#when does it go from butch to being a man? since you clearly like defining rules

[rei-does-stuff]

“If you are male aligned in ANY way including if you’re multigender you cannot be a lesbian” So then why are you saying nonbinary people can be lesbians? Because a lot of nonbinary genders are masc and ‘male aligned”

By your definition the only ones who can be lesbian are fem presenting people, so what I’m seeing is that you only see nonbinary people as women-lite. And yet you say you aren’t transphobic in the slightest? Okay.

[limeade-l3sbian]

this might get kinda long but hear me out. when I was a teenager I only ever had crushes on boys, and never fantasized about girls. except when I was 21 I met a butch bi woman who was into me and I was completely infatuated. I thought I was in love with her until she started pushing me to have sex which I wasn't ready for. she was really charismatic at first and I got swept away. we made out and slept in the same bed and I liked it, but I balked at having sex. she was really shitty in the end, she tried to force me into sex when I was drunk, and we stopped being friends. to this day I wonder if I'm really bi because of that experience. since then I've never had a crush on a woman, and when I see a hot woman I never think about eating her out, I just wish I looked like her. the thought of interacting sexually with a woman again scares me. I really don't know if I can call myself bi, since I'll probably never be with a woman and I was never into them when I was a kid. I feel ashamed admitting all of this and sorry for clogging your inbox, I just don't know who else to ask. do you think I'm bi because I had a crush when I was already an adult, or am I straight because I've never had sex with a woman and don't plan to?

You can't let (very real) trauma dictate how you define yourself, anon. And I mean that in the nicest and most commiserative way. It seems to be that you might be bi, but your trauma with that woman has disallowed you to branch out and attempt further exploration. The attraction was there, you just seem to have misplaced your trust. Not your fault by the way, we all do it at some point or another.

And I am sorry that that happened to you, for all that's worth. Even if we're able to stop something from happening, sometimes just knowing how close we came can rattle us enough to make us evasive of situations that even suggest a repeat. If I'm able to ask and you're comfortable, was your reluctance to sex with this woman because you were not ready for sex in general (man or woman) or you were not totally ready or interested in having sex with this woman because she was a woman?

Your sexual orientation is defined by who you are romantically and sexually attracted to. You don't balk at the idea of certain levels of intimacy with either or both. but that reluctance does not stem from trauma, which yours seems to since you say the prospect of sex with a woman scares you. there are SOME women, febfems (female exclusive bisexual females) who have it the opposite way. Not all, but some, who exclusively give their attention and intimacy (romantic and otherwise) solely to women, but have the capacity to be with a man if that trauma was not present in them. Ask yourself that if you did not have the trauma of that situation, could you see yourself even going on a date with a woman, let alone being romantically or sexually intimate with one?

I can't really tell you what you are, anon. I wouldn't know how and to be honest, it's not really my place. I appreciate that you have such an opinion of me that you felt comfortable to ask for confirmation from me lol but you should trust yourself above all else in finding out what this means for you. If you let yourself be vulnerable with yourself, you'll be able to really talk to yourself with transparency and see things so clearly for yourself that hearing my opinion will only be an unneeded second opinion. (a lot of "yourself" but it's true! lol)

But if you come to the conclusion that this was, for lack of a better word, a fluke and that you know you're straight, I would implore you not to use SSA women to constantly try to "figure it out". Figuring it out can happen without potentially leading on a woman who knows what she wants. I'm not accusing you of that, I'm just saying to always be conscious of what you're doing and why.

[discyours]

I finished watching the latest season of Shameless and it’s reaffirmed to me how terrible this show is at LGBT representation so I’m gonna complain about it. Spoiler warning, obviously. 

Okay so first of all, Ian and Mickey were one of the best parts of this show. I’m not a gay man so my opinion on this is not that valuable, but as far as I know it was very well received by the gay community. Their relationship was as raw and as realistic as everything else that’s good about this show. How uncommon is it, even now, for media to show that guys like Mickey can be gay? How uncommon is it for them to show a genuine connection between growing up being shaped by an environment like Mickey’s and the way he deals with his sexuality, rather than just creating a character that never took on any part of their upbringing because they were simply too camp to fit in. The way Mickey and Ian both felt about their sexuality very much shaped their relationship at the start of it, but it grew from there. The writers didn’t make the mistake of making the relationship about the fact that it was gay. Neither character was killed off, the relationship was very on-and-off but wasn’t intentionally cut short, and they didn’t shy away from showing on-screen affection while also (in my opinion) not coming off as fetishistic either. Mickey and Ian was everything that is usually done wrong done right, and unfortunately the only real example of that on this show. 

The Kash storyline actually came before Mickey, but I wanted to start this post off with a positive example so I didn’t sound too salty. I have mixed feelings about how realistic this one was, and since I’m not a gay man I really don’t think it’s my place to state whether it was or not. But one thing is for sure; it wasn’t positive. I mean, it’s an affair between a seriously underage Ian (I think he was around 15 in the first season?) and his significantly older, married with children employer. Kash is also middle-eastern so this story fed into both homophobic and racist stereotypes. 

In season 2 Ian sleeps with yet another married man: Ned/Lloyd (Jimmysteve’s father). Lloyd is even older than Kash (likely 50s/60s) while Ian is still underage. Lloyd describes his sexuality as “anything that walks” meaning this isn’t actually bad gay representation, but terrible bi representation. 

Jumping ahead to season 6 (after Ian has been working in a gay club and had many hookups, but no real relationships aside from Mickey so nothing worth mentioning), Ian started dating Caleb, a black firefighter. Caleb turns out to be HIV positive but the show (in my opinion) handles it extremely well, making it a point that it’s possible to manage it with medication to the point where you can’t transmit it to anyone. It was a genuinely great, healthy relationship, until they decided to make Caleb cheat with a woman. Again, terrible bi representation, and once they’ve broken up the experience leads to Ian attempting to have straight sex too. It’s something a lot of gay men go through so I don’t think it was necessarily bad to add it to the show, but I do take issue with that even being needed as a plot device to show that Ian is truly gay, as that’s the way a lot of society views homosexuality too. 

Shortly after this, Trevor is introduced. Like I said, I’m not a gay man so my opinion on all of the former was of limited value, but I am a trans man and dear fucking god I hated Trevor’s story. Trevor is the embodiment of a character whose only defining trait is that they are LGBT. He’s overly sensitive to anyone not being immediately understanding about trans issues, and his relationship with Ian infuriated me. Trevor was offended that Ian lost interest upon finding out that he was trans, and the show made it seem like he was in the right for it. Ian apologised and they end up dating. They end up fucking. All this right after having shown that Ian tried to sleep with the opposite sex and absolutely hated it. Pure virtue signaling and my personal annoyance that every trans person in Trevor’s friend group was shown to be an “SJW snowflake” who had to introduce themselves with their pronouns is worthless next to the genuine harm that was done by showing that gay men can and totally should sleep with the opposite sex as long as they’re trans. 

I don’t even want to move on from that because of how genuinely terrible it is, but let’s do so anyway because there’s more. Further building on the pattern of terrible bi representation, there was the minor season 1/2 character Jasmine. She’s married but unfaithful, and her showing interest in women is seen as a part of her being so “free spirited”, if you can call it that. 

The “throuple” between Kev, Vee and Svetlana is another example. This post is getting long but I mean, for god’s sake can this show have a single bi character that isn’t super promiscuous if not a fucking unicorn? Every bi woman who’s ever used dating apps deserves to be mad at this storyline. 

Now for the thing that actually got me to write this post; the lesbian representation in this show. The first lesbian we see is Bob/Roberta, in season 1 and 2. She’s a literal stereotype as an extremely butch truck driver, dating a woman who is generally presumed to be straight. She and Monica try to take Liam away on the basis that he’s black and needs a black parent. Just like with Kash, this is doubly negative representation. She’s a minor character and all she does is “turn” a character by being so butch, and try to steal a fucking baby. 

In early season 9 this stereotyping stunt is repeated. Debbie meets Alex, another black woman so butch that she’s introduced as someone who’s passing as a man. Alex makes Debbie question her sexuality (though Debbie is later revealed to be bi, she wasn’t at this point so this was still falling into the “straight woman is ‘turned’ by an ultra-butch lesbian” trope) and they move in together right away. When they have lunch together after an argument, Alex spends hours talking about all of her exes, eventually reaching a point where Debbie can’t take it anymore and leaves. 

Also introduced in season 9 is Carl’s girlfriend, Kelly. When this character was introduced it was immediately obvious to me that she was coded to seem like a lesbian. She's the daughter of an army officer and plays softball, and just about everything about the way she looks and acts seemed gay. I initially thought that they made this character date Carl to kill any suspicions of her being a lesbian before they could begin, but then they actually turned “queer baiting” (not my term) into a plotline. They made her character flirt with Debbie, made Debbie try to “steal” her from Carl (again, a bi character not respecting established relationships), and very much hinted at a relationship happening. The preview for season 9 episode 13 showed them kissing, and they still ended that story with her being straight and apologising for accidentally leading Debbie on. 

I’ll throw in an honorable mention to Lea Delaria’s very brief appearance as a character so minor I can’t even remember what it was called; Lip’s potential AA sponsor; another ultra-butch stereotype, and an asshole. Oh and there was the whole gentrification plotline, where a bunch of rich lesbian couples (you guessed it, stereotypes!) moved into the southside. And Ford’s exes that Fiona met when she went bowling, which were barely actual characters and more of a joke about how gay they looked and how Ford clearly had a type. With Kelly being revealed as straight, the closest this show has ever gotten to a lesbian character that took actual part in the plot beyond being a stereotype was the lesbian couple in Fiona’s apartment building, and they still had one of them sleep with a man (off-screen, luckily) as a Totally Necessary Measure to get pregnant. 

Shameless was genuinely one of my favourite shows and it wasn’t too hard to look past most of this at first, considering so many characters are terrible people anyway. But I can’t ignore the flaws at this point. This goes beyond comedy and I’m almost angry that Shameless has ruined itself for me just by being homophobic.

[38-planes]

The Wild Child Of “Come From Away”

Logo: New Now Next [April 3, 2017]

Jenn Colella, one of Broadway’s few out leading ladies, talks playing a real-life hero, making out with Idina Menzel, and lesbians in open relationships.

On September 11, 2001, after terrorists flew jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, authorities closed United States airspace to all air traffic. In the remote Canadian town of Gander, Newfoundland, 38 passenger jets suddenly landed on the airstrip, and were grounded until further notice.

Instead of treating them as intruders, the town opened its homes and hearts to 7,000 strangers from all over the world. By the time the visitors departed, cultures had come together and lifelong friendships had formed.

The hit musical Come From Away tells this sprawling story with a foot-stomping Celtic band and a dozen versatile actors portraying some 50 real-life characters, many of whom flew in from Newfoundland to dance onstage with the actors on opening night.

The show packs a political punch at this ungenerous moment in America—a point that hung in the air when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invited Donald Trump to attend a recent performance. (The President declined but sent Ivanka.) Critics took the musical’s subtext to heart. The Washington Post called it “an exuberant antidote for what ails the American soul.”

For extra exuberance, there’s star Jenn Colella, one of Broadway’s few out lesbian leading ladies. In Come From Away, Colella sings her heart out as real-life pilot Beverley Bass, one of the pilots who landed at Gander on 9/11. But Colella, 43, been attracting fangirls ever since she rode a mechanical bull in Urban Cowboy, rocked the butch title role in The Beebo Brinker Chronicles, and played one-half of a lesbian couple in If/Then.

On the phone in her dressing room before a recent performance, with her girlfriend chiming in, Colella told us about her life as an irresistible wild child, from her current relationship à trois to the occasional makeout session with Idina Menzel.

How would you describe the story of Come From Away?

Jen Colella: For me, it’s about welcoming people because they need help. I don’t know where we got away from the habit of being kind, but kindness and compassion is where we live. We all have access to it, and it requires practice.

How was it for the cast when Justin Trudeau and Ivanka Trump came to the show? How was it for you?

It was extraordinary to have them here, and have them together. People are drawn to this show who know that everyone is good at heart, people who are drawn to a sort of kindness movement that’s in the air right now. Justin knows that’s the best possible way to lead people, and I believe Ivanka does as well, or else she wouldn’t have joined.

Did you speak with Ivanka?

We didn’t. It was Justin’s night. He made a speech before, and I believe Ivanka ducked out a little early out of respect, so as not to take anything away from him. But the show is direct address–we can see the audience very clearly. She was truly enjoying herself and smiling and laughing and crying and was really in it, so I know she had a good time.

You play Captain Beverley Bass, who blazed her own trails as the first female captain for American Airlines. She seems like the most clearly defined hero in Come From Away. How did you two meet?

After our final preview [at La Jolla Playhouse], Beverley and her husband Tom arrived at a restaurant across the street. We spotted one another from across the room. She came over and said, “I think you’re playing me,” and I said, “I think you’re right!” I’m so grateful that they’ve chosen me to play this badass pioneer for women. I feel the privilege and responsibility of it.

Like all the actors, you play several characters in Come From Away. Aside from Captain Beverley, you play this enchantingly gay-looking woman in a T-shirt and vest. Was my gaydar going off correctly with that character, or is she just Canadian?

She’s just Canadian! Actually that character, Annette, is quite male-crazy. She likes the men that come off these planes. But I have faith that Annette would be open to women as well. I’m going to throw that into the show tonight and see how it plays.

I was googling you, and the first thing I saw was this hashtag: #jennfuckingcolella. Do you have lesbian fangirls?

I do, and it feels so good! Everybody’s respectful, but, yes, to receive that kind of energy from women fuels me. It feels, again, like a privilege and a responsibility. And I’m so thrilled that I’m out and the age that I am, and I feel confident and capable to be a good role model for gay women.

How do women reach out to you?

Some fans will see shows many, many times. I have one awesome fan—I don’t know if these people are even gay, to tell you the truth—but one girl has my signature tattooed over her heart.

I’d say that’s a clue.

She hasn’t come out to me, you know? So I don’t want to assume. But I get a lot of baked goods, sweet cards, flowers. Chicks are so good at gifts, right? I ride a scooter around town, because I’m like a 12-year-old, and one of my fans actually presented me with a new scooter. Yeah, they mean it. It’s awesome.

Let’s go back to the tattoo: Did you autograph her chest and then she went and got the autograph tattooed?

She’d seen If/Then many, many times. She said, “Hey, will you sign this piece of paper for me?” I did, and then later she came back and showed me her tattoo. Isn’t that awesome?

You sometimes subbed in for Idina Menzel as the lead in If/Then. What was that like?

Idina is an amazing person, and super sweet and fun. She and I like to flirt a lot. We made out a couple of times, which was super, super hot and fun. I like to tell as many people that as possible. Great kisser.

How exactly did that come to pass?

The best part is, my girlfriend is in the dressing room with me right now, and she keeps looking up and giving me these like sexy little smiles. Anyway, Idina’s straight—mostly—in the way that I’m mostly gay. And I would just wear her down at parties, just walk by and say, “We should make out.” Just trying to constantly put little seeds into her beautiful brain. She took me up on it once or twice.

Aside from making out, did you and Idina ever sing together?

Onstage, we had many opportunities to sing together, and that voice is just inimitable.

As is yours. In fact, speaking of Idina’s great roles, did you ever do Elphaba the witch, in Wicked?

People are always asking me that! I finally had to tell them to stop asking me to come in, because I am terrified that I would lose my mind and my voice. I’m going to leave that to those professional belters and try to save this loud-ass belt that I’ve got for as long as possible.

Although it would be really cool to do a gay Elphaba.

I hear you. I hadn’t thought about that. You know what, though, I want to play Bobby in Company. [A 2016 London production reversed genders to feature a woman in the famous leading role of a commitment-phobic bachelor and the loves of his New York circle of friends.]

Your girlfriend’s listening in, so she’ll appreciate this. What kind of woman is attractive to you? Do you have a type?

I like people who are balanced in their masculine and feminine energies. I like girly girls who aren’t afraid to wear ripped jeans and play in the mud. I joked when my girlfriend got here, “You dressed like a little dyke for me today!” She’s wearing ripped jeans and her big belt and a cut Women’s March t-shirt. Yeah! Then as I’m getting older, I realize that what I find sexy is someone who’s smart and kind and funny. I’m attracted to the whole world, is the truth.

Any quality in a woman that’s a deal breaker for you?

Yeah. An unawareness, right? If someone treats a server unkindly—snaps at a server, or anyone in the service industry—that is such a deal breaker for me. I can’t.

Does your girlfriend like seeing you in uniform as Captain Beverley onstage?

[She repeats the question to her girlfriend.] She likes seeing me in everything.

I was going to ask you about starring in The Beebo Brinker Chronicles [the 2008 Off-Broadway adaptation of Ann Bannon’s iconic novels of lesbians before Stonewall]. Has anyone ever talked about filming it?

Lily Tomlin was one of our producers on that play, and she and Jane Wagner talked about possibly filming it during that time, but I haven’t heard any more about it. So, yeah, we can put that back out in the universe as well.

Definitely. Those lesbian pulp paperback days were very sexy.

True. That was one of the sexiest shows I’ve ever worked on. It was fun to be the butch lesbian that all the girls were swooning over.

Not that different from your real life, is it?

[Laughing] It was fun to have that as my job.

I know I’m asking in front of your girlfriend, but do you see yourself in the future marrying and quote unquote settling down? Are you interested in kids?

I’ve been married a couple of times.

To women?

Yeah. My joke is, chicks love it when you propose. I had two wonderful marriages, and I’m a big fan of the institution of marriage if it is truly an equal partnership. But my girlfriend and I are in an open relationship, and that feels really lovely and right for me right now.

So you’re both seeing other people?

She’s actually married to a man. I’m kind of dating them both. They have a little kid whom I adore. And I’m also dating someone else, and, you know, my girlfriend just got on OKCupid, and it’s all very open. There’s a lot of respect and a lot of communication and a lot of trust. It’s quite lovely.

Usually lesbians can’t do that, at least the lesbians I know. Gay men can stay together 50 years, and they manage to keep their exterior lives very hot and vital and yet preserve these lasting relationships. What’s different about you that you can do that?

What I’ve found is that if women are intimate with one another, there’s such an emotional connection that happens. That’s what can be scary for the primary partner: If you have an emotional connection with someone else, how is there going to be any room left for me? But our hearts are much more open and capacious than we give them credit for. There’s no better or best in my world of love. I have boundless love. So the more I can trust myself and love myself, and trust and love my partners, then I’m finding there’s an infinite amount to explore.

Come From Away is now on Broadway at the Schoenfeld Theatre

[hallamkelly]

To what extent do Eilidh MacAskill and Rosana Cade reinforce gender norms in their portrayal of men in Moot Moot? An Essay

Rosana Cade and Eilidh MacAskill’s production Moot Moot is a lighthearted performance involving the two women taking on the personae of two male radio show hosts, both called Barry. The show involves the two endlessly asking a non-existent listening audience to phone in and talk to them, otherwise it’s “just Barry and Barry”, until they end with the realisation that all they have is each other. The two Barrys are portrayed as typical masculine men, and Cade and MacAskill employ a number of semiotic devices to show this to the audience. Both performers identify as feminists, and it is fair to assume that their use of male stereotypes is intended to act as a deconstruction or destabilisation of patriarchal gender norms. However, in emphasising a gender binary in this way, are they simply perpetuating these norms?

In contemporary Western society, gender is a much debated concept. Many theorists, such as Judith Butler, argue that gender is distinct from sex, and is in fact “culturally constructed” (Butler, 1990, 6). In fact, this is the dominant view in sociology and medicine, and even the World Health Organisation defines gender as “the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women” (World Health Organisation 2017). 

However, many people in our society still see gender as fixed, dependant on the sex of the person, and therefore a binary of man and woman, with nothing in between or besides. From a feminist perspective this is troubling and dangerous. Political philosopher Rebecca Reilly-Cooper describes gender as “the externally imposed set of norms that prescribe and proscribe desirable behaviour to individuals in accordance with morally arbitrary characteristics” and goes on to assert that they “represent a binary caste system or hierarchy, a value system with two positions: maleness above femaleness, manhood above womanhood, masculinity above femininity” (Reilly-Cooper, 2016).

She goes on to argue that in order to produce a truly equal society “the solution is to abolish gender altogether” (Reilly-Cooper, 2016). No course of action for how to achieve this is suggested, other than for everyone to live how they want to, without reference to ones perceived “gender”. However, I would add that a more active approach to this deconstruction of gender in society would be to challenge a binary concept of gender wherever we can, and thus not to enforce or display traditional gender norms and stereotypes.

In Moot Moot, Cade and MacAskill draw on the relatively young tradition of drag kings that came into popularity in the 1990s. In fact, Barry and Barry are textbook kings, as described in The Drag King Book by Jack Halberstam, with photography by Del LaGrace Volcano - “They sport vintage suits and fancy ties, slicked-back hair and neat moustaches”. According to Halberstam, “a Drag King is a performer who makes masculinity into his or her act”, as opposed to a butch lesbian, who is “not necessarily dressing up like a man” (Volcano and Halberstam, 1999, 32). In this way, Cade and MacAskill are explicitly performing masculine traits, and therefore the accompanying gender norms.

For example, they wear formal, grey suits, connoting wealth, conservatism and a very traditional brand of masculinity, which immediately positions them in a patriarchal, dominant role. This harks back to a time when men “wore the trousers” and would work for a living while their wives would cook, clean and look after the children. There is a certain power that comes with donning a suit, historically the outfit of a wealthy or important man.

The shape of their glasses and headphones suggest 60s-70s era male radio hosts, and yet there is never a specific time period given to the performance. Therefore, the personae rely on a particular stereotype of a man that comes from this era: one who is self-assured, jovial and confident. It is the man who can be trusted as an expert at what he does. The glasses are particularly reminiscent of Robert W. Morgan, a Los Angeles radio host from the late 60s who was famous for his wit and charm. Perhaps the performers were intentionally referencing him for this comedic aspect - another common (and false) stereotype being that men are funnier than women.

Certain masculine gestures are used, such as the mimed firing of a shotgun, indicative of male violence and aggression. Their empty banter is also stereotypical of men - lines such as “I’m good thanks Barry, how are you?” are repeated over and over again, perhaps a suggestion of men’s incapability to form a real connection with each other. They talk about having a “deep debate”, spoken in as deep a voice as possible, suggesting these “men” are interested in matters of great importance, and yet the debate is never had - just more empty posturing.

These traits are all socio-cultural masculine ones, as opposed to biological male ones. However, they do give themselves specifically male traits too. They wear fake moustaches, and their voices are pitched down to create an auditory illusion of maleness. Interestingly, the performers did not seem to try to lower their own voices, instead relying on digital sound production to do it, perhaps an acknowledgement that the only difference between a man and a woman is often nothing more than the pitch of their voice. It sets them apart from simply being “women dressed as men”, for everything else - the clothes, the language, the mannerisms - can be seen as elements of female masculinity. As Jack Halberstam says in his book Female Masculinity, “masculinity must not and cannot and should not reduce down to the male body and its effects” (Halberstam, 1998, 1), but Cade and MacAskill not only make themselves over-masculine, but more male too. 

All these elements can be seen as mere devices used to convey a “male” persona to the audience, but they mostly rely on underlying gender norms, and thus on the dominant conception of a patriarchal gender binary. Drag queens have often been criticised for “the reproduction of a specifically sexualized rendering of feminine identity, which reflects persistent hierarchies of desire and desirability: of men dressing as the male-oriented version of women” (Coles, 2007). I am not going to argue that drag kings have an analogous problem, since women are historically oppressed by men, and not the other way around. However, sexual hierarchies can still be represented, and therefore perpetuated, by women posing as men.

Of course, the gender of the performers is vitally important in considering whether or not patriarchal structures are being perpetuated. Rosana Cade identifies as a cis-gender woman, and Eilidh MacAskill was assigned female at birth, although goes by ‘they/them’ pronouns. Both artists will have suffered sexism and misogyny under the patriarchy, and have a deep understanding of gender politics. Their appropriation of male identities is intrinsically subversive, and clearly intended to dismantle these oppressive structures, as drag kings always have. Jack Halberstam describes how certain drag kings “turn dominant masculinity around by parodying male superstardom and working conventional modes of performed sexism and misogyny into successful comedy routines” (Halberstam, 1998, 30), and although he is talking about performance that critiques blatant misogyny, whereas the characters in Moot Moot never use overtly sexist language, the point still stands. Drag king performance is a way for artists to hold a mirror up to men, and ask them to question their own masculinity.

In this way, Moot Moot and the work of other drag kings is certainly a force for change in our society, by reversing traditional gender norms and thus disrupting and deconstructing them. However, in an ideal world in which gender were meaningless, the sort of world Rebecca Reilly-Cooper envisions, this type of performance would be seen as sexist, offensive and dangerous, given its overt portrayals of masculine men. For a radical feminist for whom “the aim is to abolish gender altogether” (Reilly-Cooper, 2016), a boundary pushing performance should be purely genderless.

We do not live in that world, however. The patriarchy is going strong, cis-het men cling to power and stay wilfully ignorant of the great inequality between them and the rest of the population. Cade and MacAskill’s work is justified by the great strides that still must be taken before we can wave goodbye to gender altogether.

Word count: 1,376

Bibliography:

Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge, p. 6.

Reilly-Cooper, R. (2016). Gender is not a spectrum. Aeon

Volcano, D. and Halberstam, J. (1999). The drag king book. London: Serpent's Tail, p.32.

Halberstam, J. (1998). Female Masculinity. [S.l.]: Duke University Press, p.1, p.30.

Coles, C. (2007). The Question of Power and Authority in Gender Performance: Judith Butler's Drag Strategy. Glasgow: eSharp, p.1.

Websites:

http://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/understanding/gender-definition/en/

[ralseishowmeyourcar]

Since it’s been on my mind lately, I figured I might as well jot down some thoughts I’ve been exploring about transgenderism, particularly transwomen. So, it seems to me that some major contentions that TERFs seem to have about people who identify as transgender follow as such:-

1. Perpetuating Gender Stereotypes: Now, let me start off by saying that trans people are an incredibly tiny minority - when you talk about perpetuating stereotypes, this is literally the last group you should worried about but the critiques come in droves like it’s the flagship of the patriarchy or something.

The first thing to note is that people are forced into positions where they feel like it’s necessary to adhere to more feminine or masculine traits (it can go either way for the gender of their choice, but if they bend back around no one’s going to take them seriously - it’s pretty much a lose-lose situation) BECAUSE of the gender expectations that exist in the first place. Listen, countering gender roles is mutually beneficial - this whole thing really wouldn’t be an issue if they didn’t have to worry about labeling themselves or pushing for certain traits just to have a social lifeline: If you’re a feminine transwoman, you’re perpetuating stereotypes. If you’re a butch transwoman, you’re not even trying (also you’re still trans so fuck you anyway).

Either way, even if it's unintentional, it discourages femininity in women as something to be looked down upon - it’s not a fair or accurate statement to say that transwomen honestly equate being a woman with being feminine - not only because of the reasons listed above, but because when you do this, you’re minimizing their character to their appearance. Being transgender is not just about appearance, even if it may play a part for one reason or another - it’s about a sense of identity and self-expression.

2. Benefits from Male Privilege: This one’s a hard bullet to dodge, so I’ll just straight up and say that yes, this does happen to transwomen… if they’re closeted. Which, you know, a lot of people HAVE to be in order to keep themselves safe. Otherwise, you’re suddenly open to a boatload of harassment and discrimination just for being different. To say that people aren’t allowed to identify as transgender because they benefit from privilege is actually astoundingly stupid. The moment you publicly identify as trans, you paint yourself as a walking, glowing target for people to shit all over. A lot of these people can’t even state their identity in public without being attacked from all sides.

3. Militant Trans Supporters: I think the average person will agree that these people need to pack their things and go home. This may be the vocal minority, but boy do they tackle everything kicking and screaming. However, to act like this is a trans specific issue is a ridiculous double standard: Nobody wants to be represented by their most radical supporters (unless you happen to be one of them), this is something that applies to all groups.

4. Transgenderism is just an Illness: There are a lot of associated illness that might come with being transgender, but they don’t always apply. Classic example is gender dysphoria - in the same way someone might say ‘why don’t you seek psychological help instead of trying to emulate womanhood,’ a common rhetoric that people used against other gay people in the past was ‘why don’t you seek psychological help instead of trying to be with someone of the same sex?’ AKA conversion therapy. For the most part, it seems to me that it’s only as much of an illness or health detriment as the social pressures that exist around them.

5. Cannot Socially / Biologically Relate: To define a woman solely through specific personal experiences (namely forms of oppression) seems rather strange. In a closed community where a woman faces no less sexism than those around her, is she less of a woman because a man has not leered at her? Because the benefits she reaps from her work is equal to her peers?

Or how about someone who is intersex - she has breasts, the outward appearance of a woman, and identifies as a woman, but has male genitalia - is she then, by your standards, forced to identify as a man (or perhaps as ‘intersex,’ a term that they might not be too happy with) because she will never experience a period? Because she is relieved of the expectation to bear children? How many boxes of social oppression or biological experiences do you have to tick in order to be considered a ‘real’ woman? All of them?

Because it should be a no-brainer that different women have different life experiences - both socially and biologically. If you are willing to make exceptions in these cases, then clearly your contention with this lies elsewhere, not just your personal experiences as a woman.

6. Invasion of Queer Spaces: Not even sure what the argument is here. Trans people are going to be more predatory because they don’t have to be strictly gay? Couldn’t you say the same thing about bisexual people? The progressive movement is fighting to support LGBT+ rights, not LG rights.