How dumb does Gary Glenn think we are?

Ruth JohnsonAs dumb as he is, apparently. Ruth Johnson, Republican candidate for Michigan secretary of state, recently tried to match her opponent Paul Scott prejudice-for-prejudice by declaring that she also doesn't support allowing transgender citizens to have their gender officially changed on their driver's license. Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, who previously suggested that states should criminalize being gay, offers his thoughts:

"In an era of identity theft and national security concerns, we're glad that Ruth Johnson has now joined Rep. Paul Scott in expressly stating her opposition to the Secretary of State policy of allowing men to falsely identify themselves as female on their state-issued driver's license, and vice versa," said Campaign for Michigan Families chairman Gary Glenn.

"The people of Michigan should at minimum be able to trust their state government to tell the truth, not enable certain individuals' psychological and emotional delusions by officially and legally identifying them as something they biologically are not. We urge all candidates for Secretary of State to let voters know where they stand on this honesty-in-government issue."

Whatever gender you may identify as, this doesn't mean that you're identifying as someone else. Your identity, regardless of gender, is your own, not that of another person. So where exactly does "identity theft" enter into this? Whose identity is at risk of theft? And how is it truthful, honest or trustworthy for the government to designate a female-identified, female-presenting woman as male? That's not even accurate, let alone honest. It's just confusing, and it doesn't foster any kind of trust when the law refuses to recognize citizens for who they are.

Acknowledging the reality of gender and its nuances, and by extension, the genuine identities of trans people, is a responsibility of the government. Indulging the ignorance and discomfort of people like Gary Glenn is not.

Filed under , , ,

6 responses to How dumb does Gary Glenn think we are?

  1. Hotlavatube says:

    They're just trying to protect their poor conservative senators who fall victim to the seduction of transvestites. After all, everyone checks eachother's drivers license before knocking boots. You STOLE their heart pretending to be Jeannette Helmes, when you're really John Holmes, and you made them question their own sexual IDENTITY. For shame, rocking their ideological model. They need to immediately label you accurately so that you can be efficiently disenfranchised.

  2. Peython says:

    And of course they don't even mention FtMs, genderqueers, or other gender variants. Why do we need to have set things that people can do, say, wear, and act out based on a doctor's look between your legs? I think we should completely get rid of 'legal sex.' There is no point to that other than telling people what is or was between your legs. My genetalia is none of the government's business, or the DMV's, or even my school's. It is the business of myself, my doctor, and that of any sexual partner/partners I may have. Why does anyone else need to know if I have a penis, a vagina, or something else? Why does it matter? Although I might be a little biased, myself being transgender. But then again, I know what it's like to have others define you as something you're not based on 'bits and bobs.' It sucks. Quite a lot. And it hurts, too. Why can't these ignorant assholes consider the needs (yes, needs) of others that don't interfere with their needs. And being comfortable with what others truly are is not a need. Thank you.

    • Jackal says:

      You don't have to be tg to not want to be defined by your sex organs. I happen to be a woman, but I want to be treated like a person. My sex organs have no part in 99% of my social interactions, so why should they dictate how I behave or how I am treated?

      • isaac says:

        are you speaking of how you would want the world to be? when you say 99% of your social interactions are completely unrelated to your sex organs, i can only think of this statement of being false. You were raised by your parents as a woman. Which means (excluding exceptions) you imitated behavior of people with whom you identified with, this being your mother, your sister etc. In your school you probably wore a skirt sometimes because that is what most girl that age would wear. Furthermore, this apparel wearing concept becomes even a dilemma in the way that a competition might have unfolded as to which girl would put on the shortest of skirts or which would be more conservative in their overall appearance. This has continued throughout your whole life-i presume- to one extent or another, and it is merely a tiny freckle of the iceberg that is human interaction, which i really haven't gotten into.

        When you meet someone for the first time, the first thing you do is you see them (excluding exceptions, once again). This means that you start to know that person the instant you lay eyes on him or her. You make judgments about the reality of that person. Not judgments about clothing or hairstyle or any of that at first. Since we are constantly verifying that what we see (what we perceive) is real, the train of thought that I'm describing is something like the following :" I see that person, that person has brown hair, that person is a little taller than me, that person has clothes..." ad infinitum. Simple statements of what our eyes perceive. You may remember having thought these kinds of things when you were younger, but as you grew older, as you repeated this experience countless times, you began to automate this process as you start to learn the nicks and nacks of social interaction, bumping this whole train of thought into the subconscious, where your bike riding skills also are.

        If you examine a conversation between 2 strangers on omegle, this 99% zero-gender rule may apply. And even still if you do get to a point in the conversation where one or each's gender is revealed, the conversation will typically stir away from some topics or zoom in on others. This is because even though there are people who like to converse for the sake of learning and interacting with other people, the reality is that everybody has other needs and desires.

        If every man and woman would put on a jihab (i had to google that) and started trying to interact with each other, say they use a voice altering device and put on very black sunglasses, the social interactions that would follow would be hindered in the sense that they are not sharing their visual aspects of each other. The genders may eventually surface and, as stated before, the conversation would change courses. If in the case that the gender remains unknown, then what was the point of the conversation at all? Let's say that its someone you come to despise because of his or her ideas and you really don't care what gender that person turns out to be, and you just want to cut the conversation and insult him or her, still there was no point in it at all. Because if it were you and me under the jihabs then the conversation we just had was a conversation between two arrays of concepts and not two people.

        We are limited by our human condition. I firmly believe that there should exist more channels where people's bodies have nothing to do with their minds (a.k.a internet) but I also believe human growth simply cannot come from this kind of interaction. You can choose to live in a desert, miles away from anyone else, but to be human is to be a social entity, and therefore, any human will only feel gratification or satisfaction if he or she somehow manages to connect with at least one other person.

  3. Will Hart says:

    The conservative (close-minded) nature of our mostly religious (delusional) population guarantees that they will never be able to have the simple Life code that a kind atheist like myself will have.

    Simply put, I treat people according to the way they personally identify, and the way they behave.

    I used to think I was just attracted to women; but I realized as the years went by, that I am attracted to femininity. And I treat those who present themselves in a feminine way with a more gentle kindness than I do the guys around me. I don't worry about what those I've met have between their legs (or what they may have had there before), I just enjoy their company.

    And I treat those who identify in a masculine way, as, "one of the guys." I'm not personally attracted to guys; but I also don't ask them if they've always been a "guy."

    I've known all types of people Androgynous, M, F, MtF, FtM, as singles, and as couples, and I've always been happiest, when they are happy; and it always makes people happy when they are respected for being the person/gender they feel they are without it troubling others.

    I will add, that I find it interesting to look into my own psychology when I'm around androgynous people. I wait for them to lean towards feminine or masculine moments so I can respond to whom they are at the moment. I'm physically drawn toward the feminine moments, and feel like treating them more like "one of the guys" when they lean towards the masculine. Either way. It, like everything I've said above, is more about me trying to respond in a respectful way to the people around me.

    And that is something the Christian Gary Glenns of the world will never understand with their intolerance for everyone that isn't just like them.

    Will

    ps
    ZJ, I think you are fascinating!

  4. Hey that's an old Sarah Connor how she had been if the Terminator hadn't travel back to try and kill her.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>