SOB’s Grins & Grumps

Everything Between Heaven and Earth and Beyond

  • Copyrights and Contact

    Henric C. Jensen
    All images and Artwork are
    © 2006-2018 Henric C. Jensen

  • October 2022
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

  • Meta

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘discrimination’

GLB Hypocrisy

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 5, 2008

Jay Leno made a booboo – he asked actor Ryan Phillips to give his “gayest look” on national TV and the Gay Community is up in arms demanding Leno apologize. He did.

At the same time a Trans Man (female to male transsexual) is being referred to as “she” and lambasted as “damaging the GLBT’s chances of having Civil and Equal Rights by going public with being pregnant”, by members of the Gay Community. Here’s a quote that summarize the stance of some:

[I am] “caring deeply about what his act of self promotion has done to my fight for basic civil rights and the perception at large of our community.”

This comment is trans phobic.

Why? Because the the writer fears that the fact that a trans man choosing to become pregnant and going public with it, which might actually be good for other trans people, as well as people not yet aware that they are trans people, will adversely affect how the US public will see him (the Gay writer) and the Gay Community in general. It is fully comparable to a family disowning their Gay son, out of fear of what their neighbors and neighbors’ neighbors will be thinking of THEM. We all say that is homophobic. This Gay Man is doing the same with Thomas Beattie, and it is connected to Thomas being a trans man, pregnant and publicizing it. If he wasn’t there would be no story and no reason for the Gay man in question to fear that he will be perceived adversely by the general Public.

The hypocrisy of Minorities is sad.

Why are members of the GLB Community allowed to be this blatantly trans phobic while at the same time demanding that non-GLB’s apologize for perceived offenses against Gays?

I as a Trans Man have absolutely no difficulty seeing how “give your gayest look…” is offensive to Gays. However Gays apparently have great difficulties seeing that referring to a man as “she” is derogatory, offensive, and in this case trans phobic.

Posted in Transgender, Transsexual | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Holy Homophobic Crap!

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on March 25, 2008

Gay Rights

SUMMARY: Massachusetts‘ Jason Hair-Wynn, going to Ghana to fight AIDS, needed a new passport with his married name; the feds tell him to change his name back.

The U.S. State Department will not issue a new passport to an international AIDS educator under his married name, which is a hyphenate combining his and his partner’s surnames, Massachusetts newspaper The Sun Chronicle reported.

Jason Hair-Wynn married his partner in 2005 in his home state of Massachusetts, the only state that has legalized same-sex marriage. Hair-Wynn received a letter from the State Department saying the federal Defense of Marriage Act prohibits it from recognizing his new name. Under DOMA, only heterosexual marriages are recognized by the federal government.

Hair-Wynn intended to go to Ghana this summer for AIDS education and volunteer work but needed to update his passport to reflect his married name. While he has successfully changed his name with the Registry of Motor Vehicles and the Social Security Administration, he hit a roadblock with the federal agency.

“When I got the letter, I said, ‘I can’t even process this. This is legal discrimination. It is weird to get discrimination in writing,'” he said to The Sun Chronicle. He intends to change his name back and reapply for a passport. (The Advocate)

If you’d like to know more, you can find stories related to Feds deny passport to married gay man.
This is ridiculous, totally on par with the trouble British trans people had prior to 2003 when they eventually won the right to marry and have their gender changed in their birth certificates. This so outrageous that it’s silly. What does it really matter to the Feds what name the man wants in his passport, as long as one of them is the same as before. This is nothing pure sadistic discrimination on the part of the Federal Authority. He is legally married in the State of Massachusetts, his driving license has been changed to reflect his status as married. In what way is it any of the US State Department’s business? Really…?
I am pretty sure that if a heterosexual man wanted to adopt his common-law wife’s name as part of his surname to reflect his dedication to her without a marriage certificate, that wouldn’t be a problem for the Homophobes in State Department.
Holy Homophobic Crap!

Posted in Bigotry, Homophobia | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“Are Swastikas Offensive?”

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on September 23, 2007

There is a subtle difference between the Ancient, non-offensive Swastika:

and the distorted version the Nazis used:

If you look at old photos from the WWII you will notice that the Nazi Swastika is ALWAYS “at an angle” – this is the offensive use of the Swastika.

I think it’s important to know this difference and to be aware that it is only this swastika, and derivations of it in later times, that signify what Nazism stood for.

As always it is a matter of education and information.”

“It doesn’t matter at this point …what the swastika originally stood for … the common perception of the symbol today overrides any history prior to the Nazis.

I’m a firm believer that, in most cases, people are offended by things because they choose so be. But when there are so many who are to strongly offended, then yes, it earns the label of “offensive.” -“

“The line between where and when the swastika becomes obviously offensive does cross somewhere, even though I don’t think the line is so easily drawn. I think we have to go with the best we have: widespread agreement of its offensiveness, across many contemporary peoples and cultures.”

“I’m thinking, just because the Nazis distorted the original meaning of the swastika, doesn’t mean we have to.”

“I am not offended by a few scratches, I am offended by meaning.”

Five different people, five slightly different opinions.

The general consensus in that discussion was that, YES, the Nazi version of the Swastika is offensive to a majority of people.

A minority in that discussion wanted to have his definition of it as “non-offensive” elevated to general consensus presumably in the name of Free Speech. Because he doesn’t find it offensive, it is not offensive. Pretty weird coming from someone who purports to defend freedom of speech – trying to impose a dictatorship on the rest of us.

Is it offensive? Is it a violation of free speech to expect people not to use it in public?

“I am not offended by a few scratches, I am offended by meaning.”
“Well, […] – the Nazi Swastika carries meaningconnotations – for a majority of people born between 1933 and 1980 (I am going by when the youngest person I last spoke to about this, who could actually give a time line of the Third Reich, was born). That meaning is negative. In its “simplicity” it spells out genocide, hatred, discrimination, death, extermination, torture, racism, all things bad. That is what people “see” when they see a Nazi Swastika. They see the meaning, and they are offended – by the meaning it carries. The symbol carries that meaning and by removing the symbol, the meaning is removed.

To many of us, the meaning of the Nazi Swastika is a pure physical feeling of up-chucking, fear, anger – the knowledge that someone in that area is prepared to kill us. If it doesn’t have that meaning for you – good for you, but to claim that it doesn’t signal those things, and therefore is not deeply offensive, is just simple lack of imagination, compassion and a down right denial of historical facts, as well as denial of the impact that symbol had on people’s lives and still have.”

At least he is offended by the meaning of the symbol, even if he doesn’t get the connection between the symbol and the meaning of it.

There are some things society as a general entity find so abhorrent that it will legislate against them, simply because the mere existence of those things is an affront to human society. Promoting genocide is one of those things, racism is another.

In a modern society symbols that carry the meaning “genocide, hatred, discrimination, death, extermination, torture, racism” is automatically considered an affront to society, because those symbols cannot be used in any other or meaningful way, they cannot signal anything else.

Of course people have the right to hold views that coincide with the meanings of those symbols, and to speak their opinions – but to expect that they can do so unopposed by either society or the general majority seems a bit naive, or even claim that when they are opposed, they are being silenced is just so much horse manure.

Posted in Third Reich | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: