Open Letter to Queer Alllies

So it was Pride here in St Louis last weekend. I had a great time of course, but i was really struck this year by the rampant consumerism and air of assimilation about the place. I've always felt like Pride should be a protest, and in many countries it IS, but there was absolutely ZERO feeling of activism at our Pride. I was trying to explain how horrified I was by the assimilation/consumerism to my parents, but they thought that it was really great that society has gotten to the point that MacDonald's will have a stall at a gay pride event, whereas in the past they would have shunned it. Their position was essentially that queer people have arrived as a model minority in that they are now being welcomed into fold of mainstream consumer America.

But here's the thing: It's all a trick. We all know that MacDonald's doesn't give two farts who you fuck as long as you'll shell out your dough for their greasy cardboard burger. But more importantly, the assimilation of Pride by consumerist America serves to distract us from the fact that our community is constantly dehumanized and oppressed. See, you're just like everyone else now that MacDonald's will cater to you! You TOO can redecorate your big fat unnecessary summer-home by buying thermal windows and shopping at Macy's! How can you feel discriminated against when so many icons of mainstream America are willing to make a special trip to Pride just to give you a coupon? As Audre Lorde said, "Unless one lives and loves in the trenches, it is difficult to remember that the war against dehumanization is ceaseless."

But we must NOT forget that there IS a psychological — and sometimes physical — war against queer people in this country. Queer youth are forced to grow up trying to cram themselves into a social model that doesn't include them. They do not have the support of their own community because they do not KNOW that they are part of that community. They do not have the support of their family because, for the most part, their family has never had the same struggle that they have. While they are crying in their beds at night, their families have no idea that their children are going through severe psychological turmoil because their children can't express their anxiety to them, perhaps cannot even clearly articulate it to themselves. When they finally do come publicly into queerness, it is with the fear that they do so at the peril of losing their families, their friends, their jobs, and possibly their life.

Whether they actually lose their support networks and safety is immaterial, because for the rest of their lives they will not only have to deal with that isolation and lack of security — but also with the psychological baggage that comes from being a child dealing with loneliness, isolation, harassment, discrimination and fear. As the PFLAG website reports, "The average high school student hears 25 anti-gay slurs daily. Ninety-seven percent of high school students regularly hear homophobic remarks. This harassment takes its toll: Gay students are far more likely to skip classes, drop out of school and/or commit suicide."

And that's just gay students. What about all the gender-nonconforming youth? What about all our homeless queer youth who have either been kicked out or have run away from their families? As Richard Haynes reports, " Nearly 35% of Illinois' homeless youth population self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered. These youth often find their access to homeless services limited by service providers who are indifferent, fearful, or not educated about this population. Left with no place to turn, homeless youth often find themselves neglected, invisible, and forgotten; at increased risk for drug addiction, prostitution, violence, HIV infection, and suicide" (emphasis mine).

And that's just queer youth. What about elderly queers? Many elderly queers lack the support of family and/or children, are denied health care, pensions, and widows rights, and are forced back into the closet when they join retirement communities or move into assisted-care facilities (read more). What about elderly queers who depend on the care of strangers? I don't have as many nice statistics here, but a gay man hanged himself after being isolated and shunned in his nursing home. A nurse in an assisted care facility refused to wash a patient because she was a lesbian. As Dr. Melinda Lantz, a geriatric psychiatrist, says “There is something special about having to hide this part of your identity at a time when your entire identity is threatened. That’s a faster pathway to depression, failure to thrive and even premature death.” In a study done by Fairchild, Carrino & Ramirez (1996), "More than half of the nursing home social workers surveyed said their staff were intolerant or condemning of homosexual activity between residents; 38% declined to answer the question." How can adult queers feel embraced by mainstream American when their youth are targeted and their elders are harassed?

Queer people have the interesting position of being a minority that is not born into it's own community. Like the Deaf community, most queer people are not raised by their own. They are not nurtured by members of their community who know what their struggle will be and who will support them through it as best they can. They have no model of queerness and are forced to undergo psychological trauma, as well as possible harassment, abuse, isolation, and physical danger in order to access their community. Both in their youth and upon joining their queer community as an adult, they have little interaction with those older than them. There are no gay grandmothers, transgrandfathers, or queer parents to mentor them. They do not see the unique struggles that queerness presents at different ages until they live them. It is all too easy too forget/avoid the psychological trauma of your youth when you are busy planning your newly legalized California wedding. And how can we truly know the discrimination we will face when we are old until we become old ourselves? Especially when we are bombarded by the trappings of approval from our capitalist society.

The assimilation of adult partnered queers into consumerist America is a trap and a distraction. — Oh boy! Adult queers can get married in California! Hurrah! MacDonald's will no longer fire you for being queer! Yippee! Now you can register your gay wedding at Macy's! — Homophobia and heterosexism is not a single point of discrimination based on adults not being allowed to marry each other. Discrimination against queers is a life issue. It is not something that you only experience when you want to get married. Just because you — an adult queer — are comfortable being out and feel embraced by mainstream America DOES NOT mean that queers as a community have arrived. You are not the prodigal son being welcomed back with a fat pig of capitalism. Do not be distracted by that pig into forgetting your past, the youth of your community, the discrimination your elders face and that you too will one day face again as well.

THAT is why it is disgusting to me to see the trappings of consumerist mainstream assimilationist America at my Pride Protest. Because it lulls us into forgetting that our youth are being beaten down and that our elders are being abused. Because it takes the place of the activism, education, and consciousness-raising that should be taking place at Pride. Because it is not enough to be reluctantly allowed to get married in two states. It is not enough that MacDonald's and other corporations no longer openly discriminate against queers. Queerness should not be an issue. We should be raised with an expectation that we will treat others with decency and humanity, that we will take care of the people we love, and that we will celebrate love without boundaries. Nothing less.

Oh Happy Day!

The Straight Person's Guide To Gay Etiquette, the hilarious self-explanatorily titled article, is now back online after a too long hiatus! hooray! bring author-god The Plaid Adder the best bagels and muffins in the land!* huzzah! huzzah! And now, my good friends, you may recommence sending the link to everyone you know--gay or straight... hooray!


*bonus points if you can name this quote.

Oppose the DSMV Committee Members on Gender Identity Disorder

Here's the link to the petition again. In case you need convincing, or know someone that does, here's a letter I wrote to get people to pay attention:

Hi Guys,

I don't for the most part send out mass emails because I think it's really annoying. However I just signed the petition "Objection to DSM-V Committee Members on Gender Identity Disorders" and it's really important to me that you at least know what this issue is about. Signing the petition would be great too, but telling other people about what is going on would be better. People need to know. Please at least read:

Here's the deal. The American Psychiatrist's Association is rewriting the DSM-V (manual that describes mental illnesses, etc). They've appointed to the committee a bunch of people who think that gay and transgendered people should be treated with "aversion therapy" to "cure" them of gayness/transgenderism. There was a show on NPR about Kenneth Zucker, one of the appointees, a couple weeks ago if you happened to hear it. It described (among other things) a 6 year old biologically male child whose parents had been counseled by Zucker to punish the kid if he played with dolls, hung out with girls, or showed any interest in the color pink. Listen here. It's heartbreaking.

Not only would Zucker and the others reclassify transgenderism as a mental illness to be treated with "aversion therapy," they would reclassify it as a form of homosexuality which they also think is pathological. Meaning, if they get their way, a gay or trans person could go to their local friendly psychiatrist for help with depression/anxiety disorder/whatever, and end up being "treated" so as to reverse their gayness/transness. Basically Zucker wants to reclassify homosexuality as a mental illness. In case we need some reminding of what that means, here's a direct quote from the NPR story on what used to happen when homosexuality was defined as a mental illness: "According to Jack Drescher, former chairman of the American Psychiatric Association's committee on gay and lesbian issues, one treatment was to try to condition homosexuals out of their sexual preference by attaching them to electrical shock machines and shocking them every time they were aroused by homosexual pornography."

This is a really big deal and it is not getting enough attention. Please sign the petition and talk to other people about why it's important. Imagine the queer people you know. If they were in a bad spot and needed help from a professional, would you want them to be able to get that help without being judged? Or would you want the people who are supposed to be helping them subjecting them to more degradation and forcing them to twist their own identity?

Thanks for reading,
~Sarah

Happiness as a Feminist/Radical Activist

This is a modified post from my personal blog. A few weeks ago my boss said something about how our workplace had always been a place for people who had their eyes open politically and then made a joke about how that's probably why three quarters of the staff is on anti-depressants. That got me thinking...

Mostly i've been of the opinion that feminists are generally happier with their lives and themselves personally because they can sort of shed all that social programmed shit. But a few weeks ago i was feeling more like i didn't want to read some of my new feminist books/feminist news sources because it's just too much. Sometimes i get in these moods where i'm all inside my head so i try to distract myself by watching Friends (which i really like, actually). But then I start thinking about the ways in which it's not actually that funny because it insults women or plays on insecurities of personal appearance (or any social insecurities, really). The other day i was wondering if the acquaintances I have who AREN'T feminists are actually happier in their bubbles because they don't spend time worrying/raging about rape victim blaming/women body hating/sexuality fearing societies/etc. They can just go on with their lives not worrying about or being aware of larger social issues.

But then again, there are so many non-feminists who participate in fucked up shit like weight-losing contests, etc. That's kind of fucked. I guess at least i don't have to worry about that kind of shit. (not because i'm perfect, obviously, but because i'm okay with my body).

thoughts? does this sound self-centered of me? i'm beginning to feel like my non-feminist acquaintances are weary of me because they think i think i'm better than them or something. but some of them don't seem to care about anything that happens to other people. I told one of them about the DSM-V Committee on Gender Identity Disorders and she just said "oh" and left the conversation. "Oh?" "OH?!?!?!?!???" "Oh, your identity as a person might get reclassified as a psychological disorder thereby subjecting you to degrading and horrific "aversion therapy should you ever need to go to a psychologist?" "OH??? No big deal. Whatever Sarah, I'm going to go make out with my boyfriend now." Or worse, "how dare you get angry and bring to my attention the fact that you are oppressed!" AGGGHHHH!!!!

on other news: i am SO EXCITED for this book: http://feministing.com/archives/008218.html

Vaginas? Really? (Eve Ensler, I'm Talking to You!)

So. Why all this fascination with reducing women to vaginas, America? *sigh* I suppose that since there's SO MUCH of that reduction going on, I ought to be a bit more specific of what kind I mean. Let's try to forget about the objectification of women for a minute (I know it's difficult, but let's just try). And let's also try to forget about all our puritanical friends who don't want to talk about sex at all (see ya later, asshats!). No no, for now, let's just focus on the people who actually TALK about sex, and try to do so in a respectful way. Everyone talks about vaginas as if they're the female equivalent of penises. "Men have a penis, and women have a vagina." "Women aren't going to vote for Hillary just because she has a vagina instead of a penis." "My vagina would wear a leopard print bikini." Even our enlightened feminist friends like Eve Ensler: all the time, vagina vagina vagina. I don't give a shit about my vagina. If we're going to reduce women to a "down there" part of their body, uh... HELLO, shouldn't it be the clit???? I don't think I need to go into the reasons why we should be talking about the clit instead of the vagina (semi-automatic and all that...), but I would have expected better from feminists. I guess I can understand the thinking of health and sex ed teachers who don't want to talk about something as SCARY as the clit, since it's about feeling good (*gasp*) instead of procreating in the image of god and chastity and properness and all that. But come ON feminists! I know YOU'RE not scared of a little good-feeling sex, so what's with all this buying into the dichotomy of penis-vagina? It seems to me that going with vaginas (instead of clits) just buys into heteronormativity, a puritanical desire to not to talk about pleasure, and this whole fixation with women being "the creators of the life" and "moon goddesses" and so on. Fuck that shit. Thanks, but I'll take that orgasm over a baby and a bunch of reusable pads any day.

Books for Raising Revolutionary Children (more to come & seriously in need of revision)

"The world is not respectable; it is mortal, tormented, confused, deluded forever; but it is shot through with beauty, with love, with glints of courage and laughter; and in these, the spirit blooms timidly, and struggles to the light amid the thorns."
--George Santayana

Tired of reading anachronistic picture books to your kids featuring farm animals and lots of little white boys (or perhaps too many princessy girls slathered in pink)? Me too! Kids aren't stupid. They know the world's not perfect. condescending books just turn them away from reading. here are some tips for raising radicals and revolutionaries.

when harriet met sojurner:
absolutely beautiful picture book about what might have happened during the undocumented meeting between Harriet Tubman and Sojurner Truth.

as good as anybody:
this is a gorgeous picture book about Martin Luther King Jr and Abraham Joshua Heschel growing up and meeting each other. the reason it's so awesome is because it doesn't sugarcoat history for kids. both martin and abraham as children rage against the injustices they face. "things won't always be like this," their parents tell them, "maybe things will be better in the next world." "i dont want to have to wait for the next world" they say. this book inspires not only activism, but also the uniting of all oppressed groups. shockingly, it's published by Random House (the corporate scourge of consumerist conformity).

americans who tell the truth
i haven't read this, but it looks awesome.

evolution me and other freaks of nature
hilarious YA novel about a christian girl ostracized by her church for defending a gay classmate. but that all happens before the book starts. the actual plot is about her and her lab partner fighting for their science teacher's right to teach them evolution against all the religious fundies.

memoirs of a bookbat
harper loves to read, but her parents are conservative christians who travel around the country, enrolling her in different school districts so that they can ban as many books as possible. she has to sneak her books home and hide them under her mattress.

his dark materials
okay everyone knows about these books by now. but they are seriously revolutionary as I've pointed out before. in how many books do we get to hear a positive description of a female main character being dirty, conceited and arrogant? awesome. also features gay angels and sustaining mutual friendships between powerful women. the whole theme of the books is that experience and knowledge are better than innocence and purity. hott!

the family book
todd parr is way cool. i'm not very into his illustrative style--kind of cartoony and neon--but he talks about ALL kinds of families from ALL kinds of backgrounds. awesome. also, THE PEACE BOOK is neat too.

Hope for the Flowers
"A different sort of book for everyone except those who have given up completely. (and even they might secretly enjoy it.)" this book is about two caterpillars (Yellow and Stripe) who met each other while making the arduous soul-sucking climb to the top of the caterpillar ladder. it's every caterpillar for itself with faces getting stepped on and caterpillars being shoved off the top. but what's the point in all this struggling to get to the top, they wonder. so they stop climbing and instead spend their days snuggling together in the sun. awww!

why war is never a good idea
i haven't read this yet either, but its a new picture book by alice walker and it looks awesome.

the great kapok tree
a man comes to cut down the great kapok tree in the jungle. he falls asleep in the heat before his work is done. as he sleeps, all the animals and chidren of the forest come and tell him how they depend on the kapok tree for survival.

hero
okay, not that activist-oriented. but it's about gay superheroes, and its an excellent way to sneak The Gay into kids hands. who doesn't want to read about superheroes?

Not one damsel in distress
collected stories from jane yolen featuring self-sufficient heroines. good for bedtime reading.

the hero and the crown, and the blue sword
women warriors. hot. hot hot hott. and newberry award winning. better than the Alanna books because the main characters aren't constantly obsessing about the fact that they're women and therefore can't possibly be as strong and heroic as men (gag).

woolbur
this book seriously rocks. it's about a sheep that doesn't fit in with the rest of the herd. he wont let the farmer shear his wool and he cards the wool on his body instead of the wool he's supposed to be spinning. then he dies himself blue, instead of the yarn and tries to weave his own forelock. finally his parents tell him that he has to act just like all the rest of the sheep--no more individuality! so instead of conforming, Woolbur gets the rest of the herd to be individualistic too!

paper bag princess
"you are an ungrateful bum!"

dealing with dragons
"princesses dont cook. princesses dont fence. princesses dont juggle." cimorene does not WANT to be a princess if she cant do these things and she certainly doesnt want to marry some ditzy prince. so she goes to work for Kazul the dragon. but the princes just don't seem to understand that she doesn't WANT to be rescued. she's perfectly happy right where she is, thank you very much.

herstory
i had this book when i was little and i cant say that i found it crazy inspiring but it was fairly cool at least. basically its a bunch of essays about the history of notable women.

burning up
macy and austin start investigating the history of a building that was burned down 50 years ago when the first black family in town moved into it. but what was their own grandparents role in the burning?

armageddon summer
marina and jed's meet when their respective parents take them to the top of a mountain to await what their pastor assures them will be the end of the world. searing criticism of religious fundamentalism

if you come softly
this is a really amazing and devestating novel by jacqueline woodson about what happens when a white jewish girl and a black boy start dating each other.

the book thief
another devestating book, this one about the holocaust and a little german girl who makes friends with the jewish man her family is hiding in their basement. oh yes, and she steals some books too.

it's so amazing / it's perfectly normal / it's not the stork
so cute cartoony books about puberty, pregnancy, baby making, sexuality, etc. very inclusive, liberal, gay friendly, multiracial. nice. also: my body, my self for girls (or boys) and the what's happening to my body book for girls (or boys).

background reading:
Packaging Girlhood by Lamb & Brown, How to Get your Child to Love Reading by Esme Raji Codell, and Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood by William S. Pollack

Dear PFLAG, I love you

After bitching for years about how much I wish it would occur to my parents to join PFLAG, I finally mentioned to them tonight on the phone that they ought to go. Upon reviewing PLFAG's website so that I can send the link to my parents, it's really occurring to me what a cool organization they are. How cool is it to have a group composed entirely of the privileged class advocating on behalf of the oppressed? And not just being like "oh yeah, i'm against homophobia," the way so many white people are nonchalantly opposed to racism. But there are actually straight people who are dedicating a significant portion of their time to advocating for queer people. For some of these people that's their job! Thinking about that warms my heart. Everytime I see PFLAG at pride it makes me cry because they're so wonderful and loving and unselfish and amazing. It is so admirable that they would spend so much time and be so dedicated to advocating for the rights of an oppressed class they don't belong to. Wouldn't it be cool if there were national advocacy groups like "Whites Against Racism" or "Men for Feminism"? I just checked on Google. There's not. At least not as far as I can find. Although I did just find the Men's Network Against Domestic Violence. Which is cool, but not really as established as PFLAG, or as inclusive as something like Men For Feminism would be.

Let's Not Put the Cart Before the Horse, People

While driving home from work today I heard the news about the passage of the non-inclusive, certain-veto ENDA in the house. I couldn't help thinking "Is this really as far as we've come? All around us we hear daily shouts about the possibility of gay marriage, and yet I can still be fired for being queer?"

A couple months ago I asked why we focus so damn much on marriage equality when people can still be fired for being queer. Sure, we just had a month of drama over ENDA, but in the mainstream, whenever you hear about queer rights, all you hear about is marriage. Right-wingers ranting on about the sanctity of marriage. Brad Pitt saying that he wouldn't marry Angelina until everyone who wanted to could get married. Constant articles about this or that state that legalizing civil unions or outlawing marriage (Type "gay rights articles" into Google, and 6 of the first 10 results are about gay marriage. None mention employment). But we can still be legally fired for being queer! Why isn't there more attention focused on this, by the mainstream media certainly, but from our advocacy groups especially? I hope that I have not just realized what the answer is.

Are we pursing marriage equality more vehemently because it is an issue that is very important to upper class queers, while employment discrimination is more likely to affect poorer LGBTQ folk? The HRC's Corporate Equality Index rates companies on their "policies and practices pertinent to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees, consumers and investors." Their 2008 report shows that 98% of the companies rated provide employment protection on the basis of sexual orientation (only 58% on the basis of gender identity).

Well, super. Sounds like employment discrimination (at least for GLB folk) is on the way out the door, right? Think again. The companies rated are the largest 200 privately owned firms, the top 200 law firms, and Fortune Magazine's list of the largest 1000 publicly-traded businesses. In other words, the most successful, corporate conglomerates who can afford to pay their laywers, investment-bankers CEOs, CFOs, etc plenty of money. No mention of how employment discrimination affects the queer people who work lower-paid jobs.

So what have we got here? A whole bunch of upper-class queer folk for whom employment discrimination isn't much of an issue, and who have money to contribute where they see fit. The queer folk who work at such corporations most likely have more money to donate to advocacy groups like the HRC, than those who work at smaller independently owned businesses and get paid minimum wage.

Understandably, these upper-class folk might not see employment discrimination as being a big issue, and thus might encourage our advocacy groups to focus less on employment, and more on marriage equality. Marriage, besides being something that these people might want because of commitment reasons, is an especially important issue to upper-class queers because of it's relation to money. Marriage rights include taxes, retirement accounts, social-security benefits, pensions, and home protection--issues vital to the upper-class, but less important to poorer queers that the more immediate prospect of being fired.

Are our advocacy groups bowing to the well-funded interests of upper-class queers, and thus emphasizing the need for marriage equality over the more basic need for employment rights? I would like to think not; however, let's not forget that a non-profit must always be thinking about how it's going to get the money to fund it's next initiative. If their wealthy donors are putting pressure on them to lobby for marriage equality, then it is very much in the interest of the advocacy groups to do so, despite more pressing and basic problems.

So please, if you happen to be one of those wealthy queers, be sure to emphasize to the groups you fund how important it is that they stick up for the poorest and most discriminated against in our community. Just as our GLB folk must speak out for the protection of our trans folk, our upper-class people MUST fight for the protection of those less well-off than they. As they say, money is power. And it is absolutely incumbent upon those with power to be responsible for the way they use it.

I don't CHOOSE to pass

Okay, I know that I promised that my next post would be about the queer-as-choice/not-a-choice issue. But! I ended up writing quite a long response to Marti Abernathey's post at the Bilerico Project about trans people who "live stealth," which she says is "the equivalent of 'living in the closet.' " I thought I should share my response because it ended up including a lot of relevant grey ideas (i.e. is there always a dichotomy between passing and not passing? Are those who "pass" necessarily living in shame and denial? etc).

I should say up front that my familiarity with the term "living stealth" was nonexistent before today. So i can't personally address that issue. However, I object to blanket condemnations of people who pass. I seem to "pass" as straight daily, but not because I'm pathetically hiding my oh-so-shameful non-straight self. I "pass" because of two things. One: mainstream America doesn't see a "long-haired, 'femme-y' woman who doesn't wear men's clothes" as possibly being queer. And two: My sexuality isn't my main identifier. I would prefer NOT to label myself as queer actually. I'd rather go with a nice adjective like "proactive" or "irreverent," if asked to describe myself. I don't feel like my queerness is pertinent enough information that I need to change the way I dress/act so that I can scream "gay" to everyone who meets me. Thus, I was really saddened to see a post from the Bilerico Project, who I usually love, casting such a strong condemnation on trans folk who "pass".

The original article at the Bilerico Project

And my response:

Hey, Sarah here, over from Don't Box Us. I really like The Bilerico Project, but I'm sorry to say that I find this post extremely offensive. If you want to live your life Out and proclaiming your roots/who you are—awesome! go for it! I completely support you and your right not to be judged for it. However, I don't really think it's your place to be condemning other people because of the way they choose to live their lives. You do not know these people; you have no possible way of knowing why they decide to live as they do. Wasn't the whole point of the GLBT movement that we should be allowed to live our lives without being condemned because of who we are/who we love/what our original sex was? Where is the difference between your condemnation and the condemnations of homophobes? Both condemnations are based on personal feelings about the way others lead their lives.

I'm not trying to attack you here, but I'm just wondering why we should be excluding/judging people who could be our allies. This sort of condemnation seems to me to only breed animosity within a group that is already facing a lot of discrimination. Why further discriminate against ourselves? I cannot disagree more with your statement that "If you aren't moving us forward, you're setting us back." In fact, I think it is exclusionary judgements like this that set us back, or rather, break us apart.

Also, you seem to be condemening people for passing, and therefore supposedly being ashamed of themselves. However, for some people, their sexual preference or gender identity ISN'T the main adjective they'd use to describe themselves. Maybe for you, it is. That's awesome. Rock it. But for others maybe it's more important to describe themselves as "jewish" or "practical, or "black-haried." That doesn't mean that they're ashamed of themselves.

I'm not trans, so I can't speak to that. However I can speak as a non-straight woman who frequently seems to pass as straight. If someone asked me for adjectives to describe myself, "gay" wouldn't even come into my head. Who I love is important to me, and my participation in the queer community is important to me as well, but it's just not something that I feel should be my main way of defining myself. I'm proud of who I am and I'm care about the equality movement, but I don't think who I love should change the way that people think about me. I just don't feel like it's pertinent information, basically. If it comes up in conversation I'm not going to hide it, but it's not something that makes me feel like I need to wear my hair in a fauxhawk just so that everyone I buy coffee from will know that I'm gay and therefore "not passing."

I'm not bashing ppl who don't pass here--if you can't pass or don't want to, then rock on. I'm just saying that I don't "decide" to pass. The way I wear my hair/clothes is not a statement about my sexuality. There is no "attempting to pass" or "attempting not to pass;" I just live my life the way I am. The assumptions that other people make about my sexuality say nothing about whether I'm cowardly or ashamed of myself. I'm completely proud of who I am. It's just that who I am doesn't happen to be someone who radiates "gay" from every pore. So please don't assume that just because I do pass, that I'm making a conscious decision to gain straight-privilege by hiding myself.

Hello my dah-links! Plus a self-realization

My fuzzy kitten greets you as well with a quick suck on the earlobe, (don't ask). I though that since this is my first blog post here, I'd introduce myself. I'm Kate, a queer woman living in the DC area, working at a nonprofit trying to save the world, which is pretty damn hard work. I have a great affection for animals that gets me into trouble, a love of science fiction, graphic novels, (I worship at the altar of Neil Gaiman), politics, and general rabble rousing. As I have something in the works for later this week, I just want to start off with a small self-realization.

Having gone to a women's college that is quite GLBTQ friendly, being of the non-straight populace was never a major issue. However, having graduated and moved away, it's been interesting. I've been lucky, in fact, privileged to have grown up with, been educated with, and basically surrounded by people who have been loving and accepting of my identity and that of other non-straight people. I've been surrounded by those who have been compassionate and understanding, who understand that not everyone fits into the male/female hetero model and I am eternally grateful for that experience.

That being said, the longer I have been out of college, the more strongly I feel tied to my queer identity. Along with that is the realization that my identity may someday lead to discrimination of some sort. It's a terribly frightening idea that someone may not give me a chance based on who I am, who I was born as. I know, this is a "duh, stupid" sort of thing, but it is something relatively new to me. It's just one more motivating factor to add to my list in my quest to make a positive difference.

Senator Craig: Read the F-ing Police Report

It is not at all clear to me what Larry Craig did that was so awful. If you read the police report, you can see that all he did was use some (rather circumstantially identified) code to allegedly indicate that he was interested in having sex with someone. He did not actually have sex with anyone. He didn't touch, grope or in any other way harass anybody. He didn't even talk to, see, or make eye contact with the guy. All he did was tap his foot, wave his hand along the bottom of the stall and touch his shoe to someone else's shoe. What he did in no way bothered anybody else in the bathroom (other than the police officer he allegedly came on to, who apparently indicated he was interested in sex by using the same code).

There are so many reasons why this whole thing bothers me. It seems pretty clear that he is being attacked solely upon suspicion of queerness. Which, clearly, is unacceptable. But I think what bothers me more is a). the way that it's being justified, and b). the comments I've heard from queer people, which have been just as nasty.

The whole affair is being portrayed as if Senator Craig actually had sex with someone in a bathroom. Not only that, but the labels "lewd conduct" and "disorderly conduct," as well as the way that Senate Republicans are reacting, leads one to believe that he did something really heinous (e.g. harassing someone, sex with children, prostitution, rape, etc). However he did none of these things. All he did was inoffensively, nonverbally, and without any physical contact ask someone for consensual sex. There is no indication that he planned to have sex in the bathroom (and even if he had, so what, ppl have heterosexual sex in bathrooms all the time and it's laughed off as being nontraditional but still sort of accepted. Witness the Friends episodes where Monica and Chandler have sex in the bathroom or in the hospital broom closet).

Republicans are reacting to this as if he did something morally reproachable, but I'm at a loss as to see what he did that was worthy of reproach. The only thing that I can see is that he allegedly wanted to have sex with someone even though he was already married. However this issue is completely not within the realm of what the country needs to be concerning itself about. That is a personal issue between him and his wife. It's not the business of Senator McCain, or anyone else who is calling for his resignation. You can't get arrested for cheating on someone. And you certainly can't fire someone because of it. Besides, how are we to know that his wife didn't already know about it? Just a thought, but maybe they have an open marriage. In any case, the issue is not anyone's business besides his and his family's, so I see no reason why he needs to be dragged through the muck and then be forced to resign over it.

The other thing that bothers me about this affair is the way that the queer people I know have been reacting to it. I have heard him being torn down for saying "I am not gay. I have never been gay." I heard one person say, very derogatorily "I guess he thinks it's something that comes and goes." Well, yes, actually, for some people it might come and go. Namely those people who aren't completely 100% gay or 100% straight. Basically what's being said here is that he's "not gay enough" to be accepted and treated with decency.

I've also heard the point of view that queer people shouldn't care what happens to him because he's been historically anti-gay in his legislative choices. Yes, it is true that he isn't not particularly pro-equality. However, attack him for his positions then. Don't attack him for "lying about who he is" or not being "gay enough." Personally, I don't think that we should force unwanted labels onto anyone. Maybe Senator Craig doesn't identify as gay. Maybe he's attracted to men AND women. Maybe his sexuality has changed over time. Maybe his sexuality still varies. There's really no way for anyone other than Senator Craig to know these things, so I really don't think it's appropriate for us say that he is definitively gay (and here i mean 'gay' in it's use as being attracted EXCLUSIVELY to men), and therefore lying to the country. *Sigh* Just one more example of the queer community ripping into it's own when it should be supporting those who are having a hard time...

I'm not saying that Senator Craig is a great person. I'm just saying that he doesn't deserve to be treated the way he currently is. It seems pretty clear that he's being attacked solely because he's suspected of being queer. However, instead of being outraged at the way he is being treated or giving him any kind of support, the queer community is turning around and attacking him as well. Disgusting.

EDIT: Just found something else. I saw it implied that this was an excellent opportunity for the Democrats (and thus queer people) because it will turn the Christian right against Republicans in Idaho so that some Dems can get elected. Well, super! Damn, I know I'M excited about the idea of sacrificing a possible queer person for the sake of getting some Democrat elected who may or may not ultimately support equality. Sounds like a GREAT plan to me!