HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yorton@turtle11.rtsg.mot.com (James J. Yorton)
Subject: Re: The MOW Platform (was Re: NOTICE - Details...)
Reply-To: yorton@rtsg.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:27:45 GMT

In article <1ggpufINN917@plts.uucp>, tal@plts.uucp (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

...

|> 
|> This plank will be the most troublesome.  However, people must deal
|> with the fact that nobody is there for 100% of the platform.  At MOW87
|> most people didn't know there WAS a platform!  I don't think the
|> majority will this time either.  The platform is, IMHO, such a small
|> part of the march.
|> 

...

I disagree.  I think the platform is a big part.
After all, isn't the ultimate goal of the MOW to pass the
items on the platform?  This is why I raised the issue of transgender
clauses.  I view the MOW as the pre-game show, with the final
out coming when Bill Clinton signs the Federal GLB Civil Rights
Law, and signs that execute order dropping the military ban.

High visibility, pride, and unity are important too, but won't
protect you against discrimination.

Each item in the platform must be attainable.  I feel the transgender
clause is already covered under current civil rights.  Transgender
is defined to be transvestites and transsexuals.  Wouldn't transsexuals
be protected by laws banning gender bias?  And cross-dressing is
a form of expressing oneself and therefore protected under the
right of freedom of expression.  Again, why have just transvestites?
What about the leather community?  What about people who wear
earrings, or wear their hair in a pony-tail or Mohawk?  How about
high-school students who are banned from wearing certain clothing and
colors because schools fear they're a gang member?  There are many police
departments who prohibit their male officers from wearing earrings.
There was a kid in Texas who had a punky, little tail in his hair
and had to cut it off.

Whether it's cross-dressing or something else, these are all forms
of expression and have no business being a protected class in
a lesbigay civil rights bill.

The platform items must be defended.  I can give examples of
anti-gay discrimination:  Tracey Thorne, Keith Meinhold, Karen and
Sharon, Cracker Barrel Restaurants, to name a few.  This justifies
sexual orientation in the bill.  Can others give examples of 
transgender discrimination?  Answers like "transgender people are
people too and should be understood and protected" or
"we're not free 'til we're all free", will not get you a "yes" vote.
These are all questions your legislators will ask.  I've lobbied
unsupportive and supportive politicians before, so I know, and they all
have one thing in common:  They ask "Why should I support this?"
And someone is going to have to rattle off cases of transgender
discrimination, one, two, three, boom, boom, boom, to justify
having it in 4 of the 7 main platform items.

For this reason I feel that the platform contents are very important.

Jim
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Subject: Re: cobalt musings 2
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 15:26:12 GMT
Distribution: soc
Organization: (getting there)



Paul Bobbitt <paul.bobbitt@canrem.com> writes:
  >>Of course, I've noticed that many morning people seem 
  >>more peaceful in general than their night equivalents.
tovah@panix.com (Tovah Hollander, who is otherwise a really nice
person) writes,
 >Since you only see us in the morning, what do you expect?  Try
 >staying up past your bedtime some night -- you're in for a treat.

But then you complain at how we feel when you see us not at our
best, and furthermore our capacity for productive work is diminished
until we can recover our natural schedules.

Mara [up early and proud of it]


-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.
From: jefu@nmt.edu (Jeff Putnam)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: cobalt musings 2
Date: 19 Dec 92 14:50:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: nmt.1992Dec19.145024.15709
Distribution: soc
Organization: The Museum of Differential Geometry

In article <1992Dec15.4342.67726@dosgate> "paul bobbitt" <paul.bobbitt@canrem.com> writes:

>So much of the gay scene is in the nightlife.  It seems life doesn't 
>begin in the community until 11 PM.  My solution is to go to sleep at 
>7 PM and set my alarm VERY early.  I have been known to arrive at a bar 
>at 2:00 AM, just after waking up, when there's still a lot of action.

I used to go on day trips to the Adirondacks in winter when I lived in
Albany.  We would frequently leave quite early in the morning (meeting
at 4 or 5 wasnt uncommon), so I'd get to bed early and then get up
an hour or so earlier and catch the last hour or so of the bars (and
non-alcohol-establishment) before starting for the mountains.  Usually
I'd be wearing my "ready for winter mountains" clothes - lots of 
goretex and polypro - which certainly made a distinct fashion statement.

I did resist (perhaps unfortunately, though considering the normally
crowded state of the watering holes, probably not) wearing my complete
winter mountain drag - which would have added a spiffy polypro fleece
hat, a (relatively full) backpack, snowshoes and an ice axe to the
ensemble.  Oh, and I forgot the ultra-warm overmitts with the idiot
string (or whatever you call it - a cord that ties on to one
mitton, then runs up to a loop that goes around the neck and then
down to the other one - so they dont blow away in high winds if
you take them off) on them.  Of course it would have been a bit
warm with all of that on - but that might have given me an
excuse to unzip the goretex overalls down the sides - they unzipped
all the way down to my boots.






-- 
jefu <=> Jeff Putnam - New Mexico Tech <=> jefu@nmt.edu 
"Daffodils go Ping! and Oink! // They Really are alarming 
I'm scared of big geraniums // And I'm sure that Lilac's harming"
(Dr. Bertram X. Fegg)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: mhr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike Reaser)
Subject: Re: Soc.Motss.*
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:11:59 GMT
Organization: a stone mountain of Kudzu

In <1992Dec16.113234.23850@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:


>In article <1992Dec15.161939.27056@osf.org>
>coren@speed.osf.org (Robert Coren) writes:

>>In article <1992Dec15.012442.27914@macc.wisc.edu>,
>>anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

>>>soc.motss.politics.documents

>>>soc.motss.misc

>>The problem I see with this proposal is that these topics
>>overlap to such a degree that discussions started in one
>>(say .coping -- and, BTW, I'm with Arne in not caring for
>>this name) would "drift" into areas more within the scope of
>>another (say .politics).

>I await superior suggestions.

How about soc.motss.support?  If the intention for the group is that it
is a place where motssers can go for a "shoulder to lean on" (whether 
the problem is coming out, relationship issues, whatever), then wouldn't
"support" be a little clearer?

--
=======================================================================
 Mike Reaser, Hewlett-Packard N. Amer. Response Center - Atlanta
 Internet:  mhr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com
 NBCS: B4 f w g+ k s-               I barely speak for myself, so
 #include <standard.disclaimer>       don't make me speak for HP
=======================================================================
From: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Legos
Date: 18 Dec 1992 07:17:45 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bendenweyr

gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
|> mritchie@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael S Ritchie) writes:
|> |> If ya really wanna "wow" certain people with your toys, try
|> |> having a Twister party!  Around Christmas!  In front of a
|> |> roaring fireplace!  And, best of all, just invite that one
|> |> special friend!!
|> 
|> Sorry but Twister is certainly an N person thing, where I like
|> N to be in the hundreds, but then you need a lot of lube, and the clean
|> up, sheesh.

I agree.  In fact, if pressed, I'm pretty sure that I can come up
with documentation proving that I have done the Twister thing with
on the order of 600-700 people at once, and no lube!  Can anyone
beat that?

				...jim
From: jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Age-ism and the gay community
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:15:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Dec20.123132.19229@reed.edu> nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) 
writes:

>For that matter, why is all porn about 20 year old boys with no body
>hair and perfect gym muscles? *Boring*. Bear magazine seems to have a
>few models who are over 30, but still nothing like what I'm interested
>in. There has to be erotica/porn featuring "older men" - but where?

Umm, SuperStar Video on 18th Street near Castro?  If they have some, other
places must have some as well.  Have you tried mail order?

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton   jfh@netcom.com   P. O. Box 281107   SF, CA   94128-1107
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: brown@NCoast.ORG (Stan Brown)
Subject: Re: Pittsburgh, Pa
Organization: Oak Road Systems, Cleveland Ohio USA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:42:32 GMT

In article <71465@cup.portal.com> Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison) writes:
>Steve Dyer writes:
>>Get out of the wrong side of the bed today?
>
>I've become convinced that Arne's bed *HAS* no "right" side.

Luckily, we can key our kill files on the From: lines of articles.
-- 
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems                      brown@Ncoast.ORG
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Eternal life: a threat, not a promise.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: daniel@nstn.ns.ca (Daniel MacKay)
Subject: Re: GLAAD: Spike Lee Controversy
Organization: NSTN Network Operations Centre, Nova Scotia, Canada
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:54:51 GMT

>  Enter David
>Ehrenstein, the only African-American writing film criticism for [...]
>The Advocate
His open letter to Spike Lee in last month's issue is quite a beautiful
piece.  Not an extra word in the whole article and wonderfully focussed.
--
Daniel MacKay					daniel@nstn.ns.ca
Homo habilis					Nova Scotia, Canada
Xref: sparky soc.motss:51994 alt.politics.homosexuality:7867
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 12 Dec 1992 01:42:27 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

Again, please reroute followups to alt.politics.homosexuality 

owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
> 
> excuse me Walter, 

No prob...

> but you are missing the forest for the trees.
> Homophobia is institutionalised in our society

I still feel that this is an overworked and misapplied word.  A phobia
is a FEAR of something.  But homosexuals use it for 'fear', 'dislike',
or whatever.  Dislike of blacks just because they are black is racISM,
not racOPHOBIA.  Accusing someone of being afraid of you just because 
they don't find your sexual preference 'natural' only serves to add a 
sense of hysteria to the situation, and alienate furthur.  Should I call
a homosexual person who dislikes fundies fundieOPHOBIC?  Straight people
I know basically roll their eyes and turn off when the 'ohpobic' word 
starts getting thrown around. 

> excuse me Walter, 

No prob again...I haven't been addressed on a first name basis by a stranger
this much since I was in an argument with the Jehovah's Witnesses..:-)

> but your are missing the forest for the trees again.
> I am perfectly normal, absolutely ordinary as a matter of fact.
> Loving other men is my natural state, 

Is it a 'part' of you, or something you chose to do?  Is there any choice 
in sexual orientation, or is it just genetic, and in integral part of the
person? 

> except that you just said that homosexuality is not normal.
> what kind of message do you want to send?
> *That homosexuals are not normal but thats OK?*
> excuse me Walter, but thats not OK with me.

Your excused again...for me, it is *not* natural.  Neither is extreme
religious fundamentalism.  But I can be friends with a fundie, I can
accept that that is what they want to be, and are.  I don't have to 
accept their hard-line views to keep us from beating each other up
with tire irons.   

What exactly must be done for things to be *OK* with you?  If I accept 
your right to peacefully be whatever you want to be, but don't find it
'natural' or 'normal' or whatever you want to call it, is that OK? 
Or do I have to think a certain way for it to be OK with you?

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com

Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: jclander@texas.mitre.org (Julian C. Lander)
Subject: Definition of transgender
Followup-To: soc.motss
Reply-To: jclander@texas.mitre.org (Julian C. Lander)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:04:03 GMT

One of the points of discussion about the March on Washington
platform has been the inclusion of what are described as
transgender issues.  From context, it appears that 
transgender is a term which includes both transvestites
and transsexuals, and no one else.  

Can someone explain to me why the term exists?  I fail to
see a deep, fundamental, link between transvestites and
transexuals.

As I understand it, transvestites identify with their 
biological sex and dress, either occasionally or
permanently, in clothing traditionally appropriate to
the other sex.  (Slightly flippant query, born of
ignorance.  I know that male transvestites stereotypically
wear skirts and dresses.  Is there an equivalent for
female transvestites?  To the best of my knowledge, 
men's clothing on women is generally acceptable, at least
until they undress.  Or is it the style in which the 
clothing is worn and the attempt to remove the female
appearance, by, for example, minimizing the chest?)

Transsexuals, on the other hand, identify with the other
sex.  While pre-operative, they may dress in clothing
appropriate to the other sex, but that is a symptom 
(in the sense that the condition of transsexuality is
cured by surgery) rather than the principal (or only)
manifestation of the condition.

I do understand taht neither of these conditions (states?
I'm looking for a non-judgemental word here) is related to 
that of sexual orientation or preference.  The issue of
straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or what-have-you is
additional.  (And yes, I do know, vaguely, a lesbian
male-to-female transsexual, so the skeptics are assured
that they exist.)

I repeat my appeal: why is there an inclusive term?  Have
I made a mistake in my definitions?  Is there an underlying
unity of which I am unaware?  Does transgender include more
than these two?  

Thanks in advance for your input.

Julian C. Lander
jclander@mitre.org


Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon)
Subject: Re: That dead horse
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:54:32 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: soc.motss

In article <71787@cup.portal.com>, Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton
Madison) wrote:
> 
> Cl*yt*n Cr*m*r writes:
> >Ignorance, of course, is a homosexual's stock in trade, as
> >Mr. Adolphson so often demonstrates.
> 
> Migawd... and I thought Cr*m*r would never write anything I
> could so much as partially agree with!  (The first clause is
> clearly too sweeping, but the second is *beauty*! ;-)

Impossible.  There isn't a single hair to be found in that
second clause.  Clearly, the bear is hallucinating.

*X*
From: aberno@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Gay Child Molesters (Re: Youth Info Needed)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:30:06 GMT
Reply-To: aberno@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca

In article <1992Dec17.194356.3018@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil  
Ronzone) writes:
>  You are vile, your issues are vile, and I wish
>   a nasty death for you -- say, via rape by large Hell's
>   Angels. Then maybe you can get a whole new perspective
>   in life.

Oh Phil, Phil, whisper those sweet nothings in my ear again. You know how  
much I love those big, bad biker types...
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: source of the word 'faggot' (was: Hey Edgar!)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 18:03:40 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <BzFLK1.FuK@unix.amherst.edu> 
twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <1992Dec17.192331.25567@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
> mudge@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (MUDGE BRIAN WAYNE) writes:
> >  A far grimer possibility arises from the old punishment for 
> >homosexuality, burning at the stake.  Hence homosexuals were fit for
> >burning, therefore faggots.
>
> <raises hand>  Can I get off?  I think I've been on this bus before.

Amazing, isn't it?  I wonder how long it will be before
the black triangle nonsense starts up again.  (Yes, I 
noticed it here yesterday, and it was explained in an 
*almost* reasonable way, but even so....)  Anyway, I've 
done my part on this thread.

Say, do you think cigarettes became known as "fags" because
they're set on fire, just like gay men were set on fire?

Arne


Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: The MOW Platform (was Re: NOTICE - Details...)
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:31:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.015407.16075@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>Adding superflous or only vaguely related issues detracts from the
>real point of the march: gay rights. 

Is that the "real" and only point of the march?  Those who
are expending the energy to make it happen seem to be
taking a broader view.  

If you climb out of your gay box and try to place our gay
experience in a broader context, it becomes almost
impossible not to notice that we're talking about identity
politics.  Like other minorities and women, we don't face
disenfranchisement because of what we do, but rather who we
are.  Given that, it becomes obvious that our struggle
is the same.  And, if you try to advance the cause of only
one group without providing that kind of context, you run
the considerable risk of heading towards maintenance of
existing imbalances with a reordered hierarchy.  Ick.

>  Not that I would expect you to care; you've got your's [sic] after
>all.

I don't believe that Jake has ever claimed to be a libertarian.
--
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: arne@spdcc.com (Arne Adolphson)
Subject: Re: Top GLB Fiction
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 02:42:39 GMT

In article <BzG5Es.2vJ@stonewall.demon.co.uk> nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk (Nigel Whitfield) writes:
[ ... ]
>If you want essential reading, something with a little humour wouldn't
>go amiss. Perhaps either Tales of the City or one of the Joe Keenan
>books.

There's also Peter McGeehee (I know I misspelled that). 
"Boys Like Us" is wonderful.

Arne

Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi
From: emcmanus@gr.osf.org (Eamonn McManus)
Subject: US 1-800 numbers from the UK (Re: Key West Accomodation and Attractions ??)
Organization: Open Software Foundation Research Institute, Grenoble
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:13:15 GMT

rcrice@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (roger.w.crice) writes:
>In article <15DEC92.16494824@enh.nist.gov> aberson@enh.nist.gov writes:
[...]
>>Call the Key West Business Guild at 800-535-7797 (I assume one can call
>>such a number from the UK)...
>
> Unlikely.  In order for someone in a foreign market to call
> toll-free to a domestic business, that business would need
> to purchase an international toll-free number from a long-
> distance carrier in the foreign market, and that number
> would have to conform to the local numbering plan.  It
> happens that in the UK, toll-free numbers begin with 0-800,
> but it is unlikely that 1) the KWBG purchased such a number,
> and 2) that, if it did, it would match the domestic number.

Here's part of a message posted by jimmy@pyra.co.uk (Jimmy Aitken)
last April:

> In the UK, you can call 800 US numbers but they are not free.  If you
> call 0101 206 945 2111 and wait until you get a dialing tone (it may
> ring a couple of times) then dial the number as if you were in the US.
> e.g you'd dial: 0101 206 945 2111(pause)1 800 879 1199.

> This should work in most countries, by replaying the 0101 with the
> local code to get access to the US.  You pay for the call to the US,
> but not for the call within the US which is free.

,
Eamonn
From: gerkman@binky.csc.wsu.edu (Joseph M. Gerkman)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: long-term relationships...success stories, please...
Keywords: relationships long-term lengthy
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:21:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: serval.1992Dec17.022140.21531
Reply-To: gerkman@binky.csc.wsu.edu (Joseph M. Gerkman)
Organization: Washington State University


Hi all!

Thanks for all of the information about same-sex marriages, I got some of  
the information I was looking for, and am hoping that soon we'll be  
granted the ability to be legally wed (keep your eyes on Hawaii and  
Pennsylvania).  I'll keep you all updated if I hear anything more...
But I have another question for all of you...I kinda want to hear some  
success stories of long-lasting relationships...hopefully ones that are  
still going strong...I hope this doesn't sound silly...but part of this  
all came about because of an argument I was having with a friend recently.   
He basically said that gays can't and don't want to commit to one  
person...and I loudly disagreed (because that's all I want...and luckily I  
found someone who gave me the courage to come out and even though were a  
bit apart physically, we're still very close emotionally and soon we'll be  
moving in together...yeah!), but I'd like to be able to tell him that I  
know of quite a few who've been together.  And there are such  
relationships despite the fact that we aren't given the opportunity to  
enter into a formal commitment (i.e. legal marriage), which could be a big  
reason why such a stereotype exists.  [NOTE:  I do realize that some  
churches do marry same-sex couples and I'm also interested in those of you  
who did get married by the church and what denominations/churchs perform  
them]  I'm also kinda curious about some obstacles that have or might come  
up in a long-term relationships (i.e. neighbors, purchasing cars/a  
house/etc, insurance/benefits, family, co-workers, etc.), and how you both  
dealt with them.  



Joe Gerkman
gerkman@binky.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Roseanne and The "Faggot" Insult
Date: 18 Dec 1992 07:21:22 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bendenweyr

|> She said that she never wanted
|> the comment to be a public thing, unlike him, but that he made it a public 
|> thing.  And she appologized sorta, by saying that the insult wasn't
|> meant to insult gay people, it was meant only to insult him.

Whether or not you make it public, if you call someone a "faggot"
because *you* think it demeans them, then you are, in some sense,
homophobic.  However, it is possible to call someone a "faggot"
because you know that *they* will think it demeans them, and this
I would say is merely opportunistic on the oppression of others.

				...jim
Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi,alt.transgendered