Saturday, March 17, 2007

On Outing an Audience Member

I wanted to point you to a good story on the CRC's meeting last week. Josh Lynsen from the Washington Blade, DC's main gay news source, was there, and took good notes.

I reported on this after the meeting, but Lynsen has more:
Jacobs and Sprigg fielded several questions at the meeting’s end including one from a curriculum supporter.

Matthew Murguia, who is gay and works at the National Institutes of Health, asked Jacobs to explain several points, including why she touts “that HIV and gays are together” when 65 percent of all AIDS patients in Maryland are straight.

Jacobs replied by outing Murguia, who had not revealed in his comments that he is gay. She also noted her data was taken from the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention.

“Whatever is necessary for him to say to match his gay agenda, he will say,” she said. “And I have been very careful to stick to the CDC ... because I’ve known that there would be concerns.” Md. school board faces ‘trial’ on sex ed curriculum

Now ... Dr. Jacobs response epitomized the concept "dumb." Because Matthew is gay, everything that comes out of his mouth is "his gay agenda." Never mind that he is a high-ranking official in the AIDS research office of the National Institutes of Health -- he's gay, and that's all that matters, that is sufficient to disregard everything he says.

In this case, he listed off several things that she had said in her talk that were ... just ... plain ... wrong. And she knew it. She had lied, he called her out on it, and so that was The Gay Agenda at work.

The Blade reporter talked to Dr. Jacobs after the meeting.
After the meeting, Jacobs said she outed Murguia partly because “he’s very annoying to me.”

“I believe that as part of his gay identity, he is defending his gay agenda,” she said. “And so I felt at that point, when he’s attacking me with everything he’s got, to do it without saying he’s gay ... I think is disingenuous and wrong.”

Jacobs, who said she treats gay patients, insisted her objections to the curriculum do not make her homophobic.

The Blade is obviously implying otherwise.

Can you imagine being her patient, telling her the things that horrify you about sores on your genitals, your fears of dying, the stuff you've done with your lover, and then seeing her repeat it on live TV, streaming on the Internet, talking to the Board of Education?

One other thing: the word homophobic. I saw Jahn Garza recently say it's not a scientific term, and it shouldn't be in the curriculum. Like, they care so much about science all of a sudden.

If "homophobic" were to be taken eymologically, literally, it would mean "fear of sameness." It doesn't. It means hatred of gays. You can criticize the dictionary-writers for putting the word in there, or complain about people who make up words without carefully considering their origins. But the fact is, it's just a word. "Racism" isn't an ism, either, there's no Manifesto or philosophical society that maintains that belief system. Neither is "terrorism." "Discrimination" just means that you see the difference between two things. "Ugly" doesn't necessary have to do with your facial features.

Hey, for that matter, "liberal" doesn't really mean somebody who values individual liberty and self-determination -- but they use it that way.

"Homophobe" may not mean what the CRC wishes it meant. That don't mean they ain't one.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

After the meeting, Jacobs said she outed Murguia partly because “he’s very annoying to me.


I feel sorry for her patients. What a bigot she is. I only hope her patients find out how she really is and run for the hills.

Her sense of decency is horrible. Imagine what she does to her patients who are gay and what she says to others about them?

She lied and she got caught in her lie publicly so she resorted to what she does best making people who are gay look like dirt under her feet.


March 17, 2007 7:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If we follow Dr. Jacob's logic, she will have to identify her own sexual orientation every time she opens her mouth so that folks won't assume anything about her. I do not recall ever hearing her say whether she is straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, questioning, or asexual. I also do not recall her ever saying whether she is a transgender.

And what gives with Peter Sprigss and his statement that he was not an "ex-gay?" I still can't figure out why it took him so long to publicy clarify this for everyone. I was also taken aback by the fact that when he did announce it, he made a joke out of it, as if he would have been ashamed to be an "ex-gay." Did anyone else notice this? So much for respecting those you represent!

March 17, 2007 10:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was one of the "seventy five" people who were there. Peter Spriggs said something like, "I'm not an ex-gay, I'm what's called an everstraight." I think he may have thought it sounded macho, but if you're gaydar didn't go off you weren't paying attention.

Anyway, how ironic was it to have the guy from PFOX bragging that he's not an ex-gay?

March 17, 2007 11:11 PM  
Blogger grantdale said...

Jacobs ... insisted her objections to the curriculum do not make her homophobic.

Well, I agree Dr Jacob.

It's actually your attitude that makes you homophobic.

And it is that anti-gay attitude that makes you object to the curriculum.

Two steps, instead of one. Same end point.

We can also know -- "whatever is necessary for her to say or do to match her anti-gay agenda, she will say and do."

If it includes outing someone in order to slur their name or avoid answering the question -- she do it. If it includes misleading her professional collegues when gathering a petition -- she'll do it. And if it includes insulting the intelligence of people with her select "CDC data" -- she'll do it.

March 18, 2007 2:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Washington Times article posted by digger states the threat to freedom loving Americans: "...the project has had the effect of uniting conservative Christians and Muslims..."

There are conservative Christians and Muslims who would rather live under religious law than secular law. While this article is about England, there certainly are American conservatives who seek to change our secular laws to include religious beliefs. Some even want to amend the US and various State Constitutions, including Maryland's, to deny full civil rights to lgbt citizens. These conservatives pose a threat to our American way of life.

We must support the US Constitution and Bill of Rights from attack by those who would turn our democracy asunder.

March 18, 2007 12:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gee, Grantdale, you took my thoughts and words right out of my mouth (as the saying puts it: "great minds run along the same tracks" lol) I had composed a similar response to the ridiculous and immature remarks made by Dr. Jacobs but read your comments first. I must say though, I have a lot of pity and concern for the doctor's unhealthy state of mind. I would suggest that she contact a colleague (who is a member of the A.P.A.) and get some counseling. Her paranoia about being attacked by a "gay agenda" is astounding! Oh, well...if she is the best that the CRC folks have to represent their views to the media and parents of MCPS, perhaps there isn't a lot to worry about. The majority of parents who have children in M.C. schools will see right through her little game!

March 18, 2007 5:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home