Sing if You’re Glad to be Gay (or Trans)

“It’s not a choice!”

How many times have we heard this?

And it bothers me. A mandatory disclaimer: no, I do not think sexual orientation is a choice. But really, does it matter?

The thing that bothers me about the choice versus biology thing is that it assumes if it was, indeed a choice, we’d have a moral imperative to choose straight. Unlike members of the religious right, I see absolutely nothing wrong with same-gender love, desire, and sex. Absolutely nothing at all. So why must I constantly defend myself? I don’t like turning myself into a victim of my natural and healthy desires. Nor do I like kissing ass to the religious right. Because, I feel, that a lot of times when people so adamantly say, “It’s not a choice!”, it’s almost like they’re saying that being queer or trans is a terrible way to be.

Let’s be honest. It’s not easy a lot of the time. The world, unfortunately, contains a lot of homophobes and transphobes, who have a stick up their ass so big that they feel the need to hate people for the kind of sex they have, or the fact that their genitals don’t match their gender presentation. When you think about it, it’s kind of pathetic. Pathetic enough for me not to want to lend any credence to it by pandering to that kind of fucked up ideology. And queer/trans people do face a lot of obstacles, almost all of them caused by prejudice rather that being queer or trans in of itself.

If I had a choice, honestly, I’d choose queer. There are a lot of really great things about being part of the queer/trans community.

The big part of it is the community. The culture. We have our own books and magazines and TV shows, our own hang-outs and our own way of living. I have a lot of queer/trans friends (and lovely straight allies!) who are like family to me. The queer community is so vibrant and amazing that I can’t imagine ever wanting to give it up.

Then there are other things. A queer activist friend of mine once joked with me that the reason the religious right is so obsessed with the way queers have sex is because they’re jealous. I’m pretty sure queers have, on average, better sex lives than straight people. I think we have fewer hang-ups about sex, since traditional straight-up straight sex isn’t usually an option (unless you’re bi/pansexual/whatever – in which case, you probably still have same-gender sexual relations from time to time). Plus, we know how to get creative, if you know what I mean.

There are a million other awesome things about being queer. I can’t list them all at the moment, but I think being queer can be a great experience. That’s why I refuse to make myself a victim. That’s why I refuse to yell, “It’s not a choice!”. Because I like being this way. And yes, I’m glad to be gay.

(S. Bear Bergman had a great speech on this topic. I know the title is similar – it comes from a song, and it wasn’t an effort to rip off Bear’s speech. Go read it. It’s awesome)

Free Speech: it includes the right to say things you don’t like.

RenEv has a great post up about this right now.

You know, people are always really surprised when I say I don’t support hate speech laws.

I’m no fan of bigots. Really. In fact, I think racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, ableists, and other miscellaneous bigots are some of the stupidest, most dislikeable people on the planet. So, naturally, I’m no big fan of hate speech. Really. Especially since a lot of it targets me, being of the Jewish persuasion and a big ol’ gay and all.

But you know what? I’m a civil liberties advocate, and will defend your right to say stuff I don’t like. The way I see it, the harm caused by censoring speech usually outweighs the benefits.

The problem with censoring “offensive” speech is that it’s often a slippery slope. And, in a world that hates “non-conforming” people, guess who’s going to be the most frequent target of heavy-handed laws? I mean, most anti-pornography ordinances, allegedly to “protect women” (and I have ranted about this numerous times), end up targeting porn made for women by women. Oh, the irony.

My school just banned replica weapons, and cursing, in all school drama productions. While it is a high school, and therefore, different than say, a whole country, I still think the whole situation is stupid. Dumbing down theatre so someone’s feelings don’t get hurt? It’s, well, dumb. Not showing or talking about violence doesn’t get rid of it; it merely sweeps it under the rug.

Truthfully, there are quite a few things I find offensive. But what I find more offensive than anything is having my freedom taken away.

Dear clueless white liberals,

Stop it with the goddamned oppression olympics.

Yes, I know, homophobia and sexism are still considered socially acceptable. So is racism. All are equally shitty.

Really, if racism is so verboten in this day and age, then why was someone allowed to tell me, when I posted a message board thread about white privilege, “Looks like someone just won herself some new black friends”?

There are ways to point out sexism and homophobia without being a racist asshole. However, making race-baiting comments only makes you look ignorant. And, in case you haven’t noticed, women of color and queer/trans people of color do exist.

And no, there is no such thing as “reverse racism”. You are not being discriminated against for being white just because someone hurt your feelings. Shut the fuck up.

I swear, this goes on much longer, I’m going to start playing bingo.

Yours truly,

Miss Nomered, Jewish anti-racist white girl.

“Choice” was so ten years ago.

Something has been bothering me for a while about certain sections of the feminist movement.

Remember “choice”? You know, what we were fighting for a bunch of years ago? Well, it seems to have gone out of style.

Sure, anyone will still valiantly defend your right to choose certain things related to reproductive health; namely, birth control and abortion. Unless we’re talking about “pro-life feminists” (shudder). But, especially lately, a lot of choices aren’t seen as nearly as valid. Specifically, choosing to do things certain feminists don’t approve of.

You know what I mean. Choose to have an abortion, or become an engineer? Good on ya! Choose to wear something revealing, be tied up, or be a stripper or porn star? Suddenly, you lose your ability to choose that. You know, because it’s all a product of brainwashing by the patriarchy.

I’ll definitely admit that sexism does influence our choices sometimes. So does racism, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism, and whatever other internalized prejudices one might have. But those aren’t always the only reasons someone might choose to do something (especially something you don’t particularly like or approve of). And, really, when it comes to women in porn or sex work or whatever, do people who call themselves “feminists” really think women are that weak and unintelligent? That they’re so brainwashed by the patriarchy that they couldn’t possibly make a choice of their own?

And as for choices that aren’t frowned upon? Well, I’ll be the first to admit that people don’t always have the most pristine of motives for, say, having abortions. Like, you know, wealthy families who don’t want a kid with Down Syndrome because they’ll never graduate from Princeton. Is it a choice I would make? Probably not. Is it influenced by a lot of ableism? Probably. Am I going to badger them constantly, and tell them how wrong and brainwashed they are? Hell no. It’s not my place to judge, let alone harass them over it. Which is why I distanced myself from a lot of the pro-lifers at Aspies for Freedom – but that is another rant for another time.

You know, it’s hugely ironic when certain feminists go on about “choice”. Then, when someone chooses something they don’t like, that person’s ability to choose suddenly vaporizes.

At some point, regardless of the motives they might have, we have to step back and let other people make their own decisions. Especially when those people are telling you to back off.

When I say I’m pro-choice, I mean it. And it’s not just about abortion.

Some thoughts on “accessibility”

A couple nights ago, I attended a wonderful workshop about the meaning of “accessibility” and how it relates to disability and other issues. Well, it was an eye-opener, to say the least.

When people think of something being “accessible”, they generally think of it having wheelchair ramps and the like. Or sign language interpreters. Stuff like that.

As I learned, it means a lot more.

I think back to my own experiences; during any prolonged event that’s either loud or crowded, I need to take periodic breaks somewhere quiet(ish) and not crowded. Otherwise I can get pretty overwhelmed.

I was at an event last year (a dance for LGBT high schoolers and their allies), and overall, I had a pretty good time, except for the fact that everytime I went outside to take a break, there were people congregating outside, smoking up. I guess it wasn’t a huge problem, except the sheer amount of people made it harder to “decompress”.

That’s the thing. Something being accessible means it’s open and welcoming to everyone – and that means taking everybody’s needs into account. It can be pretty difficult (especially when people have conflicting needs), but it’s worth it in the long run. It makes things better for everyone, even if they don’t have an obvious disability – because when something is designed with people’s needs in mind, it becomes a lot more comfortable and easier for everyone. Take automatic doors, for example – they’re really good if you use a wheelchair or crutches, but also if you have a baby in a stroller, or are carrying an armful of books. There are countless other examples of situations like this.

What are your thoughts on the meaning of “accessibility”?

On that UK porn law, and free expression

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last couple of months, you’ve probably heard of the new UK porn law.

First: Overview of the new law. Essentially, it bans “extreme” porn, including acts that appear to be “life-threatening”, or likely to cause serious injury to certain body parts.

Never mind the fact that it’s overly vague, which is the kiss of death in terms of criminal law. And the fact that porn doesn’t kill people, people kill people. In fact, I heard that Graham Coutts had violent impulses years before even looking at porn.

I’m really worried about what this law means for free expression.

I’ll be perfectly honest – I would probably not be comfortable with porn that is overly violent (not in a consensual BDSM way, but just violent), or implies a clear lack of consent. While, personally, I’d be fine with a portrayal of consensual BDSM, I think “rape porn” is pretty socially irresponsible. And, if I were ever to watch it (I wouldn’t), I would probably find it extremely disturbing.

But then again, I find most graphic, gory violence disturbing. I once had to leave the room while we were watching “Saving Private Ryan”, because the blood and gore was making me feel ill.

But you know what? It’s a personal preference. And I hardly know everything, so I’d never want to make the rules for other people. Some people hate watching a lot of sex in TV or movies. I don’t mind it, and occasionally enjoy it. It doesn’t make me or someone who doesn’t like it right or wrong. It’s a personal thing.

As much as I might personally dislike much of the porn being banned, I think the freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental part of any democratic society. And, to the dismay of some, this freedom includes the freedom to say or show things other people may not like. I have a big problem with censoring any kind of cultural product (unless it depicts an actual violent crime being comitted, such as porn actually made without the performer’s consent), because it’s a huge slippery slope, in terms of restricting people’s basic constitutional rights. And, if the Butler Decision taught us anything, it’s that these kinds of laws tend to backfire. Horribly. They often target the people they were supposedly meant to protect – and my instinct tells me this is going to target a lot of stuff made for women, by women. Which is terribly ironic for a law that’s supposed to protect women.

As I said before, I have a big problem with restricting freedom of expression. So this law, even though it might seem like a good idea to some, scares the crap out of me.

 

And a big, hearty “fuck you” goes to:

the mainstream media, for their shitty coverage of certain missing persons/murder cases. Read: Missing White Woman Syndrome

But you know what? It’s not just the media. The family of 21-year-old African-American murder victim Ramona Moore has launched a lawsuit against the New York Police Department for ignoring her case – because she was black.

It’s not just about race, either. Generally, for the mainstream media to jump on a case, the victim generally has to be:

• White
• Female
• Young
• English-Speaking
• Attractive
• Straight
• Able-bodied
• Wealthy or middle class
• Cisgender
• Conventionally appearing (no tattoos or piercings; not punk or goth)
• Not homeless, a runaway, or a sex worker

… and so on.

And it’s so enraging that it makes me want to scream.

Yeah. I know. The media can’t cover everything. But when the only murders the public cares about are of attractive, white, young, straight women – the stereotypical “All American Girl” – then it begins to seem like bias. A lot.

In 2003, in Toronto, a 32-year-old transsexual, Asian Canadian sex worker was murdered in her apartment. Her name was Cassandra Do. Her killer has never been found.

Mainstream media response?

(crickets chirping)

That’s right, folks, a big fat nothing courtesy of the mainstream media. The only reason I even know she existed is because of one or two stories in the local queer press, and some internet research. Which is sad – how many others are out there like her? For every Laci Peterson or Natalee Holloway, how many stories go untold? I know of many, and there are so many more – simply because the media doesn’t pay attention. And don’t give me some feel-good bullshit of “But they want something the consumers can relate to!” Crap. How many people do you know that fit the exact description above? And, apparently, people like me, and a hell of a lot of other people who are “outside the mainstream” (which is a load of crap, since most people do not meet all of the above criteria) don’t exist.

I remember seeing Cassandra Do’s picture in a local community centre a couple years ago, along with the generic “if you have any information about this case, please call…”. I didn’t know anything about the case at the time, but I remember thinking, “Poor girl. I wonder what happened to her?”

I’ve often wondered if the same thought crossed other people’s minds, or if they just walked by, and forgot all about her.

Cassandra Do, and all the others like her, were people. They were people. Okay? Regardless of whether or not they fit some stupid artificial All American Girl stereotype. They had family and friends, and hopes and dreams for the future. They were just like you and me.

And really, what made Cassandra Do’s life any less worth living than Laci Peterson’s or Taylor Behl’s? Because she was trans? Because she was Asian? Because she was a sex worker? Her life was just as valuable as those of the damsels in distress you see on CNN. So why was her story deemed not worthy of talking about?

Teenagers as Sexual Beings

Sorry I haven’t posted in a while; I was sick all last weekend, I’m moving this weekend, and I have an AP history exam on Friday. So this will be brief.

I’ve heard a lot lately about the so-called “sexualization of children”. Believe me, I think thongs made for 10-year-olds are creepy. But, a lot of the time, when people talk about “sexualization”, they’re talking about the condition of teenagers (usually older ones) being sexual.

Adolescents are sexual beings. Almost all of them, (unless they’re asexual), have sexual thoughts and urges from time to time; a good number of them actually do sexual things with other people. I’m pretty sure it’s been this way for ages; I don’t think rap music/the internet/whatever the scapegoat of the month is suddenly introduced this concept. It’s just the way we are. I think there is a difference between being sexual and being sexualized; one is not necessarily the result of the other. I think teens need to take more ownership of their sexuality, not just supress it because the powers that be feel it’s “inappropriate.” Because it’s natural. I don’t think it makes one a victim of media brainwashing or peer pressure; I think it just is what it is.

What are your thoughts on this?

Age of Consent Raised in Canada

It’s officially, as of last Thursday, been raised to 16.

Honestly, my feelings are quite mixed about this. Primarily, I was worried that there wouldn’t be a close-in-age exemption, but there is. So, hopefully, we won’t have another Genarlow Wilson case, which is primarily, what I was worried about.

However, I worry about how this is going to impact young people’s access to sexual health services, such as contraceptives, abortion, and things like pelvic exams. By law, doctors, teachers, and other adults in positions of authority are required to report suspected child abuse; under this law, having sex with a 14 or 15 year old constitutes child abuse – and I’m guessing a lot of people will choose to ignore the fact that the close-in-age exemption exists. How is a 14-year-old girl going to get access to birth control if she can’t ask her doctor for it, for fear that legal action could be taken?

And this article has it all wrong. Hyperbole much?

Under the old law, it was still illegal for adults in positions of power (teachers and whatnot), to have sex with teenagers. And, no, a 14 or 15 year old is not a “child”. They are a teenager.

And you gotta love this line: (sarcasm, of course):

“No longer must parents and police watch as their children are lured off to some other city with a man who promises them love and excitement.”

No. Just, no. Kidnapping was always illegal. Sex trafficking was always illegal. Luring someone under 16 from their home – none of it was legal in the first place!

Most child/youth sexual abuse doesn’t start this way. The vast majority of it takes place in the home. But, of course, it’s so much easier to look at the scary men coming from the outside, rather than tackling the monsters hiding in homes around the world.

Yes. I’m pissed off.

So, if you haven’t heard, “D.C. Madam” Deborah Jeane Palfrey committed suicide.

This whole situation is fucked up. And some people’s reactions (or lack therof), are even more fucked up.

It just hit me that certain “radical feminist” bloggers, while pretending to just disagree with the sex industry (which isn’t my point of view, but hey, I can respect that), really just hate sex workers.

Like, when they accuse RenEv of not being a real person. Or, when a member of a certain message board called sex workers “retarded”. That’s right, folks, ableism and sex worker hate in the same sentence!

And then, I suppose, are people who react differently. I know this probably sounds bad, but it creeps me out a little when male feminists become involved in the “plight” of sex workers (how awful it must be to be a whore), and consequently, treat female sex workers like children (which is kind of a patriarchal in itself). You know, I really hate it when people say “Well, we protect children, why not women”. Umm…no. How the hell patronizing is that? Full grown women are not children.

Another characteristic of some of these anti-”pornstitution” folks is ignoring the voice of any sex worker they don’t agree with. Or saying, if someone does choose to be a sex worker (and choose is the operative word here), it must because of their mommy/daddy issues or blatant stupidity. Again, it’s so condescending it makes my head hurt.

And no. Do not say “Her death was tragic, but…”. No. Don’t accuse her of being a “pimp”.

And I’ve noticed a lot of silence on this, too. Because, again, some people only choose to see what they want to.

I heard Palfrey was facing up to 55 years in prison. For what? We don’t give those kind of sentences to armed robbers and child molesters.

Fuck. I’m really not loving the “morality police” right now. Not that I ever liked them. But I’m quite pissed off at the moment.

I think Amber Rhea said it better than I ever could.