Considering how his party is doing their level best to disenfranchise the very (and not-so-very) poor, it does make a twisted kind of sense that he wouldn't care about them.

And don't get me started about how there's supposedly a safety net when his party is doing their level best to dismantle that, too.

Those pickles must only be delivered in a brown paper bag, correct?

It would be nice if she and other TS separatists would realize that, but I don't think that their pride would allow them to for anything less than Ms. Brennan, Ms. Hungerford, and the rest of the trans-hating feminists saying to their faces that she considers them just as bad as the "bad trannies" they don't want to be associated with. I don't think that's going to happen, though...oppressing people is so much easier when you have a bunch of kapos to do your work for you.

Gee, it "only" took them a whole day to correct their mistake. Had they mistaken one appletini-drinking cis gay white dude for another, how long would it have taken them to correct that? Half an hour, tops? What a crock...I wouldn't even use the Advocate to wipe my ass with.

And don't get me started on the comments, either...a bunch of myopic jerks saying we trans people (and bi people, for that matter) should have a separate movement from them while at the same time wondering why we're so angry when they persist in saying "LGBT" but clearly only mean "gay".

That, and the fact that it's not like anyone that I might distribute the family tree to doesn't already know that I'm trans, and that my birth name was such and such.

I'm working on putting together a family tree, and I did the same as you - I just added a note to my record about my birth name. I'm not thrilled about it, but it is a historical record like you said, and I feel like I should add the note if for no other reason than to link it with my grandmother's notes that I'm using.

Well, they wouldn't want to have any trans POC calling any shots around there, would they? That would mean they'd have to go against the interests of EQMD and the rest of the marriage-first crowd at least once in a while, and we already know how unacceptable that is...

And...Mark McLaurin is on their board now? The same Mark McLaurin that compared trans women to circus freaks in the wake of HB235's failure to pass? I mean, yes, he did apologize for his remarks, but one really wonders if GRMD is deliberately trying to destroy what little credibility they have before it even gets off the ground.

I'm pretty sure that being a misogynist racist twit is a job requirement for becoming an evolutionary psychologist. Not to mention the ability to blithely ignore social factors like centuries of prejudice in explaining social phenomena like beauty standards...

Just because he's a "scientist" (I'm using the term loosely in his case) doesn't mean he's some ivory tower idealist who cares only about the truth. Blanchard strikes me as more than just a bit attached to his pet theory and unwilling to even consider all the evidence against it (like, you know, the way trans women actually live their lives) - never a trait that makes a good scientist.

Besides, why should his motives make any difference? Intent isn't magic, you know. The fact is that his theory makes it much more difficult for trans women to live their lives with dignity. What other reason do you need to call him oppressive?

I think you're right. They're either queens who are jealous of you for looking better than them, or they see you as competition for men. I guess that a third reason (for the Ron Gold types) might be that they only care about your penis rather than about you as a person, and they get all concerned about how they'll never have a chance at it once you transition.