Archive | transsexuals RSS feed for this section

Libertarian transgender precipitates one day government shutdown

20 Nov
A different, less snarky, version of this was published yesterday at Breitbart.

If Julia Roberts wants to play a transsexual in the middle of a conspiracy theorist’s dream I have a treatment ready for her.

Monday someone who was first reported as suicidal woman, and then rumored to be a man with a rifle, shut down a huge section of downtown DC.  Police refuse to comment on any questions and the mainstream media refused to mention that the culprit, Sophia Dalke, 31, was transgender, which was also left out of the police report.

The result is that people are free to speculate.

Initially I was as much of a mind to indulge in very black humor.  I came up with two jokes:

1) 2015 is the year transgender people became the new face of conservative politics.  First Caitlyn Jenner declared herself to be a Christian, constitutionalist, Republican, and now Sophia Dalke has engineered a one (transgender) woman government shut down.


2) Aerosmith releases a new single, “Trannies got a gun.

But investigating further, finding coincidences, and having the police refuse to answer simple questions makes one speculate about all kinds of things.

At 6:42 am Monday  the D.C. Police department tweeted out a picture of nine blocks of downtown Washington, D.C.. announcing they were under lockdown Monday morning.   From the World Bank at 18th and I Streets NW, near the White House, to the Social Security Administration at 21st and M Streets NW, two blocks from Senator Harry Reid’s Ritz Carlton condominium on 23rd Street, much of the K street lobbying corridor was closed to buses, cars, and pedestrians.

Monday there was almost no coverage of just what was involved, other than that it was a mentally ill woman, as both cars and pedestrians were denied the ability to enter the K street lobbying area.  Later in the day rumors were that it was a man with a rifle.

On Tuesday DC’s main gay newspaper, the Washington Blade, reported that nine city blocks were closed for 10 hours for a suicidal male to female transgender with a gun – so both stories, that it was a woman and that it was a man, were  correct.  Prior to that, Monday evening, when Dalke was arrested The Washington Post and other mainstream media – and the D.C. Police report – omitted the fact that the culprit was a transexual.  Local news radio station WTOP headlined its blog post “10-hour D.C. Standoff ends with woman’s arrest.” 

The PC prudery of the mainstream media is odd.  Ms. Dalke’s Google+ profile reads “I am a pansexual transgender woman who is obsessed with history, politics, booze, and erotica with no shame about any of it.”  I first became aware of this when two different conservative Republican lesbian friends told me I should write something on the coverup of the fact that Dalke was a transexual.

I now think there could be more interesting omissions in the story.

  Dalke’s latest social media post:  “Sorry everybody, I’m dead tonight.”

None of this explained why 9 blocks would be closed, making the conspiracy minded wonder if it was something more, in the wake of recent tragedies.  Especially since police and bomb sniffing dogs were reported on local radio to be out in full force Tuesday, on D.C.’s problem ridden subway system, Metro.

Dalke had barricaded herself at 1999 K Street, a new environmentally certified modern glass office building near the Peace Corp, law firms, and the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.  1999 K houses the Federal Agricultural Mortgage agency, which makes real estate loans to farmers and agribusiness, and the law offices of Mayer-Brown, where Richard Ben-Veniste, a Watergate special prosecuter, who also defended the Clinton’s in Whitewater, and who was also appointed to the 9/11 commission, is a partner. (Ben-Veniste’s examination of Condi Rice revealed that the government had conducted studies considering the possibility of a 9/11 style attack before it occurred).  I called the main switchboard at Mayer Brown and asked for Sophia Dalke, and instead of telling me off the nice British accented switchboard operator looked through her directory and told me Dalke worked for one of their sub tenants and gave me that phone number, whose voice mail answers “Tina Brown.”  Of course, the fact that Dalke works in a building with such unusually well connected people is probably merely a coincidence.

I contacted the public information office of the D.C. Police department Tuesday evening and asked four questions: 1) Is it standard operating procedure to shut down several blocks of downtown for one person barricaded in a building? 2) Were these extreme measures because of concerns about terrorism and the events in Paris?  3) Did Dalke work at 1999 K Street where she was apprehended, for a tenant of the Mayer Brown law firm?  And 4) Was there a reason Dalke’s being transgender was omitted from the police report.  The officer replied to each question with a firm “We have no comment on that at this time.”

I am currently contacting Dalke’s friends, who were on social media urging her to meet them or seek help after her last post, to see what information about her work at 1999 K Street they can supply.

According to Lou Chibarro, the Washington Blade reporter, a perusal of her Dalke’s FaceBook account showed that she opposed D.C. gun control, and thought transgender women experiencing violence on the streets should be armed.  I did not find that entry, but I did see that books she read included libertarian philosopher Rpbert Nozick and novelist Ayn Rand, and Dalke described her politics as “Well… I’d say I was secretly Republican… except that even beyond their onerous and animadversive religious/moralist bullshit where I’m philosophically aligned with smaller government and deregulation, Republicans are shitbag hypocrites who don’t walk the talk in office. So I’m openly Libertarian. Friendly to LGBT, business, and individuals, the best of all worlds.”  On Google+ one of the friends concerned about her is a staffer at the free market R Street Institute.  (I am often thought of us as one of the most connected D.C. libertarians, and I have never heard of Dalke until researching this story.)

According to Chibarro, with whom I compared notes tonight, Dalke has now disappeared from the court system, and has not been presented to a judge (I have not confirmed this yet.). It is possible she is in the system under a different (her original male) name.

For those interested in her legal defense a GoFundMe has been established.

Stonewalled – the LGBT serpent eats its own tail?

29 Sep
A shorter, less mean and funny, version of this was published yesterday at Breitbart.

Roland Emmerich

About a third of the way through Roland Emmerich’s moving, kind of brilliant movie Stonewall, which opened this weekend, a police detective investigating mob control of gay bars and human trafficking of underage teens, one of whom has turned up dead, asks a recalcitrant witness refusing to identify a killer, “What is it with you gays?  Are you all stupid.”

The reaction to this movie in some quarters, and the state of gay politics generally, suggest that the answer is probably yes.

Jeremy Irvine

Emmerich – who previously directed films like Independence Day, featuring uber-Aryan stars Will Smith and Harry Connick Jr. – is being denounced as a racist for having a midwestern white high school runaway (played by British actor Jeremy Irvine) be the star of his telling of the Stonewall riot that in 1969 ignited the current gay movement and was the catalyst of the first gay pride march in Manhattan in 1970.

PC gay leftovers have their assless chaps in a twist because they say Emmerich (who is gay) should have given the starring role to a black transsexual.  As the editor of the gay magazine 
Metroweekly Randy Shulman (a graduate of NYU’s art school and a prominent DC film and theater critic) concluded his list of sins of the movie: “And the renowned drag queen Marsha P. Johnson, one of the era’s most fascinating, important people, is given a tiny sliver of screen time.”  Mr. Shulman thinks Johnson is a character (played by actor Otoja Abit), who like Will Smith will reel them into the theaters.


Otaja Abit

Nigerian born Otaja Abit is good in the Johnson role,  that of one of the many transsexuals and prostitutes who started the riot at the mafia controlled Stonewall bar when the police raided it one too many times in the summer of 1969. One of the most fascinating things about Johnson’s depiction may be his resemblance to a defrocked Michelle Obama who has been forced to shop at Dress Barn.

Shulman, and the reviewers at the gay magazine The Advocate, and other enforcers of political correctness and coerced multiculturalism have instructed reviewers that they will be denounced as bigots if they don’t pan the movie, and many of them are.  Just as they would denounce someone who does not jail a Christian baker or fine a Christian florist as anti-gay, or as they would put a gym out of business for not allowing pre-op male-to-female transsexuals into the women’s locker room as anti-gay, or as, in the same issue of Metroweekly editor Sean Bugg denounces Dr. Ben Carson as a racist bigot because he thinks a President should have to swear to place the Constitution above Sharia Law.  The Sharia Law that ISIS is invoking to behead and lynch gays all over Syria and Iraq.  (As we’ve seen so often, Democrat hacks, including gay Democrat hacks, will use character assassination against someone like Ben Carson, who is not a sophisticated speaker, while deeply felching lawyerly liars like the Clintons, who give evasive answers parsing what the meaning of “is” is.)
Nick Sibilla
Marsha P. Johnson

The movie includes lots of information gay reviewers don’t even realize is there, like the interconnections between government regulation, bribery, the mob, and oppression of gays and limitations on their opportunities.  That doesn’t fit the simpleton parochial Democrat politics gays have been taught to parrot.   The gay liberation movement actually started because of opposition to business regulation (elaborated in a brilliant piece by Nick Sibilla, a writer at the free market public interest legal firm the Institute of Justice), in Stonewall regulations that made it illegal to serve alcohol to gays and other unseemly sorts, or to get a liquor license if you were gay.  In San Francisco, gay martyr Harvey Milk started out as a Goldwater Republican trying to end harassment of and denial of permits and licenses to gay businesses (Milk became a Democrat only when he decided that in San Francisco he couldn’t get elected and work on gay issues without putting together a coalition of people on the dole, unions, and tenants rights groups).  (Indeed, the recent gay marriage victory in the courts was occasioned by the so called Death Tax that Democrats favor.  A lesbian was being taxed out of the house she had lived in for decades when her partner died and left her her half of the house as an estate, the taxation for which only a legally married spouse has an exemption.)

Most of the characters depicted in Stonewall are effeminate, of color, poor, etc. There is one runaway from a rural white Indiana family and the story is told from his viewpoint. To claim drag queens, lesbians, transexuals, prostitutes and racial minorities were not represented is a lie. The function of the main character, Danny (played by Irvine), is to draw in a wider audience. The plight of a Puerto Rican transsexual hooker who has been on the street since before puberty because his single mom died of a drug overdose doesn’t engage or disturb most people as much as does a kid who is secretly dating the High School quarterback, with a loving baby sister, and a scholarship to college, who is tossed out by his family when they find out he is gay.  We’ve had movies exclusively about transsexuals of color before, like Paris is Burning, way back in 1990.  It made less than $4 million and had to get a government grant to even be made.  And very few people outside of the gay community have ever seen it (even though it is a fine film).

 Only PC lobotomies prevent the gay political class and its PR flaks from getting that.  Historically, one such transsexual of color, a Sylvia Rivera, was supposed to have thrown the first brick, and what has the PC crowd in a sling is that in this movie the cute white blond boy throws the first brick.  

Bryan Singer

It’s interesting that the other criticism of the movie by the PC crowd is that Emmerich depicts transsexual prostitutes and the mobsters who own the gay bars (and kidnap underage gay runaways disowned by their parents and force them into prostitution) as unseemly.  Apparently we are supposed to think that just because they fought back against police abuse they are idols to emulate.  Funnily enough, I don’t remember any of these gay critics getting outraged at another major gay director, X-Men director Bryan Singer, and reports that he regularly has pool parties at which underage blond twink teens are consumed like Absolut, and perhaps auditioned on the casting couch.  Apparently it is OK to sexually exploit a blond white boy from England or Indiana, but wrong to cast him as a star in a movie.

What we have here is the gay political class eating its own tail.  They’ve accepted the statist civil rights paradigm that has left so many African Americans and others in failed schools, unemployment, illiteracy and poverty.  They’ve decided “discrimination” – having preferences, making choices, grasping distinctions – is the original sin.  As a result no one can ever choose to associate with whom they wish, and all choices to be “exclusive,” including keeping men out of women’s rooms or preferring to marry someone of your own race or religion, deserve social ostracism if not incarceration.  (And there have already been problems within the gay community, as male-to-female transsexuals demand to be admitted to lesbian feminist events, like the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival, conflicting with “woman-born” women who don’t want transsexuals to be a central focus of their events.)

This version of civil rights hasn’t really worked for its original intended beneficiaries in Baltimore, Detroit, or Anacostia.  It may work better for gays, many of whom intend to be the bureaucrats and lawyers running the show.  It’s already producing a dumb-downed and boring gay political discourse.  Will gay ghetto poverty be far behind?

Check your privilege, white boy?

21 Jun
A politically incorrect gay friend (of color), Aaron Matthew Amwine, asks the following on FaceBook:

Just asking: This is what I don’t get…we have trannies who say they don’t want to be the way they were born and that’s celebrated…we aren’t bound by our genetics. But on the other hand, any gay man that decides he does not want to be gay and be bound by his genetics, that’s horrible self hate. Why aren’t people who want to change genders also labeled as people with self hatred?

Of course boys who want to be girls and girls who want to be boys are simply fighting through the oppressive socialization of patriarchal heteronormativity while gays who don’t want to be gays are oppressed by the false consciousness of repressive conservative Christianity.  Catechism and ritual are very comforting, unlike thinking or questioning or uncertainty.

Last night I was at a libertarian birthday party where there were many “progressive” friends of the libertarian and his truly lovely liberal spouse.  One insisted that DC was being wrecked by gentrification and wanted there to be some plan or control to prevent people from moving to and changing neighborhoods, at least “too” rapidly.  (Leaving aside that DC is being gentrified because the federal government imports a thousand lawyers, lobbyists and bureaucrats – at 6 figure salaries – monthly to DC, and severely regulates and restricts increasing the supply of housing, forbidding the erection of apartment buildings over 10 stories.)

I asked the obvious questions about whether Jews should be free to move to the Middle East, or Central Americans to the United States.  That was different of course, because they don’t have “privilege.”  If you have money or education etc. then your choices and freedom of movement should be regulated.  If you don’t have them you should be free to move.  That’s apparently equal opportunity.