Matt, we've addressed your fallacies countless times. Now we're gonna a-dress ya, buddy.
Senate sponsors and liberal activist proponents of the federal “hate crimes” bill, S. 909, have been caught in a series of bald-faced lies. So confident am I of this, that if they can prove me wrong (for real I mean – you know, with evidence and such) I’ll join their little soiree, don a very large pink evening gown and publicly voice support for the legislation.
Hate Crimes’ Bill is Full of Swill [American Daily]
Matt, you have repeatedly pushed the idea that pedophilia is an APA recognized sexual orientation (and again do so in the above-linked article), even though (a) the APA clearly says it not and (b) basic common sense confirms the same. You have routinely denied that hate crimes are a problem for LGBT people, even though this community has demonstrated they are more at risk (with countless more LGBT-centric attacks going unreported because of fears and biases) than groups that are already specifically protected (with almost as many anti-LGBT incidents/offenses as there are with all religions combined). You've put out canard after canard regarding homosexuality and its deserved recognition. You actually had the nerve to say that Carrie Prejean has been the victim of the hate crime, trivializing all who have been affected by bias-motivated violence. And worse yet, you refuse to listen to anything other than your side's own spin machine, a one-sided mentality that's frustrating in terms of our political dealings with you personally, but even more frustrating when one thinks of all the otherwise fair-minded people who you've deliberately duped by putting dogma over documentation.
You deliberately set up unprovable situations that miss the key point: To keep people safer from real and demonstrable bias. And you won't listen to any dissension anyway. Not actually listen, at least. In the years that we've been monitoring you, you've more than proven that. So we say: Why wait?
You look lovely, M.B. Let us know if you need help with a heel. Or better yet: Let us know when you're ready to stop attacking us, the non-enemy, so that this nation and its divided people can finally heal.
P.S. If you want to photoshop this writer into any sort of female garb, I won't be even slightly offended. In fact, I will provide you with the source image.
I was at the local trans club in Detroit on Saturday and saw Mattie there. Her hair was a little different and she had a little less facial hair, but there's no question that it indeed was the barber.
She looks better with the beard though - it covers some of the ugly!
Posted by: Audrey Hopkins | May 7, 2009 3:34:19 PM
Aaaaaaaah! I have that same frock!
Posted by: Dick Mills | May 7, 2009 3:46:48 PM
"I’ll join their little soiree, don a very large pink evening gown." - Matt Barber
The funny thing is, I could SEE Matt Barber dressing this way, wringing his hands, and going hysterical about his cheesecake burning in the oven.
You know, acting like a "concerned woman".
Posted by: Scott | May 7, 2009 4:09:50 PM
Please! NO one prove him wrong! I don't want to see him dressed like that!
Posted by: KZ | May 7, 2009 4:28:32 PM
I appreciate your dedication to craft. The lovingly drawn chest hair really make the piece sing.
Posted by: Matt Algren | May 7, 2009 4:50:49 PM
Please, please, PLEASE let this happen.
Posted by: Clicky the Fox | May 7, 2009 5:11:27 PM
Sweet holy hell!!! My poor eyes!!!
Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | May 7, 2009 5:34:48 PM
Wow, I don't know whether to die laughing or have a nightmare tonight! I guess some of both!
Oh, and if there are any complaints, remember, it was Matt's idea. (And one of his rare good ones!) My granddaddy always told me, don't write a check with your mouth that your body can't cash...
Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | May 7, 2009 7:37:04 PM
I have a feeling that this bet is similar to Kent Hovind's $200,000 challenge: sounds simple on the surface, but is filled with clauses that allow him to dismiss any evidence presented.
Posted by: TB Tabby | May 7, 2009 8:11:02 PM
Well yea, TB, he will of course just refute anything we say by using his own personal opinions. But also, as hinted at in my response: He has set up completely unprovable scenarios. He wants us to "prove" beyond the FBI's hate crime stats (which are enough) exactly how many LGBT people are being persecuted and how, how many prosecutions go unfulfilled or under-realized because of anti-gay bias/inadequate resources, the intent of Dem lawmakers, etc. And then there's also the whole "30 sexual orientations" thing which is one of the most unbelievable bald-faced lies the far-right has EVER embraced.
So for me, there is no need to take on any one "challenge." I have been challenging Matt for years, and will continue to do so as long as he stays in the "culture war" game.
Posted by: G-A-Y | May 7, 2009 8:24:30 PM
"Does this dress make me look fat?"
Oh HELL yeah, Matt.
Posted by: Candace | May 7, 2009 10:28:48 PM
You are doing it again.
By all means, make the distinction between LGBT and Straight MAAs, if you must, but N.B.
"What Is Sexual Orientation?
Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others." APA
That is applicable to both LGBTs and MAAs.
The APA are not qualified to comment on what they believe is ...
"an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem."
That is for the psychiatrists, and we all know that their source is not one of fact, but one of politics, fashion and finance.
It is still possible to destroy the arguments of the bigots, without ignoring your responsibility to your LBGT MAAs and by ignoring the realities; that makes you little better than the bigots.
Posted by: Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield | May 8, 2009 8:32:22 AM
Just stop it, Mr. Oldfield. Seriously. You are spinning for your own self-satisfaction. And your bio (which I won't repeat, but that anyone can Google if they wish) speaks for itself.
And if you're going to include the first line of the APA's sexual orientations stance, you should include the most pertinent point: "Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality."
Posted by: G-A-Y | May 8, 2009 8:46:19 AM
Sexuality is multidimensional, not just one axis, from straight to gay.
'Orientation' is 'fairies on a pin-head'.
What the APA etc say, is only the present, socio-political dogma, nothing more (as it has always been).
You may be as biased and belittling (I am not sure how much my history has any bearing on validity), as you wish, it does not change the reality or your responsibility to your LBGT MAAs.
Posted by: Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield | May 8, 2009 9:07:57 AM
Please let me know if you are going to ban me/crop my posts.
I do not have the time, to type long posts, to see them fizz away.
Posted by: Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield | May 8, 2009 9:29:10 AM
I'm not going to ban you. But I am going to ask you nicely to just stop commenting here. To be perfectly honest, I am startled/disgusted by your "MAA" views, both the ones you have expressed on this site and the ones that are all over the internet.
So please: Just stop on your own volition. I can promise you that you're not going to like anything we ever have to say on this subject.
Posted by: G-A-Y | May 8, 2009 9:36:01 AM
As far as semantics are concerned, there really is no issue, for now ...
"Rep. Steve King (R-Batshittia) introduced an amendment to the hate crimes bill calling for the term "sexual orientation" to exclude "pedophiles" even though the bill specifically defines sexual orientation as "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality."" Yahoo.
Not that sexuality is an act, of course.
Posted by: Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield | May 8, 2009 9:38:47 AM
Yes, I know what many in the LGBT 'community' are like (well, in public) ... I have alluded to it and heard/read it many times.
Try to open your mind, as those of us have (for well over 30 years), who made your sexuality 'legitimate'.
I think my previous post brings this issue to conclusion for now.
Posted by: Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield | May 8, 2009 9:44:44 AM
Do not believe all you read ;)
Posted by: Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield | May 8, 2009 9:46:00 AMcomments powered by Disqus