QUICKIES 07/02/2012

The University of Texas, Austin, has launched a Scientific Misconduct inquiry into Mark Regnerus. Regnerus, whom we heard about from Will’s post”On the Abuse of Social Science,” was able to get a seriously flawed, politically-motivated “study” trashing gay parents published in a serious journal; needless to say, many real scholars are not at all pleased.

Got lady parts? Have sex? Then this is the study for you! Don’t Think. Know. is a project to figure out whether sending out STD home test kits will improve access to things like STD tests and prescriptions for antibiotics. Participation is free and hey, did I mention the free at-home STD test? The STDs tested for are the ones that often have no obvious symptoms whilst havoc is wrecked on your series of tubes. Don’t think – know!

Featured image is completely unrelated.

Previous post

AI: Reexamining Privileges

Next post

AI: Convention Survival



Yessenia is a graduate student studying to be a speech therapist with an emphasis on traumatic brain injuries. She spends far too much time correcting the wrong people on the internet, lifting heavy things and training her cats. She's a proud internet atheist and trolls only for the greater good.


  1. July 4, 2012 at 6:17 pm —

    Umm, lady parts?

    What exactly do you mean by that?

    • July 4, 2012 at 6:51 pm —

      You can’t guess from context?

      • July 4, 2012 at 7:13 pm —

        I don’t know your intent with using the term “lady parts”, but it appears to me that the term is a euphemism for vagina. Ladies have many different “parts”. Some ladies have vaginas, some don’t. My vagina is not a lady part, it is a man part. The term lady parts used that way assigns gender to body parts.

        If you mean something else, please elaborate.

        • July 5, 2012 at 12:47 am —

          Ok, so you did understand the term. But seriously why you mad?

          The term ladyparts makes fun of the idea that words like ‘vagina’ are unacceptable and introduces a bit of levity (and therefore, social approval) on a topic that’s got stigma attached (contracting an STD). I didn’t mean to insult your manparts, and I hope they will accept my deepest and sincerest apologies.

      • July 5, 2012 at 12:11 am —

        Your response is to edit your snarky reply to me and that’s it?

  2. July 5, 2012 at 12:54 am —

    I have the email with your original comments. You are being completely disingenuous, and I have no interest in playing these games. Deleteing comments, editing, denying. Your maturity is astounding.

    I am sure this comment will too be bahleeted. Way to go Queereka. Prove the maxim that the T is silent in LGBT.

    • July 5, 2012 at 1:05 am —

      Heh, wait, are you talking about the one edit I made on my comment 22 minutes before your reply?

      Your concern for the term is noted, but FYI, you’re not the only trans person in this conversation.

  3. July 5, 2012 at 1:19 am —

    Yeah, no. The edit you made after I commented. Had I known your tactics involved dishonesty I would have been documenting earlier. As it is, I can’t show you how trustworthy I’ve found you to be in our limited interaction, so you’ll have to take my word for it.

    • July 5, 2012 at 1:35 am —

      Nope. I guess it serves me right for editing my comment to make it more polite immediately after I posted it. Maybe you didn’t see I had edited it because you were responding from your email and didn’t go to the page first. Who knows.

      In any event, accusing me of ‘dishonesty,’ much less of silencing all trans people, is absolutely uncalled for.

      And BT Dub, saying now that if you’d only known you would have been documenting it earlier makes you look a bit dishonest since you did just say you ‘have the email with my original comments.’ Now I have to take your word for it because why?

  4. July 5, 2012 at 1:48 am —

    Because the email only shows your original comment and not that I was able to see my reply to that comment and the comment in its original form together before the edit.

    I didn’t say you were silencing trans people, I said the T was silent.

    • July 5, 2012 at 11:20 am —

      I didn’t say you were silencing trans people, I said the T was silent.

      No, you said Queereka was proving the maxim that the T was silent in LGBT. The implication is that Queereka is out to silence trans* people, and that’s absurd.

      I don’t know what happened with editing comments, but I doubt that Yessenia is out to get you. I think she realized she was a bit too snarky and edited her comment in good faith to remove that snark. You admittedly do not know her very well, and I know her well enough to know that she doesn’t shy away from admitting mistakes.

      Your point is taken about the use of “lady parts.” I think it’s a valid criticism and I’m sure Yessenia will take it under advisement. In the meantime, it would behoove you to stop making assumptions about people’s gender identity and also to stop asserting that Queereka is attempting to silence trans* people. That’s simply not true.

      • July 6, 2012 at 4:08 pm —

        I never brought up anyone’s gender identity, nor did I say that queereka was silencing anyone, speaking of assumptions.

  5. July 5, 2012 at 11:42 am —

    Saying the T is silent in a word/acronym does not mean that people are being silenced. Silent isn’t equal to being silenced.

    • July 5, 2012 at 8:44 pm —

      Now who is being disingenuous?

      Why on earth would you say that Queereka is “proving the maxim” that the T is silent other than to imply that Queereka is part of the reason that the T is silent? And how is the T silent if it is not silenced by the LGB? Are you saying that the T is silent all on its own? Are you saying that Queerka does not speak to trans* issues?

      Frankly, given the context of the conversation and the accusation that people are deleting your comments (which I cannot confirm or deny as I didn’t see it happen and there’s no evidence of it in the control panel), I don’t see what you’re trying to say other than that Queereka is trying to silence trans* people. I’m interested in hearing you explain it and not just repeat the same thing you’ve said so far.

      What, exactly, do you mean when you say: “Way to go Queereka. Prove the maxim that the T is silent in LGBT.”?

      • July 5, 2012 at 10:06 pm —

        I don’t see why you insist on equating silent with being silenced. While they are similar words, they are not equal.

        How is the T silent? When you have a word with a letter in it that is not pronounced it is called a silent letter. By not pronouncing a letter I am not, therefore silencing it -the letter is silent. Is it a french thing? Maybe silent letters are not commonly known in English?

        How does queereka prove the maxim? Using an inclusive term, queer, while not being respectful of people included by it. Much like a silent letter in a word, the letter T is in LGBT but only for show, not in practice.

        Deleting my comments, deleting their comments, denying having made comments and then deleting the denial when proof is offered, what does it matter.

        • July 6, 2012 at 8:30 pm —

          You’re not making any sense. At all.

          This is not about the “T” not being pronounced when people say “LGBT”. That would be a “silent” letter. This is about you claiming that the “T” is only in LGBT for show and that, therefore, trans people are silenced by the LGB because the LGB doesn’t actually care about the T. I’m not going to argue with you that trans* people are often ignored in discussions of queer folks, but to claim that Queereka doesn’t pay attention to trans* people and issues important to trans* people is just patently false and, quite frankly, beyond absurd.

          And what the hell does French have to do with anything? Is English not your first language? If not, do you really want to argue semantics with native speakers? There are plenty of silent letters in English, but that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the “T” in the acronym LGBT. That makes absolutely no sense. And, honestly, you are coming across as completely disingenuous. You want others to admit when they make mistakes with language use, but you’re utterly unwilling to do so yourself.

          ONE writer used a problematic term, and they’ve (EDITED: I changed my pronoun use, I shouldn’t make any assumptions–sorry Yessenia!) acknowledged this and apologized. I’ve commented that you have a point with the critique of that term. How in the hell is that not being respectful?

          If you want to forward me your e-mail confirmations of comments that you say you made that are no longer visible here, you can use the contact form to send me your e-mail address and I’ll get in touch with you. But short of that, I have no way of knowing whether or not comments were deleted. I specifically did not deny that comments were deleted–I said I don’t know either way. You have not offered any “proof” of anything.

          • July 7, 2012 at 2:05 am

            When I said in an earlier comment “I have the email with your original comments.”, that was offering proof. Not providing proof, but offering to do so. And after that comment was posted, the comment it was a reply to, “What? I did no such thing, dude.” was deleted, no proof needed. That comment was the denial of editing a prior comment and also a deleted comment.

            And seriously, why do you keep insisting that I am saying anything about silencing? I did not mention silencing. do you think if you keep repeating yourself am I going to change my mind? This is ridiculous. Fuck you and peace out.

          • July 7, 2012 at 10:22 am

            I’ve offered to get in touch with you so you can forward me these e-mails that demonstrate that one of your comments was deleted. If you are now saying that Yessenia deleted one of her own comments, how is that trying to silence–ahem, to make the T silent? You’re not making any sense in these arguments. You’re either being purposefully vague or disingenuous.

            Anyway, I’m done. If you want to get in touch with me via the contact form to show your proof that you’ve been unfairly edited or deleted, by all means do so. But I’m not going to continue to have the same argument with you over and over. Thanks for your initial feedback on the term “lady parts” and be sure it’s taken under advisement. If you have nothing else that is constructive to add, then I suggest you move on.

  6. July 6, 2012 at 2:43 pm —

    Oh, it’s a French thing. No wonder it was confusing.

  7. July 23, 2012 at 12:54 am —

    […] you may recall a few weeks ago that I lost any claim to trans status by casually using the term “lady parts” to refer to vaginas.  Vaginas, as a commenter reasonably pointed out, can be […]

Leave a reply