Thursday, October 29, 2009

Survey Shows Discrimination Against Transgender Americans

This week the President signed a new bill into law that penalizes hate crimes involving sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Hopefully this will make some people think twice before they commit acts of violence against someone because of who they are. But that's only a first step. In particular, Congress has the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA, bubbling on a back burner. It appears that ENDA can pass both houses of Congress if it addresses employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but there is a question about whether it would pass if it included gender identity -- the so-called "inclusive ENDA."

It may be a little hard to keep all this straight if you happen to be part of the majority of people who are heterosexual and whose gender identity matches their unambiguous physical form. Sexual orientation means "who you are attracted to." It says nothing about whether a man is manly or a woman is womanly in any traditional sense. Gender identity is something else altogether, it's "who you are." In particular it is your sense of what sex you are. Most of us feel subjectively comfortable with the sex that was assigned to us at birth, usually our genitalia are clearly male or female and our sense of ourselves is consistent with our physical bodies. But that comfort is not universal; many people, for a variety of reasons, have the persistent sense that they are the gender opposite the one they are supposed to be. There are all kinds of chromosome and endocrine conditions that can cause this perception, and sometimes it just happens without any known explanation. People who experience themselves as having been assigned the correct sex are call cisgender, and those who feel they have been assigned the incorrect sex are transgender. Many transgender people eventually decide to live as the sex they experience themselves to be, rather than how other people tell them they should be. There are degrees to that decision, from alteration of dress and mannerisms to surgery and administration of hormones.

Someone who changes their sex after puberty typically retains features of their birth sex. A person with male anatomical features who passes puberty, for instance, will have a deep voice and a beard, even one who subjectively feels female, and one with female features will grow up to have breasts and curves and a smooth face, even with a male gender identity. Thus, if they decide to transition to the other sex after adulthood, they are often fairly identifiable to others -- expensive and extensive surgery can modify facial features and so on, but not everybody can afford all that. The result is that other people can often tell when someone has changed their sex, and the consequence is often discrimination, violence, and hateful language.

The National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force released preliminary findings of a survey last month, the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. They administered an extensive questionnaire to 6,450 transgender people in all fifty states plus Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands. Survey researchers compared transgender respondents' data with information from the Census Bureau and Labor Department.

Here are the key findings of the survey:
  • Double the rate of unemployment: Survey respondents experience unemployment at twice the rate of the population as a whole.
  • Near universal harassment on the job: Ninety-seven percent (97%) of those surveyed reported experiencing harassment or mistreatment on the job.
  • Significant losses of jobs and careers: Forty-seven percent (47%) had experienced an adverse job outcome, such as being fired, not hired or denied a promotion.
  • High rates of poverty: Fifteen percent (15%) of transgender people in our sample lived on $10,000 per year or less–double the rate of the general population.
National Transgender
Discrimination Survey Preliminary Findings

Unemployment was especially high for black transgender respondents at 26 percent, with a mean overall of thirteen percent, which the authors say was double the national unemployment rate at the time of the survey. Nearly half -- 47% -- had had an "adverse job action" -- they were fired, not hired, denied a promotion -- because of being transgender and more than a quarter of respondents -- twenty six percent -- had lost a job because of their gender identity or expression.

Quoting directly from the survey report:
Ninety-seven percent (97%) have experienced mistreatment, harassment, or discrimination on the job including: removal from direct contact with clients, disclosure of confidential information to co-workers, and physical or sexual assault.

Listen, in case that math is too hard for you, that is just about everybody. Almost every transgender person reports that they have been mistreated, harassed, or discriminated against at work.

Some individuals of the nutty persuasion may argue that social pressure is an effective tool to get nonconformists back in line. And I'll bet you would find out there are a lot of transgender people out there who keep their feelings to themselves, living a lie, because of the fear of harassment, mistreatment, and discrimination. You wonder how anybody thinks that's better, why the Family Blah Blah groups for instance argue against transgender people living as the person they really feel themselves to be, how it is better in any way to have members of society pretending to be something they are not, ashamed, afraid of their peers.

One last result from the survey:
Study respondents experience poverty at a much higher rate than the general population, with more than 27% reporting incomes of $20,000 or lower and more than 15% reporting incomes of $10,000 or lower. Only 7% percent of the general population reports incomes of $10,000 or lower.

This finding goes hand in hand with the previous one. Transgender people have a harder time getting a job, keeping it, and getting promoted, and so they make less money.

This preliminary report concludes:
Employment protections are paramount. Transgender people face discrimination, harassment and anti-transgender violence in many areas of their lives. These conditions create significant barriers to employment and lead to devastating economic insecurity. Basic employment protections for transgender people provide a crucial foundation for dignified, economically secure lives. Employment should be based on one’s skills and ability to perform a job. No one deserves to be unemployed or fired because of their gender identity or expression.

Those who enjoy making life miserable for transgender citizens will argue that employment nondiscrimination laws deprive them of their rights, they should have the freedom to discriminate. If we lived in a row of caves along a river canyon somewhere, hunting and gathering and beating drums at night, then I'd say sure, go ahead, the big guy can force the little guy to do whatever the big guy wants him to do. Civilization though requires a little more of us as participants. It is a difficult corner to turn, and I see it is almost impossible for some people, but civilization requires that we show at least superficial respect to our fellow citizens. You don't have to like them, you don't have to approve of them, you don't even have to say nice things about them, but in this country we grant people the liberty to pursue happiness, whether you like it or not. This survey demonstrates why it is time to guarantee full civil rights for transgender Americans.

134 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

engaging in economic transactions like hiring and renting is more than "superficial respect"

no "big guys" are trying to force "little guys" to dress any way but people have a right to associate with whom they please under any criteria they wish

everyone is free to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone but anyone is also free to express disapproval of these expressions of freedom and associate with whom they want based on whatever they want to base it on

"a new CNN poll on Palin showed 71 percent of those surveyed think the former GOP vice presidential nominee doesn't have what it takes to be president. However, nearly two-thirds said she's not a conventional politician and is a good role model for women. One big plus for Palin, CNN's polling director noted, is that most Americans believe "she cares about people like them."

"Honest but unqualified" is how The Atlantic's Mark Ambinder summed up the survey's assessment of Palin. Yet the ex-governor of Alaska remains a closely watched player in Republican politics, a favorite target for Democrats and a constant source of material for bloggers.

Palin shook things up last week when she threw her support behind Doug Hoffman, an independent conservative, and slammed Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava in a New York congressional race that's seen as a showdown between the GOP establishment and the Tea Party movement. The move was part of a high-risk, high-reward strategy that could help Palin build a conservative base for a 2012 run, according to CNN analyst Alexander Mooney.

Another sign that she has her eyes on the Oval Office is an invitation from a conservative group for Palin to speak in Iowa, an important testing ground for presidential wannabes.

Palin shouldn't be hurting for cash, with her upcoming memoir "Going Rogue" high on best-seller lists weeks before it hits stores. She got a $1.25 million retainer as part of the book deal that's sure to net her many more millions. She will be on Oprah Winfrey's show next month to plug the book."

Honest but unqualified?

Not a bad place to be.

One can become more qualified but honest politicians are hard to find.

She is young and has a bright future.

Thanks go to Levi Johnston, currently helping build sympathy for Palin.

Isn't it interesting how extreme social conservative Bob McDonnell is cruising to victory in Virginia but pro-life Republican Christie in NJ is struggling at the finish and a third party candidate os surging? Obama won both states. And in NY, a new Conservative Party candidate is ahead of both the Dem and Repub. The Repub is a pro-union moderate. Win or lose, in all three states, the Dems will have no more than 40% of votes.

It's kind of like the only time McCain was leading in the polls was right after he nominated social conservative Palin.

Republicans are finding out that social conservatism is a winner.

McDonnell will make a great VP candidate for Huckabee, Romney or Palin.

Obama is doing a great Jimmy Carter impression.

October 29, 2009 11:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"pro-life Republican Christie in NJ"

oops

I meant pro-choice

October 29, 2009 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

everyone is free to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone but anyone is also free to express disapproval of these expressions of freedom and associate with whom they want based on whatever they want to base it on

Tell that to the Anon who thinks Home Depot should be boycotted!

October 29, 2009 4:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

as usual, the comment of anon-B makes no sense

zip, zero, nada

October 29, 2009 4:36 PM  
Blogger David S. Fishback said...

I think what the Democrats in Virginia may learn is that failing to call out Pat Robertson's acolytes early will cost them dearly. McDonnell, Bolling, and Cucinelli -- all three extreme and (in Cucinelli's case, vitriolic) opponents of a woman's right to choose and of the legitimacy of people who happen to be gay -- were given a free ride until too late in the campaign. They smartly assiduously avoided the hot-button issues that drove them to prominence in the GOP. By letting them get away with it, Virginia Democrats ended up in a race about promises about transportation ills that no one ever really keeps, and the campaign devolved into who made a better "impression" on television.

October 29, 2009 4:39 PM  
Anonymous Robirt said...

Anonymous asserts the essentially "conservative" notion that people have the right to employ their economic privilege and power to harm those whom they dislike. This is distinct from the essentially liberal, in the historical sense of the word, notion of Freedom of Assembly.

I wonder if he can see the difference.

October 29, 2009 4:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think we have the right to buy and sell with whomever we wish

there's a difference between "hurting" and not helping

"I think what the Democrats in Virginia may learn is that failing to call out Pat Robertson's acolytes early will cost them dearly. McDonnell, Bolling, and Cucinelli -- all three extreme and (in Cucinelli's case, vitriolic) opponents of a woman's right to choose and of the legitimacy of people who happen to be gay --"

You're making us laugh now, David. The documented social conservative views of McDonnell were known in ample time. Indeed, Deeds spent most of his campaign contributors money publicizing McDonnell's views rather than articulate any vision of his own.

The thing is that, unless they're shrill and uncompromising, voters are very comfortable with social conservatives.

And if they overreact and appear uncompromising, as Deeds did, they feel very uncomfortable with liberals.

McDonnell's strategy will work again and again in 2010 and 2012 across the land. Stick to your conservative principles but avoid overemphasizing them in a hyperbolic way. Also address practical issues.

Liberals can only win by pretending to be something they aren't.

Problem is, that doesn't lead to many second terms.

October 29, 2009 5:22 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Well, this blows out of the water bad anonymous's assertion that there's no discrimination against trans people and that anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary. Once again bad anonymous is proven to be a lying hateful bigot.

October 29, 2009 7:06 PM  
Anonymous Robirt said...

Is there in fact a moral difference between 'harming' and 'not helping.' If one is able to help, is not to help morally equivalent to causing harm; in other words, do we have a moral obligation to act when we are able, or are we permitted ethically to sit by and allow harm to happen.

In my profession, when we see potential or actual harm to a student, we are not ethically or legally permitted not to act. I believe the same is true of the relationship between parents and their children.

My question is, do the same obligations exist among citizens, or indeed among people. What would Jesus do?

You decide.

rrjr

October 29, 2009 7:22 PM  
Anonymous Robort said...

BTW, anyone who has seen or heard Cuccinelli speak has seen enough to answer any questions they have.

October 29, 2009 7:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well, this blows out of the water bad anonymous's assertion that there's no discrimination against trans people and that anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary."

PReya pretending to be stupider than she actually is again.

"What would Jesus do?"

Do you see any indication anywhere in the Bible that he favors the government forcing people to be nice to each other?

October 29, 2009 9:50 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Actually bad anonymous, its your stupidity that has been exposed yet again. You think you can make stuff up and get away with it. You repeated that lie over and over and over and now you foolishly think you can pretend it didn't happen.

October 29, 2009 10:49 PM  
Anonymous RT2 said...

This survey demonstrates why it is time to guarantee full civil rights for transgender Americans.

Exactly which Civil Right do I enjoy now, that they dont have?

..... oh I see, they need one I dont have. Like I would never qualify as a hate crime victim.

Are you expecting legislation to change us cave men's opinions ..... or do you just want to see some evil employers forced to hire and tolerate someone who makes everyone else around them uncomfortable, and face threats of litigation every time he fires a transgendered employee?

I like living in an America were your boss can fire you just because he dont like you. Not one where he has to lie about why he fired your ass.

And as an employer, I would find some reason NOT to hire someone who carried with them a higher risk of litigation upon termination.

October 29, 2009 11:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is there a reason that Robert keeps misspelling his name???????? Or do we now have a "Robirt" and a "Robort"?

October 29, 2009 11:23 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

RT2 said "Like I would never qualify as a hate crime victim".

If somone attacked you because you are heterosexual you would qualify as a hate crime victim. The law protects people on the basis of sexual orientation, that means gay or straight, not just gay.

October 29, 2009 11:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is there a reason that Robert keeps misspelling his name???????? Or do we now have a "Robirt" and a "Robort"?

Is there a reason that Robert keeps misspelling his name???????? Or do we now have a "Robirt" and a "Robort"?

October 30, 2009 12:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Actually bad anonymous, its your stupidity that has been exposed yet again. You think you can make stuff up and get away with it. You repeated that lie over and over and over and now you foolishly think you can pretend it didn't happen."

Vague negative charges

Very similar to Creigh Deeds

Very similar

October 30, 2009 5:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And as an employer, I would find some reason NOT to hire someone who carried with them a higher risk of litigation upon termination."

great point

Robert has completely lost his ability to spell, even his own name

you know the old one about being late to your own funeral

same concept

"The law protects people on the basis of sexual orientation, that means gay or straight, not just gay."

it only protects those whose sexual preferences are offensive

October 30, 2009 5:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well, this blows out of the water brilliant anonymous's assertion that there's no discrimination against trans people and that anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary."

this is interesting

Piya the Liar has juxtapositioned two concepts here without basis

1. there's no discrimination against trans

2. anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary

as has been discussed here ad infinitum, not all discrimination necessitates legal remedy

discrimination is a fact of life and based on many things

laws are only necessary when the discrimination is so pervasive and insurmountable that prevents the target from functioning in society

brilliant anonymous never said there was no discrimination only that it doesn't rise to the level of requiring governmental intervention

that's why anonymous is brilliant and Piya is, well, dim

of course, her environment is grim

October 30, 2009 7:01 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

not all discrimination necessitates legal remedy

...laws are only necessary when the discrimination is so pervasive and insurmountable that prevents the target from functioning in society


Discrimination that violates the unalienable rights of any American citizen, namely their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, most certainly does call for legal remedy.

of course, her environment is grim

IMHO the folks who are facing the grim environment are members of the GOP. The GOP has no left flank, has been tossing aside moderates like Colin Powell for years, and are now losing members from their right flank as noted in NY's 23 District, where Gingrich and Boehner are the only prominent GOP members to support the GOP candidate.

October 30, 2009 8:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Discrimination that violates the unalienable rights of any American citizen, namely their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, most certainly does call for legal remedy."

discrimination against trans doesn't rise to that level, Charlie

"IMHO the folks who are facing the grim environment are members of the GOP. The GOP has no left flank, has been tossing aside moderates like Colin Powell for years, and are now losing members from their right flank as noted in NY's 23 District, where Gingrich and Boehner are the only prominent GOP members to support the GOP candidate."

Well, you're wrong. The GOP fell for the moderate line last election and it didn't work.

They're discovering that conservatives are more electable than moderates and liberals. It's a discovery that will make them stronger.

Nothing sacred about the GOP, howver. If they abandon their priniciples, they will suffer the same fate as the Dem did in 1972.

Things are looking up.

October 30, 2009 8:50 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

You didn't address the actual question dear. Do people have an obligation to act to prevent harm to others, or only not to cause harm by their own actions.

What would Jesus do? I think he would act to prevent harm, that seems to be the whole concept of Jesus.

As you know, Jesus had no thoughts at all on government action.

October 30, 2009 9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

government action is what we're discussing, Robirt

you and your ilk here keep defending discrimination laws by invoking Jesus

October 30, 2009 10:24 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This is more than four paragraphs long, so remember bad anonymous, you promised not to respond to it.

Bad anonymous said "it only protects those whose sexual preferences are offensive".

Wrong. It doesn't just protect your preferences, it protects the gay sexual orientation as well.

Bad anonymous said "laws are only necessary when the discrimination is so pervasive and insurmountable that prevents the target from functioning in society.

On that basis outlawing discrimination against blacks was never necessary because they were never prevented from functioning in society however badly that may have been. On that basis laws against sexual harrasment are never necessary because sexual harrasment isn't insurmountable and doesn't prevent women from functioning in society.

The study shows discrimination against trans people is pervasive and when 97% of trans people are harrased on the job it is insurmountable as well.

Once again you're preposterous. Trans people have double the rate of unemployment, double the rate of poverty, and almost 100% of have been harrassed or mistreated on the job. A law to rememdy this isn't necessary just like a law allowing blacks to use the same restaurants as whites wasn't necessary.

Bad anonymous said "bad anonymous never said there was no discrimination only that it doesn't rise to the level of requiring governmental intervention".

Wrong. You repeatedly insisted there was NO discrimination against trans people - you lie.

Aunt bea said "Discrimination that violates the unalienable rights of any American citizen, namely their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, most certainly does call for legal remedy."

Bad anonymous said "discrimination against trans doesn't rise to that level".

LOL, yeah right, getting fired, being unable to find a job, being harrassed on the job, and living in poverty doesn't interfere in your happiness - tell us another one moron.

October 30, 2009 12:36 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "The GOP fell for the moderate line last election and it didn't work They're discovering that conservatives are more electable than moderates and liberals.".

LOL, right, that's why moderates and liberals won the election. Idiot.

October 30, 2009 12:39 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "bad anonymous never said there was no discrimination only that it doesn't rise to the level of requiring governmental intervention".

Just to clearly expose that lie in case there was any doubt in anyone's mind:


http://www.teachthefacts.org/2009/10/crw-joins-anti-marriage-rally.html#comments

In that thread I said "If you think [the trans anti-discrimination law] had no effect you have nothing to complain about. Fact is its lessening discrimination against transgender people".

At Oct 21, 2009 4:10 PM Bad anonymous replied saying "No, it isn't. There was none to begin with.".

Now what are you going to do Bad anonymous, are you going to admit and apologize for your dishonesty, or are you going to try and lie your way out if it again and once again demonstrate your stupidity?

October 30, 2009 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The study shows discrimination against trans people is pervasive and when 97% of trans people are harrased on the job it is insurmountable as well."

So that would leave only 3% of trans unemployed at most. They're doing better than straights in Obamaland.

"Trans people have double the rate of unemployment, double the rate of poverty,"

they have a lot of mental problems and have lots of elective surgery

hard to get a lot of steam going in a career

"and almost 100% of have been harrassed or mistreated on the job."

same applies to most people

it's called life

"A law to rememdy this isn't necessary just like a law allowing blacks to use the same restaurants as whites wasn't necessary."

few are the restaurants that turn down patrons because of how they dress

you must have this fantasy because sitting in a world of frozen tundra thousands of miles away

"LOL, yeah right, getting fired, being unable to find a job, being harrassed on the job, and living in poverty doesn't interfere in your happiness - tell us another one moron."

most trans have been able to secure employment but, regardless, happiness is not a right, the pursuit of it is

when the government guarantees it, there is no pursuit

trans should learn to enjoy the thrill of the chase

maybe they could watch a cheetah special on Animal Planet to get in the mood and off the couch

"LOL, right, that's why moderates and liberals won the election. Idiot."

actually, the last election was more about tone than ideology

no one knew Obama was a socialist and he has already blown the one thing he had going for him: he now attacks and demonizes his enemies with hyperbole rather than listening to all sides

McDonnell's victory will be the template for the end of the Democrat's short era

2006-2009, they blew it in record time

now, any more multi-paragraph nonsense and I'll have to report you to the Queen

October 30, 2009 1:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Now what are you going to do Bad anonymous, are you going to admit and apologize for your dishonesty, or are you going to try and lie your way out if it again and once again demonstrate your stupidity?"

you're wasting a lot of energy on a point no one cares about

have you heard of Mike Singletary, coach of the 49ers?

he has two rule for his players:

1. don't be late

2. be fifteen minutes early

back to our meaningless debate:

1. there really is no discrimination against trans in MC

2. discrimination against trans doesn't rise to a level to warrant governmental intervention

sorry, Charlie

how's global warming going up there?

October 30, 2009 1:13 PM  
Anonymous chilly willy said...

yeah, Piya

you oughta get a sandwich board sign to wear and go stand in the drifts ringing a bell and chanting about global warming

maybe you can score free lodging at the local funny farm

I heard they're free in Canada

October 30, 2009 1:26 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous, you lied again, you promissed not to respond to any post of mine that was more than four paragraphs long, surprise us all with honesty for once and don't respond to this over 4 paragraph post.

Bad anonymous said "So that would leave only 3% of trans unemployed at most. They're doing better than straights in Obamaland".

That you think you'd score any points with such an absurdity only highlights your stupidity and lack of substance.

I said "Trans people have double the rate of unemployment, double the rate of poverty,"

Bad anonymous said "they have a lot of mental problems and have lots of elective surgery".

Studies show that trans people are indistinguisable from non-trans people on common measures of mental health. Few trans people actually have corrective surgery. Discrimination is the source of our oppression.

I said "and almost 100% of have been harrassed or mistreated on the job."

Bad anonymous said "same applies to most people".

More lies, just like your claim that there is no discrimination against trans people. The average person doesn't suffer any harrassment or mistreatment on the job.

Bad anonymous said "most trans have been able to secure employment."
That doesn't dismiss the problem of trans people having double the unemployment rate of the general population - that's a problem the government rightfully should address with an anti-discrimination law.

Bad anonymous said "happiness is not a right, the pursuit of it is".

Your semantic nitpicking aside, when you have double the unemployment rate, double the poverty rate, and near 100% harrassment that greatly interferes in your pursuit of happiness and the government rightfully steps in to provide equal opportunity for all. We know you hate the idea of LGBTs having equal opportunity, but that's one of the principles your country was supposedly founded on - get used to it, its the inevitable trend.

"Bad anonymous said "when the government guarantees it, there is no pursuit".

Anti-discrimination laws don't guarantee happiness, they make it more likely that everyone will have the equal opportunity to enjoy it - that's a good thing (to honest, moral people anyway)

Bad anonymous said "trans should learn to enjoy the thrill of the chase".

If that's such a good idea, quit your job right now and start enjoying yourself.


I said "LOL, right, that's why moderates and liberals won the election. Idiot."

Bad anonymous said "actually, the last election was more about tone than ideology".

LOL, why would anyone entertain your opinions on what the election was about after you assurred us over and over and over Huckabee was going to be president, Huckabee was going to be the VP running mate, Rice and Powel were going to be the VP running mate, Mccain was going to be president, and on and on? No one's as stupid as you bad anonymous.

Bad anonymous said "no one knew Obama was a socialist".

LOL, your side was demonizing him as a socialist from the moment he got in the race for the Democrat nomination. Fact is people voted for moderates and liberals and that's why your conservative Republicans got their butts kicked. The more conservative they become the more they appeal to the religious right rump of the U.S.A and the more likely they are to remain in the political wilderness. All rational people hope you get your way and the Republicans retreat futher into their right wing extremism.

October 30, 2009 1:41 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Further to bad anonymous being caught in the lie that he "never said there was no discrimination against trans people":

I asked "Now what are you going to do Bad anonymous, are you going to admit and apologize for your dishonesty, or are you going to try and lie your way out if it again and once again demonstrate your stupidity?"

Bad anonymous said "you're wasting a lot of energy on a point no one cares about".

Well, no surprise there that you'd forsake honesty for displaying your stupidity.

You obviously don't care about honesty, but I can assure you the vast majority of people do. Only an idiot and liar would dare to suggest no one cares whether or not you tell the truth. Rational people see their credibility as a valuable thing, they know better than to casually lie and then foolishly attempt to dismiss their wrongdoing as unimportant. This is why you have no credibility here, this is why you are merely and will always be TTF's resident ass-clown.

You don't care that trans people are abused and not given equal opportunity, but to decent people everywhere that matters and it is a disgrace to your nation that trans people have double the unemployment rate, double the poverty rate and virtually everyone of them is harrassed on the job because of who they are.

October 30, 2009 1:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You don't care that trans people are abused and not given equal opportunity"

1. they aren't abused

2. the abuse doesn't rise to the level of requiring governmental intervention

October 30, 2009 1:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"you promissed not to respond to any post of mine that was more than four paragraphs long,"

let me splain somethin' to you, Piya

there are three races in 2009

VA- the Repub is an extreme social conservative

he's going to win in a blow out

NJ- the Repub is a moderate

it's going down to the wire

NY- the Repub is a liberal

he's not leading in the polls

do you see a pattern here?

of course, anon-B will tell that patterns are fallacies

October 30, 2009 2:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

now, about the chief hypocrite in the White House:

"President Obama came into office vowing to change the status quo in Washington, but when it comes to rewarding fundraisers, he's behaving no differently than past presidents.

Top donors to the Democratic Party have been given "VIP access to the White House, private briefings with administration advisers and invitations to important speeches and town-hall meetings," according to a Washington Times investigation.

The White House has hosted several receptions for donors; contributors with the fattest wallets were given access to senior officials. One fundraiser visited the Oval Office on his birthday, and others were allowed to use the White House bowling alley and movie theater.

The biggest donors apparently get face time with the president. Robert Wolf, chief executive of the UBS Group for the Americas and a top fundraiser from New York, was invited to play golf with Obama over the summer. Wolf was later appointed to Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Fundraiser Alan Solomont was nominated to be ambassador to Spain.

Presidential aides admitted the Democratic National Committee has footed the bill for certain events at the White House, but denied that there was a "systematic effort" to raise funds for the party at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave."

lolololololarofl

October 30, 2009 2:15 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous, your predictions about elections are meaningless. You gave us a list of 10 reasons each of which you insisted made it a certainty Mccain would win the election, you assured us President Huckabee would do this and President Huckabee would do that. Laughably your election predictions proved to be wrong more often than would be expected by chance alone. Spare us your election fantasies - no one takes you seriously.

Bad anonymous said "1. they aren't abused 2. the abuse doesn't rise to the level of requiring governmental intervention".

You lie. For starters, in 2, you acknowledge the abuse you disavow in 1.

47% experienced an adverse job outcome, that's abuse. 97% experienced harrassment on the job, harrasment is abuse. They have double the unemployment rate and double the poverty rate, that's abuse.

Any time a group of people is singled out for abuse above and beyond the rate of the general public the government can rightfully get involved and attempt to ameliorate the situation.

But of course lying is nothing new to you. You lied repeatedly about there being no discrimination against trans people. When that was pointed out to you, you lied and claimed you had never said that. When your own words were served up to you on a cold platter demonstrating your lie you lied yet again and claimed no one cared about your dishonesty. I speak for everyone at TTF, we most certainly do care about honesty, its the foundation upon which a moral and just society is built. You and your black black heart don't care about the truth, you don't care how often you lie, you are consumed with hatred and the desire to hurt those who are harming no one. You're evil and despicable through and through.

October 30, 2009 2:36 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The Human Rights Campaign has its latest Corporate Equality Index out and the progress continues. This year, 305 corporations get a 100% score on equality for gays and lesbians, up from 260 last year and 195 the year before. The inevitable march of human rights continues despite the hate and lies of dying breeds like bad anonymous.

http://www.hrc.org/issues/workplace/cei.htm

October 30, 2009 2:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Spare us your election fantasies - no one takes you seriously"

Didn't make a prediction, peeya.

Election's next week.

Polls say just what I said.

Obama gets his first slap in the face from the voters on Tuesday.

His advisors also agree with me. They're already spinning the results.

October 30, 2009 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This year, 305 corporations get a 100% score on equality for gays and lesbians"

they'll be out of business soon

October 30, 2009 3:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I speak for everyone at TTF,"

That's odd.

I always notice an embarassing and sullen silence from TTFers when you start your rants.

They have a funny way of showing you represent them.

October 30, 2009 3:04 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Didn't make a prediction"

LOL, you most certainly did you liar:

"VA- the Repub is an extreme social conservative he's going to win in a blow out".

"Obama gets his first slap in the face from the voters on Tuesday."

That's the trouble with being a chronic liar, you can't keep your lies straight - there's just too many of them. Buck up little camper, the law of averages says that sooner or later one of your predictions must come true, then you can pretend you've got an IQ above room temperature.

At TTF we value integrity, you've happily destroyed any of yours that a stranger is typically granted and you're so stupid you think that doesn't matter. You have zero credibility, go buy yourself some booze and drown your sorrows away from the internet for a change.

October 30, 2009 3:07 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "they'll be out of business soon".

LOL, yeah, right, that list includes virtually every key player in the U.S. economy, virtually the entire computer industry, the entire transportation industry and so on.

World Net Daily is encouraging people like you to boycott these companies, that's going to be tough for you, want to fly? You'll have to go with Iranian airlines, deal with a financial company? That's pretty much entirely out, all of them got 100 scores. Drive a car? Out of luck there too. Eating? Well, leave out Kraft and general mills, that's about half the products in the supermarket alone so your dining is going to be somewhat cramped. Use a computer or internet? Sorry, you've got to give it up, all gay friendly.

But don't worry, I'm sure boycotting the vast majority of businesses you rely upon every day won't be insurmountable or prevent you from functioning in society.

October 30, 2009 3:16 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Those crazy forgetful folks over at the "Republican National Committee called on the White House to immediately release the names of donors given perks and called for an probe into any quid pro quo. Administration spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president has instituted tough ethics rules and that "every name of every person that comes to this White House" will be made public."

These would be the same Republicans who said it was not possible to release the names of all those energy industry executives who contributed to Bush/Cheney 2000 campaign and were then were invited to the White House to write the Bush/Cheney 2001 energy policy. In fact, in 2008 U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued "preliminary injunction yesterday ordering Vice President Cheney and the National Archives to preserve all of his official records".

As was widely reported last month:

"...Obama had followed the Bush policy of keeping visitor logs secret. News organizations and watchdog groups had sought to make the records public to show who was influencing administration policy on health care, financial rules and other issues.

"We will achieve our goal of making this administration the most open and transparent administration in history not only by opening the doors of the White House to more Americans, but by shining a light on the business conducted inside," Obama said. "Americans have a right to know whose voices are being heard in the policymaking process."

The new policy would begin in mid-September. Electronic visitor logs maintained by the Secret Service would be released three to four months after visits are made. The disclosure would include who set up the meeting, where it was held and for how long. Specific requests for visits before Sept. 15 would be dealt with individually.

Exceptions would be made in cases of national security, extreme confidentiality — such as a visit by a future Supreme Court nominee — and strictly personal visits to the first family, including daughters Malia and Sasha.


Three to four months after September, the names of visitors to the Obama White House will be released. We're all still waiting for the Bush/Cheney White House visitors' names be released...

Thanks to Priya Lynn for taking the time to write her cogent replies to Anon's ceaseless lies, spin, and rudeness. It must be a slow day in Bethesda.

October 30, 2009 4:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Thanks Aunt Bea, I'm still getting a spurious attempt to download malicious software to my computer when I go to some TTF threads, so I'm not sure how much posting I'll be doing in the future.

October 30, 2009 4:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah, computer security's a little weak in Canada

so, to be charitable, all the lies peeya tells can just be chalked up to ignorance

she doesn't know, for example, that MC has no discrimination against trans, mans or circus bands, that McDonnell will trounce Deeds next Tuesday, that Obama's approval rating has fallen faster than any President in history, that the number of Americans calling themselves conservative is twice that of those who call themselves liberal, that a majority is every state call themselves conservative, that we don't want socialism in this country, that the Queen isn't that smart, that Obama hasn't kept any of his promises, et al et al

it's not her fault

Canada just doesn't have a health plan for their computer viruses

October 30, 2009 4:51 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The only one telling lies here is you bad anonymous, as you've done over and over and over again. I've served up your lies on a cold platter and slapped you in the face with them. Then like the idiotic trash you are you claimed no one cares about your dishonesty. You've made it plain that you consider lying a non-issue, but every decent person knows honesty is the foundation of integrity, something you'll never have.

October 30, 2009 5:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Thanks to Priya Lynn for taking the time to write her cogent replies to Anon's ceaseless lies, spin, and rudeness. It must be a slow day in Bethesda."

and thanks to anon-B for always making the pro-family position looks so great

October 30, 2009 5:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The only one telling lies here is you bad anonymous, as you've done over and over and over again."

I think you lie all the time.

October 30, 2009 5:06 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "I think you lie all the time.".

No you don't, you just make that false claim because you think it'll distract from the lies of yours I've documented - it won't. If I had lied you'd have had no trouble documenting it. You can't do that because I've been scrupulous in telling the truth - something you know nothing about.

October 30, 2009 5:14 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

and thanks to anon-B for always making the pro-family position looks so great

That's Aunt Bea to you. Thanks! I've been told I look pretty good for a gal my age. Maybe that's because I love and value all families, traditional and otherwise.

I think you lie all the time.

Uh, who do you imagine here cares what you think?

October 30, 2009 5:17 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Yes Aunt Bea, you make us pro-family types look might good - thanks!

As to anti-marriage/anti-family bad anonymous, its hard to imagine him looking anymore unscrupulous than he does now, but no doubt he'll find a way.

October 30, 2009 5:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No you don't, you just make that false claim because you think it'll distract from the lies of yours I've documented - it won't."

no, I actually think you're a liar.

for example, when you act confused when I said there is no discrimination against trans and then said the discrimination doesn't rise to a level requiring governmental intervention, you're lying because you know exactly what I meant

what you don't understand is that the reason Obama has fallen so fast in the polls is exactly because of the type of hyperbole that you use

Americans don't like the way liberals attack the character of everyone who disagrees with them

Obama wasn't that type when elected but as he has become this, America has been turned off

oh, the police are stupid in Cambridge; and the dissenters at the town halls are nuts and liars; and FOX isn't a real news channel; and McDonnell is a Taliban-wannabe

if Obama wants a second term, or a Democratic Congress after November 2010, he needs to distance himself from you and your ilk real fast

all we can judge anon-B's appearance by is her words here and, based on that, I'm thinking Every Day is Just Like Halloween

October 30, 2009 5:49 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said " I actually think you're a liar."

No you don't, that's another lie. You merely think telling that lie will distract people from the lies of yours I've documented - it won't. Once again, you've never challenged the truth I've spoken because you can't.

Bad anonymous said "when you act confused when I said there is no discrimination against trans and then said the discrimination doesn't rise to a level requiring governmental intervention, you're lying because you know exactly what I meant".

I didn't act confused, I pointed ou the obvious - you said there was no abuse and then that the abuse didn't rise to a level. Your second statement acknowledged the abuse your first statement disavowed - you contradicted yourself.

47% experienced an adverse job outcome, that's abuse. 97% experienced harrassment on the job, harrasment is abuse. They have double the unemployment rate and double the poverty rate, that's abuse.


Bad anonymous said "what you don't understand is that the reason Obama has fallen so fast in the polls is exactly because of the type of hyperbole that you use".

All newly elected officials drop in the polls after they get in power. Obama's approval rating is at 52% which is still leaps and bounds ahead of 22% that Bush ended up with.

Bad anonymous said "Americans don't like the way liberals attack the character of everyone who disagrees with them."

Americans don't like the way republicans like you lie. The are all for exposing liars like you. You have no one to blame for your poor character but yourself. I offered you the opportunity to acknowledge your dishonesty, make ammends, promise to be truthful in the future and you rejected it, prefering to make the dishonest and assinine claim that no one cares if you tell lies. But that's been your character for a long time, back when Montgomery county was trying to pass the trans anti-discrimniation law you defended the anti-gay people's lie telling. You've been dishonest for many years, you've been repeatedly dishonest today and your lack of character is readily apparent to all decent people.

October 30, 2009 6:03 PM  
Anonymous Trebor said...

Did anonymous stop calling himself Deluxe? Is he embracing the essential trollness of his online personality.

Of course trans people experience discrimination. Common sense, police reports, crime statistics and every study supports this.

It's so much fun when trolls make predictions, such as lgbt-supportive corporations going out of business. Hee hee.

What would President Huckabee do?

October 30, 2009 6:29 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "I pointed ou the obvious - you said there was no abuse and then that the abuse didn't rise to a level. Your second statement acknowledged the abuse your first statement disavowed - you contradicted yourself."

I should have said "Your second statement acknowledged that your fist statement was a lie". Another lie bad anonymous - you'll never learn

October 30, 2009 6:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No you don't, that's another lie."

No, it's not. I think you're a liar.

"You merely think telling that lie will distract people from the lies of yours I've documented - it won't."

I don't really feel the need to distract anyone. I don't think many people actually read your comments, they get distracted by the tedious nature of your remarks.

"Once again, you've never challenged the truth I've spoken because you can't."

I thought I challenged your assertion that you were confused by my assessment of our situation here in MC.

I think you're lying about your confusion.

"I didn't act confused,"

yes, you did

"I pointed ou the obvious - you said there was no abuse and then that the abuse didn't rise to a level. Your second statement acknowledged the abuse your first statement disavowed - you contradicted yourself."

not a contradiction at all

and you're not really confused

"47% experienced an adverse job outcome, that's abuse."

that's wasn't a study of MC

you're lying to use it in this argument about MC

"97% experienced harrassment on the job, harrasment is abuse."

and often in the eye of the beholder

97%? please...the stat is a lie

"They have double the unemployment rate and double the poverty rate, that's abuse."

that's possible but they have lots of problems that would remain no matter what bias people

it's their responsibility to blend in just like everyone else has that responsibility

"All newly elected officials drop in the polls after they get in power. Obama's approval rating is at 52% which is still leaps and bounds ahead of 22% that Bush ended up with."

This is another lie. Piya is acting confused when she actually knows that at a similar point, no other Presidents had the approval problems of Obama.

Pretending you're ignorant is a lie, Piya.

"Americans don't like the way republicans like you lie."

That's funny because based on the polls for the three elections next Tuesday, they love Republicans like me and despise moderate and liberal Republicans.

sorry, Charlie

"The are all for exposing liars like you."

actually, they hate it when liars are exposed

remember when Obama got up and lied to Congress?

everyone was mad at the guy whp pointed it out

"You have no one to blame for your poor character but yourself."

I don't remember blaming anyone for anything about me.

Did I do that or is this another in your calvacade of lies?

"I offered you the opportunity to acknowledge your dishonesty, make ammends, promise to be truthful in the future and you rejected it, prefering to make the dishonest and assinine claim that no one cares if you tell lies."

I don't remember lying about anything but, in any case, no one cares.

"But that's been your character for a long time, back when Montgomery county was trying to pass the trans anti-discrimniation law you defended the anti-gay people's lie telling."

The TTFers were circling the county lying to petitioners to intimidate them.

I guess you think they were lying for a good cause, huh?

"You've been dishonest for many years, you've been repeatedly dishonest today and your lack of character is readily apparent to all decent people."

You think you're decent?

just curious

bottom line:

1. there really is no discrimination against trans in MC

2. discrimination against trans doesn't rise to a level to warrant governmental intervention

October 30, 2009 6:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What would President Huckabee do?"

you may find out in about three years

he's leading in Republican polls and no one wants another term for Obama

October 30, 2009 7:00 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Happy weekend reading, Sybil.

Republican Party Approval Rating at End-of-Bush-Era Low

According to a CNN Opinion Research Poll, public approval of the Republican Party this month is at 36 percent, the lowest it's been since the summer of 2007, right at the tail end of George Bush's second term in office. That's a 5 percent drop from the last poll, over the summer. 54 percent of the people surveyed said they disapproved of the GOP. The Democratic Party's approval rating over the past few months has been hovering at just over 50 percent (it's 53 percent now, and their last peak was in November and December of last year, when they reached 60 percent approval rating). 41 percent of people say they disapprove of the ruling party.

Meanwhile, a Public Policy Poll that matched up potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates against Barack Obama shows that Mike Huckabee — the far-right Baptist minister — has the best chances against the incumbent. But though he'd fare better than Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin, the next strongest contenders, even he'd still lose 47–43. He also handily won a straw poll at a Values Voters Summit this week. Of the top three candidates, it's interesting that mild-mannered Mike Huckabee — a Fox News host, even! — has been in the news the least for publicly excoriating the current administration. He has even warned his Republican comrades that they were beginning to sound like "right-wing whiners" over Obama's Nobel Peace Prize win.

By picking a war with Fox News saying that they are the "communications arm of the Republican Party," the Obama administration is not only trying to mitigate the effectiveness of Fox News' hectoring, but also to reflect their blustery, self-righteous, just-say-no angry posture back on the party itself. It's too early to tell if their most recent moves have pushed the needle in either direction, but one thing is certainly clear: Moderates currently have an image of the Republican Party, accurate or not, and it is one that alienates them. Fewer than 10 percent of people were undecided about the party in the CNN poll. The only times these numbers were worse for the GOP was in 1998, when the party was afire with its efforts to impeach President Bill Clinton.

October 30, 2009 7:21 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Today's Post calls Ken Cuccinelli out for what he really is:

Mr. Cuccinelli's Bigotry

October 30, 2009 7:39 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

There you go again bad anonymous, breaking your promise - you said you wouldn't respond to any post I make more than four paragraphs long.

Bad anonymous said "I think you're a liar.".

No you don't, that's a lie. You know you've never been able to document me lying despite your desperatation to do so. You merely think telling that lie will distract people from the lies of yours I've documented - it won't.

Bad anonymous said "I don't really feel the need to distract anyone."

Obviously you do, or you wouldn't keep repeating that lie.

Bad anonymous said "I don't think many people actually read your comments, they get distracted by the tedious nature of your remarks.".

What you think has been regularly demonstrated to be wildly off the mark. Clearly you're enthralled with my every word - otherwise you wouldn't respond.


Bad anonymous said "I thought I challenged your assertion that you were confused by my assessment of our situation here in MC."

What you think and reality bear little relationship to one another.

Bad anonymous said "I think you're lying about your confusion."

No confusion on my part- you said there was no abuse and then that the abuse didn't rise to a level. Your second statement acknowledged your first statement was a lie.


I said "47% experienced an adverse job outcome, that's abuse."

Bad anonymous said "that's wasn't a study of MC...you're lying to use it in this argument about MC
".

The study included all 50 states and 6450 trans people, it represents Montgomery County as well. You're lying to claim it doesn't.


I said "97% experienced harrassment on the job, harrasment is abuse."

Bad anonymous said "and often in the eye of the beholder".

You've made it clear you like to harrass trans people, it simply isn't credible to claim this is all made up.

Bad anonymous said "97%? please...the stat is a lie".

Of course, and you have proof right...oh, wait a minute, you don't have any proof, once again its you that's the liar.

I said "They have double the unemployment rate and double the poverty rate, that's abuse."

Bad anonymous said "that's possible but they have lots of problems that would remain no matter what bias people".

Yes, problems that would mirror the national average. When its double the national average its obvious there is discrimination.

Bad anonymous said "it's their responsibility to blend in just like everyone else has that responsibility".

Just like black people have an obligation to blend in by bleaching their skin like Michael Jackson did. Nobody has a responsibility to refrain from doing anything that isn't harming others.

I said "All newly elected officials drop in the polls after they get in power. Obama's approval rating is at 52% which is still leaps and bounds ahead of 22% that Bush ended up with."

Bad anonymous said "This is another lie. Priya is acting confused when she actually knows that at a similar point, no other Presidents had the approval problems of Obama.".

No, you're lying Obama's approval ratings are typical of many presidents during their term. When Obama drops below Bush's 22% rating then you can crow.

Bad anonoymous said "based on the polls for the three elections next Tuesday, they love Republicans like me and despise moderate and liberal Republicans.".

Those polls don't ask if they like liars - they don't. Liars like you are very unpopular in the states.

Bad anonymous said "actually, they hate it when liars are exposed".

I see you think very little of your fellow americans. I think more of them than that.

October 30, 2009 7:56 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "remember when Obama got up and lied to Congress?".

Never happened. Another lie on your part.

Bad anonymous said "everyone was mad at the guy whp pointed it out".

Like I said, Americans hate liars like you.

I said "You have no one to blame for your poor character but yourself."

Bad anonymous said "I don't remember blaming anyone for anything about me."

Right after I pointed out that you lied when you claimed you had never said there was no discrmination against trans people, you whined "Americans don't like the way liberals attack the character of everyone who disagrees with them."

Bad anonymous said "I don't remember lying about anything but, in any case, no one cares.".

Two more lies, of course you remember and everyone except you cares about honesty. Let's just tally up a few of your lies today:

"bad anonymous never said there was no discrimination only that it doesn't rise to the level of requiring governmental intervention".

On this thread

http://www.teachthefacts.org/2009/10/crw-joins-anti-marriage-rally.html#comments

you said there was no discrimination against trans people - you lied.

"the law only protects those whose sexual preferences are offensive".

It protects not just your preferences but the gay orientation as well - you lied.

discrimination against trans doesn't [affect the pursuit of happiness]

experiencing negative job effects, harrassment, firing, unemployment and poverty most certainly does.

"So that would leave only 3% of trans unemployed at most. They're doing better than straights in Obamaland."

Too absurd to even need refutation.

"[trans people]have a lot of mental problems and have lots of elective surgery".

Studies show trans people have the same mental health as non-trans people. Few trans people have surgery and those that do are typically off work for no more than 6 weeks.

"you're wasting a lot of energy on a point no one cares about".

You lied when you claimed you'd never said there was no discrimination against trans people. We all care about honesty, you're the only one that doesn't.


"[trans people] aren't abused. the abuse doesn't rise to the level of requiring governmental intervention".

The second sentence acknowledges that the first is a lie. Anytime a group of people has double the unemployment rate and double the poverty rate the government rightfully can and should get involved.

"Didn't make a[n election] prediction".

You lie, you said "VA- the Repub is an extreme social conservative he's going to win in a blow out...Obama gets his first slap in the face from the voters on Tuesday."

"I think you lie all the time".

Another lie. You've never documented me lying, you've only experienced me telling the truth.

October 30, 2009 7:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The only times these numbers were worse for the GOP was in 1998, when the party was afire with its efforts to impeach President Bill Clinton."

and yet, not much longer began an 8-year Republican presidency

no one's in love with the GOP, as Palin's endorsement of a GOP opponent in NY shows clearly

we believe in liberty, family values and capitalism

any Democrat who works for that agenda has my vote

I think I've mentioned before, I'm a registered Democrat myself

btw, these type of polls raise more questions than answers

how can the Democrat Party be so popular and yet only be leading a Presidency poll match-up by a mere four points over a guy named Huckabee from a hick state with no national experience?

October 30, 2009 7:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see Piya has posted another calvacade of lies

(yawn)

someone tell me if there's anything there, I'm not bothering to read it

October 30, 2009 8:01 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Priya -- will you please email me with information about what threads you got error messages on?

JimK

October 30, 2009 8:06 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I sent you an email earlier jim, not sure what happened, I'll resend it immediately.

October 30, 2009 8:11 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "I see Piya has posted another calvacade of lies someone tell me if there's anything there, I'm not bothering to read it".


LOL, spanked him yet again. Nice attempt to save face bad anonymous. And by "nice" I mean pathetic.

October 30, 2009 8:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I sent you an email earlier jim, not sure what happened,"

Priya said she did something but there's no proof.

Interesting.

I'm sure she didn't lie.

No.

Probably a virus ate her e-mail.

Either that or the dog that used to eat her homework.

Of course, she's also not lying when she says she's confused about the thought that there is no real discrimination against trans in MC but that discrimination doesn't rise to level requiring governmental intervention.

She has a lot of personalities.

Since it's Halloween, does anyone remember the old 70s movie, The Exorcist?

Remember how the demon would go into long monologues throwing off a bunch of lies and accusations at the exorcist to get a reaction?

It was creepy.

October 31, 2009 3:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON (Oct. 31) -- President Barack Obama said Friday the U.S. will overturn a 20-year-old U.S. travel ban against people with HIV early next year.

The order will be finalized Monday, Obama said.

The U.S. has been one of about a dozen countries that bar entry to travelers based on their HIV status.

Obama said the ban will be lifted just after the new year, after a waiting period of about 60 days.

Obama also issued an order that all Canadians will be required to submit to lie detector inquiries before being allowed to entry into the U.S..

October 31, 2009 5:58 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

What a lot of bellyaching from an immature twit (just like his hero, Bush) who can't admit he screwed up and argued out of both sides of his mouth without thinking the arguments through.

Anon clearly said "there's no discrimination" and then contradicted that claim with "the discrimination doesn't rise..."

Poor baby. Suck it up and move on.

October 31, 2009 10:11 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

I got your email, thanks, Priya. I don't really know what causes those warning messages to appear. I'll keep looking into it.

JimK

October 31, 2009 11:50 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

More weekend reading for Anon from the Washington Independent:

Fox News Poll: Most Blame Bush for Economy

Here’s a somewhat surprising result from the new Fox News poll. Asked which president is “more responsible for the current state of the economy,” only 18 percent say President Obama. Fifty-eight percent say former President George W. Bush. Nine percent blame both of them. Republicans are the only subgroup of voters who blame Obama, and only by a six-point margin of 35 percent to 29 percent.

What’s striking about this is that the numbers have only marginally gotten worse for President Obama in the three months since Fox News last asked this question. In July, it was 16 percent who blamed Obama and 61 percent who blamed Bush. That is, needless to say, not what Fox News viewers hear when they tune into the network. But it’s essential to understanding why the president remains popular and why Republicans are failing to really capitalize on economic gloom.

October 31, 2009 11:51 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This post has been removed by the author.

October 31, 2009 12:17 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous can't decide which lie he wants to stick to - "there's no discrimination" or "I never said there's no discrimination".

That's what happens when you're mentally ill and a chronic liar - you can't keep track of your lies.

October 31, 2009 12:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"ALBANY, N.Y. (Oct. 31) - Republican Dierdre Scozzafava has suspended her campaign for the New York House and is encouraging supporters to embrace Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman.

Campaign spokesman Matt Burns says she thinks dropping out of the 23rd Congressional District race is in the best interests of the party.

The announcement comes after a Siena College poll found she was in third place with 20 percent of the vote in the heavily Republican district, while Hoffman and Democratic nominee Bill Owens were too close to call with 35 percent and 36 percent, respectively.

The race has pitted conservative and moderate wings of the Republican Party against each other. Hoffman has been backed by prominent Republicans like former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin."

October 31, 2009 4:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin, a political force to be reckoned with.

I thought anon-B gave me some stuff to read and signed off for the weekend.

I guess she lied.

"I'm almost shocked that Anon would compare public school prayer and proselytizing to restaurant dining room sodomy, a new low even for Anon."

Here's another lie. I compared it to taking people captive, which anon-B, in another lie, implies that religious proselytizers do.

Cite an example, you liar.

"But then I realize it's just another clear demonstration of our anonymous internet troll's intent to be as creepy and offensive about LGBT people as Linda Blair was in her role in The Exorcist, the religious movie Anon was apparently obsessing about in the wee hours of last night."

One cultural reference makes me obsessed?

Another lie here.

btw, since Anon-B brings it up, I just thought Priya's endless rants, hissing the same line over and over were reminiscent of Blair's performance.

Let's just hope her head doesn't spin around and spurt green vomit.

"But it’s essential to understanding why the president remains popular and why Republicans are failing to really capitalize on economic gloom."

Oh, he's personally popular. I like him myself. Indeed, you have to sympathasize with him after all the crap the poor guy gets from liberal lunatics. Did you hear they are now saying he's sexist because he has pick-up B-ball games with the guys in the West Wing?

Still, approval of his performance is at a near-low compared to other presidents at this point. In a mock poll, a year after his election, he beats Huckabee 47-43.

Not pretty.

Not much to crow about.

There is and was no real discrimination against trans in MC. Discrimination against trans doesn't rise to a level requiring governmental intervention.

Did you hear about the protest on Georgetown University's campus yesterday?

A girl was walking around G'town this week with an in-your-face lunatic fringe gay message t-shirt on. A couple of drunks pushed her down and used a gay epithet. The drunks moved on, the girl wasn't hurt.

Very uncivil and the guys should have been charged if they can be identified. The girl, however, wants a police mobilization to apprehended the perpetrators of this hate crime.

Unfortunately, D.C. earlier this year disbanded their Gay Crimes Task Force. They didn't have a lot to do and there was real law enforcement work to be done so Police Chief Lanier rightly concluded there were better uses of the taxpayer's money.

So fifty lunatic fringe gay protested at the school yesterday.

Kinda stupid, huh?

Now Priya and anon-B, stop lying on the computer and get out this evening.

It's the one night of the year you two can go out and blend in.

Think about it.

When you're not on a sugar high from eating the kids' candy corn.

October 31, 2009 4:40 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous is still living in a delusion. He foolishly thinks he scores points by falsely accusing others of lying when I've documented 10 or 12 lies of his in this thread alone.

Here's a hint bad anonymous, to document someone lying you have to do like I did with you - quote where you denied saying there was no discrimination against trans people and then link to the thread where you did say there was no discrimination against trans people. Voila, just like that you're exposed as a liar and left to pathetically try to cover it up with the lie that no one cares about honesty. Unfortunately you can't do that with us, because we value the truth and tell the truth so all you'll ever be able to do is to lie and then fatuously tell us how "brilliant" that makes you.

October 31, 2009 4:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"we value the truth and tell the truth"

Uh, Pricha.

This is a lie right here.

You hate the truth and love it when people don't see it.

October 31, 2009 6:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"left to pathetically try to cover it up with the lie that no one cares about honesty"

look, another lie by Preeyuh

October 31, 2009 6:27 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Listen carefully bad anonymous, I'll s..l..o..w..l..y explain it to you one more time:

If you want to expose a liar you have to document them saying one thing and then demonstrate that the truth is something else. For example:

At October 30, 2009 7:01 PM in this thread you said "[I]never said there was no discrimination only that it doesn't rise to the level of requiring governmental intervention".

In this thread

http://www.teachthefacts.org/2009/10/crw-joins-anti-marriage-rally.html#comments

At Oct 21, 2009 4:10 PM in response to my statment that the anti-discrimination law is lessening discrimination against trans people you said "No, it isn't. There was none to begin with.".


See that's how you document a lie. When you've repeatedly destroyed your credibility by telling lies like this, your unsupported claim that others are lying just makes you look like the dishonest moron you are.

October 31, 2009 6:29 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

To further demonstrate Bad anonymous's attempt in his last post to cover up his lies with yet another lie by claiming he never said no one cares about honesty:

When I pointed out his dishonesty at October 30, 2009 1:05 PM after he claimed he had never said there was no discrimination against trans people he replied at October 30, 2009 1:13 PM saying "you're wasting a lot of energy on a point no one cares about".

Once again Bad anonymous in his "brilliance" tells another easily documented lie - that no one cares about honesty. Here's a hint bad anonymous, when you're in a hole, stop digging. Or do as you normally do, make false accusations of other peoples dishonesty and continue to make a fool of yourself.

October 31, 2009 6:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh please, Peeyuh, for the sake of posterity, could you explain it all much slower?

you seem to think I care to document the deceptive intent of your posts

that would only be necessary if I thought there were anybody taking your comments seriously- or reading them

don't know why you say I'm trying to "expose" you as a liar

it's a known fact that I'm simply referencing

your multiple posts saying the same thing over and over lead me to think you realize this

btw:

There is and was no real discrimination against trans in MC. Discrimination against trans doesn't rise to a level requiring governmental intervention.

I think Preayuh's mind is too late for the learnin'

October 31, 2009 6:57 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon reiterated:

“There is and was no real discrimination against trans in MC. Discrimination against trans doesn't rise to a level requiring governmental intervention.”

Wow. It’s hard to believe anyone could disagree with such thoroughly researched and entirely unsubstantiated claim.

It’s even harder to believe that arguments like this only persuaded exactly ZERO of NINE Montgomery County council members. Perhaps they got lost in the subtle analysis of legal precedent or reams of statistics presented to them – too much information to handle all at once.

I mean your side had an infectious disease specialist arguing your case – with a STETHOSCOPE no less. Our side had a few transsexuals – who would have thought that Jerry Springer would have let them off his studio lot long enough to testify before the council, much less actually WIN an argument with all 9 county council members. I mean you had such a carefully thought out and bullet proof strategy – especially after you had painted transsexuals as “mentally ill” and “delusional.” Who could have thought you’d lose?

If you keep pushing it though, it just might catch on. It looks like the much coveted “Dipper Demographic” is ripe for your message, as well as being thoroughly swept up by Sarah Palin fever in the next election. With guys like this, you can’t possibly lose: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlNQ5gZVytk It’s just a matter of time before society recognizes the genius of these types and FINALLY lets you and them run the entire country – then things will be just the way you like them.

MMMMMMWWWWWUUHHHAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!


Happy Halloween!

Evil Cyn

October 31, 2009 8:22 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Link from the last post out where you can see it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlNQ5gZVytk


Or here: Dipper Demographic


Cynthia

October 31, 2009 8:27 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "There is and was no real discrimination against trans in MC."

At October 30, 2009 7:01 PM bad anonymous also said "[I]never said there was no discrimination".

Schizophrenic bad anonymous can't keep his lies straight.

October 31, 2009 8:40 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Now tell us again how no one cares about honesty bad anonymous.

October 31, 2009 8:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you mean Cyn?

she didn't say she cares about honesty

you're lyin' again

Cynthia's not so bad but she lives here and knows full well that there is no real discrimination against trans in MC

"It’s even harder to believe that arguments like this only persuaded exactly ZERO of NINE Montgomery County council members. Perhaps they got lost in the subtle analysis of legal precedent or reams of statistics presented to them – too much information to handle all at once."

So you think MC council members looked at research and concluded there was real discrimination against trans in MC that rises to a level that requires governmental intervention?

Or is it that a tran infiltrated the staff of one of the councilmembers and they just passed it because they figured it doesn't really matter one way or another?

Or is it the latest liberal cause and they just are going along with the crowd?

Any indication that the law has had any effect?

October 31, 2009 9:03 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "you mean Cyn?

Bad anonymous is demonstrating his malfunctioning brain - he can't distinguish between two entirely different names.

Bad anonymous said "she didn't say she cares about honesty"

I never said she did say that. You however claimed no one cares about honesty - that's obviously a lie.

Bad anonymous said "you're lyin' again".

I told the truth, you're lying by claiming I've been dishonest. A chronic liar like you has no credibility without proof and unlike me, you have none.


Bad anonymous said "Any indication that the law has had any effect?".

Of course - you've got your panties in a twist. You've demanded the right to discriminate against trans people, your spittle flecked rants are proof that you're being denied that opportunity.

October 31, 2009 9:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You've demanded the right to discriminate against trans people,"

this is a lie

"your spittle flecked rants are proof that you're being denied that opportunity."

this is several lies

October 31, 2009 10:11 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous I've documented dozens of lies by you on this thread alone. You've cavalierly accused me of lying repeatedly and each time have failed to prove it -because I've told the truth. Your character precedes you and you have no credibility in this forum whatsoever. Unlike you, I, Aunt Bea, and Cynthia value honesty and speak the truth. Your constant failure to demonstrate otherwise is as inevitable as it is predictable.

October 31, 2009 10:16 PM  
Anonymous carved pumpkin said...

looks like Priya has trouble making a comment without lying

October 31, 2009 10:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You've cavalierly accused me of lying repeatedly and each time have failed to prove it"

this is a lie

on the very post before, you made this lie:

"You've demanded the right to discriminate against trans people,"

October 31, 2009 10:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I, Aunt Bea, and Cynthia value honesty"

I wouldn't be surprised if the original Cyn does but you lied when you said she said so here

anon-B lies all the time

she used to try to make everyone think she wasn't anonymous

just today she said I was obsessed with the Exorcist when I wasn't

she made not have your flair for deceit but it wouldn't be hard to find examples of her lying

There is and was no real discrimination against trans in MC. Discrimination against trans doesn't rise to a level requiring governmental intervention

October 31, 2009 10:27 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Once again bad anonymous the "brilliant" tells an easily refuted lie. He just lied by claiming he never demanded the right to discriminate against trans people. Well, here he is doing just that:


http://www.teachthefacts.org/2008/03/what-they-really-said.html#comments

At March 29, 2008 3:20 PM bad anonymous said "Religious institutions should be allowed to hire those who support their mission. If they feel that homosexuality is sinful, they shouldn't be obligated to hire practicing homosexuals. It's hard to see why homosexuals would want to work for such an institution except to ACT UP, anyway.

Young ladies looking for roommates to share a house shouldn't be forced to take on unladies.

Business owners who segregate facilities based on gender should be free to define gender as they wish.".

Give it up bad anonymous, we're well familiar with your rants here and you've repeated them over and over and over - you can't hide from your lies.

October 31, 2009 10:38 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "I wouldn't be surprised if the original Cyn does [value honesty] but you lied when you said she said so here"

I never said any such thing - you're the one lying.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

October 31, 2009 10:40 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "she made not have your flair for deceit but it wouldn't be hard to find examples of her lying".

Your accusations against me have all been baseless and in fact the attempts you've made to show me lying have actually demonstrated it is you who is lying. If it wasn't hard to find examples of Aunt Bea lying you'd have done so - you haven't because she didn't.

October 31, 2009 10:42 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon asked:

“you mean Cyn?
she didn't say she cares about honesty
you're lyin' again”

Actually I do care about honesty Anon. I know that as a transsexual, anything I say will be entirely written off by most people. That’s why I provide links for evidence, avoid grandiose hyperbole (except when I’m obviously being facetious, as in the Halloween post), and provide true, personal, and very detailed experiences from my own life – the kind that you just can’t make up.

“Cynthia's not so bad but she lives here and knows full well that there is no real discrimination against trans in MC”

Actually I know there is plenty of discrimination against trans folks in MC. That’s why I came out of my quiet little engineering job and started standing up for my friends when the CRG started referring to us as “mentally ill” and “confused,” and conflated us with sexual predators. The amount of discrimination I have personally faced has been rather minor, and certainly nothing I couldn’t handle myself. Other folks however, haven’t been so lucky, and they do need help.

The campaign put forth by the CRG was nothing less than a character assassination directed against trans folk, and trans women in particular. I have worked extremely hard to build the 20-year engineering career I have in Montgomery County, renegotiate all of my personal and professional relationships, and survive transition. It is not in my best interest to sit back and let a bunch of ill-informed ideologues rip that all to pieces.

“So you think MC council members looked at research and concluded there was real discrimination against trans in MC that rises to a level that requires governmental intervention?”

October 31, 2009 11:04 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Indeed I do Anon. Trans folk make up less than 0.2% of the population. Every single council member could have voted against the bill, and the fact that trans folks would have never voted for them again would have had zero impact on their political career. They certainly could have “played it safe” and voted against the bill as well, again with little or no impact on their political careers, or perhaps even a boost to their career. On a purely political basis, there was little impetus to pass the bill. It had to come from somewhere else.

“Or is it that a tran infiltrated the staff of one of the councilmembers (sic) and they just passed it because they figured it doesn't really matter one way or another?”

Actually I doubt Dana did any “infiltration.” She probably just walked in the front door and introduced herself. Dana brought a long standing problem to the council’s attention. From talking with one of the council members after a town hall meeting, I know he was planning on voting against it. However, once Duchy and Dana started getting death threats, he began to see the animosity towards trans folks first hand and changed his mind.

I suspect that Dana was the first transwoman most (if not all) of the council members had ever met. If her situation was anything like mine, some of the folks were probably reluctant to deal with her at first, as their preconceptions dominated their behavior. However, as Dana worked with more and more people they probably learned that she was just like everyone else, and their reticence was unnecessary.

When I started at my current company, one of my office mates was clearly uncomfortable with me and wasn’t sure how to handle the situation. I just went about doing my job, didn’t bring up the “trans thing,” and treated everyone with the same dignity and respect that I hoped they would demonstrate to me. After about six months he was noticeably more relaxed and we started to relate on a more personal level. At one point I was comfortable enough to ask him about his obvious angst when I began my employment. He explained that he had first learned about my medical history before I even started – through an ex-coworker we had in common. He had never seen a trans person before (except on TV) and as you might imagine, the image he had of us wasn’t particularly positive. He said that after working with me for a while he began to realize that there wasn’t anything strange or bizarre about me at all, and that basically, I was “just a tall chick with a hormone problem.” I couldn’t help but chuckle.

October 31, 2009 11:05 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

We have since become good friends and we even joke about my situation. After building up an RS-232 to RJ-45 adaptor cable in the lab, I tested it by plugging it into the back of a PC. Knowing he was watching me, I declared, “Oh good! I even managed to get the gender right!” He immediately responded with “Well, I should hope so!” We both laughed out loud. On another day he came up to me and said “I’m glad I’ve gotten to know you Cynthia – my life would be so much more boring had I never met you.”

“Or is it the latest liberal cause and they just are going along with the crowd?”

Well Anon, you can choose to view life, politics, and reality through a “liberal vs. conservative,” “good vs. evil,” or “you’re either with us or you’re against us” attitude, or you can try and look past the surface and see what really motivates people. I think that both “liberal” and “conservative” people feel they are trying to make the country a better place. They just don’t agree on how to go about doing that, or what the priorities should be. You can choose to constantly be at odds with the world, or you can work to find common ground where all sides can advance their causes. It’s your choice.

“Any indication that the law has had any effect?”

Indeed there is. One of my wonderful trans friends finally got a job after being out of work for about 5 years, thanks in no small part to all the obnoxious racket that the CRG created. If the bill had passed quietly, she might still be out of work. Another of my friends was nearly fired when the company executives found out about her pending transition. During what was undoubtedly going to be her last meeting with the company owners she said “Wait a minute, this is Montgomery County – we have a law against this.” They have since done a little homework, and are now working with her to make sure everyone is comfortable with the transition. Even though she hasn’t officially transitioned yet (that’s a couple of months away, at the request of the owners) a number of co-workers have already started using her new name, all of their own accord.

Have a nice day,

Original Cyn

October 31, 2009 11:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If it wasn't hard to find examples of Aunt Bea lying you'd have done so"

why would I do that?

I think it's kind of crass accusing others of lying

of course, I'm just playing with you tonight and there will be a punch line after we watch you flop around for another day or so

btw, anon-B lied when she said I was obsessed with the Exorcist after I referenced it once

that was just a straight out lie

"You've demanded the right to discriminate against trans people,"

this is a lie

There is and was no real discrimination against trans in MC. Discrimination against trans doesn't rise to a level requiring governmental intervention

you can't change this fact by making three or four posts in a row

facts are still facts no matter how much you lie

October 31, 2009 11:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"After about six months he was noticeably more relaxed and we started to relate on a more personal level. At one point I was comfortable enough to ask him about his obvious angst when I began my employment. He explained that he had first learned about my medical history before I even started – through an ex-coworker we had in common. He had never seen a trans person before (except on TV) and as you might imagine, the image he had of us wasn’t particularly positive. He said that after working with me for a while he began to realize that there wasn’t anything strange or bizarre about me at all, and that basically, I was “just a tall chick with a hormone problem.” I couldn’t help but chuckle.

We have since become good friends and we even joke about my situation. After building up an RS-232 to RJ-45 adaptor cable in the lab, I tested it by plugging it into the back of a PC. Knowing he was watching me, I declared, “Oh good! I even managed to get the gender right!” He immediately responded with “Well, I should hope so!” We both laughed out loud. On another day he came up to me and said “I’m glad I’ve gotten to know you Cynthia – my life would be so much more boring had I never met you.”"

just think

everyone getting along without a law

October 31, 2009 11:36 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

Anon, I heard of a guy that met a girl once and didn't rape her. I suppose that means the rape law is unnecessary...

October 31, 2009 11:39 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "I think it's kind of crass accusing others of lying".

LOL and yet you've repeatedly accused those telling the truth of lying! You hypocrite! It IS crass to accuse people of lying when they're telling the truth - as you've done. Of course calling out someone when they are actually lying is a moral duty - that's what I do.'

Bad anonymous said "of course, I'm just playing with you tonight and there will be a punch line after we watch you flop around for another day or so".

LOL, you mean you'll tell more lies, I'll continue to demonstrate they're lies and you'll look like an even bigger fool than you do now!

I said "You've demanded the right to discriminate against trans people,"

Bad anonymous lied "this is a lie".

Once again, I documented you doing just that. You've gone on and on on various threads about how people have a right to discriminate, no one should be forced to provide service to an LGBT they don't want to, no one should be forced to hire or rent to a qualified LGBT, etc. You simply have no credibility when you claim this, we've all read you saying this. Here's another couple of examples:

http://www.teachthefacts.org/2009/07/crw-stand-up-for-hate-crimes.html#comments

At July 18,2009 11:55 AM you said "The right to discriminate is freedom!"

http://www.teachthefacts.org/2009/06/nebraska-catholics-want-right-to-deny.html#comments

AT June 23, 2009 3:22 PM you said "I suggested that DADT is such a good policy that it should be extended to certain other professions"

Your lies are fooling no one.

Bad anonymous said "There is and was no real discrimination against trans in MC.".

At October 30, 2009 7:01 PM bad anonymous also said "[I]never said there was no discrimination".

Schizophrenic bad anonymous can't keep his lies straight.

November 01, 2009 12:06 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This is fun. I just want to go back and highlight one of bad anonymous's more blatent lies:

At October 31, 2009 10:16 PM bad anonymous lied "I wouldn't be surprised if the original Cyn does [value honesty] but you lied when you said she said so here".

LOL, go ahead and try and quote me saying that. Your head is spinning around so fast you're hallucinating.

November 01, 2009 12:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"you've repeatedly accused those telling the truth of lying!"

this is a lie

"accuse people of lying when they're telling the truth - as you've done"

a lie

"Of course calling out someone when they are actually lying is a moral duty"

omigosh, this is a lie

"- that's what I do"

another one

"I'll continue to demonstrate they're lies"

this is two lies in one

"Bad anonymous lied "this is a lie"."

now you're lying about lying

"Once again, I documented you doing just that"

that's a lie

"You've gone on and on on various threads about how people have a right to discriminate,"

well, actually, Breeyuh, finally said something true

you're right, they have that right and I said so right recently

"no one should be forced to provide service to an LGBT they don't want to,"

that's true too

"no one should be forced to hire or rent to a qualified LGBT, etc."

three truths in a row

impressive

"You simply have no credibility when you claim this, we've all read you saying this."

I think was intended to be a lie but I don't think Breeyuh said what she was trying to

sad

"you said "I suggested that DADT is such a good policy that it should be extended to certain other professions""

oh, I remember that

I was kind of joking but actually it might not be a bad idea

"Your lies are fooling no one"

this is a lie

I'm not lying

"Bad anonymous said "There is and was no real discrimination against trans in MC.""

this has a truth by both me and Preayuh in the same sentenc

"At October 30, 2009 7:01 PM bad anonymous also said "[I]never said there was no discrimination"."

that's true

I said that

it's also true that I never said there was no discrimination

"Schizophrenic bad anonymous can't keep his lies straight"

three lies in one sentence

those who live in the proximity of Eskimos probably know that their language has thirty-three different words for snow but most of us have only one word for snow

November 01, 2009 1:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, I heard of a guy that met a girl once and didn't rape her. I suppose that means the rape law is unnecessary..."

see how different rape is than not hiring someone

most people don't get hired by someone at some point

that's life, try somewhere else

but rape's different

right?

November 01, 2009 1:09 AM  
Anonymous Merle said...

Give it up, Anon.

November 01, 2009 1:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

give up what?

your analogy is demonstrably false

and, honestly, offensively so

November 01, 2009 1:04 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This post has been removed by the author.

November 01, 2009 11:51 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

bad anonymous said "most people don't get hired by someone at some point that's life, try somewhere else".

When a minority group who's harming noone has double the unemployment rate of the general population that's a travesty of justice and the government rightfully gets involved and tries to ameliorate the situation.

Bad anonymous said "but rape's different your analogy is demonstrably false and, honestly, offensively so".

No, its spot on. Just as the fact that one woman didn't get raped doesn't mean rape laws are unnecessary the fact that one trans person wasn't discriminated against doesn't mean that an anti-discrimination law is unnecessary.
If you had any brains or honesty you'd acknowledge that an analogy doesn't describe identical situations it describes a similarity common to both situations - no one's saying job harrassment is as bad as rape.

November 01, 2009 11:57 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous at November 01, 2009 1:04 AM:

I see our little five year old stayed up past his bedtime, got cranky and had a temper tantrum. "Liar, liar, liar, liar" - my goodness one must question your honesty when you claim you think its crass to call people liars.

Once again, you have nothing to back up your false claims that I've lied and given your chronic lies no one's going to believe you without proof. And once agains your own words hang yourself as they provide the proof that you've lied yet again:

In your last post you admitted that you previously said people had a right to discriminate, that no one should be forced to provide service to, hire, or rent to an LGBT, and that the DADT policy should be extended to other professions. So obviously when I said I said "You've demanded the right to discriminate against trans people," and you responded "this is a lie" it was you who was lying and me who was telling the truth.

You said "it's also true that I never said there was no discrimination".

LOL, they don't come much dumber than you - I've proven that to be a lie several times, here I'll do it again:

http://www.teachthefacts.org/2009/10/crw-joins-anti-marriage-rally.html#comments

In that thread when I said the anti-discrimination law is lessening discrimination against transgender people
At Oct 21, 2009 4:10 PM you said "No, it isn't. There was none to begin with.".

Bad anonymous said "There is and was no real discrimination against trans in MC."

You're like a man floating in the middle of the ocean and screaming "There's no water on the planet". Common sense says the idea that there is no discrimination is preposterous. And for you to make this laughable claim in the face of a study of 6450 trans people from all 50 states showing discrimination is rampent throughout the U.S. merely highlights your profound dishonesty once again.

As well, you also said "1. there really is no discrimination against trans in MC

2. discrimination against trans doesn't rise to a level to warrant governmental intervention".

Your second statment acknowledges the discrimination you falsely claimed didn't exist in your first.

Cynthia whom you say is "not so bad", pointed out that you lied when you claimed she "knows" there's no discrimination against trans people, she pointed out that there's plenty, are you going to falsely call her a liar now too?

And finally At October 31, 2009 10:16 PM you said "I wouldn't be surprised if the original Cyn does [value honesty] but you lied when you said she said so here".

I never said any such thing. You couldn't back up your lie with a quote so you just tried to ignore your misdeed and hope it would go away - shame shame lying bad anonymous.

November 01, 2009 11:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm starting to think Priya is a little sensitive about her rampant lying being exposed

so, I hate to point it out but

"discrimination is rampent throughout the U.S."

rampant is badly misspelled

to say rampant is spelled "rampent" is a repellant lie

November 01, 2009 12:13 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Oh, gee, you really got me there bad anonymous, I'll pack up my toys and go home now.

November 01, 2009 12:17 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Actually, bad anonymous has known about the discrimination in Montgomery County long before this national study came out and exposed it. He acknowledged the discrimination then and since has backtracked on his own admission and repeatedly told the lie that there is no discrimination against trans people in Montgomery County.

November 01, 2009 12:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no national study focused on MC, you liar

this is the week that the gay agenda gets a big old slap in the face from the American people

it's not about Dem v. Repub

it's about gay agenda v. pro-family

in Virginia, a candidate who has opposed the gay agenda from the beginning of his career is going to sweep into the governor's mansion

remember, his opponent spent a great deal of many letting the voters know exactly what McDonnell position on gay rights is

in NY state, a pro-choice, pro-gay-"marriage" Repub quits this week when it became clear a candidate from a new "Conservative" Party, endorsed by Sarah Palin, will trounce her

in NJ, a pro-choice, pro-gay Repub is struggling because there is a third party alternative to him and the Dem

couldn't be clearer

to win in America, be a Blue Dog Dem or Red Hot Repub

liberal Dems and moderate Repubs have had their chance and the voters are sending them packing

packing!

November 01, 2009 1:00 PM  
Anonymous the smirking conservative said...

that's great news!!

November 01, 2009 1:23 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

bad anonymous said "no national study focused on MC, you liar".

I never said it did. If it focused on Montgomery county it wouldn't have been a national study. The national study did however expose the discrimination that goes on in Montgomery county.

That doesn't matter though, apart from the common sense fact that its absurd to suggest there was no discrimination in Montgomery County, you knew there was long before this national study and admitted as much. Now you've contradicted yourself (repeatedly) and falsely claimed there is no discrimination.

November 01, 2009 1:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to this study, transgenders seem to be a bit of a mess. I wonder why parents don't want that life for their children. Dumb breeders.

November 01, 2009 5:06 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Yeah, why not make up some crap about trans people, everyone's bound to believe a chronic liar.

November 01, 2009 6:42 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Contrary to Bad anonymous's (current) lies discrimination against trans people in Montgomery county was exposed before the County council on October 2, 2007.


http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/transcripts/2007/10-02-07.pdf

What did bad anonymous have to say when he saw this report?

At Sept 24, 2009 9:39 AM he said "there may have been some discrimination always has been, always will be"

Clearly he donen't believe it himself when he says there is no discrimination - he admitted the truth just over a month ago and now wants to pretend he doesn't know what it is. Makes his current attempt to deceive all the more despicable.

November 01, 2009 6:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've met three transgender people with obnoxious personalities, and I wouldn't hire them if they were non transgender and straight. If they came to me for a job, and I rejected them (which I would) -- would that be counted in the discrimination statistic?

You bet it would.

Ha ha!

November 01, 2009 6:52 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Here's the thread where you can find that admission of the existence of discrimination by bad anonymous:


http://www.teachthefacts.org/2009/09/sheesh-talk-about-raining-on-parade.html#comments

November 01, 2009 7:13 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous, no one believes anything you say about your supposed experience with transpeople you allege to have known. In any event a trans person being rejected for their inability to do a job would not be counted as discrimination. However, you've made it clear that you'd never hire a trans person merely because they are trans so spare us your imaginary scenarios and pseudo-victim complex. No employer who's seen your performance here would hire a dishonest person like you.

November 01, 2009 7:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Priya,

I did not say that I wouldn't hire these three people because they're trans. I said I wouldn't hire them because their personalities are absolutely and positively obnoxious. And you don't have to believe what I say but that's okay with me. (How do you think I found this blog?)

Anyway....this makes me wonder how the employment statistics are arrived at. Did the person collecting the statistics check out the situations and ask the prospective employers WHY they didn't hire these trans people?

If lots of trans people have chips on their shoulders, looking for discrimination under their beds each morning....well, then....this might not be a personality trait that an employer finds very desirable, and it exhibits itself in various other ways.

If I woke up tomorrow and started telling everyone to call me Mary instead of Henry, and dressed in dresses instead of suits and ties....I might very well be extremely sensitive to ANY hint that someone may not be exactly thrilled. And if I got turned down for a job....well, then, I might assume that this is the reason when, in reality, it might be that the person thought I seemed paranoid.

Go figure. Might not be discrimination at all.

November 01, 2009 8:38 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

When his 1989 Regent University masters thesis came to light, McDonnell's campaign put together an ad called "Working Woman" that put "McDonnell's daughter Jeanine - who served as an Army lieutenant in Iraq - in front of the camera to tell viewers that McDonnell encouraged his three daughters "to be independent and achieve our goals."

The ads suggest that the McDonnell campaign is playing a bit of defense, as their substantial lead in the polls evaporated after the Deeds campaign started running ads in northern Virginia calling attention to the controversial thesis...


Other than that masters thesis bombshell, the Virginia race has gone well for McDonnell. Why? Because he has run as far away as possible from his ultra-conservative views in order to disguise himself as a moderate. To help maintain this phoney centrist image, McDonnell rejected Sarah PitBull's offer of campaign help. He was worried "that Palin could polarize the electorate ahead of the elections and associate McDonnell...with unpopular perceptions of Republican politics." At the same time, the "moderate" McDonnell campaign embraced RNC Chairman Michael Steele's offer of help.

Conversely, in NY's 23 Congressional District, the GOP candidate has withdrawn and the conservative Hoffman, with the PitBull's endorsement, will likely pull off a victory -- in a district that has been in GOP hands since the Civil War.

These two races are setting up an interesting dilemma for the GOP in 2010. Will they follow McDonnell's fake moderate campaign style or Palin's pit-bull-gone-rogue style? IMHO it will depend on the district. In reliably GOP districts, the pit bull method may be effectively employed, but in swing districts, purple states, and nationwide, going rogue will not win enough support to win because it will drive moderates and independents away.

Frank Rich wrote his commentary about this GOP dilemma today. Interested readers will find it here: Frank Rich: The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York

November 01, 2009 8:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you read McDonnell's thesis? In it, he reviewed studies that had been conducted about the impact of more working women in our society. McDonnell didn't recommend or suggest that women stop working. He simply studied the issue and reported on it.

November 01, 2009 11:31 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon posited:

“If I woke up tomorrow and started telling everyone to call me Mary instead of Henry, and dressed in dresses instead of suits and ties....I might very well be extremely sensitive to ANY hint that someone may not be exactly thrilled. And if I got turned down for a job....well, then, I might assume that this is the reason when, in reality, it might be that the person thought I seemed paranoid.

Go figure. Might not be discrimination at all.”

Actually Anon, this may come as a surprise, but it doesn’t take much sensitivity at all. Many people don’t hold back their feelings when you come in to work dressed as the opposite gender you came in the week before. They have no problem telling you exactly how they feel. I know. I’ve done it. Just once though. I had been laid off the week before, along with 22% of the rest of the company. No I wasn’t paranoid. I was the only one actually happy to be laid off. It meant I could finally do what is called “going full time.” (At the time I was pulling all the paperwork together for my name change, and laboring over how to inform my employer.) This marked the beginning of the minimum 1 year period before I could be eligible for surgery.

If you don’t believe me, go into work as Mary next week. See what happens. MC now has an anti-discrimination law related to this. Why don’t you see how well it works?

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

November 01, 2009 11:33 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

He simply studied the issue and reported on it.

So now even Anon is running from McDonnell's ultra-conservative views. On August 31, 2009, Talking Points Memo reported:

Bob McDonnell, the Republican nominee for Governor of Virginia, just had an unusually long conference call with reporters -- about 80 minutes -- in which he sought to walk back and minimize any political damage that might occur from his recently-revealed 1989 master's thesis at Regent University, in which the then-34-year-old McDonnell laid out a comprehensive religious right political program...

...McDonnell, point by point, disowned the positions he took in the thesis -- even at one point minimizing it as a "term paper." He said that he respects women in the workplace; that he would not try to re-restrict divorce; that he does not advocate discrimination against gays; and that he does not regard civil law is subject to Biblical law...


Interesting news in NY's 23 Congressional district:

Dede Scozzafava announced:

“Since announcing the suspension of my campaign [as the GOP nominee for NY's 23rd], I have thought long and hard about what is best for the people of this District, and how to answer your questions,” she said in the statement posted on the Web site. “This is not a decision that I have made lightly.”

“In [Democrat] Bill Owens, I see a sense of duty and integrity that will guide him beyond political partisanship. He will be an independent voice devoted to doing what is right for New York. Bill understands this district and its people, and when he represents us in Congress he will put our interests first.”

“I am supporting Bill Owens for Congress and urge you to do the same.”


And more intesting news, a video of House Minority Leader Boehner discussing NY's 23rd with CNN's John King:

“We accept moderates in our party. We want moderates in our party. We cover a wide range of Americans,” the Ohio Republican told King.

“What we need is . . . a broad group of people in our party,” Boehner said, rejecting King’s suggestion that the conservative attacks on Scozzafava and support for Hoffman might be a shot over the bow to more moderate would-be Republican candidates especially in New England.

And Boehner appeared to concede Sunday that the growing political power of the conservative grassroots is placing stress on his party.

The House Minority Leader said he was “a big believer” of former President Ronald Reagan’s edict that Republicans should “never talk ill about another Republican.”

“That was not followed in this race,” King said of the Scozzafava-Hoffman battle.

“I know,” Boehner bluntly replied.

November 02, 2009 8:11 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Notice how bad anonymous when confronted with his own words stating that trans people are discriminated against tries to change the subject from his current denial of that fact. Bad anonymous hasn't got the decency to acknowledge his despicable lies, apologize, and promise not to do it in the future - because he does plan to continue his lying ways in the future. No honour amongst anti-gay trash.

Bad anonymous said "I did not say that I wouldn't hire these three people because they're trans. I said I wouldn't hire them because their personalities are absolutely and positively obnoxious.".

I know what you said, I also know you are a chronic liar and over the years you've made it abundantly clear you think trans people should be discriminated against and that you would do so if given the chance, so spare me your "I wouldn't hire them because they're obnoxious" B.S.

If any trans person did meet its to be expected that they'd be obnoxious to you after you've repeatedly called them deviants, mentally ill, perverts and told them again and again they deserve to be fired, evicted, and discriminated against at every turn. That you'd think you can treat people like crap and expect that they should be nice to you demonstrates how profoundly stupid you are.

November 02, 2009 11:26 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I should add that when trans people have double the unemployment rate, and double the poverty rate bad anonymous's fantasy that the discrimination is imaginary is merely more of the profound idiocy he's demonstrated throughout this blog.

November 02, 2009 11:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aunt Bea said; "So now even Anon is running from McDonnell's ultra-conservative views."

I'm not running from them. I happen to think that a mother at home is best for children, and if somebody said so, I'd applaud it. But McDonnell didn't say so. I was merely pointing out that you were putting words in McConnell's mouth on that issue.

That being said...I've done both throughout my child's life -- stayed at home and worked. Is staying at home better? Yes, I believe so. Does this mean that I condemn working women? Nope. Not at all.

People need to work or not work for various reasons. Some mothers would simply lose their minds staying at home. That's not good for the children, so those mothers should work.

Some mothers simply like to work. And a happy mother is, ultimately, better than a sad mother.

Some mothers work to put food on the table. Is that better than starving the child? Yep. Sure is.

Some mothers like staying home. Should they stay at home. Sounds good to me.

But this issue should be studied and there's nothing wrong with a student doing a paper on the subject.

Maybe, for instance, McConnell learned that one of the bad things about not having a mother at home is the fact that there's no supervision after school for teenagers. So guess what? If both parents work, you might conclude that someone should be hired to stay in the house after school. One doesn't have to conclude that the mother needs to be at home.

November 02, 2009 12:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Priya said: "No honour amongst anti-gay trash."

Are you now saying, Priya, that all transgenders are gay? Boy, my head is spinning. In older blogs here, people have vehemently denied that all transgenders are gay.

I'm just SOOOOOOOOOOO confused!

Which does bring up the point -- I can't understand why transgenders are even lumped in with gays, if they're not necessarily gay. Shouldn't only gay transgenders be included? If a transgender's not gay, then why is he/she part of the group?

I'm just SOOOOOOOOOOO confused!

And if a transgender is simply the gender he/she claims he/she is, then why is the "T" even needed in LGBT??

Whew! When people start making stuff up out of thin air, things get confusing, eh?

November 02, 2009 12:22 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "I'm just SOOOOOOOOOOO confused!".

If you'd stop your chronic lying you'd be able to recognize reality and stop being so confused.

Once again you fail to acknowledge your grotesque lie that there is no discrimination against trans people, a fact you admitted just over a month ago. Typcial of immoral people, they think they can just tell egregious lies and pretend it never happened. This is why you have no credibility whatsoever.

November 02, 2009 1:32 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous, why don't you tell us again about how nobody cares about honesty?

November 02, 2009 1:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Once again you fail to acknowledge your grotesque lie"

you were lying to a different anon yesterday, Preeyuh

as you surely know by now, there is no real discrimination against trans in MC and discrimination does not rise to a level to necessitate governmental intervention

November 03, 2009 10:43 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "you were lying to a different anon yesterday".

LOL, you utterly failed to demonstrate a single untruth by me because I told the truth, whereas I repeatedly demonstrated you lies over and over and over. No one believes your dishonest claim that that wasn't you - its all too convenient of an excuse, that's why you always post as anonymous so you can use that excuse when you get caught in your lies, but no one believes you anyway.

Bad anonymous said "as you surely know by now, there is no real discrimination against trans in MC and discrimination does not rise to a level to necessitate governmental intervention".

LOL, the exact same lines this "different" anon repeatedly used yesterday - you're too stupid to even lie effectively.

Once again, your second statement acknowledges the discrimination you dishonestly tried to disavow in your first.

And of course in this thread:

http://www.teachthefacts.org/2009/09/sheesh-talk-about-raining-on-parade.html#comments


At Sept 24, 2009 9:39 AM in a rare moment of honesty you acknowledged the truth and said "there may have been some discrimination always has been, always will be"

The national study on discrimination against trans people showed that it is pervasive throughout the country. It included 6450 people and covered all 50 states. Your preposterous suggestion that this somehow didn't include any trans people from Montgomery county and that people there are somehow so dramatically different from the average american for there to be no discrimination is too stupid for words to describe. It simply insn't credible that you are the only bigot in Montgomery county.

And of course as Aunt Bea pointed out discrimination against trans people in Montgomery county was exposed before the County council on October 2, 2007.


http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/transcripts/2007/10-02-07.pdf

November 03, 2009 2:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home