Kokopelli, Mohawks, Appropriation, and White Racism/Privilege

This is a sort of scattered post today.

I've been thinking about Kokopelli recently because of two events. The first event (though chronologically second) is that my partner and I visited the house of one of his good friends, who has a woven rug/runner thing tacked to the wall with like 20 Kokopellis woven along it basically in a conga line. The second event (chronologically first) is that a couple weeks ago, while over at my parents house, my sister mentioned that her friend had a tattoo (I believe, I can't think of the context, but I can't think of what else it would have been BUT a tattoo) of Kokopelli. Apparently I made a face, because my sister found it necessary to explain that Kokopelli is a "Native American god*" (again, I'm not certain that was exactly what she said, but I AM certain she didn't specify either: what tribes worship(ped) him or what his powers are believed to be). I stated that I knew exactly who Kokopelli is and that my face was for the fact that I think it's really screwed up for white people (her friend is a white person, just like my whole family) to appropriate meaningful symbols/gods from other cultures.

My sister countered that I didn't know how meaningful Kokopelli is to her friend. I don't care how meaningful Kokopelli is to white folks... pick a fertility god from a culture you have a background in... oh wait, what's that?, you didn't know that Kokopelli is a fertility god?, wow he must be SUPER meaningful to you I suppose! (Sorry, angry rant done). We dropped it soon after because regardless of whatever we'd say, it wouldn't change the fact that her friend had that tattoo** (they're permanent you know).

I thought back to that argument (which my partner was there for) when we entered his friend's house. I looked at the wall hanging, and was made intensely uncomfortable by it, but we were there to ask for a favor (or something), so I didn't say anything. Which makes me feel cruddy. I think the difference was that my sister brought it up in conversation the first time, whereas just seeing a wall-hanging isn't exactly an invitation to talk about it. But I still wish I'd said something (perhaps next time we're over I'll ask what her interest in fertility gods is?).

So obviously appropriation of Native cultures has been on my mind a lot recently.

Which brings me to Native Appropriations, and Adrienne's most recent post about white people wearing "Indian"/"Indian-style" headdresses. Now there are some things I don't love about her posts on the topic, well, really just one thing. It's that she calls them "Hipster Headdresses." Yes, most hipsters are white/come from upper-middle class backgrounds, but not all. Appropriation that those (privileged) individuals do they do as privileged white/rich people, not as "hipsters." Hipsters are not defacto privileged, there isn't "hipster privilege," so it seems stupid to say it's a "hipster" thing instead of (say) a "white thing" or a "rich thing." This is a common naming that happens in liberal/radical groups where I'll hear people talk about "hipster racism" as though it isn't the same damn racism that other white people do. It's white racism, and rich classism, it isn't special to hipsters, and they aren't a specially protected/privileged group (in my analogies on this subject I've pointed out that tea drinkers are probably predominantly white/privileged just like hipsters, but we don't call racism perpetrated by them "tea drinker racism"). Anyway.

One of the things that happened the other day while I was reading her post (wherein she describes having a clothing designer come to an old post to harrass her about being opposed to white people using headdresses as a cool new "accessory") was that I was struck with revulsion at the privileged asshole-ishness of E. Starbuck. Fuck that noise.

Which brings me to mohawks (the hairstyle, not the tribe).

I'm a white person, so I have white privilege. In high school I had dreads (not something I'm proud of these days, but at the time it didn't seem like a big deal). In college I had a mohawk. For a long time I've mourned that I "can't" have a mohawk anymore. For a while I felt I couldn't because I was out in the world where people would judge me negatively for having hair that didn't conform to "appropriate" standards (but I was going to find a job and then settle in and then shave it again). More recently (the past year and a bit) I've been feeling like I "can't" wear one because of the appropriation aspect of it. But I've been fighting that. I didn't feel like it was a choice I was making for myself, but one that was made for me, and it made me upset and sad (boo hoo, I know). I'd see a person (usually white, sometimes black) walking down the street with a mohawk and sigh longingly, and then Bluejay (my partner) had to remind me that it's appropriative and such. And I keep/kept saying "but hair! it's... anyone could think up shaving a stripe onto your head! plus! all the white hairstyles are boring" and then he'd (very smart, my partner is) point out that the reason that mohawks and dreads and such seem "cool" and "not boring" is because of uh, white privilege, appropriation, and racism. So then I spent weeks/months whining (not often) about how I guess I'd just have to come up with a "not boring" hairstyle that wasn't appropriative.

Bluejay pointed out to me that maybe I could use this as a learning experience to acknowledge how difficult it can be for other white folk to give up something that they think of as dear to their hearts (Kokopelli, sweat lodges, "moccasins," whatever) "just" because of white privilege. He pointed out that the things that I've "given up" because they were racist (not going to see Avatar, being opposed to conflict diamonds, etc.) are things that I either don't care about (like clothes/jewelry) or was anti-racist before I heard about them, and thus didn't find appealing (like Avatar), so it wasn't a very big sacrifice. I'm not sure Bluejay's idea worked in making me more sympathetic to people who cling to privilege, but it is helping me acknowledge that I am not Super Anti-Racist, but instead flawed (gasp! shock! horror!).

But hey! luckily for me (and my fragile white psyche), E. Starbuck has made it oh-so-easy for me to give up my fantasy for oppression-free mohawks. How? Because the second I read zir screed, I said to myself "oh fuck, I NEVER want to act like that privileged a wanker, that's probably what I sound like about mohawks." And I was (very close to) cured of my desire for one. I mean damn but that's a jerkish thing to do: seek out a Native person to harrass because they are opposed to you stealing their culture. Ugh.

So, I don't have a really good wrap up to this, other than I guess to acknowledge to myself and the world that I am not Super Anti-Racist, but with a little help from friends (and racist assholes) I can work to be less oppressive to others. Who knows, if I talk with Bluejay's friend about Kokopelli perhaps we can move together towards a less oppressive future.

------------------------
*Using a non-capitalized "god" is not meant as a disrespect to Native cultures, but is instead due to my desire to not give a false reverence which I do not feel for any religions' god(dess)(es).

**For full disclosure I should mention that for 3 or so years in undergrad I seriously believed I'd get a full back tattoo of Quan Yin and Kali, two archetypes/goddesses/symbols that I really appreciated. At some point during that time I was talking with a Hindu friend of mine who apparently told me he thought it was fucked up that I was going to get a tattoo of a Hindu goddess even though I wasn't Hindu. I don't remember that conversation, but I do remember the one following it when he brought it up later as I mentioned some hugely disrespectful toilet paper with Hindu gods on it (I believe). He implied that what I was planning (still at the time interested in the tattoo) was only slightly less disrespectful than the toilet paper. I'm pretty sure I behaved in a privileged white way as a response (blabbing on about how she was meaningful to me, etc.). I don't know if I ever apologized to him for that (we no longer chat much). So, just to say that I'm not immune from having felt like appropriation is a-ok, but luckily I did take long enough figuring out who to design it and tattoo it and everything that I stopped wanting it.

Words Matter, So Use Them Correctly

I've got a pet peeve folks.

Well, to be honest I've probably got a lot of them, but this one in particular is making me cranky today. I'm sure other people have written extensively about it (though cursory googling does not produce any results).

It's this: Don't use "GLBT" or "LGBT" (which are the two most common iterations of that particular acronym) if you don't actually mean Gay. Lesbian. Bisexual. and Transgender. Each. Specifically.

I'm frankly pretty sick of the label being used when really it should be "white cis gay men, and maybe a few lesbians."

Things that are not *actually* GLBT friendly: the Human Rights Campaign (when the only trans person on your board quits in protest of how thoroughly you fuck over the trans community, you are NOT an organization focusing on the GLBT community, you are, at best focusing on the GLB community), the Advocate (when only 1 of the past 21 covers you put out have a picture of a lesbian on them, and none have pictures of anyone identified as trans, or even bisexual... this is not a magazine for anyone other than the G in GLBT, let's not delude ourselves here), "LGBT panels" (that are invariously described as being about writing "gay" characters, that focus on slutty evil bisexual male characters, and that have no mention of lesbians or, wait!, this seems to be a theme!, trans people... OK, sure sounds REALLY LGBT friendly, uh huh, do you happen to have any bridges?, I'm especially interested in purchasing the Brooklyn one I've heard it's pretty), you get the idea.

Apparently some time a while ago, after Gay orgs got called out for being exclusionary, they decided that calling themselves GLBT (or LGBT) would do to fix that particular problem. And it probably helped for about 5 minutes. Trans and Bisexual folks would walk in the door and be struck by the fact that it had an acronym that included them. Yay!

These days, I think it does a whole hell of a lot more harm than good, because like Gender Bending fiction that doesn't actually depict our lives, it gives the veneer of respect and inclusion. It tells allies (or potential allies) who don't yet know about the issues going on, that "this" (whatever "this" it is, which is almost invariably a more powerful organization, and thus less likely to actually be engaged with the more marginalized of our populations) is what is trans-friendly, or bisexual inclusive looks like. So that people working on a project about the trans community use statistics from an organization that had their only trans board member quit in protest of their transphobia.

So please. If you are a safe space for gay men, fine, call yourself that. If you are a safe space for gays and lesbians, say that. But if you tack on an extra letter, MEAN IT. Don't insult us by using our letters to pad your inclusive cred.

Compare and Contrast: A Study in Two Blogs

Oh blog reading folkz, I'm rather pissed right now. The other night I noticed that a queer/gay blog I usually like had posted yet another post about Tiwonge Chimbalanga that said she was a man.
So, being pissed at the time, I wrote a comment on slap upside the head saying as much (and explaining that it was angering to have her misgendered and having the struggle of trans* people coopted and erased by queer/gay people).
The comment was in moderation (it was technically in a "guestbook" area since the blog doesn't have commenting enabled), so I went to bed.
I check my email last night and get:

Hi there!

Aw, give me the benefit of the doubt before you chew into me, alright? :)

I do trans* stories whenever I see them, and certainly would have
mentioned that Tiwonge isn't a man if I had known. As it stands, I've read
multiple mainstream news stories about the couple, but your angry letter is
the first I've heard of this, so I think it's unfair to say that I'm
"misgendering" or "falling into the erasure" of anyone. I haven't met the
two, after all. :)

I'll look a lot more into this tonight; having the mainstream media
misidentify Steven and Tiwonge's relationship is a story in itself!

So I wrote back in INCREDIBLY even tones. I didn't call him on the tone argument, or the "but be nice to the 'allies' or else we can't possibly be allies,"-ing or the fact that the story isn't that the "mainstream" media is reporting badly, but that ALL MEDIA (other than explicitly trans* friendly media, and frankly including lots of "GLB, supposedly T" media) has been doing this, OR the fact that maybe he needs to learn to read trans* friendly blogs to learn true information about trans* people (dude, if you want to be an ally, GO TO WHERE THE OPPRESSED ARE).
Nope, I recommended a blog post that would clear up his misconceptions and then wrote:

It's great that you're interested in doing perhaps a post about misgendering by the mainstream media (and just about all the activist orgs that publicized this in the first place).

However, you did misgender Tiwonge (since you said she was a man, and she isn't), and you did contribute to the erasure of trans* identities/people (since she's a trans woman and you implied she was a cis man), even if you didn't intend to. It sucks (I'm sure you're not someone who likes to think you're contributing to oppression), but it happened, and saying it was unfair of me to point it out doesn't make it better, and ignores that truth.

I will say that my tone last night was angry. It was angry because yours is one of the few explicitly queer/gay blogs I read with any regularity, (since I generally enjoy it, and generally don't enjoy many others for their explicit and implicit transphobia), and it was a big frustration for me to realize after seeing this "gay marriage" narrative played up in Every Single media report on the topic of Tiwonge that you were doing it too, and that all the gay media seemed to also be doing it. So I suppose you could see it as unfair that *your* particular blog became the "straw that broke the camel's back" but I see it as far more unfair that even on a blog that I normally feel comfortable on, I (and presumably any other trans* person who knew about the truth of the story) was made to feel unwelcome.

In other words: you stepped on my metaphorical foot (and quite a few others), it's great that you didn't mean to, but that doesn't make it stop hurting.

Thanks for listening,
The Deviant E

This morning I awake to this piece of flaming pile of nonpology crap:

Hey there,

Factual errors happen now and then on the site; particularly ones like this which are present in multiple, reputable news sources.

Blogging is not terrifically rewarding for the amount of work involved, especially when it involves original full-colour illustrations, paid hosting, etc. I admit there was an error, but the accusitory language is unfair.

I do welcome all factual corrections, and unfortunately there will be opportunities for more, but please be friendly about them and give me the benefit of the doubt. (At least until I prove otherwise. ;)

AND I go to check the website and find that
A) my initial comment was not approved from moderation, so no one knows that he was called out on this
B) he has posted another post about Tiwonge, this time burying her gender till the end to make a dramatic reveal about "mainstream media"
C) he has not posted an apology or acknowledged that this was information he could have had weeks ago, had he *looked*
D) he has said that "word has gotten out" that Tiwonge identifies as a woman, without mentioning where possibly such word could have come from (it's like magic "word" that appears on it's own)!

Contrast that my friends with something from Shakesville:
On a blog post about a study finding that children raised by lesbian couples are more well adjusted then their peers raised by straight couples, someone wrote something talking about how fundies would hate it because there needs to be "penis owning person" in the house.

I wrote a comment reminding people that penises and xy chromosomes do not a man make (and lack of penises and xx chromosomes do not a woman make). It was published.
The response?

TheDeviantE:Thanks,for the privilege check,comment fixed now.-;-@ a rose to say sorry.

And what do you know, but the comment has been changed (to indicate cis-male manly man man-ness as opposed to "penis having"ness) but the person very explicitly put in there a tag saying "Edited for gender-essentialist language"

There was no foot stamping, no "but we're on the same side, [smiley that feels really insincere because I'm rejecting your points]". The comment *went through*, it was fixed! and in a way that acknowledged the fuck up in the first place.

It's almost like... on this *other* blog, people are actually allies and respond accordingly when called out.

So, what to do folks?
I've already posted in public some of the private correspondence (not that the email address of his is secret or anything), which some might deem a breach of ettiqutte. I do so because slap upside the head won't acknowledge his own culpability in his blog either by posting my original comment or by acknowleding it in a post of his (oh, in my comment I asked him to please post a *retraction*, you know, something that acknowledges information was wrong by saying "we done screwed up"?). So I really feel like any ettiquette breach is a tiny little piss beside his ocean of othering.
So question time: Do I continue trying to dialogue being OH SO FUCKING REASONABLE? Do I remain silent and stop reading his blog, since I doubt he'll acknowledge my reasons if I give them? Do I tell him off in an email, getting angry again and telling him I'll not be reading his blog (and a whole other set of things), in the hopes of giving him a parting shot of information and a reminder that it isn't all just peachy? Do I juggle elephants?

You tell me.

Today In Meet A Poly Person

Often in online conversations about poly people's relationships, real lived experiences of poly people, (or people in open relationships, or swingers, or anyone else who isn't monogamous) are ignored. There will be a strawperson (or strawrelationship) set up for the blogger or commenter to knock down in their quest to show how very bad and no good we non-monogamous people are. So, in order to combat that, I would like to start a series about the real lived experiences and desires people who are non-monogamous. We aren't all the same, so hopefully I'll be able to find people willing to write about their different experiences regarding their relationships and lives.


Hi, my name is TheDeviantE. I am a poly person.

What do I want in my life?

I want to have a loving and committed relationship to my current partner Bluejay until one or the other of us dies. I want to find one or more other partners with which to also share a loving and committed relationship until one or the other of us dies. What I'd love most of all would be to find one or two other partners who also wanted to have a loving and committed relationship with both me and Bluejay (and each other, if more than one). A relationship like this is often called a Triad (or Quad). Besides my loving and committed relationships to Bluejay and some as yet unfound other partner(s), I am interested in sometimes going on dates and making out with and maybe having sex with other people, people who perhaps I like but don't think I want to live with forever.
I also want to adopt children. I mean, unless our as yet unfound other partner(s) wanted to and were able to gestate and birth a child, in which case that'd be cool too. I want to raise children in a loving and caring home, with multiple adults able to look out for them and teach them. If Bluejay and I wanted to go on a date alone, our other partner(s) could watch the kids for the night, or vice versa. If little Bluejay Jr's play was on the same night as little DeviantE's basketball game, we'd all split up and give our children as much attention as they needed and wanted. We'd have 3 incomes instead of 2, or 2 incomes instead of 1 (if one of us were to stay home with the kids). We'd have different skills and abilities, so I could teach them math, and Bluejay could do awesome art with them, and our as yet unfound other partner could show them how to fix a car or do plumbing.

I want to have more partners because it means more people to support me and more people to support our children, and more people for me to love. I want to go on dates because... dates are fun! and new love (or lust) is too! I want to have children and raise them because I'll be a good parent, and I want to especially foster and adopt children who are rejected by others because they are queer or trans like I am, because I'll be extra good at not rejecting them. I just sort of want to settle down with some people and make an awesome life with them.

Basically, I'm just interested in nesting. I'm a nesting poly person, I suppose.

Oh, and I want to marry all of my partners because I want to be able to see them in the hospital if they get sick and have them automatically be entitled to my estate when I die, and so that our children will be recognized as being all of ours, and so that if they (or I) are/am immigrants then we will have the ability to stay together as a family. I want to have the right to be married to all of my partners because only marrying one will make our other relationships seem that much less valid to the eyes of the government, and how am I supposed to decide which partner I will love more and cherish more? I want to be able to get married to my partners because I want to nest and in our society nesting is often related to marriage.



So that's me.

Double Standards: Racism and Classism

My experience of whiteness is intimately tied in with a sort of "woo" or hippie type of community. My mom's family were hippies when it was both popular and a little dangerous to be hippies (we know for instance that my grandparents were on government watch lists for their anti-social tendencies towards pacifism).

So I grew up certainly ensconced in a community that was hugely "pro-natural [insert thing here]". Which totally applied to children. Natural childbirth, breast feeding, and co-sleeping. I mean I can't say whether they were all practiced by everyone in my family, but they were certainly not derided, and there was a sort of feeling that (if you didn't do things "naturally") at the least you should look up to those who did. My whole family is also white.

With my clients who I visit, we are told to always (always) give the families packets on child safety: one about the dangers of shaking babies, one about the dangers of not putting bars in your windows (called "Kids Can't Fly", really? you don't say!) and one, (which I'm sure you were expecting) about the dangers of co-sleeping. All of my clients are people of color.

Shocking.

Now, some of this is classism obviously, some of it is racism, some of it is maybe that white subcultures that co-sleep are also putting their children in just as huge amounts of danger as DCF involved parents who co-sleep. Whatever the case, it's just one more instance where what's good enough for me (as a DCF worker), for instance: leaving disgusting amounts of dishes lying around or not getting around to the laundry for weeks at a time for instance, is no good, bad, bad, bad, when a DCF involved parent does it. Because if I came to a house like mine in terms of dirtiness, I would DEFINITELY be expected to write all about the mess of the place, 'cause after all it shows that the parents aren't caring for the kid!... or something.

I guess certain behaviors become magically OK when presumably well-off white people do them?

Why I Don't Like "Gender Bending" in Fiction

It's always nice to see portrayals of ourselves in the media we consume. Some groups of people get to see those (accurate, positive) portrayals more often than others (for instance, white, straight, currently abled, cis men...). So for those of use who don't, our few opportunities are often seized upon with relish. Which is what makes it so disheartening when they turn out to be crap. Or, in the case with "gender bending fiction," when it turns out that the experience they are peddling has little to nothing to do with the population that it seemingly deals with, and because of that makes our lives invisible, and transphobia/cisgenderism all the more prevalent.

But, since "gender bending" story lines in comics and fiction can be so common (depending on the medium), and are so often thought of as being "our" type of story ("hey, you're a guy who has a girl's body, it's totally the same!"), I thought I'd offer some of my objections with the genre/trope.

I'm going to use examples from the comic Misfile, because it's pretty typical insofar as this particular trope goes.

We'll start off with some similarities between a "gender bender" character and a real live trans person:

In Misfile, Ash (the main character) awakens one day to find that he is now female bodied. Which sucks, because he still thinks of himself as a guy. He seems really pissed about having this body that's just so wrong. Which, I get. I think many a trans person SUPER gets that. It's sort of the main thing that everyone talks about when they talk about the trans experience. It's sort of the only thing.
So, similarity #1: he doesn't like how his body is now, and everyone assumes him to be a gender that he is not

Likewise, in the comic, Ash is interested in Emily, who seems to also be interested in him. However, she struggles with thinking of him as a guy despite his body, she struggles with herself and her assumption of her own heterosexuality, she struggles with what it would mean to be attracted to him despite homophobia (she gets called a lesbian because of the time they spend together), etc. Which is sort of related to how things work in the real world. Many couples struggle a lot if one of them comes out as a different gender than previously assumed.
This happens in the lesbian community where one half of a couple may feel a lot of sadness and confusion about whether she stills belongs to the community now that she is dating a guy, frustration at having her internal identity tweaked with, a sinking feeling knowing that random people on the street see a straight couple as they walk past, and sometimes, a lot of anxiety around whether or not she really respects the masculine identity of her partner (or potential partner -- this happens with prospective couples sometimes).
So, similarity #2: Emily has to deal with a lot of confusion based on her attraction to someone who looks like a girl but doesn't identify as one.

Lastly, and related to the first similarity, is the fact that Ash is often forced into uncomfortable situations because of others' perceptions of his gender. His mom makes him model a dress for her clothing line! He's constantly dealing with heterosexual guys hitting on him! Sexism sucks! (ok, that's not exactly related, but it does suck).
So, similarity #3: other people are constantly forcing Ash to conform to their ideas of his gender, regardless of his obvious discomfort with that.

Now that we've established some of the similarities between the "gender bender comic" Misfile's characters and experiences of trans people, it's important to get to the overwhelming differences.

Being trans is not something that gradually goes away with time. Dr. Zucker's (my loathing for this man knows few bounds) opinions withstanding, trans people don't (generally) wake up one day in full on panic and anxiety about our gender and then gradually over the course of the years of our lives learn to live with it and just sort of mosey along. Which is basically what happens with these types of narratives. In them the main character is suddenly confronted with the wrongness of zir body, and then over the course of zir quest/adventure/what have you, to fix it, ze gradually just sort of la-dee-da falls into acting like a girl, and feeling sort of girlish and whatever. These narratives give this type of lip service to the fact that the characters want to get back to their normal body, but in general they seem to acclimate like WOAH.
In contrast, my initial realizations of my gender were slow coming and mild. However over the years of having people constantly misgendering me, I have become more and more despondent, more strident in my conviction of my gender, more upset at each messed pronoun, experienced more pain and frustration at the body I have grown into. My partner and I estimate that maybe 5 people in this world really and truly believe that I am a boy. None of the people on this list are family members (I consider my partner and I a family, but you get what I mean?). I walk through the world knowing that the people who are supposed to be closest to me, at their core, just don't believe I am who I am. That strangers and acquaintances, that no one besides my partner, my ex-partner, and maybe 3 of my best friends, really understand and agree with me that I am a guy. I am aware of other's perception of my gender every hour of every day. I can't really say this strongly or often enough: my life every day is an exercise in pain because of this. Every Day. Every day that a well-meaning classmate messes up my pronouns and I say "it's ok, it happens," I die a little inside. Every day that a waitperson, check-out clerk, business owner, pamphleteer calls out "miss" or "ladies," my life feels a little more like a hell. I Hate living in a world that can't conceive of me as a boy. That doesn't go away. It grows and grows and grows. This isn't a footnote to my story, I don't forget about this because I'm busy racing cars or fighting ghosts or something. This is the ever present "fuck you" of my day.

Am I being clear? Can you (a presumably cis* person) even conceptualize the pain and frustration and anger and agony I experience over this?
So, difference #1: in "gender bender" fiction, characters seem to acclimate more and more to their bodies and the misrepresentation of their gender by others.

Next, there's the fact that characters in "gender bender" narratives seem to mostly reify gendered expectations of the world around them. Suddenly, after "becoming a girl," these characters start liking chocolate, they become more emotional, and less logical. Or, alternately, the way we know they are "really" boys is because they are sexually attracted to their new bodies (as we see in the comic at the side), because they cling to their sexist versions of chivalry, and because they are disgusted by the idea of men being attracted to them. Which totally ignores the fact that lots of boys are um... gay?
And I don't think I know a single trans guy that is as homophobic as Ash is.
I can't think of a *single* trans guy that finds his body sexaaaay like characters in these stories do. In fact, many trans guys I know hate seeing their bodies naked. At least some guys get sores because of constant wear of binders in an attempt to hide, disguise, emotionally and mentally get rid of our breasts. I like girls, I like female bodies, and looking at my body in the mirror makes me feel like crap.
And, while some (trans) guys are misogynistic creeps, I'd like to think I'm not, and my friends aren't. I don't need to set myself up in opposition to women by living by "chivalrous" rules. I don't have to hate women to not be one (which these narratives imply).
So, differences #2, #3, and #4: characters in "gender bending" story lines are often homophobic to prove their manliness, they are often sexually attracted to the bodies they are forced into, and they often use misogyny and sexism to set themselves apart from the women they are assumed to be.

Lastly, for this analysis, is the fact that not only do characters of "gender bender" stories acclimate to their bodies, they learn to take advantage of the "privileges" conferred on women in our society. Let's get this out of the way: "feminine wiles" are the most bullshit idea of "power" I've ever heard of. We live in a culture rife with rape, misogyny, and example after example of the oppressed status of those who are perceived to be women. If you don't understand this, we just don't have anything further to talk about until you get your head out of your ass. Ok.

So this is the thing, the part up a bit where I talked about how demoralizing and depressing and upsetting it is to have people assume that my gender is "girl"? It doesn't go away when I want to get a good deal on something. But apparently in these stories, as the characters start to acclimate to the unfortunate, (but ultimately not all that upsetting) fact that they are female bodied, they decide it's awesome to play up all the female stereotypes they want so long as it'll help them. Which is blatantly unrealistic if you think about the pain and suffering that trans people go through because of having to constantly deal with the world's bullshit about our genders.

So, difference #5: characters in "gender bending" narratives often decide to go entirely counter to their gender and to "use" their perceived gender to their advantage regardless of the emotional ramifications it would entail if they that strongly identified with their internal gender.

So, why do all these differences matter? They are damaging. When narratives out there that tell stories that are supposed to be sort of like trans people's lives, in fact do so in a way that erases trans people's struggle with a transphobic world? When they do so in a way that implies that trans people buy into normative ideas of gender and use misogyny and homophobia to set ourselves apart from our perceived genders? When they imply that trans people are deceptive and will use whatever we can to get ahead? When they imply that trans women are either "perverts" who find their bodies overly titillating, or that trans men don't really mind having bodies that code us as female (because hey, at least we get to grope boobies whenever we want!)? All of that is totally fucked up. It's fucking lies and they aren't nice ones. You know what a nice lie would be: "all trans people are awesome, there isn't a jerk among us," but we don't get that type of narrative in these "gender bender" stories. Nope, we get: "perverts, deceptive, not that big a deal, they'll get over it."

You know what else is upsetting and damaging in these stories? This isn't about differences, it's just about dangerous and mean and jerkishness. It's this: when the idea of gender reassignment surgery makes the main character yell in defiance. Right there Ash implictly says: "being trans, needing surgery or hormones, that is a BAD THING... people who need surgery or hormones are bad people." And it's this: as the comic progresses, we get more and more ass-shots of Ash, more and more bras and panties. As the comic continues we see Ash becoming a pin-up girl. It just shows how little the artist respects even the idea of Ash as a boy.

The icing on the cake? That this and many other "gender bending" comics and stories are written by people who then commemorate The Transgender Day of Remembrance, the day in November that we are meant to honor trans men and women who have died due to transphobia. When they post their commemorative comics, it serves as a banner proclaiming "we are trans friendly," which means that those who aren't paying attention, due to cis* privilege, who don't know better but are open to becoming allies, they learn that this is what allyship means.

And that? That depresses the hell out of me.

Some more privilege from the social work front lines

Something that gets discussed a lot in the "helping professions" (and specifically I'm going to talk about those who work as or plan to work as, therapists) is "disclosure."

"Disclosure" (as I'm going to talk about it, and as mostly discussed in social work) is the act of telling a client/patient something about oneself which is personal/not physically obvious (sort of, we'll get to it a little more in a sec). Freud believed that therapists (well psychoanalysts) should be a totally blank slate for their clients/patients and therefore it was necessary to not tell them anything humanizing/personal.

Now, Freud's an asshole, and most social workers (thank goodness) that I've met also agree that he's an asshole (though apparently there are far too many who think that "yes, but, for the time he wasn't"... no no, really, he rather was), but the field still tries to keep things a little more professional, a little more aloof than a friendly relationship would make, in keeping with some of his ideas about disclosure.
Which makes sense, it's harder emotionally to try to bill a friend than it is to bill a client/patient. Plus, some of our clients have a tendency to take the things they learn about us and sometimes use them in inappropriate ways (not that this isn't often the case for friends and family). Lastly, there's the fact that telling a client all about our father's recent death (or whatever) takes the focus off of them and places it onto us, which makes it harder for both client and social worker to you know, figure out what's going on for the client. So, lots of potentially good reasons to not disclose too often, or without some solid thought behind the reasons for doing it.

However, let's think for a second here about what constitutes "disclosing." Being straight? Not something usually disclosed. Being cisgender? Also rarely if ever disclosed. Being socially normative in a desire to have children? Not generally disclosed.

And it isn't that they aren't disclosed because straight people and cis* people, and people who fall into socially normative desires to have children are really good about keeping those things hidden/secret. HAH! (I laugh at the thought).
No no, they aren't disclosed because there is literally NO NEED to disclose in our society. It'd be like me disclosing to my clients that I'm human.

REALLY??? My social worker is HUMAN!?! I had NO IDEA (They would say).

They aren't disclosed because, except for in very specific situations (working at a center for trans/queer youth, for instance), everyone assumes those things to be true. Some identities are already known, and you have to prove them otherwise, by disclosing.

I'll give another example. I was chilling with a client the other day (like ya do) when she asked me whether I have children. My only decision at that point in time was "do I tell her or not?" It didn't include "do I tell her I don't want to raise children?" I didn't even think of the second idea, because it's a) "normal" to want to raise children, and b) I do want to raise some, maybe, someday. I have that privilege, of being able to let people assume I want to have kids, without even thinking about the fact that they are assuming it.

So in class we're talking about Freud, and someone in the class thinks he's just a peach, and had really ground breaking ideas, blah blah. And I mention that I think he's rather an asshole. And then later as we're about to move on from a discussion of disclosure, I bring up the fact that though I agree that it's important to not overshare with clients, that it seems really unfair to me that only certain groups are asked to be constantly on guard like that.

Which is when "Freud is awesome" classmate pipes in that it isn't the case that only certain groups are meant to not disclose, but that everyone is meant to not do it. She then goes on to tell me that as a former teacher, she also had to keep certain things about her life hidden from her students and that "you just have to get used to the idea of putting certain things about yourself up on the shelf".


As if I didn't just say that disclosure is a touchy subject. As if I was a wayward child who just is greedy, wanting to not feel like I have to keep my trans status, my sexual orientation, my atheism, the fact that I'm poly, hidden.

Yeah. Social workers sometimes don't talk about their kids with their clients, but a lot mention that they have them. (And, as a kid of a teacher I call TOTAL bullshit on just about ANY teacher not talking about their kids, my mom has a picture of me and my sister up on her door ya'll). And when you say you have kids, the client assumes you're straight. So if you're straight and have kids you just disclosed that you're straight, without even realizing it. Because you have that privilege.

My classmate is certain that she'll be a better social worker than me because she doesn't have all this "baggage." She understands that when you're a social worker you have to hide parts of yourself and keep identities hidden and not put lots of stuff on your clients by telling them all about yourself.

But the fact is, she's already told EVERYONE that meets her that she is straight/cis/what have you. She just doesn't realize that she did it.

So who's the overly disclosing one now, asshole?

Nostalgia for things that don't exist

So looking at my recent youtube videos, someone might think that I tend to like Tim Minchin's work. Which is... true? I enjoy those songs of his which seem more heartfelt and less just to be jokes on piano.
I also have listened to some of his stuff that frankly I find troubling, such as a song of his where he starts out the song stating that it's about prejudice and including the letters of a specific slur that he finds troubling. For people (unlike myself) who quickly catch onto this particular opening, he seems to be referencing the N-word. However as soon as the song starts instead he says "only a ginger can call another ginger 'ginger'." Which, ya know, seems to be making light of racism directed against Black people and the history of how Black Americans have been treated by white society, and the very complex struggles that go on within and around Black communities in regards to the ability or desire to reclaim a word used throughout its life in an oppressive way, by comparing it to being a redhead. So that's, um, not so cool?

Anyway, which is all to say that I find him very hit or miss (for my tastes), and that this following song of his, which has been making the atheist blog rounds (and other people's? I don't know) for the past couple months is another hit.

Sort of.

It's certainly very moving, being about the importance of connection and love and well, I'll just let you hear/read it yourself and then get to my personal difficulties with it:

[visual for the entire video is: a picture of comedian/pianist Tim Minchin standing on top of a black grand piano at one of the side edges. He is looking behind himself over the edge of the right side of the piano. The piano's keycover is up, showing us the keys. Tim is wearing all dark blacks and browns, with his customary teased/"messy" hair. He is white and skinny.]

[piano, quiet, with quiet lyrics sung in Australian accent] I really like Christmas, it's sentimental I know, but I just really like it.
I am hardly religious:
I'd rather break bread with Dawkins than Desmond Tutu, to be honest. [audience laughter]
And yes I have all of the usual objections to consumerism,
to the commercialization of an ancient religion, to the westernization of a dead Palestinian press-ganged into selling Playstations and beer.
But I still really like it.

I'm looking forward to Christmas,
though I'm not expecting a visit from Jesus.
I'll be seeing my dad, my brother and sisters, my gran and my mum:
they'll be drinking white wine in the sun.
I'll be seeing my dad, my brother and sisters, my gran and my mum:
they'll be drinking white wine in the sun.

[piano swells, violins added and lyrics sung more strongly]

I don't go in for ancient wisdom,
I don't believe just 'cause ideas are tenacious it means that they're worthy.
I get freaked out by Churches:
some of the hymns that they sing have nice chords, but the lyrics are spooky.
And yes I have all of the usual objections to the miseducation of children who in tax-exempt institutions are taught to externalize blame,
and to feel ashamed, and to judge things as plain right or wrong.
But I quite like the songs.
I'm not expecting big presents.
The old combination of socks, jocks, and chocolates is just fine by me.

'Cause I'll be seeing my dad, my brother and sisters, my gran and my mum:
they'll be drinking white wine in the sun.
I'll be seeing my dad, my brother and sisters, my gran and my mum:
they'll be drinking white wine in the sun.

[piano builds again, and violins swell]
And you my baby girl, my jet-lagged infant daughter,
you'll be handed 'round the room, like a puppy at a prim'ry school,
and you won't understand, but you will learn some day,
that wherever you are and whatever your face,
these are the people who make you feel safe in this world, my sweet blue-eyed girl.

And if my baby girl, when you're twenty one or thirty one,
and Christmas comes around,
and you find yourself nine thousand miles from home,
you'll know whatever comes: [violins drop out momentarily]
your brothers and sisters and me and your mum will be waiting for you in the sun, whenever you come [violins building again, it's quite a tear-jerking moment, which I say in full honesty], your brothers and sisters, your aunts and your uncles, your grandparents, cousins, and me and your mum will be waiting for you in the sun, drinking white wine in the sun,
darling when Christmas comes,
we'll be waiting for you in the sun,
drinking white wine in the sun,
waiting for you in the sun, waiting for yoouuu.... [violins swell]
waiting... [violins come to a close with piano]
[quiet, as in beginning] I really like Christmas, it's sentimental I know... [piano slowly plays a few arpeggiated chords] [audience applause]

as always, as complete a transcript as I can make

When I listened to it the very first time, I found myself feeling nostalgic and heartwarmed, until it got to the bit about his infant daughter. Which I think is also supposed to be very heartwarming and inspiring and what-not, and probably for a lot of people does manage that. But I was suddenly struck by "these are the people who make you feel safe in this world," since for so many children in the foster care system, or who are neglected or abused or who are witnesses to family violence (which technically in MA is considered neglect), family isn't this thing that makes you feel safe. For them it can be terrifying.
It's so beautiful and moving that he thinks of this tiny human life as something worth protecting and nurturing, but all I could think of was my clients, and the clients of all the many other workers in my office, and all the clients of all the workers in all the many other offices even just in the Boston area, and all the clients of all the workers in all the offices in MA, and across the country, and you get the idea. And how (some/many) of their parents just don't, or can't, protect and nurture a child so they feel safe and loved by their parents.

Which is heartbreaking.
Really, I'm tearing up because I work in an office with tens of cubicles, each filled with 4 or more social workers, each worker with approximately 20 cases, so at a very conservative estimate there are 800 families at this moment involved with just the DCF office of Dorchester. And most of these families have more than 2 kids. So we'll say 1600 kids at any time involved with us for anything from the fact that they have literally no family, to them being sexually assaulted by family members.
Which is terrifying.

And then to a lesser extent (and after writing the other stuff, this feels so petty, but it's also true) I was also struck by wondering how he knows that this infant child of his will grow up to be a girl/woman, and the fact that I even though I love my family and appreciate them and know that they care for me, they aren't the people in this world that I feel safest with. Because I'm always on edge and anxious about how right they'll get stuff. And I thought of lots of other gay/trans kids around the world who have loving families that they love as well, who might also just not feel safest with their family. Because they're always on edge and anxious. And all the other groups of people, who for whatever reason are the odd-ones out of their families, who may still love their family, but still have to worry about whether THIS family gathering they're going to have to deal with something huge that'll emotionally knock them on their asses. I don't know.

I guess this song just makes me nostalgic for a family that I don't even know if it exists. Does it? Are there families where all the children grow up and feel unconditionally loved and cared for and *safe*? It scares me that I have to ask.

But the song sure is pretty.

Blog Update

So, since I last was seriously blogging, some major changes have happened in my life. For instance, I no longer have interesting stories to tell about how I had to totally bite my tongue, for fear of losing my job at the computer lab, due to some horribly bigoted thing that someone said.

Instead I have stories about how some social workers/social work students say really privileged shit without thinking about it. Some fine paraphrased examples in the past few months:

In relation to my question about how the Department of Children and Families handles trans and queer youth in the foster system, as in, if they find out which kids are and have policies about how to place them, I was told "Oh, well, I don't know? But I'm sure since this is a liberal field office that everything's just fine"

and by a classmate who overheard me talking about how some *other* classmate's comments in a different class had made me feel super exoticized/like I was in a human zoo "oh, but I DO think you're exotic. Don't you think everyone's exotic?!"

Luckily for my ability to maintain emotional equilibrium, I am able to call out my classmates, and in fact responded to the prior individual by angrily telling her that there was "not a single thing that you as a straight person do which I find exotic. I find straight people Boring. You BORE ME" (which, while harsh, and not entirely true, was quite cathartic to say to someone who thought it was hunky dory to fetishize me as some exciting totally foreign and unique and thrilling experience)


Anyway, which is just a long winded way for me to let ya'll know that these days I'm in a masters program in social work.

Ignorance is No Excuse

Someone at the Prop 8 protest/rally had a sign that at first glance I found really funny and touching. It said up top (paraphrase):

"Why are we still having to fight for this?"

And on the bottom was: "Women's Rights, Black Rights, Gay Rights"

But then I noticed the check marks next to "Women's Rights" and "Black Rights."


I know this will shock you, but the kid holding up the sign implying that sexism and racism don't exist anymore, was a white male.

SHOCKER.

After the protest I went up to talk to him about how his sign is really alienating, and more over false, and how the top was good, but implying that gays are way more oppressed is totally bullshit and does nothing to further gay rights.

I tried to not get angry, and I think I did a good job at that, though I wish I had been more on top of pointing out to him the LEGAL effects of racism and sexism (he said that he hadn't meant it to say that sexism and racism don't exist, just that they aren't legislated, which also isn't particularly true).


I was still fuming about it this morning when I got up.

As Teh Portly Dyke at Shakesville* said: Even if you could win the Oppression Olympics, all the prizes SUCK.



*as to the actual post, I haven't read it thoroughly, so in this particular instance this is not an endorsement

Poly People: One of these things Does Not Belong (One of these things is Different, so obviously Wrong)

Argh argh argh.

I know I shouldn't read these types of threads, but I always do.

I am, of course, referring to Jezebel's recent thread about triads.

So, let's do a take down of some of this frustrating, saddening, and bigoted stuff. Shall we?

"Next thing you know, people will be marrying their dogs!"

No. No they won't. You know why? Consent. Say it with me "consent pitches my tent". That's right folks, dogs can't consent (novel concept, no?), adult people can. So: any number of adult people should be able to get married.

I think a lot of feminists in particular are iffy about polygamous marriage because of its generally misogynistic underpinnings.

So how do you feel about the misogynistic underpinnings of heterosexuality? I mean, the vast majority of straight relationships are pretty much steeped in the misogynistic culture which surrounds us. If you want to argue this, then you'd better be willing to outlaw all straight marriages too.

I'm perfectly content being narrow-minded with regard to polygamy (which is the form most of this would take if legalized).

There's really nothing to respond to here other than to say that I suppose it's refreshing that you're so open about your bigotry? Good for you?

Same here! I don't support it at all. I support gay marriage because I basically believe people are born gay. I don't believe people are born to be romantically committed to two or more individuals.

And it goes against my romantic tendencies of there being this one person in the world whom you are committed to above all others.

And it's hard enough for two people to stay married...I can't imagine how hard it must be for 3 people to do it.

So, if gay people weren't born gay, they shouldn't be able to marry their partners? This is a perfect example of why the meme "but we were born that way" makes no sense. You know what, I don't know if I was born queer and trans or not (or, more accurately, born with a definite predisposition towards these identities), but I think I should have equal legitimacy in my identity even if I wasn't. You know why? 'Cause there's nothing wrong with being queer and there's nothing wrong with being trans. When you say shit like that, it makes it seem like you're saying that "gay is bad, but it's not their fault". I've said it before, I'll say it again, religion is a choice, but nevertheless people of faith should be allowed to get married. Also choices: love for NASCAR and olives (uck!). Olive lovers still deserve that right. They even deserve the right to eat olives. If they really really want.

And this: "it goes against my tendencies" bullshit? I hate olives, you know what I do? I don't. eat. them. Pretty simple actually. Same trick works with abortion and gay marriage and polygamy. Don't want to do it? Then DON'T.

Ok. So multi-person marriage would be difficult. I guess everything that's difficult should be verboten. We should definitely get out there and stop letting people become Bio-Chem majors, I've heard it's tough shit. Hey, here's an idea, instead of telling other people "that sounds hard, you shouldn't be allowed to do it", maybe we could tell people "that sounds hard, I guess we'd better help you figure it out". Just a thought.

If this is their thing, fine, do your thing, but it just seems kind of...greedy to me.

Greedy? Yeah. I guess it is greedy to want visitation rights to your loved ones. I guess it is greedy to want to have legal recognition on owning a home with the people you love. Really, think of the single people! (no really, do! read: "Singled Out" for a super interesting look at the way that single people are stigmatized in our society, and put at a social and economic disadvantage) If you go through life wanting to pool your resources with a second person, you're just being greedy compared with all the people who are single and therefore can only use their own resources. Outlaw Marriage! Or, maybe we could extend various benefits to people using something other than marriage. Just saying.

My question back to you is, if you can establish all of these legal items and marriage is so controlling, why do individuals in polyamorous relationships need a piece of paper to tell them that they are "married"?

Why indeed! Why do straight people need pieces of paper telling them they are married? Why do white people need pieces of paper telling them they are married? Here's a thought, I'll take away your right to get married (or tell you it never existed in the first place) and then tell you that if you want the protections of marriage you have to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees and hundreds of hours crafting legal work arounds (and even then, perhaps your spouse will be deported because ze isn't a legal citizen), and then you can skip along "tra la la" through the fields and that'll make perfect sense.

So, based on your argument, if I wanted to marry a dog, I should be able to?

This again? Yawn.

There is nothing preventing someone who is in a polyamorous relationship from marrying ONE PERSON that they love and receiving tax breaks, etc.

Yeah. I guess if there were three people in a totally equal relationship, it'd feel really awesome if two of them got married and the third was left out to dry. That'd totally feel wonderful. Oh, and so would being the sole person who didn't have health insurance, or who was about to be kicked out of the country because you aren't considered a legal citizen, or who was barred from seeing your ailing partner in the hospital. I mean, I guess the other two could legally adopt the third, but that might be a little creepy. Maybe the triad could decide which two should marry based on who needs it the most! YAY! And then they'll have awesome practice for when they later have to choose between which of their kids they can afford to send to college (sorry Ephraim, but you're just not cost effective enough, Oswald's gonna go instead).

People can enter polyamorous relationships all they want - they just are not given the financial breaks given to married couples.

This is from someone who repeatedly states ze is for gay marriage. The irony, it burns!

The whole point of marriage is to dedicate yourself to one person.

If you wanna have more mates, then don't get married...

Also, one must consider the effects of legalizing a 2+ marriage. How would spousal benefits work? Insurance benefactors? Child custody?

Indeed. The whole point of marriage is to dedicate yourself to one person. If you want to have children, don't get married. 'Cause then you'd need to divide your love!!!!

And seriously, a "Think of the CHILDREN." Anita Bryant, is that you?

I'm just confused as to why polyamorous folks want to marry anyway, why they're interested.

Maybe you could actually ask one? Instead of saying they shouldn't be able to get married because you say so?

I always took marriage to be "this is the one person I'm happy with, the one person I'm willing to dedicate myself to" and those that cannot limit themselves to one person, well, marriage isn't their fit then.

Oh, perhaps you can tell that to people who remarry, clearly if they didn't get it right the first time, they shouldn't be allowed to try again.

I would argue that polygamous (no idea about polyamorous so I can't speak to that) marriages are damaging/harmful to society.

And *I* would argue that asshats who talk out of their ass/hat are harmful to society. Here, you can be my sample size of 1. What's your statistically representative sample?

If a person has made the choice to be polyamorous, they've made the choice to exclude themselves from a group marriage, as it is illegal.

And everything that is illegal should be illegal for evermore. And maybe everything that at one time was illegal should continue being illegal. Ooh, I know! Restrictive gender norms and party hats for everyone!

Women
Gay people
Black people
People w/ disabilities
People in romantic relationships with > 1 people at a time

One of these things is not like the others.

Religious people
Tea drinkers
Bloggers
Old People
People in romantic relationships with > 1 person at a time

One of these things is not like the others. Guess how? One of them means you aren't allowed to marry a person you love. They are all a choice though. Funny that.


Ok. I'm getting to be a broken record. But they are driving me to it!

Tomorrow: "Meet a Poly Person"

Casual Racism

Being a white person, I am not on the receiving end of racism all that much (oh sure, if I'm in a masochistic enough mood to go to stormfront's website they're all about hatin' on the Jews, but I only did that for a class one semester, years ago... and believe me, I experience enough toxicity in my daily life, not to need an excuse to have nightmares). So that means that to be a good ally I have to try to be aware of what happens even when it doesn't affect me. I don't know how I'd grade myself. Probably a B or B- (some good ideas, but the effort needs work). This is of course, using grade inflation of the standard type at the various schools I've attended.

Some of the ways I try to be aware are by visiting blogs of people of color (PoC) and especially women of color (WoC), by paying attention when I hear racist shit around me (and calling it out whenever possible), by understanding that all people of color are NOT interchangeable, and just trying to listen when PoC talk about racism.

So, over the past week I noticed:

On the subway on a friday or thursday evening, two drunk white girls (with barely concealed alcohol) get on the train and sit on either side of a latino man. You know, rather than find two adjacent seats. They then harrassed him under the guise of being "friendly" and called him "Cheech". Up until then I wasn't sure about the racism (maybe they were just obnoxious drunks), but right when the "Cheech" reference happened I decided to ASAP offer him the seat next to mine/tell them to quit the racist shit. But I didn't get time to say/do anything, he got up and (oh-so-graciously, because clearly the wasn't the point of the harrassment all along /sarcasm) offered them the seat he was sitting in, and then they all got off at the next stop.
I'm upset that I didn't stand up earlier/at all, it's hard because public transit is such a weird space in general, but it certainly doesn't excuse it, I was thinking about what asses they were almost as soon as they got on the train, and their bullying was something I think all of us on the train should have dealt with.

On Saturday, at a team-related party, the one african american on the team was presented with an "award" that apparently for the first time in the 3 years she'd been there, didn't have to do with her afro. You'd think in a team environment, everyone would have more to say to her than "you have exotic hair," but apparently not until this year has that been true.

On Sunday, overheard at an IHOP a (latina) woman told her coworker about sneezing and having someone tell her to go back to Mexico. You know, 'cause that flu thing is totally being brought to the U.S. by Mexican immigrants. Oh wait, sorry? It's not? The disease vectors are privileged U.S. citizens on vacation? Do Tell.

Just (over)hearing these things happen was enough for me to feel stressed and on edge, I can't even begin to imagine what it would feel like to have them directed at me. And even more, to have similar casual racisms directed at me on a never-ending basis. That I don't have to pay attention to shit like this every day is one of the basic symptoms/side effects of my privilege.

If I did, I'd probably spend my days screaming.

Job Discrimination

This post is inspired by a Shakesville guest post "We Matter".

Have you heard of Diane Schroer? That's ok, the name doesn't immediately ring a bell for me either, but she is a trans woman who was hired by the Library of Congress to do analysis for them. The Library of Congress is now being ordered to pay her close to $500,000. Why? Because as soon as they found out that she was trans/transitioning, the person in charge of hiring rescinded the offer.

As wonderful as it is for her, it isn't really cause for celebration. In Massachusetts RIGHT NOW there is a bill being discussed that will legally protect all trans people in Massachusetts from job and housing discrimination*.
Meaning that it still doesn't exist, meaning that at this exact moment I could be fired at will for my gender identity.
Meaning that every day I go to work, I have to remind myself to carefully excise any trans specific language from my vocabulary.
Meaning that I have to willfully repress any desire to have people use the correct pronouns about me while at work.
Meaning that I worry if my clothes today, yesterday, tomorrow, will be considered gender inappropriate, and what the hell should I do if they try to require me to wear women's clothes?
Meaning that when I go to work, I struggle constantly in how to talk about my partner Bluejay, do I gender him? If so how?
Meaning that any passing remark at work about my living situation is fraught with potential blunders.
Meaning that when talking about roommate drama (which as some of you might remember is/was often tied up in trans issues), I feel worried about mentionting that much of it stems from transphobia.
Meaning that people who don't understand the constant stress of hiding my gender feel free nonetheless to tell me that "it's important to be honest in an interview. More than anything else, not being honest (about anything) puts up a red flag, makes the employer think: If this person isn't telling me the truth about this (and clearly there's something fishy here), what else is she hiding, and is she going to try to cover up her mistakes on the job instead of talking honestly about them?" thus implying that my gender is just one more lie/that my deliberate choice to hide my trans identity is taken haphazardly.
Meaning that I didn't get a job in my actual field, with full benefits, because I'm trans (oh sure, I don't know that for certain, but when the person literally in charge of hiring you says: "I really like you, I want you working here yesterday, I've already told the HR people to send you a formal offer, maybe you can start in 2 weeks" and you don't hear for months, and then find out that someone there just happened to know you were trans, and that she also just happened to be the person who told everyone she couldn't work with you, it's a pretty damn safe bet), thus leaving me in a part time job with no benefits, on public assistance, because actual professional jobs clearly aren't within my utterly bad, no good, reach.

Even though Diane Schroer was awarded this decsision, it isn't cause for celebration because in New Hampshire just recently, a bill for housing and job and hate crimes protections was voted down unanimously (even the bill's sponsors voted against it).
It isn't cause for celebration because even though Angie Zapata's killer is going to spend the rest of his life in jail, Duanna Johnson's murderer is on trial, and I still won't be surprised if he walks.
It isn't cause for celebration because of all the other trans victims (and survivors) of violence, who will not only never see justice, but have their memories distorted with false pronouns and misleadings names.



I'm happy for Diane Schroer. But I'm waiting for the day when trans people don't have to shop around for an accepting work environment (which are few and far between), closet themselves, or sue/fight for their rights. And let's face it, Ms. Schroer is an exception to the rule.


*If you're from Massachusetts, and you have time/care (which really, I hope you all DO care), please please click on the link and think about submitting written testimony (I will be, just as soon as I figure out what to write).

Angie Zapata was "deceptive", in other news, her killer's defense team can kiss my ass

Please Please Please. [Bit of a trigger warning] This is both one of the most upsetting and most important things you could do today. Go to the link here:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10511/are-trans-people-like-angie-and-me-deceptive

If you need me to repeat the link, I will. The defense is (of course) using the tired ol' "gay panic" routine, but now it's "trans panic" and the murderer was "duped". They have been refusing to use the correct name and pronouns when talking about her. Her family, being questioned on the stand, had to correct the lawyer every. single. time. That they should stand up to such bullying shouldn't be considered amazing and brave, but I nonetheless feel it is.

Because I spent part of the weekend with my relatives. Every single one of whom knows my gender identity. Not once could they manage to get my pronouns right (nor did they try, or correct themselves). The best they seemed to manage was to not use pronouns at all (when actively called on it). Today I told someone I that I didn't care anymore. But it was a lie. I care every fucking time, but since my entire life is one giant fuck-you to my identity, I feel defeated and beat down and unable to do anything.

But help is on the way. Because every time I read posts like this, every time I hear and read people say something, I get that much better at being able to stand up for myself and everyone else. Every time I read a hilarious troll stomping post (I swear this time it's not the same link), I'm that much more able to tell off creepy sexist patrons at my work.

Oh, so story from work: I'm sitting at my computer, as I do, when a patron/resident tells me the printer is out of paper. Which is frustrating 'cause we're damn near out. So I saunter on over to replace the paper. As I pass his chair he tells me "good girl," as though I'm a fucking puppy doing a trick or something. I tell him "I don't appreciate that and that's inappropriate. I'm changing this paper because it's my job, I get PAID to do it, I don't need you to tell me that I'm a 'good' anything." As he leaves he apologizes and tells me that he didn't mean to be rude. I tell him thanks, but it was rather patronizing.

As I was saying: every time I read feminists standing up for themselves, every time I read trans people standing up for themselves, I am that much more able to stand up for myself as well. Because telling someone off is a practiced skill, and the -isms of this world thrive on the fact that no one bothers to tell them off, so we never get practice, and by the time it's a Big. Fucking. Deal. we just don't know what to do.

So, stand up for yourself (and others, damnit!) today. It does the body good.

An Ally Analogy

So. (This is all true)

Bluejay plays rugby. I have lots of rugby playing friends. I love all my rugby playing friends and Bluejay very much. But, I've never gone to a game, I don't actually know the rules, I've heard of a couple of the terms (apparently there are hookers and props involved, oh and scrums) but generally I just sort of don't really involve myself all that much with it. I don't have anything against rugby players, (geez folks, I'm dating one!), and I certainly think they're all great people (or at least, if they aren't, it has nothing to do with their rugby playing ways). I don't try to stop people from playing rugby, but I am aware that twisted ankles, and concussions can happen, so I'm sometimes nervous for Bluejay's health and safety on the field (oh, it's called a "pitch"? cool, I'm down with that), and when she comes home injured I try to help her out.

As a person who never goes to games, and doesn't actually know anything about the sport, am I a fan? Am I supporter of rugby?

Nope.

Do I nevertheless treat rugby players with respect, and would be shocked if other people thought they were less than human? Do I support my partner's decision to be a rugby player?

You Betcha!

Now, imagine that rugby players were a highly stigmatized group. That lots of people actively thought they were less than human.

I (in this imaginary world) still support their right to play rugby (and consider my lover and friends real people). Does this continued belief in their humanity and their rights magically turn me into a fan or a supporter? (I'm confident in "No")

Now, let's replace "fan" and "supporter" with "ally".

How does this change anything?

If I don't go to the games, if I don't know the rules, I'm not a fan of rugby! Pretty dern simple. I'm still a good person, a nice person, a good friend, but I'm simply not a rugby supporter.

If I say you aren't an "ally" that doesn't mean I think you're evil. Just like I'm not evil for not being an active supporter/fan of Bluejay's rugby.

The difference is though, that rugby isn't hugely stigmatized, that coming home from games my friends don't get beat up or called names. If they did, I'd like to think that I'd go to games and walk back with them, to help protect them from a world and society that did this to them. And I'd like to think that by being at the games, by putting myself as a presence there, I'd learn the rules, and the terms. I would, in fact, become a supporter and a fan.

So. You aren't evil if you aren't an ally. But, with a little work, why not become one?

Losing Rights

Via Slap Upside the Head I found out today that in Alberta, Canada, trans people are losing rights that I can barely dream of. Apparently, not only do they have public health care, but they in fact (until recently) had sex reassignment surgery as public health care.

That's right. The surgeries/hormones that U.S. (trans) citizens can only get after jumping through hoops to "prove" to medical gatekeepers that our identities are really truly real, and which are then explicitly NOT covered by various insurance (with the excuses that it's "experimental" or "cosmetic") are not only provided there, but seemingly free of cost.

Or were.

It's hard to be appropriately angry because this is clearly a blow to trans people in Alberta, but at the same time I'm exceedingly jealous. The fact is, the surgeries and hormones used by trans people to have our bodies match what we think of as appropriate are a medical necessity. Don't believe me?

Ask me (or probably just about any other trans person you know) about the crippling depression that can come with not being able to have one's body look appropriate to yourself.

Should I tell you about a friend of mine who basically lived entirely in a binder, and because of it developed sores? Should I tell you about the days I could barely leave my room to go make myself breakfast (among other things), because I was too exhausted to try and pass while in my own house walking around in front of roommates? Or how about the time that I read an account of a breast cancer survivor (who got a double mastectomy because of it) and had a more-than-fleeting thought of "if I could just manage to get cancer!" Maybe I'll tell you about the number of times I've looked down and just wondered if it'd be possible to knock myself out and use a kitchen knife, and then had to remind myself that it wouldn't work and I'd quite possibly bleed to death.

Oh. I guess I just did.


So, those and many others are the reasons that we need our surgeries, our hormones, etc. And that's why knowing that I won't be able to afford mine anytime soon (the cost is in the thousands, of course, and as mentioned, not covered by health insurance) makes me even more depressed than I would be normally. And that's why it matters that Alberta, Canada is going to take this away from its trans citizens.

Anti-Atheist Bigotry and Being an "Ally"

You are not an ally of trans people if you tell us that we need to be careful, be more aware of anti-trans bigotry, that we need to be less out, but have no idea who Angie Zapata is.

You are not an ally of queer people if you tell us that we need to be careful, be more aware of anti-queer bigotry, that we need to be less out, but haven't heard of the 11 year old Massachusetts boy who committed suicide less than a week ago, after months of homophobic bullying.

You are not an ally of atheists if you tell us that we need to be careful, be more aware of anti-atheist bigotry, that we need to be less out, but don't know about the various laws that say we can't even give testimony in court (in some U.S. states), don't know about what happens to out atheists in the military, and haven't even heard of the recent (2007) Gallup Poll which says that of all of these groups: Catholics, African-Americans, Jews, women, Latinos, Mormons, people married more than twice, people over the age of 72, homosexuals, and Atheists, that Atheists alone are the group that a majority of people in the U.S. would refuse to vote for, regardless of our qualifications (by the way, that list, it's in order of decreasing "electability").

You just aren't. Even if you're a family member of us. Even if you think of yourself as an "ally." Until you not only know about the various prejudices and dangers out there, but are plugged into our communities, until you can literally run circles around the knowledge that I have just bouncing around in my head (because yes, I DO pay attention to the way that my communities are stigmatized, and victimized, and implying otherwise if fucking patronizing as hell), then you can tell me fuck-all about how dangerous it can be out there.

Because this is the shortest fucking post I could write about the hatred out there for queers and trans people and atheists. That's right. At this moment, I could call up 10s, maybe hundreds more stories and factoids and statistics about MY communities. So don't tell me that I don't understand. Because I do.

This next bit is a nice little display of more anti-atheist bigotry put out by our friends the AiG.

The entire ad is a kid in an *ahem* A-Frame shirt coming up on a dusty road to shoot you, the viewer. The voice over helpfully explains: If you don't matter to god, you don't matter to anyone.
So the ad is implicitly condoning violence against atheists, while explicitly implying we are all murderers.

Here are some peachy fucking comments:
cadborasaurus (3 months ago): "crisis123456789", what's horrible is that because of evolution this is true. If we are just a product of chance and are accidents, then what is the standard of good? We are. We make our own standards of good and are no different then animals. If evolution is true, then there is nothing wrong with something like murder because it is just an accident eliminating another accident. tumordoctor (7 months ago): Kids are bombarded with the ideology that they're nothing but animals. So they see nothing inherently wrong with behaving like animals. This is a product of 20th/21st century secular humanism.
zogshill (2 days ago): If the soul has no place in the kingdom of chirst, what rights can the body have on earth?


And for some old school, straight up hatred:
ChrisWestaway(2 days ago): this is fucking awesome, kill all atheists
cassetteaddict (2 days ago): athiesm is evil and the truth path of monotheism is far from finished... even in western europe we will come back and make you all pay for creating sin and lechery
all the evil in the world was done by athiests - stalin hitler kissinger - two hundred years ago christians would hang you for not believing and our time will come again just you wait and see
X0XPWNER123 (2 days ago):fuck you athiest peices of crap.
God will make sure you all burn in hell
muldurag (2 hours ago): Nice stance and good handling of a beautiful weapon...what's the problem here?

The upside? The vast majority of people who commented on it weren't bat-shit insane. The downside, these people spent quite a bit of money to make this, it all came from someone/where, and those someones believe this crazy.

Trigger Warning

"A Boy's Life" or "My Seething Hatred of Bigots"

So I was reading my mission statement post. Apparently I'm happy on this here blog a lot less than I previously indicated I would be.

I was gonna try to change that too, you know? I thought I'd post some awesome recipe or something that made me gleeful and happy.

And then I had the misfortune of hearing about this odious little piece of shit "news" article.

It's called "A Boy's Life" and is (surprise) about a young trans girl. She had apparently told people that she was a girl SINCE BEING ABLE TO TALK. Yet the author of this horror uses the wrong pronouns and names for the entire story. That is, up until the young girl's mother decides that she's going to quit fighting the inevitable. So, just more proof that children aren't actual people, but tiny mobile extensions of their parents.

Here's a gem from the end:

It’s not impossible to imagine Brandon’s

Her name is Bridget, which we find out in the last damn page, and which the author obviously knew well before printing the damn article

life going in another direction. His

"Her" you fucking idiot

early life fits neatly into a Zucker[rhymes with Fucker] case study about family noise. Tina describes [Bridget] as “never leaving my side” during [her] early years. The diagnosis writes itself: father, distant and threatening; mother, protector; child overidentifies with strong maternal figure.

Oh yeah,that's totally what happened, since the kid was identifying as a girl since age TWO. I personally base all of my gender identity on my memories of being two, don't you? Hello, paging Dr. Fucker, Freud's a crackpot, and you are too.

If Tina had lived in Toronto, if she’d had the patience for six years of Dr. [F]ucker’s therapy, if the therapy had been free, then who knows?

"Who knows" indeed!, perhaps 'poor' Bridget could be 'cured'. Especially if her mom had just had the patience. What a tragic fate to be subjected to, just because her mother didn't live in range of a psychopath with a degree. Come to think of it, how did you Ms. Hanna Rosin, manage to get a journalism degree? Did you??????

Yet [F]ucker’s approach has its own disturbing elements.

Other than refusing to acknowledge a child's gender identity? Do tell!

It’s easy to imagine that his methods—steering parents toward removing pink crayons from the box, extolling a patriarchy no one believes in

tell that to the hundreds of survivors of sexual violence that posted in the past 49 hours on Shakesville's survivor thread, or how about the women of fucking Afghanistan, who currently have legislation making it possible for their husbands to refuse to them medical treatment, oh and gives them no legal recourse against rape. Yeah NO ONE believes in the patriarchy.

—could instill in some children a sense of shame and a double life. A 2008 study of 25 girls [trans boys] who had been seen in [F]ucker’s clinic showed positive results;

What do you think of as "positive"?

22 were no longer gender-dysphoric, meaning they were comfortable living as girls. But that doesn’t mean they were happy

oh, silly, I thought that "positive" and "happy" were related!

I spoke to the mother of one [F]ucker patient in her late 20s, who said her [son] was repulsed by the thought of a sex change but was still suffering—[he’d] become an alcoholic, and was cutting [him]self. “I’d be surprised if she outlived me,” [his] mother said.

You heard it folks, apparently none of these young transmen are trans anymore! They just want to/are trying to kill themselves. Sounds like a peachy fucking cure.

I literally couldn't read through this entire article. Maybe one day I'll have the stomach to give it the editing (for intelligence) it so clearly deserves.

The Devaluing of Women

The Male Privilege Checklist: 31. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)

"Sir, do you see in the courtroom, the man who mugged you?"
"Yes. Over there, the defendant."
"And tell us in your own words what happened"
"Yeah um, I was at Mulligan's at Fifth and 24th and he, I mean the defendant, came over to me and asked about the game. Um, the Peacocks were winning. Since I'm a Penguins fan, I was sort of bummed. And he and I talked for maybe 10 minutes about the lousy season they've been having. Maybe an hour later, after the game was over, I started walking home, I had work in the morning, you know? Anyway, maybe 10 blocks from home is where he mugged me"
"He mugged you? can you be specific?"
"Yeah, his hand was in his pocket and it looked like he had a gun and he told me to give him all my money. I sort of froze, so I just got out my wallet and gave it all to him."
"And how much did he take?"
"Objection your Honor, relevance?"
"Sustained."
"What happened next?"
"I ran to my apartment and when I got there I called the police, told them I'd been mugged. They, they, didn't believe me. I still had my wallet and my watch. They told me to call back the next morning if I still wanted to make a formal complaint, but told me that since it was a 'he said, he said' situation, it'd be hard to pin it on him."
"Thank you. That'll be all. Defense, your witness."
"So, you were at the BAR Mulligan's when you met the man you accuse of mugging you?"
"Uh, Yes."
"But you DID know him right? You know that he works at the same company you do, right?"
"Yeah, but it's a big company..."
"Your Honor, I have evidence showing that the witness and the defendant had a prior relationship. Exhibit G is videotape footage of them both at the company picnic. See right there? During the Frisbee game they were on the same team, and again here: you see they are shown chatting at the buffet. Mr. Smith, did you, or did you not say after the game: 'Good job Steve, nice catch'?"
"Objection! Whether or not the victim had a prior relationship with the the defendant doesn't have any relevance to whether or not Mr. Kibner stole money from Mr. Smith"
"Your Honor, the witness tried to hide their prior relationship, it goes towards credibility."
"Overruled. Answer the question Mr. Smith."
"Yes. But...."
"In fact, isn't it true that on June 24th, 2009 you in fact lent Mr. Smith some money?"
"It was a dollar for the snack mach..."
"Please answer yes or no."
"Objection! Relevance?"
"Your Honor! Mr. Smith and the defendant had a prior monetary relationship!"
"Overruled."
"Fine. It seems Mr. Smith that you in fact have a HISTORY of monetary relationships. Isn't that right? In fact, did you, or did you not, in the last year give several donations to Bluepeace, Planned Childhood, Habitat for Ocelots, Heifer Intranational, The Red Crucifix, Psychologists without Borders, and Okaywill? And that's just what we found talking to your family. According to your neighbors and friends, it seems you gave to MANY people, isn't that right?"
"Objection!"
"Withdrawn. Mr. Kibner claimes that you told him you wanted to give him some money."
"I didn't!!! I never told him I wanted to give him any of my money!"
"So you just HAPPENED to meet Mr. Kibner in the bar. Mr. Kibner who you had a PRIOR monetary relationship with. And when walking home late at night, you just HAPPENED to run into Mr. Kibner. Mr. Smith, where was your wallet that night?"
"What?"
"I'll repeat it, Mr. Smith: where do you keep your wallet?"
"In my front pants' pocket, why?"
"Mr. Smith, did you, or did you not, take OUT your wallet, MULTIPLE times during the night and flash your money in Mr. Kibner's face?"
"I was paying for my drinks!"
"You were drinking? Mr. Smith, did you get drunk that night?"
"I don't understand..."
"So you admit that you were drunk, and had given Mr. Kibner money in the past. Tell me, If Mr. Kibner was mugging you, why didn't you fight back?"
"I thought he had a gun, his hands were in his pockets and he told me to give him money."
"But he didn't have a gun. And you never said 'No', you never yelled or did anything to indicate that you didn't WANT to give him that money."
"I didn't!!!"
"For all WE know, you really DID want to give Mr. Kibner your money, and only after you got home, you realized that it'd been a mistake. And that's when you called the police. AFTER you realized you wanted your money back. Your Honor. I'd like to suggest that Mr. Smith had an 'unfulfilling giving experience' and is using this farce to cover up his shame."


Does this make sense to anyone? I didn't think so. Yet everyday people suggest these exact same things to rape survivors. On a recent blog post/comment thread at Shakesville one commenter actually described having a a therapist call her rape an "Unfulfilling sexual experience."

UNFULFILLING SEXUAL EXPERIENCE?!!!!!!!

Discuss.

I Just Came OUT

At work. As an atheist. To one of the patrons/residents here at my lovely work.

It wasn't something I was planning on doing. In fact, just about every identity I claim here on this blog/in my everyday life* is something that I generally have made an effort to not talk about. I work really hard to educate the people who come in (generally try to call them on their -isms, throw them out for using slurs, discuss with them why various things might be hurtful, etc.) but I don't believe that I'll get any more mileage from my educating by outing myself constantly.

But. It had to happen.

A) I hate sneezing. I find it uncomfortable and confusing. I don't like the build up, and I don't like the release. After sneezing, I want to pretend that it never happened. Fine, I'm a freak. Sue me. B) this means any type of post sneeze traditional phrase is not particularly exciting for me C) I'm an atheist so "god bless you" is a useless/frustrating phrase to me, even when it's a reflex. D) There is a guy who comes in every day, and EVERY time I sneeze, he feels compelled to say "god bless you" [EDIT:] as though he's a Catholic priest, I mean a real "God Bless You" /[EDIT:] E) he also feels compelled to act as though he is sprinkling/throwing holy water on me whenever he does this. [EDIT:] multiple times, like a little ritual /[EDIT:] F) MAYBE this was funny the first time he ever did it, but it isn't any more. G) (you like the little list thing? yeah, I don't know why I'm doing it either)

Anyway. Today I sneezed. This is probably the 20th time I've sneezed at work since I started working here (I just pulled that number out of my ass). I've been getting the creepy holy water treatment for weeks. Today he did it again. Apparently the 20th time is one too many. Read below to see how I utterly offended him. Not for the faint of heart!!!!!

"Hey, though I appreciate the sentiment, it actually sort of makes me uncomfortable when you say 'god bless you' like that. I'm an atheist" (I know! I'm surprised he didn't have heart palpitations from how rude and shocking it was!)

"I guess we'll never be friends."

"Huh? We'll never be friends?" (originally I thought he said "we'll never be MORE than friends"...)

"Yeah. I was born Catholic, but now I'm a born again Christian, I'm looking for a seventh day church these days"


HOLY SHIT. (haha...yes atheists do indeed say things like this)
You can't be friends with me because I don't want you fake sprinkling holy water on me? What the poop! I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it wasn't the "don't sprinkle" part, but the atheist part. Or perhaps just the "not the right type of believer" part.

This is the privilege of being a Christian (in the U.S.). So infrequently being confronted with someone not believing like you that you can pretend we don't exist. So infrequently being confronted with someone not believing that you assume everyone you meet is like you. So infrequently being confronted by non-believers that you can become offended when someone doesn't want you doing little fake holy rites over them. So infrequently being surrounded by non-believers that you can pick and choose whether you want to continue any type of pleasant association with someone based on whether they agree with your beliefs.

As my sister would say: whatevs....


*interacting with people who DON'T have anything to do with whether I can afford to eat or not