Utter homophobia: Will it solve AIDS? (Photo: Associated Press)

GUY IN A TURTLENECK thinks he has solved the AIDS epidemic through sheer homophobia, which has been working so well so far: "here's a way we can save the taxpayers a quick $26 billion. Since we know the cause of AIDS and the way to slow down the epidemic, if we spend any taxpayer funds at all it ought to be on education: don't start engaging in homosexual behavior, and if you have started, stop." —Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, who has previously submitted commentary on the dangerous feminization of the Medal of Honor and Hitler's army of gay soldiers.

AFTER THE JUMP: Conservative tells you how all women feel about abortion; shake-up at D.C.'s Office of GLBT Affairs; on "tranny":

D.C.'s Office of GLBT Affairs to get a new head—Christopher Dyer, the office's director under Mayor Adrian Fenty, will leave the agency's top slot at the end of the year.

GAYS AND LESBIANS OPPOSING VIOLENCE, the District's anti-hate crimes initiative, continues its odd campaign of offering local deals to shoppers sporting a GLOV keychain. Get it for the savings, keep it in case of assault.

ON "TRANNY": Parsing the terms in the New York Times' transsexuals-are-so-hot-this-year trend piece.

The Times even handled the tricky situation of using the usually pejorative “tranny” appropriately (at least in my journalistic mind), which is only in a quote. . . . I do have issues with “tranny nanny” and “transvestite” as they are used in the article.

Yes, “tranny nanny” is in quotes, but was it really necessary to include? I understand the argument that the term was being quoted from other media sources and therefore fair game. However, even if something is fair game, it’s still up to the discretion of a media outlet whether to use. It seems to me that it was included more for titillation and less for journalistic value.

JULIA DUNN, formerly of the Washington Times, makes a belated attempt to turn the Stewart/Colbert rally into a culture war by haranguing one rally-goer for aborting a nonviable fetus:

the conversation soon shifts to his 21-month-old daughter, whom he dotes on. Before she was born, I learn, there was another pregnancy. Doctors told Woudenberg and his wife that the fetus had no heartbeat, and she was advised to abort.

"Why couldn't you have at least allowed your child to live out its short life in the womb?" I ask.

I have strong feelings on this, not just because of my faith but because of a 2009 article I wrote about a Silver Spring organization called Isaiah's Promise, which encourages women with problem pregnancies to bring their babies to term. The women I had interviewed told me that doing so was less traumatic than aborting the babies would have been.

Here's a strange bit of circular logic: Women associated with a group that advocates delivering nonviable fetuses prefer to deliver nonviable fetuses than to abort them. Therefore, all women must consider such a delivery less traumatic than an abortion. That's actually the cornerstone of the whole "choice" thing: No matter how "strong" the "feelings" of the Washington Times religion editor who is sitting next to you on a bus on the subject of your wife's abortion, the woman carrying the fetus is in perhaps the best position to decide which option will be most traumatic for her.