Blog killer

I was named a blog killer by a certain GallusMag, the anonymous person besides a blog that apparently exists to be a focus of hatemongery and to elicit and amplify negative response from various trans people and allies. (I suspect but can not prove that some of the negative response is also fabricated, with extensive use of sock puppets).

While the label is unfortunately undeserved it’s still nice to have!

Perhaps I should take this as a clue I should find the time to write more on other matters. I want similar labels from Islamists, US imperialist warmongers, Catholic irredentists, atheist irredentists, hardlne Marxists… oh, and copyright fundamentalists too!

Label in question:

(The linked blog is not the one described above. I will not link to hate speech).

5 thoughts on “Blog killer

  1. Thanks a lot, Erika!

    The first document is extremely interesting as it shows that some alleged reasons (including Raymond rag) are not reasons at all. Raymond was used as PR. A virtual condom with which Reagan lads screwed over trans.

    I would suspect that current TERF will file amicus briefs in this investigation. And that’s actually good because they will show their true colours on the issue, a brand of totalitarianism quite convenient for conservatism. But it also should be well rebutted. With the Obama admin, openly right wing contributons like Pacific Justice are unlikely to get far, but alleged feminists would get more review.

    I have in fact just publicly, in Twitter, made Elizabeth Hungerford aware of this link. You might criticize me for it but I think she is smart enough to use google, and civilized enough to debate with, even if her views, in their desire to subjugate people’s lives to an extreme ideology, sometimes remind one of Stalin (or perhaps Lenin, who was a lawyer like she is). And note their known tactic of submitting claims at the last moment so no one can reply to it – if they resort to it now they won’t be able to claim they did not know of it before.

  2. Thanks, Mikhail! I appreciate your response!

    As I understand, however, despite what the some of the news sources are reporting, this decision by the DAB doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the Obama Administration. None of the Board Members, who vote on matters regarding challenges of Medicare coverage, were appointed while Obama has been in office:

  3. On Hungerford’s implication that insurance companies won’t cover SRS because they won’t cover cosmetic procedures, I just found out a plan on the federal exchange in my state excludes all transition-related care, including SRS, but it lists it under the “reconstructive surgery” exclusions, rather than the “cosmetic surgery” exclusions–both lists are in the exclusions section. So it appears that one insurance company doesn’t consider it cosmetic. As well, the plan says the following: “Although the Policy covers most necessary medical expenses, there are some expenses that are not covered.” Note the use of the key word “most.” I’d say the exclusion for trans-related care is entirely arbitrary and is based more on common industry practices than on whether it is medically necessary or not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s