#whether we as the trans community want to claim him is its own issue but really | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

hellomynameisbisexual · 4 years ago

Text

“QUEER”

First of all, let’s clear up a common misconception. Queer does not just mean gay. It’s an umbrella term for an identity which deviates from society’s perceived norm: heterosexual, or straight. Queer can refer to sexualities — gay, bisexual, pansexual, — or it can refer to being gender-queer; i.e, any label that deviates from the perceived gender norm: the binaries, male and female.

“Queer” is a reclaimed slur.

If you do not fall under the umbrella of queerness, it is safe to assume that you cannot use it. At all.

I am bisexual.

This means I experience attraction to plural genders. Pansexual also works fine. For the difference between bisexual and pansexual — see here:

Being bisexual isn’t easy. I went through similar hardships to gay women: I experienced attraction to women and was scared of what this meant for me, in such an oppressively homophobic society.

I am not saying being bisexual is harder than being gay, nor the inverse. But my experiences are distinctly bisexual, not gay.

Without further ado, here are the 3 things I’ve found to be the hardest about being queer, but not gay (enough).

#1: Finding My Place

Or, not being queer enough

I always knew I wasn’t straight, but I didn’t know what I was. Up until recently, I was still questioning. This didn’t feel enough to join groups or conversations with LGBT+ folk, let alone go to pride. Was I even LGBT if I was never L, G, B, or T?

I am still yet to attend a pride, even though I identify (fairly confidently) as bisexual. I am in a relationship with a man. This is (problematically) known as a “straight-passing relationship” and makes me feel even more undeserving of a place at pride.

This has been upsetting to me at times. But for others, it can be outright devastating. Growing up and needing support, but feeling like you’re ‘not gay enough’ to ask for it? So many young people are being left alone and afraid. Finding others like you is vital to figuring out who you are. Likewise, finding spaces which are safe and inclusive is vital for anyone, regardless of their sexuality or gender identity. A friend of mine happens to be a transgender man, and he summed up the issue perfectly:

“One thing that I keep noticing is how all hangout spots are “gay bars”, or (far less common) “lesbian bars”. I’m a straight man, so I don’t feel like I’m supposed to be there, but hanging out at regular bars is still too much of a gamble, so I don’t really have anywhere to go.”

It goes without saying that gay folk aren’t always safe in these spaces, as seen by the homophobic attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, in 2016. Bigotry hurts the entire LGBT+ community. Bigotry doesn’t stop to ask whether you identify as gay or otherwise queer before it pulls the trigger.

But the LGBT+ community itself is much more welcoming to those who “pick a side” and just come out as gay, already. The infighting is inexplicable when one looks to attacks such as that in Orlando: bigots don’t care which letter you are in the acronym. So why does gatekeeping exist when we need to be strong in the face of intolerance when fragmentation only makes us weaker? Who are we helping by continuing to exclude identities from the discussion?

#2: Myths and Misconceptions

Well, it stands to reason that if bisexuals are what they seem in TV and movies, why would anyone want to make them feel included? They’re “greedy” and inauthentic. They’re attention-seeking, not to mention their propensity for threesomes. Now, I haven’t been in a wild orgy yet, but it seems like it will only be a matter of time before I follow my natural path.

Straight men, in particular, need to own up to their assumption that bisexual women are down for a threesome. The thing is, we are. But not with you, you big ASSUMER.

Infidelity

All jokes aside, the stereotyping of bisexuals is not only hurtful, but leads to difficulties finding and maintaining relationships.

As I came to terms with my bisexuality, I also had to accept that I might never be fully trusted by my partner, regardless of their gender or sexuality. I was shocked when my partner reacted to my coming out with the equivalent of a shrug — so much so, that I burst into tears of gratitude that my soul-bearing moment hadn’t been met with slut-shaming or assumptions of disloyalty. Nothing has changed. If anything, our bond is even stronger for me having been more authentic after coming out.

But cruelty came from elsewhere: when I came out, I was told that my partner was to be pitied, either because I’m gay and in denial, or bound to cheat on him. The main consequence of such attitudes has been the crippling fear of coming out to my partner. It saddens me that I felt so relieved when he accepted me for being who I am, and loving him just the same as I always have.

This outcome is not the case for many couples, with straight folk worried that their bisexual partner will realise they’re gay and just leave them. This fear of abandonment comes from a place of ignorance. When the media presents bisexuality as a steppingstone on the way to “picking a team”, it’s no wonder that people struggle to trust their queer partners.

Other Queer Myths

The myth that all trans folk medically transition invalidates those who choose not to do so, and let’s not forget the ignorant jeers that it's all just a mental illness. Asexual folk battle the stereotype that they can never have a relationship and shall forever remain a virgin (because what an awful thing that would be, right?) And pansexuals… well, at the lighter end, they’re asked if they have sex with cooking utensils. But often, they’re erased as irrelevant because “we already have the label bisexual”.

This brings us onto the third and final difficulty that comes with queer folk who aren’t easily categorizable as gay: erasure.

#3: Erasure

Erasure refers to the denial of an identity’s existence or its validity as a label.

Non-binary folk face ongoing and loud claims that they simply do not exist. This is despite the historical and scientific evidence to the contrary. Plus, the most important evidence — them, existing. Asexual folk are told they simply have not found the right person yet, or that they are just afraid of sex. Demi-sexual folk are told “everyone feels like that, unless they’re just sleeping around!”. And bisexuals are dismissed as simply being in denial that they’re gay.

Monosexuality & The Gender Binary

Our culture is so built on monosexuality (being solely attracted to one gender — for instance, gay or straight). Monosexuality is reinforced through everything from marriage to dating apps, the media to what we teach in schools. People cannot fathom that someone might want to experience more than one gender in their lifetime.

The binary models of sex and gender are also deeply ingrained. These rigid belief systems combined are to blame for our inability to accept that bisexuals do not need to “pick a side”. I was paralysed by fear for 17 years because I found girls attractive and that might mean I’m gay, because bisexuals are just gays who haven’t realised they’re gay yet.

Bierasure

Bierasure is dangerous, firstly because it leads a child to have to internalise both biphobia and homophobia. For instance, I had to work through being taught to hate gayness, whilst being taught that any attraction to non-male genders made me gay.

Women were cute, and so I was gay, and this meant I was disgusting.

My own mother told me this. She also told me that something has “gone wrong in the womb” for a child to be gay. (Well, Mum, I’ve got some bad news about your womb!)And she, like any bigot, extended this theory to anyone who experiences same-sex attractions — anyone queer. This is another reason why bi-erasure is perilous. Whether you’re a gay, cis-male or a demi-bisexual, trans woman… if your parents will kick you out for being gay, they will likely kick you out for being any sort of queer.

If we deny the bigotry that bisexuals undergo, we will continue to suffer. It won’t just go away. It will fester, with bisexuals having no one they can go to who believes them. And thus:

Erasure Kills

Bullying and suicide rates of queer-but-not-gay people continue to sky-rocket. We must direct funding, support and compassion to every queer individual, as they are all vulnerable to discrimination and bullying. The problem is being left to fester. This is in part because bigots treat all queer labels as just ‘gay’, deeming them equally unworthy. This is how far erasure can go.

Conclusion

Earlier on, I stated that my experiences are distinctly bisexual. The same applies to any queer identity.

Emphasising our differing paths and struggles is important to avoid the aforementioned erasure of already less visible groups. But this does not mean that the LGBT+ community should be fragmented by these differences.

If we can unite in our hope to live authentically and love freely, we will be stronger against bigotry. We are fighting enough intolerance from without: there is no need to create more from within.

So out of everything, what’s the hardest part about being bisexual?

It’s the fact that nobody knows it’s this hard.

346 notes · View notes

yourlocalcatholic · 4 years ago

Note

What advice would you give to someone who really wants to be catholic but deeply disagrees with the church’s stance on LGBT people? I am afraid that if I go to church, people will say unaffirming things about me or my partner, or push me into conversion therapy.

Well, it’s not going to be easy.

When I started my conversion, I was not in line with what the Church believed about the LGBTQ+ community. In truth, I still struggle with it.

Despite my previous stubbornness on LGBTQ+ issues, I kept my heart open to God and what the Church teaches. I didn’t ignore what the Catechism says, but instead learned to understand what it teaches and why. This allowed me to accept the Church’s stances on the LGBTQ+ community.

Since the issues are different for gay and trans people, I’ll address them separately.

Contrary to popular thought, being gay in and of itself is not a sin. However, acting on same sex attraction is. The Church understands that being gay is not a choice, but as a result of its inherent brokenness, people with SSA are called to celibacy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection” (CCC 2359).

I know a lot of people would like if the Church permitted same sex marriages and relationships, but this simple cannot be so. As Christians, we are called to be faithful to Christ and the Church, to “observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20) and that “if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17). Christ asked for us to live lives in accord with Church teaching and meeting the standard he set for us. We are not only called to reject our modernist, consumer culture glorifies, but to “be perfect” as our heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48). We are called to overcome the vices of vanity, pride, gluttony, greed, envy, lust, wrath, and sloth, while cultivating the virtues of detachment, humility, temperance, generosity, charity, chastity, patience, and fortitude.

This also means we cannot call a sin anything other than a sin. We cannot lower the Church’s standards to the culture’s level, calling abortion, remarriage (without an annulment) after a divorce, homosexual acts, or contraception anything other than violations of God’s law. For “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8). Claiming the Bible says something that it clearly does not say is projecting our own morality on God. In doing so, we say that God does not know what is best for us and that he does not know what he is doing.

All of this can seem impossible. And without grace, it would be. Even with grace, we’ll often fall short. When we stumble we must repent, confess our sins, and come back to the Church.

So... is the Church homophobic? No, it is not. Sadly, however, some people with the Church are. These kinds of people lack one of Christ’s fundamental truths to “not neglect to show hospitality to strangers” (Hebrews 13:2). We turn ourselves into hypocrites when we do not uphold the idea that are all welcome in the Church.

Keep in mind, also, that just because “all are welcome” does not mean you can remain the same when you choose to become Christian. We are all ridden with sin, and we all have a cross to bear. But, by God’s mercy, we do not have to carry that cross alone.

Neither to trans people. Like homosexuality, there is a lot misunderstood about how the Church views being transgender.

For starters, the Church recognizes that every human person is created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27). EVERY person. Consequently, we must act in love towards our trans siblings and reprimand those who name-call, bully, or engage in any other uncharitable behavior toward them. As Christians, how we speak to one another, the language we use, the tone of our voice, and the respect our words and attitude convey determines whether our words are used to glorify God or to slander his children.

Respecting our fellow children of God also means we use peoples’ preferred name and pronouns. It is not a matter of affirming the person’s decision to transition, but rather it serves no use to do otherwise. If you’re having a conversation with a trans person, that conversation will not last long if you deliberately choose to use a name or a set of pronouns that the person is not comfortable with. What do you hope to achieve by refusing? You are more than likely to lose the opportunity to give them a faithful witness through which Christ can soften their heart to receive and embrace the true Gospel.

This topic is more difficult to address, in part because there is no official policy regarding trans individuals in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The other reason is because the truth is... very difficult to hear. Admittedly, though I am not trans, I struggle to fully grasp it. Like SSA, like anything else inherently broken, it is difficult to hear the truth of our condition. But I’m not here to tell you what I think, because what I think (or have a tendency to think) is corrupt due to my sin. Therefore, I can only share with you what the Church teaches. Keep in mind, I accept what the Church teaches, despite how difficult it will be to hear, because if I didn’t, then why would I be Catholic?

God doesn’t make mistakes. When he fashioned each of us in our mother’s womb, he did so with the care of an artist making his greatest masterpiece. He choose the things that make you uniquely you, and this includes our gender. If you feel like God made a mistake when you were created, then we don’t share the same definition of God. God is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving Father, so it is impossible for him to make mistakes because it would be contrary to his nature. God created you male or female for a reason.

But gender dysphoria, the condition of feeling one’s emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one’s biological sex, is a very real condition and many people suffer greatly because of it.

If your sex is a source of suffering in your life, God can be there with you to comfort you and help you through that suffering. He doesn’t promise to take away our sufferings and struggles, but He does promise to be there carrying our crosses alongside us.

Keep in mind that we are all called to holiness. For this reason, God may be asking you to grow in holiness by wrestling with trying to trust him that he doesn’t make mistakes and that he created you as male or female for a reason.

Now, you also expressed worry about people being uncharitable. Truth is, there are going to be uncharitable people. In my experience going to church, I have not encountered any. That said, I do not make my bisexuality known to the parishioners because I do not feel it is necessary.

But if you do feel the need, talk to the parish priest about your worries. There are many priests who understand that God has called them to love everyone, not just the ones that can hide their crosses easier. So, speak with a priest - via email, phone call, or in person (whichever way you’re comfortable) - and express your interest in their parish. If they are God-fearing, they will work with you.

I will be praying for you. God bless.

#lgbtq

113 notes · View notes

levyfiles · 5 years ago

Note

I want to start a shyan blog but I’m so scared because I don’t know how Shane and Ryan actually feel about it which makes me nervoussssssss help

Ohhh boy, brace yourself, nonnyhunny. I’ve got some word vomit for ya

To start off with, I just want anyone and everyone who is currently new to navigating this terrain we call the internet to know one thing and that is this one very important concept. Embrace your own insignificance! The internet is a big place. I once read a post on here that encouraged new users to think of Tumblr itself like you’re walking into a Walmart. You’re not here to make friends and you’re not here to shop for everyone else; you’re filling your own cart with the things you need and like and if someone comes along and takes a long good look at the things in your cart and says, “WOAH there, eating trans fats is unhealthy for you! I never eat trans fats because of a big list of reasons! Stop buying trans fats!!” you’re gonna be both puzzled and annoyed because it’s your cart, your Walmart experience; why the hell do they care what you’re gonna get?

However! I get it, the internet is now comprised of six different websites/apps and if you’re on there, there is no way to avoid or curate a completely ideal sense that you’ve made a space that’s all your own. There are going to be people who disagree with you, people who decide they don’t like what you do, but ultimately, in the midst of all that, you’re going to find people who feel the same in whatever regard you express yourself and that’s why it’s important to just express yourself because otherwise you’re going to develop a lot of disingenuous connections with people who would likely try to ruin your life if you disagree with them on some subject or other.

Now with that whole disclaimer in mind, I also understand where you’re coming from. Putting myself in the shoes of someone just trying to participate in a new fandom where there is a lot of contention among the masses about the rights and wrongs of RPF and whether the concept fits in with a philosophical debate about human nature and the way we interact with each other, witness each other’s journeys. That’s simply it, however; it’s an ongoing debate and where philosophy and debate are concerned, I always hold the belief that an individual’s right to ground themselves and say “These are the principles I wish to abide by” is sacred and ultimately, no amount of anonymous hatred or shrieking messages of outrage is gonna change that until you yourself decide that the principle isn’t working for you personally. My principle is that it’s fiction; an AU to explore as valid and sweet to me as demon!Shane headcanons are, but moreso because I identify with queer love stories and friendships forged by strangely deep similarities and complementing souls. I also love personalities like theirs, love the idea of said friendship and what it would bring to a story about two human beings who meet by happenstance and end up building something world-changing together. Still, because I am just a writer and a consumer of media, that’s the nicest thing I can give myself, a fictional account of these things while witnessing the real version happen in parallel. I get to celebrate in the overlap of similarities the real world and my fictional account take and watch it inspire my friends and mutuals to build their own universes and it’s beautiful.

With that point being made, I also understand the reason a lot of people are nervous about being open about shipping. The backlash from a bunch of strangers seems to take on a note that would make even the nicest person sound like a puritan about to hold some extravagant witch trials. Nothing more interesting than a person claiming to do good in the world using words like “exterminate” “cleanse” or my personal favourite “purge”. I’ve read rumours being spread about shippers that take on their own life especially because it’s human nature to let other people handle the research; it’s human nature to just take a believable narrative at face value. One rumour being that shippers of this fandom write stories where we kill off Shane and Ryan’s significant others. Myself and my friends who are avid readers of the ao3 tag know that that hasn’t been the case since 2016/17 and by all accounts, I have yet to find the fic where this happens (barring a tinsworth fic I’ve only heard about). Mind you, not many of us check out Wattpad but even there it’s more self-insert friendly with themes I can’t even stomach.

Which leads me to the last point and the main reason you sent this ask, I’m assuming. Ryan and Shane’s personal thoughts on the issue. Now, it behooves me to supply screenshots and proof when I make a claim but let’s consider if instead from the perspective of two adult men who have operated online far longer than a lot of their audience. Given that I am the same age as Shane, I know what the internet used to look like and how far it’s come and RPF is not a brand new thing neither did it pop up out of nowhere when One Direction debuted. And just like fanfiction in and of itself had its pushback from media because of its demographic and absolutely because of its queer-leanings, RPF appears to get a lot of that same energy, but it’s not an inherently toxic past time. Much like any fandom activity, it can get bad because fandom is not a monolith; it’s a bunch of individuals enjoying a medium in the ways they have learned to. You’re gonna get some individuals who “do it wrong” and some who do it differently, but ultimately, just like the forums and the reddit threads Shane and Ryan trawl in their past time, there are circles you learn not to veer into and terms you learn to blacklist/block/mute. With that being an indication of where they’re coming from as internet creators, I am confident when I say that, as long as it’s not being mailed to them, linked or quoted at them, they don’t care. They would know something that gets popular on the internet summons a brand of transformative art and fiction but much like they tend to ignore thirst tweets in their mentions or the repetitive requests for the same things over and over. They’d see it and gloss right over it. Shane is the type who writes long essays on reddit addressing the things that bother him, Ryan is weird and vocal and an oversharer sometimes when it comes to things Shaniacs say to him (i.e. that Voice he did for the occasional Shaniac who approaches him). It’s just one of the incarnations of fandom that they choose not to engage with, which, good? Because it’s a fan-specific activity. Once in a while you get a creator who wants to interact with fanfiction and it goes sideways because not all stories are written for them, much like not all fanart is made with the mindset to share with them.

It’s just a regular old fan interaction and community habit that builds bigger followings.

All in all, I’m not gonna tell you what to do. Unless you mean to be in their @’s all the time or link them on discord, or put any of your content in their hands, they are not going to see it. They don’t care. What they do care about is that you’re watching, that you support them and send them encouragement because they’re creating their own medium of content and a bigger following means more people get to see it and extract something positive from it.

#shyan #discourse #Anonybae

137 notes · View notes

woman-loving · 4 years ago

Text

LBT Women and US Black Feminist Organizations in the 70s

Selection from Living for the Revolution: Black Feminist Organizations, 1968-1980, by Kimberly Springer, 2005.

This selection discusses how the issue of lesbianism figured in the collective identity of black feminist organizations in the 70s. It notably describes the incorporation of an antiheterosexism statement by the East Coast branch of the Third World Women’s Alliance in the 1972 issue of their newsletter, Triple Jeopardy, predating the Combahee River Collective Statement by several years.

It also gives an account of a black trans women who joined the National Alliance of Black Feminists after hearing the leader speak at one of her college classes. However, the leader later outed her to the group, and the woman--who is misgendered in the interview--stopped attending after being “confronted” by other members. Despite its transmisogynistic conclusion, the account raises the possibility that other trans women may have also taken interest in and attempted to attend early black feminist organizations.

There isn’t a focus on bisexuality in this selection, but a lesbian founder of the National Black Feminist Organization mentions that the organization was “multisexual” in that it had straight women, bisexuals, and lesbians.

These accounts also remind us to be attentive to the fact that lesbian, bisexual, and trans women don’t only organize in LGBTQ-specific movements, but may also be promoting their concerns through other movements.

Sexual Orientation and Black Feminist Collective Identity

Again, it is important to return to the distinctions among the black feminist movement, the separate organizations' visions of black feminism, and black feminist collective identity. While the black feminist movement's initial vision did not include sexual orientation as a defining aspect of black women's identity, individual organizations and members articulated lesbian-positive and/or antiheterosexist principles to the movement's vision. The NABF [National Alliance of Black Feminists, 1976-1979], NBFO [National Black Feminist Organization, 1973-1975], and BWOA [Black Women Organized for Action, 1973-1980] included discussions of sexuality in their organizations, but they did not interrogate heterosexism as an oppressive force in black women's lives, regardless of sexual orientation.[46] However, the East Coast branch of TWWA [Third World Women’s Alliance, 1968-1980] and Combahee [River Collective, 1974-1980] both laid the foundations for challenging heterosexism and including lesbianism as an integral part of the black feminist movement.

Combahee was the only organization in this sample to mention "heterosexual oppression," but it did not thoroughly explain this form of oppression and its impact on black women's identities. The term heterosexism, the normativity of heterosexuality, was not yet in use among activists.[47] However, most readers of Combahee's statement may have deduced the implicit meaning of heterosexual oppression as heterosexism or homophobia. For other readers, the Combahee statement was possibly the first time they were force to recognize publicly black lesbian existence, the daily oppression black lesbians face, and the considerable sexual diversity within black communities.

Combahee was on the front lines of black lesbian feminist struggle in the 1970s, yet the statement neglected to specify the ways black communities were complicit in perpetuating heterosexism. [...] The Combahee statement omitted an explicit challenge to heterosexism, due to the timing of the organization members' individual coming-out processes and the desire to explain feminism on its own merit. [Barbara] Smith and other Combahee members strategically claimed a black and feminist identity before they claimed a lesbian one, though they claimed all three equally. For Combahee members, the separate emergence of feminist and lesbian consciousness undermined stereotypes of all feminists as lesbians and all lesbians as feminists. For people who relied on this analogy, feminist and lesbian were conflated identities and the sum total of a black feminist identity. The Combahee statement sought to disrupt this conflation. To a degree, an explication of black heterosexism was present, but underarticulated in the interest of establishing the foundational basis of solidarity between Combahee's black feminism and black communities. Still, lesbian visibility was a courageous and revolutionary move for Combahee to make, particularly in a social movement environment often divided by homophobia.

Predominantly white feminist organizations experienced lesbian/straight splits that divided organizations and disrupted a unified definition of feminist identity. Of the five black feminist organizations, only the TWWA's members recall an expulsion of lesbians similar to the homophobia that gave rise to the "Lavender Menace" in NOW [National Organization for Women].[49] Homophobia erupted in both the East and West Coast branches of the TWWA and impacted the development of their feminist collective identities. How these two branches of the same organization handled issues of lesbian inclusion and homophobia differed dramatically.

It is unclear whether the West Coast heterosexual members, succumbing to fears of lesbian baiting, expelled lesbian members or whether members who were lesbians, weary of homophobia, left the organization. Regardless of that distinction, the West Coast branch lost several members who were central to running the organization. The expulsion acted directly against the established principles of the TWWA, but there were no formal sanctions against the West Coast branch.

On the East Coast, [Frances] Beal recalls, the organization was approached by out lesbians about membership. Unlike the schisms of the West Coast, the East Coast TWWA eventually saw the inclusion of lesbians as an opportunity for growth in its organizational objectives:

"Beal: That was the other ideological fight that we had, which was important. We were approached by two lesbians ... who said, "Listen, we want to be completely honest: we're lesbians. There's no organization for us." One was Puerto Rican, one was black ... so we had a big discussion about that. Some people said, "Oh, my god. We have enough problems as it is! People are already calling us lesbians." That was another thing. We were lesbian-baited. ... Two people said that they were lesbians, and we had this big discussion whether we should do this and some people said no, we shouldn't do it.

Interviewer: Allow them to be in the group?

Beal: Yeah. And finally, like I said, we had all this debate. People were very honest in terms of discussion and feelings and stuff, but finally people said, "In New York, how can we do this? I mean, we can't really turn sisters away. If they agree with the political orientation and purpose of the organization, there's no way that we can be prejudiced." So we came up with this, what I consider now--from what I understand about the gay and lesbian movement now--we came up with this very liberal position. Whether it's biological or social--you know, homosexuality--people should not be prejudiced and discriminated against. That was, basically, the position. ... And a couple women left over that. They said, "no." They had enough problems as it was. They didn't want to be lesbian-baited. [...]”

Beal cogently deconstructed the intent of lesbian baiting: it split the organization interpersonally and ideologically. In response, the East Coast branch incorporated an antiheterosexist position into the TWWA's principles of struggle, recognizing the connections between patriarchy and homophobia: "Whereas behavior patterns based on rigid sex roles are oppressive to both men and women, role integration should be attempted. The true revolutionary should be concerned with human beings and not limit themselves to people as sex objects. Furthermore, whether homosexuality is societal or genetic in origin, it exists in the third world community. The oppression and dehumanizing ostracism that homosexuals face must be rejected and their right to exist as dignified human beings must be defended."[51]

This statement, appearing in the 1972 issue of Triple Jeopardy, is not only politically progressive for the early 1970s, but is chronologically well in advance of Combahee's later assertion of the existence of lesbians and gay men in black communities. Hence, when Combahee is cited for its pioneering efforts to expand the black feminist agenda to include antiheterosexism, the work of the East Coast TWWA should also be recalled.

Not all black feminists or organizations openly opposed homophobia, and some were restrictive in their definitions of sexual freedom. Some members of the NABF, for example, did not want to discuss lesbianism in their consciousness-raising groups, committees, or Alternative School workshops on sexuality. The intricacies of black sexual diversity were decidedly marginal to some NABF members' definitions of black female sexuality.[52] [Brenda] Eichelberger recounts an incident in which she revealed that someone attending the NABF's monthly meetings was transgendered:[53]

“Eichelberger: We even had one time, and I don't remember the person's name--in retrospect, I should have said nothing, but I'm the one that brought it up--I brought up the fact that there was a man at our meetings. That this was a man in drag. This was a--I won't say, "drag." This was a man who was dressed like a woman. And actually what made him come ... was a professor at U of I [Illinois]. ... She was a black woman. She had me speak to her class, and this guy was there at the time--dressed like a woman all the time.

Interviewer: In class?

Eichelberger: Yeah, in the class and then he joined our organization. Now, I shouldn't have--well, of course, coulda', shoulda', woulda'--I can't change the past. But anyway, I know at one time I mentioned--because he was coming to the meetings--and I mentioned--I said, "You know we have someone here who was a man." And, um, I think some women knew who it was, and others were saying "Who? Who? Who? Who?" And, so, a number of women got very upset, and they wanted to confront him and they did confront the guy. [...]

[Janie] Nelson: This was actually a man who had had a sex operation and was now a female. And we were real concerned about that. I remember Brenda calling up the members saying "What should we do? What should we do?" Because if we put him out, he could sue us [because of the NABF's nonprofit status] ... and luckily, things petered out. He just disappeared. He didn't come back. [...]”

Rather than attempt to understand gender identity and how this particular female/male conceptualized existence as a woman in the organization, some members of the NABF pushed her/him out of the organization with their limited knowledge of transgender identity and homophobia.[55]

The incident within the NABF highlights a number of issues that occurred in black and feminist organizations in the 1970s. It is too simple to conclude that black feminists were conservative and counter to the sexual revolution ethos of "anything goes." Despite the NABF's claims to legal concerns, all feminist organizations, irrespective of race, faced a lack of language to describe the diversity within biological sex and gender, homophobia, and fear of difference.

Some lesbian NABF members felt other members were homophobic and that the organization's activities did not reflect black feminist collective identity in its entirety. Looking for affirmation and advice, Chicago NBFO chapter members such as Sharon Page Ritchie asked other black feminist organizations for guidance. Upon learning of Combahee's plans for a black feminist retreat in Boston, she wrote this in reply to Combahee's 1977 preretreat survey: "The small NBFO chapter we have exhausted itself in trying to counter [a local black feminist leader]. We never got much past C-R [consciousness raising], and eventually we stopped meeting for that. How have other women dealt with women who claim to be feminist, yet behave in very anti-woman, anti-lesbian ways."[56] Ritchie's query and the aforementioned incident with the NABF's transgendered recruit connect two issues: black women's divergent definitions of black feminist identity and the homophobia of heterosexual black women. In response to accusations of homophobia in the NABF, Eichelberger resolves the issue as one of members differing expectations[...]. [...]

Eichelberger conceptualized the NABF as an umbrella organization. From her perspective, lesbians who wanted more of a focus on "a lesbian agenda" should have used the NABF as a resource to start independent organizations. Eichelberger and Nelson group lesbians with other groups of women they labeled as "factions," for example, socialists in the organization, but to frame lesbians as a special interest group ignores discrimination and the heterosexual privilege of straight black women. Members who agreed with Eichelberger saw lesbian as a category separate from feminist. Although they wanted to broaden the feminist agenda to include race, some heterosexual members of the NABF effectively excluded sexual orientation, and its implications for heterosexual women's sexuality, from the agenda of the NABF.

In other black feminist organizations, lesbians and straight women worked together to varying degrees of success. Generally, those organizations (e.g. the NBFO and Combahee) were founded by lesbians and included opposition to homophobia by integrating an antiheterosexist position into black feminist collective identity. Eichelberger and [Margaret] Sloan note that most NBFO members knew that Sloan was a lesbian and respected her role in starting the organization.[58] Still, there were some members, lesbian and heterosexual, who had problems with her prominent role in the organization. One concern was that Sloan's lesbianism would deter potential constituents and allies from supporting NBFO. Similar to the TWWA's struggles concerning homophobia. Sloan, Eichelberger, and [Deborah] Singletary recall debates about lesbianism and heterosexual women's concomitant fear that they would be seen as lesbians by association.[59] Sloan did not see external homophobia as a concern of the NBFO, but she believed that internal homophobia slowed down the organizations' momentum:

"It [the ideological dispute] was just stuff about race, and there was ideological stuff about whether we were going to--the group was multisexual. I mean, there were straight women and bisexuals and lesbians. And I think that there was a fear that people would think that we were a lesbian organization--God forbid--so they didn't want us to--those of us who were lesbians--I think that they wanted to sort of keep that--it was sort of like NOW in the early days. You know, "We know you're running this. We know you're the best, but let's keep that down." ... So stuff like that, you know, any time a group of women gather people assume you're lesbian, so that was what they said about a lot of organizations during that time. It wasn't a big concern--it wasn't a big, big issue, but it was a concern. It was a concern."[60]

Similarly, Jane Galvin-Lewis and Deborah Singletary, in nothing the role of lesbians in starting the NBFO, remark on the reverberations of homophobia from within and without the organization:

“Galvin-Lewis: And even though that is the case people have this notion, "Oh yeah, well, you know, if they had a man they wouldn't be pro-woman." And it's much like the race thing. You know, if you're pro-black it doesn't mean you have to be antiwhite. And to be profemale does not mean you have to be antimale. But because we were going with the feminist notion and people had their own ideas about it being a gay organization, which it never was, was never intended to be, and that was not the point. But it kept raising its head. ... Then, on the other hand, we had those people when we just--as women--we would want to take a stand on a position that had to do with gay women--we got the overwhelming groundswell of people that felt, "Oh, no! Don't touch that. That's not what we want to be about. ..." I'm just saying that had raised its head several times, as I recall, and we never gave into because it was not our point. That's not what we wanted to be about. We wanted to be about women--not any gay women, straight women--we wanted to be about women.

Singletary: We did have a committee called "Triple Oppression: Being Black, Female, and Lesbian," and they formed to deal with some of the gay issues.

[Eugenia] Wilshire: But I think it's to the credit of the organization that that [a gay/straight split] was not what split it--ever.

Galvin-Lewis: No. It wasn't. ... It never took hold, but it was raised on several occasions. And on the other side it was raised on several occasions.”[61]

The NBFO, despite outside criticism, was one of the few black feminist organizations besides Combahee to have a committee dedicated to connecting the concerns of black lesbians to the organization's agenda. But the NBFO, like the NABF, had contested definitions of black feminist identity at work in the organization, this ideological dispute was only the beginning of the struggle to incorporate antiheterosexist principles into black feminist collective identity and the movement's vision more broadly.

The presence of lesbians or demands for inclusion did not disrupt black feminist organizations. But, the homophobia of heterosexual women stunted the growth of a cohesive black feminist collective identity. Although black lesbians were central to the formation of black feminist collective identity from the beginning, there were attempts to erase them from these organizations' historical narratives.

#lgbtq history #lesbian history #black history #black lgbtq history #feminist history #feminism #us history #black women #women of color #trans history #trans women #black feminism #kimberly springer

19 notes · View notes

agender-thanos · 4 years ago

Text

Hey! So I know most of the time I just reblog political stuff, rather than make my own political posts, but I'm going to rant about my political views and why I feel that way. Please note that as of right now all but one of my views are liberal. Yes, I have a conservative viewpoint on one issue. Read to find out, I'll put it last.

Abortion

This is okay. At any point during the first trimester, as by the end of the first trimester, the baby's brain has developed enough to allow coordinated subconscious movements, such as hiccuping. After that, I'd be uncomfortable with the idea of an abortion, at least during the second trimester. After the third trimester begins, I'm against abortion. The fetus is too far developed mentally.

LGBTQ+ Rights

We [LGBTQ+ peeps] are people. I'm one of them, and anyone who isn't cishet is part of the LGBTQ+ group. Yes, you MUST BE cisgender AND heterosexual in order to not be allowed as a LGBTQ+ person, meaning that asexuals/aromantics, trans people, and others are valid! Hell, cishets are valid, technically, they're just not part of the community unless they're allies.

Defunding the Police

I shouldn't have to explain this; the fact that police get away with murder in general is wrong. It's worse when the victim is a POC, as then there's the possibility of racism. Get rid of the damn police; we only need them for violent criminals (i.e. alleged murderers, alleged armed robbers, alleged rapists, alleged sexual assaulters). Neither smoking weed nor fraud are violent crimes.

Healthcare for All

This... its sad that some people don't think universal healthcare shouldn't exist. Why should helping someone be bad? I mean, once you pay your taxes, that money is no longer yours, so why shouldn't that money be used to help people?

Education for all

I love how Boomers and baffoons think that we should pay for education. I mean, come on. College/University prices have gone WAAAAAY up in recent times, while wages remain the same and acceptance rates go down. Besides, Boomers have (for the most part) already payed for their college, they shouldn't get a say in whether or not we pay for ours. I mean, it's like they say; life's not fair. And this goes back to the "once you pay your taxes, that money is no longer yours."

Cleaner, Eco-friendly Energy

Don't tell me that this will ruin coal miners. They can be retrained to do a different job; the environment can't be rebuilt in our lifetimes.

Fuck the Rich

Why are the poor and working guys, gals, and pals paying the rich? Why should I pay taxes to bail out a greedy corporation that doesn't give a damn about anything but money?

I mean, if WalMart were to pay its workers livable wages WITHOUT raising the prices, it's income per year would drop from $300 million/year to a miniscule... $294 million/year. Thats like, bankruptcy worthy, right?

The ONLY time that wages shouldn't be forced to go up is with small businesses. By that I mean any business that makes less than $200,000/year in profit (profit is after expenses, aka after taxes, bills, etc). I mean, thats being generous.

2nd Amendment Rights

Ok, so this is actually more of a "we need balance" view, rather than the "conservative" view that I called it earlier.

Essentially, anyone who is at high-risk for committing a violent crime (aka the mentally unstable, previous offenders, anyone who follows fascist or prejudicial pages) should NOT own a gun. Yes, as of right now, that includes me, due to my mental disabilities.

Of course, if you can prove you're mentally stable, even if you have mental disabilities, you should be allowed to own a gun. I mean, I'd live to own a gun. I'm fascinated by weapons of all makes, types, and origins. Do I trust myself with a gun? As of right now, absolutely fucking not. Will I be owning a gun anytime soon? Nope.

HOWEVER, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment isn't hunting, it isn't collecting, it isn't committing crimes... it's to defend against threats. Foreign AND domestic. From either side of the government.

This means that we may need to take up arms against our fellow citizens. I mean, the majority of the NRA is pro-Trump. If he gets re-elected and takes control, what's gonna stop him from telling his supporters to go and slaughter us liberals? They'd do it. I mean, they'd probably do it even Iif he DOESN'T get re-elected.

As much as I don't like this situation, I'm thinking us liberals - whether you're pro-gun or not - should arm ourselves. I mean, if Trump is a fascist, guess who has to follow him? The military. And the police. And the NRA. Although that last one would do it willingly.

If Trump is a fascist, which I do believe he is, he might get some resistance from the military, and any "good cops" some people claim exist. But other than that? Anyone who is a Democrat- including civilians - or doesn't basically bow down to him... will probably be slaughtered.

I'm not trying to instill fear, or to get you guys to change your stances. But I could swear that there's a second civil war coming, and it'll be largely liberal vs conservative. And I can tell you right now; I'm a liberal. Even if I'm the only liberal fighting against them, I'll still fight if this happens. And I'll be fighting not for liberals or conservatives, but for America. Which means against Trump.

I'm really sorry if I offended anyone with anything in this.

I do indeed believe that there is a civil war coming, and that, unlike the last one, it won't be North Vs South. It'll be Liberal Vs Conservative. And the fact that so many liberals probably wouldn't be willing to take up arms with me... it scares me. Believe me, I don't want my own gun; not at this point in my life. But I'll probably need one, unfortunately.

2 notes · View notes

comicteaparty · 5 years ago

Text

March 30th-April 5th, 2020 CTP Archive

The archive for the Comic Tea Party week long chat that occurred from March 30th, 2020 to April 5th, 2020. The chat focused on Crypts and Cantrips by Kieran Thompson.

Featured Comment:

Chat:

Comic Tea Party

BOOK CLUB START!

Hello and welcome everyone to Comic Tea Party’s Book Club~! This week we’ll be focusing on Crypts and Cantrips by Kieran Thompson~! (http://cryptsandcantrips.kytri.net/)

You are free to read and comment about the comic all week at your own pace until April 5th, so stop on by whenever it suits your schedule! Discussions are freeform, but we do offer discussion prompts in the pins for those who’d like to have them. Additionally, remember that while constructive criticism is allowed, our focus is to have fun and appreciate the comic! Whether you finish the comic or can only read a few pages, everyone is welcome to join and chat with us!

DISCUSSION PROMPTS – PART 1

1. What did you like about the beginning of the comic?

2. What has been your favorite moment in the comic (so far)?

3. Who is your favorite character?

4. Which characters do like seeing interact the most?

5. What is something you like about the art? If you have a favorite illustration, please share it!

6. What is a theme you like that the comic explores?

7. What do you like about the comic’s story or overall related content?

8. Overall, what do you think the comic’s strengths are?

Don’t feel inspired by the prompts? Feel free to discuss anything else that interested you!

Erin Ptah (BICP | Leif & Thorn)

Just starting the first chapter...hmm, what is the establishment hiding, that they're so against the idea of making new maps?

And I'm intrigued by the idea of a society that's frankly & cheerfully accepting of trans people, but also, doesn't know that lesbians exist? Or has a fixation on a super-narrow PIV-specific idea of virginity. Or both? If the issue was "this person can't be allowed to get pregnant before the arranged marriage or it would be A Scandal," that would be a logical reason to divide up which sexy things are "safe" vs. which aren't, but it isn't framed that way...

Okay, end-of-the-chapter blurb says that is what it's about. It's just odd that the dialogue was coy about "the issue is pregnancy" while being so blunt about other things. (I was just reading another comic with a trans princess character, and wow, what an awkward plot twist that could lead to. "So, the good news is, there wasn't an accidental pregnancy in the direction you were afraid of, but...")

"I made a fantasy trope in this comic work the way I wish it worked in a certain other canon" is such a great motivator.

Geez, this kid's only been adventuring for 5 minutes before someone gets murdered in front of him. Poor guy.

...on the bright side, oh good, the princess is aware that lesbians exist.

Loving this axolotl dragon art. http://cryptsandcantrips.kytri.net/comic/chapter-3-extras-17/

And the orca dragon that follows.

Have now read through the Dramatic Twist. Not gonna go into details for the sake of other first-time readers, but it's more complicated than these plots usually seem to get in fantasy settings, and I'm into it.

warriorneedsfood

I like the comic. The relationships are fun to watch develop. I found the character introductions a little awkward with the announcement of their various types of sexuality. But after establishing them, I found their personalities interesting and was looking forward to reading more.

RebelVampire

What I liked about the beginning of the comic is kind of just how quickly it starts world-building with stuff like the issue of discrimination in the market or just the general name dropping of stuff. All of it felt pretty natural, and as I consider world-building vitally important for fantasy, I really liked the comic didn't hide its punches. My favorite moment was actually when the stranger on the road said "please come help my wagon" and then it devolved into them being attacked. This is like one of the most stereotypical fantasy things to happen, but that's kind of why I liked it. It added familiar comfort food with all the new stuff, and I liked just having something like that 100% met my expectations for what was about to happen. My favorite character right now is definitely Taneli. I love just how sweet and accepting she is. But I also kind of like she's just really...not entirely capable because she's lived the sheltered palace life and not gotten out much. Usually that's something I'd find annoying, but something about Taneli just makes it work so I absolutely adore how overall innocent she is even in spite of being stuck in an arranged marriage. I like seeing Kitov and Taneli interact the most. They have a beautiful, touching, and supportive relationship going on and I like how theyre similar in regards to world experience. It doesn't make it feel like either of them is somehow superior or has the upperhand, so it's just communication between equals.

RebelVampire

As for the art, I really like the character designs. They aren't overly complicated, but are each very unique as well, and I think overall they got that right fantasy DnD vibe to them that just really suits the story being told. I kind of like that the story is exploring the theme of duty and arranged marriages. Usually when it comes to arranged marriage, 90% of stories write protagonists that do everything in their power to escape and express their individuality and freedom. But I like that this story is kind of exploring the idea of duty and how we as people deal with the concept. I also just in general like it's exploring the political things surrounding it. Like I love that frank conversation Taneli had with the king about marrying him for the kid to become the ruler, and he was completely unoffended seeming. This was just a real refreshing approach since as much as I love freedom, I also love talking about when duty needs to override freedom. As for what I like about the comic's story is that this really feels like a tabletop campaign. So many stories claim to be tabletop rpg-like, but they really deviate from the feel I imagine when I think of such a story. So I kind of like that this comic captures that spirit of adventure perfectly. As for the comic's overall strengths, for me it's just kind of the whole fantasy package. Between the art, the world-building, story's feel of being a tabletop, I think the comic is like the epitome of high fantasy and hits all the notes I personally believe high fantasies need to hit. So if someone said fantasy comic, this would be at the top of the list for a comic I would think of.

Comic Tea Party

DISCUSSION PROMPTS – PART 2

9. Why do you think King Rishor was murdered, and why was Taneli seemingly framed in the process? Also, how do you think Leo got involved in everything, and how big of a role do you think he had in the plot?

10. What do you think will happen to Kitov and company as they search for answers and try to avoid capture? Will the group be able to find Leo, and if so, will that be enough to clear their names of suspicion?

11. Given Kitov and Taneli are both similar in regards to their experience levels, how do you think the events of the story will change them and their perspectives on the world? In what ways do you think they’ll remain the same?

12. How do you think the world itself will be affected by King Rishor’s death? Could it escalate into a war, or might Minash Turgal change for the worse? How will this affect characters like Lirre who helps Kitov and company out?

Don’t feel inspired by the prompts? Feel free to discuss anything else that interested you!

RebelVampire

I get the impression King Rishor was probably murdered for two reasons. Once, to destabilize the country/kingdom/w/e you wanna call it, and two to start some sort of war (hence why you frame Taneli). Leo I think is just the pawn of someone else. In some ways, I kind of feel like Leo is a victim of great pain and that pain was somehow manipulated for nefarious means. As for Kitov and company, I think they'll find Leo, but heck no will that clear them of suspicion. You can't just escape and have no consequences or continued suspicion. That will not play into their favor. SO they're gonna have to just dig deeper and deeper into the plot and still run from the law at every turn. Though I do kind of feel they'll wind up back home at some point and find out things are bad there too somehow. As for the world itself, since I already mentioned this, I do think there's gonna be war brewing. Maybe not get to the point where it happens, but people will be scrambling around to prevent it and there'll probably be lots of angry people causing havoc in Minash Turgal cause these are the sorts of things where people need someone to blame. I think Lirre will probably be fine because I don't want to think about bad things happening to Lirre O_O Finally, regarding Kitov and Taneli changing. I think they're both gonna gain some smarts from this. I feel like Kitov could learn some more street smarts and learn that not every nice seeming person is a good person and that it's okay to distrust people you just met. Meanwhile, I think Taneli is just gonna learn the struggles normal people go through outside of the sheltered life she's lived, and that she'll be much wiser when it comes to politics. However, I think they'll both remain lovely people who are sweet and have that twinkle in their eye.

snuffysam (Super Galaxy Knights)

I feel like the murder of King Rishor was foreshadowed on this page: https://cryptsandcantrips.kytri.net/comic/twelve-4/ With the whole "obviously the people like me, because if they didn't, they'd vote to replace me" bit. Like, sure, that's true on a country-wide scale... but votes are majority rule, not unanimous. And sometimes... the smaller group of people who disagree with you can be very vocal.

Comic Tea Party

DISCUSSION PROMPTS – PART 3

13. What are you most looking forward to seeing in regards to the comic?

14. Any final words of encouragement for the comic?

Don’t feel inspired by the prompts? Feel free to discuss anything else that interested you!

Erin Ptah (BICP | Leif & Thorn)

Taneli's my favorite too. She's very sheltered, but her heart's in the right place and she's adjusting as fast as she can, and she's active and enthusiastic which is great for plot motion. Plus, she gets the best clothes. I like the worldbuilding of "actually, our country has all kinds of mold-breaking things like non-hereditary elected rulers and public transportation." Here's hoping it catches on more widely. Leo's plotting is...complicated. Escorting the Princess gave him a great opportunity to get close for the assassination, and since he had the stuff in the luggage, it seems like he was plotting it the whole time. But the fact that Taneli was a Princess at all was supposed to be a secret from everyone except Kitov, right? The others were all surprised when it came out. Was it a plan that only came together when he arrived, and the poison was just planted to frame the others? Or was the poison in the luggage all along, and the secrecy of the whole mission was compromised from the beginning? Unrelated, I thought the sexual-orientation references were well-done. It's not like the whole cast sat in a circle and announced a list of identities each -- it came up naturally in one conversation with a few people, and they mentioned the parts of their experience that were relevant. Also really liked "masculinization potion." Some of the trans-related vocabulary stuck out from the rest of the dialogue, but this feels natural -- like, of course, those are the words a Medieval D&D Fantasy Person would use for it.

RebelVampire

What I'm most looking forward to seeing in the comic is probably just more of the plot revealed as to why assassinate the king and finding the whole motivation behind everything. Just because I'm hoping it opens up more questions to explore and also helps build the world. My final words are simply that this is a lovely comic with likeable characters and I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes in terms of plot since the plot has definitely caught my interest.

Kytri

Hi, uh this is my first post here. I'm the writer/artist of Crypts and Cantrips. The week is over in about half an hour in my time zone, and I just wanted to stop in and say thanks for including my comic and for everyone's kind words.

My comics tend not to spark much discussion or feedback so it was a really nice change of pace.

Comic Tea Party

BOOK CLUB END!

Thank you everyone so much for reading and chatting about Crypts and Cantrips this week! Please also give a special thank you to Kieran Thompson for volunteering the comic and creating it! If you liked Crypts and Cantrips, make sure to continue to support it via some of the links below!

Read and Comment: http://cryptsandcantrips.Kytri.net/

Kieran’s Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/Kytri

Kieran’s Ko-Fi: https://ko-fi.com/itsKytri

Kieran’s itch.io Store: https://Kytri.itch.io/

Kieran’s Teepublic page: https://www.teepublic.com/user/Kytri

Kieran’s TWITTER: https://twitter.com/Kytri

#ctparchive #comics #webcomics #indie comics #comic chat #comic discussion #book club #bookclub #webcomic book club #webcomic bookclub #crypts and cantrips #crypts & cantrips #kieran thompson #comic tea party #ctp

1 note · View note

radfemetc · 6 years ago

Link

(The article is behind a paywall so I’m putting it here. You can also register to read 2 free articles a week.)

Inside the clinic rooms of the Tavistock, the private heartache of a new generation of “transgender” youngsters is being laid bare. There used to be about 50 referrals a year, mainly males with a history of gender issues.

Now there are thousands of young females reporting a sudden gender crisis for the first time. Many are convinced that transition — and the powerful drugs that make it happen — will be the solution to their problems.

Until now the specialists struggling to keep up with caseloads have stayed silent, but alarm over the number of adolescents being prescribed body-altering drugs, has prompted five former clinicians to speak out for the first time.

All five have resigned from the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in the past three years as a matter of conscience.

“This experimental treatment is being done not only on children, but very vulnerable children, who have experienced mental health difficulties, abuse, family trauma, but sometimes those [other factors] just get whitewashed,” one female clinician said. ��If someone was suggesting plastic surgery or any other permanent change we’d be saying, hang on a minute.”

The clinicians have warned that complex histories and adolescent confusion over possible homosexuality are being ignored in the rush to accept and celebrate every young person’s new transgender identity.

Clinical psychologists carry out each initial assessment at the Tavistock. They are the gatekeepers who decide whether to refer transgender youngsters to the endocrine clinic for the next stage of treatment. Therapists once had months to work through underlying issues before making decisions on medical intervention, but the clinicians claim that young people are now routinely referred for hormone therapy after as few as three hour-long sessions.

They believe that physically healthy children are being medicated in response to pressure from transgender lobby groups and parental anxieties.

So many potentially gay children were being sent down the pathway to change gender, two of the clinicians said there was a dark joke among staff that “there would be no gay people left”.

“It feels like conversion therapy for gay children,” one male clinician said. “I frequently had cases where people started identifying as trans after months of horrendous bullying for being gay,” he told The Times.

“Young lesbians considered at the bottom of the heap suddenly found they were really popular when they said they were trans.”

Another female clinician said: “We heard a lot of homophobia which we felt nobody was challenging. A lot of the girls would come in and say, ‘I’m not a lesbian. I fell in love with my best girl friend but then I went online and realised I’m not a lesbian, I’m a boy. Phew.’”

The specialists expressed concern at how little confusion over sexuality was explored when a young person requested treatment to change their body.

“I would ask who they wanted to have relationships with, but I was told by senior management that gender is completely separate to sex,” a third female clinician said. “I couldn’t get on board with that, because it isn’t. Some people were transitioning their gender to match their sexuality.”

The service said it was “a welcoming place for people from all sections of the LGBT community”, adding that it had made exploration of sexuality a “more explicit” part of the assessment in response to staff concerns.

Nevertheless, the clinician said that her unease grew after meeting an adult woman whose transition to become a man involved having a double mastectomy. She had since changed her mind.

“What can we do? We can’t reverse that. Do we suggest fake breasts?” she said. “We have such a duty of care to these confused young adolescents, but I think we are failing them.”

The clinic rejected the claims. “We always place a young person’s wellbeing at the centre of our work,” it said. “GIDS staff are engaged daily in thinking about the serious ethical dimensions of our practice. The diversity and complexity of individual cases will always be respected.”

Several clinicians suspected that some of the “transgender” adolescents were reacting to homophobia at home.

“For some families, it was easier to say, this is a medical problem, ‘here’s my child, please fix them!’ than dealing with a young, gay kid,” the third female clinician said. At the service’s “family days”, a parent was allegedly heard saying that they did not want their child to have gay friends because they “didn’t want them mixed up in that hedonistic lifestyle”. “It is converting people into heterosexuals,” one of the clinicians said. “We had so many families who would talk about not wanting their daughters to be lesbian.” Young people “repeatedly” confided their own “disgust” that they may be gay, according to the clinician.

In other cases, she felt young people had concluded they were trans because they didn’t fit traditional gender roles.

“Children’s bodies are being damaged in order to treat societal issues,” she warned. She recalled a case of a 13-year-old child “whose parents were really pressurising us for puberty blockers”. When the clinician refused to refer him, she claims one of the parents, a lawyer, wrote threatening legal letters to the service. The child was eventually referred for blockers.

She would have nightmares about her years at the Tavistock. “I would talk about it as an ‘atrocity’. I know that sounds quite strong, but it felt as if we were part of something that people would look back on in the future, and ask, what were we thinking? In the future I think there will be lots and lots of de-transitioners who feel their bodies were mutilated as young people and who will ask, why did you let me do this? It is very disturbing.”

Studies show that the vast majority of youngsters who begin puberty blockers go on to have irreversible hormone treatment at 16. Some go on to have gender reassignment surgery as adults.

All five clinicians expressed concern over how little young people and their families were being told about the impact of hormone treatment on fertility and sexual function as adults. One claimed young people were unable to give “informed consent” because it was regarded as taboo to discuss the impact of medical intervention on later sexual function in such a young cohort.

The clinic said there were no “taboo” subjects in its work, and that it did not “recognise this allegation as reflecting what happens in the service”. It rejected allegations of conversion therapy and insisted that youngsters were being properly advised on the risks of and about what is unknown about medical intervention. Time and care was taken at every stage to ensure that individuals grasped the potential consequences of their choices, it said, adding that the service had become “increasingly aware” of the need to discuss the impact of treatment on future sexual function.

The GIDS’s own internal review identified procedures around consent as an area of concern. It has recommended that written consent should be obtained before referral for blockers.

Another clinician described how youngsters entered his room enthusing about Alex Bertie, a transgender YouTuber, and My Life: I Am Leo, a documentary about a transgender teen broadcast in a teatime slot on CBBC.

“These are very simplified stories about how easy it would be to transition into being trans. . . that transition is a solution to feeling shit. That is very appealing to lots of teenagers,” the first male clinician said. I felt for the last two years what kept me in the job was the sense there was a huge number of children in danger and I was there to protect them from the service, from the inside.”

One female clinician estimates that she referred about 50 young people for puberty blockers. She now believes she referred too many. Their outcomes remain unclear. “When you start them on puberty blockers, you’re putting them on a pathway that could lead to sexual dysfunction problems and, for the younger kids, will definitely make them infertile. In what other specialism would physical intervention that leads to permanent change to the body be the first line of treatment for a vulnerable child? Activists will tell you it’s unethical not to intervene. But we know that not everyone with gender dysphoria will go on to identify as trans for the rest of their lives.”

One case has haunted her. “All the pushing was coming from the father to put the kid on puberty blockers. Thinking back on it now, I fear that the father was a paedophile and the child was being abused.” There is no suggestion the service knowingly ignored the case, and the outcome is unknown.

The clinic, which is run by the Tavistock and Portman Foundation Trust and whose director is Polly Carmichael, says it is tracking the progress of 44 young people who began puberty blockers in 2011, and that all available evidence is discussed with families. “This is a rapidly developing field and psychosocial and medical professionals are working hard to ensure that we respond to emerging evidence in an appropriate and considered way,” a spokesman said. The growing body of international evidence showed that “thus far, there is little reported evidence of harm,” he added.

“The service undertakes careful assessments over time and continues to see young people whether or not they attend the endocrine clinic following this assessment,” the spokesman said.

The clinic said it was aware of concerns and tensions between different perspectives raised by staff and “clinicians have a duty of care to raise safeguarding concerns”, adding that there were “safe spaces” and structures in place for staff to discuss anything that worried them. It would not comment on specific cases but stressed that a young person’s motivations and choices were discussed at each step.

What began in 1989 as a specialist clinic for gender issues is now under intense scrutiny. A report by David Bell, a former governor at the trust, revealed ethical concerns over “woefully inadequate care”. Staff were furious with the GIDS executive’s response to the report, which stated that its own review found no safeguarding concerns.

The whole service should have been halted when the number of “transgender” cases first exploded, one of the clinicians said. “That’s the point we should have stopped because we didn’t know what we were doing. Are we a service for kids with gender dysphoria, a medical disorder? Or are we a service for ‘transgender kids’?”

A GIDS spokesman said: “We are aware of tensions between different perspectives. These differences are inevitable in such complex work.”

One clinician said it was understandable if her former employer was defensive, saying: “If they are getting it wrong, you have to ask, are they making kids infertile by mistake? Because if they are to truly acknowledge [our concerns], then they will have to ask themselves, what the f*** have we done to thousands of children?”

Gires, GI and Mermaids all denied they viewed transition as a cure-all or that they exerted any undue pressure. Susie Green of Mermaids said the charity “does not encourage parents to demand any particular treatment.” Gendered Intelligence said the allegations against it were “unfounded”. Bernard Reed, founder of Gires, said: “In medical literature . . . failure to provide timely treatment is described as ‘psychological torture’. As far as we are aware, GIDS has adequate safeguards against irreversible treatments being given inappropriately.”

(Emphasis mine.)

#transing children #homophobia #lesbophobia #gender identity #sex not gender #gay children #resources #članak #gender roles #regressive progressives #child abuse #conversion therapy

61 notes · View notes

a-room-of-my-own · 6 years ago

Text

All five have resigned from the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in the past three years as a matter of conscience.

“This experimental treatment is being done not only on children, but very vulnerable children, who have experienced mental health difficulties, abuse, family trauma, but sometimes those [other factors] just get whitewashed,” one female clinician said. “If someone was suggesting plastic surgery or any other permanent change we’d be saying, hang on a minute.”