Sexual Cinnamon Rolls

Growing up in a conservative Christian community, STIs were portrayed as something that happens to people who stray from the right path: total and complete monogamy with 1 single person for life. Condoms are completely unnecessary to learn about under that model; in fact, buying condoms means you're planning to sin, so don't. When I left Christianity and monogamy behind, and joined polyamorous spaces, it would have been a good opportunity to be deprogrammed of this toxic mindset toward condoms.

However, that's not what happened. Instead of condoms and dental dams being stigmatized for their accessory to a sinful lifestyle, they were now stigmatized for their accessory to a relationship lacking in trust and intimacy. Instead of STIs being the wages of sin, they were now a sign of a dirty person. It's really difficult to unfuck one's own mind under those conditions!

Everywhere I turned, the pinnacle of polyamory was "getting" to have sex without a condom with "fluid-bonded" partners. A thin sheet of latex became the barrier surrounding a gated community, separating those deserving of intimacy from those merely allowed the scraps of the bountiful love of the privileged. Relationship rules were written up like homeowners association covenants, ensuring that any interactions with outsiders would be highly regulated in a way that would remind the newcomer of their inherent dirtiness and undeservingness of love and affection, as certain sex acts were elevated higher than others, only to be claimed as if by birthright by those with purest blood.

One of the major factors fueling the recent uprise in STIs is that people won't get tested or treated - the stigma is too great.  Well, no wonder, when having one is treated like the Mark of Cain!  When you stand to lose access to entire communities of support from even admitting you're capable of catching an infectious disease, where's your incentive for confronting something that frequently won't show any symptoms at all?  (I know not everyone can afford medical care; however this is another way that communities could come together, and offer to cover the bill.)

Why is it so hard for us to stop using each other's bodies as tools for our own validation? Why do we insist that partners put our feelings before their own health? #abuseculture Fluid barriers need to become a primary way to show we care about each other's health. You're not a sexual cinnamon roll: too good for this condom, too pure.  We need to stop treating people with STIs as less deserving of intimacy, rather than as being in need of accommodations and support.

On the Meaning of Cis

Eminism has a post up about further clarifying the meaning of the word "cis".  It highlights an increasing problem in some feminisms lately, where cis women (who have always identified as female and who were designated female at birth) are rejecting the "cis" identity, because the gender roles assigned to women in our society are oppressive and they cannot relate to those roles.  And yet... there are trans women who feel exactly the same way about women's gender roles in our society.  And they are still women.  I agree that most gender roles are oppressive, and I am perfectly fine with people rejecting any and every role to their hearts' desires.

But this post isn't about Some Feminists™.  Quite frankly, most feminists accept the reality of cis privilege, and the few who don't are being confronted regularly enough that I'm not motivated to continue that battle in this particular post.  I am, however, concerned with Eminism's insistence that people whose experiences aren't "trans enough" - defined by her as "someone who does not suffer from (or must manage possibility of suffering from) transphobia on a regular basis" - must accept their ascribed identity as cis.  Taking thie counter-scenario to its extreme: what if literally everyone who claimed not to be cis was actually not cis? I don't care what they base their claim on. Maybe they're a butch-identified lesbian, maybe they're a gender abolitionist, maybe whatever. What portion of the population would all the non-cis people be? TINY. Cis privilege would still exist for that huge portion of the population that is most definitely cis, within a society that systematically delegitimatizes non-cis people's genders.

This is why I am not the gender police. While I do agree that some cis-but-not feminists are trying to have their cake and eat it too, and that the harm they are causing is as real as the cis privilege they are denying, I have exactly zero interest in spending my energy trying to slap a cis label on anyone I personally don't feel experiences "enough" trans discrimination. There are too many innocent bystanders who will get caught up in the casualties.  It also places the focus yet again on cis people's experiences, instead of centering the dialog around genderqueer and trans experiences.

It is difficult occupying the grey areas between cis and trans... As with a friend I know who is a very-light-skinned black person, and another who has an invisible disability, I am a genderqueer person who often "passes" for cis in society. Often times we have to say things like "no, I'm actually black" or "no, I'm actually in a lot of pain right now and need to sit down" and "no, I'm actually genderqueer" in order to trigger our swift decent from privilege. Other times, we risk being socially ostracized for living out our authentic selves without even saying a word, as we let the accusations come forth that we're doing white wrong, or doing ability wrong, or doing woman wrong.

Yes, I can hear you protest "but actual white and able-bodied and woman persons are policed too!"  Funny thing though: as soon as I came out as a not-a-woman genderqueer person, the tune society was singing changed from "you need to do X to be a woman" to "even if you don't do X, you're still a woman".  This is cis privilege: knowing that no matter how much the kyriarchy threatens to revoke your Woman Card, they will never actually do it; the moment you try to take them up on that offer, they'll drag you kicking and screaming right back into Womanhood.

If I got to define "cis" and "trans", here's what I would say (with a huge disclaimer that I'm not the Word-Defining Authority who represents all feminism):

• Cis people are the people whose genders are accepted on the whole by our society, and who are allowed to live day-to-day as their own gender without additional hurdles of "proof" required to validate their gender before gaining access to gendered resources.
• Trans people are the people who are told on a regular basis that cis people know what their "actual" gender is better than the trans people themselves, and who have to gather additional "proof" for cis gatekeepers before gaining access to those same gendered resources cis people take for granted.

Does this mean a butch lesbian who was designated female at birth [I keep using this example because the original article did] occasionally has trans experiences, such as people attempting to kick her out of a women's restroom for looking like a man? Yeppers! That does not necessarily mean her identity is trans, mind you - if she says she's a woman, she's a woman. But ultimately, anyone who dares transgress gender norms will be thrown from grace, and that deserves compassion and understanding beyond "but you do realize you're cis, right?"

So as a genderqueer person, I still do periodically ask myself am I cis? am I trans? I experience both. But ultimately, they become something else entirely in the long run: a constant reminder that I can never be a boring ol' regular person so long as systematic inequality exists in our society.

tl;dr - Binaries don't work.

Review: Godless Americana by Sikivu Hutchinson

Sikivu Hutchinson introduces Godless Americana as "a radical humanist analysis" that "provides a vision of secular social justice that challenges Eurocentric traditions of race, gender, and class-neutral secularism", and then spends the next 7 chapters doing exactly that. This book is a call to action, a vision of humanism that decentralizes the white experience and asks the reader to embrace a compassionate sense of initiative within their own sphere of influence.

Page after page, I found myself questioning my position on which issues humanism ought to prioritize, as this book brings up numerous examples of how centralizing the concerns of white secular Americans is to actively render humanism irrelevant to anyone who falls outside that territory. Perhaps most poignant moment was the day I had 2 extra hours to myself to read on the bus, due to my car being in the shop. As I sat there, surrounded by people for whom, unlike myself, this was not their back-up mode of transportation nor a temporary inconvenience, I read about the mobility gap: "Transit-dependency means isolation. It means less access to living-wage jobs, quality schools, affordable housing, and park space... whites generally live in white neighborhoods with greater access to social services, park spaces, and job centers."

How can the reader continue to practice a humanism that does not make efficient public transit a humanist issue; that does not make city planning a humanist issue; that does not make jobs, housing, education, and public health a humanist issue? This book is ready to answer every white-washed "we are all Africans" humanist who can't fathom why Americans of color run back to their churches for support from a Bible which advocates slavery, by questioning the very presumed innocence of whiteness itself. It boldly proclaims that a humanism that is not relevant to people of all races is quite simply irrelevant. I recommend this book for all humanists who have come to expect more from ourselves.

Reactions to My Gender

I read a good list of negative reactions to someone's gender, and since everyone's experiences are unique, I thought I'd expand upon hir list with my personal reactions-to-reactions:

The Fundiegelical: “You may think you’re ‘happy’ by wearing the clothing of the opposite sex, but you’re living in sin and you’re going straight to hell! Jesus loves you.”

I’ve had friends and family respond this way. “Sure, you’re happy now, but will you still be in 10 years?”  I could ask you the same: will you be happy in 10 years?  Will anyone?  Happiness not guaranteed in life, but I’m not doing this for happiness alone, I’m doing this to live life more honestly.

“Stop trying to act like a man.”  Oh, well since you've said so... *eyeroll*  Telling me to stop being my gender is about as foolhardy as me telling you to stop being yours.  And even claiming I’m trying to act like a man is missing the point of how I’m not a man, I’m genderqueer.

Bonus irony points that I'm an atheist humanist.  I'm not even rebelling against some ancient superstitious text, I just don't care.  Might as well reference Mother Goose to me, for all the impact it will have on my life.

The “Enlightened” Liberal: “But gender doesn’t even matter, because deep down, we’re all the same. So why is it such a big deal what I call you?”

This is always said to me by someone who consistently presents as one single gender for their entire life: man name, man pronouns, man appearance, man social role, etc.  They almost never have their gender questioned or mistaken for a different gender, and on the rare occasion it does happen, they all get a good laugh and it doesn’t happen again.  They don’t have to live in a world where they feel out of place or disadvantaged for having an “invalid” gender, so they don’t have the experience of a life where gender validity actually is a big deal, because it never has been to them.

Attempting to reason with such people is a noble endeavor, but ultimately a pointless frustrating one, for the simple reason that they can’t personally relate to what I’m talking about.  The best approach therefore is to simply appeal to emotions by saying “do this because it matters to me; and if you care about my feelings, you’ll do your best to respect my wishes”.  A good friend will accept that as is.

The TERF: “By embracing a gender role opposite your assigned sex, you are reifying gender/privilege and thus making it that much harder for us to smash gender. I know that sounds contradictory but, if you’d been a feminist for as long as I have, you’d understand.”

Forcing someone to remain in the gender role that matches their birth-designated sex is just as bad.  As is claiming that people won’t ever want to change their bodies for their own reasons (transhumanism, anyone?).  Plus, plenty of trans people don’t even want to reinforce gender binary roles, but they have no choice in order to survive as their trans gender in a culture which hates them.  They’re as much against prescribed gender roles as you are, and are happy to buck the system along with you.

I’m willing to strike a truce with any of the radical feminists who come at me with this objection to my gender: you stop trying to force me into your gender roles, and I won’t force you into any of mine.

The Proto-TERF: “Of course I don’t have anything against trans people, but abortion/sex work/breast cancer/ovarian cancer/whatever is and has always been a women’s issue! Why do you want to take it away from women?”

Because asking you to share equals stealing.  Right…

Don’t you get it?  The more rights we all share, the safer those rights are.  If even a man has abortion rights, then especially women have them too.  If even a man has health coverage for breast cancer, than especially women are covered.  The thing about equality is that it makes the world better for everyone.

The Ungendering Fetishist: “Hey, I don’t have anything against sh*m*les! I think you’re hot! I watch sh*m*le porn all the time.”

This has never happened to me, but if you say this around me, I will school you so hard your head will be spinning for a week.  Do. Not. Use. That. Word.

The Clueless Oppression-Olympian: “Transness is just a white/abled/Western issue, so why should I care about it?”

This statement is so objectively false, it’s laughable.  Except that it stops being funny when it blatantly erases trans people of color/trans people with disabilities/trans people in non-Western cultures.

For starters...

The Incrementalist: “Look, people just aren’t ready to accept trans folks yet. So instead of arguing about what pronouns to use for you, we should focus on something we can actually accomplish, like [insert other tenuously-related SJ cause here].”

Translation: “This issue makes me feel uncomfortable to the point where I’d rather not talk about it, but I don’t want to sound like I’m an intolerant person, so I’ll pretend it’s because I care too much about social justice as opposed to not enough.”  You’re not fooling anyone, bro.

Look, the thing about trans people is… we know that most people don’t accept us.  We don’t need you to validate their bigotry, we need you to help give us the support we so desperately lack, to help us carry on in this society.

The Genital-Focused: “I totally respect and support trans people, but I would never date one. Because ewww.”

This information is almost always volunteered entirely out of context, and I always wish it wasn’t.  Why?  Because it’s creepy!  Why do you need to bring your genital fetishes into discussions about my gender!  I’m not talking about my gender because I’m curious about what kind of tail you like to chase, I’m talking about it because it’s who I am.

Also, this is really creepy when applied to children. I've heard people say they refuse to respect the gender identity of children unless same children have gotten "the operation".  Think about it: you're obsessing over the genitals of little children instead of respecting their humanity. *shudder*

The Broad-Stroke Painter: “I once met a trans person who was selfish/mean/creepy/bad in general, so you’re all like that and I won’t respect any of you.”

"I once met a trans person who I decided was acceptable, so I’ll accept you."  Gee, thanks?

Similarly, I had a woman derail a convo on trans rights with how her abusive ex-husband turned out to be a trans woman. Because the ex was abusive, she deserved the right to misgender her ex in front of other trans people, ignoring how much it mattered to us that she not rub that act of social violence in our faces.  Life is already difficult for most of us, without being constantly reminded of how a single resentful cisgender person could strip us of our humanity on a whim.

The Inveterate Essentialist: “But… you can’t be a woman, because you have a PENIS! And chromosomes! And… a PENIS!”

AKA, the “science is real, yo!” objection.  Yes, science is real.  I live a science-based life.  But the human interpretation of scientific data is fluid and fallible.  I’m not going to be all like “well since I’m genderqueer, I no longer have XX chromosomes”, because that would be anti-science, as would claiming that XX chromosomes aren’t a primary player in determining whether I can grow a fetus in my uterus.  But your interpretation that XX chromosomes or a uterus are exclusively what defines my gender is limited and outdated.  After all, Pluto used to be a planet, and now it's not.

The What-About-Teh-Cis Whiner: “I know my refusal to call you ‘she’ hurts you, but you have to understand that your demand to call you ‘she’ hurts me, too. What about my feelings?”

This one is difficult to handle with friends, precisely because they’re friends.  I do care about their feelings - my heart isn't made of ice.  But I have to take care of my own mental health first, and that means not trying to push myself back into a box where I don’t belong.  I’m willing to consult with friends as to what would make things easier for them, but always with the understanding that it is an entirely reasonable request to have my gender respected in the same way I respect their genders.

The Pig-Headed “Skeptic”: “Do you have actual evidence that you’re really a woman? No, of course you don’t, because it’s impossible by definition. No, shut up; I’m right and you’re wrong, PERIOD.”

Yes, I’ve had someone say this to me!  Many people, in fact.  ”But what’s the actual definition of 'genderqueer'?  Or even of 'man' or 'woman'?  You don’t have one?  That means they don’t exist, so shut up!”

This is always said to me by someone who consistently presents as one single gender for their entire life: woman name, woman pronouns, woman appearance, woman social role, etc. They almost never have their gender questioned or mistaken for a different gender, and on the rare occasion it does happen, they all get a good laugh and it doesn’t happen again.

But somehow when it comes to my identity, gender itself conveniently stops being “real”.

The “Free Speech” Whiner: “Don’t you think that, in the spirit of free and open discussion, you should listen to my side of things instead of just dismissing it out of hand as ‘bigotry’?”

Sure! As soon as I’m had my fill of my own discussion about how fun it is to abuse puppies.  Oh wait, that’s tasteless, heartless, cruel, not fit for public discussion?  Exactly.

The Devil’s Advocate: “I’m not saying prejudice is right, but, to be fair, it is a little weird for someone to present as a woman and yet have a penis.”

Again, the thing about trans people is… we know that most people don’t accept us. We don’t need you to validate their bigotry, we need you to help give us the support we so desperately lack, to help us carry on in this society.

The Self-Proclaimed “Ally”: “How dare you say I’ve been cissexist? Don’t you know how very supportive I’ve been of you and your causes? Why aren’t you grateful?”

Hmm… where have I heard this attitude before?  Oh yeah...

Seriously, if it's that easy to lose you as an ally, you weren't really prepared to stick up for my rights in the first place.

The “Edgy” Comedian: “Look, it was a joke. I’m sorry you’re too unsophisticated to understand why it’s funny; I guess I’m just too edgy for you. Maybe one day, when you grow up a little, you’ll stop trying to censor humor.”

I’m sorry you’re too unsophisticated to understand why it’s not funny; I guess I’m just too real for you. Maybe one day, when you grow up a little, you’ll stop trying to make the world a safer place for bigots.

(Hint to cis people: don’t do any of these things.)

Bisexuals and Straight Privilege

Edit: I disagree with much of this now, but I am not deleting it in the interest of honesty.  I recognize now that bisexual (cis) women experience higher rates of violence  and abuse than any other cis queer demographic, and that for trans bisexuals (especially black trans people) it's even worse.  Materially, "looking straight" has proven to offer no protection.

As someone who used to see myself as cis bisexual (before I was comfortable with accepting my trans status), I can definitely relate to #1 and #2 in this post. I gained a lot of privilege when I was with a man that I lost when I was with a woman.

Having been on both sides of the fence, and even on top of it from time to time, I can say that #3 is really missing the point of what "privilege" means. I wish privilege were a feeling! Unfortunately, privilege is an systematic advantage gained by having a status ascribed to oneself.

If people think I'm cis, and they see me with my partner, they will treat us like we're straight. It will not feel comfortable, and in fact will feel very degendering, but that doesn't change the fact that even wrongly-ascribed privilege is still privilege.

My TDoR will be intersectional or it will be BULLSHIT.

Sitting here shedding white tears because I haven't even finished my coffee yet and already been hit with 4 powerful reminders of how racism shits all over everything, and how fond society is to look away instead of clean our mess up.

NPR ran a couple good stories this morning: one on the lashback against the choice to cast a light-skinned Hollywood-approved Nina Simone, and another on the rising acceptance of black people as valid nerds. I did a little fist-pump (while trying not to swerve off the road) because I was glad to hear the momentum going in the right direction. Just a few minutes later, NPR addressed the pro-pot movement as it pertains to Colorado, and of course they didn't mention how white-washed that movement is nor how racist anti-marijuana law enforcement is, nobody ever does.

Today is the Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDoR) - I'm sure you've heard of it. Pay attention to how the remembered are portrayed. See how many times you see happy white faces (or worse: white man faces) as the focus of all the attention. Make no mistake: this is about race. Trans women are killed because of their race and often their association with sex work. "Whore! Pervert! No need for an investigation" and the case is closed.

My TDoR will be intersectional or it will be BULLSHIT.

Sex-Positive vs Trans Equality

There is no "vs".

I'll re-emphasize:

THERE IS NO COMPETITION.

I don't know where this epic battle originated nor why it's perpetuated to the levels we're seeing online (mostly targeted at Laci Green and at the so-called "Tumblr SJ Community"), but it has its roots in bullshit.

That's right:

BULLSHIT.

Tonight I'm going camping with some awesome trans peeps. We need body autonomy, we need positive sexuality, we need acceptance, we need the support of sex-positive community.

Tomorrow I'm going SlutWalking with some awesome sexpoz peeps. We need body autonomy, we need positive sexuality, we need acceptance, we need the support of the transgender community.

And you know what? Maybe some of us has let the others down on both sides. But we're trying. We're looking forward. We're coming together tomorrow night for a Transgender Panel at SlutWalk (I'm going to see many of the same people at both events). There is respect, there is concern, and there is hopefully increased understanding and compassion for each other.

So when I see all this SELFISH FOOLISH BICKERING all over my Tumblr and my internets, I am hurt. I am drained of my optimism and hope. Yes, things may need to be said, and people may need to learn lessons. But when it fucking goes to 11 and stays that way for as long as this has, it's time to get a fucking grip and either BECOME THE SOLUTION OR SIT THE FUCK DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.

What is "Cisgender" Anyway?

Reaction to Breaking down the Cisystem.


“I’ve begun to wonder if anyone is cisgendered in the sense that they really do identified with their assigned gender role?” I think it’s self-selection sometimes that I hang out with a bunch of people who don’t really feel that they identify with their assigned gender role to any strong degree. But while most people respond to me telling them I’m genderqueer with “well I don’t really ‘feel’ my gender, am I GQ too?” (to which I say “I don’t know, are you?”), some respond with “but why can’t you just be proud to be a woman?”

Of course there are more than 2 reactions, but those are the most common, and it’s made me see just how being cis must feel. For some, it’s being so very comfortable in one’s own gender that they don’t even need to be aware of it. I never came close to feeling that way until I started living more authentically. It’s like when you have an itchy tag on your shirt you can’t wait to get rid of, and then when you do you quickly forget it was ever there.

For others, expressing their gender is a form of self-celebration. Love yourself! Express yourself! They tend to feel like the reason I don’t want to express the gender they think I am is because I don’t have “pride” or I’m somehow damaged by society. Again, when I did settle into a more authentic gender expression, I suddenly felt that same sense of self-celebration.

So in my experience, cis people are people who are more likely to have felt those things their entire lives, not just post-transition (or post-adjustment, or whatever you want to call it).

HOTT

Q: Here's a hypothetical scenario. If you got into a relationship with a "women" and you had sex with this "women". A few months later you find out this "women" was not born a women. What would be your reaction?

A: OK, I'll hold back the laughter for long enough to (unfortunately) validate this question with a response:
HOT.
Because anyone I'm in a relationship with and having sex with is HOT, so therefore any aspect of their past that contributed to their present state is also HOT.
Hell, I'll even add an extra T for emphasis on how HOTT the people are to me that I choose to be with.
Also, the "scare quotes" don't emphasize anything but your insecurity.

Thoughts on "Die Cis Scum"

friendzoning-ninja: Maybe it’s a good thing they’re being exposed to different types of people, but there is one thing that really bothers me: people’s first exposure to the term/prefix “cis*” is going to be having it used as an insult. People are going to associate “cis*” with a negative meaning, not see it as the neutral term it should be. This is a problem, because people have been working a long time to have this recognized as the neutral counterpart to “trans*”. It’s extremely vexing to see people use the term as a joke.

That’s the problem with being a deliberately ignored minority: since we’re being ignored deliberately, we’ll be given attention deliberately as well. It’s no coincidence that everyone is paying attention to “die cis scum” who previously had no intention of spending 2 seconds thinking about trans issues. It’s not just that they passively don’t want to pay attention to us, it’s that they actively want to continue to not care about us. As the gatekeepers for public attention, they give us two options:

1. We can beg and plead for compassion and mercy till our faces turn blue and still be ignored.
2. We can become angry and have people focus on that anger to the exclusion of the message behind it.

This is not on us. Trans people are not to blame. Any efforts to pick apart each others’ strategy which ignore the harsh reality of those 2 options above is completely missing the point. We cannot “win” this game by attempting to play by the rules, because it’s rigged. We need to turn the criticism toward where it belongs, on the cis-supremacist agenda.

The Privilege of "Happy Cows"

The Ethicist Contest Winner: Give Thanks for Meat  For me, eating meat is ethical when one does three things. First, you accept the biological reality that death begets life on this planet and that all life (including us!) is really just solar energy temporarily stored in an impermanent form. Second, you combine this realization with that cherished human trait of compassion and choose ethically raised food, vegetable, grain and/or meat. And third, you give thanks.

Translation:

Good news! You can eat meat as long as you place yourself in a very particularly privileged position above the rest of the planet and ignore how most people won't ever have accesses to the same resources and choices that you do!

What, there's no way that we can find enough land to produce enough of this sort of ethical meat to feed the entire planet, and even less of a way to make it affordable? Oh, well you should have thought of that before you chose to be born as someone less privileged as myself.

Give thanks to me, for I am to be praised for finding a way to wrap my privilege-denial in self-aggrandizement!

McGoats says "Do you realize the privileged position one must be in, in order to be vegan?"

Oh yes, no doubt of that. It wasn't at all what I was responding to, but I agree with you. Getting to eat ethically in any way is a privilege, be it "happy cows" [aka expensive cows] or no cows [aka food considered too "specialty" for regular grocery marts]. Like yesterday, my friend had pizza, and I could either eat what he offered or go hungry. And back to the guy whose privilege-denial I was criticizing, I couldn't just eat only happy cow meat even if I wanted to, since that stuff is damn expensive.

My concern is that if the people who control the food production process were to somehow manage to overhaul the entire system and produce only low-impact sustainable ethical food, we simply won't have enough to feed the entire planet that way if we insist upon a high-animal-protein diet. I can see a future in which some people do eat some meat, but it would be at a greatly reduced rate of consumption than what is typical (at least in the USA where I am). And those of us who are able to sustain ourselves without meat are welcome to continue to do so.

People who insist that a more ethical food supply must come from the bottom-up are speaking from a place of privilege. The people at the bottom of society cannot bear the brunt of the blame for the less ethical choices we make, because more ethical choices do often come at too great a cost, precisely because ethics itself is not built into the system.

Does that mean my decisions are magically more ethical because the most ethical option was not available to me? Nope, I still acted less ethically. All it means is that I'm not to blame for my less-ethical non-choice. The sooner I accept that there are better options being denied me and the more I demand more ethical options (at less cost) available to myself and others like me, the sooner (hopefully) we can overhaul the entire system to make ethical decisions less privileged. But even still, it's not our fault if our demands fall on hardened hearts (those of us who are willing and able to take the time and effort out of our busy lives to make such demands).

But seriously, assholes like that "let's all just eat happy cows, yay!" bro aren't doing anything but helping privileged people like him feel better about themselves.

http://catandgirl.com/?p=1094

Genderqueer Appropriation

 What isn’t appropriation:

• Being a femme-presenting person with a female-designated body
• Being a butch-presenting person with a male-designated body
• Pretending to be cisgender (aka being in the closet) around certain people or in certain situations for personal safety

What is appropriation:

• Adapting a genderqueer identity out of some sense that it will increase your social status
• Refusing to stick up for the rights of genderqueer people in situations where it would not be unsafe to do so

I’m not the gender police, so I won’t run around issuing appropriation tickets. But I do ask everyone to please be respectful of the fact that sometimes cis privilege can cause us to overlook the ways we are capable of hurting others.

Dear Straight People:

I get that you really care about marriage equality. But if the only reason you’re not getting married is because “The Gays” can’t, please, just get married.

If you don’t really need marriage, how are we supposed to make the case that we really need it? If your (lack of) marriage holds sway over the institution of marriage, how are we supposed to say that our (lack of) marriage doesn’t?

So yeah, don’t get married. Or do. Whatever. But don’t blame it on us.

Hugs!

The Nerd

On trans women holding “residual male privilege”.

“Asking or expecting individual trans women or all trans women as a group to agree to participate in discrimination against themselves (or agree that what they experience as discrimination actually isn’t), is not a reasonable request, and one which can never in practice be satisfied.”
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/06/reconsidering-women-born-women-space/

This is an issue shared by all gender minorities, and all minorities really. I can’t count how many times I’ve been asked, as a uterus-bearer, to agree with some dude that women really hold all the power because women give birth. Or been expected as a white person to agree that affirmative action gives people of color an unfair advantage (as opposed to, you know, having been born with white skin). Or been told if I’d only “act straight” then I’d be deserving of rights.

So I look around me and I see that cis men rule the world (or men who are assumed to be cis, anyway). And then trans women (or even all trans people) are asked to agree that they really hold power over cis women, or that they want a special unfair advantage, or that they need to “act cis”.

This is complete BS. I refuse to appease privilege. I have a personal zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. I will never say “gee, you have a point, trans women do act mannish”, the very insult so commonly hurled at cis lesbians and cis feminists to silence them.

Dear Supporter of Marriage Equality:

First of all, thank you for caring!  I'm glad that you don't need to be a QUILTBAG person yourself in order to take a stand for what is right.  I do, however, have one piece of advice:

Don't postpone your marriage to make yourself a better straight ally.

Now, I don't know you personally, so I don't mean to presume your particular motivation for your actions.  But perhaps you happen to share a few common sentiments with others I know who are able to legally marry their partners but are holding off on it because same-sex marriage is still not legal in their region, in which case I appreciate you listening to what I have to say.

First, consider that you're undermining a very important tenant of marriage equality: that "gay marriage has nothing to do with the success of your straight marriage".  The most recent example I have is Jay Leno telling Michelle Bachmann that he's been married 31 years, and can't think of a single way that some other person's ability to marry could harm his own marriage.  So now I ask you to consider the correlary to that situation: how does your not being straight married help me get gay married?  Answer: it doesn't.  Unless you consider it to be a form of public attention-raising.  In which case...

You can raise awareness no matter what your own personal marital status happens to be.  It doesn't take a piece of paper in the pocket to attend pro-marriage rallies, to write letters to congress people, or to donate money to non-profit organizations.  Besides, it's just as easy to stand up and say "we're a straight married couple who believe that every gay couple should be entitled to the same rights as us!" as it is to say "we're a straight couple who refuse to marry until all gay partners are able to marry!"  Either way, your support of marriage equality is much appreciated, and we hope you keep it up.

This brings me to a third thought.  Again, I don't presume to know your personal life, but I have spoken with a few straight couples who feel guilty about their marital status.  They feel like they're somehow flaunting their privilege by taking advantage of the superior rights offered to their partnership.  They may even feel like gay couples resent their marriage.  There are many ways to deal with feelings of guilt, and I can offer one possible solution:

Take all the money you save by being legally married vs cohabiting (or what have you), and donate it to the marriage equality organization of your choice.  Any time you would have otherwise had to get a power of attorney, donate that money to charity.  Every time you file your taxes jointly, also calculate the rate it would be if you both filed single, and donate the difference.  With all that money you save by being on the same health insurance, set up a monthly deposit to your local LGBT center. Bet you never thought of getting married as a fundraiser before!  Heck, you could even take a collection for donations at your wedding and at any anniversary celebrations you may hold.

I know there are many reasons people choose to marry or not to marry.  I've been married, and now I'm with someone I'm not married to, though we have the legal right if we so choose.  Life is complicated that way.  But if the only reason you are holding out on marriage is for us QUILTBAG folk, I hope I've given you a bit more to weigh in on your decision.

P.S.  If you're one of those people who are using the whole "I don't want to get married till the gays can" card as an excuse to get out of a marriage you wouldn't even want in the first place, you're a turd.