My article on The Rise of “Transgender” at the Bilerico Project

I continue to hear from a small group that the transsexual community fell victim and was assimilated into a “transgender Borg collective”. They claim that transsexuals never wanted to be allies in a diverse community of people of non-cisgender history, experience and/or expression. They claim that real transsexuals never want non-transsexual people to regard them as being anything but just another cisgender person. They frequently claim that non-transsexual people came up with the idea of carving out some third sex that would come to represent transsexual people:

A major faction of the transgender dictatorship seeks the deconstruction of the dichotomy of human sexuality and abolish the sex binary of male and female to suit a minute portion of the population and to create a legal classification of persons other than female or male that some call a third gender (sex)…

Recently I’ve felt it important to begin publishing what transsexuals had to say about engineering what would become known as the “gender community” in the 70s and early 80s and become the “transgender community” in the late 1980s.

Here is what is purported to be our nation’s first national transsexual rights organizations had to say about building a community of people of non-cisgender history, experience and/or expression in order to fight for common purpose:

Looking Toward the Future

by Cynthia Platt

1972

As TAO secretary I would like to discuss how a transexual should approach like – both before and after surgery. Firstly, the transexual must give some thought to the future, and what kind of a life the person wants to live. Most pre-operative and many transvestites want to have surgery, but being a “post-operative transexual” also isn’t all there is to it. It also means trying to find acceptance in society as a normal happening – a member of a true third sex. We must all work towards improving the legal aspects of our lives, and try to end the attitudes which will not permit us to be teachers or nurses. Someday we will have more access to the political structure and take part in it as candidates and seek elective offices.

In order to do all of this, we must co-operate with each other, and not turn against each other in our desperation. The TAO is one of many organizations helping all transexuals and transvestites, and is all of us can join together there goals will be accomplished sooner. We should also reach out to non-transexuals so that can understand us better.

The reason so many transexuals become drug addicts and suicidal is not only because the rejection be society but that government services are also often denied to us – help of any kind. There are government programs for addicts, alcoholics, mentally retarded, physically handicapped, but really none for us and some of us need the help. Transexuals and transvestites have a lot of talent which society has lost because society will not let us in political affairs, but prejudice denied me a complete education and the super-discrimination against us is far worse than that against people because of their race or religion It might seem impossible that we will ever overcome these prejudices. I hope that in the near future there will be many collective efforts for those who would like to achieve greater status in society and we can help build one to provide many services for our people.

As you read the above statement, think about what you’ve head from the transgender community over the past 20 years. TAO was our nation’s leading transsexual organization and eventually spread into several other countries. In fact, Stephen Whittle was very active with the British chapter of TAO. 
 

Historical Document Disclaimer:

As I continue to publish historical documents relevant to the debates going on around the term transgender, I will include this disclaimer in hopes that it will cut down on having my position strawmaned to death.

The ideas found within the transgender community came from somewhere; they didn’t magically pop into existence on January 1, 1990. My intent in posting these historical documents is to dispel some historical inaccuracies some within the TS-not-TG group continues to popularize. I continuously find ideas that are purported to have originated within the so-called “transgender Borg”/“slave master” community sometime in the early 1990s and which was then supposedly thrust upon an unsuspecting transsexual community were in fact, championed by transsexuals leaders prior to 1990.

I find that I agree with practically everything those in the moderate TS-not-TG group claim with one exception. Many assert that the “transgender umbrella” idea doesn’t refer to a group of unique allies who find unity in a common cause; rather, many in the TS-not-TG group simply assert that the term “transgender” robs all transsexuals of their unique experience. In fact, most transsexuals do not feel that the we should be segregated away from all of our allies in our continued fight for equality and, as these historical documents continue to reveal, transsexual people of history do not see a need to rip the transsexual community away from other communities to go it alone.

For a view that very closely resembles my own views on this issue, check out The Death of the “Transgender Umbrella” by Mercedes Allan. My reservations about this article are summed up nicely within the comment section by Dr. Jillian Weiss:

Great article, but you can’t create a movement to "not be transgender." Critique is valuable, but by itself, it can only alter an existing movement, not build one of its own. Movements have to be for something. If we could create a viable "transsexual movement," I’m for it. But it is unlikely that such a movement can occur at this point in time. Very unlikely. Although I agree with the idea on a theoretical basis, I don’t think it will ever go beyond talk.

So, if you take Allan’s article and combine it with what Weiss had to add, you’d have an almost perfect representation of my views concerning the TS-not-TG debate.

On April 9, I posted on my FaceBook that I thought the new J. Crew ad was kinda cool. At the time, not many people cared enough to even comment:

Actually, I hadn’t even heard of it until a right-wing asshat media organization put out an APB:

Then, on April 11 – taking their cues from the right wing as usual – Fox News began dutifully pushing right-wing propaganda under the banner of “news”:

Fox allowed Dr. Ablow to rant on and on about how allowing boys access to feminine styles will mentally cripple them. Ablow – who pushes a lame pop psychology technique called “street therapy” – is not, in fact, a psychologist. He was actually trained in forensic psychiatry, NOT gender or sexual theory.

On April 13, ZJ had his say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn_1jReD99E

Finally, after Ablow’s comments were picked up by other news outlets, the Daily Show with John Stewart called BS.

Now there’s a FaceBook event called Paint Your Nails Pink scheduled for 4/22/2011 in which about 6,000 people – men and women – will paint their toes the dreaded color neon pink:

After all the hullabaloo, I thought I’d do some of my own fact-checking. The issue here is that a forensic criminal psychiatrist claims that allowing boys feminine expression will cripple their masculinity. Lets see…

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Well, obviously wearing a dress and having log hair didn’t destroy FDR’s sense of gender identity. How about…

Ernest Hemingway

Well, apparently wearing a dress and having someone curl his long hair didn’t seem to break Ernest Hemingway’s gender identity either.

Maybe the issues is that these men of yesteryear were somehow impervious to having their gender identity destroyed by expressions of femininity. Maybe the men of today are somehow psychologically frail.

So, lets look at how a modern man might express his gender if he’s exposed to neon pink and painted toenails:

Neon pink and painted toes

Hrm… well that seems odd.

It’s kinda looking like a forensic psychiatrist might not know jack about gender theory and was simply using the weight of his credentials to pass off his personal bias as actual science. Kinda seems a little unethical to me.

In any event, it doesn’t seem to matter now because J. Crew seems to have caved to the right-wing and pulled the ad which used to be located here.

I give up. I’ve tried time and time again to dialogue with those in the transsexuals aren’t transgender camp! Every time I try to instigate a dialogue, they flip out.

First, I notice that the TS-not-TG camp loves to segregate the trans community into a TS/IS (IS = intersex) camp and crossdressers + everyone else is into some other camp that can never be associated with TS people. I thought that this was funny because some non-Houston IS people freak out when TS people try to group  TS and IS people together.

Part of a reply to a segregationist blog

Currently Ashley Love is the leading apologist for the segregationists. She rails against people who dare refer to those whose history violates cultural gender stereotypes as being transgender. She literally believes that doing so is “assault and sexual objectification.”

I’ve tried over and over again to engage this segregationist group in dialogue and I guess today I finally have had enough of trying to talk to them. They’re exactly like trying to talk to a young-earth creationist fundi. Today, I once again tried to reach out to this group and, for the last time, had the door slammed in my face:

Ashley Love's FaceBook post

Here’s what I wrote to her:

From what I can gather, you feel that including transsexuals under the term transgender, “… de-medicalize women of transexxual history…”

How does having one word to identify all whose history violates cultural gender stereotypes somehow erase the existence of the small mountain of mutually supportive studies which shows that transsexualism is a medical issue? Where are these “transgender” people who are going around denying that transsexualism is a biological issue?

When I read the things you post, I just don’t understand. I’ve spent time reading pro-segregationist writings and I just don’t understand. Transsexuals, crossdressers, intersex people, gender queer people, etc are all different. There’s no question about it! Transsexualism is a biological issue and we have a number of studies to support that conclusion. Gay, Inc doesn’t have the best interests of transsexuals in mind; they’ve thrown us under the bus time and again.

I don’t hear people arguing any of these points. I think we agree on all these points. What I don’t understand is why the answer to all of these problems is to blame a word and to claim that those who use this word in a context consistent with the English language are the problem. I just don’t get it and I’ve not yet met one pro-segregationist that’s been willing to actually talk about it. Instead, most of you use any opportunity for dialogue as an opportunity to PWN or claim to be victims – not of the right wing – but of those who use the word “transgender”.

I made the video mocking the pro-segregationist stance because it continues to seem like nothing more than a paroxysm of histrionics propped up by one logical fallacy after another. Perhaps my view is incorrect, but until at least one person from the anti-transgender camp is willing to talk about it in a way that’s reasoned, my view can’t change.

The last time I tried to talk to someone in your anti-transgender camp, they claimed that I “beat off while wearing womens cloths” and didn’t say anything after they found out that the drag community regularly raises funds (thousands upon thousands since 2008) for transsexual surgeries in Houston.

The last time I asked you to expound on your ideas you simply deleted my post instead of sharing your thoughts. I’m asking that this time you please consider the possibility of entering into some kind of a dialogue.

At the very least, PLEASE answer is one question: What one word would you use to talk about everyone whose history violates cultural gender stereotypes? Obviously you don’t like the word “transgender” so, what word do you use that captures absolutely everyone who can’t fit the stereotype of what all men and women are supposed to be according to the culture we live in?

Seriously, each time I try to talk to any of you, you fly off the handle. So, would you – or ANYONE in the anti-transgender camp – please, please, please consider being open to a dialogue? Through PM, email, video chat, phone call… ANYTHING… Just, please consider a dialogue?

Here’s what her response was:

Dialogue? Deletion is apparently easier.

Yup, she simply deleted my post… Just like she did the last time I asked to start a dialogue. Yes, that’s right. She’s deleted my questions before… Hence my bright idea to screen capture it before she had a chance to continue pretending that those who think like I do won’t listen to her or the group she represents.

While she wasn’t interested in talking about the mud she enjoys slinging, she was interested in sending me a PM to inform me that I offended her:

The offence PM

Here’s my reply:

Your PM perfectly exposes the need for more dialogue. When I read what you write, it absolutely comes across as being anti-transgender to me. That’s why I again attempted to reach out to you. Would you rather me continue thinking that you hate transgender people if that (as you seem to be saying) isn’t the case? The things you write do come across *to me* as being anti-transgender. Apparently that’s not your intent when you post the things you do, but it certainly comes off that way to a number of people, myself included.

Bad mouthing you? I’ve never once name-called or said anything that I didn’t just post on your wall. I’ve certainly mocked what I currently understand to be the platform of the TS-not-TG group because everything I’ve encountered thus far from your side seems to be nothing more than vitriolic hyperbole. I’ve tried over and over to talk with anyone in the TS-not-TG camp and they have always broken down into personal attacks or they simply end the dialogue.

As I said, your PM is a perfect example as to why there needs to be some sort of dialogue started. Since you’ve just said that you’re not anti-transgender, I don’t understand what your concerns are. If you asked me what I think your concerns are, I’d say that from what I read, you think transgender people have somehow stripped you of your identity, are apparently lying by claiming that transsexualism isn’t a medical issue and that transgender people are standing in the way of equality. Maybe this isn’t what you actually mean, but it is precisely what I – and many, many others – get when we read your posts. If I am (and there’s every possibility that I am) misunderstanding your issues, PLEASE correct me. This is precisely the reason I’m putting all this time and energy into trying to dialogue.

Would you be willing to continue a dialogue? If not, can you refer me to someone who shares your views that would be willing to dialogue?

You seem like a really intelligent, passionate and articulate advocate. I’m attempting to engage you in a dialogue because I’m hoping that you won’t simply call me a bunch of names and end a dialogue.

Of course I have questions and of course I will question the logic behind your statements because I want to understand. I really hope that you would do the same! Just because I question your logic doesn’t mean that I’m questioning you, your identity or your truth. I simply want to understand. Believe me, I hope that the TS-not-TG camp won’t turn out to be what I currently think it is. Currently, the TS-not-TG camp is an embarrassing to me. I currently view the TS-not-TG camp as being so blinded by their own transphobia that they actually think that our oppressors will gift us rights if we can just get them to view transsexuals as being “normal” (because, after all, we’re suffering from a medical issue – unlike those funky crossdressers) – that it is a smart move to tether our right to equality to the ever changing notions of normalcy; that the TS-not-TG folks are transphobic in the same way that the Mattachine Society was homophobic. Maybe this perception is all wrong, but until someone in the TS-not-TG camp will actually talk to me, how can I be expected to change my perception? I’m certainly willing to learn otherwise. I’m absolutely willing to cast off my current views if they turn out to be invalid!

Thus far, I’ve not been able to successfully talk with anyone who seems to feel like you do. When I question the logical underpinnings of an argument, every single person I’ve tried to talk with either ceases to respond or devolves into schoolyard name calling

If you choose to actually dialogue, you might be frustrated, offended or angered with my questions – I can’t promise that you won’t. Certainly my questions would not be intended to frustrate, offend or anger you. I just ask that you share your thoughts honestly so that I can do the same… and hopefully I will be able to correct any incorrect views I currently hold concerning the TS-not-TG camp. However, if the TS-not-TG camp can’t even withstand being questioned, it will certainly reinforce my current view that the TS-not-TG movement has more to do with dogma than rationality.

I’m really, really hoping that you’ll be open to dialogue… or at the very least refer me to someone who is.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me and I hope you have a great evening!

After sending my reply, I went back to the post that initiated Love’s PM:

The block "Unable to post comment"

Yup, her response was to block me on FaceBook. And you know what? I give up. I really think that people in the Love Camp are just pseudo-victims prone to histrionics and I believe that because I’ve not been offered any evidance to support any other conclusion.

If someone from the TS-not-TG camp wants to dialogue, my door is wide open! I would welcome an actual dialogue, but as of today, I’m not wasting any more of my time and energy begging them to open the lines of communication. From what I’ve seen, opening the lines of communication would seriously harsh the victimization buzz they’re enjoying right now. It’s really hard to be a victim when your supposed victimizer is begging you to correct their misconceptions.

Basically, I now see them as the trolls of the trans community. They’re haters and they’re gonna hate.

Yes, that’s right. David Welch – the right-wing fundamentalist golden boy – is nothing more that a big yellow chicken. Since he backed out of debating me again on FOX news, I went on the radio to let people know just how chicken David Welch is.

Several people have contacted him asking why he’s afraid to debate me. He, of course, has not responded. Why? Because he’s chicken.

Who is David Welch? David Welch is the Executive Director of a local hate group that calls itself the “Houston Area Pastoral Council”. He’s also Founding Executive Director of Christian Coalition of Washington, the National Field Director of Christian Coalition, the Executive Director of Vision America and perhaps most importantly, he wets himself when he thinks about debating me.

The last time I debated Welch, I was given a just one hour to prepare. The question for debate was, “Should transgender people be allowed to marry.” Welch pulled out the same old logical fallacies the far right wing always uses when they talk about the civil rights of the queer community. Needless to say, I moped the floor with him. After the debate, FOX ran a poll to see who won the debate and a whopping 89.7% sided with me.

On November 17, a transgender youth was unlawfully arrested by HPD because  she, in accordance with the Houston City Ordinance, used the female bathroom at the Jesse H. Jones Library in downtown Houston.  A Houston Library security guard initiated the incident by informing an HPD officer that, “a man [sic] is in the restroom.” The arresting officer took the patron to jail for the alleged offence of violating a State of Texas law which states, “It is unlawful for any person to use a restroom of the opposite sex unless given permission…”

The City of Houston Executive Order 1 – 8 and 1 – 20 gives explicit permission to transgender people to use the correct restroom. Of course, David Welch thinks that transgender men should be forced to use the women’s restroom an that transgender women should use the men’s restroom

So, tonight FOX again set up a debate with David Welch and I was slated to debate him. However, he backed out and is refusing to debate me again!

I encourage you to contact Welch and ask him to debate me!

Email:    info@uspastorcouncil.org

Phone:    832-688-9166

I’ve attended the last two hearings in the Nikki Araguz case. I noticed that you weren’t there. I also couldn’t help but notice the editorial you wrote in the Houston Chronicle. Of course I’m miffed at your yellow journalist skills, but not to worry… You’re in good company!

A few days after your myopic opines, the Washington Times said, “At the time of Capt. Araguz’s death, however, the couple had been separated for months, and Nikki Araguz was interested in obtaining a divorce.”

They echo they very story you spun only days before:

Lisa, you’ve apparently made the big time. You’ve managed to influence a paper owned by cult leader Sun Myung Moon (of the Moonies). Next thing you know you’ll be hosting Fox and Friends!

I find the journalistic company you keep interesting. What I find more interesting is the following:

What’s this you might ask? It’s a legal contract signed by both Nikki and Thomas Araguz in which Thomas identifies himself as Nikki’s husband (note Thomas’ initials at the bottom of the page). In fact, it’s a lease contract… that began just one month prior to his death.

I find that this seems problematic to the story you’re hocking. If Nikki and Thomas were on the outs, why would they be getting a new apartment together? Also, I suppose the sister-in-law failed to mention to you that both Thomas and Nikki were over at her place together just days before his death?

After the above misguided attack, you then make the case for Nikki-the-bad-guy:

“Nikki has expressed her love and concern for the children, even speaking directly to them in TV interviews. And she claimed to me Wednesday that she’s battling Thomas’ family for his death benefits partly for the children’s sake, saying she promised Thomas she’d help take care of “our children” if anything happened to him.

But the fact is that if Nikki prevails in her legal battle, she gets the money in dispute. If Thomas’ family prevails, the children get the money.”

Next time I encourage you to employ your critical thinking skills Lisa. When Heather Delgado started out with this suit, she was getting 300K. If she wins, she will still receive only about 300K after legal fees. For that, she’s outed her children in small-town Wharton. When the kids you claim such concern for go back to school, instead of being the kids of a fallen hero, they’ll be known as the kids of the guy who married a pre-op transsexual. Worse, everyone will know that the pre-op transsexual in question was, in fact, their step-mom – the very step-mom they lived with 4 days out of the week for most of the last 4 years. Heather’s doomed her kids to a life of schoolyard hell… and for what?!?

While you were urging people to Think About the Children™ why didn’t these two significant facts cross your mind? I’m guessing that it didn’t because you went into this story having made up your mind that the ethically challenged attorney Frank Mann was telling you the truth and that the tranny was obviously a faker.

You then build upon your rather dubious reporting with:

“It’s getting harder and harder to believe, though, that Nikki’s motives are really about the children’s well-being, or the marriage rights for transgender Texans, no matter how much transgender activists need her case to help their worthy cause. It seems increasingly probable she’s just out for the money.”

Are you suggesting that after caring for two children for almost FOUR YEARS that Nikki doesn’t care about the children? Are you really suggesting that Nikki – a person who was with the children more than their biological mother was and who paid the child support out of her own pocket – isn’t motivated to ensure the well-being of the children? Do you check your critical thinking skills at the door when you go to work?

No, Lisa. You’re just wrong.

If Nikki was in it for the money, why has she been working with Frank Mann – someone who’s under investigation for violating her rites and defaming her character – to ensure that the children receive their benefits ASAP? If Nikki was in it for the money, why has she said repeatedly that this is about civil rights? How is it that you can’t wrap your head around the obvious fact that the outcome of this case will decide her civil rights as well as her legal standing?

On a personal note as a transwoman, I’ve gotta say that when you flippantly wrote “… no matter how much transgender activists need her case to help their worthy cause” you pissed me off. I didn’t “need” nor did I want this case. The fact is this case WILL impact MY civil rights and define MY legal standing. Your dismissive tone seems to say to me that I shouldn’t be really concerned for what happens to my rights. Walk a mile in my sensible shoes before being so flippant about my rights as an American citizen!

After dismissing my rights, you then move forward with more mythical musings:

“Nikki brought on some of the credibility problems herself. She’s admitted to lying in a sworn deposition earlier this year in a custody case. She’s got a lengthy criminal record including theft and drug charges.”

Yes, she admitted that BOTH she and Capt Araguz foolishly lied in an attempt to ensure that Heather Delgado would not succeed in her bid to remove the children from Nikki and Thomas. How is it that you did not notice that this fact does not square with the Nikki-the-devil picture you’re pushing? If she doesn’t care about the kids, why would she be willing to risk so much to keep them around? While you were reporting on the many alleged crimes you alluded Nikki was found guilty of, why is it that you failed to mention that Nikki was never convicted said crimes?  I also wonder why you failed to note that practically every allegation that came out of Frank Mann’s mouth has been proven false?  In case you’re oblivious, here’s just a few of the Frank Mann gems that turned out to be false:

• PROVEN FALSE: Nikki Araguz lied to Thomas Araguz; Thomas Araguz didn’t know about Nikki’s history. After witnesses, emails and texts turned up making it clear that Thomas knew, the Mann’s now claiming that the case is about Texas law.
• PROVEN FALSE: “The law is clear” He consistently repeated the absolutist idea that Texas does not recognize sex changes when it comes to marriage. Unfortunately for Mann, he wound up with egg on his face since he apparently didn’t know that Texas law now recognizes “sex change” and that recognition is in the middle of Texas marriage law. Oops!
• PROVEN FALSE: Nikki Araguz is a felon. Nope… proven simply untrue.
• PROVEN FALSE: Nikki and Thomas were getting a divorce. See above.

Lisa… common now. Put that thinking cap on and let’s look at the track record shall we? How many lies did Nikki tell about her situation? What’s that? None? Well, isn’t that just inconvenient for the story you’re telling?

“And although earlier this week she presented an e-mail exchange with her late husband as proof that he was aware of her sex-change operation, Thomas’ mother told me he believed his wife was having a hysterectomy. Nikki said she never claimed this.”

Why not mention that Carolyn Bosma went on the record attesting that she, Thomas and Nikki discussed Nikki’s upcoming genital reconstructive surgery at the Transgender Clinic? Didn’t you think that was important?

Now you drop the bomb:

On Wednesday, Longoria’s pro-bono attorney, Chad Ellis, produced an affidavit that seems to support her contention. The document is signed by Cynthia Garcia, a Wharton County deputy district clerk, who says that on June 24 Nikki “came into our offices to make a payment for her court costs related to her criminal matter.” Garcia maintains that Nikki “asked me how much it cost to file for divorce. She informed me that (she) wanted to get a divorce from Thomas Araguz, III. She said she was ‘done with him.’ ”

Asked about all this, Nikki told me that no divorce papers were ever filed, and “Thomas and I were not talking about divorce at the time of his death.” Asked whether she told Garcia she wanted a divorce, she said “I don’t recall ever saying that.

Gee, after everything you’ve said about Nikki, this seems to take the cake! You’ve already painted Nikki as being a liar who had dumped Thomas.  Nikki, in an apparent snit, said that she was “done” with Thomas and wanted to know how much a divorce cost. Zing! Pow! Right in the kisser!

I bet you could hear the masses raising their collective voices to the heavens to exclaim, “Oh, no she di’int!”

At this point I feel as if we need to talk a bit about the birds and the bees, Lisa. You see, the heterosexual population suffers a really high divorce rate. While it seems obvious to everyone I’ve talked with, let me let you in on a secrete: Most married couples consider divorce from time to time.  Most people who are married will inevitably talk to a friend or (god forbid) vent and even say words in anger (gasp!). When this piece of nothing you produced is viewed in context of the fact that they were renting an apartment together, emailing each other love notes and hanging out with each other… you know what I hear when I read your big revelation? I hear:

Yes, that’s right. I hear a lot of hot air.

You then hit home just how despicable you’ve decided Nikki is with the following:

Just as troubling, though, is Longoria’s description of Nikki’s behavior after Thomas’ death. Far from behaving like the grieving widow, Longoria said Nikki showed up at her house, and that of Thomas’ grandmother, the day after the funeral, demanding Thomas’ gun and truck. Longoria said Thomas’ father handed over the 9 mm Glock, but the family wasn’t in possession of the white Dodge pickup.

Nikki acknowledged to me having sought the items, saying that as Thomas’ wife, she was entitled to his property.

That may be. But demanding those things from a mother who’d buried her only son the day before shows us where Nikki’s priorities were that day.

This is well-deserving of a full-on facepalm.

Nikki was paying for the truck. Her in-laws stole the truck out of her driveway. Yes, god forbid that she dare attempt to get her truck back. Let me turn that last statement around: “Stealing a truck from a widow who’d buried her husband the day before shows us where the in-law’s priorities were that day.”

Why didn’t you know this? It came out in the first hearing.

Lisa: You are a yellow journalist and for that, you suck. May you be forever remembered for the hatchet job you chose to pull on a transgender widow.

View Lisa Falkenberg’s opines here:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/falkenberg/7139728.html

PS:

With BS reporting like this, is it any wonder that your readers post such inane and vacuous replies?