addressing the very real ethical issues that providing treatment to someone who declares that they are transsexual raises.

Referring to the Endocrine Society's recently published guidelines on the treatment of transsexuals (I only seem to have access to the draft still), we find the following:

Transsexual persons seeking to develop the physical characteristics of the appropriate gender require a safe and effective hormone regimen that will 1) suppress endogenous hormone secretion determined by the person’s genetic/biologic sex and 2) maintain sex hormone levels within the normal range for the person’s gender. A mental health professional (MHP) must recommend endocrine treatment and participate in the ongoing care throughout the endocrine transition. The endocrinologist must confirm the diagnostic criteria the MHP used to make this recommendation and collaborate with the MHP in making the recommendation for surgical sex reassignment. We recommend treating transsexual adolescents (Tanner stage 2) with suppression of puberty with GnRH analogues until age 16 years old, only after which time cross-sex hormones may be given. We suggest suppression of endogenous sex hormones, maintaining physiologic levels of gender-appropriate sex hormones and surveillance for known risks and complications in adult transsexual persons.

There are two key points that I wish to emphasize here. First is the requirement for direct involvement of an appropriately trained mental health professional (e.g. psychiatrist or psychologist). Second, I will also point out that treatment options recommended for those under the age of 16 are puberty blocking drugs, not cross-sex hormones or surgery.

This dovetails quite nicely with the guidelines in the WPATH Standards of Care which addresses the mental health aspects of treatment more fully.

The piece reveals just how few medical and psychological experts in the field of mental health and education are willing to address the negative long-term effects of gender confusion and gender reassignment surgery.

What negative long term effects? As I discussed here, the research is quite clear that the long term outcomes for GRS are generally positive, with only a small handful of unsatisfactory results or regrets - and that's over some 30 years to 1992. I am unaware of any research since that suggests the Pfaefflin survey has been proven incorrect.

And The Peter Weighs In

Right on cue, leading wingnut over at AFTAH has weighed in on the Birth Certificate issues I mentioned yesterday.

Says The Peter(™):

First, it’s utterly reprehensible that anyone in the medical community would be complicit in facilitating a psychological disorder by amputating healthy body parts. There is a condition known as either apotemnophilia or Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) that is characterized by the desire to amputate a healthy limb. It is useful for comparison in that it is thought by many to be closely related to Gender Identity Disorder (i.e., transsexualism), which society is increasingly accepting as a valid identity that emerges from biological influences and whose behavioral manifestations are morally legitimate.

Let's start with the obvious things here. Mistake number one is LaBarbera's insistence that transsexualism be compared to apotemnophilia. Frankly, I don't buy that argument to begin with. It rests upon the very shaky assumption that transsexuals transition and have gender surgery because they are fixated upon the physical change that surgery will bring. Except for Bailey/Blanchard/Lawrence, few in the medical community actually believe such a premise. The 'autogynephilia' hypothesis tends to rest upon declaring transsexuals as liars when they discuss motivations other than the physical for wanting to transition.

Unsurprisingly, The Peter cites Anne Lawrence. There's a lot about Dr. Lawrence I respect and admire - but her "autogynephilia" hypothesis doesn't impress me - especially when it runs contrary to so much other data.

Most people, rightly in my view, recoil in horror at this decision. But it is difficult to see how amputating a healthy arm or leg is substantively different from amputating a healthy penis or breasts.

If that was all that gender transition was about, I might almost agree with that. The reality is that gender transition is much more about what's between the ears than the physical changes. Yes, the physical changes are important - do not make the mistake of assuming I trivialize their role in transition - but they tend to reinforce and support the journey that the individual is making in their heart and mind.

Second, these two men remain men even without their penises, even with hormone-induced or prosthetic breasts, and even with hormone-induced female-ish voices. As I’ve written before, my mother was no less a woman following her mastectomy, hysterectomy, and oophorectmy than she was before her surgeries. The disordered desire of these two men does not change objective reality.

So...tell me, Peter. Since you clearly understand that womanhood (or manhood) is not completely tied to the physical, what makes you think that it is impossible that a woman may have been born into a male body?

Finally, these two men are not merely asking the government to become complicit in their disordered delusion; and they are not merely asking the government and all of society to accept their delusion as reality; they are also asking the state to commit fraud. They are asking the state to affirm in a legal document a falsehood. Even these two men acknowledge that they were born male. If they hadn’t been born male, they couldn’t have had a “sex-change” operation.

Ummm...no, it's not committing fraud. What The Peter is whining about is not fraud - any more than a name change is a commission of fraud. The government has every right (and likely a requirement) to keep the old and revised versions on file, just as they would with a legal name change.

To say that it is fraud, one would have to demonstrate an intent to deceive. In this situation, we must recognize that the Birth Certificate is an important document for someone establishing citizenship, or applying for a passport. Why should these people be subjected to additional scrutiny every time they apply for key identification documents?

The problem that The Peter has here is that he doesn't want to admit that transsexuals are real people, with real lives. He sees transfolk as sinful, delusional and liars.

Unfortunately, what he is wanting to propagate is a pattern of ongoing, systemic discrimination that someone who transitions across genders experiences. A birth certificate with an old name, or a wrong gender marker on it can very quickly turn into an excuse for being fired from a job, or one finds their passport application suddenly comes back with demands for more information or proof of something or another. Every time you apply for a passport, suddenly you go through the process of 'outing yourself' one more time to somebody (who probably doesn't care, but when transsexuals are assaulted or worse with frightening regularity, you never know)

Already the government has been complicit in this monumental deceit and delusion by allowing them to change their “gender” designation “on their driver’s licenses, passports and Social Security Card.” Just as the medical profession acts unethically when amputating healthy body parts in the service of a delusion, so does the government act unethically when changing legal documents to affirm a falsehood in the service of a delusion.

Unfortunately, he doesn't even know what a delusion really is:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture.

Okay, let's explore this in the context of transsexualism for a moment. A transsexual presents at a therapist's office, and the commonly held assumption is that the narrative is "I'm a woman in a man's body". (A gross oversimplification of what really happens, but it will suffice for now)

So, from an external perspective, we have someone who is quite aware that they are physiologically male. There is no question of their awareness of this. The trickier question is establishing whether the person is in fact psychologically female.

The second part of the problem is harder to establish, and in fact is why the therapy process can be so important. Someone who has lived a good portion of their life in one gender will have a lot of adaptation to go through before they will be able to live successfully in their chosen gender. Whether the individual is willing and able to make that adaption successfully is a pretty good indication of how real the latter is. (Trust me - someone who is a man will not find it easy to fit into a woman's world - and the converse is also true, and is in fact one of the driving forces that leads transsexuals to pursue transition.

It's very hard to describe a transsexual as deluded. They are, if you read the literature, excessively aware of the reality of their situation, and the challenges that they face are a combination of internal and external stresses that need to be resolved.

LaBarbera is simply demanding that more obstacles exist for an already marginalized population. Where is the spirit of Christian teachings in that position?

Pop Quiz Time

Quickly now...imagine that you are a public servant - in a position that puts you in regular, direct contact with the public that the government has hired you to serve. Do you have the right to deny service to that same public based on your personal morality?

If you answered 'no', then chances are you understand that doing your job means that everybody you deal with gets fair treatment and that the law applies equally to all.

If you answered 'yes', then chances are pretty good that refusing to marry a gay couple is just fine (and Canada has its own variety of this same nonsense)

The problem is that public servants are hired to do a job for taxpayers - and GLBT people are taxpayers and citizens just like everybody else. It's really simple. If you are a civil marriage commissioner, that's cool. If you are a heartfelt Christian, that's cool too. What's not cool is when you refuse to do the job that the government hires/licenses you to do because of some offense taken under your religious beliefs.

If you will, think of a food inspector that happens to be a practicing Orthodox Jew. He can be offended all he wants that a restaurant's kitchen is not Kosher, but he isn't hired to judge that - he's hired to ensure that a the restaurant is fundamentally safe for its patrons to eat at. His religious beliefs have nothing to do with how he assesses the restaurant's kitchen...period.

When it comes to civil marriage ... it's the same thing. If you really can't stomach the idea of marrying a gay couple, then it's time to find another occupation to consume your time, or become an ordained minister. There's nothing in the law that places a public servant's personal morality above the government's law. Period.

You Reap What You Sow

Over at AFTAH, we find Peter LaBarbera trying to explain to us why he doesn't permit comments on his blog:

By the way, and for the record, AFTAH does not allow comments to be posted on our website precisely because of the sheer viciousness, vulgarity and ad hominem, hate-filled attacks that characterize so many messages against us from pro-homosexual activists. Responding to the lies and smears would take all of our time. Uncivil homosexual activists would love that.

That's funny Peter, 95% of what I've read on your site is vicious, vulgar and hate-filled. Do you think there might be a correlation? You blatantly show GLBT people a level of disrespect and rudeness that makes what comes spewing forth from Dobson look almost civil.

As an example, let's consider some of what you wrote in the following article:

ob oh boy! A band created by the Lesbian and Gay Band Association — built around men and women who share disordered sexuality and, for some, gender confusion ...

That's just in the start of your tirade, we find you referring to homosexuality as a "disordered sexuality" and transgender people as having 'gender confusion'. It is not just what you say, Peter, it is how you say it. Use the correct terminology instead of inventing something that is obviously intended to be disparaging.

Questions: what deserving, hard-working high school band from Anytown, USA was bumped out by the homosexual marchers in the intense competition to march in the Inaugural Parade? We’re also wondering: do the bisexual LGBT band members get to march in any direction they want? (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

Your first question is a complete non-sequitur. It implies something that you cannot possibly substantiate, and connects two unrelated issues.

Your second question is so disrespectful of bisexual people it's not even a little bit funny. Which returns me to my original point - you reap what you sow. (and the article I'm picking on is relatively mild compared to some I've seen you publish)

You claim to want a respectful dialogue, but your own writing proves that you are quite incapable of doing so - do you really think that those whom you seek to marginalize are going to just lie down and let you run roughshod over them?

(One little aside - the corollary to "Freedom of Religion" is "Freedom From Religion")

The Veneer Cracks

To be honest, I'm actually a little surprised by this. Lee Richardson has been around politics to know better - but it appears that the festering ooze of what passes for thought among the ReformaTory set has infected Mr. Richardson:

"Particularly in big cities, we’ve got people that have grown up in a different culture," he said. "And they don’t have the same background in terms of the stable communities we had 20, 30 years ago in our cities … and don’t have the same respect for authority or people’s person or property."

He later added: "Talk to the police. Look at who's committing these crimes. They’re not the kid that grew up next door.”

What a delightful sentiment - so who among the HarperCon$ is going to take off their muzzle next?

... And Just What Is The Difference?

So, the kingpin of Wingnuts, Fred Phelps, and the oh so lovely gems from Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas are threatening to come to Red Deer, Canada to "picket" the Laramie Project play.

Phelps is a particularly vile form of humanity, renowned around the world for his blatant hatred for anybody, and anything that runs contrary to his particular brand of scriptural mangling. Assuming that he even gets into Canada, their shrieking "picketing" campaigns are hard to take seriously - they are so obviously unreasoning in their claims it's almost laughable.

But, in a move that I can only call pure irony, the Red Deer Advocate decided to turn to Stephen Boissoin for an opinion on the Phelps clan coming to Alberta.

“Their interpretation of the scripture and how they choose to manifest that interpretation is a disservice to the Christian gospel of God’s grace. Grace means unmerited favour and unmerited love to all human beings, who are all sinners,” Boissoin said.

Boissoin’s anti-gay letter to the Advocate was ruled by the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission to have broken Alberta’s human rights law. He said it is unfortunate that in the middle of his appeal to the Court of Queen’s Bench, the Kansas group is coming here. He said it will cause further confusion about what other Christians — like himself — believe, which is that God loves all people equally, but not all of their behaviour.

Funny how he's so willing to lump GLBT people in with all sorts of malfeasance, but doesn't like it when his actions might be lumped in with an even more extreme expression of fundamentally the same thing by someone who is so brazenly insane that they are just obviously hate-filled.

From Boissoin's own letter:

These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.

The line between Phelps' obviously insane rantings and Boissoin's tirade isn't exactly much of a line, in my view. One talks about war and victory, the other shrieks about it - the difference is probably a couple of valium pills at most.

I see Boissoin is now trying to soft-pedal his words and self-justify the bigotry that underlies them by using phrases like "believe, which is that God loves all people equally, but not all of their behaviour.".

I just love the "it's the behaviour" line that comes out of these people. What a bunch of nonsensical garbage. I have never seen a single, solitary attempt to define what they mean by "behaviour". What is "homosexual behaviour" in their lexicon? Frankly, I don't think any of the people that use that phrase have a clue, much less any ability to articulate what they are talking about. The phrase is little more than a catch phrase that is really intended to represent a group of human beings that they wish to treat as second class citizens.

What gives these goons the right to insist that others live by their religious ethic? From that perspective, there is very little difference in my view between calling an entire class of people "wicked" - based on what one imagines of their "behaviour" - and the screaming insanity of the bile that Phelps and clan spew on a regular basis. Both boil down to the same fundamental demand.

Dear Monster ... er Monsieur... LaBarbera

I'd suggest that you find a subject to write about that you actually know something about, because it's painfully obvious you have no idea about transsexuals, and your good buddy over at "Family Research Council", Mr. Perkins knows even less. As evidenced here.

First of all, the "bathroom bills" aren't about someone getting their jollies. I'm sorry, but someone who gets excited about being in the same room that other people are using to relieve themselves of bodily wastes is not well at all, regardless of their gender.

Second, the issue that those bills address is the legitimate right for someone to "pee in peace". People have been thrown out of buildings, banned from restaurants and goodness knows what else for using what somebody else assumed was the wrong bathroom. Transsexuals are particularly vulnerable to this kind of idiot discrimination.

Okay, someone who is "crossing between genders" can make a lot of people uncomfortable, I get that - especially when they don't fall into the rather narrow category of "attractive". The reality is that as unsettling as those people are to some, they are basically harmless. Someone's gender identity being out of alignment with their body isn't going to turn them into a slavering sexual predator - it doesn't work that way.

Just offhand, I'd suggest that someone who is obviously presenting as female stepping into the "men's room" in most public places is apt to find themselves in a whole pile of trouble...especially given the way that men respond to something they consider to be a "threat". (and I imagine an FTM walking into the ladies' room would be in for a similar amount of objection)

Equating transfolk with sexual predators is not only fundamentally wrong, it simply doesn't make any sense. If there are sexual predators who will go to the extent of cross-dressing to get nearer to their prey, they're already doing it ... and are committing a crime in their predations. If you are worried about predators, I'd suggest paying more attention to Senator Larry 'Wide-Stance' Craig, and numerous other bible beating loons that we keep catching getting their jollies in public places. (and Mr. Craig, as I recall, was definitely caught in the men's room...)

Contrary to the lascivious musings of Mr. LaBarbera and his crowd, transfolk are looking to use the washroom for the same reasons everybody else is, and they pose no threat to anyone.

Lifesite Gets It Wrong ... Again

If there's one thing that gets my dander up, it's got to be moronic arguments that are founded entirely upon someone's mythology without a single droplet of fact in the argument.

Such is the case with Lifesite's recent commentary on Ontario providing funding of GRS for transsexuals under the provincial health plan.

For the most part, Lifesite's commentary is the standard religious right wingnut screed, and I would have shrugged it off. Then I read this statement:

Smitherman, appointed Health Minister in 2003 by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, is an openly active homosexual, infamous for advancing sexually permissive social policies.

Talk about being dead wrong about the subject. First of all, in spite of the unfortunate use of the term "transsexual", transition (of which GRS is but one step) has very, very little to do with sex at all.

Yes, changes are made to an individual's sexual characteristics, but ironically, those have relatively little to do with the overall process. The actual process of transition is more about changing someone's "social gender" than anything else. In other words, the physical changes involved are intended to provide either gender-appropriate visual cues to the world at large (e.g. a feminine silhouette as a result of hormones), or to improve the patient's sense of themselves.

However, the biggest changes take place between the ears. As the transsexual progresses, they assimilate into the social world of their chosen gender. By far, this process of learning to socialize as their chosen gender is the biggest part of the journey, and one that not all make successfully.

Of course, Lifesite goes on to quote Dr. Paul McHugh's tirades against transsexualism and the treatment of it.

“Women psychiatrists whom I sent to talk with them would intuitively see through the disguise and the exaggerated postures. ‘Gals know gals,’ one said to me, ‘and that's a guy.’”

Following his extensive research into the “sex-change” phenomena, McHugh ended “sex-change” operations at John Hopkins and has encouraged other facilities to do the same.

“I concluded that Hopkins was fundamentally cooperating with a mental illness. We psychiatrists, I thought, would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia.”

A quick note: Lynne Conway has a wonderful analysis of McHugh's hostility on her website.

Yes, McHugh has a very prestigious post, and no doubt an enormous amount of political influence. However, that doesn't make him automatically an expert on transsexualism as a subject. In fact, the only thing it makes him is a political force in the realm of psychiatry.

If he had paid attention to the stories of transsexuals that are told time and again, he might have realized that they are not only amazingly diverse, but also surprisingly in consistent in key respects. However, McHugh subscribes to the Michael Bailey school of reasoning which discards anything he doesn't want to accept as the patient "lying".

The real hang-up for these people is the fact that gender transition can involve surgery that alters the form of the genitalia. From this, they derive the conclusion that transsexualism is all about sexual activity.

When you consider that an average married couple has sex once a week, for at most about 30 minutes, it seems a trifle odd that someone would go through the entire transition process for that brief period of time. There is 10080 minutes in a week, and 30 minutes is just barely 0.3% of that sum.

Think about that - nobody is going to turn their entire existence upside down for 0.3% of the time involved - and that's assuming they find a partner. One has to imagine that there is a lot more at play here than sexual behaviour, and unsurprisingly, that is born out by the transgender narrative which repeats the themes of a much deeper sense of well-being post-transition than mere physical sexuality brings.

I swear these people spend more time thinking about sex than your average hormone-addled teenager does. Disappointingly, they seem to be more worried about the sex lives of everybody except themselves.

Speaking of Religious Bigots...

One of my 'bots that trawls for news dug up the following story: ‘Sex-change’ treatment for ‘transgender’ kids? Hospital clinic draw moral criticism. It appears that the Bible bleaters are at it again - and still getting the story dead wrong.

These patients are called “transgender,” a term coined by homosexual activists pushing the idea that “gender” is a changeable psychological notion divorced from biology. The American Psychiatric Association calls the condition Gender Identity Disorder.

First of all, the term 'transgender' is not an invention of "homosexual activists" - it is a term with a specific meaning intended to describe a particular group of people.

Transgender people will argue that psychological gender is distinct from biological sex for very good reasons. I'll come back to addressing those reasons a bit later, once I've finished demonstrating the sheer lunacy of the rest of the article.

The family eventually turned to Spack, who prescribed testosterone, which stopped menstruation and gave Holly facial hair and a deeper voice. Holly bound her breasts to conceal them until she could have a double mastectomy, which was carried out at another hospital.

Holly had her name legally changed to Hal. As of last year, Hal was considering a hysterectomy in the future, and was now “presenting” as a male.

“This is cooperating with psychosis,” commented moral theologian Father Anthony Mastroeni of Patterson, N.J. Father Mastroeni, who has taught at Franciscan University of Steubenville and Christendom College, has written extensively to refute the notion that sex-change surgery might be morally justified.

Father Father Anthony Mastroeni is a Professor of Theology, not a psychiatrist or psychologist. I doubt very much that he has the appropriate psychological training, or personal experience with transgender people to make such a sweeping statement. (actually, it's a sweeping statement that sounds a lot like one Dr. McHugh's writings on the subject:

With these facts in hand I concluded that Hopkins was fundamentally cooperating with a mental illness. We psychiatrists, I thought, would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia.

Please note that McHugh publishes his anti-transgender material in forums that are primarily religious, and seems to studiously avoid actually addressing the issues in a more scholarly environment where he might have to back up his claims with facts. However, it's this statement that really slays me:

“It does nothing but increase human misery,” he said in an interview. “There’s no scientific evidence that anyone is born with gender dysphoria.”

Oh really? No evidence? Clearly the man has neither looked, nor chosen to consider the evidence that has been gathered. One of the most common parts of the transsexual's narrative are memories of 'being wrong' that go back to their first memories. While that doesn't empirically "prove" anything, it's an amazingly strong clue.

Additionally, some transsexuals will point to some small post-mortem studies of the BSTc region of the brain which suggests that transsexuals often have "chosen gender"-normal attributes in that region. (E.g. A MTF TS will have a BSTc region that is size and structurally typical for a female) I consider these to be somewhat weak evidence because of the small size of the studies, and the fact we have little ability to study the structure as it develops at the moment. (The BSTc studies were done on deceased people for a reason)

I've often said before that coincidence does not equality causality, and in this case I stand by that statement. I believe that from a theoretical perspective, the evidence suggests quite strongly that someone's gender identity is in fact set quite early in life - certainly by the time early memories start to form.

There are legitimate medical problems, such as ambiguous genitalia, that doctors can correct, he said. “But when there’s nothing to suggest that these kids have a genetic anomaly, something in their background is dysfunctional. The evidence shows that in a boy, he’s over-identified with his mother or other female to the extent that his ego boundaries are blurred. With a girl, usually her mother was seen as ineffective and she identified with a dominant father figure.”

Allow me the pleasure of tearing this bit of amazingly bad analysis apart - piece by piece.

First off, doctors cannot "fix" ambiguous genitalia. They can, in a manner analogous to the surgical procedures for transsexuals, construct gender-appropriate looking structures. Second, as the Organisation Intersex International and other groups have lobbied for deferring such surgery until the individual is able to express their desires with respect to gender, simply assigning a gender doesn't always work. (similarly, Dr. Money's unfortunate work with David Reimer also demonstrates that you cannot simply assign a gender to someone by surgery and hope that socialization does the rest.)

The second claim is little more than an awful bit of bad psychoanalytics. Essentially, if someone isn't physically "deformed" (in Fr. Mastroeni's view), it must be something dysfunctional in the family environment. Superficially, that might almost seem reasonable. Except for the fact that the vast majority of transsexuals come from perfectly normal family settings. The "distant father" or "overbearing mother" theories of causation were discarded decades ago - because they don't describe any more than a small fraction of cases.

To Fr. Mastroeni, and others who think he's right, I must pose the following question:

If someone can be born with ambiguous genitalia or chromosomal variations (there are people out there who have both XY and XX chromosomes and still others with XXY or other variations), what is to say that someone cannot be born with a "female brain" in a male body (or vice versa)?

Father Mastroeni placed the scenario in a societal context. “We’re living in an age of narcissism, of flight from struggling or pain, with an obsessive-compulsive focus on pleasure. Children become confirmed in their narcissism when they watch self-absorbed parents. So they insist they want to ‘free themselves’ from this dysfunctional idea they have of themselves. That grown people would sanction feeding this neurosis is even sadder.”

Anyone with the vaguest notion of the inner struggles that transsexuals face and deal with will know that narcissism is far from even being related to the picture. The ideal of "noble suffering" is positively offensive here. We are all called to struggle with some aspect of ourselves in life, I do not believe that scripture calls upon anyone to struggle without hope and relief. For a transsexual, transition is that relief, and it is necessary.

The Vatican’s Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in 2000 issued a document that authoritatively concluded “sex-change” operations are invalid — they do not change a person’s sex, according to a Catholic News Service report reprinted in LifeSiteNews.com.

Frankly, if the relgious organizations wish to nitpick about whether they believe GRS does what they think its name suggests, that's their problem. Gender transition isn't about the surgery - that's just what the ill-informed and clueless think.

Mark Steyn Lies, and Ezra Laps it up

I'm getting quite sick of hearing the utter bullshit coming out of clowns like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant lately.

The latest claim is that Richard Warman has been involved in every Section 13 (Hate Messages) claim in the last few years. Of course, Ezra just has to parrot Steyn.

I'm pretty sure that there's at least one case that did not involve Mr. Warman - that was the complaint that Rob Wells filed against Craig Chandler for republishing Boissoin's letter on multiple websites. I suspect the real truth is that Warman doesn't respond well to being bullied, and will push an issue through the full process and hearings. Since Mr. Wells' complaint was resolved through the mediation process, it doesn't even turn up on Steyn's radar, so the logical fallacy eludes him.

At one point Steyn complains that a transsexual who complained about access to medical services is now working for the government on a study about transsexual health issues:

"Human rights" plaintiffs are professional activists: since filing her complaint, the transsexual in the labiaplasty case has been given a government job investigating the health status of transsexuals.

Hmmm...lessee - it's a bad thing to ask a transsexual to quantify the problems that transsexuals face accessing health care services how? While I would expect more than just that individual to be involved in the study, I can't imagine someone better qualified to give voice to the issues experienced by a small, and relatively obscure minority population.

Oh yes, and in a similar case in California where a hospital refused services to a transsexual woman because of her past, the hospital has changed its "policy".

Of course, to people like Steyn and Levant, denial of services that would otherwise be available to others isn't discrimination, is it? No, no they don't. They seem to be of the opinion that their beliefs are unassailable and beyond question.

CHP: Why Church and State MUST Be Kept Apart

This morning's troll through the wingnut-o-sphere turned up this little gem on Wingnut Daily. (which is being parroted here on Tristan Emmanuel's blog)

It seems that the Christian Heritage Party and its leader are the subject of a couple of human rights complaints. Largely for recycling and posting material that is hostile to GLBT persons. (Go read the article over on Wingnut Daily if you want ... I'll not be recycling that spewage here)

However, that led me to start poking through the CHP's website, just to see what they have to say for themselves. Essentially, they advocate for what amounts to a form of theocracy - even if they wrap themselves in the cloak of democracy.

From their policy pages on what they euphemistically call Civil Government:

1. GOD, MAN, AND GOVERNMENT
We affirm that God is the Originator, Sustainer, and Judge of all governments. Those who govern, whether in the family, the church, or the civil realm, are ministers of God for our good, and therefore are subject to God's Laws (1). Since authority t o govern is ultimately derived from God, the state does not wield supreme power over the individual, family, or church, but is obliged to respect their legitimate jurisdictions. Government exists to serve God by dispensing justice, protecting basic human freedoms, and directing the activities of the community as a whole towards justice and righteousness.

I see - these clowns want to revive the "Divine Right to Govern" concept that the monarchy used in centuries past. (I don't think we need to spend too much time reflecting on how that particular exercise went)

1. ORIGIN OF HUMAN RIGHTS
We affirm that the value and dignity of the individual is derived from man's being created in the image of God. 'Human rights', therefore, have no other source than the God of the Holy Bible, and cannot be construed as to mean the freedom to commit acts which the Bible openly calls 'sin' (i.e. the transgression of the Moral Law of God).

There's an interesting problem here. Essentially the claims in this would return us to the era of stoning people to death, and treating women as chattel rather than persons. Lovely...just lovely.

But the real gems are just starting to emerge:

3. DISCRIMINATION
We affirm that no person (or group) has unlimited freedom to do anything desired, without due consideration for the 'rights' of others. 'Human rights' do not conflict, and the 'rights' of one person should not be interpreted by civil magistrates, or upheld under civil law, in such a way that they infringe upon the basic 'human rights' of another. The term 'discrimination' cannot in all cases be equated with a denial of 'human rights'. Discrimination is an inevitable consequence when a choice is mad e between good and evil, or between those that wish to uphold honesty and integrity, and those that don't.

Uh huh. Yes, you read that right. They want to reserve - in law - the right to marginalize people based entirely upon the CHP's notion of good and evil - how generous of them. You can just guess who are first in line for their righteous wrath - GLBT people, followed by anyone who dares not follow the CHP's idea of "Christian righteousness".

From their more foundational Basis of Christian Law pages:

We assert the importance of maintaining the Biblical basis of the Common Law, transcending any clauses of or judgments under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or any rulings or interpretations by Human Rights Commissions, in accordance with the Preamble to the Canadian Constitution.

I see, so the notion of "biblical law" applying in Canada derives from a particularly brain damaged interpretation of the preamble to The Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law

I've heard that canard before. It's largely derived from some pretty bold assertions as to what that phrase means. As part of a preamble it perhaps provides some contextual guidance, but certainly does not provide legal weight to any particular notion of scripture or "God". Although one would tend to suspect the authors were referring to a Christian concept, the fact that the document later discusses freedom of religion explicitly, it would seem that they may well have meant a much broader concept of godhood than what the CHP is reading.

And then they become quite explicit about their intentions to marginalize and discriminate against GLBT people:

3. SEXUAL ABERRATIONS
It should be beyond the power of any legislative or administrative body to recognize, affirm, condone, or discriminate in favor of, identifiable sexually aberrant individuals or groups (1).

I see...so being visibly "different" should be grounds for being fired, denied residency etc.? No, I don't think so. We've tried that before and the result was some of the darker periods in human history.

The Christian Heritage Party presents in their platform all of the things that make me a firm believer that the Church has no place whatsoever in the governance of a nation these days.

I don't know the specifics of the alleged complaints by Mr. Wells, but the very policy foundations of the CHP are as noxious as anything I've ever seen on Wingnut Daily. The fact that the allegations are being reported on Wingnut Daily right now, and I have yet to find an independent corroborating source is enough to make me question the claims on Wingnut Daily - however, the party's policy platforms themselves strike me as containing just cause all by themselves. (Biblical allusions contained therein aside)

Columnists Getting It Wrong ...

What is it with the Sun Media chain? They continue to provide a voice for some of the most astoundingly ignorant, bigoted and illogical columnists I have ever read.

This week's gem of the week comes to us from London Free Press in the form of Rory Leishman who is arguing that gays shouldn't raise children.

More or less, Leishman is arguing by parroting Dawn Stefanowicz, who blames the evils of her own childhood on the fact her father was gay:

Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting. In this compelling book, she presents an open and honest account of her anguishing experiences as a child growing up in a dysfunctional home dominated by a homosexual father and a submissive mother.

I'm not going to trash Ms. Stefanowicz's experiences - I simply can't call them invalid any more than she can call my own life experiences invalid. However, it is folly to assume that because one person writes a book about growing up in what sounds like a deeply dysfunctional family (like I haven't seen a few of those among long-standing heterosexual families), that all people who share an attribute (sexual orientation) with a member of that family are "bad news". Yet, Leishman tries to do just that:

Nevins contended: "Despite stereotypical beliefs to the contrary, there is no evidence to support the suggestion that most gay men and lesbians have unstable or dysfunctional relationships."

That assertion is patently untrue. Sex in America, reputedly the most scientifically rigorous survey of the sexual habits of the people of the U.S., found that the average number of lifetime sexual partners is four for heterosexuals and 50 for homosexuals, while the percentage of monogamous couples who have been 100-per-cent faithful to their spouse or partner is 83 per cent for heterosexuals, but less than two per cent for homosexuals.

Screech! Hold it right there. Given the social proscriptions against "affairs", that study itself talks about people "admitting to having an affair". Leishman's derivation is suspect in that he fails to acknowledge that the Gay subculture may well not have the same inhibitions around "admission" to an affair. (By the way, it will be quite interesting to watch if the access to legal marriage impacts this over time)

Second, Leishman is essentially claiming that simply because a gay parent might have an affair, that somehow they are an unfit parent. This is patently not true - if that measure were applied to heterosexual couples, most would turn up as "suspect" to some degree or another - after all how many people date multiple partners who are unaware of each other?

Nonetheless, several studies purport to show homosexual couples are no less competent to nurture children than heterosexual couples. These claims are not credible. Given that few children raised by a homosexual couple have yet grown to adulthood, it's impossible to prove the competence of homosexuals as parents.

No, Rory, I'm sorry to say that you are very, very mistaken. Gay and Lesbian (and Transgender) people have been raising children since the dawn of time. In the past, how many single parents in the 20th century were gay? Nobody will ever know because the social conditions of the time made it very dangerous to be "out" as gay and also be an involved parent. (Which may well be a significant part of whatever dysfunction afflicted Stefanowicz's childhood) They made a choice to keep very, very quiet.

Further, you cannot simply dismiss the study based on "small population sizes". Small 'n' studies still remain valid, and enough of them showing consistent results provides sustainable conclusions. (and yes, I trust the APA to have done a lot more analysis of the topic than Mr. Leishman)

The most glaring error you can make is to take a single case and apply it to an entire population. One does not describe all - it never has and never will in humanity. I sympathize with Dawn Stefanowicz, just as I sympathize with anyone who grew up in a dysfunctional home. Her experience is unfortunate, but no more representative of the situation that GLBT-led families experience than situations like this can be called representative of heterosexual families.

The reality is that what children need, above all else, is a loving and stable environment, which can be provided by GLBT people. (Being different doesn't remove someone's ability to care about those around them!)

Abbreviated Michael Coren

As if he hasn't produced enough drivel to convince us that he's a complete loon, Michael Coren opens his and demonstrates not only a complete lack of understanding but a monumental level of ignorance, intolerance and bigotry normally reserved for Klan meetings safely held while everyone is wearing pointy white sheets.

Musing about the challenges that afflict some of the various ethnic minorities in Canada.

The reason is that black children do extraordinarily badly in our education system. Shock. Horror. Never mention race unless it is to play the guilt game and apologize for wrongs committed centuries ago or to claim that every problem within the black community is the fault of white people.

He then goes on to rant about how flawed black culture is in Canada:

The fundamental, of course, is the existence of a nurturing family. Meaning a mother and a father who value education, value family and support and encourage their children. It is insulting to assume that no such units exist in black Canada, but realistic to ask why they seem so relatively rare.

Holy sweeping generalizations, Michael. I thought you were smarter than that. I won't profess to know much about "black social culture" in Canada. I'm sure it exists, but I don't have a lot of personal insight into it - from the statement that he just made, Coren has just demonstrated how little insight he has as well.

There is also the danger that their so-called "Afro-centrism" becomes a euphemism for rejecting white culture and rejecting Canada. No need for dead white males, from Shakespeare to Tommy Douglas, if we can teach the latest radical fashion in black identity politics.

Less than 40 years ago Irish Catholics were told they need not apply for all sorts of jobs and there were university quotas to restrict the number of Jewish students. Cry me a river for kids who live in a country with free health care, social security, welfare democracy and freedom. This is a grand, great nation. Do not blame it if you choose not to live up to its standards.

[Snark]Why yes, Michael, we're all so threatened by the rising tide of alien cultures among the anglo-saxon traditions we are used to.[/Snark]

I think it's time for Michael to move down to somewhere in the US South - preferably one of those "quaint" little towns that never quite managed to leave the segregation era. He'd fit in just fine there - I'm sure he'd enjoy the occasional lynching too.

Michael Coren is not asking valid questions about the issues, he is casting broad aspersions about subjects he is clearly not just ignorant of, but willingly so. If Mr. Coren wishes to make pronouncements on the social and economic success of an entire population in Canada, it would behoove him to learn a little about the topic first. Instead of doing such research, he makes sweeping generalizations and then wonders why he is immediately tarred with the brush of 'racist'...probably because he's earned it. (But then, Coren's never let facts get in the way of a good rant - especially when it allows him to unleash his inner bigot)

That was quick

It seems that The Sun pulled Ezra's last column.

I commented on it back here. It's a rare thing for Sun Media to pull a column of any sort - I can guess just how warm some of the letters they were getting must have been.

...and no, that's not "censorship" - it's called calling a bigoted moron out on his suppositions. Clearly a lot more people than just me saw that column for what it really was.

Ezra Opens His Mouth ...

[Update: 23/10/07]:
Over at bigcitylib, you can find video that includes what Ezra claims is "vision obscuring headwear". (Which amusingly, bears little or no resemblance to the muslim styles that Ezra was ranting off about)

...and yes, Richard over at "no-libs" apparently doesn't see where Ezra's leap - and subsequent tirade - is such obvious bigotry.
[/Update]

and shows us just how ugly he really is.

According to Ezra, he figures that the bus driver in last week's tragic collision with a gravel truck, was impaired because she was wearing a traditional Islamic headdress - specifically, headwear that would impinge on her peripheral vision.

I won't speak to whether a niqab or hijab can (or did) obstruct the driver's vision. I'll leave that to the police investigators who are trying to sort out what happened.

However, Ezra's argument is fundamentally full of crap to begin with. I've driven the stretch of road where the collision occurred too many times to buy the "it could have been averted if she could see" argument. The road speed along that stretch is 80 km/h, and she was driving the visual equivalent of a 1 ton cube van. Trust me, "peripheral vision" doesn't matter on a relatively straight chunk of road where you would have had ample time to see the truck parked on the side of the road; and by the time that "peripheral vision" would have mattered, it was far, far too late given the size and inertia of the vehicle involved.

I agree with Levant only insofar as obstructed vision in a motor vehicle is a hazard - but by that measure some of the latest "styles" in glasses should be outlawed for those very reasons - the great thick arms are broad enough to completely obscure your peripheral vision. But then again, the number of drivers who tool around oblivious to their surroundings that it's a bigger hazard than someone driving with limited peripheral vision.

Of course, Ezra's real purpose is to try and illustrate to us how "privileged" those muslims are in our society:

I think it's obvious why these questions were not asked: because it is politically incorrect to question a religious veil -- or even anything that looks like one -- for fear of being regarded as politically incorrect.

Maybe the woman wasn't Muslim. Maybe it was just a scarf to stay warm.

Why didn't a single reporter even ask?

Of course, it doesn't matter if the woman was Muslim or not, or it if was a religious hijab or just a winter scarf. Or an Eastern European baboushka.

What pisses me off about this is not Ezra speaking out and raising the question, but rather the way in which he goes about it. It's so blatantly obvious what his position is - even though he doesn't know what charges are pending himself.

Frankly, given Levant's past track record of showing us exactly how narrow-minded a bigot he can really be, I think it's pretty safe to assume that underlying his latest tirade is nothing more than simple bigotry with only a superficial veneer of "broader concern".

Dear Mayor Mills:

Please look in the mirror.

Sez Truro's Mayor:

Mayor Bill Mills is standing by the vote, saying, as a Christian, he simply could not support the request.

"God says I'm not in favour of that and I have to look at it and say, I guess I'm not either," Mills said.

The mayor said gays and lesbians already have equal opportunities and work and pension benefits, so he wonders what else they're fighting for.

Do these clowns ever look themselves in the mirror? Do they ever think about their own words? His own statement, or perhaps the debate itself in Truro is a clue for his query.

Of course, Mayor Mills goes further and makes exactly the kind of misinformed, quasi-paranoid comment that tells you oh-so much about the underlying prejudice this man harbors:

By raising the rainbow flag, he added, that might open the door for other groups.

"If I have a group of people that says pedophiles should have rights, do we raise their flag too? I don't want to lump them in with homosexuals, but that's the point, the issues, and that's my feeling.

"There doesn't seem to be standards anymore. Everything is OK, everything is a go."

Good grief. Once again we see yet another elected official open their yaps and show us all exactly how ill-informed they really are. Okay, he's a professed "Christian", big deal. Not only has he pulled out the old "gays are pedophiles" saw, he's also essentially claimed that the GLBT people are "immoral" people who have no "moral standards". While his "beliefs" may tell him this is 'truth', that doesn't make it so.

It occurs to me that this man is exactly the reason that pride events have been a part of the GLBT rights movement in the first place. He's one of the "keep it in the closet" types who sees nothing wrong with firing somebody because of who they love becoming public knowledge.

Wow - The Assumptions Just Boggle

Down in Florida, we find a 2-bit bigot who is currently sitting in the Mayor's chair.

Apparently he thinks that a GLBT-oriented library is going to contain all sorts of "hard core porn":

Mayor Naugle told LifeSiteNews.com that he opposed the project for two reasons. "Number one the city needs the space," he said. Secondly, the morning of the vote, it came to his attention that the Stonewall collection contained hard-core pornographic material depicting men committing anal intercourse. He commented, "I fear that we're the first city that has a hard-core porn collection in our public library." In addition, "it is housed in our main children's park."

How typical for the right-wingnut bigot crowd - anything involving the GLBT community must involve huge amounts of immoral, licentious material...or so the logic goes.

Reality intervenes, and we learn by a bit of search engine digging, that this is Stonewall Library, and unsurprisingly, we find quite a lengthy history which maps the organization's past from the early 1970s forward, and a mission statement that hardly sounds like a purveyor of vileness. I'm sure that there is a certain amount of erotic literature in the collection - but then again, anyone who has ever read Terry Goodkind will know that there's plenty of "erotica" in fiction to start with.

Of course, this is the same nitwit who claims:

Mayor Naugle, who voted against the library along with Commissioner Christine Teel, was already under fire for comments he made last week that sparked homosexual activists to a fury. On July 4 the Miami Herald published an interview with the mayor regarding the proposal of a new robotic toilet to be installed along the Florida beaches. The facility would have a security feature limiting occupant time by automatically opening its doors after a certain period. Naugle supported the new idea, saying, "Sometimes (public washrooms) are used for sexual activity-most of it is men meeting men because it's same-sex people in the bathrooms."
Naugle also made the following comment, "I don't use the word 'gay.' I use the word 'homosexual.' Most of them aren't gay. They're unhappy."

What a winner.