#anti lgbtq people actively discriminating against us is what is causing that not us

[chaos-in-one]

The way people will treat extremely new definitions for labels as the Only Acceptable Definition sometimes is fucking WILD

Anyways I'm a proud butch panagender (mix between pangender and agender) & genderfluid lesbian and ily all other lesbians who get shit for not fitting the newest box for what people expect lesbians to be <3

[thessalian]

Thess vs Far-Right MPs

Apparently some of the very far right-leaning Tory MPs are bitching about Suella Braverman being sacked, saying that Sunak is "turning his back on the voters who gave the Tories their majority in 2019". Which ... well, that's a stupid thing to say for a lot of reasons.

First of all, this is not what the Tory majority of 2019 was about. That shit-show was about Boris Johnson having made himself The Face Of Brexit during the run-up to the referendum, and people thinking that since he was so much for it, he could keep all the promises that he, Farage, and the ERG were making about it. (Narrator's note: they could not, and did not.)

Second of all, none of Braverman's talking points were on the table in 2019, beyond Brexit. Please keep in mind the list of things that Suella Braverman has done and said the last little while:

Calling the Human Rights Act the "Criminal Rights Act" and being a big part of the push to get the UK to leave the European Court of Human Rights.

This she did largely to fulfil her "dream and obsession" of sending refugees to Rwanda, which is very much illegal in a human rights sense.

Her entire take on refugees (or, as she puts it, "illegal migrants"). This includes: "Look, the threat of being arrested or executed for being LGBTQ is not a good reason to refugee out of a country so if you're here because your country hates gay people, we want to send you back there" (subtext: because we don't really like you people either), and "We want to be able to lock pregnant women and unaccompanied minors up for more than 72 hours if they managed to get here and we caught them".

Oh, let's not forget the recent "Multiculturalism Has Failed" thing. Lady, not only are you distinctly Not White, and also first-generation British, but you took advantage of the Erasmus programme (which used to help British people study abroad, which we can now no longer be in because fucking Brexit) and studied at the Sorbonne for years. You are a self-confessed devout Francophile. There is no way in hell you can start preaching about British values and multiculturalism having failed, you silly moo. Imagine going from an Erasmus-sponsored programme to study in France and then join the ERG, which is terrifyingly anti-EU.

She recently referred to homelessness as a "lifestyle choice", and was all for imposing fines on charities who donate tents to people sleeping rough. Thankfully none of this made it into the proposed King's Speech, but it was still very prominent in the headlines.

She's been the main force behind the continued criminalisation of protest in this country. She actively tried to get police to ban pro-Palestine protests this weekend just gone, citing "It's disrespectful to the Armistice Day events and they might damage the Cenotaph!" This despite the fact that the pro-Palestine protests agreed to not go anywhere near the Cenotaph. Anyway, the London Metropolitan Police stood their ground and refused to deny people the right to peaceful protest, and Sunak rolled his eyes and sighed but agreed that their current Human Rights Act did allow for that sort of thing, and the only people around the Cenotaph were the ultra-right, who mostly used it and the surrounding areas as a toilet as they tried to "protect" the Cenotaph from "a wave of destructive tofu-eating wokerati" (Braverman's own words to describe the left) who never actually arrived.

Which brings us to why Braverman was sacked in the first place, and the pro-Braverman MPs really should shut up when it comes to this one. See, sometimes MPs will write editorials for newspapers, stating their views. After the London Met stood their ground and let pro-Palestine protests happen in London on Armistice Day, Braverman wrote a piece for the Times about the whole thing, accusing the London Met of discriminating against "good British people" (read: the ultra-right) by being more forceful with them than with protests from "folks like Just Stop Oil etc, "lefty" causes, and calling the pro-Palestine protests "hate marches". The thing is, when MPs write editorials for the paper, they go to 10 Downing Street to get vetted, to ensure that they're not going against the party line or getting too ... erm ... confrontational, I guess? Well, Braverman's little editorial was deemed too confrontational and too much against the party line (summed up as, "I guess we can't technically prevent you from peaceful protest since we're still with the ECHR..."), so they came back to her with changes she was supposed to make to the editorial. She did not make those changes, and sent out her frothing, Trump-speak editorial as written. I don't care how pro-Braverman these MPs are, they have to understand that if you ignore a directive from your party leader and Prime Minister, your job is at risk. She fucked around one time too many, and she found out.

And yet the pro-Braverman crowd are still baying, calling the PM "Suicide Sunak" and lamenting things like Johnson being forced to resign over shit like throwing massive parties during Covid lockdown when people couldn't even attend their families' funerals. I don't know if there's enough of those to make a difference, given as how reading too much of their froth makes me sick. Which means I don't know if there's a chance that, assuming the Tories lose the next general election (2024-2025, I think? Sunak's going to try to put it off as long as possible, particularly given that he knows as much as anyone that the odds of the Tories losing the next general election are very, very good), Braverman might get the Tory party leadership after Sunak's done.

If she does...

Well, if she does, I've probably got about five years of safety before I have to start really worrying because of her keen desire to throw human rights out the window in favour of extreme boomerang bigotry and the kind of hypocrisy that I can barely even describe. But I can't believe that her views are so palatable to enough of the general public to make her an actual contender for the party leadership. ...Probably because I still have some tiny shred of faith in humanity. Which may be displaced, but to believe otherwise is to be in a worse mental health place than I can afford right now.

[loud-queer-diversity13]

Key Issues on LGBTQIA Part 5

Employment Discriminations

This is our definition of the LGBT community on employment discrimination. Gay and transgender people can be fired from their jobs in most states because of their gender identity or sexual orientation. This implies that an individual may lose their work irrespective of their performance or abilities if their employer discovers and disapproves of who they are. Because of a lack of safeguards, people are forced to continue living in secret and hiding their true selves to make ends meet. LGBTQ Americans face difficulties and even danger in many parts of the United States because of the lack of non-discrimination laws in over half of the states, compared to 20 states and Washington, D.C. The LGBTQIA community can deal with job prejudice in this way. You have two options for submitting a federal discrimination complaint: you can use the EEOC's website to file it directly or give them a call. If you have cause to fear reprisals, your complaint may be kept private.On the other hand, if you file a complaint, your employer or any other employee cannot take adverse action against you. What are some potential ways that the LGBT community can deal with discrimination? To eradicate prejudice against LGBTQ people in the workplace, people, groups, governments, and society at large must work together. We can take steps to end discrimination and give LGBTQ people in the workplace equal chances by addressing the underlying reasons and actively promoting a more inclusive workplace. Here are some tactics to combat prejudice against LGBTQ people in the workplace such as encouraging. The enactment of comprehensive and inclusive anti-discrimination laws that provide explicit protection for LGBTQ employees. Work together with legislators and LGBTQ advocacy organizations to ensure that current laws are effectively enforced and to advance legislative revisions.

[outrunningthedark]

Honestly whenever I see Megan I get the same type of angry I do when I’d see Gabrielle

Gabrielle was because she isn’t actually Latina and she still played that part.

But with Megan she just keeps making it worse and worse and I never cared for her to begin with, she really isn’t all that memorable and yeah I’ve seem worse acting but I’ve also seen a lot better acting. But the things I’ve because aware of that she’s said and is saying? I’m just so angry at her and with her and with this fandom because they don’t care

They don’t care when it’s about people like us. If we have disabilities or if we aren’t white or id we aren’t whatever fits with their perfect world.

So when I see those two I get so angry because it’s a reminder about how we don’t matter as much if at all to them. To the fans and cast.

Though I cannot experience the emotions felt by Latinx fans as they watched Gabrielle falsely present herself as part of the community, I can absolutely relate to the desire for ACCURATE representation. A non-Latina willingly auditioning for a role she knows doesn't belong to her is much like an able-bodied actor wanting to "play" a disabled character. I won't speak for anybody else, but when I'm forced to watch someone pretend to be "like me" I just feel...invisible. Whose story is being told on screen? 'Cause it sure as hell isn't mine. Megan ignoring ableism is obviously the one that hits harder for me (sending love to all disabled members of the Latinx community who have to deal with double the bullshit!), even more than Cocoa's homophobic rhetoric and Megan liking homophobic tweets. (Unsurprisingly, the part of Megan's social media activity that's gotten the most attention was when she co-signed the anti-Buddie crowd.) And I don't think people understand, nor care to understand, why that is. It does not matter if gays have the right marry when disabled people, no matter their sexuality or gender, are discouraged from getting married because they are afraid of losing aid and having to depend solely on their spouse, leading to potential financial strain. It does not matter if a business cannot discriminate against me simply because of my sexuality if I am unable to physically enter or maneuver around the store/building/what have you due to lack of accessibility. The LGBTQ community not-so-jokingly refers to July as "Gay Wrath Month", and then when we say "Ummm, that's cute and all, but July is actually about uplifting the disabled", suddenly...the noise stops. People weren't replacing their gay pride posts with posts about disability. They chose to avoid the topic completely. In this fandom, people are quick to call out homophobia/biphobia because we all know it when we see or hear it, right? We all know what terms and phrases are red flags, what behaviors to take note of. But ableism? Pfft, that's not a real problem. Nobody MEANS to disrespect the disabled. They just don't know any better. Did y'all excuse Cocoa's foolishness? Or Ryan's? (Didn't think so.) Then why can you excuse ableism? Not just from an actress, but from your own 'friends'? 🤔 Inquiring minds would LOVE to know.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

[via Scott Horton]

* * * *

The GOP is rapidly embracing autocracy and white Christian nationalism as its rallying cry. That rightward drift is anxiety-producing and creates the understandable urge to look away. We cannot do so. However painful or revolting it is to watch the descent of the GOP into madness and hate, if we hope to defeat the anti-democratic forces animating the Republican Party, we must be clear-eyed about the threat the party poses to American democracy.          

We must be explicit in naming and describing the threat. We must identify and defeat every foot-solider and sympathizer who promotes or excuses tyranny and white nationalism. If we do so, we will preserve democracy. We can win. We will win. But only if we fight from a position firmly rooted in reality. From that vantage, let’s look at the GOP’s latest flirtations with white nationalism and despotism.          

The influential and ultraconservative Conservative Political Action Conference is holding its latest meeting in Dallas, Texas. (Where else?) CPAC’s two keynote speakers are Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Donald Trump. Both are wannabe dictators, though Orbán has made more progress towards that goal than Trump.          

Orbán promotes an ugly brand of politics based on hate and racial superiority (for whites, of course). He has recently said that Hungarians “do not want to become peoples of mixed race,” causing one of his cabinet members to resign, saying Orbán’s remarks were “a pure Nazi speech worthy of Goebbels.” He blames much of the world’s troubles on George Soros—an attack line that is a dog-whistle for antisemites. Indeed, he went so far at the CPAC conference to claim that “a Christian politician cannot be racist” because . . . well, because they are Christian. And like the Nazis, Orbán has led a national crusade of discrimination against LGBTQ people.        

  In most of the world, an audience would recoil in horror at remarks that explicitly invoked the Nazi ideologies of antisemitism, racial superiority, and discrimination against LGBTQ people. Not at the CPAC convention in Texas. Orbán received multiple standing ovations as he delivered remarks that could have easily been delivered in Nazi Germany in 1935. See The Independent, Fresh from furor over ‘Nazi’ speech, Hungarian PM Viktor Orban welcomed by American conservatives.         

 Notably, no Republican politician has condemned Orbán’s remarks. Instead, they are lining up to speak at CPAC. Other speakers comfortable sharing the podium with a “Nazi-curious” dictator include Trump, Ted Cruz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Jim Jordan, and Sean Hannity. No surprises there.         

 The despotic yearnings of CPAC are not an aberration. They have become part of the GOP DNA. Charles M. Blow addresses this trend in his column in the NYTimes on Thursday: Opinion | The Republican Party Is the Anti-Democracy Party. Blow notes that The Heritage Foundation (self-described as “the most influential conservative group in America) is actively promoting the idea that “America is not a democracy,” but a “republic.”          

While that statement is a truism (there are no pure democracies in the world), The Heritage Foundation uses the term “republic” to mean “white nationalist patriarchy.” Strong words, I know, but here is what The Heritage Foundation wrote in 2020:         

 “America is threatened by an egalitarianism that undermines the social, familial, religious, and economic distinctions and inequalities that undergird our political liberty.”          

That passage deserves re-reading. The Heritage Foundation claims that America is threatened by “egalitarianism.” What?! Egalitarianism is defined as “the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.” So, the Heritage Foundation is against “equal rights and opportunities for all??          

Yes, it is! The Heritage Foundation goes on to say that “inequalities undergird our political liberty.” Re-read the preceding phrase—twice! It is breathtaking. In that phrase, “our” can only refer to the privileged, white elite that has ruled America since its founding. For The Heritage Foundation, “our political liberty” is based on “inequality.” Unbelievable.         

 So, the two leading Republican advocacy groups are actively promoting a white, Christian nationalism that is antithetical to the declaration that created America: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . . .          

If we can get past the grievance mentality that Trump manipulates to his advantage, the positions embraced by CPAC and The Heritage Foundation are repugnant to most Americans. We need only articulate that truth in a way that resonates with their inherent belief in the American promise of equality. If we can do that, we have a fighting chance to turn the GOP’s message of hate against its most ardent promoters. The victory in Kansas points the way. 

ROBERT HUBBELL.SUBSTACK.COM :: The GOP reveals its true colors.

[antifainternational]

Is antifa technically an organization or does it just refer to people who are anti-fascist? I've seen a lot of posts about people talking about how people with anti-fascist views are grouped together and ostracized by people on the right claiming that they are antifa. And other posts about people claiming that antifa is a terrorist organization but if it is indeed not an organization just a set of beliefs how can this be? Have the thought police come lol

Antifa, an abbreviation for “anti-fascist,” is a movement opposed to fascism, full-stop.  Just like any other movement (the environmental movement, the feminist movement, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, etc.), antifa isn’t an organization but there are thousands of organizations of anti-fascists within the movement. Calling antifa or any other human rights movement “terrorists” is one of the oldest tricks in the books, right up there with calling human rights movements “communists.”  It’s an attempt to shut down support for antifa by mislabeling antifa.  Political leaders that have called anti-fascists “terrorists” have included Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, and Trump - all of whom are fascists (and for those of you reading this that think we’re not being fair to Trump - read this). When someone called antifa “terrorists,” they usually justify it by claiming that antifa “uses violence” to achieve political ends.  But there are some real problems with this justification.  As Philosophy Tube explained in their video about antifa (jump to the 20:48 mark), all political ideologies and movements are predicated on violence (e.g. the police, the army, militarized borders, etc.), “to say that a particular form of political engagement is bad because it features violence isn’t quite enough because they all do.  If anti-fascism and fascism are equivalent because they both feature violence, then every political position is equivalent, because they all feature violence.  What separates them is who the violence is being done against, and why it’s being done.”

Antifa will physically defend their communities from fascist activity.  If fascists aren’t actively encouraging people to discriminate, attack, and murder people, antifa aren’t “violent.”  Fascist violence is targeted at people because of who they are - disabled, LGBTQ+, a member of a different ethnic/racial group, a member of a different religion, people with different migration status, etc.  By contrast, anti-fascists target fascists because they are threatening to hurt people. Again, that Philosophy Tube video gets into this quite well around the 25:15 mark. Let’s also look at the “evidence” of “antifa violence” presented by the fascists in power in the U.S. recently: -the FBI could find no links between antifa and violence at the most-intense Black Lives Matter protests -the U.S. Justice Department found no connection between antifa and arrests made at the protests -none of the people facing federal charges in the U.S. were found to have any connection to antifa -An analysis of 217 arrests in DC and Minneapolis found that none of the arrestees were connected to antifa -Three days after Trump tweeted his plan to have antifa declared “domestic terrorists,” the White House tweeted a photo of a stack of rocks in LA, claiming they had been planted there by antifa to throw at cops, etc.  But an LA synagogue quickly pointed out that it was an anti-terror barrier they put in front of their synagogue to prevent a car bombing, (causing the White House to quickly delete their tweet).  -a purported antifa Twitter account calling for acts of violence at protests turned out to be a fake run by white supremacists.  -at the start of the George Floyd protests in Minneapolis, a man dressed in all black and carrying an umbrella smashed out the windows of an AutoZone with a hammer after spray painting “free shit for everyone zone” on the wall.  But this guy wasn’t antifa, an anarchist, or a Black Lives Matter supporter - it turned out he was Mitchell Wesley Carlson - a white supremacist gang member, who was clearly trying to make antifa/anarchist/Black Lives Matter protestors look bad/instigate shit. Last year, when people talked about antifa “violence,” they referred to fascists being punched or having milkshakes thrown at them. So we see violence on the level one would see in a typical high school being elevated to “terrorist violence” if antifa commit it; we also see the Trump regime working with full-on white supremacists to try to frame antifa as the cause/instigators/provocateurs of “violence” at recent protests (and failing miserably at doing so). Philosophy Tube specifically addresses the “antifa = terrorists” thing at the 29:15 mark of the video by referencing the work of terrorist researcher & scholar Louise Richardson, who points out that terrorists want three things - Revenge, Renown, and Response and that the targets of terrorism are interchangeable (meaning that terrorist targets are symbolic, not specific).  Antifa action is motivated by self-defense, not terror; antifa’s notorious tendency to be camera/media-shy doesn’t equate with a desire for renown, and antifa don’t tend to make demands for government responses to their demands - they just want to shut down fascists.  Even if we were making demands for governmental response, every political movement does that and that one criteria thing does not a terror group make.  Then there’s the matter of who is targeted by antifa - fascists, who comprise a very specific and non-interchangeable target. The other question is what is the extent/severity of antifa “terror” compared to fascist terror?  We listed above some of the “terrorist violence” opponents of antifa (read: fascists) have attempted to attribute to us.  A recent study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies looked at 900 politically-motivated plots and attacks in the U.S. over the last quarter century or so.  Here’s what they found: 

This chart could be replicated in just about any other country or region you’d care to name.  In Europe, for example, you are five times more likely to die in a fascist/extreme right-wing terror attack than you are to die in a terror attack committed by anyone else. Two immediate takeaways from this: 1) the deadliest terrorists are right-wing extremists/fascists. 2) if antifa are “terrorists” we are fucking bad at it, given we haven’t killed anybody. So are antifa “terrorists” or are they people trying to stop the most dangerous terrorists in the world and are trying to do so using minimal violence themselves?  Is it logical to equate antifa “violence” with fascist violence?

Clearly it’s not and calling antifa terrorists or equating their violence as the same as fascist violence = the logical fallacy of false equivalence.  This essay by Gregory Shupak really lays bare the absurdity of speaking of antifa “terror” and “violence” in the same conversation about fascist terror and violence.   So no, encasedinpermafrost - antifa is a movement, not an organization, and characterizing antifa as terrorists is laughable at best and also an obvious attempt to deflect from the real terrorists - fascists, white supremacists, and the far-right.  The real question to ask is “why is this person trying to convince me that antifa are terrorists and who benefits if they succeed in convincing enough people of that?”

[homoerotic-ads]

asexuality is not an ‘internet identity’, a fad, or fake.

as an asexual person myself, it’s difficult to deal with feeling both under-represented and excluded, both in cishet society AND lgbtq+ circles. the general conception regarding asexuality, in my experience, is that it’s a new identity, specifically a ‘tumblr snowflake’ identity, it’s not real, it’s a medical condition, etc etc. not only is this perspective genuinely hurtful and damaging, it’s just plain wrong. 

asexuality’s history can be hard to pin down, exactly, outside of writings specifically about it because it’s difficult to write about an absence of something (in this case sexual encounters/attraction) rather than the presence of it. however, the concept has existed longer than our modern terms for it, as is the case with all other lgbtq+ identities. 

unfortunately, I’m going to be speaking from an especially western standpoint, because I myself was born and raised in the western hemisphere and the sources I’m currently privy to are western. 

before any terminology was coined, 17th century author and poet Catherine Bernard wrote various works that have since been read as relating to asexuality. her views of love, sex, marriage, and personal affairs (or lack thereof) speak to the asexual experience. here’s an article about her and her works for more information. 

‘monosexual’ was a term coined in 1869 by Karl-Maria Kertbeny, the same man who coined the terms ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ (all 3 in the same pamphlet, actually!). ‘monosexual’ refers to people who only masturbate, rather than have sexual encounters, the implication there being that monosexuals have no interest in sex/feel no need for it. (it’s a myth that asexual people don’t masturbate--some do, some don’t. asexual people have fully functioning equipment, and are perfectly capable of having and even enjoying orgasms. remember that stimulation of sexual organs is not the same thing as feeling attraction). 

Kertbeny was a pretty cool dude, actually, or at least he was very progressive for his time regarding sexuality. he wrote that gay men were not inherently effeminate, that homosexuality was inborn and unchangeable, and that homosexuality had a long, long history, and many people they (and we) consider historical heroes were gay. Kertbeny was inspired to advocate for lgbtq+ people by a friend of his who had committed suicide after being blackmailed by an extortionist for his homosexuality.

in 1896 german sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld wrote the pamphlet Sappho und Sokrates, which discussed homosexual love and attraction, and referenced those who don’t feel sexual attraction. it is worth mentioning that he unfortunately connected asexuality with sexual anesthesia, which is the usually psychogenic condition that causes an absence of normal or expected sensations during sexual activity, as in, you have intercourse but can’t physically feel the stimulation. that is not what asexuality is. 

In 1907, Carl Schlegel, a german immigrant to the US and Presbyterian minister wrote a speech advocating for lgbtq+ equality, and mentions asexuality by name: “Let the same laws for all the intermediate stages of sexual life: the homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, be legal as they are now in existence for the heterosexuals[...]” Schlegel is considered one of the first modern gay activists in the US. 

coming back to Magnus Hirschfeld, he adopted the term asexual in his 1920 work, The Role of Homosexual Men and Women in Society, writing: “we must (if this were possible) describe” philosophers like Immanuel Kant “as being asexual.”

since its development in 1948, the Kinsey Scale has an X category for those who don’t experience sexual attraction. 

in the 1960s, the magazine Transvestia (founded by transwoman Virginia Prince in 1960, and ran from 1960-1980) published an article that claimed that, while most trans people “are entirely heterosexual,” “some are also asexual.” in 1965 the same magazine published the “A-Sexual Range”--sort of an early prototype for the modern asexual spectrum--which stated “There are persons who simply have a very low libido—no sex drive to speak of.”

in 1969 Anton Szandor LeVey, founder of the Church of Satan, wrote in his book The Satanic Bible that “Satanism condones any type of sexual activity which properly satisfies your individual desires – be it heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or even asexual.” 

in 1970 the Philadelphia, PA newspaper, Gay Dealer, published an article on trans liberation, saying that it “includes transvestites, transsexuals, and hermaphrodites of any sexual manifestation and of all sexes—heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual.”

in 1972, The Asexual Manifesto was published by the New York Radical Feminists. although the term asexual is used, it is a radfem publication so bear that in mind and be cautious in reading it. 

at a feminist conference in 1973, female and nonbinary attendees were asked to wear a label identifying themselves as one of the following: “Straight, Lesbian, Gay, Butch, Femm, Asexual, Anti-sexual, ?, other, etc.”

in the same year, activists at a conference at Barnard college provided labels for lgbtq+ identities. 

in 1974, David Bowie discussed asexuality in Rolling Stones magazine. 

in 1977, Myra Johnson wrote one of the first academic papers about asexuality for the book The Sexually Oppressed. she described asexuality as a complete lack of sexual attraction, which is the definition we generally use today!

if you’ve read all the way down here, and needed some convincing, I hope you’re getting the picture. asexuality is a long standing, clearly defined community, with its first term (monosexual) coined alongside homosexual and heterosexual. we have been recognized, by name, for nearly 200 years, and the concept/feeling has existed long before that. asexuality is not a disease, a medical condition, an internet fad, or a joke. asexuals experience discrimination, lack of representation, and a the general misunderstanding that other sexual minorities experience. asexuality has not been institutionally discriminated against because, as previously said, you can’t really prove or prosecute an absence in the same way one can a presence. however, in 2015, Russia banned people with “disorders of sexual preference” from obtaining drivers’ licenses, and the list included asexuals. 

this post is not nearly an exhaustive list of asexual history. if you want/need more information on asexuality, I’d recommend @historicallyace​, the Asexual Visibility and Education Network, the Asexual Census, and this great article on cracked.com about general ace experiences. 

if anyone reading this post has more info and sources, please add them!

happy reading!

[nerdygaymormon]

Progress

I know things still are tough and much progress still is needed, but it’s good to look at where things were and recognize the progress. It’s changing far too slowly, but we are winning. 

I’m going to speak of things that were Church teachings/positions from the 1990’s and 2000’s compared to how things are now.

A seismic shift occurred during the 2010’s thanks to LGBT members being open and sharing their stories, and changes in the broader society.

THEN

The Church used to teach that there is no biological or genetic component to homosexuality. The church listed numerous factors that could cause someone to feel this way and taught that homosexual feelings could be conquered and even removed. Several times it was taught that if people are born with these attractions and aren’t able to change them, then that would mean the Plan of Happiness is wrong (I don’t know why they never said “or incomplete”)

TODAY

The Church doesn’t speculate on what causes homosexuality, but the Plan of Happiness only allows for marriage between a man & a woman.

THEN

The atonement will help people overcome their attractions to the same gender

TODAY

We don’t expect anyone’s sexual orientation to change

THEN

Church leaders spoke of gender confusion as a synonym for homo/bisexuality. They’re confused and that’s why they’re lusting after they wrong people. Gender was seen as inextricably linked to attraction

TODAY

Church Handbook speaks of gender identity separately from sexual orientation

THEN

Marriage between a man & a woman can help cure homosexual feelings

TODAY

Marriage to someone of the opposite gender is not encouraged as a therapy…however it still is often unofficially held out by bishops & stake presidents as the goal a gay person should seek

THEN

Homosexuality is totally unnatural and doesn’t occur among animals (even at the time that was known to be incorrect)

TODAY

(nothing, this is never mentioned anymore)

THEN

Gays & lesbians are listed (along with feminists and scholars/intellectuals) as enemies of the church who lead many away

TODAY

There is a place in church for LGBT people

THEN

Conversion therapy was conducted at BYU and by LDS Social Services and widely recommended by church leaders

TODAY

Conversion therapy is against professional ethics of psychologists, psychiatrists and every major medical organization. It’s ineffective and unusually cruel, and often creates more problems. The church acknowledges that it’s not appropriate to recommend conversion therapy but wants legal exemptions for bishops & stake presidents because who knows what they might say.

THEN

Boys should do manly things and be around manly men. Girls should do girly things and wear girly clothes. This will help fix “gender confusion” and get them to stop being romantically/sexually interested in people of their own gender

TODAY

Gender roles are important and we need people to wear the right clothes and take on the correct responsibilities inside a marriage, but we don’t think changing your clothes or going hunting or getting a mani/pedi will make you change from gay to straight.

THEN

Satan is behind same-gender marriages and relationships

TODAY

Homosexuality is a complex reality for many people

THEN

Do not call yourself gay or lesbian

TODAY

Respect the labels people choose to describe themselves, although the church prefers same-sex attraction (SSA) and low-key wishes everyone would use it

THEN

Salt Lake City school district banned all student clubs rather than allow a Gay/Straight Alliance (GSA) at East High School

TODAY

Student clubs, including GSA’s, are found in Salt Lake schools

THEN

USGA is a club for LGBTQ BYU students and allies, meets on campus for 2 years

TODAY

USGA still exists but is not allowed to meet on campus. BYU still does not allow any type of GSA club on campus, nor any other LGBT-specific resources

THEN

Identifying oneself as gay is against the BYU honor code. So was supporting gay marriage, advocating for being gay to be seen as morally acceptable, publishing materials or participating in public demonstrations that advertises one’s “same-sex preference in any public way.” No displays of homosexual affection allowed (dating, hugging, kissing, holding hands, etc) or regularly associating with other homosexuals

TODAY

BYU Students may openly identify themselves as LGBT, can attend PRIDE activities, can view movies & TV shows which are queer-friendly, can be pro-marriage equality, and even demonstrate on-campus for change without punitive actions being taken by the university. Dating & public displays of affection are still not allowed.

THEN

Professor leaves BYU after saying he is gay and keeps BYU’s codes of conduct. BYU President says university is not comfortable with an openly-gay professor.

TODAY

I don’t know of any openly-gay professors, but there are openly-gay employees and students

THEN 

Several polls have been done that show roughly 5% of BYU students identify as gay. A majority of students believe gay students shouldn’t be allowed to attend BYU even if they obey the Honor Code, and a majority of students indicate they’d refuse to live with a gay roommate.

TODAY

A recent poll found 13% of BYU students identify as LGBTQIA+. A vocal minority of students believe gay students shouldn’t be allowed to attend BYU as they take the spot of a non-queer student who would support the Family Proclamation. There’s still stories every year of roommates moving out once someone in the apartment comes out.

THEN

The church donates millions to stop marriage equality from becoming law. Encourages members to donate money & time, specifies how they should vote.

TODAY

Doesn’t make big statements or donations regarding marriage equality or gay rights, but files amicus briefs that include the Family Proclamation to court cases seeking to limit or turn back gay rights in the US

THEN

Gay rights is anti-family, and tolerance for gay marriage results in intolerance for people opposed to such marriages. Human rights for gay people means less freedoms for everyone else.

TODAY

LGBT rights are fine in most areas of society as long as religious institutions retain the right to discriminate against LGBT people

[genderfluidityfornewbies]

How to start a GSA

As a part of the LGBTQ+ community, I often feel like I lack places where I can really be myself, and express the queer part of me. Unfortunately, a lot of the time, we, queer people, are put into circumstances and situations where these ‘safe places’ don’t already exist. We are discriminated against, told that we already have too much media coverage (which we don’t), or even bullied and harassed about our identities. That is why having something like a GSA (gay-straight alliance, also known as a gender-sexuality alliance) is so, so critical. 

If you or someone you know is looking to start one, here are some tips I have from my personal experiences. 

1. Don’t worry about how many people will join. I was really stressed about this, because I was at a middle school with a lot of homophobes/anti-LGBTQ+ people, both students and teachers. My GSA was really tiny in the beginning - just me and three other students. But the important thing isn’t how many people join you, it’s about the kinds of people that join you. People who are closeted. People who are out, and want to meet others like them. People who are just really great allies. Even if it is only you to start with, with time and good advertisement, you WILL get more people to join. It’s easier said than done, but just have patience and try to talk to people in the meantime and recruit them. 

2. Advertise well. It is critical that you spread the word about your GSA, because if you don’t, your impact on your setting (school, university, town, etc.) will be minimal. You can make really simple posters, either drawn from hand or created electronically. For example, I used sketch.io because it’s free, and you can draw and add photos or text. I also recommend that you send emails, because that way a lot more people will see your cause, and you can get a lot more interest/participants that way. You can also create a blog or Instagram page, where you share what your GSA is up to, and post any upcoming events. Social media has saved a lot of queer ass. Believe me. 

3. Get a supervisor. When I say ‘supervisor’, I am being a bit vague. If you go to a middle or high school, you will most likely have to have a teacher’s permission to start a club. In a lot of cases, the teacher/adult has to be in the room, especially for younger students. You should cautiously proceed, as a lot of adults aren’t yet accepting. First of all, mention the LGBTQ+ community to the teacher in mind, and see what their views are. Ask them, even, if they support it. If so, tell them your ideas for the GSA. If not, find another person. Worst comes to worse, you can always make the club an after-school thing, or for the weekend instead, if finding a staff member isn’t possible or convenient. If you get lucky and find a person to be the ‘supervisor’, make sure they are confidential and won’t reveal your participants’ information, as a lot of people will still be closeted for personal or safety reasons. If you don’t want the teacher in the same room, kindly ask them if they can be outside, and explain why it would be best to have a students-only club. 

4. Be explicit about the rules. Especially with simple things such as ‘respect everyone’, and ‘be kind’, or ‘be a listener’, make sure that everyone in your GSA 100% knows the rules by heart. And if they violate them, don’t give too many chances. Rule-breakers, in my opinion, only get one second chance. If they make people uncomfortable, or disobey you/the leader of the GSA, kick them out. Even within the queer community, I have noticed quite a few people out others, meaning they tell other people about a person’s identity, without that person consenting or knowing about it. Most of the time, the people doing the outing don’t realize that it can be harmful. After all, it’s exciting to get to know lots of LGBTQ+ people and tell them all about your friends’ identities, right? Not exactly; it really depends on the situation. ALWAYS be sure to ask every member in your GSA about their in-the-closet status. You can have them fill out a sheet. For example:

What are your pronouns/what is your sexual orientation/what is your gender?

Is it appropriate to refer to you as such in the GSA?

Is it appropriate to refer to you as such outside the GSA?

Can I refer to you as such in emails to the school?

Can I refer to you as such in emails/when speaking to your parents?

Are you comfortable with being a poster child for our Instagram/Blog? 

5. Have lots of activities. You should definitely have an agenda (pun intended) for your GSA. Make sure to start with icebreakers, and have everyone introduce themselves. (E.g. name, pronouns, why they joined, and their favorite hobby/book/movie/animal.) Play a quick game, eat some snacks, talk about the GSA’s rules and the plan for the next meeting. Also, when planning future meetings, include lots of different types of activities. The possibilities are endless. Watch movies/tv shows with queer representation. Read novels and discuss them like you’re in a book club. Pick an issue that effects the community, and talk about it. Have a debate. Raise money for your club with a bake sale or some kind of fundraising run. Write poetry/songs. Play charades or pictionary. Create mood boards/collages with everyone’s ideal looks/outfits. It doesn’t all have to be serious, and while it is important to be activists and try to raise awareness, you should also be having fun, and getting to know the other members. A GSA exists so that LGBTQ+ people can meet other LGBTQ+ people. Basically, have fun. 

6. Speak up, but know when to call it quits. While activism and raising awareness are critical and important for a GSA, it can become too much for some people. It’s okay to take a break, or stop having meetings. Especially if someone’s identity or safety is jeopardized. You can always come back to it, but don’t force it. 

7. Study. Finally, read up on anything you don’t know much about. This can be new pronouns, identities, or movements that you hadn’t heard of prior to joining/founding the GSA. Always do your research, and accept that you will be wrong about some things. In the end, it doesn't matter how much vocabulary you know, or how researched you are in every LGBTQ+ issue. What matters is that you are trying, and making an effort to use everyone’s preferred names/pronouns, and trying to learn more. If you try, you can’t go wrong. 

Hopefully these tips helped! Good luck everyone. You can always message me if you have more questions.

[star-anise]

hi! hope you’re doing well :) I wanted to ask you a question on something. I identify as a lesbian, and I have noticed that there seems to be...a lot of hate towards the ace community from tumblr lesbians (or at least the ones I follow). I’m curious as to why because seeing that kind of thing leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Anti-ace rhetoric reminds me of terf rhetoric, and I was curious to see if there is some sort of overlap between the two somehow. Thanks!

Hi! I’ll try my best. As a disclaimer, I’m coming at this more as a student of LGBT exclusionary movements than someone who experiences a ton of aphobia, so I’m coming at this by trying to pick apart the underlying philosophies, not someone who spends a lot of time reading the shit aphobes pull out of their asses.

I think, way deep down, the question is: How do we, the oppressed group, feel about people who we do not think are part of our group?

Exclusionary hatred of asexuality, much like TERF thought, comes from the basic idea that there is Us, the Oppressed, and Them, our Oppressors. Our groups have no overlap and are fated to be enemies forever and ever. There is no hope of peace between us. The best life We, the Oppressed, can hope for, is one in which we have completely eradicated our Oppressors from our lives.

Therefore, any hint a blurring of the boundary--a person who might be thought of as the Oppressor existing in the space of the Oppressed, claiming community there--is fundamentally dangerous. They are not able to not be Oppressive; surely they must be there for secret, dangerous reasons, perhaps to infiltrate and destroy this sacred haven.

People who see the world this way can therefore be easily persuaded to believe that trans women aren’t women, that aces and aros aren’t LGBT, and a lot of other things that basically translate to, “They’re not Us, they’re Them, and their very presence here is dangerous.”

This isn't why many lesbians will say they don't like asexuals. The reasons they actually provide are far more scattered and idiosyncratic, and you have to read between the lines. There's the poor fit between many radical feminist models of sexuality and desire and the asexual movement’s not-actually-paradoxical intersections with the sex-positive movement, or the feeling that asexuality “dilutes” a lesbian’s commitment to the Lesbian Community, or the contention that aces are "stealing" resources from LGBT people. 

But none of these seem to explain the deep visceral level of hatred and revulsion that comes with this topic. There are honestly as many radical feminist arguments for the concept of asexuality as against it, and asexuals and lesbians have incredibly strong historical links. To me, the emotional core of Us vs Them is much more important than the intellectual debates through which it manifests. Once you learn to spot the underlying dynamic of “They are not Us, we shall not be fooled, we shall cast Them out as the impostors and frauds and double agents and saboteurs which they are!” you can turn that lens on any community.

There are a lot of reasons Us and Them dichotomies are so frequently terrible guides for communities and activism, but I’ll limit myself to three:

1. Oppression doesn’t actually separate people into Good Blameless Victims and Bad Evil Oppressors. Oppressed groups get rewards for how much they buy into oppressive symptoms--Patriarchy rewards women who follow its rules and withholds those rewards from women who rebel. Capitalism rewards workers who sacrifice their wellbeing for the cause of profit more than those who seem uncommitted to the system. Cissexism rewards trans people who adhere to the gender binary and put a lot of effort into their appearance. Therefore, the first step of dismantling oppressive systems is often unlearning the mental systems by which we oppress ourselves, and then changing the social systems by which we oppress each other. Just because nobody in the oppressor class is around, it doesn’t mean a space will be free of oppression. We have to focus more on how we behave than who we admit.

2. People who want to focus entirely on how they’re oppressed tend to be terrible about caring about the oppression of anyone else. They’re especially bad about checking what privileges they might have and worrying about their potential oppression of people further down society’s ladder than them. There are so many ways society can discriminate against someone. By sex or gender or sexuality, sure; but also by race, and by class, and by disability, and by education, and by immigration status, and so much more. A lot of the acrid taste of single-issue groups is the toxicity they let themselves get away with because they don’t care where their own shit will wash up downstream.

3. It really is possible, even in this fallen world, for people in privileged categories to want to do better and stop oppressing people. I believe that people can stand together in solidarity and alliance, even if their individual struggles are different. The LGBTQ+ community didn’t become a thing in the last century because the oppressions we faced suddenly popped into existence. Rather, the revolutionary moment was that after centuries of oppression, we decided to work together to fight it. The hate we face is literally less important than our decision to back each other up in the face of it. So as disappointing as allies can sometimes be, as imperfect as solidarity is, that isn’t a reason to give up on them. It’s a reason for all of us to try harder to be there for each other.

[duchessofostergotlands]

Heres what i don’t understand. pratt and ppl who defend him keep saying things like “hes a good guy trust us” or “your making assumptions about me” but pratt could simply end all of this by coming out and saying plainly “i absolutely support the LQBTQ community” but he wont. Which makes the idea that he doesnt that much stronger.

I think it’s an actually an interesting conversation. People are running to certain conclusions and treating them as fact when I think the reality is much more insidious. This is an article from Jezebel which tracks his political statements or lack thereof: https://jezebel.com/is-chris-pratt-a-republican-i-tortured-myself-with-a-d-1845414944

When he was first criticised about Hillsong he said: “It has recently been suggested that I belong to a church which ‘hates a certain group of people’ and is ‘infamously anti-LGBTQ.’ Nothing could be further from the truth. I go to a church that opens their doors to absolutely everyone. Despite what the Bible says about divorce, my church community was there for me every stop of the way, never judging, just gracefully accompanying me on my walk. They helped me tremendously offering love and support. It is what I have seen them do for others on countless occasions regardless of sexual orientation, race or gender.”

When the church was criticised later for possible conversion therapy, he didn’t comment. I think that he probably doesn’t personally hold overtly homophobic or transphobic views and I think he genuinely believes that because he hasn’t seen anti LGBT+ behaviour that it’s not there. But I think that’s what the issue with him really is. He is someone who truly doesn’t know about or care about politics because his identity, safety or human rights have never been threatened by a political party. He is someone who thinks that if he didn’t personally see it then it doesn’t exist (ironic given his faith). Like bringing his statement back to 1) the fact he never saw LGBT+ people be discriminated against and 2) his own experience as a divorced man - those things are not remotely relevant to the conversation and put his experiences at the centre instead of those who actually are from the community. And I genuinely think that he thinks his statement is the same thing as supporting the LGBT+ community because he is so out of touch. He’s someone who I don’t think would actively vote for Trump but doesn’t feel at all worried about him winning. And those people - the abstainers, the third party voters - may not be supporting Trump as such but they are still propping up his regime. It’s easy to talk about MAGA hat wearing anti mask protestors but it’s a lot harder to talk about the people who use their privilege to just opt out of conversations. Just because the harm they cause might be indirect or accidental doesn’t mean it isn’t harm

[a-room-of-my-own]

Amnesty Irland wrote a letter (signed by a lot of "celebrities") in which they said that women don't deserve political representation (if they don't cater to the dick! -.-). It was already a few days ago and they have backpedaled since (basically calling Irish women stupid and that we misunderstood their words, because of our "lady brains"), but that they even dare to say something like this is horrifying! Misogyny is very much alive and every political party just loves to fuck women over!

I think I found it

Today, Trans Day of Remembrance 2020, members of Ireland’s LGBTQ+ community have released a powerful open letter in which they reinforce Ireland’s strong ethos of intersectional solidarity and the inclusion of our trans siblings as valuable members of society.

The letter has been signed by multiple organisations including the National Women’s Council of Ireland, MERJ Ireland and Le Cheile.

Below is the letter in full. It is now open for members of the public to sign on change.org.

For decades the transgender community has advocated, marched, and fought for equality, and inclusion. This fight has never once wavered in supporting movements that garner equality for all marginalised communities. Our work, our fight, our campaigns, have all been underscored by two things, intersectionality and solidarity. The transgender community has always worked in advancing the equal rights and acceptance of all without discrimination. For decades the work of the transgender community was tied to working in wider acceptance of queer people, even when our rights were never mentioned, nor advanced. For decades members of the transgender community marched in Pride, stood for women’s equality, all while our rights were left off the table. Internationally, women such as Marsha P. Johnson and others, marched, shouted and demanded gay rights, while every step of the way recognition of transgender identities and the inclusion of transgender rights were left behind. Here in Ireland the transgender community has continued to show that spirit of solidarity. Members of our community have worked along intersectional lines supporting campaigns that aimed increasing women’s rights, and the wider rights of the lesbian, bisexual and gay communities. Transgender people were active in campaigns in 2015 and 2016 that saw the passing of Marriage Equality in Ireland, and in the repeal of the 8th Amendment. Even now, transgender people continue to work for reforms that will increase the rights of gay and lesbian parents in surrogacy and adoption. Never have transgender people sought to diminish the rights, or acceptance of others.

Now, unfortunately, we see a rise in discriminatory organisations and vocal transgender exclusionary activists using Twitter and divisive antics to attempt to a drive a wedge in queer communities between transgender people and fracture our support from feminists. For our decades of solidarity, some seek to repay our community with a call for division based on falsities and bigotry. Let us say unequivocally that the statements of newly launched organisations that seek to defend biology or fight gender identity and expression do not represent the wider LGBTI+ community nor feminists in Ireland. More importantly, they are not organisations at all, they have no governance, no accountability, and are simply Twitter accounts. Further, they are not supported by the wider Irish community. Ireland has dealt with these pseudo-feminists before, and the work of Feminist Ire dealt swiftly with their attacks by stating “Trans women are our sisters; their struggles are ours, our struggles theirs. They were our sisters before any state-issued certification said so and will always be no matter what any legislation says, either now or in the future.” In addressing these accounts it is simple enough to refute them by stating they are not radical, they are not inclusive, and they are not feminists. They are simply misinformed and transphobic. The vitriol and disinformation these accounts and people share does not represent the beliefs of the legitimate organisations and signers of this letter, and together we repudiate their beliefs, and call for an end in giving airtime to their despicable brand of harassment. In Ireland we exist as a strong coalition of intersectional solidarity. As LGBTI+ and feminist organisations we stand together, we march together, we advocate together. We will not allow transphobia to grow and our history of work together will only continue to propel us to a more equal future for all marginalised people.

We call on media, and politicians to no longer provide legitimate representation for those that share bigoted beliefs, that are aligned with far right ideologies and seek nothing but harm and division. These fringe internet accounts stand against affirmative medical care of transgender people, and they stand against the right to self-identification of transgender people in this country. In summation they stand against trans, women’s and gay rights by aligning themselves with far right tropes and stances. They have attacked LGBT+ education in school, attacked anti-bullying campaigns, and attack access to medical services. They stand to remove equality, and cause a legacy of damaging discrimination. In particular, the road to Gender Recognition was long and public, and we in the trans community are thankful for the support of the many who stood by our side. We are thankful to the wider gay, lesbian and bisexual communities that marched and worked alongside of us for legal recognition. We are thankful for the feminists that saw, and still see, trans women as their sisters and use their voice to speak for equality. We are thankful our community was given a chance to present our case to the country, and that we secured so much support for inclusion and legal recognition. A legal battle, that to remind all, was started by Dr. Lydia Foy in 1992 for legal recognition and bodily autonomy. A twenty three year public debate and case for recognition. A battle that was full of intrusive questions, investigating peer-reviewed and solid research, and public debate. Dr. Foy and many other trans women, trans men, and non-binary people, laid bare their lives to Ireland in an attempt to be legally recognised, to have access to affirming medical care and support. As the years wore on our LGBTI+ community came alongside of us, and so did the Feminist Movement in the country. The basis of the argument is that all people, regardless of gender should have access to legal recognition, and should be treated as the best authority on their body. In the twenty years of public transgender advocacy we are thankful for the many steps toward progress that Ireland has taken. The transgender community along with the many supporters and signers of this letter will not stand by and allow toxic voices to continue to spread disinformation that seeks to restrict bodily autonomy, and equality.

Over twenty years Ireland has changed for the better. Many out transgender adults grew up in the Ireland that these discriminatory voices seek to bring back. One in which trans people were forced to be broadly invisible and silent in. An Ireland that forced trans people to be hidden, and intimidated them into the closet due to hate, discrimination and harassment. It was an Ireland that made transgender people feel ashamed and scared about who they were. The Ireland that we came out in versus the Ireland that we are now visible in, is a different Ireland to the one we were lost and shamed in. It is an Ireland where trans people are visible and legally recognised. We cannot and we must not go back from that. We do not want trans kids growing up and thinking they are the only ones who feel the way that they do or that they should be ashamed of who they see. We need an Ireland of inclusion so trans kids are not pushed to suicide, not forced to live in closets, and are not bullied for being born this way. Ireland has made great strides in terms of trans visibility and representation. Now we are dealing with those who fear and hate that and who would do anything in their power to tear us down and drive a wedge between us and the rest of the LGB+ community.  We must not let them win. Our lives and our very existence should not be up for debate. We deserve to be treated equally and with respect and to be recognised and accepted for who we are. Our twenty years of progress is monumental, and it must stand boldly against any and all fleeting voices of hate that seek to harm us.

As a trans community we are tired, tired of the hate, and the discrimination levied against us at every turn. Transgender people across Ireland seek to live a full, healthy, and included life. We would call on those that are standing in support with us to continue to use your voice to stand for bodily autonomy, a better medical care system, and full inclusion in society for trans and gender expansive people. We would ask that you do not engage with those that seek to simply project false information, or hateful words. Please do not use your voice to engage with people that are bad faith actors. Instead take time to share why transgender rights matter, how transgender rights make society better, and how equality means a fuller and healthier life for all. Use your voice to call on media to accurately portray trans people, and for lawmakers to value our lives. Use your voice as an ally to speak for inclusion, to speak for acceptance, and to speak for a better life for transgender people. Be visibly proud to support your trans friends, family and colleagues.

We know equality means justice and inclusion for all! Supporting transgender people, and standing for transgender equality does not lessen anyone’s rights. Rather as marginalised people are given more equality, we are all given a more equal society. No one has true equality, while some still live under the wheels of injustice. Anyone that continues to use inaccurate science to denigrate trans people is increasing discrimination. Sex and gender are both spectrums, and the full beauty of that spectrum must be supported and included. No one should be targeted or harassed for who they are. Trans children do not deserve to be sent to schools being fed lies about them. Transgender adults should not be fearful that they might be targeted and killed on their walk home for simply living their lives. These are the worries that these organisations are seeking to bring to Ireland. One that sees a rise in trans suicide, violence, and isolation. An Ireland that is not a land of a thousand welcomes, but of a thousand fears. Transgender rights do not attack feminism, they are a continuation of feminist ideals. Transgender men and women do not lessen the rights or threaten gay and lesbian spaces, because trans men are men, and trans women are women.

It is time as a society and as a queer, feminist, radical community we no longer allow bigotry to blossom. In no uncertain terms we agree that trans lives matter, trans people should be given full rights, and trans people should be included fully in society. Trans people are our friends, neighbours, colleagues, classmates and loved ones. We will not allow anyone to promote hate, to trade in bigotry, or to attack legislation, education and programs that affirm transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people. We stand boldly against the rise of exclusionary rhetoric, and name it for what it is, harassment and transphobia. It is not based in truth, it comes with no claims in fact, and is a dog whistle to bigots. We know that by and large these false narratives are not native to the queer and feminist communities of Ireland. These ideas are representative of outsiders that have not worked, laboured, or known the trans community in Ireland. These fringe groups have not been in the trenches for equality. They do not understand, nor appreciate, that together we built a radical and inclusive coalition for equality.

This radical and inclusive coalition denounces their platforms of disinformation. We reject their inaccurate science. We reject their aims, goals, and campaign for discrimination. Ireland is better when it is diverse and equal. Our diversity and equality has been showcased by our coalition of trans, queer, and feminist leaders who in their unity have won tremendous legislative victories that have improved the lives of gay and lesbian couples, women’s rights, and transgender recognition. Our unity, and our work will not stop. Our focus is now on strengthening our resolve, turning away hate, and continuing to support the trans and gender expansive community members from those that would seek to harm them. We will not be bullied, we will not be silenced, and we will not allow transgender rights to be maligned. We move forward with hope and unity for a better world, and a better Ireland

---

Nice call for censorship 🙄

[comrade-meow]

Dawn had only just broken over the mountains. While most of the women and children on the camping grounds were still asleep, others were already wide awake, huddling together in the first rays of sunlight and drinking coffee.

To a casual observer, this place might have seemed similar to any mainstream festival campsite. A distinguishing factor, however, was that there wasn’t a single man in sight. The sign on the main entrance left no one in doubt that only women and children were welcome at this event: “Men not permitted to enter.”

Women’s participation in Mexico’s 25-year-old Zapatista National Liberation Army, or EZLN movement, has represented an incredible organizational achievement since its original uprising in 1994. On International Women’s Day, the female militants of the EZLN did not fail to meet expectations when welcoming 7,000 people to the “First International Political, Artistic, Sports, and Cultural Encounter for Women who Struggle.”

Two thousand indigenous Zapatista women from various parts of Chiapas state and 5,000 visitors from all over the world came to Caracol Morelia, near the northeastern town of Altamirano, to hear what they had to say.

Uniting women

The event was entirely initiated by women of the EZLN. They planned it from beginning to end, and made sure everyone who attended was allocated a sleeping place, had access to drinking water and was cared for in the case they fell sick during the three days the event took place. Zapatista events such as these have commonly been accessible via invitation only. This event differed from most of the EZLN’s previous “Escuelitas,” or “Little Schools,” summoning all women and children who were interested in the struggle to overcome misogynistic culture.

“What we wanted was to meet many women,” said Commander Jenny, who coordinated the event. “We thought that only a few women were going to come, so we are very happy to see how many of you have joined us here.” Although only her eyes were visible, a smile was detectable behind her black balaclava. “It has been hard work, but we are very pleased to see that there are many other women who are fighting patriarchy.”

The event was not only an opportunity to create educational or professional networks, but also a space to consider one’s health and well-being as a woman in the fight for justice. There were activities ranging from workshops, discussion panels and movie screenings to theater performances, art exhibitions and sports events, including basketball and soccer matches. Themes included gender violence, self-defense, self-care, sexism in the media, sexual rights, health and education, misogyny and childhood, discrimination against indigenous LGBTQ communities, women environmental rights defenders, and decolonization. All of the activities were led and held by women, and all of them were aimed at generating consciousness of gender inequality or the restoration of women’s self-confidence and autonomy.

“Capitalism is not only colonial, it is also patriarchal and racist,” said Fernanda Esquivel, a 20-year-old student from Guadalajara. “To come here and see that the Zapatistas are still resisting and have resisted for so many years is a huge inspiration for me. Being with so many women and feeling united also makes me feel hopeful about really creating a change. In academia there is nothing that can show you what it is like to come here, and to feel and share these experiences in practice.”

Young women like Esquivel have grown up watching the Zapatistas evolve and followed their fight through media reports, the Zapatista’s own communication channel, “Zapatista Connection,” and more recently a Facebook page and YouTube account. Women from a total of 42 different countries, some of whom were already familiar with women’s movements or other social, political or environmental activism, attended the event in hopes that they would gain skills and inspiration from the women’s Zapatista struggle.

“Apart from wanting to amplify my vision of how different fights against the extractive industries are developing,” said Katherin Cruz from the National Network of Women Human Rights Defenders in Honduras, which accompanies women human rights defenders involved in territorial conflicts. “I came here so I could recharge my batteries and take home experiences that strengthen me individually and prepare me for the work that I do, and for my political activism within the feminist movement in Honduras.”

The birth of the EZLN

In 1983, a group of indigenous peasants in Chiapas organized in secret, educating themselves politically and creating an entirely unique philosophy that insisted that “another world is possible,” one that focuses on collectivity, serving the Zapatista community and creating an autonomous social and economical environment for themselves within neoliberal and capitalist Mexico. Finally on January 1, 1994 the group went public, calling themselves the Zapatista National Liberation Army, named after the hero of the 1910 Mexican Revolution, Emiliano Zapata. That day, the EZLN launched an armed uprising, occupied seven towns in Chiapas, including San Cristóbal, and declared war on the Mexican government.

During their brief occupation, followed by a 12-day battle, the EZLN criticized the effects of global capitalism on local farmers and indigenous land. They drew attention in particular to the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, calling it a death sentence for the indigenous peasants of Mexico. NAFTA would be responsible for dismantling collective land rights secured by the Mexican constitution and prioritizing export manufacturing. The Zapatistas fought for a fairer distribution of wealth, as well as the right to political participation for indigenous people in Mexico.

After their initial uprising, in 1996 the Zapatista organization gained constitutional recognition from the state through the San Andres Accords and formed the National Indigenous Council. The Mexican government did not comply with the agreements and the Zapatistas continued to suffer from violent attacks, such as the Acteal Massacre in 1997, where 45 Zapatista sympathizers were killed in Chiapas. Since then, they have peacefully organized mass marches and protests, created their “caracoles,” or administrative headquarters, formed autonomous governance, justice, health and education systems and launched public campaigns drawing attention to continued racism and discrimination in Mexico. According to the Mexican newspaper El Universal, the EZLN now governs over 250,000 indigenous people living in the Autonomous Rebellious Zapatista Municipalities in Chiapas.

Today, the image of the Zapatista soldiers, clad in red scarves and balaclavas, has reached some of the most remote corners of the world. Their movement is now well known for its transition from armed struggle to nonviolent resistance to advance their demands for indigenous land rights and autonomy, which has triggered tremendous support and solidarity from anti-capitalist activists globally. However, many of the major issues for indigenous communities addressed by the Zapatistas, such as abandonment and marginalization, continue to exist in Chiapas and other parts of impoverished Mexico.

Women’s involvement and participation

During the gathering, Commander Marina took the stage to tell the story of the first female Zapatistas, their struggle for recognition in a male-dominated space and their experience of clandestine meetings prior to their public appearance in 1994. “We took our safety very seriously so that no one would realize where we were going. We had meetings in the mountains, these were very important. We had talks on politics, read books and watched films. We studied the situation of poverty our community was submerged in,” she said. “There was nothing to gain trying to demand things from our bad government.”

The backdrop of the women’s movement within the Zapatista struggle reveals extreme levels of violence against women, poverty and abandonment from any sort of federal health or educational institutions. Intersectional discrimination for being poor, indigenous and women was commonplace, and girls were often forced into marriages or sold by their fathers or families. During the opening ceremony of the encounter, the Zapatistas made it clear that women were sidelined and perceived by the community as second-class citizens. According to Commander Flor, even “midwives would charge less when girls were born.”

Their struggle has led the women in the ranks of the EZLN — which comprise about a third of the organization’s participants — to see themselves from a different perspective and shed light on the problematic behaviour caused by gender inequality. “At the beginning, we were not used to saying our opinions, or having discussions. We would all agree to everything and nod our heads,” Marina said. “We had to fight among our own compañeros, since it took a lot for them to understand the rights we have as women. There is a lot left to achieve but we are convinced that we will accomplish our ideals because we are organized, and we are strong as a collective. We have put fear and doubt aside.”

Many followers of the Zapatista revolution were not aware of the key elements that formed the movement before going public in 1994. Undeniably, one of the key characteristics that shaped the movement was the “Women’s Revolutionary Law,” passed by the Zapatista committees in 1992.

For Sylvia Marcos, a sociologist and expert on indigenous movements across the Americas, the emphasis on women’s rights is a defining factor for the organization. Furthermore, she indicates that these rights were claimed not solely for women as individuals, but were “fully linked and interwoven with collective rights.”

The unique transformations achieved by the Zapatista indigenous movement are manifest in its attempt to re-imagine gender and decolonize oppressive discourse for the sake of personal empowerment.

Enduring inspiration

Over the last three decades, the revolution continues to abide by laws made by the autonomous Zapatista government. With military strategist and spokesperson Subcomandante Marcos “resigning” from his activities, the Zapatistas have moved out of the media spotlight. However, the successful turnouts for their events prove that the Zapatistas are still an important source of inspiration for social mobilizations and women’s movements today.

Not simply an iconic reminder of what indigenous communities were up against in the past, the Zapatistas are engaging in great efforts to revise their strategies and continue to create networks of people who resist, especially among women. Though alternative visions of gender relations have flourished among the Zapatistas, women in the movement continue to suffer gender violence and are battling other issues not uncommon in Chiapas, such as malnutrition, and lack of access to health care and education.

The Zapatistas are addressing some of these issues through their own internal initiatives. Part of their collective work towards independence and sustainability relies on their agroecological farming projects, coffee sales, cooperative shops, community kitchens, traditional medicine and tortilla businesses. However, the fundamental purpose of the Zapatista movement is to promote their way of life and organize collective resistance to resource appropriation, historically-determined economic and social disadvantages and institutional neglect, which exacerbate poverty, sustain the governmental elite and destroy local traditions. Much of their work revolves around inspiring new generations to begin their own journey towards deconstructing norms in their respective societies.

The Zapatista movement currently functions like an organization that promotes constructive dialogue, communication and continued reflection on problems that affect their communities, as well as a support network for other national movements, including the water conflict affecting the indigenous Yaqui community, the 43 Ayotzinapa students missing since 2014 and the recent presidential campaign by the indigenous activist Maria de Jesus Patricio Martinez.

Women’s participation within the EZLN has played a key role in their success and ideology. They have made it clear that there will be no democracy without them. What the event last month demonstrated to many of those who were present, was the need to create safe spaces for all women, which allow them to heal and inspire them to continue fighting their own battles in their own ways. “We made an agreement, and that agreement was to live!” Commander Marina said. “And since, for us, living is fighting, we agreed to fight — each of us according to our means, our place and our time.”

[makistar2018]

The global icon penned an open letter in support of the Equality Act. After staying silent during the 2016 election, Swift has changed course in a big way.

Amy Zimmerman June 2, 2019

This Pride, Taylor Swift is coming out… as a vocal ally.A few years ago, it would have been impossible to imagine the famously brand-obsessed pop star urging her fans to write their senators. But late Friday, the woman behind girl-squad feminism and politely ignoring her neo-Nazi admirers finally took a stand. The fact that that stand was advocating on behalf of the Equality Act—which recently passed the House and must now be approved by the GOP-controlled Senate—and expounding on the importance of protections for LGBTQ Americans was not lost on some of Swift’s biggest fans.

But before we get to Kaylor (the portmanteau for Karlie Kloss and Taylor Swift’s hypothetical romantic relationship) and some of the more conspiratorial corners of Taylor Swift's fan base, let’s talk activist Taylor Alison.

Just a few album cycles ago, Swift was getting called out for her political silence. Her reticence to tell fans who she was voting for in 2016 stuck out as particularly craven. Given Swift’s background as a country-to-pop crossover artist, it’s easy to guess at her rationale. Considering a Venn diagram of country fans and Trump supporters, Swift may have understandably chosen to put her Hillary Clinton cape back in the closet so as not to piss off paying customers (when it comes to her brand and her career, Swift is a smart lady). But in the midst of an increasingly dystopian Trump era, her apoliticism has aged poorly. Either the singer sensed the woker Swifties turning against her, or she simply could not stomach doing nothing.

Whatever her motives, last year Swift shocked her followers by publicly endorsing two Democrats and strongly disavowing Republican Marsha Blackburn for Senate. “She voted against equal pay for women,” Swift informed her followers. “She voted against the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which attempts to protect women from domestic violence, stalking, and date rape. She believes businesses have a right to refuse service to gay couples. She also believes they should not have the right to marry.” The singer declared, “These are not MY Tennessee values.”

Watching Taylor Swift weigh in on the midterms was about as disorienting as watching her walk away from paparazzi backwards. And just like her crab walk, Taylor’s activism has quickly become commonplace.

Her latest statements are in many ways a continuation of the priorities she expressed last year, when she declared that, “any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender is WRONG.” But, in addition to being as well-intentioned and strongly-worded as her previous political forays, Swift’s latest statement has the added bonus of being gay as hell. Printed on the rainbow pastel color palette that the pop star’s been so fond of lately, Swift’s post intersperses sincere exhortations with rainbow emojis. Writing about the Equality Act, “Which would protect LGBTQ people from discrimination in their places of work, homes, schools, and other public accommodations,” Swift explains that, “I’ve decided to kick off Pride Month by writing a letter to one of my senators to explain how strongly I feel that the Equality Act should be passed.” (The Trump White House has voiced their opposition to the Equality Act, as it continues to roll back protections against LGBTQ citizens.)

Swift goes on to reveal that she has created a Change.org petitionfor Senate support of the Equality Act, which you can find in her recently updated Twitter bio (so far, nearly 80,000 people have signed it). In her post, Swift also included a copy of the letter she sent to her senator as a template for fans to pressure their own elected officials.

“Let’s show our pride by demanding that, on a national level, our laws truly treat all of our citizens equally,” Swift concluded.

Ruby Rose and Taylor Swift attend the 27th Annual GLAAD Media Awards at the Beverly Hilton Hotel on April 2, 2016, in Beverly Hills, California. 📷 Jason Kempin/Getty

The pop star’s thoughtful remarks have caused a vocal subsection of her fan base to lose their shit. Yes, Kaylor shippers do exist, as do diehard fans who have interpreted many of Swift’s recent actions as covert queer messages. For years now, sleuths have attempted to prove that Taylor Swift and Karlie Kloss were totally a thing (skeptics should listen to “Dress” and then get back to me). But as Swift teased her new music in April, #Gaylor conjecture reached an all-time high. At Vulture, Jill Gutowitz faithfully gathered Swift’s breadcrumbs, many of which fell on a spectrum from subtly to overtly Sapphic.

“Sometimes I think about men who sanctimoniously say their favorite movie is The Prestige and I’m like, you frauds could never handle a Taylor Swift pre-album clue trail,” Gutowitz wrote. In a piece titled “Why So Many of Us Believed Taylor Swift Was Coming Out,” BuzzFeed’s Shannon Keating summarized, Kissgate. All those rainbows! Swapped lyrics featuring female pronouns. Lyrics that just seem really gay. The cats. The donations to LGBT causes. That performance with Hayley Kiyoko. Today, April 26, the day of Taylor Swift’s long-awaited announcement, is literally Lesbian Visibility Day.”

Unfortunately for us believers, “Me” was just a music video—albeit, a very gay music video featuring “pansexual icon” Brendon Urie and a phalanx of ladies in pastel suits (is this camp?!). “The gayest not-gay thing we’ve ever seen,” indeed. Now that Taylor Swift’s totally rainbow Twitter profile reads “Support the Equality Act,” it’ll be near impossible to dissuade #Gaylor truthers—and it’s hard to imagine that Swift doesn’t know exactly what she’s doing.

“I really thought Taylor was coming out this time,” Shannon Keating concluded after the “Me” letdown. “I really did! Now, there’s a big part of me — the grouchy and cynical part — that feels like the rollout for Taylor’s new song and video was a calculated attempt to queerbait us all before she turned on her glittery heels and announced that ‘Me’ would be… the soundtrack to more of the NFL draft. But there’s another part of me that has to grudgingly respect how she whipped a bunch of full-grown gays who ‘don’t really care about Taylor Swift’ into such a frenzy.” 

As long as Swift is using her outsized influence to fight for LGBTQ causes, she can go ahead and keep us guessing. 

The Daily Beast

[nerdygaymormon]

On twitter you mentioned you were making a song list for Pride. What's on your playlist?

Everyone has their own list of songs, but here’s my Pride playlist. This includes songs by LGBT performers, gay anthems, songs that are about LGBT topics & people, and songs that if you squint they speak to the queer experience. And many of these are great songs for dancing, which makes sense as even today most of the specifically-queer spaces are bars and dance clubs.

1939 - Over the Rainbow : Judy Garland - “the dreams that you dream of […] really do come true.”  When homosexual acts were illegal – the term “friend of Dorothy” was underground slang for a gay man.

1964 - Don’t Rain on my Parade - Barbra Streisand - We do like great big colorful parades, don’t we. Please don’t rain on those parades. The song is about how we got one life and so live it with gusto, do the things you most want to do. I’m holding my own parade and nobody is going to rain on it.

1966 - You Don’t Have to Say You Love Me : Dusty Springfield - The singer proclaims she’ll take whatever she can get from the object of her love. Generations of closeted women & men could identify with that. “You don’t have to say you love me, just be close at hand. You don’t have to stay forever, I will understand”

1969 - Make Your Own Kind of Music : Mama Cass - The message is about taking pride in your uniqueness and individualism

1975 - Dancing Queen : ABBA - This is a story of a 17-year-old girl on a nightclub dance floor, lost in the music and the moment. Of course, “queen” has a different meaning in the queer community and so this is often sung tongue-in-cheek. Over the years, queer acts like Erasure covered ABBA’s songs, and their songs were featured in several movies that appealed to gay audiences, making ABBA icons in the community.  

1977 - I Feel Love : Donna Summer - A song about loving your body and your desires, a powerful sentiment for people whose attractions were once seen as deviant. Try to listen to this song and not feel like dancing.

1977 - I Will Survive : Gloria Gaynor - You can imagine marginalized people asking the same questions in the song: “Did you think I’d crumble? Did you think I’d lay down and die?” The gay community has embraced lyrics that are a declaration of pride “I used to cry / But now I hold my head up high.” Even after decades of progress, many LGBTQ+ people still have to deal with daily assaults on their personhood & “I Will Survive” remains relevant.

1978 - Don’t Stop Me Now : Queen - Essentially the song is just a man intent on having a wild night out and inviting the rest of us to come along for the ride or else get out of his way. The love interests flip between male & female and back again, which makes sense since Freddie Mercury was bisexual.

1978 - Y.M.C.A. : Village People - Very fun song. The lyrics make me think of young gay teens being kicked out of their homes by their parents, many of whom migrated to big cities like New York. The YMCA’s provided shelter for them.  “Young man, there’s no need to feel down. I said, young man, pick yourself off the ground. I said, young man, ‘cause you’re in a new town. There’s no need to be unhappy.” And of course, the lyrics hint at all the gay activity, too. “You can stay there, and I’m sure you will find many ways to have a good time. It’s fun to stay at the YMCA. They have everything for you men to enjoy. You can hang out with all the boys.“ 

1978 - You Make Me Fee (Mighty Real) : Sylvester - The singer is black, gay and some form of gender queer and sings the song in falsetto. The words about feeling real, those mean something to people who had to come to terms with who they are.

1979 - Go West : Village People - This song imagines a utopia free of homophobia and discrimination. It’s a song of queer community & spirit, and we’ll do it “Together!”

1979 - Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight) : ABBA - is about a woman alone in an apartment watching television late at night as the wind howls outside. She says, “Gimme, gimme, gimme a man after midnight.” A sentiment many a gay man could sing along with. 

1979 - We are Family : Sister Sledge - The song has a message of unity, and gay people often have to build a chosen family, and this song fits that.

1980 - I’m Coming Out : Diana Ross - Yes, this song is about that kind of “coming out.” The lyrics also are about being your truest self and throwing aside shame’s shackles.

1981 - Tainted Love : Soft Cell - The gay experience is not all about empowerment & acceptance. Sometimes it’s about a narcissist who breaks your heart. This song coming at the start of the AIDS crisis came to represent some of the angst that was part of gay life. “Once I ran to you, now I’ll run from you.”

1982 - Do You Really Want to Hurt Me : Culture Club - Boy George wrote the lyrics about his relationship with the drummer Jon Moss. They had an affair for about six years that was kept hidden from the public, and George often felt hurt and emotional. The concept of the video is about being gay and victimized for your sexuality. It shows Boy George getting kicked out of different places in various historical settings. In the courtroom, the jurors are in blackface to show the bigotry and hypocrisy of the many gay judges and politicians in the UK who’d enacted anti-gay legislation.

1982 - It’s Raining Men : The Weather Girls - Super campy song, ridiculous words, but it’s sung fearlessly with vocal pyrotechnics that take the song over the top in the best possible sense. Yes, what gay boy didn’t wish it was raining men?

1983 - Girls Just Wanna Have Fun : Cyndi Lauper - This song is about breaking the rules, letting go, being free and being visible. And yeah, lesbians wanna have fun.

1983 - Relax : Frankie goes to Hollywood - At a time when gay sexuality was still mostly communicated via clever allusions and nonsexual portrayals of gay people, “Relax” was a song about sex—and despite the video being banned by the BBC and MTV—was the biggest pop song in the world.

1984 - I Want to Break Free : Queen - He’s complaining about the person he’s with, wants to break free from the person’s lies. And when he is free, “life still goes on,” only now he can’t get used to living without this person. The video is a parody of U.K. soap opera Coronation Street, which has the entire band in drag, Freddie Mercury as a housewife. Seeing them in drag, of course, gives it a queer vibe. The video was banned in the U.S. 🙄

1985 - You Spin Me Round : Dead or Alive - The singer is queer and singing a love song, the New Wave music is hot, and this is an iconic classic of the 1980’s

1986 - True Colors : Cyndi Lauper - The song is about seeing who someone really is and loving them for it. And it doesn’t hurt that your “true colors are beautiful like a rainbow”

1987 - Faith : George Michael - The song, about declining hookups and patiently waiting for a more meaningful connection, portrays a balancing act with which gay culture has long wrestled.  “Well I need someone to hold me but I’ll wait for something more. Yes, I’ve gotta have faith” is just as meaningful today in a culture searching for love while swiping left.

1987 - It’s a Sin : Pet Shop Boys - This song is about a person’s lifelong shame and guilt, presumably for being gay. “For everything I long to do, no matter when or where or who, has one thing in common, too. It’s a, it’s a, it’s a, it’s a sin”

1987 - Always on my Mind : Pet Shop Boys - This is a remake of an Elvis song, but they dropped the references to a girl, making it ambiguous the gender they’re singing about. 

1988 - A Little Respect : Erasure - Singer Andy Bell was one of the first openly gay pop stars to actually sing about queer romance. In this song he’s calling to a lover not to leave and asks the question, “What religion or reason could drive a man to forsake his lover?“ 

1989 - Express Yourself : Madonna -  It’s basically about standing up for yourself in a relationship. Don’t go for “second-best” just because he treats you nicely in bed, but then is never there when you need him. So why is this in my Pride playlist? The music video!

1989 - Part of Your World : Jodi Benson - This song is from Disney’s The Little Mermaid, Ariel rejected traditional marriage partners and wants to marry a human against her father’s wishes. She dreams of being a part of the human world. For a long time the LGBT community has wanted to pursue romance & marriage with whom we want and belong to & be welcomed by society. 

1990 - Vogue : Madonna - “Look around: Everywhere you turn is heartache.” That’s not exactly a fluffy opening for a dance-pop song—and that’s the point. This is still the time of America’s AIDS crisis, and this song is inspired by New York’s gay ball scene. This song wants you to put away the heavy stuff for a little while and get on the dance floor.

1990 - Freedom! ‘90 : George Michael - This song is cleverly about 2 things. One is about his career–the breakup of Wham! and then the success of Faith, and how he’s tired of being pushed around by his label so he’s taking control of his career and telling people to disregard the pop imagery of his past. It’s also about him wanting to come out of the closet regarding his homosexuality, “There’s something deep inside of me, there’s someone else I’ve got to be.” It would be almost another ten years before he was publicly out.

1990 - Being Boring : Pet Shop Boys - “When you’re young you find inspiration in anyone who’s ever gone and opened up a closing door,” I believe this is talking about being in the closet and the hope that comes from people who’ve come out. The final verse, “Some are here and some are missing in the 1990’s,” AIDS wiped out much of a generation of gay people in the 1980’s. Now he’s grown up and out of the closet as “the creature I was always meant to be.”

1990 - Gonna Make You Sweat : C+C Music Factory - Fun dance song. In a 1997 episode of the The Simpsons, a steel mill turns into a flamboyant gay club when this song comes over the loudspeaker

1992 - Constant Craving : k.d. lang - She had been a country singer, but came out as gay and released this song. Every lesbian knew exactly what k.d. was craving. There weren’t really any other lesbian pop stars who had come out. 

1992 - This Used to be my Playground : Madonna - This song is about losing childhood innocence and gaining responsibilities. The song came to be seen as an ode to gay friends who died during the AIDS crisis, and the loss of innocence that epidemic caused.

1992 - The Last Song : Elton John -  A young gay man dying of AIDS. The young man’s father “disowned” his son when he learned of his homosexuality only to overcome his homophobia when he learns that his son is dying and he has little time to spend with him. This one makes me cry.

1993 - Go West : Pet Shop Boys (a remake of the song by the Village People) - This song imagines a utopia free of homophobia and discrimination. It’s a song of queer community & spirit, and we’ll do it “Together!”

1993 - Come to my Window : Melissa Etheridge - Melissa put the rumors to rest by publicly coming out and then released an album titled “Yes, I Am.” This song from the album is about a love that’s steeped in secrecy “come to my window, crawl inside, wait by the light of the moon.” Certainly many gay people know about keeping a love on the down low. The song’s bridge really voices what a lot of queer people feel: “I don’t care what they think, I don’t care what they say. What do they know about this love, anyway?”

1993 - Supermodel : Rupaul - His debut single introduced much of America to “sashay/shantay.” RuPaul used this breakthrough hit to become the first mainstream-approved drag queen.

1995 - I Kissed a Girl : Jill Sobule - An honest song of yearning, confusion, and freedom

1996 - Fastlove : George Michael - A guy was in a committed relationship, didn’t work out and now he just wants to not worry about love. “Had some bad love, so fast love is all that’s on my mind.” But even as he’s saying he’s seeking a casual hookup, keeps saying he misses his baby, being with someone he loves would be his preference.

1997 - Together Again : Janet Jackson - The album notes included: “I dedicate the song ‘Together Again’ to the friends I’ve lost to AIDS.” It’s a sweet song with hopeful words. “Everywhere I go, every smile I see, I know you are there smilin’ back at me”

1997 - Man! I Feel Like a Woman : Shania Twain - This is about going out, letting down your hair and having a good time. Message is she loves being a woman. “The best thing about being a woman is the prerogative to have a little fun.” My queer friends who identify as women love feeling like a woman. 

1998 - Believe : Cher - Whatever happens, you’ve gotta believe there’s something better coming. It’s about strength and power and hope. And the fact that it’s not always easy to be who you are.

1998 - Reflection : Christina Aguilera - This song is from the Disney movie Mulan. It’s about others not know the real you, which means the lyrics can also fit the experience of being in the closet. “Look at me. You may think you see who I really am, but you’ll never know me. Every day it’s as if I play a part.” The song also was adopted by a lot of trans people to say how they feel on the inside doesn’t match how they look on the outside. “Who is that girl I see staring straight back at me? Why is my reflection someone I don’t know?”

1998 - Outside : George Michael - George Michael was entrapped by police committing a lewd act in a public men’s bathroom in Los Angeles under suspicious circumstances. The video mocks the way queer men are held to different standards about sex. Straight rock stars screw groupies in bathrooms all the time without police interference. 

1998 - It’s Not Right But It’s Okay : Whitney Houston - “I’m gonna be okay/ I’m gonna be alright” shows a certain defiance & determination to go on that strikes a chord with LGBT people

1999 - When She Loved Me : Sarah McLachlan - This is from Toy Story 2, if you remove the idea this is about a toy, the lyrics are about a woman reminiscing a past female lover.

2001 - Androgyny : Garbage - I think this song has two messages. First, don’t dismiss people who don’t fit traditional gender roles. The other message is about trans individuals who “can’t see the point in going on,” they’re reminded that “nothing in life is set in stone, there’s nothing that can’t be turned around.” “Boys in the girls room, Girls in the men’s room, You free your mind in your androgyny” Trans individuals who were assigned female at birth may consider themselves “boys in the girls room.” Then when they decide to present themselves as male, others may consider them to be “girls in the men’s room.”

2002 - Beautiful : Christina Aguilera - This song affirms those who feel they don’t fit in. The video includes young people with body issues, a goth punk, a (biological) man putting on women’s clothes and two guys kissing in public. “I am beautiful no matter what they say. Words can’t bring me down.” But songs can lift you up, and this one does.  

2005 - Hung Up : Madonna -  It’s about living your best life and not wasting anymore time on men who wont call you. And it has that synthesizer riff from ABBA’s Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight)

2005 - Proud of Your Boy : Clay Aiken - This song was written for Aladdin. The words make me think of coming out and wondering what your parents are going to think and can you make your parents proud.

2006 - And I’m Telling You : Jennifer Hudson - This song is about an underdog, and being LGBT makes us underdogs in our heteronormative society. “And I am telling you that I’m not going.” I’m going to be here and I’m going to thrive, I’m going to be me and you’re going to see me and “You’re Gonna Love Me.” Those lyrics remind me about coming out and getting to be who you want to be, no matter what anybody tells you.

2006 - I Am What I Am : Ginger Minj - this song is from a broadway show about drag queens. The message is you only get one life so take your shots, whether or not they succeed, it’s better to live your life as who you are

2007 - I Don’t Dance : Corbin Bleu, Lucas Grabeel - This song from High School Musical 2 is a where Chad, co-president of the drama club, is trying to get Ryan, co-president of the basketball team, to “swing” to the other side, if you know what I mean. The scene in the movie is about playing baseball, and at the end of that shot, the two of them are sitting together wearing the other’s clothes. Guess Chad got Ryan to swing.  

2009 - Bad Romance : Lady Gaga - First, it’s gender neutral so any of us can sing without translating pronouns. Second, it’s about loving someone completely, including the “bad” parts, “I want your ugly, i want your disease.” Third, Lady Gaga showed up to the 2010 MTV Music Awards w/ four members of the U.S. military who had been discharged or resigned because of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. When she went on stage to receive the Video of the Year award for “Bad Romance,” Gaga had changed into the now-infamous “meat dress,” as a way to show her anger about the military’s anti-LGBTQ policy. “If we don’t stand up for what we believe in and if we don’t fight for our rights, pretty soon we’re going to have as much rights as the meat on our bones,” she later explained to Ellen DeGeneres.  

2009 - If I Had You : Adam Lambert - I love how the beginning sounds like the singer is going out to a gay club “So I got my boots on, got the right amount of leather, and I’m doing me up with a black color liner, and I’m working my strut.” Not the way we usually hear about a guy getting ready for a night out  

2009 - Whataya Want From Me : Adam Lambert - I wonder if this song references when he was figuring out his sexuality with words like “Yeah, it’s plain to see, baby you’re beautiful and there’s nothing wrong with you. It’s me, I’m a freak.”

2010 - All the Lovers : Kylie Minogue - A feel-good dance track about love. The video has people strip down to their underwear, form a pyramid and begin kissing. All sorts of people kissing, very pansexual.  

2010 - Raise Your Glass : P!nk - The song is a call to the underdogs of the world, the “loud and nitty-gritty dirty little freaks,” to ignore convention and just let loose. 

2010 - Firework : Katy Perry - She’s saying everyone is a firework–an ordinary, ugly, or insignificant wrapping but when the right situation arises, like a flame to a fuse, they ignite and show how amazing, extraordinary, and beautiful each one of us is. No wonder it’s loved by the queer community, once we let out what’s inside us, others will see we’re bright and beautiful. I will always think of being at Pride and a preacher guy spewing hate had entered the grounds and people formed a circle around him and sang this song, and many others joined in until security removed him, it was beautiful.  

2010 - Dancing on my Own : Robyn - It’s a break up song. “Somebody said you got a new friend. Does she love you better than I can? There’s a big black sky over my town.” But with a great dance beat like this, it’s a sure bet Robyn won’t be dancing on her own for long.

2010 - F**kin’ Perfect : P!nk - With all the negative messages we grow up hearing about our gender identity or sexual orientation, it’s so affirming to hear “Don’t you ever ever feel like your less than, less than perfect”

2010 - Grace Kelly : MIKA - While there aren’t any direct mentions of sexuality, this song is very much about how people have judged MIKA for being flamboyantly himself

2010 - Teenage Dream : Glee Cast - This song sung by one boy for another was a big moment on a big TV show.

2011 - We Found Love : Rihanna - Finding love in a hopeless place, for many queer people can mean what it’s like to be in a heteronormative society. Or also that hard transition to accept & love yourself, and imagining going from that to someone finding and loving you.

2011 - Americano : Lady Gaga - The song is about the unjust laws that exist in America, particularly regarding immigration and gay rights. She sings of a scenario in which she meets a girl from east L.A. (heavily Hispanic population) and falls in love with her but can’t marry due to the laws prohibiting gay marriage, “we fell in love but not in court.” As to the “I don’t speak your Americano/Languageono/Jesus Cristo” I think that’s refusing to use the type of rhetoric that is used to justify the laws.  

2011 - Born This Way : Lady Gaga - Many songs hint at queer identities and acceptance by using metaphors, but not this one, it is direct. “No matter gay, straight, or bi, lesbian, transgender life, I’m on the right track, baby, I was born to survive.” 

2012 - Let’s have a Kiki : Scissor Sisters -  A drag performer heading to put on a show but when she arrives at the club it’s been shut down by the police. Instead she calls up a friend and announces we’re coming over and having a kiki.

2012 - For All : Far East Movement - As the fight for marriage equality was taking place, this song’s lyrics meant a lot. “Love is for all. Life is for all. Dreams are for all. Hope is for all. Feel the love from everybody in the crowd now, this is for y’all, this is for all.” The video intersperses some uplifting words from President Obama. 

2012 - People Like Us : Kelly Clarkson - the song is about all the people who are brave enough to challenge the social norms to bring about changes in the world. These words in particular strike me: “this is the life that we choose” and “come out, come out if you dare,”

2012 - They Don’t Know About Us : One Direction - The song is about how people tell a couple they shouldn’t be together, that their love isn’t real. Sound like something a queer couple might hear? In the song, no one can stop them, they’re together for life. And people thought this song might have been hinting about Larry Stylinson.

2013 - Closer : Tegan and Sara - Not many bands are made up of twin lesbian sisters. This song is really cute. The lyrics are about the anticipation before the kiss, before anything gets physical. It’s a love song that conjures adolescent longing, And it’s cherishing that gap between anticipation and release—asking to be closer, not touching. And it seems to speak to that particularly queer feeling of wanting someone you know you may never get.

2013 - Brave : Sara Bareilles - she wrote this catchy song of courage as a love letter to a friend who was struggling to come out as an adult.

2013 - Follow Your Arrow : Kacey Musgraves - “kiss lots of boys – or kiss lots of girls, if that’s something you’re into,” pretty remarkable to be included in a Country song

2013 - Same Love : Macklemore & Ryan Lewis - I have a nephew who got called gay for wearing stylish clothes, being neat, and interested in art & music. He had a hard time accepting that his uncle (me) is gay because of his experience, and it made me think of this song.

2013 - She Keeps Me Warm : Mary Lambert - A beautiful song about how women can love each other, protect each other and want each other. And the lyrics “not crying on Sundays” I think means not believing the damning words preached by religion about being gay

2013 - Really Don’t Care : Demi Levato - The video starts off with Lovato expressing her support for the LGBT community and saying that “Jesus loves all.” After that, the music starts and Levato is seen singing at a Pride parade.

2013 - Q.U.E.E.N. : Janelle Monáe - The title is an acronym for Queer, Untouchables, Emigrants, Excommunicated, and Negroid. The song is about the empowerment of oppressed people. Monáe uses a question-answer format to explain stereotypes, misconceptions, and oppression.

2013 - Girls/Girls/Boys : Panic! At the Disco - This song describes a love triangle between a boy and two girls, and the boy is being played off against a girl for the other girl’s attention.

2014 - Break Free : Ariana Grande - Her older brother is gay and she grew up around his friends, she’s an ally. And the words of this song, “I’m stronger than I’ve been before. This is the part when I break free ’cause I can’t resist it no more” has the theme often found in gay anthems, that things are tough, but I’m tougher and going to make it.

2014 - Sleeping with a Friend : Neon Trees - Glenn Tyler says he was thinking of a straight friend when he wrote this (but used female pronouns in the song). It’s an unusual love song because it’s a cautionary tale of hooking up with someone you’re close with.

2014 - Sissy that Walk : Rupaul - a perfect walkway song for all those drag queens and any of the rest of us who want to flaunt it

2014 - Put ‘Em Up : Priory - The song begins with a religious mom saying her queer kid has some kind of sickness. But who gives anyone the right to judge another’s lover?

2014 - Rise Like a Phoenix - Conchita Wurst - This song is about combating prejudice and the judgement of others in modern society. Conchita won Eurovision wearing a gown, makeup and a beard.

2015 - Cool for the Summer : Demi Levato - She is curious and has a woman she’s gonna spend the summer exploring with. “Got a taste for the cherry and I just need to take a bite.”

2015 - Heaven : Troye Sivan - Troye sings candidly about what it’s like for a religious teenager to come out as gay, about the struggles coming to terms with your sexuality. “Without losing a piece of me, how do I get to heaven? Without changing a part of me, how do I get to heaven? All my time is wasted, feeling like my heart’s mistaken, oh, so if I’m losing a piece of me, maybe I don’t want heaven?” The video features footage from LGBTQ protests throughout history.

2015 - Youth : Troye Sivan - It’s a really beautiful song about giving the best years of yourself to someone you love. 

2016 - Alive : Sia - The song is about someone who had a tough life, but is like, “I’m still breathing.” It is the personification of power.

2016 - Boyfriend : Tegan and Sara - This song tells the exhausting story of someone you’re basically dating, but they won’t come out in the open and admit it because they’re scared, confused, and insecure about their sexuality.

2016 - G.D.M.M.L. Grls : Tyler Glenn - Despite his best efforts to make church work, it didn’t work out because God Didn’t Make Me Like Girls.

2016 - Genghis Khan : Mike Snow - This video surprised me the first time I watched. It’s a James Bond-type hero & villain who fall for each other.  

2016 - The Greatest : Sia - Dedicated to the LGBT community in the wake of the Pulse shooting, Sia begs us to not give up and to follow our dreams.

2017 - Bad Liar : Selena Gomez - the video portrays a love triangle (with each character played by Selena)–a curious high school student, seductive gym coach and male teacher. Towards the end of the video, the high school student sings the line, “With my feelings on fire, guess I’m a bad liar,” as she looks at a photo of the gym teacher. It’s a scene that shows the fear of acknowledging and declaring our sexuality—a moment of many a queer experience.

2017- If You Were Gay : San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus - This song is from the musical Avenue Q. This choir’s performance of the song is delightful. 

2017 - This is Me : Keala Settle - The song from The Greatest Showman sings of resilience in the face of hardship — which, after all, is what Pride is all about. “Another round of bullets hits my skin. Well, fire away ’cause today, I won’t let the shame sink in”

2017 - You Will Be Found : Ben Platt - This song from Dear Evan Hansen means a lot to me. There’s a gay teen who posted a question on Tumblr, I responded, and together we’ve been through a lot, suicidality, helped him with coming out and nerves about a first love. He says this is our song because I found him. But for everyone, this song is hopeful that when you need it, someone will be there for you.

2017 - 1-800-273-8255 : Logic - This is a song about a closeted guy who is suicidal and calls a help line. The operator wants him to be alive and helps save him in that moment.

2017 - Bad at Love : Halsey - Halsey flips through all the guys and girls she’s dated in an attempt to understand why she hasn’t yet found love. Queen of bisexual relatability!

2018 - A Million Dream : P!nk - this song from The Greatest Showman is about the power of positive thinking, faith and believing in your dreams. For queer people, it’s a reminder that we are building a better world.

2018 - All the Things : Betty Who - This is the theme song for the wildly popular Netflix show Queer Eye.

2018 - Never Been In Love : Will Jay - It’s such a great bop and I have loved Will Jay since his IM5 days, and this seems perfect for my ace/aro friends. “I’m not missing out so don’t ask me again. Thanks for your concern, but here’s the thing, I’ve never been in love and it’s all good”

2018 - Make Me Feel : Janelle Monáe - Sexuality is simply how a person makes you feel, regardless of gender. The music video for ”Make Me Feel” features Janelle crawling between women’s legs and grinding up on both a male and female love interest under bisexual lighting.

2018 - Promises : Calvin Harris, Sam Smith - a glittery homage to vogueing and drag ballroom culture in the music video.

2019 - You Need to Calm Down : Taylor Swift - an entire verse that’s literally about going to a Pride parade.

[stonesofinfinity]

Hi. I'm interested in joining your group, but I'm curious as to how you handle it when actors are accused/found guilty of various offenses to our community. I know that Chris Pratt has attended a homophobic church for years, and while there's no proof of him being homophobic just yet, that's something that makes a lot of marvel fans uncomfortable. Another such actor is Benedryl Cummerbund, who has proved time and time again that he's classist, ableist, and autistiphobic with his commentary 1/2

interviews. Lastly, I would like to address RDJ’s touchy history with both black and yellow face. How open is this group to banning problematic fc’s like the above when these histories come to light? 2/2

Hello,

Thanks for your ask.

We'd like to take this opportunity to clarify SOI's position on a number of issues since this follows on the heels of a similar discussion on Discord, and to provide further context to our response below.

First, we’d like to make SOI’s position on discrimination clear - we are an inclusive group, and we have a zero tolerance policy towards homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism, ableism, and any other form of discrimination. We are also firmly against pedophilia and any form of exploitation of minors or other vulnerable persons. Members who are in breach of this will be asked to leave.

Second, how does this translate to FCs?

In order to address that, it is first important to understand why an FC should be banned. Since actors do not derive income from use of their FCs in an RP scenario, the banning of FCs is predominantly to take a stand within the RP community against discrimination, and to ensure a place that's comfortable for our members.

In order to understand how banning an FC equates to taking a stand, it is important to remember that banning an FC does not directly address issues of discrimination unless there is clear and incontrovertible proof that an actor is homophobic, transphobic, racist, etc - only then would an FC ban send a clear message that certain conduct is not tolerated.

We would also highlight another important principle of law that is overlooked in the modern day world - the law requires that people are innocent until proven guilty. This is why the legal process is rigorous and demands a clear process of submission of evidence, allowing both sides to present their side of matters, and for professionals to consider the issue. This is important because it is easy to launch allegations at people, including malicious ones, but an allegation itself is not proof of an offence.

This ask has assumed that these actors are problematic enough to warrant banning, which requires a more in-depth consideration of the specific issues and allegations concerning them.

Taking the example of Chris Pratt first - the allegation against him was made by one person, but this has essentially been taken as fact. In response, Pratt issued a public statement setting out his position, excerpts of which may be read here [x]

The article also lends further context to the original allegation.

In particular, Pratt's response stated, "We need less hate in this world, not more. I am a man who believes that everyone is entitled to love who they want free from the judgement of their fellow man." which reads as LGBTQ supportive.

To ban someone regardless of their personal beliefs, even where there is a clear statement in support of LGBTQ rights, does more damage than good.

Realistically, a vast majority of Christian churches are still on the record as being anti-LGBTQ. There are other religions which are or which have members that are anti-LGBTQ. If we start banning FCs on the basis of membership or affiliation with an organisation, taking this further – should we ban everyone who voted for Trump? Everyone who is a Republican? Everyone who is an in way shape or form associated with an organisation, state, or country that is shown to be intolerant?

As LGBT rights activists and advocates in the real world, a major problem that we face nowadays is witchhunting and policing from within the community. This disrupts the very work that advocates and allies are trying to do.

To use hearsay to wrongfully accuse someone is in itself extremely harmful - it alienates potential allies, it causes infighting, it requires time and effort to resolve - time and effort which is far better spent doing actual, concrete advocacy. Furthermore, it creates a wedge between us and fractures allies, which is the very effect that opponents are aiming to cause.

Furthermore, banning FCs is an all or nothing, zero sum game. There is no grey about it. There is no “this person is an ally but has made some mistakes" nuance to it. As such, bans come with a cost that needs to be considered in making a decision whether to utilise them.

For instance, in the case of RDJ, the issues of black face and yellow face are not issues of racism when taken in their broader context that goes beyond just "an actor played the role of a person of colour". In the first place, it was clear in both instances that he was playing a role within a role. Tropic Thunder was clearly stated to be a satire - a mockery at the ridiculousness of the very lengths that actors will go to in method acting. Furthermore, if there is harm (however unintended), the fault arguably lies with the scriptwriters, the producers, and the director rather than the actor. On the other hand, RDJ has done the LGB community a service by being active in gay roles even before this became mainstream. In this situation, and others like this, an FC ban not only doesn’t achieves nothing for persons of colour, it downplays and even destroys the good that he has done for the LGB community (and that is speaking as a person of colour personally).

Finally, in the case of Benedict Cumberbatch, many of the allegations about him are accusations that have erupted into full blown witchhunts. Some of those quotes, taken without further context, are troublesome. But again, taken within their intended context, they take on completely different meanings.

To truly progress from simple mudslinging to actually being an effective ally, it is necessary to move beyond just cherry picking lines from interview quotes. Unfortunately, far too many people are not willing to invest the time and research into understanding an issue before going straight to the accusation stage, making it difficult to decipher what is actually the truth.

Banning an FC is not the same as denying an actor a job or firing them. It does not hold them accountable. It does not send any message to them. It barely sends any message to the RP community when grey and remote and unproven allegations are pulled up to use against a person. Rather, it ends up in a mess where most if not all FCs are banned – which is a natural consequence when we use the ban stick against any tiny perceived slight.

Society itself is evolving and learning. Things that were tolerated ten years ago are not tolerable now. Is there transphobia in early Marvel films? Yes there is. Should we ban all the actors who appeared in them? Should we ban all Marvel films written by those teams? That wouldn’t help gender nonconforming people today. Actors too, are people, and they are learning along with the rest of us. In fact, we need to recognise that the entirety of Hollywood and perhaps the entire film industry globally is homophobic, transphobic, sexist and racist. Majority of the world out there is as such. Even within the ally community, allies still require time and opportunities to learn how to be better allies.

The solution, therefore, doesn’t lie in banning everyone and dismantling Hollywood. Speaking as a professional – the times that we see real change is when we sit down and engage in dialogue and education, not in drawing lines in the sand.

Are there FCs that we would ban? Yes – examples include 1) situations where there has been a conviction and no sign of change, 2) where there is clear evidence of e.g. homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism etc on public record in the actor’s own capacity (and not saying lines that are written by a script writer), and which are verifiable by independent sources, and again, where the actor has not provided a retraction or apology and/or 3) where is clear consensus between the players and the admin team that an actor is problematic and should not be tolerated. We would state for the record that the named examples in this ask do not fall within any of these categories.

In addition, we have asked, and continue to ask, that regardless of personal opinions, players be respectful of the persons they are talking about. Corruption of a person’s name in the context of making allegations about their personal character is disrespectful, because it is construed as mockery rather than a joke in good fun. It is entirely possible to have a civil discourse about the flaws of a person without resorting to mockery. Again, true change does not come through name calling and putting others down - it comes from raising up the ones who have been sidelined by society.

Finally, a personal appeal to persons reading this – if you are passionate about issues of civil and human rights, there are massive fires out there that need to be fought. The advocacy community is horribly overwhelmed and always in need of volunteers. You can make a real difference by getting involved.