Watch How the CRC Handles This
Lately I've been interested in watching how clusters of beliefs go together, as we've watched the CRC morph from a simple anti-gay group to one that tepidly tried to defend white Christians, to one that recently mobilized the forces to try to keep discrimination against transgender people legal. You're never surprised, but you do wonder sometimes -- what are they thinking?
The CRC and allied groups have made a lot of hay out of the idea that the AIDS epidemic is a result of "homosexual behavior." Because they are <insert_stereotypical_generalization_here>, gays can't control their sexual behavior and so they spread HIV. These groups have numbers, they have pie-charts, they have Surgeons General from the hazy past speaking on this subject.
I am curious to see how they'll address the more recent data, in yesterday's Washington Post:
I doubt the CRC and other groups will want to talk out loud about this. And for good reason. There is a certain sensitivity, you might say, about the similarity between the kinds of assertions these nutty groups make about gays, and now transgender people, and the things that were said by ... others, not that many years ago, about black people.
I don't think the CRC wants to get stuck with the racist tag, and really, I don't think they have done anything to deserve it. But it's a nerve that runs near the surface, because the pattern is so similar. So now it will be interesting to see how they interpret these new findings that AIDS is an epidemic among blacks, at least in our area now, more than gays.
Let's see if they start shooting their mouths off about racial minorities like they have about sexual minorities, linking them to people's daughters being raped and young girls being found dead all over the county -- the things they've been saying about transgender people -- and talking about how promiscuous they are, how they don't have any self-control, how they molest children and carry diseases -- the things they've been saying about gay people.
However will they show their concern for those poor African-American victims of AIDS?
The CRC and allied groups have made a lot of hay out of the idea that the AIDS epidemic is a result of "homosexual behavior." Because they are <insert_stereotypical_generalization_here>, gays can't control their sexual behavior and so they spread HIV. These groups have numbers, they have pie-charts, they have Surgeons General from the hazy past speaking on this subject.
I am curious to see how they'll address the more recent data, in yesterday's Washington Post:
The first statistics ever amassed on HIV in the District, released today in a sweeping report, reveal "a modern epidemic" remarkable for its size, complexity and reach into all parts of the city.
The numbers most starkly illustrate HIV's impact on the African American community. More than 80 percent of the 3,269 HIV cases identified between 2001 and 2006 were among black men, women and adolescents. Among women who tested positive, a rising percentage of local cases, nine of 10 were African American.
The 120-page report, which includes the city's first AIDS update since 2000, shows how a condition once considered a gay disease has moved into the general population. HIV was spread through heterosexual contact in more than 37 percent of the District's cases detected in that time period, in contrast to the 25 percent of cases attributable to men having sex with men. Study Calls HIV in D.C. A 'Modern Epidemic'
I doubt the CRC and other groups will want to talk out loud about this. And for good reason. There is a certain sensitivity, you might say, about the similarity between the kinds of assertions these nutty groups make about gays, and now transgender people, and the things that were said by ... others, not that many years ago, about black people.
I don't think the CRC wants to get stuck with the racist tag, and really, I don't think they have done anything to deserve it. But it's a nerve that runs near the surface, because the pattern is so similar. So now it will be interesting to see how they interpret these new findings that AIDS is an epidemic among blacks, at least in our area now, more than gays.
Let's see if they start shooting their mouths off about racial minorities like they have about sexual minorities, linking them to people's daughters being raped and young girls being found dead all over the county -- the things they've been saying about transgender people -- and talking about how promiscuous they are, how they don't have any self-control, how they molest children and carry diseases -- the things they've been saying about gay people.
However will they show their concern for those poor African-American victims of AIDS?
posted by JimK at 9:32 AM
65 Comments:
Does anyone mind if I point out the obvious here? Ok, since I am the first to post a comment I guess that means ok...(well, sort of in my case).
Lemme see here...HIV is a virus, correct? Ok, so it is...does this virus care if the person they infect is gay? I don't think so... Does this virus care if they infect a Black American? I don't think so... Does this virus care if it is a child they infect? No, because this virus does not have feelings.
We do know certain things about this virus though...it is NOT easily transmitted, and we know that individuals that enjoy sexually active lifestyles are more likely to contract this virus (as well as IV drug abusers). That women and children contract this virus as well is as likely to be the result of a betrayed trust than anything else.
That is enough for me to know...
Excellent job Jim. According to the CRC's logic we should be opposing black people, encouraging black people to come out of the black lifestyle, denying black people the protection of anti-discrimination laws, hate crime laws, and school anti-bullying programs.
Orin, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how a same sex couple marrying keeps men and women apart.
Obviously, we should be encouraging all women to be lesbians, since this is the group least likely to transmit HIV. Problem solved.
CRC: No public thank you will be necessary.
Justify this, please.
My friend, a single mom, was flying to Denver with kids to go skiing. They were late, on Southwest and got seperated. Her daugther, at the time 11 years old, sat in between two men. The two men were obviously gay, because they (out of sight of my friend) - spent the flight blowing kisses at each other. One took a cup, licked the rim, and passed it across Laura to the other gay man who proceeded to drink from it giggling. My friend heard this story after she got off the plane and was upset. Hetereosexuals don't behave like this in public. But these homosexuals did, and many do for the shock factor.
Though I really don't believe that Dana pre-op would have flashed some child in the ladies room, I do believe many transgenders would. Again, for the shock factor. You haven't defined any rules in your gender identity law, so Tuesday transgenders count. And some of them clearly will be out for the shock factor. And you just taken away any legal recourse a mother has in this situation.
Though I am sympathetic for the gender confused community, I am not willing to sacrifice any more of my rights for them. The 99.9% of the population should not continue to have to sacrifice our basic right to privacy for the 0.1% who are confused.
I am not willing to give up any more of my rights. And for that you classify me as a bigot. As you may have guessed, I really don't care WHAT you call me.
Theresa
Theresa said "Hetereosexuals don't behave like this in public. But these homosexuals did, and many do for the shock factor.".
That's absurd Theresa. Heterosexuals are at least as likely to behave like this in public as gays are. Heterosexuals don't risk assault or murder for making their attractions known and are much more likely to express such attractions than gays for this reason. Yes you are a bigot and that you'd make such an absurd assertion is proof of it.
Your right to privacy is not sacrificed by my being present in the ladies room any more than it is sacrificed when any other lady is there. My using the men's room places my life and wellbeing at risk, its a minor inconvenience for you to merely suspect a transwoman is using the stall next to you - in the interests of balance it has to be this way. If you don't think so I suggest you try using the men's room a few times and see how that works out for you. Ask yourself if you'd be willing to do what you ask us transwomen to. And we are not confused about our gender - we know what gender we are, its you who's confused.
Andrea- not anon
We don't believe any story you tell, Theresa. I think you and the rest of CRC make up lies to support your paranoia and bigotry. Your stories are always so similar to sort of things people said about Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Irish, Poles- stereotypes and fear mongering. If you are really religious, you should think about praying for God to clean your heart and mind of your hatred. Personally, I think all of the CRCers I have heard speak need mental health work-ups- maybe you could have a 12 step program for CRC- Bigots non-Anonymous.
"Though I really don't believe that Dana pre-op would have flashed some child in the ladies room, I do believe many transgenders would. Again, for the shock factor. You haven't defined any rules in your gender identity law, so Tuesday transgenders count."
This is the clearest evidence possible, Theresa, that you don't know any transgender people, and that anything you have to say on the subject is utterly irrelevant.
You are free to relieve yourself of your unnecessary discomfort by seeking information, but choose not to. You spend way too much time thinking about other people's genitals, and it appears to be interfering with your ability to function normally.
Please find someone to talk to about this who won't collaborate with your desire to project the blame for your discomfort onto innocent people who just want to be left alone.
Theresa-
I'm finding it a bit hard to believe this story. I would expect two people who are traveling together to ask the stewards to put them together and place the third person - the stranger - to one side.
Of course, straight people do act like that, which is why someone might think she could get away with making it up.
Justify this - you repeat a story that you have heard third-hand and expect thinking people to accept it as a valid reason for discriminating against a group of people who are not actually a part of the story you've just repeated.
Look, we know that you like being afraid. You've told us that you're afraid. You've told us that you chose to frighten your children on your family vacation to the Grand Canyon. You've told us how much you enjoy reading fear-mongering Ann Coulter. We get it that fear is your thing. We understand that about you and we accept it.
What we don't accept is that your right to cherish your fear justifies denying legal protections to another group of people.
"We don't believe any story you tell, Theresa. I think you and the rest of CRC make up lies to support your paranoia and bigotry."
Really, well the woman involved was flying to Denver to meet myself and my two children for a ski vacation. She is director at NIH and not very likely to lie.
Her daugther isn't either.
And I heard the story that evening when we got in, within two hours of her disembarking from the plane. So you might say it was fresh in her mind at the time. Hey, the last time you accused me of lying was when I pointed out that there was no opt-out box on the MCPS pilot program - remember ?
And that MCPS was claiming folks had "forgotten to return the permission slip" when the way to opt-out was by not returning it.
You said I was lying, I scanned and emailed Jim the form. He posted it.
Remember ?
So right, I'm lying Tish. You just keep telling yourself that.
Theresa-
every time I read something that your sad, sad mind has feared-up, it makes me feel great knowing that I am a secure, sane man who just happens to be gay.
Pray to God and THANK HIM that you are not a teacher in our school system scaring our children to death with your poorly-thought-out fables and that I- the sane, educated and caring guy, who just happens to be gay (and IRISH TOO!) is.
CRC (and CRCers) is (are) not trustworthy and I think the public has made that clear.
Why don't you people spend your time doing something that is actually "Christian"... like, oh, I dunno, helping the homeless or learning what the word "empathy" means.
Anon,
I couldn't care less whether or not the story is true. There are a number of salient points: 1)Theresa did not observe the events in question, 2) Had she actually witnessed a similar event she would have told us about it, 3) Straight people are guilty of a much higher frequency of PDAs as well as degree of erotic displays and we all know it.
I am thankful for her blogging it, though, because it corroborates her other comments. It's not that observing gay men being affectionate grosses her out, it's the thought of gay men being affectionate that causes her anxiety. It's not that she has ever, or will ever, observe the genitals of a pre-op trans woman (or any other woman) in the bathroom, it's the thought of such women that annoys her.
She has made this clear, even having said so directly. She doesn't want to think about such things. It's not the existence, per se, of LGBT people that annoys her; it's that we're out in society, willing to live like everyone else without hiding, and, more importantly, that society is increasingly accepting that. She doesn't want to be made to feel bad; she doesn't want to be stigmatized for her fears or her discomforts. She doesn't like the fact that the only way she feels she can deal with her discomfort now that we're here and out is to discriminate. If we were quiet, didn't talk of ourselves or our experiences, didn't set up photos of our partners and families in our cubicles that she might see and be made uncomfortable, then she would tolerate our existence. It's only when we demand our rights, or smooch in public, that she feels her privacy is violated.
Now, I'm not an attorney, but I can't figure out how privacy enters into this. I don't want to think of Theresa or you, Anon, having sex. It grosses me out. So what do I do? I don't think about it. The fact that you are human and may have sex is not important to me. What my genitals are or whom I love should not be important to you. I would hope you had more important things about which to worry.
Theresa's feelings really aren't the issue. Personally, I don't try to hurt anyone's feelings. What is insulting, demeaning and completely unacceptable, though, are comments such as hers that, myself aside (thank you very much), trans persons are flashers and perverts. She can't possibly know this from experience; this is another version of the "big lie." That there are no records of such reports means nothing to her; she KNOWS that transgender people like to shock little girls by exposing themselves. That's hate speech, Theresa; not a hate crime, of course, but hate speech, the kind of speech which led to actions which culminated in the murder of 3/4 of my family 65 years ago.
Theresa, you talk of "Tuesday transgenders." Nice neologism -- where did you pick that up? You're not a stupid woman, so you know that the amendment to the law was crafted specifically to exclude cross-dressers from the accommodations section of the law. You're the one who ended up killing that, so congratulations.
That being said, the fact is that our HRC, like most others, would rule, if necessary, that the law does not apply to cross-dressers. Both because that is the intent of the law, and because that is the way it has been interpreted in other jurisdictions.
Transsexual women and transsexual men live publicly and exclusively as their reassigned gender. I have made this point repeatedly. The medical and legal requirement is that one must do so for a year before genital reconstruction. Transsexual women are women, not men masquerading as women. Transsexual men are men, not women masquerading as men.
You may not want to accept that we exist, that we are a scientific reality. By not doing so you create all this anxiety for yourself. The scientific community accepts us, the medical community accepts us, the legal community accepts us by changing our IDs and birth certificates -- only you and your fellow travelers don't.
Calling us "gender confused" is also insulting. I have never been gender confused, nor do I know anyone who is. You are the one who is confused, the engineer who can't differentiate between genital sex and brain sex.
You have the right to privacy to use the stall in the women's room without anyone walking in on you or peering into your stall. You don't have the right to exclude any other woman from doing her business.
And if you, Theresa, are still afraid to meet with me (we have talked at some of your events so I don't see what the big deal is), maybe your scientist friend at NIH has the courage?
Ok Dana - Licking the rims of cups and passing them to each other is "being affectionate" ? Correction, it is just gross.
Straight couples don't do this. And though there is certainly way too much PDA going on among adolescents in public, you rarely see the over 25 crowd engaging in this except perhaps at a bar late in the evening.
So, I disagree that this is "the same among heterosexual couples".
"Lately I've been interested in watching how clusters of beliefs go together, as we've watched the CRC morph from a simple anti-gay group to one that tepidly tried to defend white Christians,"
Don't know what you're talking about but do you have a bias against white Christians? And did CRC make that distiction or is it only you that feels white Christians are significantly different from black, Asian and Hispanic Christians?
"to one that recently mobilized the forces to try to keep discrimination against transgender people legal."
They mobilized to prevent the county from changing the legal definition of gender from a verifiable biological status to a non-verifiable mental state of whatever you're "expressing".
"You're never surprised, but you do wonder sometimes -- what are they thinking?"
Yeah, it's kind of like, why is this group formed to prevent dissension against MCPS sex-ed concoctions, getting so wrapped up in trying to obtain special privileges for people who "express" dress like the opposite gender?
"The CRC and allied groups have made a lot of hay out of the idea that the AIDS epidemic is a result of "homosexual behavior." Because they are whatever, gays can't control their sexual behavior and so they spread HIV."
That the virus was introduced into our society by the licentious behavior of the gay community is a historical fact. The anal sex prevalent in the gay community combined with the widespread random promiscuity provided the ideal incubator and means of dissemination. It's a fact.
"These groups have numbers, they have pie-charts,"
Gee, hate to bore you with anything like evidence.
"they have Surgeons General from the hazy past speaking on this subject."
I don't recall that but I wouldn't be surprised.
"I am curious to see how they'll address the more recent data, in yesterday's Washington Post:
The first statistics ever amassed on HIV in the District, released today in a sweeping report, reveal "a modern epidemic" remarkable for its size, complexity and reach into all parts of the city.
The numbers most starkly illustrate HIV's impact on the African American community. More than 80 percent of the 3,269 HIV cases identified between 2001 and 2006 were among black men, women and adolescents. Among women who tested positive, a rising percentage of local cases, nine of 10 were African American.
I doubt the CRC and other groups will want to talk out loud about this. And for good reason. There is a certain sensitivity, you might say, about the similarity between the kinds of assertions these nutty groups make about gays, and now transgender people, and the things that were said by ... others, not that many years ago, about black people."
Funny, when I read this article I assumed you guys would be talking about how AIDS has become a hetero disease in DC. I had no idea you would be going back to the well of sympathy for blacks who have legitimate grievances about discrimination to try to drum up support for the gay advocacy movement. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You guys are low.
The media has been talking about the high rate of AIDS among blacks for a long time. I have a feeling the problem, now that you bring it up, is income disparity and concentration of poor blacks in small areas of the inner city in D.C.. I don't recall from reading the story but I have a feeling that blacks at higher levels of income have similar statistics to non-blacks at those income levels.
"I don't think the CRC wants to get stuck with the racist tag, and really, I don't think they have done anything to deserve it."
So why do you constantly try to draw this connection. It's offensive to say one's race leads to certain types of behavior. It's not offensive at all to theorize that the inclination to engage in certain behavior leads to other related behavior.
"But it's a nerve that runs near the surface, because the pattern is so similar."
Not in any way.
"So now it will be interesting to see how they interpret these new findings that AIDS is an epidemic among blacks, at least in our area now, more than gays."
Well, I'm not a CRC follower, but I suspect they'll not be saying much about it. It's not very relevant to any issues they're working on.
"Let's see if they start shooting their mouths off"
This is Jim's euphemism for speaking- if the speaker doesn't express views similar to Jim.
"about racial minorities like they have about sexual minorities,"
Yes, and let's see what they say about fashion minorities and athletic minorities and political minorities. I guess anyone who is different from anyone else is a minority now. So, everyone's a minority.
"linking them to people's daughters being raped and young girls being found dead all over the county -- the things they've been saying about transgender people --"
They didn't link transgenders to that. They said forcing all business owners to give transgenders special treatment by letting them use a restroom of the opposite gender could lead to this because there is no readily simple way to distinguish real from imposter transgenders.
"and talking about how promiscuous they are, how they don't have any self-control,"
You're mixing up gays with transgenders but I guess you're allowed to because you're fly.
"how they molest children"
Haven't heard them say that. I have heard transgenders here claim that straights molest children though.
"and carry diseases"
The chances are higher with gays. If you're going to teach kids that homosexuality is acceptable, at least make an accurate assessment of the danger involved.
"-- the things they've been saying about gay people."
Only active ones.
"How will they show their concern for those poor African-American victims of AIDS?"
Well, in neighborhoods where the problem exists, they could go and run some abstinence programs. Probably be better to simply send a contribution to churches in these areas who are already addresing the problem.
Now, it IS going to be interesting to see how TTF spins the other big AIDS story last week. Apparently, AIDS cases in Africa and India have been vastly overstated in recent years. AIDS is actually declining in these areas. These are two areas that gay activists always point to in saying that AIDS is not a gay disease. They are also areas where an effort has been made in recent years to establish abstinence programs and the authorities have supported it. AIDS remains on the rise in countries where it is largely a gay problem.
One official quoted by the Post believes the statistical error was due to political motives of some researchers. Imagine that.
Jimi P
"It's only when we demand our rights, or smooch in public, that she feels her privacy is violated."
Why do you constantly identify transgenders with gays? If a transgender has pulled off the gender switch, no one knows and no one cares. If not, the behavior is offensive.
"What is insulting, demeaning and completely unacceptable, though, are comments such as hers that, myself aside (thank you very much), trans persons are flashers and perverts."
The problem is with the subset Theresa speaks of who like to subvert traditional morality by shocking behavior. They exist- look at the gay pride parades- and they are empowered by legislation giving trans special privileges.
The other problems is that there will be no easy way to differentiate between people with different motives.
"If not, the behavior is offensive."
What behavior are you talking about, anon? I thought y'all were talking about public displays of affection - either that's offensive, no matter who does it, or it's not. Which is it?
I haven't seen anything about legislation that gives anyone special privileges. Could you explain what you mean by that?
Anon,
Why don't you post one of Jerry Falwell's old Pride videos here? It always seems to work in Alabama.
Don't be a fool. Some people like PDAs, some don't, most don't care. At least Theresa has the guts to make her point, however indirectly. Yes, people act out at Pride parades -- a few, just as people act out in Mardi Gras and Carnival and a host of other parades, and they are overwhelmingly straight. And you know it. Gay people disgust you, trans people disgust you. Period. It's not about disease, it's not about pedophilia, it's not about acting out.
You really don't listen to me. Verifiable biological status? What are you talking about? Have you ever been strip-searched going to the bathroom? Are you suggesting we do that now? Why? So Theresa doesn't have to think about her worry about a non-existent problem?
And I've asked before -- do you want men with vaginas to use the women's room? Yes or no.
Anon,
Please make sure that you answer the above questions before continuing. We're becoming impatient with the lack of dialogue on your part.
Theresa, I am not the one who called you a liar. I told you why I find the story hard to believe. You need to read more carefully.
You have still not explained why this third-hand story "justifies" your desire to discriminate against transgender people - who do not have anything to do with the story, regardless of its accuracy.
Theresa, by your own admission the odds of you encountering a transwoman in the ladies room is 1 in 1000 and the odds of you realizing it are considerably less than that. That you would have a transwoman risk assault and murder in the men's room to spare you an extremely rare occurrence says a lot about you and none of it good.
Jimi p said "They mobilized to prevent the county from changing the legal definition of gender from a verifiable biological status to a non-verifiable mental state of whatever you're "expressing".".
False. As has been explained to you numberous times pre-op transexuals are under the care of a psychiatrist who can vouch for their trans status and who provides them with a "bathroom letter" for precisely such incidences as you propose where their right to be in the ladies room might be questioned.
Jimi p said "why is this group formed to prevent dissension against MCPS sex-ed concoctions, getting so wrapped up in trying to obtain special privileges for people who "express" dress like the opposite gender?".
Using the bathroom in safety is not a special privilige, its an equal right. Transwoman cannot use the men's room in safety, we must use the ladies room. The trivial inconvenience such mere thoughts cause bigots like Theresa is a necessary trade-off to ensure the overall good for all.
Jimi p said "That the virus was introduced into our society by the licentious behavior of the gay community is a historical fact. The anal sex prevalent in the gay community combined with the widespread random promiscuity provided the ideal incubator and means of dissemination. It's a fact.".
False. The vast majority of HIV infections occur amongst heterosexuals. Blacks have higher STD rates than whites and yet we don't hear you similarly using that as an excuse to denigrate blacks - because its no longer socially acceptable to do so, so you're just bigoted against gays.
Jimi p said "Funny, when I read this article I assumed you guys would be talking about how AIDS has become a hetero disease in DC. I had no idea you would be going back to the well of sympathy for blacks who have legitimate grievances about discrimination to try to drum up support for the gay advocacy movement. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You guys are low.".
What this illistrates is your hypocrisy, on one hand you say that gays have higher STD rates than straights and this justifies discrimination against gays, on the other hand given the same situation with blacks and whites you somehow claim your logic now dosn't justify discrimination against blacks when that is exactly what your attitude says. That's because you know its not logical to use STD rates to discriminate against a disadvantaged groups but you think its still socially acceptable to do it when it comes to gays. If you were consistent you'd be deneirating blacks just like you denigrate gays.
Jimi p said "So why do you constantly try to draw this connection. It's offensive to say one's race leads to certain types of behavior. It's not offensive at all to theorize that the inclination to engage in certain behavior leads to other related behavior."
No one said one's race leads to certain types of behavior, what we're saying is that being a victim of discrimination makes one more likely to suffer from social problems like higher STD rates. By all logic if you feel unconfortable blaming being black for their higher STD rates you should be similarly unwilling to lie and say being gay is responsible for higher STD rates.
People like you do your very best to disrupt and prevent long-term gay relationships and to prevent gay marriages and then you blame gays for being promiscuous - you're insane, the problem is your discrimination and oppression of gays, not being gay itself.
Jim K said ""So now it will be interesting to see how they interpret these new findings that AIDS is an epidemic among blacks, at least in our area now, more than gays."
Jimi p said "Well, I'm not a CRC follower, but I suspect they'll not be saying much about it. It's not very relevant to any issues they're working on.".
How very telling that you would admit to that. CRC claims to be interested in reducing promiscuity and STDS, but obviously that's not the case given their disinterest in those subjects as they affect the black community. Obviously you're admitting the only issue that concerns them is oppressing gays for the sake of oppressing gays.
Jimi p said "They didn't link transgenders to [daughters being raped and young girls being found dead]. They said forcing all business owners to give transgenders special treatment by letting them use a restroom of the opposite gender could lead to this because there is no readily simple way to distinguish real from imposter transgenders."
Having the same right to use a bathroom in safety is not a special right. Transwomen deserve the same right genetic women have to use the bathroom without being assualted by men. As has been pointed out to your repeatedly a true transexual is under the care of a psychiatrist who can vouch for them and who provides them with a "bathroom letter" for just this very purpose.
Jimi p said "Haven't heard them say that [transpeople molest children]. I have heard transgenders here claim that straights molest children though.
You're willfully blind. Theresa was making that claim on this very thread. CRC supporters claim transpeople are more likely than average to molest children. No transgenders have claimed that straights disproportionatly molest children, simply that they in fact do so and do so at a rate higher than that of gays. The typical child molester is a married straight man who may molest either boys or girls.
Jimi p said "The chances [of carrying a disease] are higher with gays. If you're going to teach kids that homosexuality is acceptable, at least make an accurate assessment of the danger involved."
From the statistics presented the chances of carrying a disease are higher with blacks as well. By your logic if you're going to teach kids that being black is acceptable you should make them aware of the danger in dating one. You aren't ranting about that because you know your logic is BS.
I'm guessing that transmen in the ladies room would make Theresa a whole lot more uncomfortable. She obviously has no idea what she's asking for.
David,
Theresa is delberately ignoring the issue, because it would cause cognitive dissonance and blow a hole the size of a Mach truck through her argument.
Most people are completely unaware of trans men because they pass so easily and just assimilate back into society. It's not as easy for some trans women, so we're easier targets. Add to that the misogyny underlying much of the radical right's ideology (why would a man want to become a woman? nonsense) and you can understand why they would target trans women.
They may also not believe that trans men are really men, since they usually don't have a penis. But they sure as hell look like men, which is the main point about bathroom use. No one knows what's in your pants; people using rest rooms react, if they react at all, to gender expression.
I have a little airplane story myself:
I'd just like to point out that I was on a flight once and a couple (a male and a female) came out of the small bathroom at the front of the plane and had obviously been engaged in "mid-air sex". The woman had her shirt on backwards and there was semen on her pants. Theresa, is that acceptable just because they are male and female? It's inappropriate is what it is (for both straight and gay people). Stop being such an ignorant bigot... I think some psychology courses would do you good.
Oh, look. Here PFOX goes again trying to ruin the lives of more human beings. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!!!
It's a good thing that Mayor Adrian Fenty was right at the front of the 2007 Gay Pride Parade this year in DuPont. He supports truth and equal rights. He's fair-minded and won't let these freaks spread their lies. So, with that, I am content :-).
(However, read below to get a good laugh!)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:03 am Post subject: Washington DC Public Schools' Health Standards Reply with quote
November 26, 2007
Chancelor Michelle Rhee
DC State Board of Education
District of Columbia Public Schools
825 N. Capitol St, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Re: Comments on Washington D.C. Public Schools draft of “Health Learning Standards” for all students
Dear Chancelor Rhee and Honorable Members of the DC State Board of Education:
We are Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays. PFOX supports families, advocates for the ex-gay community, and educates the public on sexual orientation. Each year thousands of men, women and teens with unwanted same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave homosexuality. PFOX promotes an inclusive environment for the ex-gay community, and works to eliminate negative perceptions and discrimination against former homosexuals and lesbians.
PFOX opposes the draft "Health Learning Standards” and urges the Board of Education to do likewise. Our primary areas of concern are 1) the draft standards do not provide that any discussion of sexual orientation would include information on ex-gays or those who leave homosexuality, and 2) the draft health standards require discussion of sexuality and sexual orientation that is not appropriate for the grades and related age groups.
The draft guidelines use the term “sexual orientation” and indicate that homosexuality is innate, even though no scientifically valid studies prove this. We oppose standards that promote viewpoint discrimination by telling gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders that their sexual orientation is healthy and normal, while denying the same to those who are ex-gay or attempting to overcome same-sex attractions. Further, the standards could result in lessons that demand universal affirmation by students of homosexuality, and potentially violate a student’s rights under the First Amendment to express his or her own beliefs.
The guidelines have many instances in which the discussion of sexuality is inappropriate for the age groups. For example, versions of the standards encourage teachers to begin discussing different family structures with students in kindergarten. Kindergarten is too early to introduce students to the concept of families having two moms or two dads.
Sixth grade lessons would "explain that people, regardless of biological sex, gender, ability, sexual orientation, gender identity and culture, have sexual feeling and the need for love, affection and physical intimacy." This lesson introduces cross-dressing as perfectly normal and natural, even though “Gender Identity Disorder” is classified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association.
The guidelines do not adequately reflect the values of the predominately African-American and Hispanic student populations that the DC public education system serves. These guidelines are potential harmful if they do not result in a curriculum that provides complete and accurate information about sexual orientation, fully describes the risks associated with all types of sexual acts, and tells students that some individuals experience a change in sexual orientation in the course of their lives.
Thank you for your work on behalf of our students.
Sincerely,
Regina Griggs
PFOX Executive Director
cc:
Adrian Fenty, Mayor
Hilda L. Ortiz, Chief Academic Officer
Gloria L. Benjamin, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction
Barbara Rockwood, Executive Director of Athletics, Health/Physical Education
Deborah Gist, DC State Superintendent of Education
Beverley Wheeler, Executive Secretariat, DC State Board of Education
"Kindergarten is too early to introduce students to the concept of families having two moms or two dads."
Got that, same sex couples? Make sure your child is in at least the first grade before introducing "the concept" that his or her own family exists.
Good one, Regina! Keep up the fantastic work!
"people using rest rooms react, if they react at all, to gender expression."
Right, which is why I point out at Equality Loudoun that the people who get harassed most often in bathrooms (I mean in terms of sheer numbers) are butch cisgender women. Maybe Theresa would like to refine her list to include: Transwomen (w/ or w/out penises); lesbians of any kind; women (trans or not) who look like they might be lesbians (because that might make her uncomfortable); women (trans or not) who look, move, dress or sound like men; men (w/ or w/out penises, gay or straight or trans or not, obviously). Did I forget anyone? Is anyone left?
I understand what she's doing. I just very much want her to understand the logical conclusion of her inanity.
Theresa
You take a story told to you second hand, and you generalize it to a group you call "gay men." Even if you witnessed this yourself, don't you recognize this as bigotry? Two people did something, therefore you condemn a whole class of people. You really don't see this? I think you are prepared to see the worst in LGBT people. Look into your heart, ask yourself if it isn't so.
Here's my request. Take Dr. Dana up on the opportunity to meet her. Get to know some real LGBT people outside the context of trying to find things we do wrong. Jesus ate with the centurions and tax-collectors. He held up the hated Samaritan as an example for his listeners to follow. He said that what you do unto the least you do unto him. You can do no less Theresa. Otherwise, you sink into a soup of self-righteousness from which it is difficult to escape.
BTW, I've been having a debate with some students about when you help people. Do you help only people who ask for your help? Do you only help people who are kind and fair to you? The example I use is the homeless people I've known in my volunteer work who have virulently anti-gay attitudes; do I stop offering what assistance I can because they hate me? The example I don't use, but is more relevant, is whether I stop helping anti-gay students. We of course all can only do what we are able to, but I know what my answer is.
Yours in pride,
Robert
"In response to concerns similar to those you raised, the legislation does not repeal the exception in the current public accommodations law for distinctly private or personal facilities."
So we shouldn't have an argument, there's already an exception for bathrooms right ?
Randi rites,
Orin, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how a same sex couple marrying keeps men and women apart.
Sigh...dearest Randi, I have answered your question; simply put, you do not like the answer. Sorry, I can't help you there...perhaps an appeal to the Laws of Nature and Nature's God might be a help.
Yes, there is already an exception for bathrooms. As I have pointed out several times, when a trans woman is planning transition, she sits down with her employer and presents a protocol to lay out the process. In many instances today in major corporations, because there are already 160+ companies in the Fortune 1000 that have integrated such protocols into their HR, the transition goes smoothly. Accommodations are made re: accommodations for the first few months of transition because people prefer to work things out than to be bigots or to lose valuable employees. With time the transition is complete and there is no longer any concerns.
For small businesses the success rate is much lower, hence the need for the legislation.
As for public accommodations, as has been written here before, trans women carry documentation of their trans status and participation in the required one year transition process before legal ID is changed. Again, this is sufficient in most cases that arise, though few do. Most cases are, as previously stated, directed against non-trans women, be they gay or straight, because they look or dress "too masculine" in the eyes of the beholder.
"Most cases are, as previously stated, directed against non-trans women, be they gay or straight, because they look or dress "too masculine" in the eyes of the beholder."
This is the real problem area. If someone is sucessfully impersonating another gender in anticipation of an operation, no one is the wiser and there is no problem. If they are not successful, it should be left to the owner of the rest room to set his own policies. Anything else opens up all these bizarre people in restrooms. It's just not the government's business to mandate this.
Truthfully, the distinction between gender is important for a healthy society. Transgenders in transition should simply be sensitive to community standards. It's not that great a burden, and not for a very long time.
Jimi H
I have noticed a new blogger from CRC here lately...who on earth is this "Jimi P"? What hole did he/she crawl out of? His/her homophobia is so painfully obvious! Sad
Oh, for Pete's sake! On November 8(@ 12:23am) he/she was "Jimi P". Now I see on November 28( @ 11:58pm) he/she is "Jimi H". It seems we have a confused phantom blogger visiting us who doesn't know who he/she is!
I just starting using a handle because decoy anons were popping up and David Weintraub (btw, is he someone new?) was getting all in a tizzy about the confusion.
jimi age
Theresa said: “Though I am sympathetic for the gender confused community, I am not willing to sacrifice any more of my rights for them. The 99.9% of the population should not continue to have to sacrifice our basic right to privacy for the 0.1% who are confused.”
The CRC Talking Points say: “Don’t the 99% of biological females right to not be exposed to male genitals in their lockerrooms TRUMP the right of the 1% of gender confused individuals to expose them?
Back to Theresa's: “The 99.9% of the population should not continue to have to sacrifice our basic right to privacy”
She’s made this assertion on a number of occasions but I just noticed what’s wrong with it.
According to this logic, everyone who is not transgendered automatically feels that their rights are being trampled on.
It’s a disguised attempt to portray ALL those in favor of gender identity protections as being against gender identity protections. It’s the same tact they use when they claim majority rights on other issues as well.
Some 70% of Americans identify as Christian, this much is true. So by framing their supremacist agenda as a “Christian” agenda, they can claim majority support on virtually any issue. The only problem is, half of that 70% of Christians are liberal, and are generally just as appalled as the groups these supremacists demonize. Furthermore, to them, being virulently anti-gay is the primary litmus test to determine whether or not someone is a “true” Christian. Everyone else is part of, or has succumbed to the gay (or liberal) agenda and is therefore the enemy.
So whenever they claim majority rights, generally speaking, they themselves consider half of that majority to be the enemy.
Theresa’s so bold she feels she can lie about us right in front of us. But as she stated "I really don't care WHAT you call me."
Apparently she doesn’t care that her pants are on fire either.
I see that the bogus PFOX group, headed by Regina Griggs, is once again resorting to grandiose hyperbole when she instructed the professional educators in DC's schools that "Each year thousands (sic) of men, women and teens with unwanted same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave homosexuality." Perhaps she ought to suggest that the DC curriculum writers include her own story about how much success she and PFOX have had in "helping" her own son "leave homosexuality".
PFOX, she claims, "promotes an inclusive environment for the ex-gay community, and works to eliminate negative perceptions and discrimination against former homosexuals and lesbians."
It's really hard to understand why PFOX feels the need to "eliminate discrimination" against a so-called "community" of confused "ex-gay" heterosexuals who enjoy the same perogatives, protections, and rights of all other heterosexuals in our society.
Ms. Griggs and PFOX are liars, hypocrites, and fear-mongerers who are dishonest and deceptive about advancing their covert religious agenda and their hatred of gay men, lesbians, and transgenders.
R.T.
JimK said: "The CRC and allied groups have made a lot of hay out of the idea that the AIDS epidemic is a result of "homosexual behavior." Because they are whatever, gays can't control their sexual behavior and so they spread HIV."
Jimi P said: "That the virus was introduced into our society by the licentious behavior of the gay community is a historical fact. The anal sex prevalent in the gay community combined with the widespread random promiscuity provided the ideal incubator and means of dissemination. It's a fact."
-the licentious behavior of the gay community
-The anal sex prevalent in the gay community
-widespread random promiscuity [of the gay community]
As I think someone already mentioned, lesbian "homosexual behavior" is the least risky for contracting AIDS. Or were you really under the impression that lesbians are running around out there having promiscuous anal sex with real live HIV+ male penises?
:::
JimK said: "I don't think the CRC wants to get stuck with the racist tag, and really, I don't think they have done anything to deserve it."
Jimi P said: "So why do you constantly try to draw this connection. It's offensive to say one's race leads to certain types of behavior. It's not offensive at all to theorize that the inclination to engage in certain behavior leads to other related behavior."
Pretending that you were indeed confused by Jim's meaning, it's not about drawing a connection between race and AIDS, it's about the connection that's not being EXCLUSIVELY drawn between AIDS and risky behaviors.
There is no exclusive connection between AIDS and ANY demographic. In this case, and globally, prevalence of it isn't even exclusive to "the gay community."
In addition, "theorizing" that same gender attraction, in and of itself, inclines one to engage in risky sexual behavior is quite offensive.
First of all, because it's not a theory, it’s an assertion. Worse, it's an assertion made for assertion's sake. It was made without anything other than your own hatred to back it up, that's the only reason it was said.
Not hateful you say? That’s the second offense. But to recap first: In order to prime your strawman, in the first paragraph you equate a trait (same gender attraction) with a behavior (risky sexual promiscuity).
In the second paragraph of yours that I quoted, you then SEPARATE a trait (race) from that behavior (risky sexual promiscuity), and then go on to EQUATE trait and behavior when it comes to gays – Pretending all the while that you were talking about each group (trait) in the same way. You pretended to make a fair comparison while stacking the deck.
So, 1) you unfairly slandered all gays, and 2) you went out of your way to try to hide it, which means you knew what you were doing.
You attributed the trait of irresponsible sexual behavior to the trait of same gender attraction, but not to the trait of race – just because you wanted to, and then tried to hide it by pretending to make a fair comparison. And you don’t think that’s offensive?
Fred Phelps is less offensive. He doesn’t pretend.
"You attributed the trait of irresponsible sexual behavior to the trait of same gender attraction, but not to the trait of race – just because you wanted to,"
Well, that and the fact that it is true for male same gender attraction and not for race. Sorry to mess up your soliloqy with any inconvenient truths. Looking up at your illogical ramble, your only argument is that lesbians don't spread AIDS.
Gee, you got me on that one.
Jimi Gee
Jimi Gee
Jimi P said: "That the virus was introduced into our society by the licentious behavior of the gay community is a historical fact."
:::
Jim Burroway has a very interesting and thorough article on the ACTUAL “historical facts” about the AIDS virus.
"Opportunistic Infections
AIDS in American is 25 years old today, and so is the stigma that goes with it. Will future generations will look back at June 5th, 2006 as Year One in the fight against Stigma?
Jim Burroway
June 5, 2006"
:::
It’s somewhat lengthy, but his articles generally tend to be dispassionate, easy to read, and he tends to stick to the meat.
Lot’s of quotes, references and footnotes too. This article has 66 footnotes, most with hyperlinks.
(For those of you who don’t understand the importance of facts, footnotes are provided for the sake of providing access to the accuracy of what is said.)
:::
Basically the disease began in Africa through heterosexual sex, which then spread to Europe, which then spread to gay men in the U.S. where Christian conservatives decided that that was a good thing:
"Stigma provides the strongest explanation for why the official response was so different toward AIDS. When 29 people died of Legionnaire’s disease at a Philadelphia hotel in 1976, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention immediately threw its entire weight into the problem and identified the source of the disease within months. There was little talk of money or appropriations; Congress and the Ford administration simply footed the bill. But this time when CDC investigators were prepared to throw everything they had against AIDS, they ran into a Reagan administration that was on a cost-cutting binge, instituting a near freeze on all public health funding on the belief that health care would be better handled at the local level.
As long as Stigma continued to infect society, there would be little political support for spending taxpayer dollars on AIDS. Proposals for AIDS funding faced opposition not only from the key officials in the Reagan administration for fiscal reasons, they also stoked outrage from social conservatives who proclaimed such funding immoral:
Stigma provided the opportunity for hundreds, then thousands of Americans to fall to the disease. Whenever AIDS was discussed in the public sphere, it was the gay community that repeatedly came under fire for endangering the entire nation:"
He gives quotes in between, names names, and provides footnotes for all. (Even the footnotes in this article hyperlink down to the bottom of the page.)
So back to Christian conservatives thinking this disease was a good thing. As Jimi P notes:
"The anal sex prevalent in the gay community combined with the widespread random promiscuity provided the ideal incubator and means of dissemination. It's a fact."
What Jimi P doesn't happen to mention, is that the efforts of Christian conservatives were an ESSENTIAL factor in protecting the ideal conditions of that incubation. They went out of their way to ENSURE that the disease spread. Gay disease = no need to prevent.
No funding = no research, no prevention education, and especially, no compassion. Let it burn.
That’s what came to me earlier when I was reading the article. It was like a house fire. Imagine if someone set your next door neighbor’s house on fire, but you hated your neighbors so much that you were glad their house was on fire. You not only wanted their house to burn down, you wanted it to burn down with them in it. First you cut their phone line so they can’t even call 911. Then dump gasoline inside and nail up the windows and doors. Then bust their water pipes, etc. But then, once the house is engulfed in flames, it spreads to your house. Then you blame your next door neighbors who survived for setting your house on fire.
Again, Jimi P said...
That the virus was introduced into our society by the licentious behavior of the gay community is a historical fact. The anal sex prevalent in the gay community combined with the widespread random promiscuity provided the ideal incubator and means of dissemination. It's a fact.
Obviously the CRC and its supporters aren’t even capable of operating a search engine, yet they continue to insist that they are qualified to teach school children.
I do wonder though how it’s possible to talk out of your ass while your head is firmly implanted in it. Or is having your head up your ass implied when someone says you’re talking out of it? In any event, perhaps this helps to explain their obsession with the anus.
Jimi said: "Well, that and the fact that it is true for male same gender attraction and not for race.
your only argument is that lesbians don't spread AIDS."
Also that “male same gender attracted” individuals who don’t spread AIDS, also don’t spread AIDS. It’s pretty elementary.
Now I realize that one might take you some time, given that hating that anal sex thing is what turns your kind on.
Great, Improv.
In addition to arguing that lesbians don't spread AIDS, now you're saying that conservatives are responsible because they didn't support AIDS research.
And, yet, you still haven't refuted the basic fact that random promiscuity taking the form of anal sex in males was what spread the disease here.
"And, yet, you still haven't refuted the basic fact that random promiscuity taking the form of anal sex in males was what spread the disease here."
It was never my intention to refute facts, just the misrepresentation of them.
Orin, you didn't answer the question. I asked you repeatedly for a step by step cause and effect explanation as to how the gay couple marrying down the street keeps any heterosexual couple apart and you have studiously avoided the question. Either answer it or admit that your assertion is absurd.
Jimi P said "This is the real problem area. If someone is sucessfully impersonating another gender in anticipation of an operation, no one is the wiser and there is no problem. If they are not successful, it should be left to the owner of the rest room to set his own policies. Anything else opens up all these bizarre people in restrooms. It's just not the government's business to mandate this."
As has been repeatedly stated transpeople are under the care of a psychiatrist who can vouch for them and who gives them a bathroom letter to prevent precisely the situation you fallaciously assert - the law does not "open up all these bizarre people in restrooms". Its the governments role to mandate safe restrooms for all and transwomen need to use the bathroom of their gender expression to be safe.
Jimi P said "Truthfully, the distinction between gender is important for a healthy society. Transgenders in transition should simply be sensitive to community standards. It's not that great a burden, and not for a very long time.".
You have no idea what you're talking about. You are not a transexual, you don't have a clue as to what sort of a burden it is to try and accomodate bigots like you. The fact is its a trivial imposition on most people to accomodate transexuals and a huge burden on transexuals to accomodate bigots. The existence of transpeople does not affect in the slightest the vast majority of peoples desire to distinguish between genders, in the vast majority of cases things continue as they always have for most people regardless of what transpeople do. Its only transpeople who are significantly affected and it is up to society to make trivial changes that mean a great deal to a minority.
Emproph said "You attributed the trait of irresponsible sexual behavior to the trait of same gender attraction, but not to the trait of race – just because you wanted to,"
Anonymous Jimi said "Well, that and the fact that it is true for male same gender attraction and not for race."
LOL, its a fact?! Well then trot out your peer reviewed studies to prove it! Fact is you pulled that out of your rear and you know that if you blame high std rates on being gay you have to blame high std rates on being black. You know that's BS so all you can do is lie about gays.
"Anonymous",
You have misunderstood the situation, or perhaps you do not know what "cisgender" means. The people who are most often harassed in public restroom settings are, as Dana says, "non-trans women, be they gay or straight, because they look or dress "too masculine" in the eyes of the beholder." Non-trans women, "anonymous", are by definition not transitioning. Therefore, your "problem area" seems to be that not all women sufficiently femme themselves up. I can't wait to hear your proposed solution to this "problem."
"Decoy anons" = other CRC commenters who say embarrassing things and make CRC look bad. Very amusing. I comment using my full name so as not to be confused with David Fishback. Do the same and I will be happy to address you as a real person.
You just admitted equating "male same gender attraction" and "irresponsible sexual behavior." Did you really mean to do that? You're not even smart enough to recognize how damaging that admission is? Wow.
I was at a bar in Leesburg last night, watching basketball. There was a white heterosexual couple at the bar in front of me, in full view of the rest of the room. They were seated right below the TV screen, so they were in my peripheral vision the entire time. I would peg them at 50-something. They were clearly enjoying each other, and were smooching and embracing a bit. Initially this didn't bother me, in fact I thought it was kind of cute and charming, and I was happy for them. Then I started thinking about what was said on this blog, and wondered if they were doing this for the shock value.
As their behavior continued, it became more and more explicitly sexual. He cupped her ass with his hand, he rubbed her ass with a circular motion, he slid his hands inside the waistband of her jeans and pulled her to him. At one point, she turned around and rubbed her buttocks against his thigh, and bounced up and down in a facsimile of copulation. This behavior went on for a solid 40 minutes. I noticed also that the woman was coyly glancing around to see if people were watching. It became clear to me over time that, yes, this was a performance, intended to show everyone in the bar that they are having sex. It was really pretty revolting, to realize that's what it was, basically a flaunting of heterosexual privilege.
I guess my question is, should I assume that this attitude is a heterosexual trait, and judge other heterosexual people accordingly?
Randi scribbles,
Orin, you didn't answer the question. I asked you repeatedly for a step by step cause and effect explanation as to how the gay couple marrying down the street keeps any heterosexual couple apart and you have studiously avoided the question. Either answer it or admit that your assertion is absurd.
I have answered it...again, you don't like the answer (and as a bisexual I can understand why). Alas, grab a copy of David Blankenhorn's book and give a read...heck, if I can squeeze in The Riddle of Gender, I think you could give it a try.
Or, do you only read things that accord with your social and political prejudices?
Orin,
You read "The Riddle of Gender"? What did you think?
What, Dana, did you pull that out of your rear?
Scientists Track Time and Place of HIV's Arrival
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 5, 2007; A10
In the decades since young gay men in the United States started dying from a mysterious syndrome in the 1980s, scientists have wondered how and when the AIDS virus arrived. Many scenarios have been proposed, including one early but now-discounted theory that the disease was imported by a promiscuous Canadian flight attendant dubbed "patient zero."
Now, however, scientists reconstructing the genetic evolution of the deadly virus say they have traced its true path -- concluding that the insidious pathogen used Haiti as a steppingstone from Africa to the United States and arrived much earlier than had been thought. It then simmered silently here for more than a decade before it was detected, beginning its global spread along the way.
"This is the first time that we've been able to bring together the geographical picture with the timing picture to show with a pretty high degree of certainty where the virus went from Africa, and when," said Michael Worobey, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona in Tucson, who led the research.
Others praised the detailed genetic analysis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) from around the world as an impressive bit of biomedical sleuthing.
"For those of us who have been interested in HIV evolution and the origins of the virus, this is very interesting," said Beatrice H. Hahn, a professor of medicine at the University of Alabama in Birmingham. "It's a very nice piece of work."
In addition to writing a key chapter in the history of the AIDS pandemic, the new insights into the genetic variability of the virus could aid the long-frustrated efforts to develop an effective vaccine.
"What this might tell us is how the virus might evolve molecularly," said Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. "That might have an impact on the virus that you put in your vaccines. So this not only has historical value but practical implications for vaccine design."
The new work fills in the latest piece of the puzzle of the origins of the AIDS pandemic. Hahn and her colleagues had previously established that HIV originally jumped from chimpanzees to humans, possibly when hunters in Africa butchered animals infected with a version of the virus. In 2000, Bette Korber of Los Alamos National Laboratory and her colleagues found that the virus began to proliferate in Africans around 1930.
But the exact route the virus took as it crept out of Africa before exploding in other parts of the world has been the subject of intense debate and speculation.
"We know that the virus has a deep history in Africa," Worobey said. "I wanted to find out how it emerged from Africa and became the pandemic that we know today."
Worobey started by retrieving six blood samples from cold storage at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. Arthur E. Pitchenik of the University of Miami had collected them in 1982 and 1983 from Haitian immigrants who had died from a mysterious syndrome, later determined to be AIDS.
"We now know that these are samples from several of the earliest Haitian AIDS patients in the United States," Worobey said.
In the laboratory, his team extracted HIV from five of the samples and analyzed the viral genes. The researchers then compared their findings to molecular sequences stored at Los Alamos of 117 samples of the strain of HIV that is primarily responsible for the global spread of the pandemic outside of Africa. (Other strains, however, account for far more AIDS cases worldwide today.) The researchers used specimens from 19 countries, including the United States, Canada, Haiti and several in Europe, Latin America and parts of Asia, focusing on the diversity of mutations in two key genes.
"Wherever the virus has been circulating the longest, you expect to see the most diversity, because the virus accumulates mutations over time. The longer the virus has been in a place, the more changes you'll see," Worobey said.
Based on the analysis, the researchers reported last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that there is a 99.8 percent certainty that the virus moved first from Africa to Haiti and then leapt to the United States.
Because the mutations accumulate at a predictable rate, the researchers were able to use them as a kind of molecular clock to calculate when the virus arrived in each location. The results indicated that it appeared in Haiti in about 1966 and the United States in about 1969, before traveling to Europe, Canada, Latin America, Australia, Japan and other parts of the world.
"That doesn't mean the virus traveled directly from the U.S. independently to each of those other countries," Worobey said. "It might have gone from the U.S. to Germany and Germany to Estonia and so forth. But once it got into the U.S. population, Americans traveling to other countries and people traveling to America allowed it to flow to other countries. The United States probably served as a worldwide hub for this spread."
The virus may have made its initial jump from Africa to Haiti after the Democratic Republic of Congo won its independence in 1960 and many Haitians sought work there, Worobey speculated.
"There were a lot of Haitian teachers in the Congo. One of those workers may have brought the ancestral subtype B virus back to Haiti. We can't prove that, but it seems plausible. The timing is consistent," he said.
It is unlikely that anyone will be able to identify the individual who first brought the virus to Haiti or the person who took it to the United States, Worobey said.
"Whoever that person was, they had no idea they were carrying the virus, and the person they transmitted it to had no idea," Worobey said. "The chances we'll ever locate a sample from that individual is almost zero."
The findings have raised concern in the U.S. Haitian community that the results could reignite prejudices, but Worobey and others cautioned against assigning blame.
"The idea of blaming groups afflicted by AIDS should be something for the past," Worobey said.
In retrospect, the discovery that HIV arrived in the United States much earlier than anyone knew is not surprising, Worobey and others said. It takes as many as 10 years after infection for most people to get sick, which would have allowed the virus to spread before health authorities became aware of it.
"There likely were individual cases here and there that simply went unnoticed," Fauci said. "You could have had a case in New York and one in Los Angeles or someplace else. Unless you have someone very astute noticing and saying, 'Wow this is unusual' for some reason, no one would realize until they started to see those first clusters."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/04/AR2007110400959.html
Which David Blankenhorn book?
Anon,
Must you always be so rude? What in the world are you talking about here?
Oh, I was just repeating a crude phrase that's part of Randi's regular repertoire. It's interesting to see the reaction anyone else would have if they get the kind of garbage that's always directed this way.
If you didn't pull it out of your rear, WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY SO?
Guess which one that was.
We are trying, sometimes without success, to maintain civil dialogue here.
I asked Orin a question, and you threw in an offensive non sequiter.
Please give it up.
Tell your friends Randi, Andrea and Improv. I'm usually very civil unless provoked.
Oh, good.
Then can you please share with us your proposed solution to the "problem" of some women failing to make themselves sufficiently feminine for the occasion of going to the bathroom?
Andrea -not anon
I disagree. I do not think anything a bigot says is civil. I do not care that some people think you deserve equal time. The whole CRC nonsense that we should tolerate bigotry and hatred - which is what you stand for- is repulsive. I do not pretend to be diplomatic- I just act honestly. I have nothing to teach CRC or the N anons- because they are unteachable. I know other TTFers disagree- but unlike CRC and their ilk- we do not march in lockstep here.
Well said Andrea.
___
Anonymous said...
Tell your friends Randi, Andrea and Improv. I'm usually very civil unless provoked.
Being "civil" includes not ignoring legitimate questions, not changing the subject, not parroting RR talking points for no other reason than to inflame, and especially not sabotaging actual civil dialoge, etc, etc, etc.
So coming from you, civil my derriere.
Improb,
If you think supporting the gay agenda is the only way to be civil, WHY DON'T YOU JUST SAY SO?
"Then can you please share with us your proposed solution to the "problem" of some women failing to make themselves sufficiently feminine for the occasion of going to the bathroom?"
Well, I'll discuss, DW. I don't think this is a problem. The new law raises the problem of any guy who is contemplating sex change surgery being legally empowered to force anyone to let them use their women's restroom. The bizarre cases are these guys who don't actually pull it off. There's some guy around here who walks up and down Connecticut Avenue at rush hour with long black curlly hair, a deep five o'clock shadow at 7 in the morning, a mini-skirt and fish-net stockings, being pulled by a white toy poodle. This guy doesn't belong in the ladies's room but, under the new law, business owners will be forced to let him in.
The proposed solution you requested?
Let business owners set their own policies. It's been working fine. There was no need or call for legislation. It was done to further the gay agenda and for no other reason.
jimi civil said...
"Improb,
If you think supporting the gay agenda is the only way to be civil, WHY DON'T YOU JUST SAY SO?"
Define the basic tenets of the "gay agenda."
Just so that I know that we're talking about the same thing.
Sorry, Jimi, you lose again.
Contrary to your beliefs, this bill says nothing about bathrooms.
Two, I don't know of this person of whom you're speaking. If it is a guy, then there will be no problem. If it's a woman in transition, then, yes, she should use the women's bathroom. That she's not your model of femininity is not the point.
You still haven't answered what you want all the trans men to do.
"Sorry, Jimi, you lose again."
Really? Didn't know I was competing.
"Contrary to your beliefs, this bill says nothing about bathrooms."
It mentions public accomodations and redefines gender.
BTW, council members have made enough public statements about their intent that the HRC will surely interpret it to mean access to women's room for guys who consistently dress like gals.
Stop lying to the public.
"Two, I don't know of this person of whom you're speaking. If it is a guy, then there will be no problem."
It's a guy. He's probably doing this daily exhibitionism as part of a therapy routine from his sex-change doctor. Problem is, under your nasty piece of legislation, he'll be considered female if he dresses this way consistently and any restroom proprietor will be forced to let him go to whatever restroom he wants to.
"If it's a woman in transition, then, yes, she should use the women's bathroom. That she's not your model of femininity is not the point."
While I'm not competing, other groups are and they're winning. The public doesn't agree with you. Guys aren't changed to women until they are operated on and, until then, the public wants them to stay in the appropriate restroom.
"You still haven't answered what you want all the trans men to do."
If you're talking women who want to pretend they're men, they probably should be using the restroom in the psycho ward but I could personally care less which restroom they use. They can come in the guys' room if they want to. I do feel that business owners be free to set their own policies though.
Well, sir, your bigotry is clearly naked right now.
Do you really think you're going to sell the "he should be in the psycho ward" routine? It's clear that is what Theresa and Regina want, but that is so 1950's. Your train left the station before you were born. Your pathetic call for a referendum highlights one fossil who is completely out of touch with his colleagues and an institution that stopped doing surgery 40 years ago and has been left in the dust, with 50,000 procedures having been performed nationwide since then. The law is clear, society is clear, the medical profession is clear. You may be desperate to obstruct gender reassignment, but you are so too late to accomplish that.
You really don't care if trans men use the women's room? Please say that again, so I can set up a demonstration for you and we'll see how the delicate women of the CRC enjoy their company in the bathroom.
The bill mentions public accommodations and does not change existing law. Period. And it does not redefine gender. You're clearly an ignoramus.
If you choose to call me a liar, do it in public to my face, please, and back it up. Continue to hide behind your cowardly anonymous facade and your days here will be numbered.
Post a Comment
<< Home