sparkindarkness | Entries tagged with thoughts and musing

It appears that the murderer of Jorge Steven Lopez is using that ever-tiresome defence - the gay panic defence (along with a couple of dozen other very dubious defences

Now for those of you blessed not to know what this means, let me clarify. The gay panic defence (and it’s equally vile cousin, trans-panic defence) is a defence used, primarily by heterosexual mean, to justify why they had to attack/beat/hospitalise/kill gays (and trans people).

It goes like this - a straight guy, upon realising that a gay man (or trans woman) might be sexually attracted to them (and this is complicated by that eternal assumption that straight guys are UTTERLY IRRESISTIBLE to gays) is perfectly justified in going into a berserk rage and murdering said gay person.

Unsurprisingly, I have issues with this “defence” and this whole damn mindset. Oh yes I do.

Firstly - can we bury this idea that homosexuals are salivating desperately after the straight folk? (not relevant in this case, but it needs to die already). Seriously, get over yourselves already.

Right now to the ‘defence’. I am sure everyone woman reading this has had, at some point, an unwanted sexual advance from a guy. If they’re polite the response tends to be “no thank you.” If they’re an arsehole who won’t let it drop with the kind of personality that means they have to sneak up on their own right hand to masturbate then the “no thank you” is accompanied by swearing, a slap, drink thrown in face and/or a swift kick in the yin-yangs (in roughly that order).

What they DON’T do is burn, decapitate and dismember the lizard, no matter how skeevy he may be. Because that is evil.

“But Sparky,” I hear you cry, “of course the homophobes are ridiculous and evil, everyone knows this!”

And this is true. And I don’t expect the homophobic arseholes that attack us to give a damn whether their defence is reasonable or not. No, what I care is the rest of the world treating this as even remotely a reasonable defence.

I care about it being argued and considered as a defence in court rather than just being treated as patently ridiculous.

I care about the number of straight guys who think it’d be REASONABLE to beat up a gay guy who makes eye contact, who came on to them or even who touches them (because, yeah, that’s wrong - but worth beating someone up over?)

I care about the number of people who think it’s ok to beat up a sex partner who you later find out is trans.

I care about the police who think it’s worth considering. Who have asked both myself and my friends whether we approached, came on to, solicited our attackers - as if it were relevant. I care because these same police actually asked what we were wearing.

And this is the underlying disease. Not that repellent homophobes want to kill us - we know that and there sadly will always be bigots and arseholes. No, the disease is that GBLT life is so devalued in standard cis and heteronormative society that the gay panic defence is given ANY credence at all.

Our lives are so devalued that extreme violence against us is not seen as serious as violence against cisgendered and heterosexual people. Our right to be safe is treated by such contempt by society that even the slightest “provocation” is considered as a possible reason to assault, beat and kill us.

And this is why the “gay panic defence” must die. Because this crap can’t have even a shred of legitimacy. It is one of the chorus of voices (and there are so many voices in this chorus it makes me want to scream) that tell us our lives are worth nothing made louder every time it is used and every time anyone remotely considers it having any kind of validity.

And while that chorus keeps singing, we keep dying.

I spoke, as requested, about how to create a gay-positive atmosphere to support kids and teens growing up who may be gay. This is always a big thing for me because I think that gay kids and teens are incredibly vulnerable

The next part (also requested) is naturally, what to do when someone comes out to you as gay.

Firstly I’d say go to the inestimable Plaid Adder’s site and look for her extremely good guide on a Straight person’s Guide to Gay Etiquette. It is both funny and informative

I will not repeat it here because most of what is covered there is just so universally useful. I will, however, add things from my own experience and thoughts. I also won’t talk about the “experienced outcomer” since Plaid Adder covers it AND if someone like me is coming out to you then there’s little need to protect or shelter me and we’re generally tough enough to deal with the badness out there. However, I WILL say do NOT assume someone is experienced just by their age. There are 19 year olds out there who have been out to all and sundry for years just as there are 70 year olds who are just now cracking the closet door. I would say assume your outcomer is inexperienced unless it is obvious they are not.

Preamble aside:

The overriding rule, I think is: Be positive

Don’t be fake and ridiculous. You don’t need to do the “YAY HOMO!” dance. You don’t have to call in cheerleaders. You don’t have to act like you’ve just won the lottery. BUT this is a positive thing. This is a good thing. This is time to make it abundantly clear that you are happy and wonderful.

Any doubts you have about homosexuality? Yeah NOW IS NOT THE TIME. Any concerns you have about homophobia? NOT NOW! Worried that your child will now never give you a grandchild - SHUT UP AND DEAL. NOW IS NOT THE TIME. Seriously, I can’t emphasise this enough. There can be no negative here - NOT NOW. No matter how important you think it is, or how much it matters this is NOT THE TIME. You need to be sincerely happy, supportive and positive without a single HINT of a reservation.

Is this hard? Well it’s nothing compared to what that gay person is going through coming out to you. When a gay person comes out to you (especially an inexperienced one) they are incredibly vulnerable, afraid, worried and putting their heart and mental well being in your hands because they value you enough that they need you to know. That is a huge responsibility and a massive complement. It is an immense gesture of trust and friendship. Treat it with the respect and honour it deserves.

REMEMBER: When a gay person is coming out, especially if they’re only just coming out, calm, logical, coldly objective thought is NOT HAPPENING. They are likely thinking of the 101 horrible things that can go wrong here. No matter how obviously pro-gay you think you are, the poor gay person coming out is going to be horribly thinking of the worst. And it’s not always unjustified - the first person I came out to was my best friend - we grew up together, I never imagined he’d be hostile. And he responded by planting his fist on my jaw. I repeat - that outcomer is worried and half expecting a hostile, negative reaction. Don’t feed that, don’t imply even slightly that being gay is a bad thing. Don’t make them think you’re smiling to be polite while internally you are screaming “save me Jesus from the evil homo!”

That’s the main point, I think - but there are some important don’ts growing from that.

DON’T:
Talk about homophobia. Positive, remember? Even if you want to shout out that you’ll be there with them defending them against all and sundry. This is not the time to remind the outcomer that there are no small number of people who want them dead. ESPECIALLY if you’re going to say something like “I wish you weren’t gay, you’re going to be harrassed by arseholes” because you are suggesting being gay is a BAD THING (not rational thinking mode, remember?) By all means talk about homophobia LATER and make it clear you’ve got their back - but not now.

Be dismissive. Sure it may seem great to take the pressure off by saying “It doesn’t matter” it does matter very much to gay people. Don’t deflate one of the biggest moments of their lives (if anything you’re showing how very much you do not get it). Do not try to change the subject or move on quickly. Sure, you may think you’re normalising the experience and acting like being gay is normal and mundane - but what it sounds like is you’re trying to AVOID the subject.

Ask personal questions. Questions are good. Asking about their sex life etc isn’t. Unless you have that kind of very close relationship, the chances are if they’re only just getting round to telling people they’re gay, they’re not ready to discuss the nitty gritty of their romantic, emotional and sexual lives. Sure, do it later - enjoy some eye candy together if possible :). But not now. Now will just make a hard, awkward moment into a hard, awkward and embarrassing moment.

Ask “who knows/who can I tell.” The first isn’t your business and can look like pressure to tell certain people. The second answer is “no-one.” No. Really. They get to choose who knows and who doesn’t and they get to do the coming out. Not you. You do not out someone. Ever (I realise there is some political debate about outing closeted homophobic politicians which is another issue. Regardless - if you’re STRAIGHT then I don’t think even that possible opt out applies). This is a part of their life that they need to control.

Say you already know. Even if you do. Plaid Adder says this very well, but like the above, the gay person needs to feel in control over this. Don’t act ridiculously shocked, especially if you aren’t - but they need at least the illusion that this is under their control. Considering the hate and the violence out there, that’s not exactly surprising.

Tell them you’ll keep their secret. Ooooh, that surprised you didn’t it? :) This is complicated - but if someone says “I’m gay” and your response is “I won’t tell anyone” then you’re making it pretty obvious that you think they should keep is hidden and you regard it as having being let in to some big dark secret. That’s not positive! That’s not affirming! Positive positive positive guys! Sure, if they ask you reassure them, even make it clear you won’t tell anyone without their consent - but it’s not a big shameful secret or an inconvenient skeleton to push into the closet

Bring up a stereotype. Not even if you think it’s funny. If your response to the words “I’m a lesbian” is “hey you can help me put up shelves then!” or to “I’m gay” is “great, I need someone to go shopping with!” then please stop and rethink. Stereotypes are damaging. Even if you think that you’re diffusing the situation and using humour to make it clear you're fine - trying to force your friend into a narrow stereotyped box doesn’t help. You are telling them they have to act a certain way in order to be gay (my previous point about ‘doing it wrong‘ applies). You are telling them you expect them to change now you know they’re gay. You are telling them your relationship will change and you will treat them differently now you know they’re gay. Don’t - they’re the same person they always have been. You just know more about them now

It’s not about you. REALLY not
Some people need reminding about this so much it hurts. Some people are so stuck in their own lives that they can even make a friend coming out all about them. So let’s address this for the sake of the poor GBLTs out there who need one of the biggest and hardest moments of their lives to be about them:

“But I believe homosexuality is wrong! My religion/religious leader/politician/invisible pink unicorn says so!”
First of all - grow up and do some thinking and stop absorbing the dogma of hate - but that‘s another post.
Secondly - your friend needs you. Your friend is so fragile, so vulnerable right now - what you do now can leaves scars on them that can last for years, if not the rest of their lives. If, later, when they‘re stronger and more secure, you feel the need to distance yourself from them or even give them extremely unwanted and unhelpful lectures then that’s your business - they’re probably better off without you, to be honest. BUT, if you have even the slightest shred of humanity in you then you will NOT do this when an inexperienced, fragile gay person is coming out to you. Seriously, don’t, because that is evil.

Why did they keep this secret from me? Don‘t they love me/trust me/do they think I‘m a bigot?
Unless you are or have been a closeted gay person you do not even begin to understand what it’s like. You do not understand the fear, the pain, the agony of self-realisation. Believe me when I say they had damn good reason. Do not make this beautiful act of trust about your hurt fee-fees.

But anal sex is yucky!
Are they bending you over against a wall and reaching for the lube? No? Then why the hell is your opinion on anal sex - or any perceived “gay” sex (and, really, you need to widen your horizons a little) even remotely relevant here?!

For parents: But I want grandchildren!
Firstly, being gay doesn’t mean childless. Secondly are you willing to crush your child’s emotional well being and leave mental scars that will take years to fade is ever because you want a baby to dandle on your knee? You’re a parent - if your child is coming out to you then this is most certainly a time to show that UNCONDITIONAL and UNRESERVED love that a parent is supposed to show a child because you, more than anyone else in the whole world, have the power to rip out that kid’s heart. Don’t. Please. Don’t.

For Parents: “It’s because I didn’t breast feed/was working too much/let her play with action man!”
Firstly: No-one is 100% sure what causes being gay, but there are more studies pointing to homosexuality being inherent than there are about left or right handedness.
Secondly: It doesn’t matter WHY your child is gay - you child is gay. Now. And that’s not going to change.
Thirdly: If you’re looking for something to blame, you’re implying being gay is a bad thing. Don’t do that to them. You have the potential to do more damage to them than anyone else in the world. Don’t.

I can’t think of anything else right now. But I know a lot of GBLT people read my journal - anything else to add? :)

This piece originally appeared at Womanist Musings where Renee has very generously allowed my random musings to appear on her excellent blog

I’ve seen a few of these round on the internet lately and my head aches a little with them. On one forum I was accused of being hedonistic because I defined myself by my sexuality (and my sexuality is totally about having sex, it seems) while he, a heterosexual, didn’t feel the need to.

In another venue I see many men tutting and finger wagging at an angry woman during a debate about sexism - her tone is wrong, she’s too emotional, she’s overwrought and making it personal.

Elsewhere I have seen any number of marginalised people criticised as whining, being emotional, being too critical and noisy and angry and selfish.

I’m sure with a few minutes search or remembering I can think of a few others and I know people reading this most certainly can. Because one of the hallmarks of privilege is not being involved, not having to worry about it and, on some level, not caring.

I am privileged. This is an unavoidable part of being white, male, cisgendered, able bodied, neuro-typical, comfortably well off, educated and no doubt many other privileges that I am extremely lucky to possess.

I don’t approve of prejudice, ill treatment or devaluing of people who do not share my privilege. I try to be an ally.

But to me it will always be, on some level, an intellectual exercise. I can be disgusted about a vile piece of racism, but it won’t hurt me. I can be angered at the sight of some repellent misogyny but I won’t be wounded by it. When someone’s waving their able-bodied privilege around I can be exasperated and irritated but I won’t be upset and diminished by it.

And sometimes I don’t think about it. There are hours, days, weeks when I can go without ever considering race or sexism or most marginalisations. I try to make a point of doing so - but that makes it a conscious choice, a luxury. And if it gets uncomfortable or unpleasant or I simply become tired, then I can stop.

Because when you are a member of a privileged group with one of your descriptors you don't NEED to think about it - because everything around you is set up to cater to your privilege. Just as an able bodied person doesn't have to think about being able bodied while someone in a wheel chair does, just as a white person doesn't think about how race affects them every day, but a person of colour is far more likely to find it being a relevant considerations, just as a woman has to be more alert to gender issues than a man is - and just as a straight person never has to think about sexuality but a gay person has to be so terribly aware.

Yes we think about our marginalisations. Yes I define myself by my sexuality in that I - we - pay more attention to it as a descriptor that straight people do. That is not something we choose nor is it something we want to do - it's a necessary adaptation to a world that is hostile to us.

IF no-one cared what my sexuality was, IF I had all of the same rights as heterosexuals, IF I could hold hands with my husband, have a picture of him on my desk, hug him in public, IF I could choose my holiday destinations without considering whether a country would imprison or kill me for my sexuality, IF I could go through my life without enduring derogatory or insulting comments about my sexuality and relationship all the time, IF society didn't spend no small amount of effort calling me a freak or lesser or a second class citizen, IF I could be sure I would be safe from discrimination, prejudice, hate crime and bigotry...

IF all these things were true then I WOULDN'T think about sexuality either. If I had the privilege of not having to think about my sexuality then it wouldn't dwell so much on my thoughts and it wouldn't be such a dominant descriptor. It wouldn't be such a dominant descriptor because it wouldn't effect my life so much, it wouldn't be something I would have to constantly take into account, it wouldn't be the worry that preyed upon me, the concern that dogged me, the constant nagging fear that I - and every other homosexual - can NEVER be rid of - at least not in my lifetime.

My point?

My point is that marginalised people have to think about their marginalisation, have to consider it and have to get involved in issues connected to it. It means marginalised people have to define themselves by their marginalisation and have to see how it effects everything around them

It means marginalised people cannot choose not to think about it.

It means conversations about marginalisation are conversations about their lives. They’re deeply personal and vitally important to them. It means they don’t have the luxury of being detached, unemotional or uncaring.

Which means

Which means marginalised people have good reason to think about their marginalisation, be alert to it - and damn good reason to be angry

Which means whenever you say a marginalised person is ‘obsessed’ by their marginalisation or ‘sees it everywhere’ or talks about it excessively - then you are probably wallowing in privilege.

Which means whenever you criticise a marginalised person’s tone, whenever you say they are ‘angry,’ ‘hysterical,’ ‘emotional’ or taking it ‘too personally’ - then you are probably displaying your privilege.

Which means if you think a marginalised person is too obsessed or too emotional or angry or taking it all too personally and it bothers you then work towards a world that doesn’t FORCE them to ‘obsess’ or that doesn’t hurt or anger them. Chiding them on their ‘tone’ and their ’obsession’ only highlights not just your privilege - but also your ignorance.

This piece originally appeared at Womanist Musings where Renee has very generously allowed my random musings to appear on her excellent blog

This is an issue that has been bouncing around in my mind and I’ve finally put words round it after being exposed to it a little too often. I can sum it up in one sentence:

There is no way you can say “I think you are inherently inferior to me and not deserving of the same rights as me” and not offend, annoy or insult me.

Or, to put it another way, there is no way you can espouse or support homophobia, hold homophobic opinions, broadcast, defend or support homophobic policies or pronouncements without offending me, angering me, insulting me and hurting me. And I imagine women feel the same about sexism, PoC feel the same about racism, trans people feel the same about transphobia etc.

It doesn’t matter how polite you are. It doesn’t matter WHY you think I am inferior to you. It doesn’t matter if your god or preacher or politician tells you I am a bad/naughty/sinful/unclean/evil being. It doesn’t matter what your holy book says. It doesn’t matter if your pet cat always hisses at gay people and you trust little Fee-Fee’s instincts.

If you think I am inferior to you because of my sexuality, if you think I am due less rights than you because of my sexuality and/or if you think it is ok for you or anyone else to abuse, insult or attack me because of my sexuality then you are a homophobe, an enemy and I will treat you as such.

You do not have an excuse good enough to justify homophobia. There is nothing you can say that will make your homophobia palatable to me. You will never ever catch me saying “oh you hate me and want me to be treated like a second class citizen? Well that’s just super - let‘s be friends!”

I am not obliged to be nice to you, respect you or have any regard for you at all, just because you try to put pretty words around your homophobia. A nice homophobe is still a homophobe. Happy smiles and pretty words don’t make up for denying, opposing or fighting against my basic rights and very existence. You might want to at least throw in a card or a gift basket or something. I’m sure hallmark has a “We hate you and want to destroy your life, but can we still be friends?” selection.

In particular, I am not obliged to be friendly if you say:

“Hate the sin, love the sinner.” That ‘sin’ is my family. It’s my husband. It’s my home. It’s my life and my happiness. You cannot separate me from my ‘sin’ because it’s an inherent element of me.

“I’m not a homophobe but I’m against gay marriage/adoption/in the military/breathing.” See this doesn’t work. You can’t say you’re not a homophobe and in the same sentence say you don’t think gays deserve equal rights. The latter completely puts the lie to the former.

“I’m not a homophobe but do they have to flaunt it?” The closet is an evil place. One of the greatest crimes against GBLT people is that society has forced us to closet ourselves. And if the sight of us being us, being as open and free as heterosexuals offends you then, yes, you are a homophobe. You cannot be happy with our existence if the evidence of our existence offends you.

Finally, even if you are a good, nice person who just happens to be a homophobe, then I don’t want anything to do with you. Sorry, I don‘t. No matter how pleasant and polite, how much we have in common elsewhere - your homophobia is NOT something I’m willing to “agree to disagree on.” And I’ve been called intolerant, even a bigot, for refusing to play nice and be friends with the friendly homophobe.

And this boggles me. This person believes I am less. They are against my having basic equal rights. I don’t care how friendly they are, how much we have in common, how nice they are and how much we agree on everything else - they believe I am inferior and unworthy of equal rights. That’s a deal breaker. I do not owe such a person my respect and I certainly don’t owe them my friendship.

I will respect them when they respect me - and they can only do that by acknowledging me as an equal who deserves all the rights and privileges that they enjoy.

Someone asked me, a terribly long time, to post some general advice on how to behave/act around teens who may or may not be gay and may or may not be considering coming out. I apologise for how long it has taken - my email is a train wreck and my organisation is completely non-existent. I didn't notice the email until long after I received it and lost the information notes and thoughts many times over. I remain eternally distracted, I’m afraid.

Preamble over - so, what Sparky thinks based on Sparky’s experiences, Sparky’s worries and the general things that plagued me as a child and teen - both what I valued and what I wish hadn’t happen. These are, naturally, not going to be universal by any stretch of the imagination - ye gods they so aren’t, we’re such a diverse group - but they are what was important to me.

( Read more... )

The leader of the BNP, a man severely contending for the most Vile Waste of Skin In Britain award, Neil Griffin, has appeared on Question Time. There has been considerable debate on whether the racist and generally repellent BNP should be given legitimacy by allowing them on to this highly respected programme.

And I’m torn.

Firstly, I discard the idea of “free speech.” It’s not applicable. We have the right to Free Speech - but my right to Free Speech doesn’t mean the BBC has to invite me to Question Time or any other television programme. My right to Free Speech does not require the BBC to broadcast my views. Free speech does not demand others give you a large megaphone - no, not even the license fee funded BBC. It is not censoring the BNP or infringing their rights if we refuse to be their megaphone.

Nor do I accept that the BBC has to give its time to the BNP to be unbiased. The BNP are a fringe party. We do not expect to see fringe parties on Question Time - there’d be little time for anything else. We do not expect to see the Greens, the Law and Justice Party, the English Democrats, UKIP, Respect or any of the other crazy and mildly amusing additions I see lurking around the bottom of my ballot paper to appear on Question Time. It would be ridiculous to suggest that the BBC is unbiased because they do not give a stage to the lunatic fringe.

Those aside the real issue with me is one of Legitimacy vs Giving them enough rope.

On the Legitimacy angle I worry about us presenting the BNP as important. They are a fringe party, as I’ve said. And most people do treat them as such. But they’re in the media nearly constantly lately, they’re being invited to Question Time, they’re causing many people (and, ironically, I suppose I should include myself) to write and say serious things about how awful they are. We’re treating them like a party. We’re treating them like some kind of reasonable, plausible force. We’re treating them seriously rather than like the sick joke they are.

They don’t deserve this kind of attention. They don’t deserve this publicity. They don’t deserve this regard. They deserve to be ignored and treated with the withering contempt they deserve

The flip side is that, for all I’ve heard Nick Griffin declared to be a good spin doctor and a politician and for all that he has tried to sanitise the image of his party, it remains difficult to put perfume on shit and convince us it smells sweet. And I do find that the longer the BNP is allowed to talk the more their vileness becomes apparent. And a forum like Question Time would not favour them (in fact, he seemed to spend no small amount of time desperately denying quotes). The scrutiny is not kind to them and they can’t cover themselves indefinitely nor can he really compete on a level against real train politicians of major parties who have honed their skills against each other for decades. I hate most of them but they’re GOOD with words.

Actually, I’d make a point of going after lower level members. Those at the top, like Nick Griffin, are too savvy to say the vile things we know they represent - aim for lower down the organisation and get some perfect quotes that show them for the vile creatures they are. For Example: BNP member Nick Ericksen who said of women “Like gongs, they need to be struck regularly.” He also described rape a as a “myth.“ (I’m not going to repeat the other misogynist crap he said because I’m still aghast at it and would hate it to appear in my space even as a quite) That is vile - that is so openly and repellently vile that near anyone reading it is going to be appalled. Hunt down these candidates and get them TALKING.

I’m still torn. I’m inclined to say “drag them out in the sunlight for all to see” but why should we even bother looking at them?

In case you haven’t caught the news, Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace prize.

I can’t say I agree with it. I won’t say it’s an utterly awful idea - because I’m not privy to the thinking of the nice Nobel people. And there is some merit to using the award as a symbol.

The reason they give, that he represents hope, seems a little hollow. Giving the peace prize to people because they represent some kind of nebulous concept seems dubious at best. Especially since I’m not convinced he represents hope at all - OR peace for that matter.

That’s their public idea. I don’t know if it’s their main motivation. It may be a goad to try and hold him to his ambitions. It may be an expression of what they hope he’ll be. It may actually be an expression of relief that America has someone in power how is less... worthy of consternation. I don’t know - but I don’t think any of these reasons are very good ones.

Overall, I don’t think such vague hopes are good ideas for an award. Handing out the Nobel Peace Prize to people - to politicians especially! - who talk a good game, have some very nice speeches and ambitious (albeit vague) plans seems like a poor idea to me. Every politician have nice speeches and ambitious plans and they can all talk prettily when it suits them. If we start giving out prizes based on what they say they’re going to do, we’re going to need a whole lot more.

By all means, give Obama the peace prize - when he has actions to back his rhetoric. Rhetoric alone should not be the foundation here.

Now, that being said - Obama didn’t choose this. I highly doubted he nominated himself and of course he isn’t going to decline it (because that would be high disrespectful to a very prestigious award). This is not something Obama chose or arranged - so he can hardly be held responsible for it. It’s unfair and highly foolish to decide this is Obama’s fault or criticise HIM because of it.

Secondly - I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - criticism is good, but criticism that is just a vehicle for showing off your racism and general craziness is a bad bad thing. And yes there’ve been some doozies (positive discrimination? Really? Have you seen past winners of the award? And you think if they wanted to give the award to a PoC they’d have to make a dubious excuse for it? Liberal conspiracies? Oh my oh my the crazy keeps coming). When i first heard the news I cringed - not because I disagreed with the decision (though I do) but because I knew that there would be a truckload of crazies frothing at the mouth and just leaping on the opportunity to show their craziness and racism to the world. Again.

Just a little drabble.

Originally this was the hawt sexing, in my head anyway. It just didn't work that way. One of the recurring tropes I hate in m/m fiction/slash and just about any genre with relationships is that when someone is depressed, upset or even outright traumatised, they have themselves some hot sexing and feel better.

I can see sex as a way to life out of a funk and maybe improve my mood - but if I'm really depressed and/or upset I'm not in the sexy mood. I also feel a little a little squicky by the non-upset partners a lot. I mean, if Richard came to me, upset, sad, confused and generally down I would think it's time for support, hugs, MAYBE cheering up (but I've ranted before about the idea of us having a DUTY to be happy). It's not a time to think "hey, he's feeling all sad and vulnerable now - time to get in his pants!" The times I've read this and felt that it's a little... predatory? Your partner's upset and vulnerable so it's time for sex?

Anyway, sexy time was called for cuddles instead :P I have more and I hope to post again today :)

( Read more... )

(Back from work, completely wide awake. Really tired of my sleep patterns these days)

Beyond the obvious. Because, y’know, I have crap on my shelves. I have a lot of crap on my shelves. Hells, I have the Merry Gentry books and they tend to make Anita Blake look like high art. I like my crap and that doesn’t avoid me.

I’m an avid reader, but my books really come in 2 kinds. The best anology i can think of is food.

I love food. lovely lovely food. And sometimes I will spend all day with Beloved preparing an epic, several course meal of grand proportions. A feast of indulgent, fiddly dishes, or spices and cuisines from around the globe. the most tender, richest ingredients blended into a thousand complex and palatte teasing combinations to be delicately sampled slowly and carefully to get the full richness of flavours from each one.

And sometimes I pour a tub of dippy sauces, mix up some batter, fire up the deep fryer and just throw anything in - prawns, mushrooms, garlic cloves, onion rings, cheese, black pudding, sausages, left overs, etc etc, eating messily with scorched fingers all the unhealthy nommy nommy things gobbled down while piping hot and greasy.

And so it is with books. I have my books that are complex symphonies of plot and characterisation that I get utterly lost in, all concentration on the book, surroundings forgotten. They’re not necessarily high literature, but they’re extremely good books that grab me, hold me and need to be read without disturbance or interruption. They are my fancy feasts in book form.

And then there’s my trashy crap. My brain fluff. The plots are weak, the characters are appalling Mary Sues, and there may be continuity errors you can drive a bus through. The sort you read in the advert breaks of TV programmes. Or while doing something else. Or after a long day at work when you can’t concentrate. They do the same thing as my crappy cheesey dvd collection. I can indulge, enjoy and switch the brain off. It’s easy, relaxing fluff to amuse and wind down to.

What annoys me about Anita Blake is not that they’re trashy fluff (or even that they’re bad trashy fluff because the endless sex scenes are just boring) but because the first few books were pretty damn close to the first category. They were my literature feasts.

It’s like sitting down in an ultra-fancy, restaurant and having the waiter plonk a burger in front of you. You may not be adverse to burgers - but there’s a time and a place and a Big Mac wasn’t what was advertised or what your ordered. And it’s made worse knowing that your Big Mac has been made by 4 star Michelin chef.

I’ve spoken about criticisng respectfully as an outsider but now I’m going to ramble on about the unpleasant habit some people have of using criticism as a method to express their prejudice (hence the need for the former post)

Recently there have been a few cases of marginalised people doing stupid and naughty things. Kanye West at the Music Video Awards, Serena Williams having a tantrum with a ref and, in the more distant past (though updated with near weekly fails) there is Perez Hilton, well, Perez Hilton just about every time he’s opened his mouth. Included here for completeness and general overview (and because of point 6 which I risked doing exactly what I was cautioning against)

All of these people have been, rightly, criticised for less than acceptable behaviour. No problems there - all of these people have done things severely worthy of criticism. And then there’s a criticism that makes you want to headdesk - where people are basically treating it as an excuse to let that bigotry hang free. (actually 2 others have said it better than I, Womanist Musings and Transgriot but I like to spread in more general terms than specifics.

So let’s look at some bad criticism and Sparky’s guide to why it fails.

1) Any and all uses of bigoted language.

Why it Fails
Do I even need to say this? Kanye West was an arsehole, a brat, a selfish prat and many other things. Accurate, if crude, descriptors all. The N-word? REALLY unnecessary and unless he’s started eating small children while I wasn’t looking, makes the “critic” (racist arsehole would be a better term) look waaaay worse than he ever was. Criticism is legitimate. Using it to pull out the inner bigot isn’t.

2) “Serena Williams’ unprecedented rampage... wild... savage...”

Why it fails
Excessive hyperbole. Serena Williams is not the first sports person to throw all her toys out the pram because a ref decision went against her. Footballers do it on a near weekly basis. John McEnroe had a whole marketing persona based on him spitting his dummy out and breaking tennis rackets.

Basically - it is no more unacceptable for a marginalised person to lose their temper/say something stupid/whatever than it is for a non-marginalised person. If the white guy doing it would only earn a tut and a headshake from you, then the black woman doing it shouldn’t earn your outraged and furious condemnation.

3) “I never ever comment on sports usually - but...”

Why it fails
Well, why are you mentioning it now? Hundreds of sports personalities have arguments with refs, umpires et al. Millions of gossip columnists say shit that is awful - and that you routinely ignore.

I’m not saying don’t criticise. I’m asking you to examine WHY you’re criticising. IF behaviour is worthy of criticism and IF you would NORMALLY comment then go right ahead. But if you completely ignore it when a white person does it, then commenting on it when a black person does it looks bad. To repeat again - I had a colleague who loved to tell me all the details of any and all incidents of crime committed by immigrants he could find. He never said anything inaccurate - but he never spoke about crime UNLESS it was committed by an immigrant. I think it’s pretty clear why.

4) “Kanye West, a black entertainer...” “Serena Williams, a black sportswoman...” “Gay gossip columnist, Perez Hilton...”

Why it fails
If you were talking about Eminem saying something stupid - you wouldn’t identify him as the “white straight entertainer.” There’d be no need - his race and sexuality would be deemed to be a) obvious and b) irrelevant. It is equally true when the fool in question belongs to a marginalised group. Why are you emphasising or reminding people of their race/sexuality etc? Why are you acting like it’s relevant?

5) “Kanye West shows what is wrong with the black...” “Perez Hilton again shows the sexism/racism of the GBLT community”

Why it fails
When black people get together, put a crown on Mr. West’s head and announce him their supreme leader, I’m sure they’ll send us a memo. Until then his actions and speech reflects himself and ONLY himself. When the Gay Mafia appoints Perez Hilton as Commander in Chief of our marriage and morality destroying armies then we will let you know. Until then he is not a spokesperson, avatar or poster child for the GBLTI movement or any part of it.

If you have a legitimate, sensible criticism about a community or movement, then go for it - respectfully. But don’t pluck out the bad actions of one person and decide that this is somehow indicative of absolutely everyone within the group.

6) “Perez Hilton is a disgrace to GBLT people.” (NB: this is kind of why I inserted Perez in here, to prevent me violating my own caution against presumption)

Why this fails
Fail 1 If you are NOT part of the marginalised group in question (in this case, if you are not GBLT) then it’s presumptuous in the extreme to dictate who is and isn’t a fit representative of that group. Sure, he’s an idiot beyond all measure - but it’s not your place to say it or to choose which GBLT people are appropriate “spokespeople” or not (aside: In my view no-one is or everyone is). We don’t need or want you policing us or playing “good minority/bad minority”

Fail 2 If you ARE part of the marginalised group then STOP PLAYING THIS GAME. You are feeding the idiots at no. 5. The correct answer isn’t to say “Perez Hilton is a disgrace to all GBLT people” but to say “the man’s an arsehole - his sexuality is irrelevent.” He doesn’t disgrace me. He doesn’t shame me. I have no duty to apologise for him nor do I have any sense of collective responsibility or blame for what he’s done. He is not my friend or family. I have no power over his actions and no influence over them.

It is deeply homophobic to judge me or other GBLT people on the basis of what he has done/said. We do not have a duty to denounce him, we do not have a duty to apologise for him. We need to fight against the idea that all homosexuals should be collectively punished for the act of one - not feed into it.

There is nothing wrong with criticism. And when people have decoded to show their arses and arseholery there’s absolutely nothing wrong with calling them out or expressing your anger, disappointment or disapproval. But the how you express it - and the WHY. Well that needs examining. Because no amount of arsholery justifies bigotry

I’m driven to consider this because our dearly beloved intelligence agencies, seeing large amounts of shit being propelled towards fans, in addition to saying there’s no need for any inquiries into torture, also wish us to remember the CONTEXT of the times.

Because the CONTEXT is so very important. What that means is “there are scary terrorists and we have to torture them!”

Which also completely removes the point of having a right against torture in the first place.

See, a right is special. A right is something above a mere law. It is special and higher for one fundamental reason - we recognise that these should not be compromised. A right is something we have agreed is a baseline, the line we do not cross, a bare minimum for civilised conduct. A right is to be preserved, protected. An absolute right (life, no forced labour, no torture) should never ever be touched. Even a more qualified right (speech, assembly, privacy) should only be even slightly abridged only with the most severe of necessities and certainly never in a fashion that renders the right useless.

And this is what makes MI6’s comments so pointless and so worrying.

The right against torture doesn’t just exist to protect people we like, people like the dominant power. The average man on the street doesn’t actually need a right not to be tortured because the chances are no-one is ever going to WANT to torture him. We don’t think (or most of us anyway) that MI6 is merrily running around on torture picnics, picking victims at random because it’s their idea of a really fun hobby. No, we think MI6 is complicit in the torture of people it thinks are a threat, or know something or are otherwise problematic. We understand that. We understand the context.

But it doesn’t JUSTIFY it. Because people who are problematic, considered a threat or know something are the only people who the powers that be WANT TO TORTURE. What is the point of a right when you’re basically saying “you have a right not to be tortured unless we, uh, actually WANT to torture you.” What is the point of a right that you will accord only to those who never have any need of its protection?

There is no point in a right that you will keep to only when it is convenient to do so. There is no point in a right that protects only those whose rights you have no interest in violating. There is no point in a right you can set aside, ignore or flagrantly break.

The test for any right is on the edge. It is on the fringes. We do not need to test whether we have a right against torture by seeing if suburban house wives are having their finger nails plucked out. We don’t need a right to torture that applies only to those we have no desire to torture. We need to look at prisoners, suspected criminals, political dissidents and suspected terrorists. We don’t need to protect the freedom of speech of MPs or someone running around singing how wonderful things are. We have no need of a right to speech that only applies to people we have no wish to silence. We need to protect the speech of the protestors, the dissidents, the extremists and the fanatics. We don’t test the right to freedom of assembly by checking if boy scouts are allowed to have a parade. We test it by looking at protestors. We don’t test the right to religious belief by watching the mainstream Anglicans - we check the minority religions, the disenfranchised, the victimised.

If you want to protect a right, secure a right and even HAVE a right - you need to look at the vulnerable people. You have to look at the people whose rights the powers that be WANT to violate.

I saw this posted on a forum and I was suprised at how many didn't get it and how many had trouble figuring it out - it's wonderful comment on society and societal prejudice I think

A man and his son are driving in a car. They get stuck on a railway crossing and get hit by a train. The man is killed outright, the son is taken seriously hurt to hospital and into the operating theatre. The surgeon walks into the operating theatre, takes one look at the patient, and says: "I can't operate on him! He's my son!"

How can this be?

Comments are screened to hide the answer :P

I’ve been reading a few blogs, thoughts and damn good rants on and around the subject of intersectionality. This basically touches on people who belong to several groups that face oppression or prejudice (for example: a black woman, or a differently abled homosexual) and there are so many big topics here that I could spend hours talking about it (from the oppression Olympics to the “dilution” argument, to under representation - gods it could take days and most of it has been said before and better - though I may visit them in the future.)

But there’s one point that strikes me most about it which I do firmly believe in. We’re all fighting the same battle.

Oh details vary, reasons vary, individual concerns vary, history most certainly varies. There’s a lot of variation here that we shouldn’t dismiss. But in the end there’s one unifying message:

People shouldn’t be ‘othered,’ devalued or treated as lesser be that through great big violent oppression and hate or small, subtle but prevalent societal assumptions and pressures.

That is the core. That is the foundation. This is the root of all our movements for freedom and justice. The ‘othered’ should not be disadvantaged by the dominant privilege and should enjoy the same rights, freedoms, opportunities, respect, position and advantages as they do.

To me, this means every victory is a universal one. Every battle against racism won, is a victory for gays, women, the differently abled, minority religions et al not just for people of colour. Every battle won against homophobia is a victory for all of us. Every battle won against transphobia won is a victory for all of us. Every battle against sexism won is a victory for all of us.

Similarly, it means that every incidence of sexism, ableism, racism, homophobia et al is an attack on ALL of us. In every instance the message is being sent that it is ok to treat people as less for being ’other’ in every instance it is saying that the privileged group deserve their privilege and others deserve to be treated as less. Even if we ARE privileged in that specific instance, it is still an attack on us if we allow any ‘othered’ group to be treated as less. We have a stake in that fight and we have a duty - not just from human decency - but from sheer self-interest to fight against that prejudice.

It also means that if an ‘othered’ person does something or says something sexist/racist/etc then they are hurting themselves.

The message is Prejudice is Wrong. You can’t say “some is wrong” or “it’s wrong when used against me” or “this prejudice is ok but prejudice against me isn’t” it doesn’t work that way. When you are prejudiced or allow prejudice to go unchallenged - even if you don’t perceive it as your fight - then you are giving a license to be prejudiced - you are allowing the idea that prejudice isn’t necessarily bad. That’s a message none of us can afford to send.

In practical terms what does this mean to me?
1) Even if a prejudice doesn’t touch me - I have a duty to fight it. The fight against sexism, racism et al may not be directly my fight, but in a wider sense they are. If I allow racism, sexism etc then I weaken the fight against homophobia

2) I have a duty to be an ally. That means being informed. That means being educated. That means not being a burden. That means not being a source of headaches. That means understanding what THEY need not what I THINK they should need.

3) All issues should be aired. I should not allow any ‘othered’ people to be silenced. I should respect platforms for them to air their views and battles. I should listen. I should not allow any ‘othered’ groups to be marginalised, their issues brushed aside or ignored - even if in doing so it would garner more attention to MY issue

4) I should acknowledge my privileges - because ignoring them annoys - and try to think past and beyond them and not use them to oppress. I should do all I can not to be part of the problem

5) I should never ever ever ever ever condone the ‘divide and conquer’ tactics that have been used so successfully before. We’re in the same fight - we can’t throw our allies under the bus if it will get us ahead.

Othering, prejudice, bigotry is wrong. Always. Allowing it in any instance opens the door for it to be allowed anywhere. If we recognise this we are much much stronger

I play World of Warcraft. It is known. I am the co-GM of social raiding guild (we kind of straddle the weird line between hardcore raiding and casual playing. Yes it’s weird. Basically we raid often as a GUILD but it’s not always the same people and if people only want to raid once a week or once a month or, hell, never want to raid, then we have them in the guild and have fun with them along with those who raid every day we have raids). We’re also a pretty big guild. This makes for a lot of time and effort from the officers.

Now to finally saunter up to the point. beloved was bewilderedly amused (albeit not critical, he knows better) of how excited we get - me and all my guys on vent - when we first downed Vezex, when we took Assembly of Iron hard mode, even when an extra shiny piece of loot drops.

My first instinct, of course, when seeing a non-WoW addict watch me cheer and celebrate pixel-death, is probably what most WoW players feel - embarrassment, trying to downplay the reaction, etc. But why should I? I mean, I see sports fans play or watch football and their5 enthusiasm over a goal mystifies me. One of these days I expect to see footballers humping on the pitch after a goal celebration (well, more hope than expect. :P) if it’s expected and acceptable for people to cheer and leap out of their seats screaming because someone has successfully kicked a ball between 2 posts then why shouldn’t it be acceptable for me to punch the air and yell “YES, PWNED! Gieb mah shinies!” when we tackle Hodir hard mode?

Besides - given the time and energy I put into WoW, surely it would be more depressing if I WASN’T excited and enthusiastic about playing? Dedicating that much effort to something that brings me no joy would be crazy.

So yes, WoW is one of my joys. It’s my hobby and yes I get excited and enthusiastic about it. Yes, it’s only pixels and “doesn’t matter” but nor does a football or tennis match. I‘m not going to be ashamed just because my hobby doesn’t have that level of PR and social acceptability.

I am often accused of being excessively calm. Oh I can be excited, passionate, silly, giggly, furiously enraged, crazy and certainly random - but afraid, worried or panicked? Not really. I never really understood worrying that much.

Oh, I do worry, occasionally. Sometimes. But very rarely and not for very long. Part of it is because I'm very good at compartmentalising my mind - something worries me, I think for a while, then set it aside and get on with other thoughts. Worry has been pushed aside. This annoys Beloved because he can't see how you can just NOT think about something that's worrying you. Personally, I look at the world and think that most of it has mastered the technique - ignoring the elephant in the room is an international sport.

But minaly I manage to avoid fretting, worrying and panic by being pessimistically optimistic. Which makes no sense - so amuses me.

Whenever something happens, the very very VERY first thing I do is think of the worst case scenario. What's the WORST POSSIBLY THING that could happen? No matter how improbably, I always look for the worst, most apocalyptic scenario.

Then I generally think "does this involve me starving in the gutter with 4 broken limbs being hunted by velociraptor riding Nazis?" Usually, it doesn't. In fact, usually the worst case scenario is a lot lot lot better than that. Usually the worst case scenario, while unpleasant, is usually NOT THAT BAD. I probably won't die. I probably won't lose everything. My life will still be worth living. So... it's not too terrifying is it?

Or to put it another way: only life and death are life and death. Don't blow things out of proportion and no matter how unpleasant, awkward or plain horrificly awful the worry is - the chances are the worst case scenario won't break you.

This just seems... I dunno, it's always worked so easily to me to a point where I don't UNDERSTAND why people are freaking out? When I see people freaking out because of relatively minor things - well, yes, some of them are extremely distressing. But where are the velociraptor riding Nazis? I mean, I sympathise and want to help and certainly make accomodation for the freak out... but I never quite understand it.

It seems that, in a spat of lunacy, burqa banning has come up in France. Naturally, some people are saying we should do the same here - because craziness spreads, y’know. Let us analyse all that is wrong with this. This may take a while, there’s a lot of wrong there.

First of all the very idea of a dress code for people on their own time in a free society is so very disturbing that I don’t even know where to begin. Seriously, the very idea is ludicrous. Gods, I find public nudity laws ridiculous (and I think they’ve done a lot of damage with us overly sexualising the naked body, being unable to separate nudity and sex AND caused us no end of societal hang ups about our bodies and shame regarding many parts of them. But this is another matter). Laws which say what you can and cannot wear without good reason are the very antithesis of freedom - it is a very personal thing that is being dictated here and it’s an expansion of government power into an area that is very very scary.

We already have rules about where you can and cannot cover your face (such as banks) and we already have rules about work and school uniforms. This is expanding that to a blanket ban. So where are the good reasons for this huge infringement of personal choice?

It intimidates people.
Intimidates people? Why? Do you think she has a pair of uzis under there? The only reason that would be intimidating would be because people have waaaay too much Islamophobia programmed and this ban would only feed into that. I think a more accurate term would be people are “disconcerted” or made uncomfortable by burqas.

Well, so what? People are made uncomfortable by men in drag or make up. I can make thousands of people ragingly uncomfortable wearing tight trousers, a hot pink, skin tight-tank top with rainbows, linked Mars symbols and the words “so many men, so few can afford me,” or “You must be at least 8“ to ride“ blazoned across it. My grandmother, even in her sane days, was intimidated by any man with a beard. She and all my great aunts and uncles are outright intimidated and FRIGHTENED by Nuns. I am intimidated by large, overt religious symbols. I am intimidated by skin heads. I’m mildly freaked by tongue piercing and ear gauges.

However, we do not and should not dictate other people’s clothing and body decoration on the basis of what makes us comfortable - the arrogance of that is beyond compare. If you don’t like such clothing, do not wear it, but to demand others adhere to our tastes and sensibilities is deeply wrong

The Qu’ran doesn’t demand they wear burqas
I’m sorry, but the number of non-Muslims telling Muslims that they are practicing their faith in an incorrect fashion is beyond silly. Yes, the Qu’ran says that men and women must dress modestly. Right, like that isn’t damned ambivalent and couldn’t be interpreted many different ways - like a lot of holy text (there are HOW many different variations of Christianity, Islam and Judaism for example?). It doesn’t matter how YOU interpret it, unless they have come to you for theological advice, it is how THEY interpret it. Even if you DID share the same faith, it is not your place to tell someone they are doing it wrong.

These women are being oppressed!
On the face of it, this argument looks so much better. All these women are forced into burqas and this way they would no longer have to wear them! Let equality and freedom ring out!

Except it fails in one fundamental level. You are denying these women the choice. They go from being forced to wear the burqa to being forced NOT to wear the burqa - whether they want to or not. Look at Iran during the time of the Shah, look at modern secular Turkey. In both countries there were/are laws restricting the wearing of veils et al - and women WEAR/WORE them as a form of protest. They wanted to wear these clothes and they were forced not to.

Why is the oppression of male dominated governments telling women what to wear any better than male dominated family/cultural/religious customs telling women what to wear?

By all means have facilities to reach out to people who may be being coerced, definitely inform people of their rights, definitely provide protection and shelters and refuges - but making their choices for them is NOT freeing them from oppression.

If you think women should be free from oppression then you think that THEY should be able to make their OWN choices, even if you disagree with them.

They’re being oppressed - cultural brain washing edition
This basically says that yes the women are being oppressed but they agree to it because they have been culturally oppressed and don’t know any better.

Or, to put it another way: It is our duty as White, Christian Me to teach these poor deluded Brown Muslim Women how to do things decently.

Yes, I know that not all Muslims are non-Caucasian but the language used here is extremely reminiscent of the old “white man’s burden” argument. We have to save the poor women from themselves! They don’t know any better!

Seriously, this is the height of arrogance. We have to ban the burqa because it’s oppressive of women and women who do wear it are being oppressed even if they choose it because they don’t know any better. Now go wear a mini-skirt and a boob tube as is societally acceptable! Alright, the last was a little bit of an exaggeration, but it’s amazing how often society EXPECTS women to show flesh (but that’s another issue).

Side note to the oppression:
So let’s assume for a second that all these women ARE oppressed either by absorbing cultural misogyny or because they have fathers/husbands/brothers who will do them harm if they disobey. Right. Now you outlaw the burqa. The thing that stops their body being seen by males who are not relatives - which is the point of the garment to begin with

Do you think they’ll just go out in more revealing clothing? Really? Because I think it’s far more likely that they won’t go out at all - that they’ll be trapped in their own homes. If they’ve accepted the idea that the burqa is essential “modest” dress required by the Qu’ran then they’re NOT going to be comfortable walking around outside without it. In fact, in some cases I imagine (obviously I don’t know) it would feel akin to going out undressed, to say nothing of religious aspect of it. Any oppressive male relatives are likely to be equally or more unimpressed or unhappy.

This? Does not sound like a reasonable solution to any kind of oppression to me.

In fact the whole idea doesn't sound reasonable on any level

Actually I’m going to expand on my last post with something I’ve been musing on a forum recently.

I do not get where some people’s morality come from. I literally cannot picture it and cannot understand it. It makes no rational sense no matter how I look at it.

And the problem I have is this idea of sex as a moral issue. Sex is sex. Sure there are immoral ways to have sex - but these usually involve coersion, violence, force or cheating and deceit - the immorality is not in the sex itself.

I do not understand how sex and sexuality can be inherently moral issues in and of themselves. I do not understand why who you are attracted to is a matter of morality. I do not understand why nudity is a matter for morality. I do not understand why the type of sex or amount of sex or the people you have sex with or the number of people you have sex with or the place you have sex are moral issues. I do not understand why the depiction of nakedness or of any sex act can be considered a moral issue. I just CANNOT understand it. I cannot understand where good and evil and morality enter the equation.

I can understand why some sexual practices are not good ideas from a common sense standpoint - in the same way I think that juggling meat cleavers is a bad idea. I don’t think it’s an EVIL idea or a MORALLY WRONG idea - I just think it’s a damn stupid idea.

Not only do I not understand why sex is a moral issue, but I further am UTTERLY baffled why sex is THE OVERRIDING MORAL ISSUE. It trumps all others! It is like the core of moral values, the pinnacle of goodness!

To quote the video I linked again "So it's OKAY to waterboard a guy OVER EIGHTY TIMES, but GOD FORBID that the guy who could understand what that prick was saying has a boyfriend." AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO THINK LIKE THIS. There are people who can make excuses and reasons to justify TORTURE one of the ULTIMATE evils but will decry someone over their SEXUALITY.

I’ve just been berated about Britain’s moral decline on a forum. I am bemused! what moral decline? We care for the poorest in society more than we used to, the most vulnerable, the most needing of help. We combat prejudice and bigotry more than we used to. We have greater value and understanding of personal rights and protections in the last couple of decades than we have ever had.

But we’re in moral decline. Why? Because of the terrible, racey, sexy shows on television. Televions programmes like Shameless, Queer as Folk, Life on Mars etc show naked bodies and couples having sex. I’m sorry, but I do not understand this. The presence of sweaty, nekked sexoring completely invalidates decades of social progress?

Hey back in the 50s women may been treated as little better than property and people of colour were treated like lesser species and we were still clinging to the tail-end of an oppressive and dictatorial empire but at least there was no nekkedness or sexoring! A much more good and moral age!

I just look at the very idea of sex being such an overpowering moral issue and my head hurts. I just can’t fit the idea into my brain

As said here I was looking at the irrational and deeply silly issues some G&L people have towards our B&T brothers and sisters. Especially since it’s so damned STUPID to throw rocks at our natural allies and how it’s about time we got over this shit, closed ranks against those most unpleasant people who want us oppressed, repressed or just plain dead.

So let’s have an awkward conversation. Again, like the bisexual post, I’m probably going to get some stuff wrong, I’m probably going to accidentally offend people. I’ll try not to but if I do, I apologise in advance. Please slap me if I'm seriously off the rails and I'll do my utmost to correct it

Transexuals
The issues
Naturally first of all we have bigotry. I say this again - just because you are part of an oppressed group doesn’t mean you’re immune to being a bigoted arsehole. However we know that so moving on.

I think the main issue (beyond your bog-standard transphobia) is, again, a reaction to homophobia - lashing out but at a grossly inappropriate target.

Something that really bugs me as a gay man and probably every other gay person the world over. Some people treat me like a woman. Sooner or later nearly every gay person will be treated as someone of the opposite gender. Whether it’s assumptions, jokes, too-personal questions - gay men are considered sissy, sensitive, weak, feminine, female and often are assumed to want to be women, to be emulating women or trying to be women. This is even true in gay fiction where often one partner in a gay relationship is heavily feminised (and I KNOW you’re all tired of me ranting on that score :P). Similarly for lesbians they are considered butch, masculine etc etc.

In short, I have to, with tiring regularity, say that no, I’m not a woman, no I don’t want to be a woman, no I’m not trying to be a woman. I have to explain to the ignorant (“Which one of you is the woman in the relationship?”) and grit my teeth and deal with the insulting (“You’ve left your handbage behind, Tracy.”)

And after all this tiring and annoying and, yes, hurt, time spent saying “damn it I’m not a woman in a man’s body.” we then have a transsexual saying “I am a woman in a man’s body.” And there’s a foot stomp because you’re confusing the hetero-normative people and they’re going to make more assumptions about me *stomp feet, spit dummie out, throw all toys out of the pram.*

The next and, I think, lesser issue is the idea that transsexuals don’t belong under the GBLT umbrella. Homosexuality and bisexuality are about sexuality - who we’re attracted to and not while transgender is about gender identity. The argument is, the two are not the same so why are we under the same umbrella?

And extending from that there’s a sense some have that trannsexuals are riding on our coattails so to speak. Basically, while there are no end of bigots who are freaked by us gay folk, there are likely more and more severely freaked by the transsexual people. Is associating with transsexuals making homosexuals look even worse in the eyes of your die hard bigot? Is linking acceptance with homosexuality with acceptance of transsexuality making the fight more difficult or costly?

And why it’s so very very wrong
So some idiots give us shit about our gender identity? So they make unwarranted assumptions about us? So they make their damn idiot jokes? They insult and attack us? Since when was any of this the transsexual’s fault? It doesn’t matter if gender identity is a club the bigots love to smack us with - in the end they have plenty of other clubs and they’d use them if there were no transsexuals or a billion transsexuals. Is it depressing, hurtful and just plain annoying that we have to put up with this shit? Course it is - but place the blame where it is DESERVED and not on our fellow victims.

Are transsexuals part of the same umbrella as GBLs? Yes - if you look at the issue with anything but the most NARROW of definitions. In the end, people give us shit - all of us shit - because of narrowly defined gender roles and religious prohibition. If you look at the usual suspects who give GBLT folk (ALL of us) shit then it’s the same damn people the vast majority of the time. I don’t know of any group that says “I’m fine with trans people but you homos have got to go.” And while there are a few that go the other way, the chances are if someone is rapidly furious about transsexuals then gay people are not top of their fanlist either. The same arguments used against transsexuals (it’s not natural/what my deity intended blah blah blah) are the same ignorant and stupid arguments that are used against gay folks.

We want the same things - (equality, respect, not to be screwed over more than your average person is). We have the same principles (proud of who we are, unwillingness to hide, to be who we know we are rather than what society demands we be) We have the same enemies. They use the same language to attack us. We’re on the same side. We’re fighting the same fight and there most certainly should be a T in the GBLT movement.

Which brings us to the idea of transsexuals latching onto, diluting or dragging down the gay rights movement (or homosexual agenda if you want to freak out the crazies. And you know you do. C’mon, it’s fun.). Well again, same fight, same issues, same enemy. It’s not diluting resources when we’re saying the same thing, hitting the same targets and struggling against the same opposition. You don’t dilute or misdirect a movement by adding more people moving in the same direction.

And lastly - would it be easier if gay people dumped the transsexuals and just campaigned for homosexuals? I don’t know, probably not I think (same sissues, same enemies etc etc). It’s a moot point anyway - I mean would it be easier for lesbians to gain more acceptance if they dropped us gay men? (Personally i don’t buy that trope that lesbians get less shit than gay men, our sisters get waaay more than their share of shit - but you get the idea). Or how about we drop the drag queens? How about we drop everyone who isn’t middle class, reserved and fits gender stereotypes as utterly closely as possible? Or maybe every member of queerdom who doesn’t cower on their knees apologising to the bigots for being naughty sinful homos?

Because if you’re going to start dropping people because they may freak out the bigots slightly more than you do then it’s not going to end and we’ve LOST. If you’re going to play the “I’m a good homosexual, they’re the bad ones!” card them GTFO, tbh. Because you’re a bloody collaborator with the bigots and we don’t need it. You’re VALIDATING they’re hate. You’re encouraging it. You’re accepting it, you‘re saying it‘s reasonable, right, even good. And you need to cut that shit out RIGHT NOW!

Stand with your brother’s and sister’s together so we can get some justice, some respect, some tolerance, some acceptance and basic human dignity or get the hell away from us.

Sparky’s guide to not giving trans people shit
Again, just because the homophobes treat us like shit, doesn’t mean we’re excused treating transsexuals like shit. They’d treat us like shit anyway, it’s not the transsexual’s fault. Place the blame where it’s deserved

Don’t tell them their identity. Accept their own self-identification - arguing about their identity is as annoying or more as when straight people tell us we’re not really gay.

Don’t use pejorative terms. Not even in fun. Yes, I know you use gay slurs among gay folks and we CAN because that’s reclaiming. You’re not transsexual. You can’t reclaim those words. Don’t use tranny, Mister-sister or any of the other crap people have used. Not even if some transsexuals say you can. If you’re told a term is offensive, apologise and stop using it. Don’t argue.

Make our spaces friendly. We all know how utterly WONDERFUL it is to go into a gay club or gay society or even a gay pride parade and have that wonderful “AHHH” relax feeling knowing that this is our space and we’re safe to BE here. Hetero-normative society has made most of the world as unfriendly to transsexuals as it has for us. Let the transsexuals feels safe in our space. Let it be their space as well.

Include transsexual issues on our agenda. Give space and time to their issues. Make sure your GBLT movements give more than a passing nod to our T brothers and sisters. We’re in this together, let them be a part of it

Don’t accept prejudice shit from other GBLs just because they’re GBLs - call them on it. Grab the haddock and slap them hard.

Don’t do shit to them that annoy you when straights do it to us. Are you asking personal questions of a complete stranger? Are you making ridiculous assumptions? Are you applying stereotypes? Are you treating them as a walking avatar of transsexuality rather than a person? Are you making tasteless jokes? Well that shit annoys us so why do you think it wouldn’t annoy them?

I’ve poked around recently the idea that various oppressed and disadvantaged groups should stop snarling at each other and stand together more strongly as allies naturally united against oppression, injustice and hateful shit none of us should have to deal with.

And there’s one particular element of this that bugs me muchly and, since it also hits kinda close to home, I think it’s one I’m going to poke a little extra.

There’s a chance here that I’m going to go wrong here. I’ll (naturally) try not to, but I apologise in advance if I do.

That being said, I tentatively poke my toe into that nasty little cess pool we don’t like to talk about - why, in the GBLT community, are some of the G&L so damned uncomfortable with the B&T? Well, a lot of it comes down to your standard prejudice (as I’ve said 100 times before, just because you’re a member of an oppressed group doesn’t mean you are immune to being an arsehole) but I think there’s 2 other issues as well. The first - the desire for “specialness” and the way no-one likes their causes to be even slightly diluted is easy to understand and equally easy to dismiss as ridiculous and part and parcel of the whole bigotness. The second, though, I think is the bigger issue:

Bisexuals and Transgendered remind us of items of prevalent homophobia that get our backs up. By reminding us of that can lead to prejudice from gays towards Bisexuals and transexuals To elaborate from that HIGHLY inflammatory statement (it‘s getting long, so split in 2):

Bisexuals
The issues
This raises many hot button issues. Firstly, and perhaps mainly, is a sense of anger and even envy that a bisexual can paddle in the pool but get out if the water gets cold. I’ve spoken before about how I find people pretending to be gay for profit or gain offends me (a link to a comment thread where I vent: http://community.livejournal.com/thisthingwedo/6082.html?thread=167106#t167106) - and to an extent the same rough feeling can apply to bisexuals. NOT because they’re pretending but because there’s a sense that they can stop. They don’t have to do this. A bisexual man can jump out the water and say “pass me some boobies” and reintegrate with a society that has all the menfolk doing that boobie loving. And we can’t. We can’t get out the water when it’s cold or there are rapids or rabid crocodiles with bees in their mouths. In short, there’s an idea that bisexuals have a CHOICE which means a) they don’t get the same shit we do and b) if the water gets really rough, well, maybe they’ll get out?

It’s where this idea of bisexuals being gays that just can’t admit it comes from - because they can ‘play straight’ to protect themselves bisexual is seen as cowardly.

Then there’s the nasty thing that a lot of the homophobic crazies are telling us gay folks we need to change, that we should change, that we could change if we just tried hard enough! Then there’s this group of people who CAN seemingly change and that oh-so-does-not-help when we say we CAN’T

So, I think, there’s a sense of resentment, a sense that they get off easy, an idea that they’re playing almost and irritation that they give ammunition to some of the crazies

And why it’s so very very wrong
I’ve said before that while we all have similar problems (prejudice) the devil is in the details - and I think a lot of gay critics of bisexuals are seeing bisexuals through the wrong lens - and missing the details they endure that we don’t have to.

The issue of choice - well it’s bullshit. A bisexual cannot “choose” not to be bisexual any more than we can choose not to be gay. Yes, they can PRETEND to be straight far more easily than we can - but that’s a double edged sword. The closet for bisexual people can cling much more closely because they can pretend - and it’s more easy to EXPECT them to pretend. A sizeable number of sensible people in the world today accept that homosexuality is inherent - when a gay person comes out to them, well, this person is now gay and the opposite sex is not in the picture, end of. Sadly for a bisexual when they come out there’s always that element of “well, you can still be straight, right?” A bi guy can dump his boyfriend and go find a girlfriend, right? Well no, they can’t - but refusal to pretend is treated as more... well, wilful or defiant, y’know? Even if it is as reasonable as expecting one half of an interracial couple to dump their partner and find someone with the same skin tone.

If anything the bisexual’s playing both sides means they can end up with even more grief about “changing” than we do, because even relatively reasonable, not rabidly crazy folk are going to assume that a bisexual can (or even should!) play straight. The people who will accept gays because we “can’t help it” will still give the bis shit because of the wrongful impression that they CAN. And all of this is made far far worse by so very many people not talking bisexuals seriously - just because a group can hide better doesn’t mean they don’t have to put up with shit - and WE of all people should know that!

In the end, the Bisexual community is one of the closest natural allies the homosexual community has. Treating them like shit is going nowhere.

Sparky’s guide to not giving bi people shit

Don’t take our anger at the way the homophobes treat us (and their demand for ‘change’) out on the bisexuals. It’s not fair - direct our anger sensibly.

Don’t belittle a bisexual’s issues, don’t play the “I’m more tortured than you” game.

Treat their issues with respect, understand they may have DIFFERENT issues from you. Don’t act like they’re the backing group for the Big Gay Angst - they need their issues aired as well

Don’t imply bisexuality is a choice. Don’t suggest a bisexual can pretend to be straight (or gay). Don’t suggest their partners are interchangeable. Don’t suggest they can stop being bisexual.

Don’t buy into stupid stereotypes. A bisexual isn’t a gay who can’t admit it. They are capable of monogamy. They aren’t shagging everything in trousers/skirts et al.

The Bisexuals are in it with us for the long haul, they’re not going to quit early, they’re not dabblers, they’re not weekend warriors. They’re in their with us - respect them for that.

There’s my waffle. Bisexuals please feel free to weigh in with the many things I’ve got wrong (but don’t feel obliged to). And my GBLT brothers and sisters - we’ve got enough shit being thrown at us, let’s not give each other a hard time, ‘kay?

A drive by mini rant (mini because there are so many parts to this rant) about free speech because it’s so tiresome how this poor principle is used and abused by every clown about.

The most recent aberration - I haven’t posted in your discussion forum for a long time because I no longer wish to be part of it. I respect that it is a totally free and unmoderated discussion forum - and applaud it. In the past it has allowed for many long, controversial and deep arguments. It has also hosted some truly legendary flame wars.

But I have chosen to leave and have stayed away the past few months because the endless, unmitigated and extreme homophobia on the forum is just giving me an ulcer. It’s not worth my time or energy to expose myself to the filth and to continually try to debate against people who are so toxically opposed to everything I am. Staying on the forum but avoiding any thread that discussing homosexuality would be dishonest - and besides the hate crew follows any openly gay poster to any thread. We had a discussion on spanking children and I was told that I could have no opinion since my parents “had obviously failed.” Honestly the homophobes spend more time thinking about gay sex than I do!

Look, we all have a limited amount of time every day. I have just decided that this forum is not where I want to spend mine. That is all and that is what I said to my friends on the site privately to explain my absence.

So WHY are some people trying to characterise my leaving as an attack on free speech? Seriously? I didn’t threaten you, didn’t try to get anyone silenced, I didn’t try to shut the board down. I. Just. Left.

I didn’t even post a big flounce post saying “I’m leaving because of the bigots” or even say something like “if you don’t silence the bigots, I’m not coming back.” I didn’t even tell the mod I was leaving at all! I have done nothing to try to change the unmoderated nature of the board

Free speech doesn’t mean I have to read it. Free speech doesn’t mean I have to take part in it. Free speech doesn’t mean I have to visit a web site or log in or reply. You can spout your drivel - but my refusal to read it is not censorship - really.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30

Spark In Darkness

The “gay panic” defence needs to be buried.

Growing up gay part # 2 Coming Out

Ignoring or not being emotionally affected by marginalisation is a privilege.

Cross post: Polite Prejudice

As requested: growing up gay, how to help

Question Time, the BNP et al.

The Nobel Peace Prize

Spark in Darkness -102 scattered thoughts

Thoughts and Musings - why the Anita Blake books annoy me.

Legitimate Criticism is not an acceptable Doorway for Bigotry

What is a right?

A NOT!Riddle

Intersectionality - and how we’re all fighting the same fight

Hey, I enjoy it, that’s what matters.

Random musing

On Burqa Banning

Sex as an overriding moral priority

Awkward conversation mark 2

Ok, let’s have an awkward conversation.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. (part 1 of no doubt many)

Profile

April 2015

Syndicate

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags