Comment Of The Day: “Comment of the Day: ‘From The Law vs. Ethics File: The Discriminatory Charlotte Pride Parade’”

I learn a lot writing this blog and especially hosting discussions  among the very diverse and informed participants in the comment wars. Mrs. Q’s assessment is her own, and undoubtedly some will see the developments she deplores in a different light (or deny that they are there to be seen), but I am not attentive enough to the gender wars to have been aware of much of what she is discussing.

Here is Mrs. Q’s Comment of the Day on the post, Comment of the Day: “From The Law vs. Ethics File: The Discriminatory Charlotte Pride Parade”:

2017 is the year the gays rights movement in America died. From Pride celebrations (which btw no one asked any of us if Pride was really the word of our choice) not allowing police officers to wear their uniforms, to gays for Trump being shut out, to lesbians being told they couldn’t participate in a dyke march if they didn’t believe transwomen to be dykes, to a Dyke March where 2 straight women and  one gay man carried a sign that said “I (heart) d*ck” to my absolute favorite:

A “transdyke” wearing a white tee made to look bloody that said “I PUNCH TERFS”

(For those who don’t know, TERF is a disparaging term for feminist lesbians who believe in supporting biological women)

So tolerant, so loving and so free…right?

The threat to biologically female lesbians by transwomen is particularly dangerous these days. Need proof? How about trans”women” who tell other transwomen that the only way to deal lesbians who won’t want to sleep with them is to commit violence against them? How about workshops put on by Planned Parenthood to help transwomen “break through” cotton ceilings? How about the intense focus on the part of some of transwomen to constantly sexualize lesbians in online spaces yet threaten and shut down lesbian spaces because of “discrimination?”

-Lesbians can’t have lesbian bars because it offends trans people.

-LGBT folks can’t be conservative or they’re shunned

-Gays are considered “anti-trans” if they don’t want to have sex with them because of cissexism

This is not the gay rights movement I was a part of in the 90’s. The point then was to be yourself and not hide your love and not to be disallowed the same rights as our heterosexual counterparts.

Now the movement is geared solely to trans issues while ignoring the many LGB folks who are getting killed around the world (mostly in Muslim dominated countries). The current movement asks for allegiance to corporate and Super PAC masters, rather than promoting affirmation of personhood and personal choice regarding politics, ideology, and attitudes.

You can officially count me out of the ever increasing alphabet army of the LGBTQIA movement. It’s time for those of us affiliated with the cause to grow up, get our own lives, and tend to what really matters rather than waste our efforts to make sure some straight woman who identifies her gender (and this is for real) as Emoji Pizza Unicorn “gets recognition.”

There are even those in the trans movement who believe gays are just confused and are really trans. Consider what a dangerous thing that is to say. That if you’re gay you should take health altering hormones that permanently damage the body, be medically enslaved to Big Pharma for the rest of your life, mutilate your body, and (of course) be sterilized. Hmm. That’s the kind of justice I’ll pass on thankyouverymuch!

Anyone who wants to take a gander at what’s coming next, because after transgender there has to be another downtrodden group, should read Martine Rothblatt’s “From Transgender to Tranhumanism.” Next it won’t be enough to change gender. Soon whites can identify as Black, humans can identify as cats, and men will fall in love with robots.

¡Oh wait! That’s already happening.

50 Comments

Filed under Citizenship, Comment of the Day, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Love, Rights, Romance and Relationships

50 responses to “Comment Of The Day: “Comment of the Day: ‘From The Law vs. Ethics File: The Discriminatory Charlotte Pride Parade’”

  1. Chris

    I responded to a few of Mrs. Q’s points underneath her original comment, but have more to say here.

    2017 is the year the gays rights movement in America died. From Pride celebrations (which btw no one asked any of us if Pride was really the word of our choice)

    Who is “us” in this sentence? You and your wife? Your immediate social group? It seems to me that a large enough percentage of the gay community has chosen “Pride” as a meaningful word to the community that it has lasted as long as it has. Of course not every member of a group will always be in favor of everything the public face of that group decides on; why would you expect otherwise?

    And what is your issue with the word “Pride” as used by the LGBT community?

    not allowing police officers to wear their uniforms, to gays for Trump being shut out, to lesbians being told they couldn’t participate in a dyke march if they didn’t believe transwomen to be dykes, to a Dyke March where 2 straight women and one gay man carried a sign that said “I (heart) d*ck” to my absolute favorite:
    A “transdyke” wearing a white tee made to look bloody that said “I PUNCH TERFS”

    Some of this behavior is wrong, and some of it isn’t. Excluding gay cops is certainly unwise and bigoted, but I still see no problem with a gay pride rally excluding groups who support politicians antithetical to their interests, or who promote bigotry toward other marginalized groups. I also wouldn’t expect an LGBT parade to include groups who are totally opposed to the “T.”

    The “I Heart Dick” sign is crude, but harmless, and is the kind of performative outrageousness that gay pride parades have always done.

    The “I Punch TERFS” sign is endorsing violence, and is obviously wrong.

    (For those who don’t know, TERF is a disparaging term for feminist lesbians who believe in supporting biological women)

    As I pointed out on the other thread, TERF actually means “Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist,” and describes feminists who believe that transgender women are at best mentally ill, and at worst male predators who use being trans to infiltrate female spaces. I find the beliefs of TERFS far more disparaging than the term TERF.

    The threat to biologically female lesbians by transwomen is particularly dangerous these days. Need proof? How about trans”women” who tell other transwomen that the only way to deal lesbians who won’t want to sleep with them is to commit violence against them?

    Do you have any evidence that such violence is a real problem? Obviously that sign is terrible…but you seem to be using it as symbolic of a more widespread danger for lesbians from trans women. Examples of actual violence that has occurred?

    I have seen trans people and allies argue that not being sexually attracted to trans people is bigotry…which is of course absurd.

    How about workshops put on by Planned Parenthood to help transwomen “break through” cotton ceilings?

    I haven’t heard the term “cotton ceilings.” Can you explain what this means, and why it presents a danger to lesbians?

    -Lesbians can’t have lesbian bars because it offends trans people.

    I haven’t heard of this. Do you mean lesbian bars can’t refuse to serve trans people? Technically they can’t refuse to serve straight cis people either, correct?

    Now the movement is geared solely to trans issues while ignoring the many LGB folks who are getting killed around the world (mostly in Muslim dominated countries).

    Most movements are geared more towards issues affecting their own country than issues affecting other countries.

    It’s time for those of us affiliated with the cause to grow up, get our own lives, and tend to what really matters rather than waste our efforts to make sure some straight woman who identifies her gender (and this is for real) as Emoji Pizza Unicorn “gets recognition.”

    You’ve mentioned this example before, but it seems to be an outlier.

    There are even those in the trans movement who believe gays are just confused and are really trans. Consider what a dangerous thing that is to say

    Telling gay people they aren’t really gay sounds about as dangerous as telling trans people they aren’t really trans.

    Anyone who wants to take a gander at what’s coming next, because after transgender there has to be another downtrodden group, should read Martine Rothblatt’s “From Transgender to Tranhumanism.” Next it won’t be enough to change gender. Soon whites can identify as Black, humans can identify as cats, and men will fall in love with robots.
    ¡Oh wait! That’s already happening.

    Happening in what numbers? To what degree of support within the LGBT community? Everything happens; if the human mind can imagine it, someone out there is doing it. But that doesn’t mean it can be blamed on any societal phenomenon or social group. I see no evidence that the LGBT community as a whole supports such things.

    • wyogranny

      Knowing this is not ethical or defensible I just have to say this to Chris. (I’m not in a good place with my feelings toward gender nonsense right now. A feeling I think Chris might identify with from the opposite direction.)

      You are SO annoying.

      Bring it.

    • “The “I Heart Dick” sign is crude, but harmless”

      No. I’m sorry, but no. I have long grown tired of the growing trend towards treating what are objectively crude speech as though it is as acceptable in common discourse and public areas as non-crude speech. These words are not like the others, and we should not pretend that they are, or enable them to be used in the exact same ways, and the exact same locations, as “regular” words, without some sort of acknowledgement that they are not appropriate. Crude words like this actively dumb down society by making it easier for people to use one-size-fits-all words (“F***” is a verb, noun, adjective, and Im certain people have found ways for it to be used as an adverb or a conjunction) instead of actual descriptive words, and make it harder for parents who want to expose their children to different viewpoints (as I might be inclined to in this setting, even though I myself am not an active LGBT supporter), but do not want to expose their children to foul language, or language they are not ready for. It also makes it much easier for ignorants on the far right to write off LGBT members as not-kid friendly, as nothing more than a bunch of foul mouthed malcontents, and to use that belief to fight against gays being able to adopt.

      And with all the talk of bias, and acceptable discrimination over the weekend, you better believe that anyone that talks this way (and it goes for any straight dude who feel the need to signal that he “loves the P****”) has a higher hill to climb if they want to be left alone with my kid. Gay, straight, woman, man… anyone who demonstrates they dont have a filter for appropriate language in settings where kids can reasonably be expected to be, stand a greater chance of similarly lacking an appropriate filter around my kids.

      • “The “I Heart Dick” sign is crude, but harmless, and is the kind of performative outrageousness that gay pride parades have always done.”

        And Chris’ defense of it is a #1A, #43, #44 or #50. I’m not sure which one it matches more closely.

    • Other Bill

      Chris. Again, you need to stop teaching and go to law school and get a degree and then a license. You are a natural born arguer. You have a natural ability and inclination to shut down discussion. You want to win. You need to be in court representing clients. You’re a little out of place here. There is a fair amount of conversation here and exchange of ideas. At its best, this is a discussion where people get to kick around ideas. Most participants check their flame throwers at the door. You’re very good at what you do, if a little on the pedantic side. You’re ruthless and humorless. If you don’t want to go to law school, you should get a job in politics writing talking points for the Democrats and Socialists. This is why I assumed you were a paid social media operative. Your talents really are being squandered here. People here are trying to broaden their horizons while you’re intent on enforcing orthodoxy.

      • Chris

        I’d really like to know how you interpret my comment as “shutting down” discussion. I asked several relevant questions of Mrs. Q; those questions weren’t rhetorical, and anyone is free to answer them. That’s open discussion. You are free to explain what points of mine you disagree with.

        • Other Bill

          You didn’t engage her, you cross-examined her. You’re a natural litigator. Great for the court room, just not so great for civil conversation.

          • I thought his “cross-examination” was particularly relevant here, since Mrs. Q’s statements call for more clarification, especially for people like me who aren’t part of the LGBTQ scene. If one is going to call attention to issues in a movement or culture’s current state of affairs, it’s worth knowing just how widespread those issues are.

            • Other Bill

              My objection is that Mrs. Q’s comments are based on her lived experience as a member of any number of protected classes. Same goes for Chris Bentley. CB’s defense of Chris below notwithstanding, I find Chris’s “prove it!” or “You’re Wrong!” approach counter-productive to the point of being rude. I’d venture to guess that every single comment here could be prefaced with “It seems to me that…” Why nitpick and be pedantic regardless of where your beliefs lie? Doesn’t Chris ever say to himself, “Hmm. That’s interesting. There may be something to that?” No, he immediately counter-attacks with some, frankly, government issue Authentic Frontier Gibberish, which I can get plenty of by just reading the lefty articles listed on Real Clear Politics.

              • Ah, i see your point now, and do agree. It has been frustrating whenever I’ve shared a personal anecdote, how easily it’s dismissed as an outlier. And it would be nice if someone that I normally don’t see eye with were to say, “That’s interesting; there may be something to an educated black man telling me that when I lower standards, rationalize damming statistics, and justify aggressive behavior (that I wouldn’t accept from my own 10 year old) because that person is black, angry, and unable to express that anger in a constructive way, it is deeply insulting and very much racist.” Often times, I feel like because I am an educated, rational black man, when I make the claim that an an action is racist, it’s given less credence than when some hysterical black, caught on tv, stomping on a cop car makes the same claim.

                It’s be nice if it were understood that I don’t rag of my fellow blacks bc I’m secretly racist, self hating, or think that genuine white supremacist behavior is totes ok. I do it, bc I have higher expectations for my fellow blacks that the left seemingly does, and I’d call out any group of people that acted in self destructive ways that the left accepts from blacks.

                • Other Bill

                  I wish you had a larger platform, Chris. Have you thought of writing a book? Regards.

                • Chris

                  Chris B., my understanding is that you often present yourself as an outlier, at least with respect to your views and beliefs about the problems in the black community. To the extent that I’ve said you were an outlier, it was not to dismiss your views, but to put them in context. I apologize if I’ve come across as dismissive.

                  • The apology is sincerely appreciated. And I recognize the confusion; I know I am an outlier with the vocal, attention seeking portion of the black community with many of my thoughts. I don’t think I am nearly as much an outlier with the folks that live in the bad neighborhood, are sick of being scared of their neighborhood, who recognize that people who look like them are a much, much bigger threat to their own personal safety, than cops are. And I think this group is the “silent” (i.e. quieter) majority.

              • Chris

                OB, Mrs. Q isn’t just talking about lived experience. She’s talking about social trends, and attacking a social group based on those trends. Whether those trends are real or significant is of course a question worth bringing up when engaging with her arguments.

                I am hardly the only commenter here who holds others to exacting standards. You wanna see cross-examination and pedantry, check out some of my exchanges with tex or Hunble Talent. It’s part of the tone of this blog. I’m sorry it doesn’t always work for you, but I’d much rather hear your thoughts on the content of this discussion then the tone.

                • Other Bill

                  Again, you should be a lawyer. You’ll make a great litigator and even a terrific managing partner. You’re single-minded and cock-sure to the point of verging on sociopathy.

                • I don’t think OB’s comment is intentionally insulting, Chris. (Damn how I hate to say this, but) Society needs good litigators, on both sides of the courtroom. This takes natural talent as well as knowledge and a silver tongue. You have the personality, the parsing skills, the focus, and the sheer orneriness needed in a courtroom lawyer. Your mind seems to work this way, based on your postings.

                  None of that is meant to be disparaging. Just an observation, and your mileage may vary.

                  And if you become a lawyer, I’ll still luv ya like a brother. And will mail you lawyer joke on holidays.

                  • Other Bill

                    Chris, with rare exception when you are rational once in a while, I think your ideas are simply wrong-headed, tres courant, but wrong-headed and, frankly, dangerous. Tex and HT are patient and they enjoy arguing. I’m probably much older than they are and don’t have the patience nor the inclination to argue with you. Jack’s remarkable in that he’s a year older than I am yet he is willing to argue with you. He’s a better man than I.

                  • Chris

                    Thanks, slick.

            • Chris

              Thanks, gamereg.

    • “Who is “us” in this sentence? You and your wife? Your immediate social group? It seems to me that a large enough percentage of the gay community has chosen “Pride” as a meaningful word to the community that it has lasted as long as it has. ”

      Ooooh, no. You don’t know that. Look, rough estimates are that something to the tune of 2% of the population at large is gay. So… In a city of 8.5 million, like New York City, you would expect there to be about 170,000 gay people. Give or take. I’m using conservative estimates, it’s probably more. Regardless, strange then, that only 30,000 people marched in the 2016 NYC Pride Parade. Quite frankly, unlike race or gender, the only way the average person would know if another person was gay was if they said or did something to tell you or demonstrate. The VAST majority of gay people quite frankly just want to get through life like the rest of humanity, don’t give two shits about “Pride” and wouldn’t support a fraction of the garbage spewed in their name.

      “I find the beliefs of TERFS far more disparaging than the term TERF.”

      I would love you to reconcile this with your previous statement re: “Dimocrats”. Are you saying that if the group is odious enough they lose the right to respect? I’m not even ‘got’cha-ing’ here… I call TERFs TERFs, and I do it will all the acid I can muster behind it, you’re just usually more touchy feely about things like that than I am, and I’m trying to find the line.

      “I haven’t heard the term “cotton ceilings.” Can you explain what this means, and why it presents a danger to lesbians?”

      I LOVE that you asked. “Cotton Ceiling” is a take on the “Glass Ceiling”, the idea is that trans women and men historically have a hard time breaking into the bedrooms (or underwear, hence “cotton”) of prospective lovers the same way women have had a hard time breaking into boardrooms. Apparently lesbians are turned off by pre-op trans women’s penises. Who’d have thought? Now… This isn’t hugely mainstream, BUT… There is a school of thought that sexual preference is discriminatory (If you want an example of someone who says this loudly from the rooftops, Riley J Dennis is on YouTube) and so if you don’t want to sleep with a trans woman who has a penis, or a trans man who doesn’t… Well, you’re probably a bigot. THEN, to touch on why this is dangerous to lesbians, there’s a smaller, more extreme school of thought that says just like women need to fight to break through the glass ceiling, trans women should fight to break through the cotton ceiling, that is, they condone the rape of lesbians by trans women, because fuck those bigots anyway. It’s like punching Nazis, except with dick. Again… Not common, very extreme, can’t think of “big name” examples, but I’ve heard about the thought process before.

      • Other Bill

        Cotton Ceiling. Curiouser and curiouser. Makes my head spin. Forgive my “Amos and Andy” paraphrase, but at some point in the last paragraph above (and during most transgender issue discussions) I lose track of who’s the fuckee and who’s the fuckor.

        • Social Justice went through a “ceiling” phase a couple years back, the “bamboo ceiling” for instance, was a more true to the original version of the glass ceiling, except for Asians, but they’ve kind of outgrown them, and because of the common parlance of “ceiling” it’s kind of hard to find the old resources unless you know exactly what to look for.

      • There is a school of thought that sexual preference is discriminatory… and so if you don’t want to sleep with a trans woman who has a penis, or a trans man who doesn’t… Well, you’re probably a bigot.

        This is proof of my assertion (on another thread) that progressives tend to be coercive about everything, including who you sleep with, Chris. You asked for examples, and I have now provided two.

        • Chris

          This doesn’t show that progressives “tend” to do anything, slick. HT even said that the people he’s describing are not in the mainstream of progressive thought. From what I understand, your other example was sex education, which is neither coercive (everyone in the US can opt out) nor a sexual activity in and of itself. So you’ve still provided zero examples of progressives at large downplaying the importance of sexual consent, which was my original request.

      • Chris

        Ooooh, no. You don’t know that. Look, rough estimates are that something to the tune of 2% of the population at large is gay. So… In a city of 8.5 million, like New York City, you would expect there to be about 170,000 gay people. Give or take. I’m using conservative estimates, it’s probably more. Regardless, strange then, that only 30,000 people marched in the 2016 NYC Pride Parade. Quite frankly, unlike race or gender, the only way the average person would know if another person was gay was if they said or did something to tell you or demonstrate. The VAST majority of gay people quite frankly just want to get through life like the rest of humanity, don’t give two shits about “Pride” and wouldn’t support a fraction of the garbage spewed in their name.

        OK…but that goes back to the questions I asked: why would any individual member of a social group expect every member of that social group to be asked whether they approve of the activist part of that social group’s branding? And what exactly is the problem with the term “pride?”

        I would love you to reconcile this with your previous statement re: “Dimocrats”. Are you saying that if the group is odious enough they lose the right to respect?

        This is easy, and there is no contradiction. The term TERF is not disrespectful; the acronym literally describes the group in question. They are “trans-exclusionary” by definition, and proudly so; the only part of that acronym that could be considered insulting is “Radical,” though the first TERFs I encountered all self-identified as radical feminists. “Dimocrats” has an insult in the word. There is no comparison.

        I LOVE that you asked. “Cotton Ceiling” is a take on the “Glass Ceiling”, the idea is that trans women and men historically have a hard time breaking into the bedrooms (or underwear, hence “cotton”) of prospective lovers the same way women have had a hard time breaking into boardrooms.

        Thanks for explaining. That’s…really gross.

        I confess that I HAVE seen some trans activists argue that people who aren’t attracted to trans people are engaged in bigotry…which is idiotic, and contradicts decades of LGBT activism that says people can’t control who they’re attracted to. I don’t know how widespread this theory is, though. I’ve never seen it brought up without immediately being challenged by other progressives.

        THEN, to touch on why this is dangerous to lesbians, there’s a smaller, more extreme school of thought that says just like women need to fight to break through the glass ceiling, trans women should fight to break through the cotton ceiling, that is, they condone the rape of lesbians by trans women, because fuck those bigots anyway. It’s like punching Nazis, except with dick. Again… Not common, very extreme, can’t think of “big name” examples, but I’ve heard about the thought process before.

        Holy shit. That’s awful.

        Again, thanks for the explanations.

        • “And what exactly is the problem with the term “pride?””

          I mean… Right? We should get matching “White Pride” Tattoos, and see how that works out. Look, I tend to feel real uncomfortable around parade season because there’s always these floats brimming with people using “Pride” to display their kinks. What started out as “Look at me, I’m just like you, and I have nothing to be ashamed of” gradually turned into “Look at me, I’m kinky, and I have nothing to be ashamed about” which might be affirming to those people, but I think it gives the general public a really fucked up picture of what it means to be gay. It’s hard to argue that I’m just like you if you think that part of my routine is dressing up in leather BDSM gear and spanking someone strung up from the ceiling with a wiffle bat.

          “Thanks for explaining. That’s…really gross.”

          I aim to please!

          “I don’t know how widespread this theory is, though.”

          It’s a closeted movement, they know exactly how popular their views are with the population at large, but when you look at the views that someone like Riley Dennis gets on YouTube, and the number of “likes” on those videos… It’s relatively small, but still frighteningly large.

          • Chris

            Comparing gay pride to white pride is stupid for reasons you’re smart enough to figure out on your own, so I won’t bore you with a drawn-out explanation. In short: white people have never been shamed into the shadows the way gay people have. “Pride” is, literally, an expression that shame was unnecessary and cruel. This is obvious.

            I stay off YouTube. There is no political analysis there that could not be delivered better in an article. Personalities who express themselves through YouTube videos are, invariably, shallow idiots.

      • Pennagain

        only 30,000 people marched in the 2016 NYC Pride Parade. “only”: good point, HT.

        For comparison, Irish residents of New York City number +3.9% of the 8.5 million total population of the area. Only 100,000 marched in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade. Have they no pride?

        San Francisco doesn’t count here, so I’ll leave that out; it would skew your statistics.

        Answer: Parades are for the young, the first-timer, the politician, the not-easily-bored, the coerced member of a community-related organization or business, the entertainer, and the very proud veteran who is young-at-heart (that’s speaking of the circulatory system) who has sturdy, well broken-in shoes and enough strength to carry a sign or a flag or a section of banner, wave a hand, blow a bubble, swivel a neck, or just smile for a mile and four hours every year for 40 years. .

  2. dragin_dragon

    Mrs. Q, this is REALLY an excellent comment. I really do not care what ANYONE’S sexual preference is. When I say I don’t care, I mean I aggressively do not care. As far as I am concerned, you are a person, very much like me (hopefully, not as old) and are subject to all the rights and privileges thereunto pertaining. Responsibilities as well.

  3. I feel like this thread, even with only a handful of posts, is quickly turning into a “dogpile on Chris” thread, and that makes me more than a bit uncomfortable. And not just because I share his name.

    I find the ideology and viewpoints of people on the opposite side of the spectrum from me irritating, because that’s the nature of the beast. But as far as blog commenter/spokespeople go, the left could do far worse than Chris, Deery, Sparty, Charles, and any others I may be leaving out. I know, for me, I would almost certainly visit this blog far less often (and certainly comment far less often) if those 4 ever left. And I’m certain if I visited a blog where politics are frequently discussed, and I was in the extreme minority, I would have said “later suckers!” a long time ago. I admire their commitment to their ideals, tenacity, and relative professionalism, even if I despise the ideology that is the basis for those ideals.

    • Junkmailfolder

      Agreed. It’s a shame that we’ve lost the dissenting voices that we have, and I don’t blame them. I’m grateful for these brave commentators, even if sometimes I feel like they’re from different planets.

    • Chris

      Thanks, Chris B. I value your contribution here as well.

    • Chris has a thick skin, I think… or is a glutton for punishment. 🙂

      Chris can take it, in my experience. Or he would not use that litigator style here so often.

      Go get ’em, Chris. You DO make me think.

      • Other Bill

        The only thing Chris makes me think what a train wreck higher ed has become in my short lifetime. Saying Chris makes you think is like saying Noam Chomsky makes you think. Ugh.

        • Chris is something I cannot get where I live: a dyed in the wool, genuine hook and sinker progressive. The variety we have here HAVE to tone it down, or be disowned by the voters and the public.

          Thus I get to have someone explain what the hell they are thinking, in a quasi civil manner.

  4. “You can officially count me out of the ever increasing alphabet army of the LGBTQIA movement. It’s time for those of us affiliated with the cause to grow up, get our own lives, and tend to what really matters rather than waste our efforts to make sure some straight woman who identifies her gender (and this is for real) as Emoji Pizza Unicorn “gets recognition.””

    High five! We should make a club.

  5. Mrs. Q

    Chris et al-
    I apologize for not saying much but I like to spend my weekends focused on my family rather than be online.

    I’ll respond more tomorrow but thanks to all. Especially HT, to whom I’d gladly start that club with.

    • Chris

      Thanks for the thought-provoking comment, Mrs. Q.

      • Mrs. Q

        The level of disrespect you have shown me Chris, with the snark & unwillingness to do the research yourself, tells anyone reading that there is something inside you that is either terribly unhappy or unhealthy. I cannot in good conscience continue to deal with someone who is so vengeful. You’ve proven you’re incapable of responding in a civil manner towards me when I have not insulted you in any similar way. It’s been a pattern & if you & I were in person I’d simply walk away & pray for you.

        My disability makes my time precious & my family comes before internet commenting. That you would make fun of my need to prioritize my family over responding online says so much more about you than me.

        I was planning on answering your questions but your last little dig is my last straw. I’m sure you’ll say I’m weak or not answering you b/c I’m scared or stupid or a TERF or whatever disparaging term you can think of & that’s fine. I won’t be goaded into your games.

        This is my last comment to you. I’m proverbially walking away from you & praying for your heart to sweeten, find grace, and patience. I believe Chris you are a seeker & I believe one day you’ll learn how to be both more respectful and find the answers you seek.

        Go ahead and insult this comment. I know for the time being you can’t help yourself. I still like you & wish you well but you can’t help but be rude to me & it’s simply time to ignore the bullies. Take care.

          • Wait…what?

            Did I miss something?

            As hard as I am on Chris (and I think in complete fairness as well), I don’t think his “thanks for the thought-provoking comment” was snark even if alot of his other comments are…I think he really was referring to her Comment of the Day overall…

            • Ditto. When I first read your Comment of the Day, Mrs. Q, the conservative part of me was itching to say, “See, we TOLD you all that this would spin out of control”, but Chris’ intial response stopped me short; how much of the bad stuff you describe is genuine culture rot, and how much of it is mere outlier behavior not supported by the majority of LGBTQ? I’m sure you’re telling the truth about what you’ve observed, but since (so far), you’re the only one I’ve seen bring this stuff up, I can’t know if your observations are typical of the culture or not. Hence I thought Chris’ counterpoints were valid food for thought.

            • Chris

              It wasn’t snark. And thank you, tex.

            • I’d say you missed something: Chris’s multilateral attack om Mrs. Q’s comment at the beginning of the thread! Then she replied that she would respond in detail the next day. When she did not respond sufficiently rapidly to satisfy Chris, he wrote

              “Thanks for the thought-provoking comment, Mrs. Q.”

              Which she quite reasonably took as sarcasm, meaning, “Wow, that was some rebuttal! I’m bowled over with admiration—snort!” I thought it meant that too. How often do you see an extensive comment saying, “You’re full of it! followed later by, “Thanks for the thought-provoking comment”? I’ve NEVER seen that.

              So if Chris’s second comment wasn’t a nasty shot, I don’t know what it was.
              I’m really puzzled that he now claims that his U-turn qua snark was as innocent as a a newborn lamb. If so, he owes Mrs. Q an apology and an explanation. If not, he’s taking advantage of confusion to make her look like jerk in this exchange, which is not—I thought—his style.

              • Chris

                How often do you see an extensive comment saying, “You’re full of it! followed later by, “Thanks for the thought-provoking comment”? I’ve NEVER seen that.

                Really? I see that here all the time. “Thought-provoking” just means “provoking thought.” Mrs. Q’s comment of the day did that for me, and for others here. That doesn’t mean I agree with it, or even find it remotely accurate. I’m sorry you and Mrs. Q misinterpreted my comment, but given that others here knew exactly what I was saying, that’s all I will apologize for. I think I’ve earned more of the benefit of the doubt than I was given here.

          • My guess is that your intent is to demonstrate a graceful way to bow out of a conversation you know is going to go nowhere?

        • Chris

          Mrs. Q, my response to you was a genuine compliment on your original comment of the day, not a snarky insult demeaning your need to spend time with your family. I would never put you down for that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s