Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki Called Out for 'Homophobic' Tweet Mocking Lindsey Graham as 'Lady G'

[marble falls]

Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki Called Out for ‘Homophobic’ Tweet Mocking Lindsey Graham as ‘Lady G’

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-press-secretary-jen-psaki-called-out-for-homophobic-tweet-mocking-lindsey-graham-as-lady-g/ar-BB1dmq34

(From Mediaite).

Before her current role as White House Press Secretary for the Biden administration, Jen Psaki was a paid contributor for CNN. Her prior experience as communications director under the Obama administration led to valuable insights into the messaging strategies and tactics under then-President Donald Trump.

But some of Psaki’s partisan comments are coming back to haunt her, particularly one that is fairly viewed as homophobic.

At issue? The derisive and mocking term “Lady G,” which has been used by some progressives to mock Senator Lindsey Graham, who went from being a vocal critic of President Trump to one of his most loyal toadies during a divisive time in US political history. The idea behind this term is that Graham is closeted, and supportive of Trump because he fears outing. Graham is a confirmed bachelor but has many times denied he is homosexual — as if that matters.

In short, “Lady G” is for many, an offensive term, particularly for those who are fluent in the shifting world of identity politics. In August of last year, Psaki used the offensive phrase in a tweet critical of Graham’s pushing a “bunch of debunked conspiracy theories while questioning” Sally Yates:

only in 2020 does #LadyG get to push a bunch of debunked conspiracy theories while questioning @SallyQYates (aka an American hero)

— Jen Psaki (@jrpsaki) August 5, 2020

[lagomorph777]

1. This is why we can't engage in such crap. We are supposed to be the good guys.

Hypocrisy will always be outed.

[Still Sensible]

20. And we are always at a disadvantage on hypocrisy

because we really care about not being hypocrites.

Other side doesn't give a shit!

[underpants]

2. Band aid

Just rip it off and move on.

[Ms. Toad]

163. If, by rip it off, you mean learn from it, apologize, and move on

I agree.

[TheBlackAdder]

199. Yep. Most tweeting are R's. The Reagan Battalion? Reagan was horrific to the LGBTQ community.

.

Apologize and move on.

This is more Republican attacks to foment divisiveness in Dems and we can't be suckered into it.

.

[grumpyduck]

3. Let him or her who is without sin

dig up old shit to bash people.

[marble falls]

12. Better yet: she says she was wrong, a bit insensitve, apologize and then never does it again ...

... like a Democrat does.

She's been a very good press secretary, no need to put her out.

[Beakybird]

4. Apologize and move on.

[NRaleighLiberal]

7. This.

[elleng]

16. Yes

[TwilightZone]

18. Agreed.

[demmiblue]

81. +1

[ornotna]

113. Yes. n/t

[BannonsLiver]

140. Or better still, just move on.

[Beakybird]

146. Yes, enough time has passed. No reason to freshen the mild transgression in people's memories.

[Demsrule86]

10. No she is great. She doesn't have to go.

We dont need to bring our own down over a mistake. She can apologize and move on.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Are you joking?

If so, you might want to use the "sarcasm" indicator ( ). If not, the punishment you are suggesting does not even come close to the crime, and I found what was said to be distasteful and homophobic, but it is not, nor should it be, a death knell for her position!

[SlogginThroughIt]

17. Nope. Not even a little.

Sorry but she has disqualified herself in my opinion. Skewer me if you like but there isn’t room for this in his admin. Find someone that doesn’t engage in homophobic slurs. I think she has been great but this just is going ti be a stupid side show. Better to cut bait now and indeed move on. I have a feeling that this will not be the last issue with her.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. Um...OK.

Frankly, your suggestion falls along the line of cutting off one's hand because of a splinter in the finger. But, you do you.

[SlogginThroughIt]

39. And if this was Trumps Press secretary?

You would just be willing to let it go? Brush it off? And move on? If it were about Pete B?

Come on.

[Behind the Aegis]

56. Were ifs and buts, candies and nuts, what a party it would be.

Given this circumstance, yes, I would "let it go" with an apology and acknowledgement of the mistake. If it were about Pete? Why would that make a difference? I have called it homophobic, I just don't think she needs to be pilloried.

ETA: Y'know, with some other comments in this thread, literally EXCUSING the use, and chastising people even calling for an apology, perhaps your efforts would be better afforded on those who can't even RECOGNIZE the homophobia, as oppposed to battling over the "punishment" with those who actually understand the homophobia at play, in her tweet and HERE, in THIS thread!

[SlogginThroughIt]

59. uh huh. Sure.

Using homophobic slurs is homophobic.

Using racist slurs is racist.

Using sexist slurs is sexist.

As an non-press secretary individual sure apologize and move on. As the mouth piece of the leader of the free world, that to me says you are not up to the job. Period.

Believe it or not there are non-perfect people that don’t have this crap posted online for others to see.

[Behind the Aegis]

62. Nope.

Cutting one's nose off despite one's face is not the answer. Addressing homophobia, including those who refuse to recognize it, there's the real problem,

[SlogginThroughIt]

65. How about not cutting the damn nose in the first place?

This wasn’t said in some bygone era where society was “different”.

Come on.

[Behind the Aegis]

67. She hasn't cut off her nose.

You're asking for her nose!

[SlogginThroughIt]

70. No I am asking for a press secretary that doesn't use homophobic slurs.

Not a big ask really.

[Behind the Aegis]

74. An actual apology should suffice.

Not a big ask really.

[SlogginThroughIt]

77. For you? Ok.

My opinion is different. You won’t change my mind and that is fine. I am done excusing this stuff.

[cwydro]

111. You've not been paying attention to DU. I've lost count how many people use that slur here.

It’s usually brushed off here as both I and the poster to whom you responded can attest.

That being said, I can overlook it unless more of this surfaces. I hope she apologizes.

[bullimiami]

38. Skewer. +1.

Have to disagree with you.

Insensitive? Yes.
Im with the apologize and move on crowd.

[SlogginThroughIt]

42. And if it were Trumps PS calling Pete Lady B?

You would be just fine with it?

[bullimiami]

49. No. I would think it was stupid, tonedeaf and insensitive and if they apologized

I would put that one away in a back drawer.

Not so forgiving the next time.

[blm]

57. He's called LadyG for his faux outrage 'vapors'

that he exhibits that are not to be believed. Pete doesn’t get called Lady Pete because he doesn’t traffic in feigned outrage.

[SlogginThroughIt]

63. I don't care why he is called it.

It. Is. Still. A. Homophobic. Slur!

[blm]

71. Nah, it's not.

[Ms. Toad]

165. Yes it is.

Deliberately mis-gendering someone as an insult is sexist, homophobic, and transphobic. Period. It has no place on DU.

That said, I want people to be open to learning - so I'm fine with her acknowledging and apologizing for her comments, learning from the incident. and moving on.

[dsc]

94. actually no that isn't why he is called that

he is called that supposedly by sex workers. That said, an apology and moving on sounds sufficient.

[GoneOffShore]

98. This

No skewers needed.

[Ms. Toad]

164. Wow. Even some of our best - like Obama -

have stupid mistakes in their past (inviting the infamous homophobic minister to share the platform with him at his first inauguration).

As an LGBT person, what I care about is that she acknowledges it was hurtful, learns from it (about why it was hurtful), apologizes - and then we move on.

We live in a society that less than a decade ago condemned my marriage, and less than a year ago could have used it as grounds to fire me. If the test on LGBT issues is purity, we will have very few people eligible to work in the Biden administration. Heck - probably 75% of DU finds nothing wrong with her comment.

[StarfishSaver]

25. Seriously?

Glad to know at least one perfect around here is perfect.

[SlogginThroughIt]

37. I didn't call myself perfect in the slightest.

Nowhere did I say that. And you’ll notice that I said she didn’t mean for her to be put into exile. If you are the press secretary you have to choose your words carefully. It is literally your job. Using a slur or implied slur is a very very large red flag and shows to me immaturity for this position. She has been very sharp and very witty. And that can be a great thing to deliver points. But not woth this type of language in this role.

If she were a republican I HIGHLY doubt we would all be saying “apologize and move on”.

And that has nothing to do with my own imperfections. I would in no way be qualified to be in that position. She is making the case against herself.

[bullimiami]

40. If she was a republican and apologized it would be the same reality.

[SlogginThroughIt]

45. Uh hub. Sure.

People on this site would be apoplectic. But kudos to you if you would excuse homophobia on both sides of the aisle?

[LanternWaste]

102. And kudos to you as well...

for pretending to know what any given reaction would be by any given demographic in any given scenario.

It does however beg the question... what specific slurs has she used since her appointment?

(insert fictional reaction by fictional demographic below as well as fictional sentiment on my part as well-- as you've been doing both consistently in this thread)

[smirkymonkey]

121. If she was a republican, she would have doubled down and would have refused to apologized.

EVER! Fuck these purity tests. I am so sick of these double standards.

We aren't perfect, but we need to stop hanging ourselves for every minor transgression. Especially when THEY are the ones who are trying to overthrow democracy. We need to cut ourselves a little slack here.

[dalton99a]

136. +1. Who is their next target in the purification drive?

Remember Al Franken

[Ms. Toad]

166. She said it in August -

Long before she was the press secretary.

Link to tweet

[Bettie]

167. I don't know because I have never seen a Republican

apologize for any statement. They double down and declare that they were right or that they never said it.

But, I do see that you seem to be demanding that this incredibly competent and effective woman be removed from her position for one hashtag she used once a year ago.

[SunSeeker]

43. NO. Jen is not "the devil," for fuck's sake. She was referring to current events.

She said this shortly after the hashtag #LadyGraham exploded on social media in response to allegations made on Twitter by gay adult-film star Sean Harding against Sen. Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina (the hashtag, along with the abbreviated form “Lady G,” refers to Graham’s nickname among male sex workers). https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/10/ladygraham-went-viral-not-just-because-lindsey-grahams-politics/

LadyG had become the homophobic hypocrite's nickname on social media, where Jen said this.

And she said this when she was a private citizen, months before she started serving as press secretary, so she was not speaking for the White House.

[SlogginThroughIt]

48. Oh I see. Because others say it. It's cool.

See how that works out with other slurs.

[SunSeeker]

61. No, she was referring to the nickname given to the hypocrite by male sex workers.

Last edited Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Lindsey never sued Harding for defamation.

Lindsey is a vile hypocrite who has hurt the LGBTQ community. https://www.washingtonblade.com/2020/10/16/the-sad-closeted-hypocrisy-of-lindsey-graham/

[former9thward]

122. Public figures can't sue for defamation.

I think you know that.

[SunSeeker]

124. Public figures can indeed sue for defamation, they just have a higher burden of proof.

In the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy, a public figure cannot succeed in a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements (in the United States) unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice by knowing the falsity or by reckless disregard for the truth. The legal burden of proof in defamation actions is thus higher in the case of a public figure than in the case of an ordinary person.

Please don't pretend to know what I know.

[former9thward]

131. It was a figure of speech.

I certainly would not pretend to know what you know or more accurately don't know. Name an elected official who has successfully sued for defamation.

[SunSeeker]

152. Jesse Ventura.

https://aaronhall.com/defamation-of-a-public-figure/

[former9thward]

158. Except he didn't.

Jesse Ventura’s $1.8-million defamation award denied in his ‘American Sniper’ book case

Ex-professional wrestler Jesse Ventura won’t be awarded the $1.8-million judgment a jury decided to give him in 2014 as the result of a defamation case against the estate of Chris Kyle, who had written disparagingly about a person resembling Ventura in his memoir “American Sniper.”

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that on Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit threw out the $1.8-million “American Sniper” judgment, saying that the $1.35 million Ventura was awarded for “unjust enrichment” did not comply with Minnesota state law.

The jury in the lower court also awarded Ventura $500,000 for defamation. The appeals court also threw out that judgment, but sent it back to the lower court for retrial.

https://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-jesse-ventura-book-case-20160614-snap-story.html

The first thing they teach in law school is to follow a case to its conclusion. Try again.

[SunSeeker]

159. Except he did. Only the "unjust enrichment" claim was thrown out, not defamation.

That's what the article you quote itself states. Once the defamation claim was remanded for retrial, defendants settled with Ventura for an undisclosed sum. https://m.startribune.com/jesse-ventura-appears-to-have-settled-long-running-defamation-law-suit/461382013/ Follow the case to the end indeed.

Other public figures who successfully sued for defamation include Cameron Diaz and Katie Holmes: https://www.ranker.com/list/celebrities-who-sued-for-defamation/jacob-shelton

Tom Cruise won a $10 million judgment against a gay porn actor who claimed to have had an affair with him. https://ew.com/article/2003/01/16/tom-cruise-wins-10-million-gay-lawsuit/

Maybe Lindsey could call Tom's lawyer.

[former9thward]

175. Not true.

You have to look at the cases, not snippets you get from google. The Court of Appeals threw out the defamation claim and sent it back to the trial court. Settled for "an undisclosed sum" which in the legal world means they gave him $10,000 to get rid of a nuisance lawsuit. The Appeals Court cited SC precedent on the defamation when they tossed that claim. Any lawyer will tell you when you lose at the Court of Appeals you are done.

How much did Tom Cruise get from his suit against "a gay porn actor"? He got jack. Again look at the case. The porn guy defaulted on the suit. Which means he did not bother going to court to contest the suit. Micky Mouse could be the lawyer if no one contests your claim.

Jurors can be dazzled by Hollywood actors, which BTW Jesse Ventura was more than a politician, but when the cases go up they almost always get shot down in appeals.

You are not going to find an elected politician in modern times who ever got anything from a defamation suit. But since you know better why don't you go handle those suits? Public figures and politicians are called every name in the book on sites like these, along with implicating them in no end of CTs. Why are they not suing internet sites?

[SunSeeker]

183. No, what is not true is your claim that "Public figures can't sue for defamation."

I correctly stated the law and gave you recent instances. "Settled for an undisclosed sum" does not mean "$10,000." The defendants were unable to dismiss Ventura's defamation case, so it was not a mere nuisance settlement, your attempt to move the goal posts notwithstanding. They had desperately tried to dismiss it and fought it tooth and nail until they failed. If they had thought it was a mere nuisance lawsuit resolvable for $10,000, they would have done so before incurring hundreds of thousands in attorneys fees litigating it through trial and appeal.

And Tom Cruise got more than "jack"; he got a judicial determination that what that porn actor said was false, which is one of the most important goals of any defamation case. Lindsey Graham could have sued the porn actor who made the allegations against him just like Tom did, and gotten such a determination, but he didn't. Those are facts.

It is a fact that public figures can sue for defamation. Your claim that "Public figures can't sue for defamation" is not true.

[former9thward]

185. You are making up everything.

Tom Cruise got a "determination" because the actor did not show up in court. The merits of the case were not made one way or the other. But keep digging.

In every case you presented you left out the conclusions until I pointed them out. So go take these cases, with your expertise you will make a lot of money.

[SunSeeker]

186. I did not make up your wrong claim that "Public figures can't sue for defamation."

You wrote that. And you were wrong.

I did not "make up" any of the cases or their facts. Nor did I make up what the law was. You did that.

[former9thward]

189. I deal in the real world, not in the world where you look up the law on google.

In the real world elected politicians can't successfully sue for defamation. You have not been able to show one successful case. I have asked you questions which you have ignored because google does not give you an answer. But again with your google expertise hang out your shingle. I am sure you will do well...

[SunSeeker]

190. No, you misstate the law. You said, "Public figures can't sue for defamation."

They clearly can. Then you asked me for a case. I gave you several. Then you moved the goal posts and demanded I provide "successful" cases. I did. Then you changed the goal posts yet again to some unspecified level of success that involves recovering some unspecified large sum of cash.

The fact remains you were caught in an incorrect statement of law, and wasted time in this thread trying to obfuscate that fact.

[former9thward]

201. Any lawyer would laugh at your post.

The definition of being able to sue to a lawyer is a reasonable chance of success. Success is defined by any lawyer as obtaining an amount of money which is worth filing the case and dealing with the litigation.

If you showed your posts to an actual lawyer they would laugh you out of the office. Google school does not give law degrees.

[uponit7771]

47. no

[JDC]

69. Disagree.

An apology is perhaps in order. But that's it.

[helpisontheway]

76. Oh please..the Republicans want her to go. Just as they wanted

Al Franken out and Dems were stupid enough to do it.

[SlogginThroughIt]

78. Totally different scenario.

We had non-credible accusations and a photo of a comedy routine in which she played the part. And also an elected position versus one that wasn’t.

[LiberalFighter]

95. Absolutely wrong. She stays!!!!

[SlogginThroughIt]

99. ok. Let me know which one of us actually decides.

[LanternWaste]

103. Hence, the irrelevancy of all our opinions.

Which thus leads to the irrelevancy of the OP as well. Unless of course, a distinction lacking a relevant difference is creatively constructed.

[SlogginThroughIt]

106. Well I will drink to that.

[Vivienne235729]

107. HELL NO. You know what I find more offensive? The incessant and relentless LIES

Of the last 3 WH press secretaries. This is going to come as a shock to some people, but Psaki is not a perfect human being. But overall, she is doing a FANTASTIC job. This is far from resigning from her position infraction. Hell no. Apologize and move the heck on.

[Bettie]

169. She is doing an amazing job which is why

some people want her removed and replaced with someone less effective.

[Vivienne235729]

178. EXACTLY! This is why I get so mad when I hear democrats repeating RW talking points

I was in a local group and someone was complaining about Pelosi getting her hair done. I nearly lost my shit. LOL They always go after our big guns. Anyone that is a huge asset to us, they focus on them and make a mountain out of a molehill.

[Bettie]

179. And when there are mountains on the other side

they say "that's just X being X, it's no big deal!".

The double standard makes me so angry and frustrated.

Our side is supposed to be utterly flawless at all times while the other side gets to be horrible all the time and that's cool.

[Vivienne235729]

180. YES! That double standard infuriates me to no end, too. The media

Is equally, if not more, to blame for that. Their unfair portrayal of everything. The latest nonsense that stuck in my craw was the NYT desperate attempt at finding something on Biden and resorted to the Rolex story. That was so pathetic and desperate. And then I think of all the absolutely over the top absurd things trump has done and we never hear the media pick him apart. We need to have some sort of media reform.

[Bettie]

181. The double standard right now, with regard to Unity

We were all supposed to reach out to Trump voters when he won, to understand them.

Now, "Unity" means we're supposed to reach out to Trump voters to understand them and follow their fucking agenda.

WTF? Honestly.

[Vivienne235729]

182. Lol. Yea. Unreal,huh? I just have 2 words: Screw. That.

There will be no unity until we have accountability.

[Silent3]

109. This is where the derision for "cancel culture" comes from.

This kind of zero-tolerance reaction to words people say, and being absolutely determined to take maximum offense and demand harsh penalties.

Should people be careful about what they say to avoid offense? Of course. Does language need to evolve to better reflect our values? Yes.

But not everyone, even very tolerant people, sees everything the same way on these issues, and not everyone instantly gets up to speed to achieve Maximum Wokeness according to whatever the most sensitive of sensitive people, deemed to be the arbiters Goodspeak, proclaim should or should not be said.

Lighten up, Francis.

[Ms. Toad]

168. Intentionally misgendering gay men is an insult that is as old as dirt.

nance (n.)
"effeminate man, male homosexual who takes the passive role," 1924, from female name Nancy (q.v.), which was in use as an adjective meaning "effeminate" (applied to men) by 1904 in prison slang, a shortening of earlier Miss Nancy, a derogatory term for a finicky, effeminate man which is attested by 1824; Nancy boy "effeminate male homosexual" is attested by 1939.

You don't have to be "instantly up to speed to achieve Maximum Wokeness" to know using a female name (not chosen by the individual) to refer to a gay man is homophobic.

[Silent3]

172. But it isn't just misgendering here

It's calling out the hypocrisy of someone like Graham being part of a party that doesn't respect gay rights.

Where the big difference of opinion exists here is whether using such language in an ironic way to call out hypocrisy is OK.

Whether you personally think it's a valid rhetorical approach or not, the unforgiving zero-tolerance attitude being put forth here is that no one else should be permitted a difference of opinion on ironic language usage, lest they be put in the same category as people who would misgender someone ironically or not.

[Ms. Toad]

173. Using a homophobic/transphobic/sexist slur to point out hypocrisy

IS homophobic/transphobic/sexist. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. Do you get to use n**** as rhetoric? Then don't use the LGBT equivalent as rhetoric.,

If you want to point out the hypocrisy, do so directly.

[Silent3]

174. And everyone who doesn't go along with your Pronouncement from on High...

...must be thrown under the bus, including Jen Psaki? Purity must be demanded?

[Ms. Toad]

177. You obviously have not read my comments in this thread -

or in any other threads in which I've posted on past transgressions.

It is unacceptable to use homophobia/transphobia/sexism. Period - and the people at whom it is directed (i.e. me) are the arbiters of what falls into that category.

That said - as recently as a year ago I could have been fired for my marriage to another woman. Obama invited a homophobic pastor to share the inaugural stage with him in 2008 - and opposed my marriagefor much longer. If we insist on purity, there will not be anyone available to work in the Biden administration.

What is needed is acknowledgement of the nature of the comments, a willingness to learn from the experience, and an apology.

[SoonerPride]

114. Nope. We already lost Al Franken over this bullshit

Not only no but hell no.

Psaki stays.

[kcr]

128. No, she doesn't.

Stop being ridiculous.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. She shouldn't have done it, unless she is bi or a lesbian.

Is she homophobic? Doubtful. Was the use homophobic? Yes. I am sure there will be some straight people along shortly to straightsplain' to me how the use was not homophobic because they have queers in their family who says it is "OK" or even some gay folks who miss the point of ingroup solidarity vocabulary and allow shit like this because "there are bigger things to worry about" or whatever the current excuse du jour is.

[marble falls]

19. That's my point. She's not homophobic that I can see. She was going after Lindsey's goat ...

... she made a poor choice of "insult". Even woke people can make a misstep and that was a misstep.

[Behind the Aegis]

29. Exactly! There is a difference between being a homophobe and saying/doing something homophobic.

Apparently, some haven't got the memo. I'll put it on the Gay Agenda for our next recruitment meeting.

[Clash City Rocker]

8. Graham called himself Lady G online, before anyone else did

So I don’t personally see it as homophobic. But I’m straight, so maybe I shouldn’t voice an opinion on the subject.

[TwilightZone]

14. Do you have a source for that?

That's the first time I can recall anyone saying the nickname came from Graham.

Many on DU seem to be OK with it, though I always thought it seemed rather homophobic. Not to mention presumptive.

[marble falls]

27. When did Lindsey ever call himself "MissG". He has explicitly denied being gay ...

https://people.com/politics/lindsey-graham-denies-being-gay-after-chelsea-handler-trolls-him/

[LeftInTX]

36. I believe someone said that Graham called himself Lady G online

So it's third hand info and not from Graham himself. Anyone can say anything about anyone.

They did this with Rick Perry too.

Last week, the hashtag #LadyGraham exploded on social media in response to allegations made on Twitter by gay adult-film star Sean Harding against Sen. Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina (the hashtag, along with the abbreviated form “Lady G,” purportedly refers to Graham’s nickname among male sex workers). What followed has been a mixed bag of political commentary, wanton speculation and downright trolling.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/10/ladygraham-went-viral-not-just-because-lindsey-grahams-politics/

[bdamomma]

9. Well

I'm sure there were others who said the same thing. She was caught.

Apologize and move on.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. 1. Yes, it was way bad. 2. If a Republican had done this, what would they do?

News flash: Democrats are human with all the baggage that comes of that.

I see this as something for which an apology is in order. I do not see it as a political career's death penalty offense.

[marble falls]

30. Absolutely. And maybe a few of us on DU need to pay attention to that.

[SlogginThroughIt]

31. Or if a republican had done it...

What would we be saying?

[Stinky The Clown]

60. And no matter what we said, they would ignore it.

[Crunchy Frog]

91. Offensive statements are so much the norm for Qs

That it likely wouldn't even be noticed.

[crickets]

21. That's disappointing. I thought better of her.

Still, it doesn't disqualify her from being able to do her job. Apologize. Promise to do better and hold to it. Move on.

[marble falls]

35. She'd been excellent working as press seretary.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

22. Rise up in outrage and "Franken" her!

Or, we could say she made a mistake. Wrote a pointless insult. Only Republicans can do that and get away with it.

Next topic? ...

[marble falls]

51. She's not being Frankened by anybody. Not even all the crocodile teared GOPers tweeting ...

... in their fake support for gays suggest doing that.

All that's required is understanding casual insults that rest on slurs are wrong and don't belong in the conversation. And by apologizing and going back to the lectern to bring information from the White House she demonstrates who we are: not Republicans.

[NurseJackie]

55. That's a perfect analogy. Franken. Exactly.

[BannonsLiver]

142. The OP seems to be really invested in this particular issue.

[NurseJackie]

151. Three or four OP's and a poll to boot... I think your observations are right on target.

[StarfishSaver]

23. Apologize and move on ...

[LymphocyteLover]

153. exactly-- it's not complicated

and everyone knows Dems as a party aren't homophobic-- more we just call out the right's hypocrisy on gay issues when we use this sort of language but obviously it's better to not go there

[Lunabell]

24. Nobody was mocking his sexuality. At least not me.

I mock Lindsey's hypocrisy and point out his self hatred.

[TwilightZone]

41. It's pretty clearly a shot at his sexuality.

Unless there's some other context of which I'm unaware, it's homophobic, regardless of the source. She should apologize and move on.

It's also a common theme here on DU, the presumption that he's some kind of self-loathing gay guy. I've never really understood why it doesn't get more flack here, but whatever.

[Lunabell]

54. Absolutely she should apologize.

But I still think he is a sad self hating gay man who is so caught up in his religious and political beliefs that he can't be real. It happens a lot and I truly feel sorry for him, but he can fuck off at the same time for the harm he has caused the LGBTQ community.

[cwydro]

205. This.

Exactly.

[gollygee]

26. It is not OK to call him Lady G. She should apologize and stop doing it. nt

[NurseJackie]

28. Meh.

[kiranon]

32. Just call it a term of endearment and move on

Just let it go. Just about everyone - Democrats and Republicans use the term.

[OnDoutside]

34. Meh, 450,000 dead. Some of ye would want to get over yourselves.

[arlyellowdog]

44. She did NOT call him that

She referred to #LadyG

[Vinca]

46. OMG - our side MUST BE PURE AS THE DRIVEN SNOW. Meanwhile, back in Trumpville, they'll

be calling Psaki a red-haired, hooker bitch. Guaranteed.

[NurseJackie]

50. Thank you.

[smirkymonkey]

125. Thank YOU, Vinca!

[dem4decades]

52. She should just call him "Piece of shit Graham" and be done with it.

[ProfessorGAC]

108. Or "Dirty Money"

His ethical acrobatics in defense of T%p has got to be something other than compromising sexual orientation information.
I thinks there's a BIG pile of dirty, foreign money, and they've got the receipts.

[JonLP24]

188. I think foreign money is more likely to be the case

But I think the explanation is a lot more simple. He is a Republican that wants to stay in power. Democrats will rally behind the nominee even if the candidate wasn't their first choice. Graham is also a politician that knows how to keep his seat.

[bpj62]

53. Enough

This story has been floating around for a few weeks now. Let's go ahead and help the Republicans and the media by removing a competent Press Secretary. First of all who is the group that is saying that her comment is homophobic and secondly I have never heard that phrase used in a offensive manner.
We are engaged in a fight for the heart and soul of this nation and some people on this board want to gather a firing squad for an off handed comment made when she was a political commentator. I believe her body of work speaks to a great support for the LBGT community. But hey you guys go ahead with your circular firing squad.

.

[MineralMan]

58. OK, then. A six-day-old hit-piece story about Jen Psaki,

on a day when the impeacment trial gets underway. And about a tweet from a year ago. How nice....

Did you notice that nobody has recced your post? Wonder why?

Maybe you could find something else to occupy your time...

[Behind the Aegis]

64. I saw this article on a queer site 7 days ago!

I didn't post here because of the comments we are seeing throughout this thread.

Thanks!

[MineralMan]

73. It was a thoroughly regrettable comment at the time.

It's odd that it's coming up just now, as the impeachment trial begins, though.

I think she should apologize for her use of the nickname. Probably she will. I also think that it's not all that, when it comes to mistakes being made by someone who wasn't working for Biden when she said it.

Lindsey Graham is also regrettable, but in a far more serious way.

[Behind the Aegis]

79. I know Marble Falls is HIGHLY unlikely to be trolling.

Therefore, my conclusion is this was posted simply because it was a sad story, but worthy of notice. With ONE notable exception (see above), most are simply calling for an apology. Using bigoted language should never be given a pass, even if on our side. Was the original intent of the people who reported on this a "hit piece", maybe, but it happened. She can simply apologize and move on, IMO. What I dislike is when people make excuses for even commenting on, much less criticizing, people on our side when they make homophobic (and anti-Semitic) remarks.

ETA: And my prediction came to pass. I am shocked. Oh, wait, no I am not!

[MineralMan]

84. I don't excuse the use of that nickname at all.

I wouldn't use it. I like Leningrad Linsey better.

I'm just confused about why it would appear here today, rather than some other day. I'm sure Jen Psaki will express her regrets for it shortly.

[Behind the Aegis]

86. To be very clear...

...I know you didn't excuse it. I can understand your confusion, but I want you to understand, what I am trying to get across to you, is that had this article been posted 6 days ago, this thread would likely have looked the same! THAT IS A PROBLEM.

[MineralMan]

88. There are problems and then there are PROBLEMS.

Baby/bathwater.

I've read your comments in the thread. We are not in opposition.

[Behind the Aegis]

92. No, we are not in opposition.

An apology works for me. My issue, now, is how this is being treated as a topic and feel that the discussion of homophobia, especially when from people on our side, generally devolves into the display we see in this thread; excuse making, minimization, and outright straightsplainin'. To me, this is indicative of a larger issue of heterosexism (straight privilege) and homophobia within our ranks. That's all I was trying to get across to you.

[MineralMan]

93. I get it. The whole thing was avoidable, frankly.

That was my only point, really.

[marble falls]

83. This is not a hit piece. It would never take any attention from the impeachment trial ...

My issue is using a slur on someone else. Pstaki is no homophobe that I know about, but that "MissG'' thing is a slur.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215077572#post29


Lindsey Graham is probably being looked at for some action/sanction or another, but his being or not being gay has not got a thing to with it.

[MineralMan]

87. Well, I don't care what Graham's sexuality is.

That is completely irrelevant. He is noxious, regardless. On the other hand, Jen Psaki has shown herself to be a very competent Press Secretary for the Biden administration.

She will, no doubt, express her regrets for using that nickname for Leningrad Lindsey. Then, we'll move on to more important issues, perhaps.

[NurseJackie]

68. I noticed.

I also have a few other observations on this matter as well. I won't go into great detail (for obvious reasons) but I do trust the opinion and guidance and sense of humor of my son and his husband when it comes to anything having to do with the delicate Southern Gentleman from South Carolina. (They always make me laugh... I love 'em to pieces.)

[MineralMan]

75. Yes. Well, I'm pleased to see that this thread is not getting recced.

Perhaps there is a pattern to it.

[NurseJackie]

82. You are not alone in that observation.

[tonedevil]

197. Thank you for pointing that out...

I might not have given this OP its well deserved recommend.

[rurallib]

66. Moving along

there is an impeachment trial going on about this guy who tried to overthrow our government.

[NurseJackie]

105. I know! Weird, huh?

[KentuckyWoman]

72. I don't like it either.

[Hekate]

80. Gosh, from the headline I thought she'd said it from the WH podium just today....

Let us not participate in the destruction of our own again.

[Buckeyeblue]

85. But Graham is straight. If anything this is just a tease for him being a wimp

[redstateblues]

89. Maybe give her a show on MSNBC

[tavernier]

90. I've heard some women say that their husbands sometimes

“whine like a little old lady”... I’ve never considered the remark homophobic, but rather a bit sexist.
But I’m a little old lady and I probably laughed when they said it and didn’t take offense. So I guess I have to take a pass on this one.

[mac56]

96. You mean, five months before she became press secretary?

Good lord.

I agree with the poster down-thread who says it's mighty curious this is being dredged up the day that the Senate impeachment trial begins.

[NurseJackie]

97. Indeed.

[BannonsLiver]

144. The OP has proven to be extremely interested in this particular subject.

[Autumn]

100. She should say "I regret some people got upset at my choice of words". And move on.

[NurseJackie]

104. Works for me.

[Vivienne235729]

110. Yes!!!

[Autumn]

112. She should not apologize. She's nicer and more civil than anyone Trump ever had working for him.

[dalton99a]

137. She should delete the verbiage in question

and if anyone wants to harass her, tell them to go harass Republicans or better yet go fuck themselves


Remember Al Franken

[Autumn]

147. Exactly! Remember Al Franken and go fuck themselves

[dalton99a]

134. +1

[Solly Mack]

101. My guess is she will apologize and then check herself going forward. She seems a decent sort.

Republicans feigning outrage have motives that have nothing to do with doing with what is right and decent. They don't give a flying fuck about being homophobic or using slurs of any kind.

Searching out old tweets and old facebook comments is what people do - on both sides. We can pretend that isn't true but then we would be lying. It should come as absolutely no surprise that republicans are doing it hard and heavy.

Yes, republicans are hypocrites. It's pretty much the default for them.

I'm more than a little disappointed at some of the excuses for the slur used. Not surprised, really - but disappointed. It is a slur. It is a homophobic slur. Just because everyone says it or most people say it or a lot of people say it doesn't make it right. That's the same excuse people give/gave for using racial slurs - everyone does it or did it - it was what people said at the time - usually followed by - but they learned better.

Well, learn better now.

But that Jen Psaki will do the right thing, of that I have no doubt. I don't think her homophobic. I think her careless and insensitive in her choice of using the slur at that time. She'll do the right thing and everyone can all move on. Republicans won't, but then they're hypocrites.

I hold Graham in contempt and can find all kinds of colorful ways to express that that don't involve calling him "Lady G". I don't care what some sex worker said. Unless you have personal experience - with receipts - or Graham saying it - it is all speculation, innuendo, and gossip.

There's nothing wrong or bad or weak about being gay. There's nothing wrong or bad or weak about being a woman.

Who gives a fuck if Graham is gay or not? Yes, if he is then he's an even bigger hypocrite. And if he isn't then it is a big ball of ugly homophobia being thrown at him as a means of attack - because people know other people will think less of him for being gay. And how sad is that? To know people will think less of someone for being gay? And then to play on that bigotry?

There is something wrong with suggesting gay (LBTQ) people play a male/female dynamic when engaged in sexual activity - the whole "Who's the woman/man?" bigoted ignorance or suggesting that a gay man is somehow not masculine or a real man. Meaning, more like a woman - which suggests there is something lacking/less about being a woman. Same as saying a lesbian is somehow not a real woman if she doesn't conform to other people's views on what femininity means. And as there does exist a spectrum, this point extrapolates throughout.

This has nothing to do with role playing between partners, so let's not pretend it does.

There is something wrong in suggesting a man who doesn't fit your idea of masculinity is gay simply because of your limited and narrow definition of what it means to be a man. Or a limited and narrow view of what it means to be a woman, for that matter.

There's a spectrum, we all exist on it somewhere. It's part of who we are as a person and not a part we ought to attack in others.

Not even an obsequious piece of shit like Graham. He is a piss poor excuse for a human. His views and actions have caused harm for decades. I can't think of a single nice thing to say about him. Not that I've ever thought about it long enough to even try. Would be a waste of time.

[Behind the Aegis]

123. And once again...

I was planning on writing to you in a PM because I didn't want to kick this travesty of a thread back to the first page, but then I thought, I really should comment to you directly for others to see, to see your example. Then, others started to kick it back up, so I didn't feel like I was re-contributing to this dumpster fire of a thread.

Your response, in my opinion, exemplifies the response of a true ally to the GLBT community. You don't engage in "whataboutism", you don't 'splain' to us, you don't qualify your opinion with the caveat of "some of my best friends/family are queer", you don't deflect with "concerns" about why this topic is up for discussion or parse the nature of the word "homophobia", you don't fixate on one extremist opinion, nor do you minimize the concerns of the GLBT community because "there are more important things". No, you state your opinion in a way that is clear that the comment is homophobic, but that Psaki is highly unlikely to be homophobic. A simple apology and a concerted effort to do better in the future is what you see as the answer; I agree.

But, you go further. You lay out why what was said was homophobic and presents a real concern for how this type of language is harmful, even if the target is our "enemy." You demonstrate how gay men, in particular, are made less than by particular stereotypes. And, yes, you also point out the rank and unsurprising hypocrisy of the right-wing and their "concerns" about homophobia, as well as other -isms. In short, you embodied an "allies response" to the article.

For all the reasons I stated above, things you didn't engage in, is the exact reason I didn't post this article 7 days ago. Frankly, I just didn't have it in me to experience the rank heterosexism and casual dismissal of homophobia, which, personally, I find to be homophobic. No, I felt it better to just let it slide. Sometimes, it is better to still think, pretend, you are a gay man, then face the obviousness that really, once you walk out the room, you aren't a gay man, you are really just another faggot.

I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, I appreciate your speaking out as an ally. I feel validated. You exemplify what it is to be an ally to the GLBT community and I am glad you are here! I hope others read your response and learn from it!

[Solly Mack]

126. ...

I almost didn't reply in the thread myself, for all the reasons you can imagine. But, well...I do me.

[MustLoveBeagles]

127. Very well said

Thank you

[Solly Mack]

130. You're welcome.

[JanMichael]

115. I cannot believe the people here that think she should resign.

Sure it was not a cool thing to say. Not for me and especially not for someone that is in the international spotlight.

That said it is like (this is a slight deviation from where I started) people that think that only gay people can play gay characters in movies. Or only autistic people can play autistic characters in movies. Sure Tom Cruise being the Last Samurai....ok I lost my train of thought again.

I guess I'm not a purist or think every slight is worth killing people politically over ala Franken. ALL people have flaws. We all have them. We have likely all said or even...shudder..."thought" things that we now find wrong.

This is also akin to the "Old Bolsheviks" who were executed. Let's not purge the left until there is like one person left that never had an impure thought.

[dalton99a]

145. Purification helps Republicans, not Democrats

While Republicans get dirtier and more powerful

[uncle ray]

116. oh, so someone who goes by "Reverend Doctor Jill Biden Derek Hunter" is offended?

and called Psaki "Ginger Goebbels"?

yeah, they sound like a real authority on the subject. they can fuck right off with their faux outrage.

[dsc]

117. For the record this is why liberals shouldn't say crap like this

but that said, an apology should be sufficient.

[Callado119]

118. I really don't care do you??

As a gay man I don’t find this homophobic at all, but I’m sure a lot of mostly straight white folks will feign outrage; therefore, it would have been better if she didn’t say it but a simple apology would do if it becomes an issue. The people saying she should resign over such a silly thing come off as the worst caricature of right wingers mostly imaginary “cancel culture”.

[Zorro]

119. I wouldn't mind hearing this apology from her

"I'd like to apologize to that fucking traitorous asshole Lindsey Graham if his delicate feelings were offended by the term 'Lady G'".

[canetoad]

120. Let us all take a moment

To ponder the meaning of the suffix 'phobic'.

If anyone here truly believes that Jen Psaki has, "an extreme or irrational fear of....", then please state your reasons.

Otherwise, don't put the cart before the horse.

[dalton99a]

141. +1. Jen Psaki is a friend of the LGBT community and does not deserve this kind of swiftboating.

[MustLoveBeagles]

129. She should apologize and move on

It was a stupid thing to say but nobody's perfect. It's likely she'll learn from this and not do it again. Let's not Franken her over one mistake.

[Marrah_Goodman]

132. She should issue an apology.

But should not lose her job.

[dalton99a]

133. Psaki is not a homophobe, and she is doing an absolutely outstanding job for Democrats.

[Wounded Bear]

135. Unfortunate, but hardly in the realm of the typical RW bullshit. Apologize and move on...nt

[BannonsLiver]

138. Boo hoo.

[NurseJackie]

154. I linked this thread to my son...

... he just rolled his eyes.

[Sugarcoated]

143. My son is gay and he makes these kind of jokes about Graham

as have I a few times. I am not justifying it, I'm saying we're all human...and we're also not public people. We all have made distasteful jokes in private. I'm sure Psaki will give a sincere apology.

[BruceWane]

148. I don't see this as homophobic

It's an insult directed at lacking masculinity, derived from his obvious lack of integrity and/or courage.

It's calling him a wimp.

Granted, it's an incorrect, outdated theme. We know that gender has nothing to do with courage and integrity. Men are no more likely to possess these things than women.

In the case of Graham, any such insult quickly gets interpreted as homophobic only because of his personality.

If someone called Ted Cruz "LadyC" for his spineless compliance to Trump, I don't think you'd see any accusations of homophobia.

[BruceWane]

149. To add to my own post.....

I do see this as sexist.

It's actually an insult to women; implying that women have less integrity and courage than men.

But this kind of thing is one of the last vestiges of our patriarchic culture. Hopefully it'll go soon, but I think it's not really being seen for what it is yet. It's a theme that is still used by an awful lot of women who are otherwise quite aware.

[nsd]

150. +1

This is a good point. It's more sexist than homophobic. Accusing Graham of lacking courage or convictions is one thing (and true), but doing so by using a sexist stereotype is another (and false).

[BGBD]

157. No

That's not what it is.

Calling him LadyG isn't saying anything about women's integrity. It's mocking him for using a pseudonym to call on male prostitutes. It's mocking his hypocrisy, not his sexuality or gender.

Why try to turn it into all this it's not?

[TuskMoar]

196. Wrong

It is suggesting he has less integrity and courage because he is a gay man who sides with the party against equal rights.

[Happy Hoosier]

155. Some in the LGBT community use this term as well...

... not to insult his sexuality, but in disdain for his being closeted.

But that's not my call, really. It's tempting to use the term, but I won't. It's not my place as a straight man.

[Marthe48]

156. If I were going to be offended

it would be for a couple of reasons. It would be because I see the nickname as more describing graham as womanish. While I know there are rumors about his sexual orientation, I think the nickname alluded to his weak character, and people assume women are weak. Ha.

And I am offended this is being called out, because impeached traitor and his henchmen had no problem assigning nicknames to any and all, the more offensive, the better. And come to think of it, bush jr. had nicknames for people too. karl rove's nickname turd blossom comes to mind.

We should all avoid using offensive nicknames, not just because we aren't children, but also because everyone in the public eye is on tape and it'll come back to bite progressives and liberals harder.

[MoonlitKnight]

160. Lady G has more to do with him being a client of escorts

Than his sexual orientation or identification.

I do not condone any comments regarding his orientation or identity. But his nickname used in participating in illegal activities is fair game. I don’t think it should be illegal, but it is and I don’t see him advocating to change the law, so it’s fair to use it against him.

[SunSeeker]

161. Exactly. nt

[Ms. Toad]

162. Good.

I hope she has enough sense to own up to it, learn from it, and to apologize.

(Posted before I read through the thread and get disappointed, again, at how many on DU still don't recognize how hurtful this homophobia is.)

[SunSeeker]

170. Are the gay sex workers who came up with the Lindsey nickname "Lady G" homophobes?

[Ms. Toad]

176. First of all -

No one has directly and reliably linked that back to sex workers. It's all just rumor. So you'are justifying the use of a homophobic/transphobic/sexist slur based on nothing more than what may well be another homophobic rumor.

But to answer more directly - yes. Members of the LGBT community are not free from homophobia - and just like the paper bag test within the Black community, there is a hierarchy and discrimination within the LGBT community - and effeminate men are traditionally pretty low in the ranks.

Finally - naming, and gendering, is personal. Unless Graham chose that name for himself, it is inappropriate for anyone to impose it on him - any more than it is for parents to insist on deadnaming their trans child, or for members of the public to refer to someone by pronouns they have rejected.

[SunSeeker]

184. The link was made.

The alllegations were made on Twitter by gay adult film star Sean Harding, who indicated that “Lady G,” refers to Graham’s nickname among male sex workers.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/10/ladygraham-went-viral-not-just-because-lindsey-grahams-politics/

Are you saying Sean Harding is not credible because he is a gay adult film star?

And how do we know Graham didn't approve of the nickname in private?

Freddy Mercury privately had feminine nicknames for his closest friends. His name for Elton John was Sharon:

"Years before, Freddie and I had developed pet names for each other, our drag-queen alter egos. I was Sharon and he was Melina. Freddie's note read, 'Dear Sharon, I thought you'd like this. Love, Melina. Happy Christmas.' " https://www.smoothradio.com/artists/queen/elton-john-freddie-mercury-gift-story/

[Ms. Toad]

187. I'm saying that is second hand rumor.

Not to mention that what OTHERS call him is completely irrelevant to whehter WHAT they call him is homophobic/transphobic/sexist.

If Graham has not publically accepted the name, then no one has any business referring to him in public by that name. Names are personal, and it is important to respect the names people ask you to use (and not to use names they do not ask ou to use.)

How specific gay men refer to each other in private (with each other's consent) does not give the general public the right to use those names as an insult than the reality that some portions of the Black comunity use the term N***** with each other gives white folks the right to use the term

I can't imagine anyone using the word n*** on DU as an insult to Clarence Thomas' - or justirying its use by claiming it is being used merely to demonstrate his hypocrisy. But somehow it's just hunky dory to post homophobic crap here.

[SunSeeker]

191. Feminine pet names gay men give each other does not equate to the n-word.

And what Sean Harding said was not second hand rumor. It was not even hearsay. He was reporting what he heard gay male sex workers call Graham. That would be admissible in court for the truth of the matter asserted.

Link to tweet

This prompted another male sex worker to post an article on the open blogging website Medium detailing an alleged encounter he had with “Lady G.” This article not only named the Republican senator, and outed him as gay, but included intimate details about the senator’s body, much like how Stormy Daniels was able to describe Trump's intimate body parts.

[Ms. Toad]

192. The principle is identical.

A group is entitled to reclaim hurtful words that have been used as insults atainst them.

The fact that some within those groups choose to do so does not give the general public the right to use those same words in the same way they have always been used against members of the group: as insults.

Period. End of story.

And as someone who teaches evidence, among other subjects, you're flat out wrong on the law. Feel free to ask any of the students I taught hearsay to a few hours ago.

[SunSeeker]

193. No, it's not. And if Harding says he heard sex workers call Graham Lady G, how is that hearsay?

Harding is a direct witness of those utterances. Therefore, he can testify in court as to whether those sex workers called Graham Lady G.

And I'd love to talk to one of your students. Where do you teach?

[Ms. Toad]

194. He is reporting on what someone else said.

That's the most common form of hearsay. (Break the word down: What he heard someone else say).

Reporing on what someone else DID is not hearsay. Reporting on what someone else said is classic hearsay.

A standard definition of hearsay is an (1) out-of-court (2) statement (3) offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

The reported comments were made out of court (wherever Harding heard them).
The comments made by the sex workers are statements
They are being offered to prove, as true, that Graham is actually called "Lady G"

It can get a lot more complex than that - but that's a 10,000 foot hearsay lesson.

[SunSeeker]

195. No, he is asserting that he heard specific sex workers call Lindsay Graham Lady G.

You have the wrong matter asserted for the 3rd element.

As you note, reporting on what someone did is not hearsay. That is what is happening. Harding is reporting on what he observed certain sex workers doing: calling Lindsey Graham Lady G.

Harding's observations are offered to prove that these specific sex workers called Graham Lady G. Harding is referring to SPECIFIC sex workers he actually heard talking about Graham, not all sex workers. So Hardings observations are not hearsay. He is simply stating what he heard these people say, not the truth of the matter asserted by these sex workers, i.e. that they had sex with Graham, etc.

[Ms. Toad]

198. What they were DOING was speaking.

The moment you introduce the words they spoke (e.g. referring to Graham as Lady G) you are in hearsay land.

This whole sub-thread is about proving that sex workers refer to Graham's as Lady G, you can't prove that just by having Harding testify that he heard them talk. You have to introduce what they actually said. In other words what Harding HEARd the sex worker SAY.

[SunSeeker]

200. The words are not introduced for the truth of the matter asserted.

This subthread is not about proving all sex workers refer to Graham as Lady G. This is about Sean Harding asserting that he heard gay male sex workers he knows calling Lindsey Graham "Lady G." That's it. You said that is hearsay. It is not.

Harding is just testifying that he heard these men state these words, not that the words were true. That is not hearsay.

For example, a witness testifying about hearing a defendant saying out-of-court slander in a slander action is not hearsay evidence. The plaintiff is introducing the evidence to prove the matter was asserted, not that what was asserted was true. In fact, the plaintiff seeks to show the' words are not true. But to win his slander case, the plaintiff must show that these specific words were asserted, a physical act. So he puts on a witness who heard the defendant say these words. The witness is simply testifying to what he heard. That is not hearsay since it is not introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted (your third element of hearsay), only that it was asserted.

[Ms. Toad]

203. If you want to prove that a specific sex worker called Graham,

You still need the content of the conversation - not the act of talking. If you need the acctual words used in order to prove your point, it is hearsay.

You still can't prove that he heard gay male sex workers he knew call Graham Lady G, without using the words he heard them say.

As to defamation, some things are not hearsay, by definition. Out of court statements made by a party (the defamatory statement), offered against that party (the defendant) fall in to a category of hearsay exclusions: things that would otherwise be hearsay, but we've decided to exclude them from the category. So you are correct as to the outcome (the defamatory statement is not hearsay) but your reasoning is wrong. But, unless the defendant in your hypothetical case is the sex worker, he is not a party, and his words are not being used against him, so the words he used don't fall into the exclusion that makes a defamatory statement not hearsay.

[SunSeeker]

207. It's admissible if Graham sued Harding for defamation for saying sex workers called Lindsey Lady G.

And again, you're skipping over the "truth of the matter asserted" element. He can testify that he heard certain gay sex workers he knows say, "I call Lindsey Lady G while we have sex." He is not introducing it for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e. that the sex worker actually calls Lindsey Lady G while having sex with him. He is just introducing it to prove he heard the sex worker say that.

[cwydro]

206. Why the hell should we believe what this guy says?

I don’t care what he does for a living, but people lie about public figures every single day.

Hope that’s not news to you.

[SunSeeker]

208. Why would you believe Lindsey? We KNOW that guy lies.

And no, it's not news that people lie every day about everything.

But there have been enough confirmed stories of anti-gay rights Republicans turning out to be themselves gay that the story is plausible. Am I 100% sure it's true? Of course not. Do I think it could be true? Sure.

[JCMach1]

171. Apologize for nothing and use that Republican freedom of speech

Argument.

It was SARCASM based on the Senator's hypocrisy, not homophobia.

[mopinko]

202. it's 'fairly viewed' that way, but not widely.

it's been hotly debated on here for years. that and miss lindsey.

it's rly not as cut and dried as this report make it sound. absent the rest of his odious behavior, it wouldnt even be a thing.

[cwydro]

204. As I've stated before, people use that as a slur all the time in posts here.

Annoying, but she wasn’t the press sec at the time. I wish she hadn’t done it, but I’d hate to lose her because she’s good at her job.