Back to top.

In right column, third from the bottom: Xena’s arms!

03.07.14 205
Zoom Source: http://s1.zetaboards.com/L_Anon/topic/4937122/10/
03.02.14 5
Zoom Phyllis Broughton.
Source: The Butch Life

Phyllis Broughton.

Source: The Butch Life

03.02.14 4
Zoom andiwanttobelikeyou:

Xena: Warrior Princess 6x22 A Friend in Need pt. 2
It’s not the gentle part I have a problem with. It’s the dull, stupid part.

andiwanttobelikeyou:

Xena: Warrior Princess 6x22 A Friend in Need pt. 2

It’s not the gentle part I have a problem with. It’s the dull, stupid part.

02.13.14 296
BUTCH
02.05.14 0

thatradicalnotion:

Lisa Simpson at Stuff-n-Hug

02.04.14 256404
Zoom Abby Wambach.

Abby Wambach.

02.01.14 5
Zoom causewecool:

spankmeagainplease:
Feel free to sexually harass me if you’re male. You know what they say “Boys will be boys.”. Although I’m not sure any of you will want to do that since I’m not very modest, therefore not attractive.--------The new principal at my school used two phrases while addressing new dress code rules to a class."Modest is hottest." and "Boys will be boys."He should have said something more along the lines of: “The school dress code was established to provide our students with a safe and orderly learning environment that is free from distractions.”Let’s start with the phrase “Modest is hottest.” Shall we?Modest-Having or showing a moderate estimation of one’s own talents, abilities, and value.If modest is hottest, then it’s not modest.You are literally sending the message to young girls, who are already struggling with self confidence, that hiding their body makes them more attractive. You are establishing a sense of shame in these young, developing minds and bodies. A human has the right to wear whatever they feel comfortable in. Showing less skin doesn’t make you any more attractive. Showing more skin does not make you any less attractive. When someone calls you attractive that just means that they are attracted to you.At what point in your career did you find it appropriate to define my “hotness”? Why are you at all concerned with how “hot” I am? You are teaching us, through modesty, to be objects of sexual arousal. I’m sorry, but I don’t dress myself to look “hot” for anyone. I dress myself as a way of expressing myself and my body. “If covering up my body is supposed to make people sexually/physically attracted to me, then how would those people feel if I decide to have sexual relations with them, without clothes on?” “How am I supposed to love and feel proud of my naked body and develop a sense of sexuality when exposing my body is deemed shameful and unattractive?” Since when should being “hot” be my concern. I don’t want to be with someone who just thinks I’m hot. I want to be with someone who loves and respects all the parts of my mind, personality, and body. THAT’S what you should be teaching, not “How to be hot.”.My body is not a sinful temptation that needs to be hidden. My body is not your personal, sexual object. My body does not overshadow my character. My body is not any more sexual than a man’s body. My body is not here to look “hot” for you.Next up is “Boys will be boys.”Being a boy refers to your gender. That’s all.It does not make you constantly sexually aroused, animalistic, or sexually uncontrollable, but for some reason society has come to the conclusion that you are this stereotype. This is extremely sad. This gender stereotype is unfair to all men. By telling them who they are as a man you are absolutely taking away their moral agency. “But he’s a teenager. He’s raging with hormones.” You don’t think I’m raging with hormones as well? Believe me I am. Men are not stupid. They are not unable to see when someone is not consenting to sex. It’s not ‘in their nature’ to rape because they are a man, it’s not ‘in their nature’ because IT’S WRONG TO RAPE SOMEONE. Raping someone is a cognitive choice. (how modestly the victim dresses does not affect them being raped). When the few people that do sexually harass people happen to be male and you use the excuse “Boys will be boys.” you are not only excusing their behavior, you are condoning it. It’s this “Boys will be boys.” mentality, culture, and attitude that condone sexual assault. Whenever the excuse “Boys will be boys.” is used, it’s just an exercise of male privilege. It’s this attitude that condones sexual assault. You are giving them a free license that makes it okay for them to be sexually violent, that says “Well I’m a boy, it’s just who I am.” Sex needs to stop being about “no no no bad dirty gross shameful” and start being about “Yes. Let’s have consenting sex because I want to.” Consent. THAT’S what you should be teaching, not “Well you know how they are… Boys will be boys!” Boys are not sexually uncontrollable.Boys do not have a genetic, animalistic, violent nature.Boys are not born with a natural desire for destruction or control.Despite what society and culture keeps trying to cram down everyone’s throat, having a penis doesn’t make it okay to sexually harass someone. The false idea that men can’t control themselves is so unfair and completely ridiculous.


—————————————————————————————————————————————-


The next day He called me down to his office to discuss my concerns. (Students and teachers told him about it, which I expected)




I spent a good hour and a half arguing with the principle about his comments when he called me down to his office, today. I offered to send him what I posted if he was interested in reading it. He said “No, that won’t be necessary.” I explained to him that I wanted him to read what I wrote and I would appreciate it if he did. He said “No, I don’t really care to read it. That’s okay.”I asked him what he meant by the phrase “boys will be boys” and he explained that if a girl is inappropriately dressed that it can lead to inappropriate, sexual touching and staring (sexual harassment). If a boy chooses to sexually harass someone, it’s his choice no matter what his gender is.He explained to me that boys are more “wound up” than girls are. I didn’t quite understand what he meant by that so I asked him for a different adjective and after a minute of mumbling he chose the word “aggressive” but then followed that up with “…well I don’t think that’s the correct word to use…”. I agree, not the best word to use, eh? I asked him to explain why boys are different than girls in this regard and he said “Well to start, all boys are attracted to girls…” I interrupted with “No. There are actually boys who are attracted to other boys.” He laughed and said “Oh, yes of course!”… I guess that part must have slipped his mind.I asked him, in general, what the difference is between girls and boys. He said that boys “misbehave more” and are “outgoing”. He said that girls are “reserved”. That’s all. That’s the word he used, “reserved”. Boys and girls are different because they have different organs and hormones. Being a girl doesn’t automatically make me reserved. Just like being a boy doesn’t make you automatically misbehave. I explained to him that by using the phrase “Boys will be boys.”, he is excusing and condoning bad behavior from boys, such as sexual harassment and rape. “But that’s not reality, that’s your opinion.” he said. He explained that his daughters “behave” and that his nephews were disrespectful… because they are boys. I said “That has nothing to do with their gender. They act that way because of how they were raised, the environment they are living in, and the choices they make.” I told him that the phrases he used were sexist and stereotypical and unfair to all genders. I explained to him that many students and people of society were offended by what he said and the phrases he used. I told him that I thought he should apologize for what he said and explain to students and society that this kind of message is not okay or appropriate.He said he wouldn’t apologize for that, but he would give me an apology, which was “I’m sorry you feel that way.” After he dodged almost every question I asked by sharing his plans to improve LHS, he decided that he had had enough of not being able to answer my questions or concerns and ended our discussion by saying “I’m going to end this discussion.” and I was sent back to class.



There is so much wrong with what this principal is doing that I can’t even list it, but yeah here’s your takeaway:
He explained that his daughters “behave” and that his nephews were disrespectful… because they are boys. I said “That has nothing to do with their gender. They act that way because of how they were raised, the environment they are living in, and the choices they make.” 
They are disrespectful because you have specifically told them they can do whatever they want and you will excuse it because they’re boys!
Lakeland Senior High School and his name is Mr. Martinez

causewecool:

spankmeagainplease:

Feel free to sexually harass me if you’re male. You know what they say “Boys will be boys.”. Although I’m not sure any of you will want to do that since I’m not very modest, therefore not attractive.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

The new principal at my school used two phrases while addressing new dress code rules to a class.

"Modest is hottest." and "Boys will be boys."

He should have said something more along the lines of: “The school dress code was established to provide our students with a safe and orderly learning environment that is free from distractions.”

Let’s start with the phrase “Modest is hottest.” Shall we?

Modest-Having or showing a moderate estimation of one’s own talents, abilities, and value.

If modest is hottest, then it’s not modest.

You are literally sending the message to young girls, who are already struggling with self confidence, that hiding their body makes them more attractive. You are establishing a sense of shame in these young, developing minds and bodies. A human has the right to wear whatever they feel comfortable in. Showing less skin doesn’t make you any more attractive. Showing more skin does not make you any less attractive. When someone calls you attractive that just means that they are attracted to you.

At what point in your career did you find it appropriate to define my “hotness”? Why are you at all concerned with how “hot” I am? You are teaching us, through modesty, to be objects of sexual arousal. I’m sorry, but I don’t dress myself to look “hot” for anyone. I dress myself as a way of expressing myself and my body. “If covering up my body is supposed to make people sexually/physically attracted to me, then how would those people feel if I decide to have sexual relations with them, without clothes on?” “How am I supposed to love and feel proud of my naked body and develop a sense of sexuality when exposing my body is deemed shameful and unattractive?” Since when should being “hot” be my concern. I don’t want to be with someone who just thinks I’m hot. I want to be with someone who loves and respects all the parts of my mind, personality, and body. THAT’S what you should be teaching, not “How to be hot.”.

My body is not a sinful temptation that needs to be hidden. 
My body is not your personal, sexual object. 
My body does not overshadow my character. 
My body is not any more sexual than a man’s body. 
My body is not here to look “hot” for you.

Next up is “Boys will be boys.”

Being a boy refers to your gender. That’s all.

It does not make you constantly sexually aroused, animalistic, or sexually uncontrollable, but for some reason society has come to the conclusion that you are this stereotype. This is extremely sad. This gender stereotype is unfair to all men. By telling them who they are as a man you are absolutely taking away their moral agency. “But he’s a teenager. He’s raging with hormones.” You don’t think I’m raging with hormones as well? Believe me I am. Men are not stupid. They are not unable to see when someone is not consenting to sex. It’s not ‘in their nature’ to rape because they are a man, it’s not ‘in their nature’ because IT’S WRONG TO RAPE SOMEONE. Raping someone is a cognitive choice. (how modestly the victim dresses does not affect them being raped). When the few people that do sexually harass people happen to be male and you use the excuse “Boys will be boys.” you are not only excusing their behavior, you are condoning it. It’s this “Boys will be boys.” mentality, culture, and attitude that condone sexual assault. Whenever the excuse “Boys will be boys.” is used, it’s just an exercise of male privilege. It’s this attitude that condones sexual assault. You are giving them a free license that makes it okay for them to be sexually violent, that says “Well I’m a boy, it’s just who I am.” Sex needs to stop being about “no no no bad dirty gross shameful” and start being about “Yes. Let’s have consenting sex because I want to.” Consent. THAT’S what you should be teaching, not “Well you know how they are… Boys will be boys!” 

Boys are not sexually uncontrollable.
Boys do not have a genetic, animalistic, violent nature.
Boys are not born with a natural desire for destruction or control.

Despite what society and culture keeps trying to cram down everyone’s throat, having a penis doesn’t make it okay to sexually harass someone. The false idea that men can’t control themselves is so unfair and completely ridiculous.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
The next day He called me down to his office to discuss my concerns. (Students and teachers told him about it, which I expected)
I spent a good hour and a half arguing with the principle about his comments when he called me down to his office, today. I offered to send him what I posted if he was interested in reading it. He said “No, that won’t be necessary.” I explained to him that I wanted him to read what I wrote and I would appreciate it if he did. He said “No, I don’t really care to read it. That’s okay.”

I asked him what he meant by the phrase “boys will be boys” and he explained that if a girl is inappropriately dressed that it can lead to inappropriate, sexual touching and staring (sexual harassment). If a boy chooses to sexually harass someone, it’s his choice no matter what his gender is.
He explained to me that boys are more “wound up” than girls are. I didn’t quite understand what he meant by that so I asked him for a different adjective and after a minute of mumbling he chose the word “aggressive” but then followed that up with “…well I don’t think that’s the correct word to use…”. I agree, not the best word to use, eh? 

I asked him to explain why boys are different than girls in this regard and he said “Well to start, all boys are attracted to girls…” I interrupted with “No. There are actually boys who are attracted to other boys.” He laughed and said “Oh, yes of course!”… I guess that part must have slipped his mind.

I asked him, in general, what the difference is between girls and boys. He said that boys “misbehave more” and are “outgoing”. He said that girls are “reserved”. That’s all. That’s the word he used, “reserved”. Boys and girls are different because they have different organs and hormones. Being a girl doesn’t automatically make me reserved. Just like being a boy doesn’t make you automatically misbehave. I explained to him that by using the phrase “Boys will be boys.”, he is excusing and condoning bad behavior from boys, such as sexual harassment and rape. “But that’s not reality, that’s your opinion.” he said. 

He explained that his daughters “behave” and that his nephews were disrespectful… because they are boys. I said “That has nothing to do with their gender. They act that way because of how they were raised, the environment they are living in, and the choices they make.” 

I told him that the phrases he used were sexist and stereotypical and unfair to all genders. I explained to him that many students and people of society were offended by what he said and the phrases he used. I told him that I thought he should apologize for what he said and explain to students and society that this kind of message is not okay or appropriate.

He said he wouldn’t apologize for that, but he would give me an apology, which was “I’m sorry you feel that way.” 

After he dodged almost every question I asked by sharing his plans to improve LHS, he decided that he had had enough of not being able to answer my questions or concerns and ended our discussion by saying “I’m going to end this discussion.” and I was sent back to class.
There is so much wrong with what this principal is doing that I can’t even list it, but yeah here’s your takeaway:

He explained that his daughters “behave” and that his nephews were disrespectful… because they are boys. I said “That has nothing to do with their gender. They act that way because of how they were raised, the environment they are living in, and the choices they make.”

They are disrespectful because you have specifically told them they can do whatever they want and you will excuse it because they’re boys!

Lakeland Senior High School and his name is Mr. Martinez

01.23.14 148771
I am Gay, not Queer

Komal Gilani

August 24th, 2013

The gay liberation movement has taken off only recently in South Asia. One of the most significant milestones in the advance of gay rights here is the decriminalization of male homosexual intercourse in India on 2nd July, 2009. The Delhi High Court’s repeal of section 377 of the Indian penal code – a section that criminalized all penile non-vaginal intercourse1 – was a step along India’s path to modernity and postmodernity, and gave new confidence to gay rights activists and gay citizens there2.

While I am excited to see these changes occur in Indian society, my enthusiasm for the South Asian gay rights movement is hampered (though only slightly) by the observation that the entire gay rights movement in South Asia has adopted the language of ‘LGBT’ and ‘queer’ without question. Indian gay rights organizations such as the Hamsafar Trust, DesiQ and Sangam all use the language of ‘LGBT’, ‘queer’ and ‘sexual minorities’ (the last one is relatively unproblematic, and I will comment on it later in the article). Some of the gay pride parades that take place in India are called ‘queer azadi’ parades3. The Pakistani gay rights movement is relatively minor and uninfluential, but even it has adopted these discourses entirely and without criticism. For example, the Organization for the Protection and Propogation of the Rights of Sexual Minorities (OPPRSM, also known as O) describes its own goals in terms of ‘LGBTQI people’, ‘queer communities’ and ‘sexual minorities’4. On the internet, the Facebook pages ‘Mujhay Tumse Kuch Kehna Tha’5 and ‘Queer Pakistan’6 – although they do wonderful work whose importance should not be understated – use the q-word in their self-descriptions.

It was not always like this with the gay liberation movement, however. In Europe and North America, 20th Century gay liberation and support groups included the Mattachine Society7 and the Daughters of Bilitis8 in the 1950s, and the Gay Liberation Front9, the Lavender Menace10 and the Effeminists11 in the 70s and 80s. Some of these movements were allied with feminist movements, including the radical feminist movement. The Effeminists, for example, considered themselves to be anti-sexist men, engaged in consciousness-raising around male privilege and aiming to abolish patriarchy and misogyny. They understood that their oppression as gay men, especially as effeminate gay men, was tied in with female oppression, as hatred of effeminacy in males has its roots in misogyny (when effeminate males are hated by macho heterosexual men, it is in part due to their perceived similarity to feminine females). The lesbian liberation and support groups were sometimes explicitly feminist – as in the case of the Lavender Menace –, and in general were able to appreciate the connection between feminism and lesbian liberation.

The South Asian gay rights movement has bypassed this whole process of defining our movement in terms of a certain vision of the future, connecting it with larger social movements, defining ourselves in terms of what is unique about us and in terms of what is positive – not positive in the sense of good, but positive in the sense of the presence of something. The commencement of the gay rights movement here occurred when the Western gay rights movement had already replaced the discourse of gay liberation and gay rights, and a theory that linked gay liberation with the abolition of patriarchy, with that of ‘LGBT’ and ‘queer’. The South Asian gay rights movement went straight from non-existent to ‘LGBT’, bypassing the radical and important stages in between that the Western gay liberation movement went through. This is not necessarily a problem, if one welcomes the use of ‘LGBT’ and the q-word. I, however, do not. I consider this a degradation of the movement, a loss of vision and theory, and something that encourages the stereotyping of gay and trans people and the defining of us by straight cisgender people according to what they regard as normal.

The ‘LGBT’ initialism is arbitrary and identity political. It refers to four different groups of people, without making it clear what binds us together and why we ought to be referred to together. The connection between the ‘L’ and the ‘G’ is relatively clear – they are both homosexual –, but between the ‘T’ and the other letters, and to a lesser degree the ‘B’ and the other letters, it is not clear what the connection is supposed to be. This makes it arbitrary, and the arbitrariness encourages less thoughtful people to use ‘gay’ and ‘LGBT’ interchangeably. This arbitrariness has unleashed a scourge of incorrect and unintelligible statements such as: ‘he is an LGBT’, ‘the repeal of section 377 of the penal code is a victory for the LGBT community’, ‘repeal of DODT a victory for the LGBT community’, ‘Canada legalizes LGBT marriage’, etc. A person cannot be an LGBT, as that implies being all four at once, which is impossible since some of the categories are mutually exclusive. The decriminalization of homosexuality, legalization of same-sex marriage and repeal of laws such as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, are not direct victories for anybody except homosexuals and bisexuals. And ‘LGBT marriage’ is a nonsensical term. This lack of clarity of thought is enabled by the use of an initialism that is characterised by and originates in lack of clarity of thought.

A further problem with ‘LGBT’ is that it defines the movement and community by identities rather than by a theory or vision of the future. It is identity political, and therefore exclusionary and shallow. If gay, bisexual and trans people get to be included under ‘LGBT’, why not others? Why not, for example, asexuals, pansexuals, genderqueer people, genderless people who do not self-identify as trans, people with fluid sexualities and genders, third-gender and two-spirit people, middle-aged men who like wearing diapers and dressing as little girls, people who identify as non-human animals, sadists and masochists, trans-ethnic people, people who identify as more than one person, straight people who identify as not-straight, cats with three legs, etc.?

The replacement of the word ‘gay’ with ‘LGBT’ and the pressure put upon the gay rights movement to include, without rhyme or reason, the empowerment of certain non-gay people as part of its agenda, has resulted in the marginalization of trans and bisexual people as well. ‘LGBT’ things of various sorts – magazines, organizations, etc. – end up giving more representation to homosexuality and homosexuals. For example, Gaylaxy Magazine describes itself as a magazine whose ‘articles range from health, cinema, major LGBT news from India and the world, user stories to issues of importance for the LGBT people’12. Yet in the very beginning of its self-description, it describes itself as an ‘online gay magazine’, covering ‘events of gay importance’. So which one is it, gay or LGBT? If the latter, then why privilege one out of those four by describing yourself as a magazine of that group? In practice, ‘LGBT’ often ends up meaning ‘LGBT but mainly gay, or just gay when we want it to be’. Using ‘gay’ and ‘LGBT’ interchangeably ends up sidelining trans and bisexual people – and even lesbians to the extent that ‘gay’ evokes images of gay males.

The above point regarding exclusionariness has been raised by some in the ‘queer’ camp. The q-word is supposed to have the advantage of including every way of being sexual or having a gender that is different from the norm. This means that in the list I mentioned above, all items except ‘people who identify as non-human animals’, ‘trans-ethnic people’, ‘people who identify as more than one person’, and ‘cats with three legs’ are included under ‘queer’. The exclusionariness created by the identity political nature of ‘LGBT’ cannot be solved by replacing it with the q-word, as the latter is just a vaguer, more directionless, more amoral, un-philosophical, and more heteronormative identity politics. It is vaguer and more directionless because it is less clear what falls under it, more amoral because it can encompass morally wrong things (such as sadomasochism), un-philosophical because of lacking clarity of thought or well-formed theory, and more heteronormative because it defines itself in relation to the norm. David M. Halperin’s description of the difference between gay and ‘queer’ is helpful in making my point:

“Unlike gay identity which, though deliberately proclaimed in an act of affirmation, is nonetheless rooted in the positive fact of homosexual object-choice, queer identity need not be grounded in any positive truth or in any stable reality. As the very word implies, ‘queer’ does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence.”13

He then goes on to say that a married couple without children can be considered ‘queer’ because their lifestyle is oppositional to the norm (married people are expected to have children). This obscures the differences between gay and straight people, the differences between trans and cis people, etc. by defining us in a negative way: as something other than what is normative.

The discourse of ‘sexual minorities’ doesn’t fare much better. Sexuality is different from gender, so technically a heterosexual transsexual is not a member of any sexual minority. On the other hand, pedophiles and people who commit incest are sexual minorities, since their sexuality is infrequent (they are a numerical minority) and marginalized. If ‘sexual minorities’ was changed to ‘sexual and gender minorities’, that would not improve things much, as it still defines us by our minority status rather than the what it means to be us and what the significance of being the way we are is, it still puts together different groups that have distinct experiences and unique identities, it is still amoral since it can encompass bad sexual minorities (pedophiles, people who commit incest) and it still lacks theory and vision.

I urge gay, trans, bisexual, asexual, gender non-conforming, and all those people who currently fall under ‘queer’ and whose way of being is valuable and healthy, to embrace what makes them unique and not define themselves by their difference from the norm. Being a homosexual for me means more than just not being heterosexual: it is being attracted to people who are like me, rather than to the ‘other’, it is rising above nature and animalistic instincts of procreation, it is being in an egalitarian relationship with another female, it is intimacy without alienation and without roles, and it is an androgyny that manifests new possibilities of being and consciousness that are not polarized along gender lines. To define me as ‘queer’, that is, as strange, is to do a great injustice to me, and to take away from people who do not understand the phenomenology of homosexuality the opportunity to understand it, by telling them that what it means to be gay is to be deviant from the way they are. The significance of androgynous, genderless homosexuality is entirely different from, for example, the significance of heterosexual, binarist transsexualism, but ‘queer’ disregards our uniqueness and emphasizes our difference from the norm, thus giving power to the normies to define who we are.

Gay, trans, etc. identities are not inherently exclusionary, and having movements that are about gay liberation, trans liberation and so on is also not inherently exclusionary. Gay rights is not necessarily identity political, as inclusion in the movement does not depend on identity (people of any identity can be part of it, provided they support the cause), and if the movement has a well-formed theory and clearly defined vision of the future, then it can use that to orientate itself rather than using arbitrary rules about who can be a member of some community and who cannot to orientate itself. Gay rights, trans rights, and gender abolitionism – which is an important topic in its own right and will be the subject of a future article – should model themselves on feminism, which is not identity political but has a certain theory and vision of the future. This ensures maximum inclusiveness, as people of any identity can support and participate in the movement, but without arbitrary labels and groupings, and without reinforcing heteronormativity in the process of trying to challenge it.

1 “377. Unnatural offences: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offense described in this section.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code

13 Halperin, David M. Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 62.

01.22.14 4
Zoom xenagateguard:

Xena
01.07.14 215