The Cory Booker Spectacle

by on

Chaser:

Meanwhile, Democrats torpedoed the nomination of Patrick Bumatay, an openly gay man, for the 9th Circuit.

20 Comments

“Rent:Live,” or Where Have All the Drag Queens Gone?

by on

Last week’s live performance of the early ‘90s musical “Rent” on Fox TV made some changes to the original stage script by the late Jonathan Larson. Foremost among these, the character “Angel,” who Larson had written as a drag queen, was changed to a transwoman, which New York magazine’s Vulture site confirms.

In the original, Angel’s lover, Collins, referred to Angel as “he” in several pivotal scenes, including after Angel’s death, although in the original characters did use “she” when referring to Angel in drag.

As Vulture reports:

Again in an effort to fully establish Angel as a female-identifying character, Collins interrupted the bickering of “Goodbye Love” last night to express his sorrow: “I can’t believe she’s gone; I can’t believe you’re going,” he says, turning to Roger. In the original, he says of Angel, “I can’t believe he’s gone.”

There’s nothing wrong with having a transwoman as a character, but that’s not who Angel was. Collins, Angel’s lover, identifies himself a gay man who likes guys even if they like to cross dress.

A few years ago, a Fox TV version of “The Rocky Horror Show” cast a transwoman, Laverne Cox, as Dr. Frank-N-Furter, another character who was famously a drag queen transvestite and not, in fact, a transwoman. Which raises the issue of whether it is now too politically incorrect to allow presentations of gay men who are drag queens, even if that’s who they were originally meant to be.

As Andrew Sullivan wrote recently, “Contemporary transgender ideology is not a complement to gay rights; in some ways it is in active opposition to them.”

7 Comments

On the Taxpayers’ Dime

by on

And then there’s this. I believe future generations will look back on the defense—and celebration—of the indiscriminate killing of babies the way we look back on slavery (well done, Democrats, 2 for 2):

More. “Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million dollars in taxpayer funding every year. … They also receive many taxpayer dollars through the Title X family planning program. There is zero meaningful separation of staff, facilities, and operational costs at Planned Parenthood clinics between government-funded services and abortions.”

Washington Post from August 2017, “Planned Parenthood’s Virginia affiliate plans to spend $3 million to help elect Democrat Ralph Northam as the state’s next governor.”

15 Comments

The Covington Kids, Part 2

by on

The homophobic taunts shouted at the Convington boys received scant coverage. Andrew Sullivan writes:
Once the [Black Hebrew] Israelites figured out the kids were Catholic, they offered this about what appeared to be a picture of the Pope: “This is a faggot child-molester.” And this about Donald Trump: “He’s a product of sodomy and he’s proud. Your president is a homosexual. … It says on the back of the dollar bill that ‘In God We Trust,’ and you give faggots rights.” At that homophobic outburst, the kids from the Catholic school spontaneously booed […]

To put it bluntly: They were 16-year-olds subjected to verbal racist assault by grown men; and then the kids were accused of being bigots. It just beggars belief that the same liberals who fret about “micro-aggressions” for 20-somethings were able to see 16-year-olds absorbing the worst racist garbage from religious bigots … and then express the desire to punch the kids in the face.
The press failure on this and other “advance the narrative” stories has been monumental and driven by political bias:

24 Comments

The Covington Kids

by on

Imagine the coverage if the pro-life, MAGA-capped kids had shouted “faggots” and other insults at that black and Native American protestors, instead of what actually happened.

A better way:

9 Comments

Mrs. Pence’s New Job

by on

It actually does not bother me that Karen Pence, a traditionalist Christian, is teaching art at a conservative Christian school in Springfield, Virginia that does not accept homosexual behavior by students or teachers (or parents, it seems). The Pences aren’t saying that all schools should hold these views, whereas those who are protesting Mrs. Pence for her new teaching post seem to suggest that no schools should be allowed with these views.

Via Scopes: “The school does not explicitly bar gay, lesbian or bisexual persons from teaching there, but rather states that homosexual sexual acts (as opposed to same-sex preferences) are considered unacceptable “moral misconduct.” … It is a matter of subjective personal opinion, rather than objective fact, whether the ban on teachers’ engaging in homosexual sexual acts is tantamount to a de facto ban on gay, lesbian and bisexual teachers.”

I disagree with the views of the Immanuel Christian School, but I wouldn’t want to live in a country that did not allow conservative Christians, Orthodox Jews and others to have schools that comport with their faith traditions.

More. Apparently, some who have no problem requiring religiously pro-life taxpayers to help foot the bill for abortions, or with forcing nuns to pay for abortifacients for their employees, are upset that Karen Pence is teaching at a school that’s not accepting of LGBT behavior while receiving secret service protection.

More. Columnist William McGurn writes in the Wall Street Journal:

Now look at the Immanuel Christian School. Those who run it know they and those who think like them are the big losers in America’s culture war. All they ask is to be allowed, within the confines of their community, to uphold 2,000 years of Christian teaching on marriage, sexuality and the human person. …

[But] it isn’t enough for the victors to win; the new sense of justice requires that those who still don’t agree must be compelled to violate their deepest beliefs, whether this means forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide contraception or dragging a baker in Colorado through the courts until he agrees to make a cake celebrating “gender transition.”

Today’s militant secularists ironically resemble the worst caricatures of religious intolerance of early America.

10 Comments

Masculinity as Pathology?

by on

Leaving aside the woke Gillette ad brouhaha, a related but more high-toned controversy has erupted over the American Psychological Association’s labeling “traditional masculinity” as harmful and even pathological.

Gay men have various reactions to “traditional masculinity” since while growing up many were bullied and belittled for their perceived lack of masculinity, especially if their behavior and demeanor was, in fact, effeminate. Others, particularly those who came of age in the ’70s and early ’80s, may have fetishized and adopted the hypermasculine clone persona. But you don’t have to defend all aspects of “traditional masculinity” to conclude that the latest round of progressive and feminist-inspired critiques have gone overboard, and that often traditionally masculine assertiveness and even aggression have built and defended a robust, dynamic enterprise culture, while inspiring men to put their lives on the line to save others and to keep us free.

OK, a little snark about the Gillette ad, and an assessment by Jon Gabriel at Ricochet:

Jon Gabriel writes:

Promoting social issues can be effective marketing, but notice the difference. P&G’s female-directed ads make women feel better about themselves. The company tells women “you’re great just as you are” and tells men “you’re bad and need to change.” I’ve yet to complete my Marketing Ph.D., but I don’t think a message of “Women are revolting, buy Secret” would spike profits.

6 Comments