Armstrong speaks out on Shirvell harassment

Chris Armstrong, the University of Michigan undergraduate student body President being harassed by Assistant Attorney General of Michigan Andrew Shirvell, appeared with Anderson Cooper last night. Here’s the video:

While I know plenty of gay men who would love to meet Anderson Cooper, I wouldn’t wish these circumstances on anyone.

To my knowledge, Shirvell, a graduate of the Ave Maria anti-abortion Law School, has yet to be fired from the office of the Attorney General, in spite of waging this viscous, prolonged, and clearly homophobic attack against Armstrong. (Shirvell has taken a voluntary leave of absence, and Cox, so far, has defended his actions, as protected under the first amendment.) For information on how to contact Attorney General Mike Cox click here. And be sure to ask him why, when his office is charged with prosecuting cyber bullies, he continues to harbor this sick, twisted little man… One just hopes that Shirvell, who has been banned from the campus of the University of Michigan as a security threat, gets the help that he needs before his unhealthy obsession with this young man turns violent.

This entry was posted in Civil Liberties, Michigan and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Calvin
    Posted October 7, 2010 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

    I’m proud of him for speaking out. (Armstrong, not Shrivelled Taint.) It’s particular important this week, after the suicide of Tyler Clementi at Rutgers, for young gay people to know that bullying isn’t the norm and that things will get better.

  2. 'Ff'lo
    Posted October 7, 2010 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

    I feel for the sick twisted little man. And I’m part of the militant homosexual agenda. I was even a Lesbian Avenger for a while (slogan [and I approve this message]: “We Recruit”). But it’s not just that I’ve been watching Johnny Guitar again, in dribs and drabs, on my DVR all week; I was feeling for him before revisiting that fine melodramatic depiction of mob mentality.

    Dude showed, in his personal blogging life and in some creepy but not illegal stalk-ish ways, terrible judgment, creepiness, and (of course) crazy homophobia of the sort that makes a high percentage of those seeing his notorious interview think he must be wanting desperately to f*ck Chris Armstrong (or, more likely, I’m guessing people think, be f*cked by him) (or, wait, maybe just bl*w him) (or perhaps a humiliation thing?). Yes, surely in public office we want people not to be nutso hateful obsessive whacked out, particularly in public office in an ostensibly JUSTICE-related position. And this sort of behavior makes lots of us think somebody who thinks and acts that way, if we were in charge, would be out of a job toot sweet. But in some significant way I’m glad of however much our clamoring doesn’t affect the decision there. If bunches of morally outraged people clamoring get to decide who keeps a job, …. Well. I think you know where it’s easy enough to go with that.

    I even wonder how much damage can he do in that job— if his review after the suspension/leave he’s on allows him to continue, that is. Sure doesn’t seem like his job influences policy. I won’t go to the slippery slope “So we should fire all the homophobes?” but I do want to say something about the snowball effect of the righteous ganging up on the little weirdo. Cuz let’s admit it: part of why that interview went so viral is his demeanor, his nebbishy —what did you call it?— “sick twisted little man” thing. If the gay head of the student group were the nebbishy one and the homophobe young and “hot,” and smooth in delivering his idiotic ideas, Anderson wouldn’t have had such a hit on his hands, you know it. If neither were either, it probably would barely have made a ripple.

    On the mob mentality front, it’s my impression that *some* of the decrying of his foolishness and hatred that accompanies people’s passing the clip around is about aligning oneself with the righteous. I confess I seem to get a whiff of that just a tad more from the “straight but not narrow!” gang, and that’s clearly me doing some stereotyping right there, but still. Also, the way he’s become such a butt of all of our contempt and giggly speculation about his sexuality and whatever other demons (and cultural forces) might be driving his nuttiness– that’s got an element of townspeople with pitchforks and torches and tar and feathers and horses and ropes and piling-on outrage.

    It’s not that I hope he keeps his job. It’s that what’s happened around this story has, to me, creepy elements in how the creepy guy is being reacted to, as well as in his original creepy behavior.

    And I sorta do hope he doesn’t get fired. Or if he does he gets help. And that some people, even on the left, remember he’s, as you say, sick, and when somebody’s sick, somebody needs treatment, and I don’t mean giving him the business, blasting him with both barrels, or demonizing him like he tried to demonize Armstrong.

  3. Knox
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 6:09 am | Permalink

    Well said, ‘Ff’lo.

  4. Robert
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 6:45 am | Permalink

    For a few hours Cox’s office was saying they suspended Shirvell. Later that day they changed the story, saying that he had taken a voluntary leave of absence. There is no reason not to report these details as they actually happened. It is not everyone else’s responsibility to cover for Cox’s incompetence.

    It should also be noted that Cox’s office has essentially aided Shirvell in dodging the court process server regarding the PPO. This is almost certainly the reason Shirvell was so suddenly released from his duties at the AG office.

  5. EOS
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    I like it how Anderson laughs at the idea that anyone might consider Armstrong’s views as being part of a radical homosexual agenda. Just consider the implications of his support for gender neutral housing. An innocent young woman, living away from home for the first time in her life, might be required to share a room with a biological male, who still retains his external sex organs, yet identifies as transgendered. Complaints made by females, who might be offended if a biological male struts naked in the woman’s locker room, would be a violation of student code and the females would be subject to disciplinary action. Since the University is public property, any heterosexual male off the streets is entitled to linger in remote, isolated women’s bathrooms until an unsuspecting female prey needs to use the facilities. Don’t fool yourselves – this is still considered very radical policy by most Americans.

  6. Peter Larson
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    Actually, what he’s after is voluntary mixed gender rooming which is not radical at all.

    As far as the bathrooms, most dorms at the UM are already mixed (outside of the rooms), so even now, evil heterosexual men can easily hide out in bathrooms. I don’t really understand your argument here.

    Don’t you think that it would be worse to have gay guys mixed in with straight guys? Who knows what could happen late at night.

  7. Edward
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 8:16 am | Permalink

    They aren’t very good gay activists if their goal is mixed sex dorms. Think about it.

  8. Robert
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    If EOS is suggesting we turn U of M into an all girl school, I am 100% with him on that.

  9. lorie thom
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    EOS, honey, you are really living under some rock.

  10. Alice
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    Why is EOS commenting on this thread and not the one about rampant violence in his beloved township?

  11. dragon
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    So you don’t think males should be advocating positions that would affect the lives of young women?

  12. Andy1313
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    EOS, you are awesome. At first I thought you were serious, but then realized that only a complete fucking moron would think that gender neutral housing would ever be mandatory.

    You almost got me tho. Tip o the hat at your clever misdirection.

  13. EOS
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Gender neutral bathrooms are currently mandatory on U of M campus. Any complaints are currently considered for disciplinary action.

  14. Robert
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    Mandatory, EOS? And who exactly is required to do what exactly by order of this mandate?

  15. Ted
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    EOS is right on this. I was just on the campus of the University of Michigan and I was forced, against my will, to have a transvestite hold my penis as I urinated.

  16. Peter Larson
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    I believe that there is a requirement for unisex bathrooms in um buildings, but that’s in addition to regular boy girl bathrooms, which are also required.

  17. Peter Larson
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    I think that EOS is trying to say that the UM has had to get rid of men’s and women’s rooms?

    Honestly, I am here every single day and often use the bathroom clearly marked “men”. Sometimes, if I have to lay one down, I will use the unisex/handicapped restroom.

    Have you ever been on the UM campus?

    If indeed that’s what you are implying, where are you getting this information, because I haven’t seen it.

    Please tell me where you got this information.

  18. EOS
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    UM has Men’s, Women’s, and Unisex bathrooms. They consider it discriminatory to require transgendered individuals to use unisex bathrooms. (Since using designated bathrooms would Out their identities.) Any person of any gender is allowed to use any bathroom of their choosing, and no one is allowed to question their choice. I’m busy now, but when I find the legal interpretation of the University on the Web I will post it.

  19. Edward
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    By “lay one down,” do you mean “make love to a man,” Pete?

  20. Edward
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    EOS, please tell us where you would have transgendered people pee at your university. Or wouldn’t you accept them in the first place?

  21. Peter Larson
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    I don’t really get your point at all.

  22. EOS
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 3:21 pm | Permalink


    In my world, I would have individuals use the bathroom that corresponds with their biological equipment. In my world, there are two and only two sexes. The rare individual who is born with ambiguous equipment should choose a sex early in their development.


    I was responding to Andy’s claim that I was a complete fucking moron because he thought that gender neutral policies could never be made mandatory. At UM they are. If you want to use the women’s restroom, or lay down on their couches, you can do so. No one will ask you to prove your transgenderedness, and if they do, you can get them expelled or fired.

  23. Robert
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Oh my god! Transgendered people are allowed to use the bathroom! What is this world coming to?! I can’t stand the thought of it. Now I have no choice but to barricade myself in my basement for years and get all my news of the outside world from Fox. Maybe I can stay with you EOS. Is that cool?

    Really, EOS? There aren’t enough problems that actually exist in the world for you to get all worked up over? Would you like me to put together a list of real shit that is going on in the world? It should only take me a minute or so to put one together which would keep you busy for the rest of your existence.

  24. EOS
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    I am merely stating the obvious – it is a radical agenda. Transgendered rights trump Women’s safety concerns. Transgendered rights trump religious observances e.g. Muslim women can’t adjust their headscarfs in front of a mirror in a restroom where a male might walk in at any time. Its all about diminishing the obvious differences between the two sexes and blurring the gender roles and destroying the family.

    This a concern that YOU have got yourself so worked up about that you are calling for Shirvell to be fired and all the cases he has worked on to be looked at for the possibility of overturning decisions? You are the one who posted 10 separate times on the Shirvell taint post. Isn’t there enough real problems that actually exist in the world for you to get all worked up over? Should the guy not be able to make a living just because he holds a different political viewpoint than you?

  25. Peter Larson
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    I fail to see how transgendered people pose a threat to women in bathrooms that they are already allowed to use.

    Since UM has instituted this policy, have there been any events?

  26. Peter Larson
    Posted October 8, 2010 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    For the record, I’ve probably met more than 200 transgendered people in my lifetime and I would say that none of them pose any threat to men or women.

  27. Posted October 8, 2010 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

    So, EOS, if you ran a university, you’d demand that people, when they apply, include a polaroid of their genitalia? Or would you inspect them as were dropped off by their parents on the first day of classes? I find this fascinating.

  28. lorie thom
    Posted October 9, 2010 at 7:01 am | Permalink

    EOS, again, I refer to that rock you are under…male genitalia is a threat to women? !

    Rip, you’ve missed a little bit of time while you were asleep.

  29. Peter Larson
    Posted October 9, 2010 at 7:03 am | Permalink

    I would be much more concerned about a transgendered male to female person using a male public restroom.

  30. EOS
    Posted October 10, 2010 at 4:42 am | Permalink

    I’m afraid that you have missed the point. I wasn’t claiming that males who think they are females and use the Women’s bathroom are a threat to Women. What constitutes the threat I referred to is the practice of allowing all males to enter Women’s bathrooms and the Universities reluctance to take any measures to keep men from loitering in the Women’s restrooms. In case you weren’t aware, rape of Women on college campuses is a common occurrence. Most are date rapes or acquaintance rapes, but a significant number are committed by men who take advantage of isolated, vulnerable women with whom they have no relationship. It is significant to note that the University will not designate a single bathroom on campus to be limited to a single sex regardless of the fact that more than 99.9% of the persons on campus have that expectation.

  31. Peter Larson
    Posted October 10, 2010 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    I don’t really see how having a law that says that men can’t hang out in womens rooms is going to stop a rapist. Please explain to me how that will work.

  32. Peter Larson
    Posted October 10, 2010 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    Also, you never indicated whether there have been an increase in inciddents of men raping women in restrooms. Has this happened?

    I realize that you true aim is to prevent governments from legally recognizing transgendered and homosexual individuals, but rather than deal with hypotheticals, try to back up your claims because I don’t see these catastrophic avalanches that you indicate.

    Or just be honest that you don’t feel that transgendered and homosexual persons are deserving of recognition.

  33. Robert
    Posted October 11, 2010 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    Mark, I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice in exchange for the identity of EOS. This also goes for dragon and BA.

  34. Stephen
    Posted October 11, 2010 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    I thought that we’d already established that EOS was a washed up cop now living on the people’s teat as Township Trustee.

  35. Robert
    Posted October 11, 2010 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    One person suggested EOS is Stan Eldridge. However, the individual who made that claim would not share with me her reasons for having come to this conclusion. If she would verify her claim for me I’d be happy to give her the hundred bucks.

    There should be enough clues here posted in their comments to put together a profile and ultimately identify these people, but I just thought I’d offer Mark the cash as a short cut which would save me some work.

  36. Edward
    Posted October 11, 2010 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    OK, let’s start the profile building.

    I’ll start.

    1. White.
    2. Male.
    3. Self-described as Christian.
    4. Living within Ypsi Township.
    5. Owns guns.
    6. Slightly overweight.
    7. Balding.
    8. Some community college experience.
    9. Approximately 50 years old.

  37. Peter Larson
    Posted October 11, 2010 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    2, 5 and 9 are incorrect.

  38. Robert
    Posted October 11, 2010 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    How do you know that, Peter? This is cool and fun. I hope Mark starts a thread dedicated to profiling and identifying EOS. I would love that.

  39. Elf
    Posted October 11, 2010 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    I was pretty sure that he was a man, Pete. But, then again, he did seem to know an awful lot about which bathrooms were transexual-friendly on the U-M campus.

  40. Peter Larson
    Posted October 11, 2010 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    EOS stated previously that “there was no actress hot enough to play” her.

    She’s never made any statements about guns that I know of, indicating that she is either not familiar with them, or doesn’t care about them.

    As far as not being 50, that’s just a feeling. I have no evidence to base this assumption on but if she were 50, I would expect grammatical and spelling mistakes, indicating that she has been at community college in the past few years. She’s never been to a university; her ignorance of college campuses is obvious.

    I believe that she works a day job at a pool cleaning company.

    She’s still obviously a bigot, however. That much is clear.

  41. Edward
    Posted October 11, 2010 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps we can compromise and say “ambiguous sexuality”.

  42. dragon
    Posted October 11, 2010 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Mark, I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice in exchange for the identity of EOS. This also goes for dragon and BA.

    Here’s another clue dipshit.

    I sit on the floor and pick my nose
    and think of dirty things
    Of deviant dwarves who suck their toes
    and elves who drub their dings.

    I sit on the floor and pick my nose
    and dream exotic dreams
    Of dragons who dress in rubber clothes
    and trolls who do it in teams.

  43. Peter Larson
    Posted October 11, 2010 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    Do trolls have gender?

  44. Arfie
    Posted October 11, 2010 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    Yes, but they’re insecure about the size. It actually influences a majority of their world view.

  45. Andy C
    Posted October 11, 2010 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    I always assumed EOS was a female and read her post with a Angela Lansbury type voice. I don’t think any one should be trying to out anyone. Even if it is “coming out day”.

  46. Handy Smurf
    Posted October 12, 2010 at 2:31 am | Permalink

    Does Mark even know who EOS is?


    Why would anybody give a damn?

  47. Robert
    Posted October 12, 2010 at 8:11 am | Permalink

    Ok, so now we also know that dragon is a really shitty poet. That might help us track him down.

  48. Robert
    Posted October 12, 2010 at 9:09 am | Permalink

    Is dragon trying to tell me he is a failing literature major?

  49. lorie thom
    Posted October 29, 2010 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    looks like a change in direction for Mr. Armstrong. He has dropped the PPO and stalking complaints but his attorney has filed complaints with the State Bar Association.

    This is a wonderful thing. Mr. Shrivel has probably violated the rules for that body and if he gets disciplined, it will be public and permanently on his record. Further it will be more than a snag in getting his law license in any other state or in D.C.

  50. Robert
    Posted November 2, 2010 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    The Daily Show did a hilarious bit on Shirvell:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Jeff Clark