This Gendered Life

I didn’t realize 12 trillion people existed in the...

Wed, 30 May 2012 20:22:07 -0400

I didn’t realize 12 trillion people existed in the world…

#winning

Wed, 30 May 2012 20:18:52 -0400

#winning

ohjeffreyno: She missed me! I just want to cuddle with both of...

Tue, 29 May 2012 23:56:14 -0400

ohjeffreyno:

She missed me!

I just want to cuddle with both of them.

@ohjeffreyno :D

Tue, 29 May 2012 15:24:25 -0400

@ohjeffreyno :D

I’m kind of in love with this song. It’s been stuck...

Mon, 28 May 2012 23:59:50 -0400

I’m kind of in love with this song. It’s been stuck in my head for days.

friendleaderp: Kittens rescued by US Marines in...

Mon, 28 May 2012 22:38:09 -0400

friendleaderp:

Kittens rescued by US Marines in Afghanistan

Yes, this can absolutely be on my blog on Memorial Day.

^ seconded.

andigreyscale: I love makeup. I LOLed at this. ”Dear...

Mon, 28 May 2012 22:28:44 -0400

andigreyscale:

I love makeup.

I LOLed at this. ”Dear boy in outer space” So good.

Ugh. Sprained index finger makes typing hard :(

Mon, 28 May 2012 21:55:43 -0400

Because when you talk about her you can tell how happy you are and that's so nice to see :)

Mon, 28 May 2012 21:44:10 -0400

OK. As long as you’re not being a creeper.

We’re doing very well, thank you. She’s the best :)

girlfriend update? :)

Mon, 28 May 2012 07:52:48 -0400

may I ask why you’re so interested?

fuckyeahsexeducation: gaywrites: Trans woman wins bathroom rights at UA A transgender lecturer at...

Sun, 27 May 2012 23:58:46 -0400

fuckyeahsexeducation:

gaywrites:

Trans woman wins bathroom rights at UA

A transgender lecturer at the University of Arkansas won the right to use the women’s restrooms on campus after the Department of Justice got involved.

Jennifer Braly, 38, was a guest lecturer at UA as well as a student. She was told she could only use unisex/gender-neutral bathrooms at the school, essentially banned from using bathrooms designated female (or male, for that matter).

She challenged the school’s position and was banned from lecturing for doing so. Eventually, the Justice Department’s Office of Civil Rights sent a letter to the school outlining Braly’s rights and their expectations. Braly is now permitted to use female-designated restrooms.

Can’t believe we still have to fight for these kinds of things, but every battle won makes a difference.

way to go U of A! I know a lot of the trans people that go to you, so I’m kind of surprised you banned trans people to going into their chosen bathrooms but at least you fixed your mistake. Now if you could only be a little more disabled person friendly I might actually be able to attend you once I get disability.

NY Times Does Not Retract Dehumanizing Coverage of Trans Woman Who Died in Fire

Sun, 27 May 2012 23:43:46 -0400

NY Times Does Not Retract Dehumanizing Coverage of Trans Woman Who Died in Fire:

In response to criticism from the LGBT community and allies over its coverage of a fire that killed a transgender woman this weekend, the New York Times released a statement that reveals a lack of understanding of how serious this problem is.

New York Times Metro Editor Carolyn Ryan stated: “We typically try to capture the personal stories of those whose lives are lost in a fire, and we sought to do so in this case. We certainly did not mean any disrespect to the victim or those who knew her. But, in retrospect, we should have shown more care in our choice of words.”

Unfortunately, the problem with the Times’ article on the death of Lorena Escalera, a transgender woman of color, is bigger than their “choice of words” or with their attempt to “capture” her story. It’s their failure to recognize trans women as women.

The decision by writers Al Baker and Nate Schweber to call her “curvaceous” in the first sentence was not a poor choice of words. It was a poor choice of focus. The way this entire article is framed comes directly from an idea that transgender women are curiosities. That they’re other. That they should be treated differently than other people. Saying that Lorena was “called” Lorena, even though that is exactly how police identified her, was not a poor choice of words. It was a disrespectful jab at her identity as a trans woman, by implying that she wasn’t really Lorena.

Lorena was a daughter. She was a friend. She was a beloved member of a community. But the only elements of her story that writers Al Baker and Nate Schweber seemed concerned with were; what she looked like, what her neighbors thought she looked like, and whether any items that would typically belong to a woman were in her apartment when it burned. Very little of this is relevant to the actual personal story of Lorena Escalera’s life. It seems very clear that this personal information was included in order to “spice up” the story by exploiting Lorena’s status as a transgender woman – not to actually inform readers about her life.

“As my city’s and our nation’s paper of record, I would expect the New York Times to treat any subject, regardless of their path in life, with dignity,” said trans advocate and journalist Janet Mock. “In Lorena Escalera’s life she was so much more than the demeaning, sexist portrait they painted of girls like us. It goes beyond a ‘choice of words.’ According to the Times’ limiting, harmful portrait of Lorena, she was nothing more than a ‘curvaceous’ bombshell for men to gawk at. That is not the ‘personal’ story of any woman, and until we treat trans women like human beings - in life and death - with dignity, families and struggles, our society will never see us beyond pariahs in our communities.

Unfortunately, many Americans, including members of the media, do view transgender people – and trans women of color in particular – as curiosities at best, or not deserving of basic human dignity at worst. And very few Americans know any trans people in their day-to-day lives, so this viewpoint is never dispelled. This is why extra care must be taken when reporting on a story that involves a transgender person, especially if that person is no longer able to speak for themselves, as is the case here. Writers and editors alike must be made aware of how common this underlying bias is, and make a conscious effort to remove it when they see it.

This is where the Times’ statement truly fails. Not only does it not show an understanding of what the problem with the original article was, it also makes no assurances to the community that it will educate its writers and editors about how to report on transgender people in the future. There’s nothing forward-looking in the Times statement.

GLAAD did ask the Times to detail what steps will be taken in the future to ensure this doesn’t happen again. We were told that this statement “will be all there is from us on this.”

But this statement is not good enough. The New York Times has highlighted the personal and inspiring stories of transgender people in the recent past, including an article on Harmony Santana, Laverne Cox and other transgender actresses, a piece on triathlete Chris Mosier and one on classical pianist Sara Davis Buechner. We can be almost certain that the New York Times does understand the problems with its piece on Lorena, and is embarrassed that it ran. Now it’s time for them to say so publicly, and to tell its readers that steps are being taken to ensure that an article like this won’t be printed again. We thank members of the LGBT community, including trans leaders like Janet Mock, Autumn Sandeen, Laverne Cox, and Jennifer Finney Boylan, trans author and New York Times contributing writer, as well as Colorlines and Feministing, for bringing attention to this story. We hope to continue putting pressure on the Times until they offer assurances that changes will be made.

fuckyeahsexeducation: gtfothinspo: karnythia: notesonascandal:...

Sun, 27 May 2012 21:31:23 -0400

fuckyeahsexeducation:

gtfothinspo:

karnythia:

notesonascandal:

Whiteness is a hell of a drug.

This shit is being sold in a ‘hood beauty & barber supply store. In a Black ass mall. In Black ass PG County, Maryland.

Ugh, and you know this shit is pure poison that’s damage the skin of anyone who uses it.

I went to India a few years ago and in all of the shops I went into they had these kinds of ‘whitening’ products. But they were Garnier. Like, the same ‘beauty’ products as you could get anywhere else but they all were to make your skin whiter. Not cute.

Whenever people start saying that the media isn’t detrimental to those of darker skin in particular I always think of this. And the fact that mothers are using this (or straight up bleach) on their children.

What the actual fuck is this fuckery on my dash??

How I appear in nature. Literally.

Sun, 27 May 2012 20:52:40 -0400

How I appear in nature. Literally.

holdinghope: This ^

Sun, 27 May 2012 12:07:30 -0400

holdinghope:

This ^

agniology: asphyxiette: Wow what a great parent you are good...

Sun, 27 May 2012 12:06:15 -0400

agniology:

asphyxiette:

Wow what a great parent you are good job A+

I hope your daughter finds out you sent this in, you despicable ass

how can you have so much resentment towards your own child that you can just about say you hope they get raped idgi

I hope your daughter finds out you sent this and punches you in the face. A real parent wouldn’t turn their back on their daughter in her time of need, you souless piece of shit.

nikkidubs: Want. @lionessyawn

Sun, 27 May 2012 11:41:55 -0400

nikkidubs:

Want.

@lionessyawn

This Gendered Life: Civil Unions, "Same-Sex" Marriage, and Marriage Equality

Sat, 26 May 2012 22:12:05 -0400

This Gendered Life: Civil Unions, "Same-Sex" Marriage, and Marriage Equality:

thisgenderedlife:

This morning, I woke up to Facebook message from my father that essentially stated he does not believe the word marriage should be applied to “same-sex” unions. From what I could gather, he thinks that the phrase civil union is appropriate enough. He also doesn’t understand why the queer community is so adamant about “redefining” marriage. So I’ve decided to organize my thoughts in a coherent, cohesive, concise collection (hello, alliteration!) in order to better explain the plight of the queer community, and our quest for full equality.

What is the definition of marriage?

Well, it depends on two factors: when are we talking about, and who are we asking.

When - Historically, marriage has included a number of things, and has excluded others. Marriage used to involve a man approaching a woman’s family and asking for her to be his wife. That’s right—the woman’s opinion, desires, or wants were completely disregarded. If her family was willing, and the man was considered suitable (to the family, not the woman), she was sent off to be married. It wasn’t very long ago that this kind of marriage was practiced. In fact, it is still common for a man to ask for the family’s (read: father’s) permission to marry a woman. But if you go back even further into history, marriages used to include a dowry; the money, goods, or estate that a woman brings to a marriage. So marriage used to be defined as the ownership of a woman based upon an agreement between a man and the woman’s family, and included a dowry consisting of anything from animals to property to money.

Who - According to the United States Government, “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife,” (United States Code Chapter 115, Title 28, Section 3a-7). This definition did not exist in the United States Code prior to 1996, when the 104th Congress of the United States passed a Code amendment on January 3, 1996. There are far too many people who will also say that the Bible (or other holy book, deity, or practitioner) also defines marriage as one man and one woman, but those references are irrelevant due to the United States Constitution and the separation of church and State.

Marriage affords the individuals involved 1,138 statutory provisions on the federal level alone. These provisions determine rights, benefits, and privileges such as joint parenting rights, domestic violence intervention, next-of-kin status, funeral and bereavement leave, Medicaid, and spousal sponsorship for immigration. It is the legal language that determines access to these provisions, and the legal term is marriage.

What is a civil union?

In the United States, civil unions allow limited access to spousal rights, and laws allowing civil unions are passed legislatively on a state-by-state basis. Though the union is recognized by the individual state, it is not recognized by ALL states. Therefore, a “same-sex” couple civilly united in the state of Illinois (where civil unions are legal and afford couples many of the state’s marriage rights) is not guaranteed recognition in Texas, where “same-sex” unions, partnerships, and marriages are banned.

Though some states with civil unions have nearly identical provisions for civil unions and marriages, the United States Government does not recognize those provisions on the federal level. Civil unions, though a step in the right direction, are not equal to marriage.

Why do you keep putting same-sex in quotations?

Same-sex marriages and marriage equality may seem like an argument of semantics, but it’s really not. Sex is a socially-constructed binary classification based on biological manifestations of genitalia, and is not inclusive of all persons who seek access to marriage. It’s a restrictive labeling device that excludes persons who are intersex, among other groups who do not neatly fit into the categories of male and female. Because intersex individuals and non-binary individuals are also restricted by the language used to define legal marriage, “same-sex” marriage still restricts their access to marriage rights, benefits, and privileges. Marriage equality includes all groups of people, regardless of their sex and/or gender. And that is what the argument is (or should be) about. Equality.

In closing…

The fight for equal access to rights, benefits, and privileges is as much about access as it is about terminology. The word marriage is vital, because that is the legal term to which those rights are bound. Without the word, there is no equality. And an argument proposing the use of any other word or phrase is an argument against equality. The definition of marriage and the practice of marriage have changed so much over the course of human history, it baffles me that people argue about changing the meaning of marriage. Marriage is a dynamic concept—it changes (and has changed) with society. We have adapted to change before, why can’t we adapt now?

Easy Saturday night...

Sat, 26 May 2012 21:00:05 -0400

Wanna ask me things?

republicanidiots: Here’s Mitt sucking the life essence from a...

Fri, 25 May 2012 18:29:07 -0400

republicanidiots:

Here’s Mitt sucking the life essence from a human child.

Look at that child’s face. Terror.