I don’t particularly buy a lot of the worry out there about the overuse of the Internet and youth. Some have claimed that if kids are spending so much time online that they’ll become pathologically antisocial, their intellectual growth will be stunted, or that they will lose the ability to do one thing at a time (e.g., read a book) and do it well. I admit my experience is my own, but if I didn’t have digital spaces growing up I’d have felt even more isolated than I was already. And I think I turned out pretty well.

I’ve noticed, over the years, that people – authority figures in particular – are kind of weird when they talk about youth. While I think a lot of the worry about overuse of technology is directed to people of all ages, there’s always, without fail, a moral panic about how it might affect adolescents. Why? Sometimes there’s a feeling that if something bad happens during those formative years, the child will be irreparably harmed. Sometimes the anxiety stems from the idea that kids are not “mature” or rational like adults, and therefore cannot be exposed to potentially harmful content. But mostly, I think, it’s a worry that kids aren’t going to turn out the way we want them to.

I am frequently reminded of Lesko’s Act Your Age!, an elaborate exploration of how we conceptualize children and youth, how most parents and other authority figures are in a constant state of worry about the “health” of adolescents. My health growing up, by most people’s standards, was pretty poor. Until 8th grade I was literally at the bottom of the curve for average height, and I remember hearing doctors talk with my parents about taking growth horomones. Further, I hated sports and had no ability to do well in any of them. And by middle school, when I missed the memo about acceptable ways boys can perform their gender, I became subject to not only the whispers of my teachers but also the verbal and physical abuse of my peers. While I was a good student, this mattered little in the ongoing dialogue about my health from pre-K until I left for college. It’s fair to say that authority figures who crossed my path were in a constant state of concern.

Back to technology. Is our worry about kids’ overuse of technology about the erosion of their ability to communicate? I think, in fact, that kids are learning how to communicate in ways many of us have to struggle to understand. Is it that they’re not going to be able to sit down and read a book? Something tells me they’re doing a much more intense amount of reading, if not from paper than from (eco-friendly) computer screens. Or is it that since this is a scary new medium that adults don’t quite understand, we’re worried such experiences during youth could prevent kids from becoming the adults we need them to be? Will they still go to law school, meet a nice girl and get married? Or could the corrupting influence of the Internet make them gay or trans, hate God and America, or even result in a life alone in their house with ten cats? Is it, in fact, that adolescence – as a technology to produce specific kinds of adults – is being modified beyond our control?

So am I worried about anything? Yes, definitely. We’re all becoming keenly aware of how the Internet is changing as it has endured a digital industrialization of sorts. As content is modified in the interest of efficiency, the Internet is quickly becoming a place where norms are constructed and reinforced in ways reminiscent of other kinds of media (think commercialization and identity). And further, where there are more opportunities for everyone to present the self and be scrutinized for such presentations at a moment’s notice, I worry about peer review and resulting anxiety. Not only do kids have to worry about meeting acceptable norms at home, on playgrounds, in schools…but they also have to worry about how they present themselves on Facebook and what they talk about in chatrooms. They will quickly learn that there are repercussions for stepping out of line both in person and on the Internet, for they will realize they are under surveillance, constantly watched by peers, authority figures, and what may feel like God zirself.

The days of using the Internet to escape from the sometimes harsh realities of real life may soon be over.
(...to the full post)

This Sunday brings us Superbowl XLIV (44), the capstone of another season of American football, complete with a barrage of million dollar commercials, the Lingerie Bowl VII (featuring the top two teams of the Lingerie Football League), and, in a CBS first, a controversial "issues" ad from anti-choice Focus on the Family.

I don't know if I should laugh of cry. Personally, I think I would rather hibernate at home and rent Whip It!.

The Focus on the Family ad is said to feature University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother Pam. According to news reports, the ad will feature Pam Tebow telling the story of how she carried Tim to term despite life-threatening pregnancy complications - and doctors’ recommendations that she have an abortion - when she was serving as a Christian missionary in the Philippines in 1987.

Which is all fine and good - it was her CHOICE to do so.

However, CBS (and the other major networks) have always taken a stand against airing advocacy ads. According to the Boston Globe, "In 2004, CBS and NBC rejected an ad from the United Church of Christ welcoming gay and lesbian people into its congregations."

And according to the Huffington Post, CBS recently rejected a Superbowl commercial for ManCrunch, a men-seeking-men dating site, because "is not within the Network's Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday."

I don't know if the Focus on the Family ad will be as offensive as the reactions make it seem it will be, because I have yet to see it.

But people are still reacting ... and why not? It's a PR moment. Take it:





The Focus on the Family ad will apparently end with "Celebrate family, celebrate life." But what does that mean exactly? I'm guessing it means something different for every person you ask. If you ask my friend who has had two incredibly difficult pregnancies which jeopardized her health (on the advice of her doctor, her husband got a vasectomy immediately following the birth of her second child), she might feel very differently if she found herself pregnant for the third time than another friend of mine, whose pregnancies have been "easy" in comparison (read: didn't directly threaten the mother's life, repeatedly).

Every family is different, and every pregnancy is different. Nobody WANTS to get an abortion and nobody takes getting one lightly (well, if you do on either count, you have far more problems than I can to go into in this space). But the sad reality is, sometimes, that seems like the only option for certain women/families. You can't celebrate life if you die or end up with serious health issues stemming from complications. Or, if having another child would put your existing family (and children) into poverty. Or, if you don't want children and feel you would not be an adequate parent and do not have a decent situation to bring a child into.

Sometimes it seems like the pro-choice/pro-life argument gets into a pissing contest where each side just really really really wants to "win." But what are we winning at? How is arguing and arguing and arguing ever going to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies? Because in the end, at least both sides can agree that that is a shared goal - preventing unwanted pregnancies. Surely we can join together to work towards that goal. However that brings up an entirely new issue - how to properly prevent them (abstinence? birth control?) and I feel I've already brought up enough issues for one blog post.
(...to the full post)

Citizens of BTB, it has been my privilege to serve you honorably and dutifully as your Secretary of Comic Books and Video Games. I will cherish the pride and memories of my duty for all my days. But as we know, change is the mother of progress, and I feel that is in the best interest of both my personal journey and the mission of this blog that regrettable, though beneficial, change is made.

And that is why, as of today, I am promoting myself to Minister of Geekdom & Geek Culture. With a dominion spanning anime to Zork, the informative commentary I will be able to provide our Emp—I mean blog will be unfathomable!

Hear this, ye of little faith: bang bang, pew pew, bitchslap. Any questions?

To prove my bloginess in the face of doubt, I will demonstrate my knowledge and understanding of a powerful and destructive force of internet culture, a nigh-invulnerable brood that has assimilated and subjugated every media fandom. A force that some say is the very backbone of fan community.

Below The Belt...I bring you...slash.

A brief 101 for those of you with some semblance (see also: illusion) of life: slash refers to non-canonical pairings (usually same-sex) of characters from fictitious media in the form of fan fiction, fan art, or cleverly edited video montages. The practice is widely believed to have started with female authors writing Spock/Kirk fiction (the eponymous “/” is used to denote the pairing featured in the fic, as if any of you reading this don't already have folders on your hard drive devoted to this. Get a job! Or better yet, find me one!). According to an anonymous talking head in the documentary Trekkies (which is about as respectable and acclaimed expert on the subject as I care to seek out), the early pioneers of this now ever-expansive trend were heterosexual women who “loved Spock and Kirk, but didn't want to see them with other women”. Sounds vaguely familiar...

With the rise of the internet, a hobby once shared within local fan communities can now be viewed and distributed worldwide, and with great exposure comes great participation. Fanfiction and slash communities boast contributions in the thousands (simply typing in “slash” in the search bar on DeviantArt yields over 8000 entries), running the gamut of literature, film, and television. Starsky & Hutch. Dragonball Z. Harry Potter. The Bible. Pushers of Hot Topic paraphenalia My Chemical Romance. If it exists, there is porn of it on the internet. Commit that to memory, for it is the closest thing to a universal truth we can hope to comprehend in a day and age where Kirk Cameron can make videos of himself trying to disprove evolution with a banana and nobody tries to stop him.

I think that's enough exposition, don't you? If you aren't already filling out the comment box with your favorite slash stories and articles, a veritable ocean of discovery and education (see also: days of your life you will never get back) await you. It would not be fair for me to tell my parents that it is not my job to educate them on trans issues, turn around, and write you a “slash fic 101”, especially given my attitudes and opinions about the medium.

And that's what this comes down to, in the end, the “why” (should you care) of this article.

How do I, as a queer, feel about slashfic?

Spoiler Alert: I don't care much for it.

Much of this sentiment can be chalked up to wiring; I am a queer woman, and the prospect of reading about the sexual exploits of two men appeals to me even less than the having my own sexual exploit with a man does. I am not likely to change my mind about either, unless perhaps there was a lot of money involved. Or doing so allowed me to challenge Paul Scott to a steel cage deathmatch. It is one of my life dream's to wear bright pink singlet and put someone in a Mexican Surfboard without going to jail for it. It's not “cure cancer” but it's kept me in school and off of (most) drugs. I fear the popularity of forced feminization literature in the kink community has convinced many of my female cohorts (both cis and trans) that every gender-variant/transgendered MAAB person secretly craves a sexual encounter with a man, even if it has to be quote forcibly coerced unquote. This is not to suggest that I would be ungrateful if dominatices kidnapped me in the night, gave me hair extensions and had a surgeon from Brazil perform overnight SRS that would fully heal up the next day. Just. Putting that out there.

Despite my personal preferences, I respect slashfic as a viable medium of fan fiction. While on the topic, I think there needs to be a much more critical analysis of what constitutes “fan fiction”. Many television shows, including Star Trek, the franchise that banged the gong for this literary orgy, have an open submission policy in regards to scripts, and many tv/film scripts and novelizations are written by fans of the genre/franchise being depicted. Cosmically, the only difference between an author who writes a Star Was Expanded Universe novel and a Star Wars fanfic is creator approval (see also: royalty checks). No matter how you look at it, I'm still an idiot for waiting an hour in line at an Air Force BX for Michael A Stackpole to autograph my copy of Rogue Squadron. I try not to think of how much rejection, disappointment and alienation from my parents I missed out on in my childhood because I was too busy to read those damn books, lest I go insane with regret and research building a time machine. Again.

Slashfic is often described as a breakthrough in queer visibility/empowerment in fan communities, important to the formation of queer identities, and a defiant struggle against “compulsory heterosexuality”. The aforementioned statements have one thing in common: probably made by heteronormative academics. While I can appreciate how a Harry/Draco story might have a positive impact on a gay teen struggling for a positive and informative portrayal of homoerotic coupling (if there is one thing everyone in the rainbow has in common, it's that we've all been asked “how we do...it”), suggesting that m/m fiction written by hetero women is good for the visibility or acceptance of the commnity is suggesting that f/f porn directed by and marketed to heterosexual men would do the same. Which it doesn't, as mentioned above in the link that you should have clicked because I'm not doing this shit for my health, you know. While there certainly must exist prominent queer slash writers, the fact is that that slash has its roots in heteronormativity and the internet has done little to change that. And, sadly, we must also accept that any medium, no matter how “specific to our interests” it may seem, will have a disproportionate heternormative to queer ratio (if not at its creation, then over time), reflecting the general population. I know straight cis guys who write gay erotica and yaoi artists (underage slash art) who quote Leviticus in message boards and make their own “Yes On 8” posters. Sex does not and never will equal visibility or acceptance. Sex just is.

I see your hand up. Put it down, I know what you're going to ask. While I have perused some femslash in my day, you could by no stretch of the imagination label me a “casual reader”. Most femslash is, like “lesbian” porn, made by and marketed to heterosexual men, the very same who voted against our right to marry and get up in my face and feel my face for stubble at the gas station (I don't have a smoking habit or belong to a gym, so all I have to hold on to are my grudges). On occasion I will read a psssage of femslash written by a female author (but it might just be a man with a female pen name, I know a guy who does that too), though I admittedly do so out of amusement and not out of any sense of literary curiosity or enterprise. I have on occasion MSTK3'd a fan or slash fic (I describe the phenomena in my guest appearance on the Scarlet Betch podcast here), but I don't do this to undermine or demean the medium or the writers, but to fill up the hole inside of me where love or a belief in a higher power should be.

Permit me for playing this broken record one more time, but witnessing the popularity of slashfic, especially amongst my fellow queers, does make me pine for more queer-authored genre fiction. Some slash and fan fic is quite good, and would stand on its own if the names, references, and in-jokes were changed or at least modified to avoid being found out by copyright law (if James Cameron can turn Pocahontas into Avatar you can do ANYTHING YOU WANT). Unfortunately, it is my experience that convincing slash/fanfic writers to create original content is a lot like getting a skeptical Christian to become agnostic/atheist; you become so devoted to your fandom/community/belief that you simply can't bring yourself to apply your talents outside of that arena. Commit this to memory, too. This may be the only time in recorded history I make a FAVORABLY COMPARE ANYTHING TO RELIGION. When I first moved to the Bay, I had just left my job, the drive from Phoenix cost $150, and I was looking at paying rent for the first time. I would not be here where I am today if it weren't for two of friends of mine in Texas, servants of God the both of them, sending me money so I can buy for groceries and hormones. And every time I rage and protest at religion or refuse to “let it go” when someone brings up the topic of God in a queer space, a part of me dies because I fear that doing so is in some way dismissing or negating the love and compassion they've shown me despite our spiritual differences.

Returning to your regularly scheduled program...

I will say this about slashfic, however: I approve of it and the work it does in proving/confirming the many “secret homoerotic overtones” available in seemingly “straight” media that I can be found ranting about in various corners of the blogosphere. While the trend has shifted somewhat from male friendships (Kick/Spock, Starsky/Hutch) to antagonistic relationships (Dr. Who/Master, Harry/Draco), the source of “speculation” remains the same; attraction forming from an intense emotional bond between people. Aren't platonic and romantic relationships different only by degrees, and aren't love and hate different sides of the same coin? Obsession is obsession, no matter what spurs it. Perhaps it's not just the thrill of going behind canon's back for a forbidden tryst, but pursuing the path not traveled but ultimately still stemming from the same road.

Maybe all good slash is made with a spoonful of truthiness. And maybe, just maybe, we're all just a little bit gay (or straight) for someone close to us. If this does not float well with you, I will not only retract this statement but deny under oath that I ever made it.

And that concludes this broadcast from your Minister of Geekdom & Geek Culture.

Thank you for listening.

The Rainbow Prevails.
(...to the full post)

+ news +
Pentagon to offer steps re: "Don't Ask",
Prop 8 trial updates,
and why the hell would a "ManCrunch" ad be on public television anyway? for the week.
(...to the full post)

I'll readily admit that I am an enthusiastic Apple acolyte-- however to be fair, I'm also equally enthusiastic and evangelical about all those nifty Google web applications. So, like the masses of gadget geeks across the nation, I waited with great anticipation as to the announcement of the then rumored iSlate, now officially announced iPad. I was an early adopter to the tablet PC revolution (which turned out more like the recent Iranian green revolution than a gloriously bloody and victorious French one), having used a hybrid tablet PC throughout my college career. I loved the idea of stylus input and handwriting recognition, paperless notes, and dynamic pressure-sensitive digital art. The implementation of all these great ideas by Microsoft was a lackluster to say the least.

So the prospect of the Apple tablet for me was great. I faithfully waited for the announcement, watched the liveblogs and the tweets. But I became suddenly displeased by the sudden outbreak of the now ubiquitous iPad/Maxi-pad joke. A poor choice on behalf of Apple marketing execs? Perhaps. Only time will tell. After all, the peanut gallery laughed at the iPod name.

But the fact that so much attention has been given to the iPad qua feminine hygiene is really childish and frankly sexist. A recent CNBC segment discussing the iPad launch descended into a death spiral of anti-woman cringing and menstruation hate when a female correspondent declared her distaste for the product because it reminded her of feminine hygiene. Her male peers then proceeded to audibly groan and make derisive comments about menstruation.

Let the anti-menses rhetoric stop. The notion that menstruation is gross, disgusting, unclean, etc. only further alienates women from their vaginas and reproductive organs. Additionally, by continuing to focus on this minute natural bodily process, we discursively reduce women to a single bodily function. A bodily function that we treat with great shame, secrecy, and disgust.

Moreover, this kind of mense-talk builds on historical and institutional rhetoric on menstruation that is fundamentally biased as anti-woman. If you look at medical language, many textbooks and resource materials describe the menstrual cycle as the vaginal "decaying" and "shedding" as opposed to "regenerating" or "renewing." Same essential idea, two completely different implied meanings.

I'll be honest, the iPad is not a perfect product. The lack of flash support, open source ePubs documents, a lack of an optional stylus input (like Wacom tablets), and no camera are all missing features that will keep me from purchasing (at least version 1.0). But, the fact that mense-hating has taken over the iPad discussion is nothing but anti-woman speech and I have had enough of it.

And one more note, to all of the gay guys out there: Stop making fish jokes. Just stop it. It's not 1992 anymore. It's not funny anymore (was it ever?). We get it. You're gay, you like guys, you suck cock. Done. Finito. fini. Just because you like guys doesn't mean you need to hate on gals to get your point across. #petpeeve

Queeriously also writes for Scarlet Betch.
(...to the full post)

I couldn’t have ever imagined being pissed off about a noticeable lack of discrimination. All that the queer community wants is acceptance---to go about their daily lives without facing bigotry and bias at every corner. One would think that the less discrimination we must face, the better. As I began preparing for this article, however, pissed off is exactly how I found myself.

One of my favorite ways of preparing for an article is debating; debate groups of all shapes and flavors are but a Google search away, every possible perspective can be found and pried into, and future article topics are often handed to me on a silver platter. My original idea for this article was the invisibility issue (which I still intend to cover), and so I went to my favorite debate forum, in search of opinions. Instead, I found myself in the midst of yet another debate on same-sex marriage. The usual positions, both for and against, were voiced, along with the unavoidable spews of bigotry. I’ll spare you the bulk of it, as I’m sure you’ve heard it all before, but one particular post caught my attention. In the ever eloquent language of ignorance, reference was made to “ass-fucking perverts”. Surprisingly, I found myself much less pissed off about the bigotry than the exclusionary term itself; clearly, when this person thought of same-sex marriage, it was actually gay men that came to mind.

With this in mind, I visited several other debate forums and websites, and was awestruck that all of the debates, and particularly the negative comments, I read about same-sex marriage (and same-sex relations in general) focused solely on men who date or sleep with other men. No mention was made of lesbians, or whether two women could raise a child. There weren’t any diatribes about how disgusting two women fucking was. There seemed to be an unspoken, but widely agreed upon notion that “homosexual” was a cold and clinical term for dangerously unnatural and perverted men. After a few quick replies and a few deep breaths, I reminded myself that I was writing about bisexuality, not homosexuality, and once again began searching out different perspectives and opinions. Now that I was looking for it, I was not all that surprised to find that the complete opposite notion applied to us. No mention was made of men at all in the bisexual debates; it was silently assumed that the term “bisexual” referenced kinky or confused women.

As I shut my computer down for the night, still processing all of the comments I’d read, one question kept coming up. Why was discrimination so…well…discriminatory? Why are gay men constantly forced to defend their sexuality, to prove they are not pedophiles and perverts, while lesbians are often completely ignored, overlooked, or brushed aside as harmless women with penis envy? Why are bisexual women constantly forced to legitimize their sexuality, to prove we are not confused or indiscriminately promiscuous, while bisexual men are often completely ignored, overlooked, or brushed aside as gay men in denial? I believe the answer can be found at the root of stereotypes.

We hate what we fear and we fear what we don’t understand. Stereotypes, essentially, are ignorant and lazy assumptions, based on what we believe we do understand. Little attention is paid to lesbians, because two women feeling affection for one another is not difficult to understand or unpleasant to imagine. It doesn’t defy the stereotype of women as emotional, sensual beings. Bisexual women, on the other hand, are misunderstood as promiscuous or confused, breaking away from the stereotypical fantasy of finding a strong man, settling down and having a family. Bisexual men receive little attention because few people even believe they exist (another topic I plan to cover), and one cannot hate what does not exist. Gay men, however, are undeniably present, and force us to reexamine the stereotype of rugged protectors of women.

Gay, lesbian or bisexual, it seems to be the challenging of stereotypes that generates fear, and determines who will remain invisible, and who will face discrimination.
(...to the full post)

In the story "Modern Marriages: The Rise Of The Sugar Mama," NPR reports that the number of women who man more than their husbands is increasing, and that for the first time ever among men and women under age 44, more women than men are earning college degrees. The same study from the Pew Research Center found a rise in the number of marriages where the wives’ income tops the husbands, from 4% in 1970 to 22% in 2007.

Now, I write about this as kind of a poster child of this phenomenon. I earn more than my husband right now. My sisters-in-law earn more than my brothers right now. I say right now because one sister-in-law is pregnant and set on becoming a stay-at-home mom, even though she has a masters degree in her field, and my brother doesn’t, and last I heard, she made more than him. But, money isn’t everything.

However, are traditional hetero marriages shifting? Right now, my husband is looking for a full-time job. I currently work full-time. I come home to dinner (almost) on the table. When my husband does his laundry, he does mine too. The past few grocery trips have been done by him.

However, that doesn't mean everything is peachy keen.

The difference between our balance, and what I’ve read in columns like the NPR one, is that when both of us are working, we share the household chores. Some studies show that when both the husband and wife work outside the home, the wife still shoulders more household chores. Now, I don’t know how that compares to the number of hours she spends outside the home.

Additionally, "marriage expert [Stephanie] Coontz says no one should exaggerate women's new economic prowess. They still make 77 cents to a man's dollar, and their earnings can lag over time since women are more likely to cut back to care for children. But this, too, is shifting."

So what is happening to straight marriage among Gen Y? Are the “traditional” roles shifting? And what will happen if they do?

When I was in college, I read Egalia’s Daughters: A Satire of the Sexes at the recommendation of my Philosophy 101 professor, and lovely man who admitted he liked to wear long skirts on occasion (but sadly never wore them to class).

In Egalia’s Daughters, men and women are biologically what we know, but are viewed completely differently. Because women have the power to make life … they have the power. Both in and outside of the home. Child birth is a ceremonial ritual, not a medicalized ordeal. The men raise the children. The men are sex objects. The women are the rulers. But as we’ve seen in our own contemporary Western cultures, absolute power corrupts. Women abuse their power at the expense of the men. And, believe it or not, men, the second sex, organize to revolt against the women, and demand equality.

Of course the book is written in such a way that the reader sympathizes with the lowly men, and is angered by the domineering women. It succeeds at pointing out the flaws in a culture that oppresses one group for the success of another.

Getting back to the real world. Is our Western society one that requires one gender to be dominant over the others? If women do reverse roles with the men, is it at the expense of men? It would be interesting to wonder if trends continue, what Western society will be like in 50 or 100 years. Not just changes in the roles of “men” and “women,” but also if we generally accept that there are more than just the two genders, and where that comes into play. Will we still try to define each group for the ease of stereotypes and expectations, or will the lines continue to be blurred, to the point where no one expect either mom or dad to be the one to stay at home, but always asks the question “will one of you be a stay-at-home parent?”
(...to the full post)

Something interesting happened recently in the Michigan Secretary of State election race.

Now, before you tell me that the word "interesting" and the phrase "Michigan Secretary of State" syntactically can't be in the same sentence together, bear with me, and let me introduce you to Representative Paul Scott:

Seems a charming enough fellow! Step right up, sir, and let us know what you're planning to do for the people of the great Wolverine State! Let's see, I have his website right here...

"I will stand strong against illegal immigration by verifying a valid social security number before issuing anyone a driver’s license, an issue Representative Dave Agema has been pushing for 3 years.

I will actively push to encrypt the traceable RFID chip in the enhanced driver’s license.

I will make it a priority to ensure transgender individuals will not be allowed to change the sex on their driver’s license in any circumstance.

I will work tirelessly to repeal the over $100 million dollar tax increase on drivers in the form of driver responsibility fees."
Well, not my platform (I am a godless hippie Chomskian socialist; it's not a powerful political party, but we do lead both major parties in smugness), and isn't it hypocritical for conservative Republicans to even have an RFID chip in their driver's license? Though maybe that driver's fee thing is a bad deal and...

Wait a minute...what was that third thing?

"I will make it a priority to ensure transgender individuals will not be allowed to change the sex on their driver’s license in any circumstance."
Hold on. Under any circumstances? Even if the birth certificate of your home state has been amended? Even if your passport, social security card, phone bill, all your credit cards, and your Price Chopper card all have you down as your new gender? Seriously?

That, as we say 'round my parts, is some seriously frakked up stuff. (Actually, we don't say that, but I'm trying to preserve family values for this post.)

What on earth could his rationale be for this?
“It’s a social values issue. If you are born a male, you should be known as a male. Same as with a female, she should be known as a female,” he said.

When asked to explain how such a mandate from the Secretary of State would benefit Michigan, he said it was about “preventing people who are males genetically from dressing as a woman and going into female bathrooms.”
Aw frakkin' stuff, the bathroom thing again.

For your convenience, here's a handy chart of where some people will have to pee,under a Paul Scott administration:


Well, that seems logical, doesn't it? (As you might have noticed, the last two are "ringers" and not transgendered at all: Rachel Maddow and Johnny Depp, in his "21 Jump St." days. But they both might not make the cut for Paul Scott's bathroom patrol.)

I'm being facetious. I have to be; it's the only way to deal with the pain. This is the old "bathroom libel," the idea that somehow a transgendered person peeing near you is...well...something. Dangerous? Catching? Damned if I know.

And it's not just conservative Republicans who get in on this act! Anti-trans radical feminists can't resist either!

"If the MTFs use the male restrooms they may be subjected to harassment, even, rape? Well, exactly how are females supposed to know which of these MTFs will not take that male characteristic/behavior with them when they start using female restrooms? Should we assume/believe that the male’s urge/behavior to rape women is going to disappear simply because his penis is removed?"

The truth is that no one has ever tried to use a transgender identity as a cover for raping people in the bathroom of their gender presentation. It's never happened. And part B of that is, of course, that the little signs on the bathroom doors are not Glyphs of Warding, cast by 27th-level wizards; there have been cases of women being raped in bathrooms, but it's never been by a transgender woman.

But that's logic. Hearken, Starbuck, to the little lower layer and you'll see why it is that conservative Republicans and radical feminists make common cause on this issue. It's truly simple, actually: they don't want transgender people to exist. So they try to make it impossible for trans people to live their lives, mostly by denying them "special" (read: human) rights. If we can't see the problem, it doesn't exist. If trans people can't live a normal life, then there won't be trans people.

Sadly, for them at least, trans people persist in existing.

And sometimes they have to pee.

And since they can't use the proper bathroom, in Michigan at least, they'll have to find another place.

I suggest right on top of Representative Scott's shoes.
(...to the full post)

I don’t appear queer anymore. Along the same lines of bythebi’s last post, I am a person born female who is dating a person born male, and everywhere I go I am seen as straight. While I recognize that I get an enormous amount of privilege with this arrangement that I was previously denied in same-sex relationships (such as no special sets of questions or looks when signing a lease, buying apartment furniture with just one bed, going out on a romantic dinner, bringing my partner home to may family, etc.), I also feel a loss of identity and belonging within the queer community.

I am no longer visible as queer outside of myself and my personal network. Last weekend my partner and I invited his friend, a gay man who does not know that I identify as anything other than a straight woman. He shrugged and said, “Sure, I guess I’m up for some straight drama?” I was shocked for a moment, then retorted back, “Who you callin’ straight?” But he just laughed and carried on as if I was just being cute. While he didn’t mean anything by it, I was so angry at him for the rest of the night for making such an assumption, an assumption he should know better to make being a queer person himself.

Yet while I think that all queer people should know better than to make assumptions about a person’s identity, assumptions that they themselves have to deal with, there is no consensus among the queer community what “queer” really means. Hell, we can’t even agree what “gender” really means. I made the mistake once of venting to a trans friend of mine about the importance of gender in our society, how angry I was that I was seen as a woman and automatically placed in a box I don’t believe in, and how I just wish everyone would (I believe my exact words were:) “open their eyes and see what a bullshit construct the gender binary is.” He paused for a moment, then replied tensely that while he understood that I was frustrated with being seen as a different gender than I identify with, that not everyone sees gender as just a “bullshit binary,” and that he believes deeply in nature of gender, because otherwise what was the point of him transitioning if it was just from one constructed gender to another? I had nothing to say to this because, in truth, I struggle with the issue that he just named.

As unboxedqueer mentioned in their last post, getting rid of the idea gender binary “would unravel the bit of headway that trans people in the world have fought so hard for.” And while I am not going to negate anyone’s sense of identity, just like I don’t want anyone negating my sense of identity, the way that the queer community views gender right now does not leave much room for people who do not want to identity at all. Yes, there’s room for lots of variations in between the genders, but if you don’t want to identify as anything and the idea of having a gender at all makes you cringe, I have not found a practical place for you outside the theory books. (And if anyone’s found one please let me know!).

I have considered transitioning to a man before because I feel so un-womanly. I often try to pass as a man, yet I look very femme, even when I wear my butchest of clothing and keep my hair cropped. However just as I don’t feel like a woman, I don’t feel like a man either. While I love wearing “men’s” clothes, I equally love wearing “women’s” clothes. I love my name, a fairly common “girl” name, and have no interest in changing it. I prefer being called male pronouns just because it shakes things up a bit, yet it’s not accurate with my identity because I feel no more male than I do female. I tried for a while using the neutral “ze” and “hir,” but even I don’t fully understand when to use which sometimes, and the thought of trying to explain to my grandparents how to use these pronouns just makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

Overall, it’s just not worth it to me to transition because there are no parts of my life or identity that I want to change other than how people perceive me. Which ultimately, I have no control over. I can yell and I can scream and I can tell them when to use which pronoun and why I hate it when people call me my partner’s “girlfriend” and why I never want my kids calling me “mom” and everything else that comes with it, but I can’t change how they see me in their head, especially strangers who I never have the opportunity to have this conversation with. I can’t pass in a store as a man, and I don’t want to. But I can’t help passing as a woman, which I don’t want to do either.

I could deal with all that before, because at least I could still be seen as gay. At least people wouldn’t put me in the straight box. At least I could still appear queer in that sense. But I fell in love with a person who happens to have a dick, and now I’m not a dyke anymore either. There is no space in the visible queer spectrum for me. Once I explain a little bit more about myself, maybe slip in some tales of my ex-girlfriends to “prove” myself, then I can squeeze through the queer door and pass for a little while. But then my partner shows up and back out the door I go. And as much as people say that “bisexual” is an equal part of “LGBT,” (a label I also have an issue with and much prefer pansexual if needing to choose) in my experience you’re only bi/pansexual if you’re dating someone of the same sex; otherwise you’re just a straight girl who slept with a few women in the past.

I have a few friends that I’ve known for a while, when I was visibly queer, and they often tell me that it doesn’t matter how a person’s seen, it’s about how they identify. And I tell myself that it doesn’t matter, that it does only matter how I view myself. As while ideally I agree, it shouldn’t matter what people think, especially the strangers who I’ll never see again, it doesn’t make being seen as a woman, or as straight, any easier. It makes me feel invisible.

I miss the community. I miss being able to be completely myself within the community. Yet now every time I become friends with a new queer person, I’m just dreading the point where they’ll ask if I’m dating anyone, and after I say that it’s a man I have to wait to see if they’ll be open to that or if they won’t be calling me for coffee or drinks anymore. I understand that there’s a need for a tight-knit and potentially exclusive community to a certain extent, because otherwise it can become an unsafe space and the queer community needs to feel safe within itself. But how can we make it safe without judgment? How can we create a queer community where you don’t have to “prove” your queerness, and where queerness is not dependent on who you’re dating or sleeping with, but who you are? When does that day come?
(...to the full post)

I'm about as good at keeping my thoughts to myself as you'd imagine I was. A bevy of friends and an intellect capable of using the word “bevy” in a sentence correctly have not better equipped me to avoid those awkward situations where I unthinkingly upset or offend people by tearing apart the things they love in violent, verbal outbursts of rage and liberal arts hubris. Some of my more “clued in” friends have been Pavlovically conditioned to put a drink in front of my face whenever I say the words “well, you see, it's sexist because...”. This seemed to do the trick and yea there was peace o'er the land. But then I moved to California from my birth religion of poolhallism to karakeology, and lo many beloved companions were lost to the gnashing of teeth amidst that infinite darkness. I now enter the bar alone in a paralyzed fearlessness, like an actress hosting a press conference without a publicist. It is inevitable that I will say something icily ignorant. My notoriety depends on it.

Some time ago, between now and when Michael Steele was still scientifically considered “human” (I refrain from using exact dates, lest the people mentioned in this anecdote put two and two together, find me, and give me a stern talking to), I was in a bar with some friends, drinking and chortling in appreciation at the modern performance art that served as our entertainment (talk-singing “Light My Fire” by The Doors could perhaps be the single greatest deconstruction of modern music since Richard Cheese). By chance, the subject of retro video gaming came up. I said “by chance” because we didn't all have gags, tongues, or genitalia in our mouths: when a gaggle of queers get together, video games can be expected to come up in conversation 9 times out of 10, the 10th being the aforementioned orgiastic fantasy. So anyway. I'm really trying to be better about these outlandish tangents. Doing the time warp by to when I still had a point...

We were talking about retro games, a subject that I am very involved and invested in. I have a personal blog devoted to the subject, and I've just begun conceptualizing a gallery show/installation called “The 8 Bit Medicine Show” (same as the blog). My love of retro gaming has influenced my philosophy in regards to all gaming (and life, because really, isn't life just one really long game with no continues?). I have not adjusted to non-academic (see also: real) life very well, and still haven't gotten used to the notion that when someone nods and says “huh, really?”, it is not necessarily an invitation to elaborate on your original statement. When I get that through my head, I can cease to have the following exchange with people, which is itself a sweeter reward than any chocolate covered treat or obligatory sex act done with the TV on could ever be.

“So I think that retro gaming can be incorporated by the queer community as a tool of political, social, and economic expression of protest to the classist heteronormative economic system. Many queers are looking to MMOs, but that's a death trap, man, because all an MMO does is eat your time, and soon we'll have people just stuck sitting at a laptop for 18 hours a day, not going anywhere, not making any real life connections, and our visibility in the real world will eventually disintegrate. I say we promote retro gaming to show that we enjoy gaming, but refuse to keep up with the Joneses. Xbox and PS3 games are only going to get more sexist, more racist, and less original over time. We're funding the media machine that in turn silences our voices and keeps our back pressed to the fringe.”

“Huh...well, that's neat...I'm not sure if I agree...you know, I have my own crazy theories.”

“Well fuck, man, if there was a time and place for crazy theories, it's here and now, brother.”

“All religions preach the same basic moral values, you know? So maybe they're all made by the same divine force, you know, God was smart enough to craft separate religions that would speak in one way or another to all people of the world, and that it doesn't matter what you believe in, as long as you believe.”

“You come up with that all by yourself?”

“Yeah!”

“No research team of theology and world religion majors?”

“No...”

“Well you better write that thesis paper now before anyone else thinks of it. That's a million ruble idea right there.”

TLDR version: A friend (he may not be anymore, I haven't checked my facebook f-list in a while) opened up to me about their spirituality (a tender subject to many queers), and I mocked them in front of their friends because I thought their idea of a multi-conceptual God was somehow more ridiculous than my idea about queers all over the world giving up their Xbox's and reclaiming the Dreamcasts and Super Nintendos from the closets of their pasts...or houses, if that's where said systems are literally located.

I cannot express in words the remorse I feel in refuting what I imagine must have been a hard conclusion for a religious queer to come to (though “jerkface” comes close). Religion, as I've stated before, can be a really touchy subject in queer circles. The ratio of practice what they preach to persecute the everloving shit out of us of many organized religions has driven many queers to the greener pastures of atheism/agnosticism (science and homo/transsexuality are tight and a good word has been put in for us) or the unorganized “old school” spiritualities that constitute what Pat Robertson call “the paganssssss”.

As a Discordian, I am torn between my logic and reason, which tell me that there is no definite and materialistic way to prove the existence of an unseen diety and it is in the best interest of all humanity to live with and acknowledge this doubt, and then there is the childish buffoon in me that takes a particular glee in saying she worships a Goddess who tells her to eat hot dogs and cause as much mischief and confusion as humanly possible. I didn't read my first Richard Dawkins book until I was 23 because I was afraid that it would drive me irreparably mad, like the Necronomicon and Oprah Magazine before it, or force me to grow the fuck up so I could be taken seriously as an adult. But as luck would have it, no matter how well read you are on atheist literature, however, an art degree doesn't get you very far in intellectual circles. Damn it. I never should have played God. Pass me the Dolphin-to-English dictionary, would you?

We as a community cannot succumb to the political and social cannibalism that has brought down the American Left. We must not eat our own, for even united we suffer a massive numbers disadvantage. We need every warm body we can get. Perhaps even some dead ones propped up on sticks. Don't look at me like that. You ever seen a teabagger rally in person? Like a Statler & Waldorf family reunion.

So I've decided that the only way for me to atone for the mockery of my fellow queer is for you to mock me. Don't be shy. I majored in art. I can handle it.

If all things return to you threefold, I figure if just three of you tell me off, then I can be forgiven my transgression.

I know, I know. I'm talented, attractive, articulate, and very attractive. But this must be done. This is not a case of “one law for the rule, and one for the ruler”. If another queer blogger with half the readership I have were to do the same, I would be a real meanie to them. I expect no less from the legions of my personal fan army.

Without further ado, I present you the stick with which to beat me. It is an excerpt from a paper I wrote in college, about six months to a year before I came out as trans. If problematic language and privilege were tacticle attributes, this metaphorical stick would ten feet long, covered in thorns, and possibly have the words “whoever gets hit with this is an asshole” etched on it. Enjoy. Let the trashing commence.

“Although the aesthetic principles and humorous, self-referential nature of the film are surely strong enough to secure my argument that Rocky Horror Picture Show is the most relevant film of the 20th century, I would also like to note that RHPS has what I firmly believe to a culturally impacting message: “give yourself to absolute pleasure” has been interpreted by some film scholars to mean “everyone should be hedonistic and fuck anything that moves”. While we as art critics tend to eschew the more blatant messages found in media, I feel that with the current and historic socio-political landscape of American (and to a larger extent, Western) culture, this seemingly tongue in cheek paper-thin moral could be used to empower those considered to be sexual minorities. The LGBT movement of America has become increasingly platonic and non-sexual in the pursuit of the restoration of its human rights, for fear, perhaps, of “grossing” mainstream America out with the schematics of their sexuality. The flamboyant “queen” of the 70's-80's has been replaced with the suit-and-tie garbed executice circa Will & Grace. Words like “love” and “commitment” are plastered on picket signs to justify the fulfilling of genetic programming. This, I feel, is unncessary. It shouldn't, and doesn't, have to be about love. Frankly, few hetero relationships are. If we could all come to this understanding (that being “sex feels great”) we could avoid much of the arbitrary lip service and backtracking LGBT organizations have to endure to justify their relationships to a perhaps equally hedonistic and materialistic heteronormative culture. If we could all find common ground in the pursuit of hedonism, then we could, in theory, overcome inane, pointless prejudices and open up our schedules for even more mindless, NSA fucking.

This, I believe, is the message RHPS has for America, even if Richard O'Brien didn't intend for that. Deconstructvism for the win."

Do your worst, blogosphere.
(...to the full post)