Hold On Thar Baba Looey
[UPDATE (from Pam, November 14): Chris Crain brought to my attention today that the post in question that Autumn asserted was copied was in fact written before Autumn's original post, thus the charge of plagiarism, tongue-in-cheek or not, was false. Autumn will have her own response here, but I wanted extend my own separate apology to Chris Crain.]
[UPDATE (from Autumn, November 14): I need to eat some crow, and apologize to Chris Crain personally. Apparently, made similar conclusions about the Washington State Senator Curtis story, and came to our similar conclusions independently — he actually posted his piece here a day before I posted my piece. As Pam said, “…the charge of plagiarism, tongue-in-cheek or not, was false” — I apologize for implying it. I was completely off-track and wrong.]
Hold on thar Baba Looey, I'll do the thinnin around here!
—Quick Draw McGraw (a Hanna Barbera cartoon character)
I really liked Chris Crain's New York Blade article Cross-dressing and blogger hypocrisy. As well I should: It sounded a lot like The Hypocrites' Exposed Closets And The 'Flinch Factor'. Let's do some compare and contrast, shall we?
Considering that the Catholic Church isn't big on transsexuals, isn't big on gays, and isn't a big promoter of prostitution, this Catholic principal as a “transvestitute” story resonates on the hypocrisy level.
But, I'm more concerned about the media focusing on what Principal Schum and Senator Curtis were wearing. It's apparently not enough for we, the public, to know that the alleged criminal and alleged blackmail victim were cross-dressed and looking for gay sex, we apparently aren't satisfied unless we know what the individuals were wearing — and we seem to laugh harder if what they're wearing seems a bit kinky. And, because the clothing that these two individuals were allegedly wearing did seem a bit kinky, we get to feel superior and laugh at them as pitiful freaks.
THE BLACKMAIL SEX scandal that cost Richard Curtis his seat in the Washington state Legislature is shaping up as a real classic and the gay blogosphere was more than happy to pass on every juicy detail. There are some interesting twists, however, that are showing the predictable pack of salivating bloggers themselves are guilty of “the big H” – that would be hypocrisy.
The information in the police report was particularly juicy, considering Curtis apparently dressed in women's lingerie.
Gay bloggers had a field day, giving us permission to revel in every salacious detail of this private, consensual sexual encounter because Curtis is “very anti-gay,” as one gossipmonger put it.
When Congress flinches at the idea of covering gender identity or expression in ENDA or hate crimes legislation, are they thinking about how much discrimination of straights, gays, and lesbians is tied to gender non-conformity — such as how a large number of people associate effeminate male behavior with being gay and emasculate female behavior with being lesbian? Are they thinking about how transgender business professionals are being discriminated against — such as Susan Stanton or Julie Nemecek?
No, they're likely thinking about how the media portrays people like Curtis and Schum as gay freaks and/or transgender freaks, how the public seems to lap the freak aspect of the stories up — and then they likely think about how freaks like Curtis and Schum may be gaining job protections under ENDA. And then, likely thinking about the freaks, they flinch.
If *you* enjoy reading those salacious cross-dressing tidbits about those hypocritical, closeted gay and transgender people — such as caring whether the offenders were wearing leather corsets or women's lingerie — have *you* thought about how *your* curiosity (mirrored by larger society) is impacting *our* push for civil rights?
IT'S ALL JUSTIFIED, of course, because there's no crime more serious to the sex police of the left than hypocrisy – which is why it's interesting to see how these same bloggers have reacted to news that Curtis enjoys wearing women's lingerie.
Cross-dressers and transvestites (who have a sexual fetish for clothing of the opposite sex) are both examples of transgenderism, the “T” in our happy GLBT community.
We certainly have no business disparaging cross-dressing since we were reminded again and again in the debate over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that we queers are all gender transgressors of one form or another. It's a surprise, then, to see how cross-dressing is being treated by the leftie gay blogosphere.
The similarities seems between the two pieces seem so … correlative?
Perhaps I should mention here that my piece was posted here at PHB on November 1st, and Chris Crain's was posted on November 9th.
Since we know Chris reads PHB, it really does look like I might really be doing all of the “thinnin around here, Baba Looey!”