Idiot du Jour

via Digby, this moron:

Trump Voter: We are young, urban, and have a happy future planned. We seem molded to be perfect young Hillary supporters. But we're not. Both of us voted Libertarian in 2012, and ideologically we remain so. But in 2016? We're both going for Trump.

For me personally, it's resistance against what San Francisco has been, and what I see the country becoming, in the form of ultra-PC culture. That’s where it's almost impossible to have polite or constructive political discussion. Disagreement gets you labeled fascist, racist, bigoted, etc. It can provoke a reaction so intense that you’re suddenly an unperson to an acquaintance or friend. There is no saying “Hey, I disagree with you,” it's just instant shunning. Say things online, and they'll try to find out who you are and potentially even get you fired for it. Being anti-PC is not about saying “I want you to agree with me on these issues.” It's about saying, “Hey, I want to have a discussion and not get shouted down because I don't agree with what is considered to be politically correct.”

Let's start with the most obvious, not to dismiss what may be this person's own experience (there are idiots on the left, as well): Having tried to have rational discussions with right-wingers, the shouting down and name-calling seems to originate with those who can't support their positions any other way. What I'm getting from this is more regurgitated right-wing propaganda about the "fascist left" -- on the same order as the religious extremists who are screaming about being "persecuted" when they're not allowed to pick and choose which laws to observe. The fact that he voted Libertarian should tell you a lot.

And I can't help but wonder how many times this person has just tuned out when someone disagrees with him. I've run into a couple of commenters at blogs who don't seem to be able to respond to what I actually wrote -- they just repeat the same flat statements, without substantiation, as though that were some sort of argument.

It goes on, and gets more and more bizarre. Digby summed it up nicely:

It's all about him having to defend the fact that he's a raving asshole. Yep. I can see why he loves Trump so much. Having to show good manners in public is just too much.

Today in Disgusting People

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to be exact. They've come out with a really syrupy video about how allowing gay men and lesbians to marry is a violation of their religious beliefs. As you might imagine, it's just chock full of lies. Here's just a few:

"As an attorney, I represent a number of clients who are being punished and coerced by the government to change their views on marriage," Fiedorek notes. "We're seeing this happen to florists, to bakers, to photographers, we're seeing this happen to judges and to clerks who are authorized to solemnize weddings and have a religious objection to doing so."

"Fiedorek" is Kellie Fiedorek of the Alliance Defending Freedom (which, strangely enough, the SPLC doesn't seem to have listed as a hate group), so you can guess what anything she says is worth. As for her statement, no one is being coerced by the government to change their views on marriage. They're being "coerced" to obey the law, just like the rest of us have to do.

"The implications of the redefinition of marriage for religious freedom are vast," says Fiedorek. "I think that the short term effects we will see will first come in the attempt to silence people of faith, or people that hold a conviction that marriage is something sacred, something special, they will be silenced."

Silenced? No one can get them to shut up for a minute. What are we going to do -- cut their vocal cords and take away their keyboards?

"I've been really surprised that just saying that it takes a man and a woman to create a child, that a child deserves a mom and a dad, is viewed by some as hate speech. As if acknowledging where a child comes from is discrimination," says one man. . . .

OK, that's off the rails. Who, exactly, is arguing with the fact that it takes a man and a woman to produce a child? As for a child deserving a mom and dad (and do note the folksy tone), I hate to intrude with reality, but that's not always possible. What children do deserve is a safe, stable home with parents who love and support them. All the research to date indicates that two men or two women are fully capable of providing that.

"If in any way shape or form, you disagree with the prevailing narrative about what is appropriate in terms of sexuality, same-sex marriage, even a hint of it, it sort of takes the air out of the room," says Gloria Purvis. "People begin to think you're closed minded, you're a bigot, and you're hateful."

If you're trying to impose your views on everyone else, then you are a bigot.

And do note the equation of marriage with procreation, a basic tenet of Catholic teaching. Marriage doesn't require children, and it's obvious from the statistics that marriage isn't necessary to produce a baby. It's just another facet of the Church's basic view of humanity as domestic animals -- in this case, breeding stock.

There's also a sequence in the video about how Catholics are feeding the hungry all over the world. Maybe if the USCCB spent more time focusing on that, and less on fighting gay rights and shielding child molesters, I might have a different reaction.

Here's the video, if you can stand it:

Either/Or

Have you noticed how often the right wing presents questions in terms of either/or? Here's an example from Jeb Bush (hereinafter known as "Jeb!") on same-sex marriage:

At the conference, he affirmed his support for “traditional marriage,” saying: “In a country like ours, we should recognize the power of a man and a woman loving their children with all their soul as a good thing, as something positive and helpful for those children to live successful lives.

“And while there are people who disagree with this, we should not push aside those who do believe in traditional marriage.”

First off, who, specifically, disagrees with his example? No one that I've heard of. Take this as another example of the arrogance and narcissism of the "Christian" right: theirs is the only possibility, and if you hold out other alternatives, which can certainly co-exist, then you're negating their position.

The reality, of course, is that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the right of same-sex couples to marry, "traditional marriage" will still be around. It's not being threatened at all, and those who support it are not being pushed aside -- they're simply being told to mind their own business.

It's a consequence of seeing the universe as sketched in black and white, a matter of absolutes, which, as we learn more and more about it, we realize isn't the case at all.

Today's Must Read

This post at Mahablog.

On the other hand, there’s a real problem in some academic studies in which perspectives other than those of dead white European guys are still being frozen out. For centuries, women were locked out of contributing to both eastern and western civ, but that doesn’t mean current, well-documented gender bias in academia can be ignored. And the philosophy departments of American universities continue to shortchange Asian philosophies.

There's no excerpt that I can find that really does justice to the post, so read it.

I have some thoughts on this, but my brain is in hibernate mode this morning. I may come back to it.

Today's Must-Read

Interesting post by Digby today on something that has become a big flaw in our public discourse, starting with a quote from this interview with Reza Aslan:

... someone like Sam Harris or Bill Maher sees religion as defining people of faith, their values, their motivations, and I see people as defining their religion.

Or, to put in in my own words: You can find something in just about any sacred text to justify what you wanted to do anyway. The glaring example of that, of course, is the self-styled "Christians" who are locked into Leviticus and a genital-based morality.

Digby goes on:

We know too many religious people of different faiths for whom religion is just one part of who they are and who are completely balanced, tolerant, open and often evolving in their interpretation of their faith not to. I also know atheists who take a fundamentalist point of view and are totally intolerant of any challenge to their worldview.

I got into a "discussion," if you want to call it that, in a comment thread with a woman who quickly revealed herself to be about the most fundamental of fundamentalists. She kept throwing out bizarre "arguments," which I answered with facts. She finally resorted to calling me a child of Satan. What was instructive, aside from her lack of general knowledge about the world in general, was her complete inability to entertain the idea that a differing point of view could be valid.

Digby notes that "There is more to human behavior than religions belief." That's undeniably true, and those who rely on religious belief to explain everything are missing a lot. (And, as Digby also points out, this does not excuse atheists, who may not subscribe to religion per se, but too often share the same mindset.) There is a tendency to see the world in black and white, although I'm not ready to ascribe that tendency to a certain group: it's a matter of basic psychology that we first classify things according to stereotypes; it's only as we come to know more that we modify those classifications, add a little nuance to our perceptions. It strikes me that some people don't want to learn more, perhaps because it challenges their assumptions, which makes them uncomfortable. (Alright, it scares the bejeezus out of them.) I guess I can think my lucky stars that I grew up in a family that valued learning and managed to avoid having my innate curiosity educated out of me. (Strangely enough, my sister is one of the least curious people I know.) Hence my basic philosophy: Poke it and see what it does. The beginnings of the scientific method.

Aslan, early on, makes one very important point:

So let’s say you had Bill Maher and Sam Harris as a sort of captive audience in a lecture hall for a half hour, and only a half hour. What would you focus on? What do you want them to hear that you don’t think they’re hearing?

This is going to sound odd to say, but probably nothing, because when you are dealing with that kind of level of certainty, whether you are talking about a religious fundamentalist, or an atheist fundamentalist, which is precisely what someone like Sam Harris is, it’s really a waste of time to try to argue either data points or logical reasoning, because they have already made up their mind and it becomes kind of useless to have that kind of conversation.

See my anecdote above, about the woman who called me a child of Satan.

The interview is a must-read, as are Digby's comments.

On Brendan Eich, Public Discourse, and the "Gaystapo"

I'm preparing to move, which is why I haven't been posting much lately, and why I haven't commented on the whole Brendan Eich/Mozilla brouhaha -- I've been ambivalent about the whole outcry, dismayed by the vitriol in the comments of a few blogs that usually have intelligent discussions, and just too distracted to write anything coherent about it. There have, however, been a couple of good posts on the lot of issues around this whole event. Rob Tisinai has written one of the clearest at Box Turtle Bulletin.

"Gay Gestapo"

In case you missed Carol Costello's run-in with Bryan Fischer of the hate group American Family Association, here's the story, and a little follow-up.

It's still something of a surprise to see a news anchor or talk show host challenge assholes like Fischer, much less call them liars to their faces. Costello gets an award for this -- I think we'll start the Carol Costello Award, for those who call out bullies like Brian Fischer. And Fischer gets the Tony Perkins Award, for shameless lying.

Today's Must-Read

Apparently, the inhabitants of the lower depths of the anti-gay right are exercised (exorcized?) because Bill O'Reilly regularly has Wayne Besen on his show and doesn't shout him down. So they've sent a letter to O'Reilly's producers demanding that the calm and rational discussions cease immediately. Besen, not known for being the most reticent man in the public sphere, has responded.

I have never been more proud of my career accomplishments than I am today. It has been said that the friends and foes accrued over a lifetime can be used as a measure of the man. Given the coalition of homophobes and hate groups that viciously attacked me today, I feel my life’s work has been vindicated and validated.

When I woke up this morning, I was greeted with a pernicious press release headlined, “Family Groups Urge FOX NEWS to Stop Providing Unchallenged Prime Time to Agitator.” The sub headline read: “Bill O’Reilly ignores repeated requests to drop SPLC’s Wayne Besen from show.” (Note: I don’t work for SPLC. I am the founder of Truth Wins Out)

And he goes on to give names and some of the highlights of the signers' careers.

Read it.

(Here's most of the press release from the right-wingers. Can you say "projection"?

Interesting Discussion (Updated)

over at Joe.My.God., but not for the reasons the participants might think. It's Joe's report on Dan Savage being glitter-bombed by an "activist" whose objections to Savage include everything but the kitchen sink:

A group of six activists, who named themselves The Homomilitia for the event, said they confronted Savage as he entered the theatre through a back-alley entrance. In an interview with Xtra after the confrontation, activist Fister Limp Wrist accused Savage of "ableist, racist, transphobic, fat-phobic, sero-phobic and rape-apologist attitudes and views."

What's interesting is that the comments thread was hijacked by trans advocates, probably because of Joe's comment that the "activists" didn't manage to include something about Savage's "gay white male cisgender privilege" in their screed. (Never mind that they are otherwise full of it.)

I left a couple of comments in the thread, which does contain some reasonable discussion, but one thing I didn't address, and I guess it's kind of weighing on me: I consider being referred to as "cis-male" and "privileged" to be insulting. Those terms are meant to be belittling. They are used for no other reason than to set me apart and to designate me as "other," and I've had quite enough of that in my life, thank you. I have one question for those who consider being white and male as somehow conferring "privilege": a majority of the kids who have been bullied to death in the past couple of years have been white boys. How privileged do you think they felt?

Update: Similar discussion at AmericaBlog Gay. Just as lively, a little less ad hominem, and some good points made. It's interesting that no one is defending the glitter-bombers.

I should also note in this context this post from John Aravosis, since it's the campaign for marriage equality that is being characterized as "screwed up."

It's Not Either/Or

OK -- we all know about Dan Choi and Jim Pietrangelo and their very dramatic demonstration last weekend. (Although Choi maintains his position as poster child.) This is rebounding very badly against HRC, which committed a grave tactical error in not joining Choi and Peitrangelo at the White House. In fact, it's close to being a direct confrontation between Choi and HRC.

Andrew Sullivan quotes Choi:

"When I get messages from people who want to be a part of this I ask back: what are you willing to sacrifice? ... I'm giving up my military rank, my unit—which to me is a family—my veterans' benefits, my HRC health care, so what are you willing to sacrifice? They say freedom is not free, but it doesn't have to cost anything either. Jesus up on the cross did not have a party with all his major donors to raise money for his cause, his cross was free. Ghandi did not need three-course dinners and a cocktail party to get his message out. These are people who sacrificed their lives. For them it was hemlock, a cross, the bullet that shot Harvey Milk … it was not the size of their distribution list, but their message that endured...

When I heard Kathy Griffin was going to be a spokeswoman for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I wondered about that. I have great respect for her as an advocate. But if [the Human Rights Campaign] thinks that having a rally at Freedom Plaza with a comedienne is the right approach, I have to wonder. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not a joking matter to me. To be at Freedom Plaza and not at the White House or Congress? Who are they trying to influence? I felt like they were just trying to speak to themselves. If that's the best the lobbying groups and HRC can do, then I don't know how these powerful groups are supposed to represent our community."

One of Sullivan's readers reacts:

I read your quote for the day and agree with Dan Choi. I also agree with you on all things HRC. However, I don't think Dan Choi is the right poster child for the DADT repeal movement either. I met many people at the SLDN [Servicemembers Legal Defense Network] dinner that told me something along the lines of, "Dan Choi does not represent the LGBT military." Chaining himself to the White House fence was an attention grab, just like Kathy Griffin marching in Freedom Plaza was an attention grab. Neither action invited the opposition into real discussion, and neither action provided much sympathy from the opposition. Over-activism usually works against a worthy cause, and chaining yourself to a fence and making a spectacle makes it easy to dismiss the seriousness of DADT. This kind of behavior makes us look like the radical fringe that the right wing wants us to be. Most gays in the military are neither radical, nor fringe.

I want to point out, both to Sullivan's reader and those at SLDN, that this is not an either/or choice. Yes, chaining himself to the White House fence was an attention grab, and there you have, in a nutshell, the whole problem with the establishment gays: they don't want the attention. I'm not going to impute motivations for that stance, but you can see how effective it's been -- HRC has been working on DADT repeal, DOMA repeal, ENDA, and hate crimes for well over a decade and we finally have hate crimes legislation on the books. And all HRC can think to do is say "we're working on it" and lock down the building when some real activists hit down. Dan Choi may not "represent" the LGBT military, but he is the public face, by default -- and that is SLDN's doing.

Pam Spaulding published the results of a reader poll that bears me out:



Spaulding has a good, succinct post that lays it out:

As you can see, putting more LGBTs into office is a great way to change the landscape, and more notably, direct action is effectively tied with letting the professional gays and grassroots activists do the heavy lifting. The element of surprise and action does have a positive impact and breaks movement inertia.

We have an arsenal of effective ways to effect change. Each of us can and must find and use the avenue that is most effective to help the equality effort -- just do something.

We cannot rely on someone else to move Congress or the White House; the reality is that we have more freedom to act because we don't have relationships to maintain with the White House or elected officials on the Hill.

They work for us and it's time to treat them that way. If they don't listen, then it's time to ratchet up the pressure. We, as peons without access, don't have to worry whether we are going to be invited to the next tea or cocktail party at the White House. We're not on the invite list anyway so there aren't any social or political bridges to burn.

It's not about being liked, it's about obtaining our equal rights denied us by our government -- progress blocked by purported allies who are paralyzed by political homophobia and CYA mentality.

This is related to comments I left at PHB at this post:

Solmonese, et al. made a huge blunder by not marching with Choi. Every officer and staffer of HRC should have been there. You can't get anything from people who take you for granted. In my heyday I had the reputation of being a nice, easygoing, patient guy who was very reasonable and realistic and who would eat your liver if you crossed him. Nobody's afraid of Solmonese or HRC because they won't, and now can't, call down thunder and lightning. If you expect to get anything from anyone you're negotiating with, you have to make them a little nervous. Otherwise they'll just nod and do what they were going to do anyway.

I guess my bottom line here is that HRC has no credibility with anyone, that I can see. That doesn't make for effective advocacy.

There's a synergy that develops when you have more than one prong to your attack. We need HRC to be our reasonable face. We need Dan Choi to be our confrontational face. And, I might point out, HRC needs Dan Choi to put some teeth behind its smile. The ufortunate part is that we out here in the boondocks see that, as witnessed by the response's to Spaulding's poll. HRC doesn't get it.

I realize this is kind of scattered -- as usual, I'm trying to do two or three things at once while pulling together threads from the past few days, so be patient. I think I've hit all the major points, though, so -- well, connect the dots.

Update: Here's another dot. Dr. Jillian T. Weiss makes a point I missed: people blogging on our civil rights are necessary, too.

A Comment on Maine

Two posts at Pam's House Blend, one by Alvin McEwan and one by Pam Spaulding, highlight some of the facets of the campaign in Maine, but miss a key point: in spite of what both say, and what Spaulding quotes that troglodyte Matt Barber as saying, the issue in the minds of voters was not about "marriage." On that, the anti-gay bigots were successful, because they knew if they stuck to civil marriage, they had no argument.

What they did, as they did in California last year, was to shift the argument to education and "the children." That's a combination that bypasses all rational thought processes and goes right to the limbic system.

Jim Burroway called it:

Nobody Cares About Same-Sex Marriage

Oh, sure, people care about it. Everyone has an opinion about same-sex marriage. But nobody cares about in the sense that it is something that just doesn’t affect them.

Sure, virtually everyone who is gay and out cares. That’s about 4% of the population, and maybe not even that much in Maine. And the anti-gay religious right cares about it also, for whatever personal stake they’ve managed to take in it. That’s a much higher percentage, but it’s not even close to being a majority.

For everyone else, same-sex marriage is just not on their radar. And if they do care, it doesn’t rise to the level of other things they care about more and are willing to invest more of their attention to: education, taxes, health insurance, the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are the things people care about and are willing to invest their own personal attention and energy to. They care enough to learn more about these things because one way or another, they all touch on them personally. As Schubert’s research revealed:

“At the end of the day, people vote on issues based on how they think it will impact them and their families. We spent a great deal of time trying to understand what impacts could we develop that would work. Communication has to be aimed at and appeal to those self interests of the electorate.”

And people don’t see how same-sex marriage will impact them and their families — especially not enough to pay attention to the issue and go out and vote in an off-year election on someone else’s problem. This, by the way, is just as much a problem for the “Yes” side as it is for the “No” side. So how do you fix it?

The problem is that we've been fighting defensive campaigns. To a certain extent, there's no way around it, because the right is very good at framing these things in their terms. From what I've seen, the ads in Maine for the "Yes" side didn't talk about marriage -- they talked about the schools. And, of course, they were full of misrepresentations.

The only way I can see counter this is to go in hard and nasty -- tell the truth, but don't pull any punches and don't try to be nice about it. We know our opponents are going to lie. So the thing for us to do is call them on it before the lies start -- tell people that they're going to lie, they're going to try to dodge the real issues, they're going to try to scare them -- and then publicize every lie, every distortion, every misrepresentation, every scare tactic -- and forget the tone of sweet reason. We've seen what being the best little boys and girls in the world gets us -- shat on. Yell "Liar!" and then back it up with the truth -- but if you don't yell first, you're not going to get anyone's attention.

And don't worry about the likes of Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera calling us names. They're going to anyway.

Another thought: You're going to hear a lot from the right-wing nasties about how "all 31 states where voters have spoken have rejected gay marriage." Yes, they have. And I'll challenge any of them to hold up an example of any civil rights issue in the history of this country that won at the polls. Women's suffrage? Minority voting rights? Non-discrimination in housing and jobs? Interracial marriage? No? You mean, if the people had been allowed to vote, those things wouldn't have happened? You damn betcha.

That's why we have a Bill of Rights and courts to defend it. Because the people won't. Most of the people don't even know what's in it.

So ask them about those issues when they hold up "the will of the people." It's a bullshit argument from the get-go.

Mindset: Quasi-Gay Blogging

Warning: Long post.












From a post by Andrew Sullivan,which is actually about something else.

I was outraged last week when Bill Kristol publicly called Obama a liar about his own Christian faith. The reason I was outraged is because accusing someone else's sincere profession of faith a fraud is about as nasty a tactic as one can imagine, about as brutal an attack on someone's integrity as can be devised. It will be part of the neocon right's attack on Obama this summer and fall. Obama's Christianity - modern, moderate, inclusive, non-fundamentalist, African-American - is terribly threatening to the Republican strategy of defining Christianity as exclusively fundamentalist and heartland, and rallying voters to the polls on those grounds. If the Democrat is obviously a faithful and observant Christian, and not a Christianist, this strategy might come undone, their polarization made less potent, and their cooptation of religion as a political tool less effective. So accusing Obama of being a Marxist, and a liar, and a spiritual fraud, is critical to the success of the strategy. I think this is gutter politics, disrespectful, uncivil and, in Kristol's case, a function of total cynicism and bad faith.

Now, Bill Kristol is one of the less reputable commentators around, no matter the regard he is held in by some -- such as the NYT -- but this does illustrate some of the thinking inherent to the right. This has a lot to do with fundamentalism, which seems to be making itself the subject of the day. It's Sullivan's fault.

The next piece of this comes from Melissa McEwan:

"I want to punch Clinton the person, not Clinton the woman."

These are not separable identities.

I see this notion everywhere—that some violent urge toward Hillary Clinton isn't aimed at "Clinton the woman," but at some other magical version of her where her sex and gender have been erased, presumably along with the entire cultural context of womanhood. The semantic contortions invoked to extricate "Hillary Clinton the person" from "Hillary Clinton the woman" are an attempt to do an end-run around that context, to create a space outside of reality, where Hillary Clinton exists in some sexless, genderless limbo and people can talk about wanting to injure that non-woman without all the icky negative images injuring actual women conjures for most decent people.

The worst part about this argument is that it denies Hillary Clinton her womanhood to justify violence against her.

When women / POC / LGBTQs / other marginalized people (and any and all intersectionalities thereof) are disappeared via denial of the intrinsic characteristics that define their marginalization, particularly in order to rationalize mistreatment, that's a social violence, a theft of identity and thusly a subversion of the framework necessarily used by subjugated people to connect to the larger culture because of how the larger culture defines them. Hillary Clinton is now told that being a woman, the source of the lifelong bias she has faced, no longer matters—not so that she can be made equal, but so that she can be punched in the face.

As you can see, McEwan connects the dots, although her main thrust is feminist. Her argument, to my mind, redounds directly to the "love the sinner, hate the sin" bullshit so often spouted by anti-gay crusaders. The idea that intrinsic characteristics are somehow separable from the person (if you happen to disapprove of them, say) is one that puzzles me a little, although I find the beginnings of an explanation in one of Andrew Sullivan's posts on fundamentalism. From a reader:

To properly understand religious fundamentalism it is necessary to realize that "fundamentalism" has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with mindset. A quote on your site by George Orwell states "to see what is in front of nose needs a constant struggle", this is indeed very true, and the fundamentalist mindset is in the relinquishing of that struggle. One no longer needs to learn the basic realities of life and build from those as all of those assumptions have already been assigned to you. . . .

Thus if the question is, what leads to the rise of fundamentalism, it is necessary to look at the type of person who wants to avoid the responsibility of understanding what is in front of ones nose.

In the case of "love the sin," it's simply a matter of definitions. Same-sex orientation is, by definition, a choice and a behavior, because it varies from "God's plan" for humanity -- at least, according to those who disapprove of it. Homosexual behavior is a sin because God said so; there is no such thing as a person whose fundamental make-up is, in part, founded on same-sex attraction.

One key factor brought up by Sullivan's reader: "one no longer needs to learn the basic realities of life and build from those." We are not dealing with a reality-based mindset here. It is a worldview based on received wisdom, backed by unimpeachable authority. After all, God said it's so, thus mere evidence is inconsequential.

This sort of attitude leads to some gappy thinking, as evidenced by the marriage debate over at Box Turtle Bulletin. Glenn Stanton's responses to Patrick Chapman's criticisms display all of the techniques of the fundamentalist debater: loose definitions that change on demand, specious arguments based on assertions without support, selective reference to data -- "cherrypicking" -- based on the desired conclusion. Here's Jim Burroway's wrap-up on that one. He touches on three points as defining the debate; the first, I think, has application here:

The Problem of Language

When we speak, we typically try to speak precisely with a commonly understood language in order to be understood. But our very language can restrict what we’re able to describe. Either we don’t have quite the right word, or the phrases we commonly use don’t quite get there. Conversely, our language may influence how we see the world, as it is filtered through the words and expressions which come naturally to us.

Fundamentalists have, over the past number of years, engaged in any number of what I call "debaters' tricks," which are most apparent when they are discussing evolution but come into play in other areas. The prime example, of course, is their use of the word "theory," as in "evolution is just a theory." What they don't say is that the definition of "theory" in science is radically different than the definition used in common parlance, which is an attempt to undercut not only evolution but science as a whole. (As far as Burroway's post is concerned, I think he's being much too kind to Stanton, who exhibited all the traits in his commentaries that I mentioned above. I'm not convinced that he didn't do it deliberately, because that is the mode of discourse on the right when dealing with issues that can't just be ignored, including challenges to their authority.) Another example is the often-used "children do better with a mother and father," once normally prefaced by "scientific studies show," used as an argument against adoption by gay parents. Actually, no such thing: the studies used contrasted children from single-parent homes with children from two-parent homes. No data were gathered on differences between same-sex and opposite-sex parents. All the studies that have addressed that question come to the opposite conclusion. The Dobson Gang got called on that one, so it has evolved, if I can use the word, from a "fact" with scientific backing, spurious as it might be, to a mere assertion without foundation. The "problem of language" in this context is simply that fundamentalists refuse to recognize the commonality of meaning that makes language work and insist that only their own usage has validity.

(There is the related idea as well of controlling information, which the debaters' tricks attempt to do, by suppressing it or warping it. It's a serious impediment to the open discussion which is, in theory, one of our American ideals. See this post by Timothy Kincaid on how Kentucky is dealing with the history of the Holocaust.)

This leads me to a final point: the moral ease with using debaters' tricks rather than substantive argument points to a fundamental immorality (gods! what a wonderful phrase in this context) in tactics. Fundamentalists justify their essential dishonesty in discourse, I think, by telling themselves that they are working to a higher cause -- they are doing God's work in a sinful, wicked world, and their opponents -- atheists, feminists, Muslims, gays -- are part of that wickedness, and so whatever tool comes to hand is legitimate. The only response I can make to this is, believe it or not, something I found in a novel by Tanya Huff (Summon the Keeper, I think it was, which I recommend for an evening when you want to relax and enjoy without deep thought):

"Evil done in God's name is not God's work."

Q.E.D.

Joke du jour

It's sort of sad when, on any issue, you know what someone's reaction is going to be because their reaction to the last six issues has been the same.

An oldie but goodie from Down With Tyranny. In light of Right Blogistan's reaction to anyone who points out the facts of a situation, this seems like a pretty accurate answer. It's always the truth in a joke that makes us laugh.

And for a case in point, see this post from John Amato.

ENDA Wrap-Up

This is probably the first of several ENDA wrap-ups, since I am still going back looking at loose ends, but with the new "compromise" announced, let's call it a day.

However, I do want to call attention to this post from Chris Crain on the controversy. It's an excellent summation, hitting on on a lot of the points I touched, often more clearly than I was able to do. Particularly in regard to the "we're all transpeople" meme, I found his arguments compelling:

You can hear that refrain in the more passionate commentary from those who object to removing transgender protection from ENDA. We are all gender non-conformists, they say, because men are supposed to be attracted to women, and vice versa. If you defy those roles, then you also defy the expectation of your gender.

To which he responds:

Like many other GLBs, I reject completely the idea that being gay makes me a gender non-conformist. For us, the hardest part about accepting our sexual orientation can be shedding the misconception that being gay makes us less of a man or a woman.

Many transsexuals and cross-dressers, on the other hand, have been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder, a mental illness that involves a complete disconnect between their biological and intellectual genders. Other trans folk reject the whole notion of gender and express themselves in a way that defies the male-female dichotomy.

That is certainly their right, but having integrated my sexual orientation into my personality, I don’t feel one bit of inconsistency between being gay and being a man. I know many lesbians who feel the same way about their gender. For us, the entire notion of sexual orientation revolves around maintaining the male-female distinction. How else can I have same-sex attraction, unless I am a man attracted to other men?

The argument as stated by the "all-or-nothing" contingent is a prime example of the sloppy terminology I've been criticizing. The term of "gender identity" itself is nothing more than a substitution of perfectly serviceable words by broader, more "inclusive" and consequently less meaningful words that aren't quite on target. It's a nice way to fudge the discussion. (I could be a purist here and note that words have gender, people have sex.) You can go ahead and accuse me of being a precisian if you want, but I just want to point out that if you're not going to be accurate about what you're talking about, what's the point of talking -- unless you like the label "demogogue." (I find the use of these terms in the legal literature scary, to be honest, but have to remember that the legal definition and the psychological definition do not have to inhabit the same universe.)

I might also point out that the "everyone is trans" argument is an echo of the early right-wing anti-gay rhetoric, when such luminaries as Lou Sheldon held to the idea -- and broadcast it loudly and often -- that gays were victims of "gender confusion." Some of them are still spouting that line. Let me ask the trans activists: do you really want to go there?

As a gay man who is perfectly comfortable being a man and not only loving -- and desiring -- other men but cherishing everything it is that makes them men, I have absolutely no confusion about my sex. Male. Period. And I will quite readily admit that I have no comprehension of women or where they are coming from, even though we obviously have some common ground.

On the other hand, I have no element of my identity invested in particular sex roles, either in the bedroom or out of it. Does this somehow make me a transperson? I don't think so and I think anyone is going to be hard put to prove that I am.

I think in this area I'm on clearer ground than Crain, although we agree no the whole ENDA question: let's clean up the terminology so that we can actually have a discussion without wallowing around in words that don't fit what they are meant to describe (or actually, that don't describe anything -- and I think that's quite deliberate).

Healthcare

Have you noticed that critics of a national health policy keep pointing to Britain and Canada, both of which systems are flawed? No one seems to say much about the system in France, which from all reports does work beautifully.