What has TV Science wrought?!?

We tried to warn you.

Way back in the very first Mangotime!, we tried to warn you all about the scourge of the Canadian teen soap opera Degrassi: The Next Generation. How its depiction of a handful of LGBT characters have erased all non-LGBT characters from all other programming.

Well, you didn’t listen!

Now, Degrassi has committed an action so heinous and unconscionable, that a devoted mother was forced, forced I say, to catalogue it for all posterity as a warning to others.

That’s right. It…I can hardly find the courage…

It brought up the acknowledgment of bisexuals to her and her son (despite the fact that Degrassi doesn’t currently have any out-as-such bisexual characters). Thus forcing them to have to discuss the existence of people he will encounter in real life.

If you don’t understand the horror of this, you’ve never been a mother…while certifiably insane.

As such, this week, we must take you deep into this woman’s personal hell caused by the unending rampage of… Degrassi!

Latest Tween Fad… Bisexuality is Hip by the blog Education Knowledge

So Im watching spongebob on Nickelodeon final week with my thirteen yoa son

Your 13 year-old watches Spongebob? I mean, no judgement, people enjoy entertainment meant for a different age group all the time, but seems a bit…

Wait, this is about a 13 year old? I.e. starting high school or a year before starting high school? I.e. you really should have had the fucking birds and the bees conversation by now? I.e. your son probably already personally knows at least one out LGBT person by now?

A point? No, I wasn’t making a point, please go on.

and I see a business promo spot for Degrassi as I see two girls professing their deep need and adore for every single other in breathless, very grown up ways followed by a super slow camera shot of a romantic kiss of sizzling intensity and I must saymagnificient cinematography.

My neck felt hot as I instinctively moved to rub it, my other hand, slipping across my chest as I found my legs suddenly warm and chafing together. I’m not sure what caused this, but I’m guessing Satanism.

And in shock, Im thinking to myself undoubtedly that wasnt what I thought it was ? Not an openly lesbian lead storyline in one of the most significant pre-teen television displays on Tv ?

Queers? On my TV? And they allow this? My pearls have never been clutched as tightly as now. My word, don’t we have people to prevent this sort of thing from happening? Some sort of closet arrangement so we can keep our children in some sort of LGBT-free bubble so that they don’t think our bigoted responses to the concept are “sad” and “archaic”?

I mean, what do good christian women pay their taxes for?!?

10 minutes later on I see it once again and once again the promo runs of a romantic lesbian scene with the newest awesome new music packaged as quite as can be no accident, no mistake now.

Girls kissing other girls chastely on the mouth is only a big deal if you’re so repressed you force your 8th grade child to only watch Nickelodeon cartoons intended for children half his age?

Sorry, forgot my manners there. I meant, “my word no, obviously Nickelodeon is peddling in smut”.

Teen Nick has moved from their role of empty entertainers to sexual education and learning.

Okay, that was sarcasm, but we’re going to need several responses to encapsulate all the wrong packed into this one sentence.

1) Yes, how dare Teen Nick cover issues teenagers might be dealing with. What’s next? Shows with kids in high school?

2) Sex education has a definition and unless Degrassi has moved away from its soap opera style and started doing informational displays on proper condom use, it’s definitely not meeting that definition.

3) Yes, everyone knows that acknowledgement of lesbian romantic connections is the same exact thing as sex, because… well, it’s all she can think of when she thinks of lesbians. Hot sweaty lesbians, pawing at her pants buttons and… clutch the pearls, this too will pass. Pray away the Gay wouldn’t have lied to you (hint: they did).

4) It’s fucking Degrassi! Degrassi has covered abuse, rape, sexual harassment, assault, violent bullying, suicide, cheating, open and frank depictions of sex and sexuality, and so on. And that’s usually in one season. It’s a soap opera for teenagers. Complaining like it showing a girl-girl kiss is “crossing a line” demonstrates that this “watching Nickelodeon with my kid” “ritual” isn’t one that happens very often, because otherwise you should be VERY aware of what Degrassi is.

No longer are they just focused on making shareholders much more cash, or launching the worthwhile careers of its tween and teen heart-throbs.

Um, I think your mixing Nickelodeon with the Disney channel and its unholy factory of pre-packaged pre-teen virginal stars who magically start selling themselves as sluts around legal age.

And Degrassi is part of the “making money” thing. Its relatively popular for a teen show because its relatively good for a teen show. And that’s despite all the various wingnuts who’ve blown a gasket over how it doesn’t hide away the issues teens face for the sensibility of professional “moral guardians” crying to high heaven about “Teh Children”.

Teen Nick has moved well beyond just making mindless candy pop kids shows that outline the well-known and stunning. Their reveals have extended been the rabid fare of pre-teens, desperate to grow up faster and watchful to emulate the ideal hair designs, whitest teeth and latest fad fashions of their stars

Again, Disney. Not saying Teen Nick is free and clear of that trend. Hell, most teen programming probably isn’t free of it, but you are complaining a common argument against the pre-teen-marketed Disney shows.

But, no, continue. I’m sure your arguments will retain gravitas and seem to be coming from a position deeper than “ew gays, make them go away”, despite failing to understand Degrassi’s regular programming or teen programming in general.

Or really much of anything.

Well, that shouldn’t be a problem, it’s not like your blog title consists of two words relating to knowing…


now it seems they are actively advertising bi-sexuality as being a far better way of encountering teen really like and coming of age life lessons for todays kid.


Also did you know that acknowledging that bisexuals (well, actually a single lesbian kiss by a character who’s an out lesbian, so don’t no where all the rants about evil bisexuals are coming from) exist, means forcing their superiority on others?

Those of us who dig through the muck of homophobes are often accused of being overly willing to attribute closeted attractions to such people (making jokes that all homophobes are gay and so on).

Well, it’s because of shit like this. Because we are constantly ripping through a post where a writer is saying the only thing keeping us from a world of endless bisexual orgies is the fact that people are kept ignorant about the existence of bisexuals.

When the leap is “I saw a lesbian kiss” to “Going bi is the superior lifestyle”, it’s hard not to assume that her bookmarks tabs are filled with sites she is “researching” for a “new article on girl-on-girl pornographies effect on declining moral values”.

But I digress!

Fellow parents out there, you need to know the scene I noticed is just a sampling of the adult media that has now moved into the mainstream teen tv planet

And you thought I was kidding when I said Degrassi’s single trans character has erased all cisgendered characters from all entertainment every where. Silly fool, the LGBT takeover is nearly complete. There are token characters on literally dozens of shows and occasionally a long-running series will devote whole ones of episodes to talking about LGBT issues.

If we don’t stop the creeping homofascism, the chance of a wingnut having to acknowledge that LGBT people exist and aren’t actually demonic phantasms that exist only to taunt them with their smoking hot bodies may approach double digits.

And then where will we be?

and they are becoming amazingly good at glamorizing bi-sexuality as the newest wave of pop culture to our most vulnerable age group tweens. (little ones among the age of seven-thirteen)

Evidence of this glamorization?

Hell, evidence of bisexuality (seeing as her one example so far is a lesbian character she just assumed must be attracted to guys as well)?

Fuck, evidence that these shows are being marketed to tweens (shows like Glee and Degrassi are marketed to teenagers with themes chosen to match those realities)?

Why would we need that?

Think of the children, oogedy boogedy. I had to talk to my near-high-school level child about the existence of gay people! Think what could happen to your seven year old? Why looking at two ladies sharing a chaste kiss is far more traumatizing that sending them to a Catholic Church or anything run by Jerry Sandusky.

And no, we’re not even going to get into the massive fail of assuming that one can “catch” bisexuality simply because it is “trendy” or that it’s “trendy” simply because it is occasionally acknowledged in media.

We will briefly get heavy serious for a moment to knock the idea that it is inherently wrong to talk about bisexuality or queerness to high schoolers and middle schoolers. A good number of kids are going to grow up in the hell-hole of hormones that is middle school with attractions that don’t match up with the “normal” of their classmates. Kids who have been violently bullied for those attractions, necessitating projects like It Gets Better to try and address and reduce the number of kids who kill themselves over it.

The precious artifact children of people like this lady do not need to be “protected” from the knowledge that gay kids exist, but those bullied queer youth sure as damn well need a positive role model in their media. A fellow young queer kid on their programs to remind them that they are not alone, that it’s worth holding on through the pressure hell of middle school and high school.

They fucking need that all-too-rare token character on shows like Degrassi because that’s all they fucking have.

No one else wants to acknowledge that people like them exist, because of disingenuous parents like this who hide behind their children to try and legitimize their own desires to erase certain people from being acknowledged in our culture. To keep all of our entertainment white, straight, able-bodied, cisgendered, and centered entirely on frivolous middle class issues, because they don’t want to be exposed to the realities that the rest of us experience. Because they don’t want to be educated and think that they can get the whole world to get behind helping them keep their children as ignorant as them, simply because they raise a ruckus “for the children” at the drop of a hat.

And I’m sorry for the seriousness of that in a post that has already veered serious quite a few times, but it’s something that really needs to be addressed more in our culture.

Now, let’s return to the mangos.

This latest episode of Degrassi should serve as a warning for all of us who are seeking to preserve any semblance of a biblical entire world view for our people of faith.

Damn you real world with your insidious facts and their unbearable liberal biases! Why must you mock the poor people of faith, just trying to retain a biblical world view where the world was 6000 years old and unicorns and dragons totally did exist.

It’s just like those fascist cops who tried to infringe on my “deep personal beliefs” with all their blather about “how I wasn’t allowed to drive my car through crowds of people” just because I wanted a closer spot in the movie theatre. I mean, my 13 year old son needed to see the new Alvin and the Chipmunks movie. You didn’t expect us to have to walk to our seats where poor people and anti-Christian folk might assault him at any minute, did you?

We can no more time assume the stuff on mainstream Tv is secure.

Me speak english good.

The shows my little ones used to observe on Nick or Teen Nick at least respected the balance of getting a moral neutral value for usage those days are gone.

Little ones? The earliest kid you’ve mentioned was a 13 year old and no offense lady, but you don’t seem the type to show restraint when it comes to hiding your bigotry behind a child.

How old is the other “little one”? 29?

We cannot presume any more time that the stuff on Nick or Teen Nick can be watched un-supervised or at all.
Thats a frightening issue when you quit to feel about how effectively Nick Jr. and Nickelodeon have educated and entertained this very same era for a long time, starting out with the innocence of these reveals as Dora the Explorer and Spongebob Squarepants and then as our kids expand older, they begin to insert the tremendous awesome teen show Degrassi with all of its rot.

And comic books. Sure, you get them started on Donald Duck books and then all of a sudden there’s Watchmen and Preacher.

Or movies. You start them on Disney princesses having perfectly innocent adventures giving up their entire identity for a man and squelching any individual ambition and then all of a sudden they face movies with actual plots and maybe even an acknowledgment that people fuck.

Or life. You start them out on the bottle and yelling Bible verses at them about how much God hates their sinful naked body and then they go to school with people who aren’t like them and learn tolerance and respect and don’t view Harold as a sinner just because he’s gay or Ahmed as a terrorist just because he’s a muslim.

And even if you can prevent that, they still grow older and start having nasty mean teenage problems like sex and drugs and dealing with suicide and can’t we just preserve them for all time, unblinking statues of childhood preserved.

Come here children, mommy’s going to fix everything now. The Taxidermy book will make it all better. Now children will be with mommy forever and ever.

Like God intended.

It would seem on newest episode of Degrassi the producers decided the greatest storyline possible for our pre-teens and teens would be to highlight the newest in point for our youngsters, exact same-sex connection for tweens and teenagers.

It’s almost like they were trying to address teens who have same-sex attractions and euphemistic “connections” with them. With one single lesbian character on the main rota amidst a sea of heterosexual characters dealing with their various heterosexual relationships, having or deciding not to have heterosexual sex and that’s on the “daring” show Degrassi that’s got all the wingnuts in a tizzy.

Cause once that’s in, bam, nothing on TV but endless reruns of L Word and Xena Warrior Princess. It’s not so much a slippery slope as a wormhole in space-time.

Soon after observing the episode on the internet I felt the core concept of this show appears to sayfor you to be as great as the youngsters on Degrassi, its time to acknowledge you want to be openly gay with your girl good friend.

It must of said that. It said that to me. I recorded it on the Tivo, pushing away that spoiled brat who complained about things like “I was watching that”, “when are you making dinner” or “Mom, you’ve been watching that same clip for 24 hours straight now”. I could think of nothing but Michelle’s perky breasts poking out of her tank top as she collected her kid from a play date. Our kids actually hate each other, but I don’t care. Her smell intoxicates me, drawing me ever closer into her web.

And that’s why we need to stop Degrassi. It puts these wrong naughty thoughts into the heads of me our most impressionable young people.

They dont skimp on the guys becoming into men on this show possibly, but for now this is adequate. Ive copied the storyline summary from the episode in question for any parents who treatment to go through it. Its not even delicate its sick.

Just thinking about it has drained what little writing ability she has left. To be fair, it must be hard to write a post semi-intelligibly when one hand is jammed so far down your pants it is legally in another county.

She then quotes the Degrassi episode synopsis in its entirety. Because I apparently hate you all, I’ve reproduced it in its entirety. Please feel free to skip over it.

Degrassi: In As well Deep Recap: Season 10, Episode 42 “Chasing Pavements, Component Two” (04/09/2011)
A lot more Degrassi: Recaps | News and Forged Interviews | All Tv Recaps
Fiona arrives out. Fiona has effectively finished rehab, but up next on her plate is going through the vicious Bobby, her physically abusive ex-boyfriend. But Bobby delivers the family $a hundred,000 to not go to trial. Fiona is completely in opposition to taking the settlement, but her mother is concerned about how the trial may emotionally affect her, and thinks she should consider the cash. But with Holly J’s support, Fiona convinces her mother to allow her push ahead. Fiona surprisingly retains her individual on trial, but can not take again the simple fact that she embellished the bruise in the photo she took of her scar, and after Bobby’s testimony, she commences to doubt her determination, and considers turning to alcohol, until her coping methods arrive in excellent handy. But when an additional girlfriend of Bobby’s arrives ahead and confesses that Bobby has abused her as well, Fiona’s circumstance is manufactured. She wins $250,000! In her happiness, she kisses Holly J on the lips!
Fiona has a romantic dream about Holly J and realizes her emotions for her greatest good friend. Holly J and Fiona strategy a sleepover collectively, although Fiona reconciles with Adam about their previous and sets up a movie date with him. She confesses that he wasn’t a issue in her life, and she nevertheless likes him. But while they are hooking up, Fiona tries to compliment him for becoming “the greatest of the two worlds”, and Adam storms out, telling Fiona that she just wishes a woman. The next day, she confesses to Holly J that she does not like Adam any more. In turn, on their sleepover, Holly J realizes she loves Declan in a way that she does not feel for Sav. When her mother comes property, Fiona confesses to her that she’s gay, and she’s in really like with Holly J. Her mother completely supports her, and tells her that it won’t be straightforward, but she can get through it. She comes clear to Holly J that she’s gay, who also isn’t the least bit bothered by it.

You didn’t need to read it all. But if you did, you probably noticed one big thing. “Gosh, that sounds like a soap opera aimed at teenagers”. And you’d be demonstrating your ability to prevent lesbian kisses from melting your ability to process information.

Thus proving you are part of the Dyke Cylon Force hellbent on enslaving America. We’re on to you vile Robotic Wenches! You will not get our children with your hypno-rays!

Seriously if you have taken the time to study this far you are recognizing what I did, the culture our little ones are residing in and around has been teaching them to abandon the standard views of faith and family and sexuality for some thing a lot cooler bi-sexuality is the way to go if youre as hip as they are.

Again, where is all the “bisexuality is hip” coming from?

Especially seeing as how she messed up the cardinal wingnut rule and actually quoted the original source of the thing she was complaining about, thus demonstrating that she’s freaking out over a lesbian coming out story.

Apparently it goes:

Step One: Tell a story of a fictional lesbian.
Step Two: REDACTED for reasons of sexy
Step Three: Everyone’s a bisexual!

How a lot of thousands and thousands of teen and tweens living in the chaos of their individual confusing and un-glamorous lives are currently being swept into this deception ? I imply this display is openly suggesting that if you care for a good friend, and they are the identical-sex it extremely properly could be that your attracted to them because your gay or bi-sexual. And not only is that o.k, but its really very awesome to do.

And it’s not ok. You should rot forever in the closet, holding that secret shame deep inside as you force yourself to ride the cock of a man you don’t love and stay in a loveless sham marriage always dreaming of that person as you cry into the pillow and violently shrug off your partner’s attempts to hold you.

Because that’s Jesus’s plan for you.

Also, she’s totally not gay, why would you think that. It’s just that bisexuality is so very seductive and trendy and other kids, female kids could get sucked into those obviously fictional media-induced attractions that could never exist in reality.

What are you staring at?

Mothers and fathers, Im begging you WE ALL Want TO WAKE UP!

Our planet is changing the principles and its happening on our watch. Our little ones are getting fed a developing diet regime of sexual storylines, pictures and role modeling that is influencing an entire era of little ones with a various gospel and a various fact than the one they listen to from us.

The world was filled with black people who refused to quietly suffer in the background and insisted on living full real respected lives, so we packed up our things and moved to the suburbs. The world was filled with women refusing to suffer silent as homemakers and spoke up about sexual consent, female sexual desire, desire to work from home and other things so we spent decades trying to dismantle the sex education programs they created and block almost all depictions of real female empowerment from media because it was “a higher rating level”. But now the walls are crumbling. “Those kids” are in the suburbs, going to the schools that were meant to keep them out. Bullying is not keeping the queers and the weirdos quiet, people are having to talk. And the internet, that demon-spawned device connects them to everyone, anyone.

There is no where else to hide. No where else to retreat to to raise them ignorant and contained in insular little communities.

They are looking at us with eyes mixed with hate and pity, wondering why they were denied life because of their parents’ hate.

Liberals will pay for that.

Make sure you take the time to talk with your little ones, block the teen nick channel if you dare on your house cable or satellite tvs and make clear your beliefs and values with your little ones These days. tomorrow may possibly nicely be also late.

Sorry for the lengthy and ominous blog nowadays, but it frightened the crap out of me when I began to study this a bit.

Yes, I totally believe you’ve “studied it”. Your writing demonstrates that thoroughly.

God, help us lead this generation back into the fact and hope of our faith as Christians. Heres to people who are determined to keeping their people on the road and in among the lines of daily life Im encouraging you to discover out far more, evaluation what your little ones are watching from the Pc, to the iPod to the televisions in your property. Consider an Energetic Part and Presume nothing. Its a scary time to be a father or mother, but I feel God has a method and a plan for people of us who take the time and pay attention for it.
Consider the time right now.

Holy Bob, Guardian of Stuff, forgive me for laughing my ass off over pleas like this. It’s just it is so damn funny when someone is literally begging God to try and make history and reality stop so they don’t have to grow and acknowledge reality.

Peace out


Well that’s some egg on my face. From the entire pearl-clutching freak-out and overproductive nature, I totally assumed a mother and you know what? That’s bad on me.

I fight hard for the right for people to be themselves regardless of gender norms and I cheer this man’s brave stance even as a hyper-repressed Christian to live the gender stereotypes of a hyper-repressed Christian of the opposite sex.

Strike a brave blow, Peace Out brad, for all of us*.

This concludes another Mangotime!

*Which also changes the interpretation immensely. Sure, he’s assuming that a lesbian kiss will make all the girls bi because it’s personally irresistible to him. But that’s because he’s a giant egotist and assumes that just because he finds two young “Hollywood lesbians” locking lips the hottest thing ever, any woman watching will do the same and be unable to resist the brain-washing. I think I preferred the version where he was just a repressed lesbian.

If you can’t trust a supposedly straight man with a gay porn stache, who can you trust?

*In the Sadly, No! commentariat, there is a long standing meme that when dealing with wingnut articles, it is always best to stay on the boat of the site instead of venturing out for the rotten mangos of the original posts of the nutjobs and psychotics. We here go into that depth of that insanity and bring it all back. Welcome to Mangotime!

Today’s example is h/t Substance McGravitas and is perfectly tailored for me.

Transanity by Michael Brown

Let’s dive in shall we?

I have the utmost sympathy for men and women who feel they are trapped in the wrong body.

Nuh uh, I’m not a bigot.

At the same time, Western society is heading in the direction of what can only be called transgender insanity, or transanity for short.

I just play one on TV.

Consider these recent examples.

Oh goodie, an idiot who doesn’t fully want to seem like a bigot grossed out by the very notion of transgender people is going to show us what he considers to be “bridges too far” and examples of transgendered insanity. Be afraid, people, be very afraid.

1) In England, two married men (and fathers) divorced their wives and began living together as a gay couple, after which they decided to identify as a transsexual “lesbian” couple (yes, male “lesbians”), after which one of the men had sex-change surgery, which makes them eligible to be married as husband and wife, even though the husband still identifies as a woman

You’ll notice first off that wingnuts hate citing the things they reference or if they must, they’ll cite other wingnuts’ reactions. Likely because they fear that exposing their readers might accidentally make their arguments look like the complete idiocy that they are.

Luckily for us, he is a talented enough moron to do the job for us. Yeah, two people divorce the partners they weren’t actually sexually or romantically attracted to and went with themselves, escaping the bigotry keeping them from acknowledging themselves until kids had already gotten into the equation. Most people would see this as a strong reason for greater acceptance so people could acknowledge who they are earlier and start living that sooner instead of dragging people into a lie of a life.

But not Brown, he’s down with Medieval-era Catholic Church. Once you marry, you’re married for life, and he doesn’t care if it isn’t what you really want, that’s what stableboys are for!

Also, Michael, Michael, Michael, talk about screwing up your initial front of “understanding the transsexual” and not being a bigot, when in the first example, you show yourself completely unable to understand transsexuality 101 (hint: they aren’t male lesbians, they are lesbians and transwomen).

And yeah, trans people end up exploiting all sorts of loopholes in the desperate attempt to keep the queers from marrying, loopholes that make a mockery of your “no queers” allowed stances on gay marriage.

No sense getting mad at the queers for that. Don’t want to be made to look like an idiot supporting stupid laws? Don’t support stupid laws.

2) Chaz Bono recently received criticism from the transgender daughter/son of Warren Beatty and Annette Bening, born Kaitlyn but now, at age 19, known as Stephen.

Your second example is something a 19 year old said?

Also, why is this so shocking it needs to be the lead? My word, did you know that the transgender community is not monolithic like the bigoted community?!? And that liberals have internal debates and criticize each other?!? Have you heard of anything so unseemly?

(Remember that Chaz, who remains female from the waist down, danced as a male on Dancing with the Stars, raising the legitimate question: What constitutes male or female?)

It’s almost like the state of your genitals has nothing to do with what sex you are inside or what your mental sex says you are. Hey, if you didn’t want to be mocked for not understanding Trans 101, you shouldn’t have opened like you were some friendly old pal to the trans community just shocked into gobsmackitude by these kids today, donchaknow.

After Chaz had explained that being transgender could be likened to having a “mismatched” brain and body, similar to a “birth defect like a cleft palate,” Stephen wrote on his blog that, “Chaz is a misogynist. He is a trans man who seems to believe that his female-assignedness and his female socialisation makes him immune from being a misogynist, and he is manifestly wrong.”

Yeah, that’s the amazing thing about quoting two disparate statements with no links, you can make it seem like someone is just leaping down someone else’s throat with no reason.

So what went down?

Okay, not going into it fully, here’s the link to Steven’s actual long post explaining his views on Chaz Bono.

Overall, despite it’s inflammatory title, it’s basically about the nature of conflict about having imperfect “spokespeople” be the “public face” of a little known group. A) That it’s good that they’re out there and how we want to defend them against the bigotry that gets hurled at them for being who they are and support what they get right, but B)that they can be imperfect and unfortunately reinforce other horseshit.

Steven’s main trigger is that Chaz called being trans a birth defect to explain it which maybe wasn’t the best word, but hey, different people take it differently and unlike the right, when you say something potentially offensive, people will comment on it. But the reason he calls Chaz a misogynist is related to other comments of Chaz’s where he basically argues that all men are hornier than all women, and that women are talkative gossipy stereotypes that the T! (duh duhduh!) has made him unable to deal with now that he’s all manified.

Basically, I’m losing the comedy flow here, because it’s all about holding our spokespeople to a higher standard on the left and trying to improve them out of wallowing in whatever privileges they do have and supporting the full community. Each person has their own tolerance for that in what they forgive or focus on. I won’t say that Steven is wrong, he’s actually correct, though I would argue that it’s more an issue of privilege fail (i.e. unconscious absorption of cultural narratives).

Anyways, so one transman criticized another transman for some unconscious misogyny and this is insane because…?

And how does Stephen describe “himself”? He is “a gay trans man for whom both identities are equally important, a white anti-racist, a feminist, and a poet.”


That’s not really saying anything-Oh, right, wingnut land, sorry. I’m sure, he just saw the words gay, anti-racist, and feminist and his mind clouded pink with random rage. Grr, my readers have been trained to hate these things and forget they have actual meanings, this will make a great example.

So, rather than remain Kaitlyn and be a young woman attracted to men, Stephen (who is still female) identifies as a gay man

Yeah, that’s how it works, trans 101. It’s almost like it’s about what people are internally and being true to that, rather than what would make your life experientially easier. A man with a brain might suspect that this might argue in favor of transsexuality being a real thing rather than something trans people invented to piss of wingnuts, but Michael Brain is not that man.

as well as a feminist.

I love this little end to the line. “As well as a feminist”. He identifies as a gay man AND a feminist, but how can this be? You can see his mind reeling in horror as he has to confront that the real world has nothing to do with the straw-man of feminists as man-hating women just trying to be bitches and that feminism might actually really be about the treatment of women as full human beings. No! That can’t be! His identification must be a contradiction for not following our straw-men! Also, he’s a girl, he’s got girl parts!

Keep it classy, Browny!

3) Dan Savage is a gay sex columnist and a vocal critic of traditional Judeo-Christian morals, best known today for spearheading the “It Gets Better” campaign.

Oh, oh, no, you really didn’t want to combine your slam against Dan Savage with acknowledging his role in one of the most inoffensive anti-bullying campaigns out there right now. Yeah, he’s against judeo-christian values like telling gay kids to kill themselves now, because it’ll never get better!

Juxtaposition, how does it work?

Recently, he became the target of trans activists who glitter bombed him twice in November. He was branded a “transphobe” for using terms like “shemale” and referring to “freak tranny porn” (although Savage, on his part, claims that he was simply repeating words used by a questioner in his audience).

So, two of his examples are basically his shock that liberals don’t march in lockstep with each other like conservatives? Really doing your case proud there Browny when you show yourself more out of touch with reality than Marie Antoinette. Yes, liberals argue with each other and strive to improve their heroes rather than fetishizing them and hailing their fuckups as the standard we all must aspire to. It’s almost like we aren’t authoritarian tools just looking for a Leader.

Oh, right, the Dan Savage thing. Dan Savage is a great activist for a number of issues, his “It Gets Better” Project is fantastic. He also frequently fails on issues of sexism, asexuality, transsexuality, transgender issues, ableism, and so on. He’s imperfect and he fucks up, people call him on that, some people have written him off entirely because of that and have demonstrated directly.


One of his critics, writing on the Bilerico Project, is Tobi Hill-Meyer, whose bio states, “Tobi Hill-Meyer is just about your average multiracial, pansexual, transracially inseminated queerspawn, genderqueer, transdyke, colonized mestiza, pornographer, activist, writer.”

(Whistling softly while I look at my own header).

Also love the wingnut consistent shock at people having long descriptions. Yeah, that’s part of explaining where you come from. If we didn’t assume that everyone was a white straight man from default, Browny would have to regularly identify himself as a “caucasian, monoamorous (with regular non-negotiated trips to the truck stop), transracially inseminated (and how), but with hardworking repressed parents, cissexual, cisgendered, transvestite (only at parties), publicly heterosexual, American supporter of colonialism, pornography customer, “activist” for cash, and proud recipient of wingnut welfare for “writing” often with a big black dildo up his butt”.

But he doesn’t, because unless you say otherwise, you are assumed, straight white male family man, no matter how many bathroom dicks you suck.

And yeah, all those words mean something, you could look them up and learn, or you can pretend long descriptions make someone an unperson.

Ah, I see you’ve chosen the latter.

Does this qualify as transanity?

Two internal community critiques and a transsexual lesbian community who had to stagger their sex changes so they could marry by British law, yes, truly the height of the horrors that could happen with transsexuality.

All that rampant child molestation, regular molestation, murder, and insanity we regularly argue would happen if we gave trans people any rights? Um, well, look at that long list of self-descriptors in that one girl’s blog! Isn’t that silly?

(And yeah, I swear half of the reason for conservative resistance to minority rights is based around having to learn and respect that everyone isn’t just a white male default. How dare other people than me exist, this must not stand!)

Before you dismiss all this as totally fringe, remember that Chastity/Chaz Bono is a very public figure

Yeah, but Chaz Bono was the subject of that one article, or are you arguing that one person noting that he wasn’t a perfect spokesman somehow just cancel him because we are apparently working by Calvinball logic.

that in 2006, New York City’s Metropolitan Transit Authority ruled that men who identified as women could use the ladies bathrooms at all subway stations

Women can use women’s bathrooms? In certain limited areas, depending on state or specific institution law and how willing they are to risk potential harassment from bigots?

Will this violence against straight, white, cisgendered people, never end?!?

Also, yeah, the argument against is always that said women are somehow a threat to the “regular” women, yet it turns out that transpeople just want to shit and the signs on the doors don’t really keep out people who plan on raping or assaulting someone in a bathroom and so most bathroom pervs tend to just dress normally rather than risking being beat up as a tranny. But hey, why let reality ruin a great scare tactic?

that more and more TV shows are normalizing (and even celebrating) transgenderism

DEGRASSI! Where will fans of cisgender characters go now that this show and the handful of others with trans characters have apparently eliminated all non-trasn characters from all television and movies? Where?!? Tell me!


and that, in one high school, a male teen was voted class queen while in another school, a female teen was voted class king.

MASS HYSTERIA! Why it’s almost like people are starting to notice that some of the strict enforced gender horseshit is kinda stupid and it’s almost like your real issue with transgender people is how they make a mockery of your view of gender essentialism. Where women are women BY NATURE and men are men BY NATURE and both follow 1950s gender stereotypes BY NATURE and only are attracted to each other BY NATURE.

Also, seriously, why do you care about what one high school does and… fuck you’re probably talking about two transpeople being elected queen and king and are doing that annoying little “if I refuse to believe they are their correct gender, then they aren’t and thus are silly for thinking they aren’t what I think they are and acting the way I think they should act” thing again, aren’t you?

Keep it classy, Browny. Keep it classy.

And let’s not forget that Massachusetts just passed a radical transgender bill


We have the source of butthurt, people. This here is the reason for the entire article.

So what’s this “radical” bill that is so nefarious he can only really talk about how radical and wrong it is?

It’s a Non-Discrimination Bill. Pretty standard too. Can’t fire a trans person for being trans, can’t throw them out of their lodging for being trans, can’t deny them public education they would have otherwise qualified for for being trans, etc…And yeah, it’s all about public spaces and public law.

So yeah, the evil insanity of transpeople thinking they can be out as transpeople without being fired and discriminated against.

The bastards!

according to which, “’Gender identity’ shall mean a person’s gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person’s physiology or assigned sex at birth.” (Yes, this is now the legal definition in Massachusetts.)

And you know, the accepted legal definition of a transgender person. You know, how to legally define an umbrella term for all those who fall outside the gender binary or present themselves as a sex other than their birth whether or not they identify as such or not.

It’s also about gender identity in general so it protects cisgendered people from being harassed for being cisgendered by roving bands of genderqueer thugs or fired from their jobs for their filthy cisgendered habits by their bigoted transgendered bosses.

Huh, why don’t these staunch defenders against “minority overreach” never cheer those much needed protections from the “attacks” against them.

Is it all just bullshit to try and make their desire to see “weird” people punished for not being “standard” sound like a principled self-defense rather than naked bigotry?

That’d be unpossible! No conservative would ever stoop that low!

The MassResistance website

SPLC recognized hate group says what?

explains that that the bill, “Forces charter schools to allow cross-dressing and other transgender behavior by students, and to include that in their published non-discrimination statement.”

And you sent them to charter school to be away from filthy poor, non-white, non-straight, or non-cisgendered people!

And yeah, shock of shocks, the recognized hate group with the long history of lies is lying (I know!). Like with every non-discrimination bill known to man, “charter schools” are “forced” to comply if they accept government money. The deal is simply, want to be a bigoted private institution? Then don’t demand government money or government preferential treatment for it! But of course, they are protesting for their god-given right to take government money while giving a hearty fuck you to state and federal law.

Fly proud brave segregation supporters! Fly proud!

MassResistance also warns, “You could soon see your day-care provider, second-grade teacher, waiter, school bus driver, store clerk, etc. be a man wearing a skirt and lipstick, possibly with hormone-enhanced breasts” (their emphasis).

Be scared. Be scared. Be scared.

Yes, if we don’t bury all transpeople far out of sight and prevent them from getting any jobs and surviving in the world, ideally until they die of suicide, hate crime, or starvation, then we might not have to acknowledge that they are normal people, capable of doing the same jobs as anyone else and may even be people you end up knowing and respect.

Also, love how the hate group lead off with “we are so dogwhistling ‘transpeople are child molestors’ and then backed off into looking like an idiot”.

My word, they could be a store clerk or a waiter? Why those could be occupations I have momentary interactions with and should have no damn concern if they are employed there other than a desire to have knowledge of real people hidden from me at all times!

I especially like the “waiter” one. Yes, they could infect YOUR FOOD with their transgendered waves, causing you to become inherently queerer by the second. Why you might even start wondering if your ultra-macho front isn’t just a sad attempt to hide your flaming homosexuality or the fact that you don’t think feminine pursuits makes your balls fall off.

And then where will we be, people?


But why this should surprise us? After all, the mayor of Silverton, Oregon, Stu Rasmussen, was first elected as a fairly typical, heterosexual male, but then, after “acquiring cleavage,” he was reelected as a heterosexual, cross-dressing, cleavage-flaunting man (who has a girlfriend too).

My word, it’s like people don’t inherently fit in the neat little boxes we proscribe for them and such people refuse to hide themselves away from polite society.

And there’s not enough bigots around to keep them hidden and denied! They’re even getting political offices, what’s next? Forced sex changes for conservative pundits? It would be irresponsible not to wildly conjecture like a paranoid crazy person!

No seriously, it’s not his argument, but a lot of wingnuts seem to be unable to grasp that something not being “banned and unacknowledged” doesn’t make it “mandatory for everyone”.

He did come under criticism for one specific incident, though, and in August 3, 2009, he was censured by the city council after making an appearance at a children’s meeting in an inappropriate outfit, specifically, an open-backed bathing suit, a mini-skirt, and high-heels. Yet those criticizing Mayor Stu were careful to point out that they had no problem with him dressing as a woman at this children’s meeting. They only had a problem with him dressing immodestly as a woman.

Yeah! They should have censured him for being a freak! In front of children no less! Won’t someone think of the children!

What you say? Spending over 30 years using children as a thinly veiled tool to argue that most of human experience be hidden from the entire public because “children might find out” but really because you want certain people and things hidden has made people less sympathetic to that argument?

Well fuck, conservatives sure are fucked now. That’s pretty much all they’ve got.

Oh and Stu’s “scandalous miniskirt”?

Tame. As. Fuck.

And not actually complained about by the children, but rather a single parent who probably was already freaking out that her child was learning that transpeople don’t have horns and the smell of sulfur like her mommy told her.

This is nothing less than transanity.

Okay, so now we have more definitions of this word. It now refers to two accounts of internal liberal arguments trying to improve our spokesmen, a couple working through the stupid ban on gay marriage so they can get married and thus reveal the attempts to block it as the dumb bigoted nonsense they are, a transgendered mayor getting hassled by a skirt that wouldn’t be looked twice at if he was a cisgendered female teacher (my eighth grade teacher wore shorter miniskirts), and of course, trans people thinking they are allowed to exist in public without being denied jobs and housing and otherwise being discriminated to death.

I do not think this word means what you think it does.

In fact, it seems to be suggesting a definition of:

“The act of reducing a wingnut to babbled half-thought out objections to the very notion of transpeople living lives without official state-level rebuke for daring to exist and thus demonstrate the fiction of their views of gender essentialism”.

Okay, Mikey McBrownington, you’ve aligned yourself with one of the top anti-gay hate groups in America, one which has been listed as an official hate group and you’ve basically bitched about trans people not acting like authoritarians and daring to exist.

Let’s have a huge finale. Drum roll.

When the MTA made its 2006 transgender bathroom ruling, Gloria David, a retiree from Connecticut, remarked, “I would not like that. I have nothing against gay men or drag queens, but they can use the men’s room. I just don’t want to go to the bathroom next to a man.”

Nice. Good strong start. We’ve got a random quote likely fisked from a newspaper article from the time you’ve got stored on your desktop to remind you of when the anti-gay racket was booming strong and bringing in the sweet sweet lucre and using it like the random nutjob they brought in to “show both sides of the debate” was an actual authoritative voice. This is the pure wingnut insanity we crave.

Today, Ms. David’s perfectly understandable comments would be labeled transphobic.

Yes, keep it up! Beautiful demonstration of complete lack of self-awareness. Why yes, the bigoted ramblings of an old woman from another state whose confused and scared reactions to things she’s been trained by people like you to fear would be labeled transphobic. In fact, that’s kind of why she was quoted, because newspapers aren’t allowed to say, “trans people want the right to pee, but some random assholes are preventing it because they want to dick with them and make money promoting fear of The Other”. Instead, every article nowadays must be “X says X, but Y says Y, this issue is hotly debated, who is right? Who knows? We’re not here to step on toes by figuring out the answer”. If the modern press tried to tackle lynching it would be:

“Mother of the victim said it was a travesty of a crime and the perpetrators brought to justice, but a local spokesman for the KKK said that uppity negro boys need to know their place, surely this is a hot issue that will not be resolved any time soon”.

Should we have compassion on those who feel there is a “mismatch” between their body and their brain? Absolutely.

But should that extend to letting them have jobs, places to stay, basic tools so they can survive, or really be allowed to exist anywhere where others may become aware of their existence?

God no, that’d be crazy talk.

Also, love the attempt to try and play “friend of the transsexual” again. I know I just spent an entire post failing Trans 101, deliberately getting the genders of everyone mentioned wrong, mocking the very notion of people not identifying as white, straight, and cisgendered, and arguing that a standard non-discrimination bill was an affront to good decent people, and the only citation on my page is a link to an official hate group committed to eliminating all rights for transgender and otherwise queer individuals, but I’m not a bigot, I swear.

I have compassion for you.

Hell, I may even step over you as you’re freezing to death outside after you’ve been kicked out of your housing and denied employment rather than kicking you in the chest.

Because I care.

But we should devote our energies to understanding the causes of their mental and emotional conflict with the goal of helping them from the inside out.

A divergence between their mental sex and their biological sex and/or inherently not fitting within cultural models of masculinity or femininity or cultural or sexual designations of man or woman, because like much of biology, things exist on a spectrum rather than a clear cut binary.

Oh. You were dogwhistling “send them to an ex-gay facility to scare them back into the closet ideally with the threat of open discrimination and public bigotry”. Sorry, didn’t mean to step on your toes there with my mean old reality and its vile liberal bias.

Otherwise, if we craft laws and embrace social categories based on how people identify themselves, we had better get ready for more and more “feminist gay trans men” along with “pansexual genderqueer transdykes” – and that’s just the beginning.

Yeah, if we acknowledge that not everyone is a straight white male, why that will totally “create” these demonic beings out of the Aether to suck upon our life essences and force us to acknowledge the existence of people who are not us… and that is scary…somehow…and somehow a threat to people.

Listen, the reason is long descriptions are scary, because you have to do reading to understand what they mean and some of the words don’t even have scare tactics in place to tell you the strawman reason you should hate them beyond “it ain’t nat’ral”. So just shut up and hate on queue and send me some money to hate on the trans people because the gay hating racket is looking dry as bone these days.

And yeah, love that “feminist gay transman” made a comeback. I know you want to believe in the strawman of the man-hating lesbian, but men can be feminists too, even the men not trying to sleep with women. Because it actually has a definition and isn’t just a scare tactic for the right to trick conservative women into thinking basic dignity is synonymous with Satan.

Also “pansexual genderqueer transdyke” means a transsexual woman who is part of the lesbian and queer communities, but identifies personally as bisexual. If you spent time learning who the people you hate were rather than just trying to self-justify why it’s okay to hate them, you might not look like a complete tool.

In a word, get ready for transanity.

I heard repetition is good for creating a new meme. So I repeat the repetition of the term that is repeated so you know its repeated over and over so that you go out there and don’t even have to think when some trans person is like “blah, blah, blah, you’re a goddamn idiot”, you just go “well, that sounds like transanity to me” and laugh to yourself and don’t listen to the trans person going “um, do you realize that you just sounded like you were calling my arguments sane and reasonable and thus your own the unprocessed horse feces that they are” and you don’t even have to process that because your brain is safely on vacation.

Take that, transfolk! Conservatives win again!

Oh, Michael Brown, your insipid failure has given us much to work with, but it is time to say goodbye.

So some of you may have noticed that I update at the same glacial pace that tortoises fuck. Well, I thought to myself, “Self, surely my readers deserve more than that” and so it was. Starting soon there will be a few additional regular projects that will be popping up to give regular content.

First up on that list will be a regularly updating podcast called Lesbian Pulp Theatre that will present all original radio plays done in the Lesbian Pulp aesthetic.

Why am I as an asexual doing this?

Because I like writing plays of all types and because like many minorities, I can’t help but become intimately familiar with more dominant cultures (even if they are not the dominant culture).

So if that sounds fun to you, please check it out in the link above and I’ll let you know when it’s been approved by iTunes so that you can subscribe there.

Joe My God has the details*.

The video details a transwoman getting thoroughly thrashed by two assailants because she was seen as entering the “wrong” bathroom at a Maryland based McDonalds.

The staff filmed the assault and did not intervene in any way to stop the assault and in fact urged the assailants to flee before police arrived. The only person who intervened on the woman’s behalf was an elderly woman.

For all of the people who like to deny the correlations between cultural hatred and disregard of trans identity with violent assault and murder of trans individuals.

Moreover, for all of those who argue that the bathroom issue is “complicated” and that transpeople need to take a back seat to “concerns about safety”. That the cultural segregations at the bathroom do not create a mindset wherein defense of a clear separation isn’t seen as the most important thing. For those who can’t understand why bathrooms end up being such a huge source of stress, fear, and so on.

And especially for those so bound by hatred for transpeople’s existence that they believe transpeople deserve to get assaulted if they want the ability to shit like normal human beings in a closed stall like every other bastard seeking privacy and intestinal relief.

Watch the video at the link. Listen to every frightened scream. Listen to every hate-filled assault. Watch every boot come down.

Do that and then come back here and I dare you to not find the words turn into ash in your mouth.

For the rest of us, dear Bob in Himmel. It hurts to watch. And it hurts more to know this happens nearly every day in one form or another.

And if there’s one piece of hope I can give you, it’s that more and more people seem to be recognizing such acts as evil. More places are outraged when incidents like this occur. McDonalds has responded with an emphatic apology for the terrible actions of its employees and the initial uploader, at first proud of it, has found themselves at the center of a very nasty backlash.

Maybe just maybe, the social safety of being a bigot is decreasing and such actions will be less and less likely to be seen as laudable or “normal”.

*Warning on the comment section of the Joe My God post. It’s infested with some vile right-wing trolls and bigots so if you decide to scroll down into them, be wary.

Image is the property of Dean Trippe, his website can be found here

So, cool news. I’m going to be semi-regularly contributing to the Slacktivese. The Slacktiverse is a blog founded by the community of an old blog called Slacktivist run by Fred Clark who is a great writer, an unfortunately rare example of a good evangelical Christian, and one of the most important experts we have in understanding fundamentalist Christian culture.

Before, I continue, I urge all to read Slacktivist, especially his on-going page-by-page take-downs of the Left Behind series of books because it really is the best way to understand the myriad of seeming non-sensical patterns in right-wing paranoid culture. Most of the things that seem to come out of nowhere in right-wing obsessions or memes can be directly tied to the Pre-Millenial Dispensationalist and John Birch Society beliefs he illuminates. If you’ve ever wanted to understand the Rapture cultists and how much political power they have, Fred Clark is a necessary read.

That isn’t of course to sell my friends at Slacktiverse short. The former community includes a huge amount of talented writers who’ve made growth and understanding one of their key pillars. If you want brilliant illuminations and personal narratives from a variety of marginalized viewpoints, then Slacktiverse delivers in spades.

With regards to this site, I will still continue posting here with my usual erratic schedule and will post links to my Slacktiverse posts as they go up.

On that note, my first post Frakking Bathrooms is up and is about my personal and cultural experiences with bathrooms as a transwoman.

A sample:

Let’s talk about bathrooms, specifically public restrooms. Now this doesn’t seem like much of a real topic. What are public restrooms? A place to expunge our wastes, wash our hands, and go.

Except…I’m a transwoman.

And as such, much of the battle for my basic rights seem focused on the issues of public restrooms.

Whether or not we have protections from being fired or turned over in hiring owing to our gender identity, whether we can be kicked out of housing or denied aid, whether we can legally be recognized as our actual sex, whether we are allowed access to aid mechanisms or services, and of course, whether our murders are to be investigated or silently left unsolved…all of these issues tend to be debated on the issue of whether or not we should be allowed in “their” bathrooms with their unprotected womenfolk and children and so on.

Now, that’s a stupid debate, filled with actions that say more about our opponents than those they attack. Much of it seems to assume that the gender signs on bathrooms act as a sort of magic ward that prevent men who want to assault women from entering unless they “disguise themselves as women”. Naturally, such occurrence of cross-dressing attackers in bathrooms never seems to manifest, though some of those who seek to defend from such a menace turn up to be bathroom attackers themselves.

I will, if allowed, gladly fill a column just about the political debate, but that isn’t why I’ve brought it up.

Today, I want to do something different than just arguing for my humanity and my right to poop.

Read the rest here

Clever post title sold to pay for heating.

Anti-gay arguments. Many of us in the LGBT community have heard them for a long time. We’ve gotten so used to debunking their complete break from reality that it’s become routine. The problem is that we’ve gotten used to just debunking them and moving on. I mean, the people using these arguments generally are just using them as smokescreen for raw animus anyways, so…

However, I feel that’s failing to appreciate the raw horror that are these arguments. Let’s look closely at some of the more popular arguments used in arguments against gay rights (specifically gay marriage) and what they reveal about the type of person who’d make and/or believe them, or otherwise find them compelling.

#1) Marriage is for procreation

The common stand-by, because the ability to conceive a child by unprotected sex is one of the few things that separate same-sex couples from opposite-sexed couples. Sure, a same-sex couple can still have children from previous marriages, use IVF, enlist a surrogate, adopt, or serve as mentor for a large group of children, but they can’t conceive solely using the plumbing and DNA of the two people in the relationship…unless one is trans and pre-medical transitioning…and shut up, shut up, shut up.

As I said, we’re used to breaking down this argument logically. There’s a great post here doing so. But let’s look at this argument much more closely with regards to what it’s saying.

At it’s most basic level, it argues that marriages are solely about children and procreation. Thus, that marriage is adamantly NOT about love. And this is a rather radical belief here in 2011, thanks to the tireless work of activists who have come before.

We are used to in the 21st century the notion that marriage is a ceremony to enshrine love, to say, “I love this person so much, that I want to try and be with them the rest of my life. They are the person who understands me the best, the one who can relay my concerns and needs the best of all when I’m incapacitated, sick, or dead. They are my sweetie.”

But SSM marriage opponents are right when they say that this isn’t the “traditional view of marriage”. The “traditional” view of marriage was one of a man purchasing unwanted property off of a father, that of a daughter. Said man, would then take his new property and put it to work as a house slave to keep his house, birth and raise his children and meet his sexual needs when he so desired, regardless of her own beliefs on the matter.

This attitude has mostly died off, thanks to pioneering artists for centuries dreaming of love as a matter of the heart and feminist activists slowly building up public regard for women until it became more common to imagine them as full people with hopes, dreams, ability to love, and furthermore someone that shouldn’t be raped or devoid of the right of self-ownership.

And just like we see in the “abortion debate”, that female self-ownership is still woefully supported, we see here in the anti-gay argument the resistance to this cultural evolution.

These people are admitting that their own marriages aren’t about love. They are about duty or because someone was knocked up, or because they were told they were nothing if they didn’t have the possessions “a family”, “a wife”, “kids”.

And it’s worth taking a moment to boggle at how utterly terrifying and sad that is.

To the people that this argument resonates with. To the people making these arguments as if they made rational sense to them. To the ones to which this makes emotional sense, marriage must be a trap rather than a celebration. Something tolerated merely out of duty to tradition and fealty to perpetuating a stark patriarchy for religious reasons.

No one’s marriage should ever be that. It should be a celebration of love.

Sadly, the number of jokes about “marriage as trap” and “wife as ball and chain” seem to hint sadly, that the true “traditional” marriage may not be so long dead as we would hope.

#2) Gay marriage is a slippery-slope to polyamory, bestiality, and child-molestation

Often made with these sexual unions being marriage level recognized unions. Now, let’s leave aside the fact that recognition of polyamorous triads, quads, and so on are in fact something that society should eventually grant social recognition and protection to similar to marriage, possibly by expanding marriage. And let’s leave aside that the main perpetrator of what is socially scary about polygamy (the hideous patriarchal “harems” of certain mormon sects) are also the main backers of most of the anti-gay movement at the moment (Mormons run NOM, which is behind most of the movement fighting against gay marriage).

Leaving all aside, it’s a remarkably bad argument. Not only because it’s a raw emotional appeal that doesn’t make legal sense, but because of what it fucking screams about the person making this argument.

And the thing it screams is that the person making the argument has ZERO, and I mean ZERO concept of consent. Or if they do, that they do not value it or regard it in sexual and marital interactions.

Or to put it bluntly: “What part of consenting adults eludes you?”

This argument is remarkably popular. Such conservative stalwarts as Pat Robertson, John Cornyn, and the usual gasbags like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have all made the argument.

Overall it might be the most popular anti-gay argument made in the fight for gay marriage.

But again, let’s point out the obvious. This statement, in order to even make internal consistent sense, has to completely ignore or devalue consent.

And to be frank, this is not an unfair statement. The conservative opposition don’t really believe in consent. Look at the “abortion debate”, look at the current Republican attempt to redefine rape, look at the constant anti-feminist resistance to the notion that rape means anything other than “white christian and her black boyfriend”.

And furthermore, the people making this argument and who this argument resonates with just don’t value consent. I don’t mean that they are rapists, per se, but that the culture of most conservative religions such as Fundamentalists, Mormons, Catholics, and many others views sex as inherently bad and sex one has chosen to commit as worse.

So if sex is inherently wrong, then there isn’t much moral difference between some consensual heavy petting and raping a child or a cow. Furthermore, there is a belief that sex is “more permissible” if one got “caught in the emotion” than if one has planned a sexual encounter, taking care to buy contraceptives and to fully explore boundaries and consent before hand.

Thus in these world views, consent actually makes sex worse because it shows a consciousness and “sluttiness” betrayed by admitting you are like 99% of people in the world and crave sexual interaction.

Now, it’s worth pointing this out, because this is a horrifying worldview that needs to die a quick and merciless death. Consent is critical in sexual interactions and respect for it needs to be unanimous or close enough. That so many are of the opinion that consent is either not a part of the marriage or sexual debate or that consent actually makes it worse, so that this slippery slope argument could at all make sense to them, shows a deep rot in our society and the relative youth of the movement to make consent a household expectation rather than a radical position.

A child or a horse can’t provide meaningful consent to either legally binding documents or sex. That they see it as equivalent shows that it’s all “bad sex” to them and thus, I fear for the sexual partners of every person who has ever made this argument.

Because their partner just argued in front of everyone that they don’t value consent in their sexual interactions with said partners.

Yeah, heartbreaking isn’t it?

#3 and #4) If gay marriage is allowed and everyone is gay married, then no children will be born and everyone will go extinct AND Homosexuals recruit and are trying to recruit me or my children into the “homosexual lifestyle”

The latter is an old standby and the former is gaining steam in the anti-gay movement as the arguments are turning towards “marriage is for procreation” arguments that I mocked earlier owing to the fact that that’s the only definable difference between same-sex parties and opposite-sex parties.

My “favorite” recent example of the former is probably Jeffrey Kuhner‘s insane assertion that it’s socially barren and a “homosexual society” or a culture that permits homosexuals will thus become extinct because homosexuals can’t create children with each other. And the latter has been seen everywhere.

Now, see, these arguments are very similar, because they both assert that homosexuality is so very desired. So very much seductive that everyone would be gay if there wasn’t such heavy social stigma against homosexuals in society. The argument of extinction, basically building on the older “gays recruit” angle to argue that legal rights would be seeing everyone switching teams because it’s just so awesome.

Now, see, let’s be frank.

There is no way. NO single possible way this is at all convincing to a person who is heterosexual or asexual.


See, heterosexuals and asexuals, and even homosexuals know that one can’t be “recruited” to the other side. You are attracted to what you are attracted to and not to what you aren’t. Nothing could make me sexually attracted to men or women.

So, what these people are doing, what they are screaming out to any who will hear is that they are very very gay. Or at least bi.

And not so much on the bi, because all of the people selling this argument the hardest often speak of homosexuality as this huge temptation that no one could possibly pass up. The extinction arguments are great, because it’s basically arguing that once the social stigma against homosexuality is gone, no one would stay in the sham marriages and we’d all go with the “obviously superior” option.

Which screams to anyone who really looks at this argument that the person who made it is flaming, is so very attracted to the same sex that they are legitimately concerned that the growing social equality of same-sex couples is threatening their marriages.

In fact let’s add

#5) Gay marriage threatens my marriage

To the list.

All three arguments, have at their core the fact that the one making the argument is feeling legitimately tempted by homosexuality. They have romantic and sexual interests in same-sex partners and are counting on social stigma to keep them from acting on it openly.

Basically everyone who makes this argument in any sense of seriousness has just come out as a Kinsey 1 at the least and considering they see it as a dominant choice, something that trumps all others, we’re talking Kinsey 4-6 much much more here. These are people who are admitting they are mostly homosexual in fighting against gay rights.

And what interests me is that this argument is relatively popular. Which provides pretty strong anecdotal evidence to a pet suspicion of mine that the majority of people aren’t heterosexual, but some flavor of bisexual.

As I said before, these arguments have no resonance for people who are really heterosexual. There is no there to tempt and it’s clear there is a vast separation in their desires for women and their lack of desires for men.

Now to be fair, it could just be bisexuality mixed with intense misogyny. The same religious cultures which short-change consent and hard-sell marriage for duty also view women as inhuman creations tolerated at best. They are instruments for birthing and raising children, a step up from possessions, who are to be resented for their femininity and weakness lest it somehow taint the masculine male by association.

These viewpoints are hardly alien and are lurking in our culture as a sort of toxic guidebook for masculinity that claims to be the only real path to being a man.

With women sold as beings to loathe, as lesser beings only good for sex, and where what matters most is one’s connections to other men, there is the basis of strong homosocial connections.

And for those just stumbling along, maybe with the slightest bisexuality, it might seem like it would be so much easier to ditch the dead weight of the woman and make those homosocial interactions homoromantic and homosexual as well in order to fulfill all needs without having to debase oneself seeking female companionship.

And for these people, I can see how the social stigma against homosexuals does seem like the only thing in their way. If gays weren’t categorized “girly men” or socially feminized, then what’s to stop the bisexual intense misogynist from sticking with the winning team where masculinity would reinforce masculinity.

And possibly more frightening is that these ultra-patriarchal societies are painful and shitty for the women living in them. If they could “choose” who they wanted to be with, with no social stigma, why would they stick around?

It’s a fear that keeps patriarchs awake at night, that their possessions might just do without them and “go lez”. It’s not rational and growing feminist victories means that people are slowly doing without those strict patriarchal relationships and striving for more egalitarian ones in all relationships. But still, it’s a crippling worry for those who are relying on social mores to keep women “in community” and ignorant of options.

Again, none of these options speaks well of the people advancing these arguments.

The point, finally

We often point to the disingenuousness, the history of equality movements, and the similarities between anti-gay arguments and anti-other-minorities arguments to show the moral depravity of the anti-gay movement and its proponents.

But we needn’t go to so much effort. The greatest horror of their statements isn’t the raw hate, isn’t the willingness to grasp any lie to make us suffer, it’s the statements themselves.

The arguments they make reveal their true characters far better than we could ever hope to reveal.

Let us take them at their word and be appalled by it.

And now, to complete tonight’s trifecta of ranting, I present an overly personal, possibly embarrassing emotional response to my current situation.

This rant will be bitter, unfair, even less focused than my usual posts, and probably a giant emo mess.

If that doesn’t sound like your bag of tea, I encourage, nay urge you to skip this one.

Honestly, this is just me airing some personal demons because keeping them bottled inside has been affecting my day-to-day mental health.

Okay, deep breath.

My life currently sucks.

If you’ve been at all following my blog or were a member of a blog where I used to be a more frequent poster (cough, pharyngula, cough) you’ve noticed that I’ve been doing a lot less posting. What have I been doing with the time otherwise spent posting things on the internet?

Looking for work.

I’ve been unemployed since my return to this country after gaining my master’s degree, so about 8 months now. Said months have been entirely on the poverty line where me and my partner have been playing a game of chicken with the clock just trying to avoid eviction and homelessness, often on the back of assistance by friends and family.

Now, I am very grateful for that help, but the whole situation has been soul-destroying in a way that is hard to translate into words.

Sending at times up to 20 resumes in a single day simply to receive nothing back in turn. Spending one’s days doing “everything right” in how one sends out one’s resumes and applications, spending over 8 hour days just working on job searching and getting little but “wow, you’re pretty experienced” from resume helpers and static from the actual companies I apply for, even the retail positions.

These actions infect you, no matter how strong you assumed your self-esteem or individualist streak to be. You start questioning your own worth. Inner demons of low-self-esteem, anxiety, terror at the void, become consuming. You start to wake up every morning, heart-automatically beating fast as you hope that this day you’ll at least have an interview.

In 8 months of searching, I have sent out over 1000 applications in a variety of fields. I have received 3 total interviews. One is up in the air, possibly destroyed by a recent “distraction” and “compromise” involving further slashing the California Education budget. Another was dismayed that being a full-time student that I had only managed to get 3+ years of academic lab experience (i.e. job experience in labs run by Universities) rather than industry experience and thus might not be suited for their entry level position doing essentially what I did for my master’s thesis. The third was a seasonal retail stint that was my sole breath of employment.

During this time, I have neglected self care. Only recently have I begun fighting myself and started to consider investing time in side-projects to keep myself sane while I search. One of whom I hope to bring to this site by year’s end.

Of course, it’s easy to understand the fixation. Unlike Denmark, whose cozy culture I grew very comfortable with in my two year’s abroad, there is no safety net here in America.

If I can’t find a job, the welfare system may throw me a few pennies to use for feeding myself mayonnaise while living in a box on the street. Unlike Denmark’s system, I will not receive a minimum living wage until I can manage to secure full-time employment.

Considering our capitalist system requires that a certain percentage of the population be unemployed at any given time and that we’ve even begun deluding ourselves by changing how we count “unemployed” people so the numbers don’t look as bad, you’d think it critical that we actually allow such people the chance to survive, but then, that would require us to give a shit about whether people live or die.

Lack of employment holds far greater weight than just that.

Lack of employment also means lack of health insurance.

Well, more or less. I mean, the anemic HRC passed means that I, for only a brief time more, have access to my parent’s health insurance. Which they “have”, from working a decent enough middle class job.

Except, despite the reforms, my parent’s health insurance is an open scam. Any attempt to actually use it guarantees requiring out-of-service doctors as few medical providers have even heard of the health insurance company in question. There is little way to contact a human at the providing company and the company refuses to pay any medical bill acquired, leaving one essentially the same as one without medical insurance.

Neither me or my parents can afford to get sick or injured at the moment and my parents have been unable to help me out in my quest for survival as they’ve been finding this out with a minor hospital bill.

Whether this will change when “things go into effect” in 2012 remains to be seen, but it’s a reason I bristle sometimes at those who want to pretend that HRC “ended” the debate on health care. The “fix” fixed nothing.

Now, lack of health insurance is something a lot in my generation have had to deal with. It’s a common state of things for those under 30, but for me, there’s another stabbing wound caused by this situation.

I’m transgendered.

Now, not every transgendered person seeks medical or hormone therapy to be who they are.

However, I really want said therapy. One could say I desperately need such therapy. I’m coping the best I can, but each continued week with no interviews, no real hope of an end to this current state of being, I have to face inner demons.

Will I ever have access to hormones? Will I ever have access even to one-on-one therapy? How long must I delay being myself, dragging the edge of my gender dissonance against the ground especially with the attacks of low self-esteem and self-hatred caused by the cultural shock of returning to the States and it’s lack of social support network.

These are not light questions and while I’ve tried to make use of what resources I can, I can’t escape the fact that my life is on hold, in Hell, until I can not only find a job, but one with either inclusive health insurance or a damn fine paycheck that I can afford counseling and hormones on my own.

The belief that this will happen soon, much less at all, is rapidly draining.

And this coincides with the fact that this country is a gender-segregated mess that assaults my gender dissonance ever fucking time I head out, which demands I lie and feel inhuman every time I fill out an application for a job.

Seriously, this culture enforces the gender divide stronger than I remembered before leaving. Everything is gender coded and even single-stall toilets are carefully divided into a male and a female restroom even when it would be easier simply to label them bathrooms and let them be gender neutral.

Most every application has required identification by sex, causing a strong question and a bout of depression every fucking time I send out one. I send out several a day.

Worse than that, is the other ways the applications force one to lie and betray oneself.

I don’t know if many others have sent out retail applications lately, but retail applications have begun to do some pretty close to illegal bullshit in their “personality tests” of late.

Sure, there’s the usual pablum about whether you think customers are god’s chosen people and whether you think stealing is worse than stabbing someone to death for stealing.

But there is also direct questions intended to weed out anyone with depression, anxiety, or disabilities as unworthy of employment, basically asking everyone to be sunny and nimble like a fox just to be worthy of consideration.

Worse than that though is that the questions have recently been asking very carefully worded questions basically making sure one is conservatively minded and lacks liberal tendencies.

Not just the already questionable “are you a supporter of unions” type bullshit, but questions about whether one trusts current political leaders, what one thinks of current political issues, and what one thinks about the goodness of capitalism in all things and it’s inability to ever do wrong or the inability of a company to ever work against the interests of its workers.

Oh yeah, you better act like you love the taste of Free Market Jesus if you want employment at any retail chain in the good old USA.

So that’s what we got, a mess of a situation, bereft of social net, bereft of necessary medical care, tortured by the situation to the point where it is a daily battle against my own suicidal tendencies, and a number of political debate centers around things that spell life or death for me and those close to me…

Or it would, but instead it’s a bunch of Republicans trying to kill me and a bunch of Democrats trying to figure out how to help me so little that the Republicans will stop calling them socialists.

And frankly, America sucks right now. My life sucks.

This shouldn’t happen. We shouldn’t allow so many people to be on such a thin razor for everything.

We need a functional social safety net in this country. We need real genuine stipends, equal to a minimum living wage to the unemployed and underemployed and if that seems like a lot of people, then we better damn start employing some people.

We need real reform of the broken health care system, one where the current crop of scam artists have no input (not to punish them, but because they make their money by finding means to provide zero health care).

We need real reform in how we treat minorities, so that one can be themselves on their own terms, instead of forcing themselves through Hell on the off-chance that they’ll eventually be comfortable enough that it makes “financial sense”.

We need to care whether people live or die, prosper or suffer, thrive or collapse.

Coming home to America should have been joyous. A time to reunite with loved ones and be glad. It shouldn’t have been a nightmare that makes me wonder how stupid I was to ever make such a daft mistake.

America is not the best of all current systems.

It is the most broken, hideous, heinous system in the developed world and it is my firm belief that there is no reason why that should be the case.

We can be better. We should be better.

And I hope to fight all my life to try and make what is happening to me an archaic unthinkable notion.

But for now. Life sucks.

America sucks.

Rant over.

VERY LATE UPDATE: As Victoria points out below. I was massively wrong when I posted this about the number of dead. In my defense, I was following the usually decent transgender day of remembrance website, but still bad on me. As she points out, the number was actually 186 and as she notes will probably go up even if things get better as that means we’ll see more reporting of crimes that used to be “disappeared” or unreported on. If there is a bright side, it is that the political climate is improving slightly with some decent legislation and declarations going through the US and UN and countries like Canada starting to pass formal declarations of gender identity rights. But yes, sorry. The original post is in full below:

So, it’s that time of the year again. The time of the year where we take some time to stop and mourn those murdered in the past year because they dared be who they were. Who were murdered as a message to all trans people to stay hidden, unprotected, and afraid of the larger world.

It is where we mourn our losses and reignite our strength for resistance and self-resiliency.

It is a thoroughly depressing day, but a necessary one to highlight the way we are still slaughtered like animals by the society we coexist with.

Here is this year’s list of our fallen.

Among the fallen this year is Mariah Qualls, a young transgender activist who lived in San Francisco, which is quite near where I’ve moved to be with my partner and where I’ve been getting back into street transgender activism.

These deaths are not only heart-breaking because of who they were, who loved them, and why they are killed. They are also heart-breaking because they are part of a terrorist campaign to make every transgendered person scared to walk the streets, open their doors, admit who they are to potential friends, allies, lovers. It is a force trying to make us be silent so they can pretend we don’t exist, so our deaths will continue to mean nothing to the public at large.

And if there is one ray of sunshine to this year, it’s that the list is at least much shorter than last year’s.

It seems actions like the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr Hate Crimes Prevention Act and the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and gender identity, both passed in the last two years, have started to pay off in governments and police departments taking our murders more seriously.

Additionally, the Angie Zapata murder trial may have acted as a watershed moment where the oft-employed “Trans Panic Defense” finally met its first failure to sway the jury to an unjust decision.

Basically, after so many Days of Remembrances and so much blood, our deaths, at least by murder (the one-third of transgendered people who end their lives by suicide are still invisible to the culture at large), seem to be starting to be taken seriously.

It doesn’t fix anything. And we still have a list far too long for liking to read and mourn this year.

But maybe…

Just maybe…

Things are starting to get better…

And we can begin to dream of a day when the list numbers zero and we can remember this day only as a historical anomaly.


In the meantime, if you have time, consider attending one of these events tonight. Yes, it’s depressing, but it’s important for all of us to feel that we are not alone and that we are not the only ones who care about our dead.

Because with the recent political moves, it’s clear that that last statement has the added benefit of being true.

RIP Mariah Qualls and all those others struck down in their primes.

We mourn you all.

So in an earlier post, I went off on a problem that has been bothering me for awhile in the way that many of my fellow LGBT have been turning to open trans-erasure in order to continue a hate-on for the Commander-in-Chief.

Well, this one is also a response, but not to anything wide-spread or as deeply problematic as the “Hate Crimes Bill, what Hate Crimes Bill” wanking for the last year. No, it’s a response to something I’ve seen only occasionally and usually only as a random question based on the most famous term for one of the biggest current issues for the LGBT community.

That is “why should I a insert non LG queer group here care about gay marriage“.

Now, the question isn’t often asked, but it’s one worth addressing, because it arises entirely owing to media representation of the issue (much like media representation of all LGBT issues).

Of course, this framing makes sense, seeing as, of all the LGBTQIA groups that are affected, lesbians and gays are certainly those most affected and most thoroughly affected by access and recognition of secular same sex nuptials, but it leads to the problem where some, small minority of Bs, Ts, Is, and the rest wonder whether they are being shoved aside for a LG-only issue.

They are not. And I will now demonstrate the direct ways the full spectrum is affected by same-sex marriage rights.


Man, do bisexuals ever get flak on the marriage issue. There are the idiots who view them as incapable of marriage (because you’ll hurr hurr, want to marry more than one person, because monogamy and bisexuality surely couldn’t ever exist and oh yeah, there’s an assumption that there is something wrong and incapable of long-term relationships with being polyamorous) at all.

There is also a segment of people who almost just write them off from the marriage question and fight entirely because “they can just pass as straight” and “marry someone of the opposite sex”.

True, to a degree, but that degree is completely stupid.

See, that might make sense if love was like a free transfer between football clubs and one could simply move one’s emotions of love between one person and another to better choose how those feelings arose.

Love isn’t this Bolton Striker, no offense to the man

But see, bisexuals, being well, bi, can just as easily find their one true love, the person they want to spend the rest of their life with, who they want to make that life-long connection with, or who they want to form a legal family with inside a same-sex partner.

Just because they may be attracted to partners of either, won’t stop this from occurring and indeed the simple reality of statistics will ensure this situation probably comes up about half the time.

These couples are just as screwed as “pure” L or G couples and they are being heavily limited in which families get legal protection and which don’t.

Heck, bisexuals may be the most aware of the unfairness of the ruling simply because they are intimately aware that their loves and relationships with same-sex partners and opposite-sex partners are treated entirely differently despite being in every way the same.

Not to mention that a bisexual who is married now to an opposite sex partner could very well be screwed in the case of say being widowed or a divorce, where their next relationship could face the exact same hardships as many gay couples.

As such, bisexuals have a vested interest in passing it in order to ensure that who they fall in love with doesn’t have to contend with bigoted restrictions by the law.

Transsexuals, Transgender

So okay, we Ts have some outs by which we can get “secretly gay married” making a mockery of the bans and the inanity of the restrictions. Me and my partner have considered such a pairing in the future.

Basically, same-sex relationship transpeople could get married as “heterosexuals” and then go through legal sex-change (in States that recognize it) and be “gay married”. Similarly, opposite-sex relationship transpeople can get married post legal sex-change (in states that recognize it) as the opposite-sex couple they are.

Thing is, is while that legal loophole can be exploited for glorious bigot head-explosions, it’s also way too needlessly complex and porous.

It’s also worth shit unless I stay in one place.

See this old feministe post on how a marriage could change and one’s “legal sex” could change state by state making a road-trip a confusing mess that could see one’s marriage rights seen as non-binding.

As was stated:

“Taking this situation to its logical conclusion, Mrs. Littleton, while in San Antonio, Texas, is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Texas, and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male.”

Yeah, so there’s that mess. Then there is also the mess that okay, I can get “secretly gay married” to my partner if I marry before my legal sex change, but not after. If I or another “secretly gay married” trans person were to get divorced and fall in love with someone of the same legal sex later, I’d be just as screwed.

Similarly, opposite sex married transsexuals are at risk if anyone should decide to attack their legal sex or legal sex protections end up being repealed by future legal moves. Or if they just happen to be in one of the number of states that provide no means to change one’s legal sex.

Or hell, just by dickish vindictive family members like in this story where a recently widowed transwoman is being dragged to court by her husband’s family because of all sorts of bullshit.

A “marriage” that can be shredded at any time and could become void if you move or travel from state to state is not a legally protected family unit or a marriage equal to that granted cisgendered heterosexual couples.

As such, transpeople most definitely have a vested interest in passing gay marriage just to make life simpler to handle.

Intersex, Third Gender, Gender Queer, etc…

Similar to the trans issue. What is one’s legal sex, what sex is the person one happened to fall in love with, are their dickish family members who’ll fight you anyways because you’re “not really the right gender” by their standards? What did the doctors dictate, what does the state allow, how do you check the boxes on forms without any gender neutral option?

These can limit legal options and freedom of creating secular legal families.

There is the biggest impact for these groups however in something only lightly touched on in (but not at all unimportant) in the social acceptance angle.

Legal gay marriage is in many ways like a stick of dynamite in the war regarding social recognition of the humanity and loves of transgressive queer groups. It destroys a lot of opposition and mellows people out of their 1950s TV “Leave it to Beaver” hallucination of what “proper relationships” are supposed to look like.

Seeing people in love being all sorts of people, gay, straight, and other means they get used to it and stop seeing it as a threat.

As such, one will become less likely to be harassed with a partner of either sex based on perceived gender makeup of the relationship.

Not to mention that fear of “wrong sexualities” has been one of the motivators for the barbaric habit of “correcting” intersex genitalia in childhood (i.e. chopping up penises and clitorises) in order to protect a narrow view of marriage. Remove that “selling point” to the fucked up scared parents of the world and these butcher doctors have a lot less angle to practice their sick “aid”.

As such, removal of gender restrictions in marriage has a lot of benefits for those outside the gender binary.


Same place as bisexuals, really. Sure a number of asexuals (aromantic asexuals), don’t form or don’t want to form romantic relationships and married partnerships, but that’s not all asexuals.

Some other asexuals still fall in love or are otherwise seeking romantic relationships (romantic asexuals) and as such can run into the same trap as bisexuals of happening to fall in love with a person of the same-sex and find one’s soulmate there.

Are they to be restricted from marrying these people because some bigots have “issues” with same-sex sexual activity and somehow thinks that makes a compelling secular case for banning same-sex unions? Of course not.

It’s even more insanely offensive in that these “same-sex” partnerships will probably end up being more “chaste” and “Precious Moments” sexless than pretty much all heterosexual relationships including the repressed unhappy affairs of the loudest bigots, yet even the most crass and tasteless heterosexual union, entered into only to get “Jesus-approved” sex and then to the Divorce Court in the morning will be treated with more respect than something that can only be based in love, completely free of lust.

Not dissing lust, but it rather highlights the inanity of the opposition in the same way as the trans “legal loopholes” reveal the obvious failure of the restrictions.

As such, romantic asexuals have a vested interest in full marriage equality.

So finally,


Especially straight feminists and straight women in general. This recent Pandagon post really says all that needs to be said on the why of it.

Basically, the opposition forces to gay marriage often use a term called “traditional marriage”.

Now, many of us, write this crap up as the usual bigotry invented language trying to make heterosexual marriages of the 50s into some sainted perfect thing, blah, blah, blah, but the fact of the matter is that there really is a format of marriage they see as “under attack” and which may even finally disappear with the wide-spread approval of gay marriages.

That structure?

Gender-role based, “woman as chattel, free housekeeper, child-raiser, whore in the bedroom”, and the general patriarchal mess where marriages were not about love, but were simply the Jesus-based avenue where one was finally allowed to have sex without social sanctions. I.e. “traditional marriage”.

You can see it in the general arguments the anti-gay marriage forces use. There is no recognition of marriage as a union of loving couples and very little respect for sexual consent and the equal treatment of women. In fact, the same groups that are rabidly against women’s rights such as the Concerned Women of America are the same forces that fight gay marriage.

Maggie Gallagher, the main opponent to gay marriage and head of the anti-gay Mormon front NOM, got her start in the 80s as a dedicated anti-feminist activist fighting against equal-pay-for-equal-work, see here.

Indeed, the battle they seem to be drawing is between marriage as a duty-based loveless union one enters solely for “procreation” and the “glory of God” (i.e. the perpetuation of the patriarchy and the sacrifice of one’s happiness to its cold perpetuity).

The same forces target single-parents, no-fault divorce, and often speak out in support of abuse and against one leaving abusive or rapist partners.

And they are right that such relationship structures and marriage views still today have strong followings in areas with strict conservative religious upbringings such as Fundamentalist Christians, Catholics, Orthodox Jews, conservative muslim and hindu populations, and of course, the Mormons.

Yeah, they are definitely fighting for a “marriage”, one bruised and battered by feminist gains where many of us young simply expect that marriage is about two people who love each other and want to have social recognition for that love.

Where partnerships are partnerships of equals or at least striving for equality where the union is based in love and respect rather than duty, a need to get laid, pregnancy necessity, or the like.

Gay marriage is the last stake through that vampires heart, the visual example that the “necessity of gender roles” is bullshit and that one “owes” unhappiness to one’s children other than competent care by loving parents in homes that aren’t like war zones.

Where one can be who one wants and fall in love with whoever they so happen to fall in love with, without artificial restrictions and chains dragging them down.

As such, straight feminists, women, and men who aren’t morons all benefit from gay marriage delivering the deathblow to this outdated and misogynist view of marriage as trap rather than expression of love.

It’s an issue for all of us, and one we are very close to reaching, so close it’s almost driving us in the LGBT community insane as if it was an apple dangled over our nose perpetually out of reach like it was a punishment in Tartarus.

But we’re starting to get a taste, a few savory bites and all we can say is “soon, oh so soon, we’ll eat that apple of equality.”

And we’re all in it for the fight.

Prop 8 Overturned

Sure, it’s already appealed and there’s a stay preventing new marriages for a bit and the Supreme Court is filled with fuckwads, but this is an important ruling nonetheless.

The ruling is damning to the openly discriminatory “arguments” of the other side.

Basically the findings of fact made clear what we’ve known for awhile, that the side against same sex marriage has no legal argument whatsoever. None. Nothing to defend themselves in secular law, which is a pretty big deal because as much as they’d like to whine otherwise, marriage is and always has been a secular affair.

Who knows how long they’ll be able to stay atop the wave of ever-shrinking bigotry to keep the discrimination going?

But it can’t be much longer. Things are visibly braking down and the other side is shocked to find that the bigotry of this country might not be enough anymore to prevent the truth from blowing them apart and leave them to the winds of time like the Tea Party movement still bitter at losing the Civil Rights Act battle of 50 years ago.

In short, this could be the final nail in the coffin, another chip in the wall, or maybe the beginning of the last stand of bigotry in the form of a negative Supreme Court ruling, but any way you slice it, the system is starting to crumble.

And perhaps, just perhaps, I’ll be able to marry my partner soon without feeling like I’m stabbing fellow queers in the back.

It’s a good day right-minded America, go out and celebrate!