San Francisco Shame

by on

National Guard Not Welcome at San Francisco LGBT Pride Weekend:

Organizers of San Francisco’s pride weekend festivities have yanked the welcome mat away from the National Guard, voting to ban the Guard from setting up a booth at the festival. … Last year, the National Guard had a booth at Pride Weekend for the first time – staffed by gay soldiers – following the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

They’re showing the Texas GOP that they don’t have a monopoly on exclusionary booth denial!

And there’s icing on the politically correct cake:

The decision comes at the same time Pride organizers are allowing a controversial Army private who leaked military secrets to be honorary grand marshal.

13 Comments for “San Francisco Shame”

  1. posted by Tom Jefferson III on

    OK, yes it was probably a bonehead move. Gay pride in the Twin Cities (MN) tends to be run by people with more — tact — if nothing else.

    ….Well, the Texas GOP is in a bit more of a position policywise to impact gay rights in Texas. So I am not sure that the cookie cutter comp. really works.

  2. posted by Jorge on

    “National Guard Not Welcome This Time At San Francisco LGBT Pride Weekend; Chelsea Manning Is”

    It’s Bradley Manning. Still has a d***, doesn’t have implants or a wig, hasn’t had a name change, and I’m off duty. The military’s not allowing him to transition in prison. Okay, they should. It’s still Bradley Manning.

    “The military’s current ban on transgender service members serving openly, minority recruitment tactics, and sexual assault scandals were factors in the board’s decision, Pride Executive Director George Ridgely told LGBT news weekly Bay Area Reporter.”

    Two out of three of these are irrelevant, and the other one… well you see what I just said. I don’t have information but I doubt I’d object to the military’s version should I hear it.

    I suppose I could consider Chelsea a shortened nickname, like with “Bill” Clinton.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      By that logic you should just make yourself be straight, find a nice girl and cut out this gay nonsense.

    • posted by Mike in Houston on

      “It’s Bradley Manning. Still has a d***, doesn’t have implants or a wig, hasn’t had a name change, and I’m off duty.”

      This kind of ignorant crap is bad enough from the anti-LGBT crowd, but has no place here.

      I don’t like or think that Manning should be afforded any sort of status, but as she IS a transgender woman, she needs to be afforded that amount of civil dignity at least.

      • posted by Jorge on

        Don’t confuse ire with ignorance.

        I’ve said this before, but I think the fact that Private Manning has betrayed this country and is in military lockup means there are certain things he is not entitled to. Being considered a woman as an act of deferrence toward his gender dysphoria when he has never transitioned before his arrest and confinement is one of them.

        This is important. The transgender rights community is supporting legislation (actually passed in some areas) that would permit them to change the sex assignment on their birth certificates, and without actually changing their sex. Meanwhile the false fears stoked by the religious right–that the transgender rights movement will lead to the dismantling of some of the most basic norms regulating the division of the sexes in areas where their privates are uncovered–appear to approach ever closer to reasonability.

        This is not about ignorance or false logic. When you give someone deferrence to someone’s gender identity in language when they have never done anything to transition or identity in life, when you eliminate the social requirement that one actually regulate their behavior within society’s sex-assigned roles, even if nothing more than seeing one’s social relationship with others, that heralds changes that are far more radical and for needs that are far too theoretical than I believe are beneficial for this country’s social stability and for the risks that people calculate for their safety.

        • posted by Jorge on

          “even if nothing more than seeing one’s social relationship with others”

          That needs a different example. Can’t think of the right one, though.

        • posted by Mike in Houston on

          Wow, that’s a whole boatload of privilege you just whipped out there… having set yourself up as the arbiter and gender police.

          Frankly, Jorge, I usually ignore your posts as they usually have all the coherency of a Palin word salad.

          I don’t confuse ire with ignorance here — ignorance can be dealt with through education and guidance… unfortunately, you’re displaying willful ignorance and there’s really little reason to do more than call it out as the BS that it is.

          I hope that you take some time, someday, and educate yourself about gender identity and gender expression — and the differences between them.

          • posted by Jorge on

            I don’t confuse ire with ignorance here

            …

            I hope that you take some time, someday, and educate yourself about gender identity and gender expression

            But unfortunately, you do.

            And you are trying to mask your encounter with a sincere irreconcilable difference by accusing someone of being “ignorant”. The first time I can excuse as a mistake. The second time is your own ignorance.

            Let me make myself clear: for all that Bradley aka Chelsea Manning may have an actual gender dysphoria in identity, I strongly, strongly believe that public acknowledgement of gender, and certainly of biological sex, should be based on, at a minimum, gender expression.

  3. posted by Doug on

    I think banning the National Guard is a dumb move. However, it was done to protest a specific policy the military has. The Texas GOP banned the Log Cabin Republicans simply because of what they are, i.e. gay.

    In my mind there is a big difference between banning a group to protest a specific policy and banning a group because of who they are. Policies can be changed. . . being gay cannot be changed despite what the Texas GOP wants to believe.

    • posted by Mike in Houston on

      Agreed that it’s a bone-headed move that frankly makes the rest of the LGBT community (outside of SF) look foolish.

      The SF Pride organization, like many in the “gayhtos”, often resembles more of a “Lord of the Flies” gathering rather than a true representation of the LGBT community.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        Agreed. Especially so soon after the repeal of DADT. I certainly wouldn’t have voted for this exclusion nor do I endorse it. This is also one small group in one city holding one event per year. The GOP policy is nationwide and ongoing and represented the agenda of all Republicans. It’s hardly the same.

  4. posted by Wilberforce on

    I’d like to know why. Maybe the national guard did something wrong. But of course we’re not given that info because the prime goal of the site is to bash liberals.

    • posted by CraigR on

      I’d like to know why. Maybe the national guard did something wrong.

      Or, if you could summon the strength, you could click on the MSNBC link.

Comments are closed.