Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Draggingtree

Queering Humpty Dumpty

56 posts in this topic

Queering Humpty Dumpty

What does “he” mean? What does “she” mean? To the vast majority of the English speaking world, “he” is the personal pronoun used towards a male person, while “she” is the personal pronoun used towards a female person. This is as it always has been, because the fact that the two biological sexes have always been regarded as different, with the differing pronouns making it clear as to what the speaker is speaking about.

Queer-Humpty-Dumpty.jpg

However, these fundamental definitions are on the verge of being overthrown. Long has the left wished to abolish any notion of “gender.” and they are achieving that be declaring that “gender” is a social construct, while the differences between the biological sexes is just a superficial difference of who has which reproductive organs, and that those differences between the sexes are irrelevant to anything and everything else. Scissors-32x32.png

http://politicalhat.com/2014/06/08/queering-humpty-dumpty/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starbucks replaces American flag with rainbow flag at their headquarters

 

Only companies on ONE side of the culture war are celebrated

 

By: Steve Berman (Diary) | June 24th, 2014 at 11:05 PM

pride-flag-starbucks.jpg

With great fanfare, Starbucks raised the rainbow “pride” flag over their Seattle headquarters, to honor Seattle Pride 2014. We can expect this from a company whose CEO, Howard Schultz, famously told a shareholder who questioned the financial efficacy of taking sides in the culture war, specifically gay marriage:Scissors-32x32.png

http://www.redstate.com/diary/lifeofgrace/2014/06/24/starbucks-replaces-american-flag-rainbow-flag/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saving the World One Pronoun at a Time

Frank Soto

June 24, 2014 at 10:00 am

Before the smoke has even cleared in culture wars surrounding gay marriage, LGBT culture warriors have decided now is the ideal time for a new offensive. The oft-forgotten T (transgendered) in the LGBT is the new front for the champions of the eternally offended. Everywhere you look you can see shots fired on this new battlefield. With calls for Kevin Williamson to be fired from publications he doesn’t even work for, and cards being pulled from a game whose only purpose is literally to be offensive, I can easily spot the eventual winner of this contest. And though I am not (as far as I am aware) Italian, I can jump ship to the winning side as quickly as the next man.

 

Unlike the gay marriage debate, where issues such as tax status and spousal benefits rule the day, the transgender wars center around bathrooms and how you are to be addressed by others. Kevin’s mistake was stating the biological fact that Laverne Cox is a man. As my new allies inform me, this is hateful and indeed “violence” against transgendered people. Scissors-32x32.png

http://ricochet.com/saving-world-one-pronoun-time/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kerry Looking for Gay Ambassadors to Give Obama Money

June 25, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield

Secretary of State John Kerry, America’s greatest diplomat since Kendall Myers, has announced a plan to tackle Al Qaeda in Iraq by appointing gay ambassadors to Asian countries.

 

As long as those gay ambassadors give Obama money first. Ted Osius of the State Department gave Obama money. Now he’s the Ambassador to Vietnam.

 

If he had given more money, he might have actually gotten France or the UK, but old Ted cheaped out.

 

This is what happens when you cheap out, you end up in Vietnam Still he’s gay, so Kerry will count coup on that while Al Qaeda counts human heads.

 

During his speech, Kerry said that, if confirmed, Ted Osius (nominated by President Obama for the post in Vietnam) would be the sixth openly gay U.S. ambassador currently in servicesnip Scissors-32x32.png

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/kerry-looking-for-gay-ambassadors-to-give-obama/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Modern Politically Correct U.S. Military: Making Ernst Röhm’s Dream Come True

Last month was “Gilbert” month for the U. S. Military. What is “Gilbert” month? Gilbert is GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered). This is not merely a celebration of tolerance, but mandatory acceptance and celebration of the imposition of the morality of the few on the many.

gay_military.png

The Obama administration is making it clear: There will be no tolerance; only outright acceptance. Not even staying silent will save you! The military is no exception, and it is being made clear to the soldiers who have been specifically instructed:

“If you are not on board with this program, there is no place in the military for you.”
Scissors-32x32.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Queer as a Three Dollar Bill

Remember when the Department of Justice circulated fliers declaring that you are a “H8r” unless you proactively celebrate homosexuality and cross-dressing? Just think that this was a fringe move by the Obama administration? Think again. Now corporatist lapdog companies are working overtime to ferret out any and all “H8rz” who do not side with the agenda of the “Gay Rights” movement.

3dollarbill.jpg

The bank, Chase, sent out a mandatory employee survey that explicitly connected responses with the individual employees. Therein they asked:

  1. A person with disabilities
  2. A person with children with disabilities
A person with a spouse/domestic partner with disabilities
A member of the LGBT community
An ally of the LGBT community, but not personally identifying as LGBT

What happens to the employees who, by not checking the last question in the affirmative, seem to declare themselves as not “allies.” It suggests that one must either be an “ally” of political and social stances to normalize homosexuality Scissors-32x32.pnghttp://politicalhat.com/2014/07/11/queer-as-a-three-dollar-bill/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to School: When Mr. Reuter Becomes ‘Ms. Reuter’

Queer theory has arrived in public schools for the ten and under set .

 

AUGUST 5, 2014 By Mary Hasson

 

In the Washington DC area, back-to-school sales are underway and summer’s about done. Parents’ inboxes and mailboxes fill with newsy “Get ready for another great year!” letters and long shopping lists of supplies from the PTA. and school principal.

 

The families of Janney Elementary School, a highly rated DC elementary school in the affluent northwest quadrant of the city, recently received a different sort of back-to-school notice (provided to me by a confidential source). Janney’s principal, Norah Lycknell, announced in a July 17 email to the “Janney Community” that the school’s writing inclusion teacher, the former Mr. Robert Reuter, had declared himself transgender and would now be known as “Ms. Rebecca Reuter (Ms. Reuter to our students).” Principal Lycknell described end-of-year meetings in which Mr. Reuter (as he was known then) “bravely” shared his “powerful and personal story” and his plan to transition to a new gender identity. Scissors-32x32.png

 

The principal’s email, for example, says nothing about bathroom and locker room issues. Scissors-32x32.png

http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/05/back-to-school-when-mr-reuter-becomes-ms-reuter/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“Mother” and “Father” Purged from California

California is at the vanguard of abolishing the legal notion of gender… except where contra-normative transgenderism is useful politically. Already children, who’ve been convinced that they are not what they were born as, can use whatever bathroom (boys or girls) they want with impunity. Even more ludicrously, the state of California is now at odds with the obvious biological reality that two men, or two women, can never naturally have a child between them.

Now, they are trying to completely eliminate any notion of “father” or “mother”: Scissors-32x32.png

http://politicalhat.com/2014/09/03/mother-and-father-purged-from-california/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bane of the Transgendered? The Radical Left, of Course!

Posted on October 18, 2014 by The Political Hat

When the rabid Left runs out of straight White cis-gendered males to blame, they will turn on themselves. Apparently, regardless of whether they consider a person who thinks they are the opposite sex to be the gender concomitant with their sex or the gender contrary to it, non-transgendered Leftists aren’t exactly praising them.

 

Robert Stacy McCain has pointed out repeatedly how transgendered/transexual individuals are at odds with many radical feminists (radfem). The former claim to be oppressed because of their “trans-ness” and also oppressed for being “women” (when they are actually a dude). The later declare that the so-called “women” have, or were born with, a p*nis,1and are thus still privileged. This leads to the “stopped clock” situation where the radical feminists (of PIV = Rape infamy) are actually making sense. Scissors-32x32.png

 

 

http://politicalhat.com/2014/10/18/the-bane-of-the-transgendered-the-radical-left-of-course-2/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saving the World One Pronoun at a Time

Frank Soto

June 24, 2014 at 10:00 am

 

 

 

I Ze You have a thread Here....smile.png

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

October 20, 2014

This Lesbian's Daughter Has Had Enough

By Rivka Edelman

 

My name is Rivka Edelman, and I am the product of same-sex parenting.

 

Recently I published an essay on Public Discourse about the ruthless misogyny that pervades LBGT culture. I pointed out it that it can and will victimize women and children with impunity and then, in America’s narcissistic fugue, get hailed as brave and heroic.

 

Since my essay was published, there have been hundreds, maybe thousands, of posts calling me a liar or trying to shame, discredit, intimidate, and threaten me.

 

Read this for details. People I do not know have gone directly after my family and my job. They have posted information, mis-information, accusations, and threats against me. A vicious abusive “activist” well-known for his unhinged misogynistic cyber-stalking and violent threats, Scott Rose, sent blast e-mails to the university where I teach, Scissors-32x32.png

http://americanthinker.com/2014/10/this_lesbians_daughter_has_had_enough.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stonewall is not Selma

Cliff Kincaid — January 7, 2015

President Obama has celebrated anti-police riots at a New York City gay bar, the Stonewall Inn, saying, “We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths—that all of us are created equal—is the star that guides us still, just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma and Stonewall…”

 

With the new film “Selma” opening on Friday, Obama’s claim deserves some serious scrutiny from the media. In Selma in 1965, protesters were met with force and violence from the police. Martin Luther King, Jr. had led thousands of nonviolent demonstrators from Selma, Alabama to the capitol in Montgomery, Alabama. At Stonewall in 1969, gay protesters waged war on the police. Obama apparently can’t see the difference. (Seneca Falls is the name of the city in New York that served as the location for an 1848 conference on the rights of women in society.)

 

Our forebears were rioting homosexuals at a bar waging a war on the police? That’s what Obama is saying. What’s more, he’s comparing homosexuals fighting the police to blacks marching for their rights, including the right to vote. Scissors-32x32.png

 

The life and times of Harry Hay, a communist agitator for homosexual rights and “man-boy love,” could receive a special designation as well Scissors-32x32.pnghttp://www.aim.org/aim-column/stonewall-is-not-selma/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Draggingtree

 

Dirty Little Secret Time

 

From Friends of Ours

 

Stonewall Riots: A Gay Protest Against Mafia Bars

 

On the Friday night of June 27, 1969 the NYPD raided the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar on Christopher Street in Greenwich Village, and a firestorm of protest erupted that continued over the next several nights. The Stonewall riots are considered the birth of the modern gay rights movement, and over the following decades often has been characterized as a protest against police harassment. However, in actuality, the Stonewall Inn was raided pursuant to an investigation against its reputed mob owners, and the ensuing rage on the streets by its gay patrons was directed as much against the wise guys as the boys in blue. Of course, a few rowdy nights by some angry patrons were not going to chase the Mafia out of the lucrative gay bar racket which it had controlled for decades in New York City. Indeed, in 1986 the feds obtained a conviction against Matthew "Matty the Horse" Ianniello, the reputed Genovese capo who allegedly was behind the Stonewall Inn, for a skimming operation involving some of his gay bars. The question remains whether the mob to this day still has a hidden hand in some gay establishments, and based upon claims from some industry insiders, the answer may be yes.

 

POLL: Do you think that organized crime continues to control at least some gay bars in some American cities?

 

In 2004 historian David Carter published Stonewall, and shattered the myth that the NYPD's raid was intended as harassment against the bar's gay clientel. Carter reviewed the 1969 police files concerning the raid and interviewed Seymour Pine who was the Deputy Inspector in charge, and Carter concluded that the cops were looking for bonds they believed had been stolen by a closeted Wall Street executive at the blackmailing behest of mobsters who operated out of the Stonewall Inn. Lucian K. Truscott IV, the writer who covered the events for the Village Voice in 1969, last year wrote a piece for The New York Times ("The Real Mob at Stonewall") in which he stated the following: "Deputy Inspector Pine had two stated reasons for the raid: the Stonewall was selling liquor without a license, which it was, and it was being used by a Mafia blackmail ring that was setting up gay patrons who worked on Wall Street, which also seems likely."

 

(Snip)

 

At the time of the Stonewall riots the Mafia -- primarily the Genovese, Gambino and Colombo crime families -- had controlled gay bars in New York City for decades. The mobsters entered the racket not only to profit from an underserved market which was illicit in its own right -- gay bars in NYC were illegal until 1967 -- but further as a means to launder money, sell non-taxed or stolen booze, move drugs, traffic boys, distribute smut and blackmail the rich and powerful. Of course, mob control over gay bars at the time was not unique to New York City. As muckrakers Jack Lait and Lee Mortimer wrote in their 1952 bestselling U.S.A. Confidential which provided a voyeuristic tour of underworld culture: "All fairy night clubs and gathering places are illegal, and operate only through pay-offs to the authorities. They are organized into a national circuit, controlled by the Mafia which also finds unique opportunity to sell dope in such dives. Many gangsters like it that way, too, after indoctrination in prison."

 

The feds targeted Vito Genovese for his interests in gay bars after his wife Anna ratted him out during their divorce proceedings in 1953, and ultimately learned that he was trafficking heroin through them for which he was convicted in 1959.....(Snip)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Preview on same-sex marriage — Part I, The couples’ views

By Lyle Denniston on Apr 13, 2015 at 12:08 am

This is the first post in a four-part series on the written arguments that have been filed in the same-sex marriage cases at the Supreme Court. This post covers the briefs of the couples who are challenging the state bans. At the oral argument on April 28, Mary L. Bonauto of Boston, the civil rights project director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, will argue for the couples on the issue of state power to forbid same-sex couples to marry, and Douglas Hallward-Driemeier of the Washington office of Ropes & Gray LLP, will argue for the couples on the issue of state power to refuse to recognize existing same-sex marriages. Each will have thirty minutes of time. Later posts in this series will cover the state governments’ defenses of their bans, the arguments of amici supporting the couples, and the arguments of the amici supporting the state bans. The federal government, which filed a brief in the case as an amicus supporting the couples, will take part in the hearing on the marriage ban question but not on the recognition issue; its brief will be reviewed along with those of other amici on that side. Scissors-32x32.png

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/preview-on-marriage-part-i-the-couples-views/#more-226992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Preview on same-sex marriage — Part II, The states’ views

By Lyle Denniston on Apr 14, 2015 at 12:04 am

This is the second post in a four-part series on the written arguments that have been filed in the same-sex marriage cases at the Supreme Court. This post covers the briefs of the four states in defense of their state bans. At the oral argument on April 28, John J. Bursch of Lansing, Michigan, a special assistant attorney general and the state’s former solicitor general, will argue for the states on their power to forbid same-sex couples to marry. He will have forty-five minutes of time. Joseph F. Whalen of Nashville, an associate state solicitor general, will argue for the states on their power to refuse to recognize existing same-sex marriages. He will have thirty minutes. The first post in this series, discussing the couples’ views, can be read here. Later posts in the series will review the filings of the amicion both sides — including the brief of the federal government, supporting the couples’ challenge to the bans.

America’s state governments have never seen anything like this:Scissors-32x32.png

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/preview-on-same-sex-marriage-part-ii-the-states-views/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Follow the Money: HRC/Amicus Brief

By: Chris Walker (Diary) | April 15th, 2015 at 02:00 PM

In less than two weeks, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments forObergefell v. Hodges in what is shaping up to be a landmark case in the national marriage debate. At issue are the questions of whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license marriages between two people of the same sex and whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to recognize marriages between two people of the same sex licensed and performed out-of-state.

 

By now, conservatives should be very familiar with an influential organization that has carried the banner for same-sex marriage advocacy, the Human Rights Campaign. However, many may be unaware of the powerful network of corporations that are involved with HRC’s longstanding push to overturn marriage laws in America. Scissors-32x32.pnghttp://www.redstate.com/diary/2ndvote/2015/04/15/follow-money-hrcamicus-brief/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSmarriage-300x185.jpgAs part of our expanded coverage of this month’s oral arguments in the challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage, we are pleased to present this post by Michael Klarman on the history of the same-sex marriage movement and, more broadly, on how constitutional law evolves in the United States.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down one section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) but ducked on the broader question of whether the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex couples to marry. Since then, most of the drama over this issue has dissipated. Few Court watchers any longer doubt that five Justices will support a right to marriage for same-sex couples. A look back at the history of the movement to extend the right to marry to same-sex couples sheds light on how constitutional law tends to evolve in the United States.Continue reading » Scissors-32x32.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LGBT Friendly: White House Unveils First Gender-Neutral Bathroom.

The headline over the story is, “LGBT Friendly: White House Unveils First Gender-Neutral Bathroom.” But it’s not a joke. It wasn’t a story from the comedy site The Onion. Instead, this was from NBC News.

It is apparent that the liberal media will treat anything “gay” coming out of this administration as somehow legitimate or even compassionate. Nothing will be described as weird or strange, out of fear of offending some new sexual minority. This time, the “transgendered” are supposed to benefit. It’s yet another effort to confuse sexual roles and undermine traditional valuesScissors-32x32.png

 

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/sexual-madness-in-obamas-america/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Across the Gay Divide

By: davenj1 (Diary) | July 12th, 2015 at 08:56 AM

Now that the LGBT has won a victory by the slimmest of margins and longest stretch of constitutional jurisprudence, what is the next step? For us on the Right the strategy seems to be guaranteeing that religious liberties are not trampled by these newly found rights to same sex marriage. In every state where gay marriage came about democratically, their laws grant religious exemptions. In those states, there has not been too much controversy despite occasional flare ups that gain the attention of the media. For the Left, their victory before the Supreme Court is a large battle won, but certainly not their end game. Scissors-32x32.png

 

So workplace discrimination is the first area where the LGBT community will turn their attention next. After that, they will try to incorporate crimes against homosexuals into hate crime legislation. Some states have already done so. Here, their efforts will come into conflict with another First Amendment right- free speech Scissors-32x32.png

http://www.redstate.com/diary/davenj1/2015/07/12/across-gay-divide/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0