Another week, another Republican sex scandal, this time involving Richard Curtis, a Washington state legislator who made the mistake of going to the police when he was blackmailed by a hustler. The police report revealed the married lawmaker liked to wear women's undergarments and such.
Chris Crain draws attention to the response by many activist stalwarts for lgbT rights in reference to said cross-dressing. Some examples:
Wayne Besen, who endorsed the "trans or bust" ENDA strategy and yet labels Curtis' sexual fetish as "f*cked up" and "perverted" ... Same for Pam Spaulding, who said about the blackmail victim, who she calls Richard 'Kink' Curtis: "Is there any end to the depravity of the hypocrites in the moralist GOP?" Dan Savage even throws in evidence mentioned in the police report that has no bearing on the case: "Lingerie, condoms, rope, stethoscopes-Rep. Curtis is a very kinky girl!"
So, who's the bigger hypocrite, a cross-dresser who opposes same-sex marriage or activists who celebrate gender transgression, except when they don't?
18 Comments for “Hypocrisy Exposed, But Whose?”
posted by Jorge on
I don’t know this guy, but I’m a little put off by anyone taking something about someone’s private life and making a mockery of it. Okay, so this is a gay sex scandal, but intimate cross-dressing is hardly just a gay thing.
I thought the whole point of sexual liberation was to take things that are odd, ostracised, but harmless and say “Hey, that’s okay!” “Kinky” behavior is probably the only part of that platform that’s moderate. We should not be promoting embarassment about that.
posted by The Gay Species on
Thank you for pointing-out the obvious. Is ENDA about ALL sexual minorities? Every paraphilia? Including exhibitionism? Pedophilia? Who conjoined gay and lesbian with trans?
The mass of DOUBLE STANDARDS by some of the Queer Community is breathtaking in its application. The alternative, which is the Queer Agenda, is NO standards. NONE? None. No “judgments.”
In what Queer world do Queer Theorists think of these silly, duplicitous ideas?
posted by Uhhhhhhh on
It’s “perverted” and “f*cked up” when you condemn certain behaviors and in fact make a living condemning such behaviors and then engage in the exact types of behavior you condemn.
Hope this helps!
posted by Brian Miller on
Partisan hypocrisy? Who’d have thought such things could exist? Surely, every criticism coming from the left and right is made with the purest of intentions out of a base of solid, principled commitment to the truth.
Is ENDA about ALL sexual minorities?
Nope. ENDA is about special rights for the politically connected, who want to see this meaningless law passed so that their party doesn’t lose the support of LGBTQ people as a result of that party’s complete lack of action on actual issues that matter — equal treatment under the law.
Pass a law making some queer folks “more equal” than others in society, while mixing in a big old heap of condemnation of the “genderfreaks,” and you might be able to peel off enough of them for yet another election cycle and avert an electoral disaster versus what would happen if discontented gay folks just sat out the election altogether.
Of course, I don’t think it’s going to be effective. We’ll see, won’t we?
posted by Brian Miller on
It’s “perverted” and “f*cked up” when you condemn certain behaviors and in fact make a living condemning such behaviors and then engage in the exact types of behavior you condemn.
By that measure, John Aravosis, Barney Frank and most of HRC’s board are “perverts” and “f’ed up” because they participate in government activities — and compromises — that are homophobic… while simultaneously condemning homophobia.
D’oh!
The reality is that the left is as capable of being transphobic (and homophobic) as the right.
posted by Marcus on
>>”Who conjoined gay and lesbian with trans?”<< Necessity did. Both lesb/gays and transexuals believe they should be judged based on their moral conduct as individuals, not on peaceful lifestyles or self-identities. If gays and lesbians shouldn't be discriminated against when looking for a job, why should a transexual be? And, if their goal is the same, why shouldn't they make a conjoined effort? "Is ENDA about ... [e]very paraphilia? Including exhibitionism? Pedophilia?". Oh, the slippery-slope argument, so commonly parroted by social conservatives. Interesting how this whole debate about transexuals and ENDA made some gays sound just like heterosexual conservatives. >>”ENDA is about special rights for the politically connected”<< Since some few secular heterosexual conservatives, such as Richard Posner, are capable of analyzing more deeply the issue of anti-discrimination legislations, it's interesting how some gay libertarians and conservatives are still stuck on the "special rights" mantra. If you must object to non-discrimination laws applied in private settings on the grounds that they violate some obscure and unproven "natural rights", that's fine. But since they are as well extended (and for much longer) to races, ethnicities, religions, gender, and body-ableness -- and they are as well available to a white male heterosexual protestant -- it's difficult to speak of them as special rights.
posted by Marcus on
>>”Who conjoined gay and lesbian with trans?”<< Necessity did. Both lesb/gays and transexuals believe they should be judged based on their moral conduct as individuals, not on peaceful lifestyles or self-identities. If gays and lesbians shouldn't be discriminated against when looking for a job, why should a transexual be? And, if their goal is the same, why shouldn't they make a conjoined effort? "Is ENDA about ... [e]very paraphilia? Including exhibitionism? Pedophilia?". Oh, the slippery-slope argument, so commonly parroted by social conservatives. Interesting how this whole debate about transexuals and ENDA made some gays sound just like heterosexual conservatives. >>”ENDA is about special rights for the politically connected”<< Since some few secular heterosexual conservatives, such as Richard Posner, are capable of analyzing more deeply the issue of anti-discrimination legislations, it's interesting how some gay libertarians and conservatives are still stuck on the "special rights" mantra. If you must object to non-discrimination laws applied in private settings on the grounds that they violate some obscure and unproven "natural rights", that's fine. But since they are as well extended (and for much longer) to races, ethnicities, religions, gender, and body-ableness -- and they are as well available to a white male heterosexual protestant -- it's difficult to speak of them as special rights.
posted by Marcus on
“Who conjoined gay and lesbian with trans?”
Necessity did. Both lesb/gays and transexuals believe they should be judged based on their moral conduct as individuals, not on peaceful lifestyles or self-identities. If gays and lesbians shouldn’t be discriminated against when looking for a job, why should a transexual be? And, if their goal is the same, why shouldn’t they make a conjoined effort?
“Is ENDA about … [e]very paraphilia? Including exhibitionism? Pedophilia?”.
Oh, the slippery-slope argument, so commonly parroted by social conservatives. Interesting how this whole debate about transexuals and ENDA made some gays sound just like heterosexual conservatives.
“ENDA is about special rights for the politically connected”
Since some few secular heterosexual conservatives, such as Richard Posner, are capable of analyzing more deeply the issue of anti-discrimination legislations, it’s interesting how some gay libertarians and conservatives are still stuck on the “special rights” mantra. If you must object to non-discrimination laws applied in private settings on the grounds that they violate some obscure and unproven “natural rights”, that’s fine. But since they are as well extended (and for much longer) to races, ethnicities, religions, gender, and body-ableness — and they are as well available to a white male heterosexual protestant — it’s difficult to speak of them as special rights.
posted by Brian Miller on
since they are as well extended (and for much longer) to races, ethnicities, religions, gender, and body-ableness — and they are as well available to a white male heterosexual protestant — it’s difficult to speak of them as special rights
As I commonly note when dealing with the left wing and right wing alike, continuous repeating of a lie (in this case, “nondiscrimination laws apply to everyone equally”) doesn’t make it true.
No less an authority than the Supreme Court has ruled that nondiscrimination laws cannot apply to a majority class, but ONLY a minority class.
In other words, racial discrimination laws only apply to minority races, and ENDA would only apply to gays. Thus, it is indeed special rights for only certain classes of people.
Further, my opposition to the entire thing arises not from debates about natural law, but from a thorough understanding of the Constitution. Who I work for, who employs me, and who I employ are all forms of association, and the Constitution guarantees freedom of association.
What ENDA and associated special rights laws do is overrule the right of heterosexual and gay people to affiliate with who they choose, voluntarily. Their affiliations shift from something that is mutually voluntary to something that is centrally mandated and regulated by the federal government.
Further, these laws are an abject failure. Leftists have long talked about “systematic oppression, racism, and sexism,” but the original special-rights “nondiscrimination” laws have been in place for over 40 years. They’ve failed to banish racism or sexism in the workplace and in compensation, yet leftists insist that the same failed path will somehow work if we try it again, for an eighth or tenth time, for gay people.
I believe it was Einstein who defined insanity as “trying the same thing, over and over, expecting different results.” By Einstein’s measure, many on the left are downright certifiable.
posted by Hank on
Brian, you said non discrimination laws have “failed to banish racism or sexism in the workplace”.
Respectfully, your standard is too high. Of course the civil rights laws haven’t “banished” those problems. We’re humans, we’re always going to discriminate.
But I don’t think anyone can look at the employment situation for blacks and women in America and say that it’s no better than it was in 1966.
How much of that improvement was because of the civil rights laws? I would guess some of it anyway.
posted by joe on
There is a distinction between “gender identity” and “sexual practices.” To protect gender identity does not mean we sanction all sexual practices. Just as there are objectionable heterosexual practices, there are objectionable homosexual practices and there are objectionable transgendered practices. If I suport “T” rights I can still reasonably and ethically object to hypocrisy and criticize “T” behavior that I believe to be objectionable.
I have not slogged through the 15 pages of the Curtis police report so I don’t know that he’s crossed the line of what I consider objectionable. Evidently, his behavior crosses the line for Wayne, Pam and Dan. So I don’t find the gotcha moment there that you and Crain do, and it doesn’t help move me towards your side of the ENDA argument.
On the blackmail, it is the law that sets up the opportunity for blackmail. So I think it reasonable to hoot and holler when one who votes to expand or keep in place those laws is victimized by them. Such reveling does not sanction the blackmailer. (And yes, Chris, a politician’s ultimate power is in his vote so “votes are enough” to make you “very anti-gay.” I dare say that he’d be vulnerable to both the blackmail and the hypocrisy charge even if he weren’t married, though married makes it all that much worse.)
It is my personal goal is to normalize gay, lesbian and transgendered people within the larger society. That is my goal both because I think it healthy for society-writ-large and healthy for the gay, lesbian and transgendered individuals within it. I believe that our laws play a very large structural role in blocking that normalization (and perpetuating the behaviors that I find objectionable) I owe it to myself and to my community to call out the hypocrisy that is part of the legal system that keeps that structure in place.
While your banner subhead would seem to suggest that we have some of the same goals, we disagree on how best to get there. In the end I don’t much care who’s right; I think the fact that both of us are trying to get there makes it more likely that we’ll succeed than if either of us was knocked out of the fight by the other side. So good luck to you, and may
the best manall of us win.posted by ETJB on
Well they are all hypocrites.
A gay politician, who also likes to cross-dress is as hypocriticial (given his record) as a ‘gay activist’ who claims to support the transgender community, but then calls a transgender politican a ‘prevert’.
posted by DCTA on
Brian Miller should read ENDA before making any further incorrect comments. ENDA protects agaisnt discrimination against heterosexuality. So if a gay business owner with sixteen employee (fifteen is the threshold for ENDA’s application) decided to implement a “gays-only” hiring policy, a hetero plaintiff could take the gay business owner to federal court and win monetary damages.
posted by Charles Wilson on
The “independent” (read: Republican) gays never cease to amaze me. It doesn’t matter that the legislator was a cross-dresser. He could have been dressed in chinos and an alligator shirt for all I care. Either way, he’s another anti-gay homosexual of the Republican variety. And that’s hypocritical.
If someone wants to be closeted, I think it’s their right. But if you’re in the closet and you use a position of influence or authority to hurt gay people, then you’ve stepped over the line.
And if you happen to do so in an especially flamoybant manner, a la Larry Craig, Matt Sanchez, Ted Haggard, and now Richard Curtis, you’d better be prepared for some ridicule, because you’ll deserve it.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
What does any of this have to do with being transgendered? Liking to have sex dressed up in frilly underthings does NOT make someone transgendered. Refusing to pay a whore after you’ve talked him into unsafe sex shouldn’t be one of the tentpoles of the GOP…but more power to ’em!
posted by Illinois Reader on
“Who’s the bigger hypocrite?” HMMMM. You can post that question in response to every similar national story (and you have) but you’ll get no closer to deep thought. Keep trying.
posted by Brian Miller on
Brian Miller should read ENDA before making any further incorrect comments. ENDA protects agaisnt discrimination against heterosexuality. So if a gay business owner with sixteen employee (fifteen is the threshold for ENDA’s application) decided to implement a “gays-only” hiring policy, a hetero plaintiff could take the gay business owner to federal court and win monetary damages.
DCTA should learn case law.
The Supreme Court has ruled that laws which protect a majority class are unconstitutional. In other words, laws that prosecute someone for firing a white male don’t pass the “strict scrutiny” test, and fail based on that basis.
Congress can pass (and the president can sign) the unconstitutional ENDA bill as it’s written, but it doesn’t mean it will be enforceable. SCOTUS precedent since the 1960s has been to strike down special-rights laws that “protect” a majority class, or limit them in such a way that they only apply to minority classes. It’s unlikely to change that long-held legal precedent.
Further, this dynamic of misinformation about how ENDA “applies to everyone” is indicative of a serious issue in the gay polity as a whole.
Either the people lobbying for these bills are so incompetent that they don’t understand basic case law and its impact on such an expansive measure, or they know full well that the measure hasn’t a snowball’s chance of surviving muster but choose to lie about it anyway to sway voters who don’t know a lot about the issue. Either way, the queer community’s got a serious problem if these are the people who claim to “fight for us.”
posted by ETJB on
“The Supreme Court has ruled that laws which protect a majority class are unconstitutional.”
Really? Please provide the proper case citation, with a good web link.
“the unconstitutional ENDA bill as it’s written,”
Again, neither of the two Libertarians here have been able to back up their claim that the bill (or similar bills) are unconstitutional.