Happy Pride !

July 1, 2014

Cover of SFWeekly Pride Issue 2014

Cover of SFWeekly Pride Issue 2014

101 Responses to “Happy Pride !”

  1. GallusMag Says:

    WHAT ABOUT THE MENZZZZZZ/LAYDEESTICK/SHENIS???!!!

  2. GallusMag Says:

    “Hearts before Parts”!!!!!!!!!

  3. GallusMag Says:

    “The trans community isn’t saying you can’t be lesbian but that lesbian can mean SO MUCH MORE”!!!!!!!!

  4. GallusMag Says:

    “Gender Before Genitals”!!!!!!

  5. GallusMag Says:

    I think you know, “T-Girl”, I think you know…

  6. silverside Says:

    My expectations are so low these days that I was surprised that SF Weekly even mentioned lesbians on the cover. I figured we didn’t even exist as a recognized category anymore.


    • Women/lesbians don’t exist as an interest group (in their own right) within the gay fascist patriarchal movement. They are only invoked symbolically when a female image is needed to deflect attention away from the smug affluence of many gay males, or when “L” is tacked on to IGA to make it ILGA and appear less predatory when it applied to the U.N. for Human Rights status for pedophiles and when Paul Singer, Peter Thiel or Ted Olsen want to appear “inclusive”. instead of the one percent. Why would women over eighteen ever refer to themselves as “girls” or “chicks” when many women fought so hard to be recognized as dignified adults not children or small animals?

      • Lizzy Shaw Says:

        Wow this comment kicks ass. I want to frame it on my wall.

        I remember back when I was a naive teenager and a lesbian wrote a letter to the local free newspaper saying that she didn’t want to be grouped in with alphabet soup organizations and cited pedophilia advocacy. She was shammed as being homophobic complete with sexist insults. But she was right.

        Yes heterosexual male pedophiles outnumber the gay ones but there’s a lot more mainstream advocacy for pedophilia from organizations like ILGA. Well I say not in my name.

    • moira Says:

      The first paragraph of the actual article was about Harry (nee Harriet) Dodge.

  7. Lizzy Shaw Says:

    I don’t live in the suburbs, but I’ll relocate anywhere that has other women and lesbians who acknowledge the crazy that’s going on and anywhere that’s far, far, away from the “affluent gay districts”.

    Happy pride, have some more tumblr-bots coming up with special snowflake sexual attractions: http://never-obey.tumblr.com/post/90259221069/hyaenahart-okay-so-the-aro-ace-spectrum-really

    Sorry for the asexual community who has to deal with this. Also, know how you feel tumblr user never-obey, I’m freaked out too.

    I hate post-modernism so much. Really, why do we need that many sexual orientations, especially when a lot of stuff on the list applies to most people? Also, sexual orientation means biological sex. Since there are only two sexes, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual covers all the bases. And I’m sorry, but I never really understood how pansexual and omisexual are different from bisexual, except that I’ve heard some pansexuals profess about how into trans people they are. (But trans people have a sex too, either male or female.)

    That said, the pomo sexual orientations are useful for knowing when to hit the highway.


    • That’s so cute. These kids actually think people want to know that much about them. It’s like this millennium’s version of “what’s your sign?” Some people are really going to get a hard slap from reality one day.

      • Motherhood Says:

        I wanna be reality. Can I be reality? I’d be really good at it.

      • Lizzy Shaw Says:

        Indeed. But at least zodiac stuff was limited to either Western or Chinese simplified astrology. Now there’s a new special snowflake sexual orientation or gender identity every week and you dam well better drop everything and acknowledge their speshulness or you’re a bigot. I would say the astrology trend is preferable because no one ever threatened me over it.

        You’re right that in real life most people don’t care to hear that much information about you.

    • jdmarsh89 Says:

      In college, I heard “pansexual” for the first time in the context of a 1st day of class tell-us-something-about-yourself from a female classmate (I feel like sexuality is kindof TMI… pretty sure prof just wanted your name and where you’re from and like your favorite book or something). A guy in the back (who was bi) said “how is that different than bi? …will you just fuck anything?” then he bleated like a sheep….”Ba-a-a-a-a-a-aa-a”

      The entire class erupted in uncontrollable laughter.

      • kesher Says:

        I doubt this is what they mean by it, but I’ve always taken “pansexual” to mean heterosexual but willing to get busy with the same sex as well. This would be distinct from bisexuals who are legitimately attracted to both sexes and aren’t just looking to get busy 24/7.

        I’m sure this isn’t what pansexuals mean when they describe themselves thus, but I’ll be damned if I’ve ever come across a pansexual who didn’t fit this definition.

      • Noanodyne Says:

        You do know that a man talking to her that way and getting the class to go along with it is sexual bullying, right?

        Thanks for the illustration of the difference between what women think will happen by adopting the very latest sexual identity and what actually happens. Still a second-class citizen men can sexually bully and bystanders think it’s funny as hell.

      • Henke Says:

        That was not a nice thing to do from that boy/man, one can have their views–and rightly so–on all these sexual orientations but bullying someone who taps into one (or more) of them solves nothing.

      • jdmarsh89 Says:

        I get where everyone is coming from. I never accused the classmate of being the nicest guy in that situation (it was kindof uncool of him)… just that that was the first time I ever heard someone call themselves “pansexual”. I certainly don’t condone bullying on the basis of sexual orientation. And bullying aside, he had a point. There is no real difference between pansexual and bisexual unless you believe in transgender theory whereby a person can be “a woman in a man’s body” or vice versa. To everyone’s credit, before he made his comment, she talked for at least five minutes about being “pansexual” and her various sexual experiences which NOBODY wanted to hear (half the class was “lalalalalalalalala I can’t hear you”-ing)… it was super awkward/tense, so I feel like his comment ultimately diffused the situation. Though maybe I’m wrong and ridicule should never be tolerated no matter how annoying or socially inappropriate people are. She spent the semester aggressively hitting on people who were straight-up not interested and behaving in over-the-top, hypersexualized ways, getting in people’s laps (uninvited), panty flashing, wearing extremely revealing clothing etc. Later that year she made a showy and, according to her roommate, intentionally unsuccessful attempt at suicide and ended up dropping out of school. I know women are called crazy waaaaay too often, but she was actually the real McCoy.

    • Leo Says:

      Hee, thanks. Yeah, they give me an an absolutely thumping headache. If you don’t mind me elaborating a bit, romantic orientations (as distinct from sexual ones) probably (…I wouldn’t really know, myself, I’m foggy on the romance thing, too) make sense for some of us, as a concept, (sexual people don’t really need to use them since for them sexual attraction usually just naturally goes together with experiencing romantic attraction). So, our community does widely accept the use of those. They’re not weird ones like those, though, they’re just aromantic, heteroromantic, homoromantic, biromantic – the romantic equivalent of sexual ones, meaning that you can be in love with someone, or something close at least, without being sexually attracted to them. But as for the rest of those labels…

      I’d give them a slight ‘out’ if they are truly asexual, because for us, we’re trying to figure this stuff out from the perspective of just really really not getting it, having to rely on what people tell us, and even when we ask sexual people to explain, they often tend not to be that helpful because they just take it all for granted, and haven’t especially thought about it before (I’m pretty interested by how Radical Lesbian feminists talk about it, though, it’s different from what I hear from most, and it’s obvious they have thought about it). And since we see everyone else making a big fuss about this ‘sex’ thing, well, we get nosy and try to figure it out. And some can get a bit lost while trying to do that, maybe.

      I still don’t think a zillion fancy new labels is at all helpful. It’s especially not helpful when most people have never even heard of asexuality to start with. I would really like us to get taken seriously, that is not going to happen when we get stuff like this. Trouble with our community is, AVEN is way too nice and open with letting people define themselves, and we get too many snowflakes who are clearly not actually asexual (and I’d get told off for being too judgy for saying that. Don’t care). All I ever wanted was to be seen as normal, to be able to say ‘actually, I’m asexual’ and just get a response of ‘oh right, ‘K’ – that’s how you can tell if someone is serious, not all this ‘please pay attention to me!’ snowflaking.

      Some people see pansexual as a subset of bisexual, I think? And some get mad if you say that it is… I dunno, it gives me a headache, that’s for sure!

      Happy pride!


      • kfb3, OMG, I thought I was the only one who thought of Pan when the word Pansexuality comes up!

        Yes, cloven hoofs, reed flutes, the whole thing.

      • Lizzy Shaw Says:

        I don’t see a problem with those romantic orientations you mentioned by themselves. Thanks for elaborating because asexuality is poorly understood.

        From my experience, I’ve seen straight people try to claim asexual status so that they could be hip and queer. Like this one guy I met who claimed to be a “heteroromantic demisexual”. He was “asexual”…but would only have sex with someone he was in love with….and he only liked women. So it was a special snowflake way of saying he was straight but not sexually promiscuous.

        A zillion post-modern labels are not helpful for any of us at all. I don’t think asexual people can get others to understand them when teens and college kids (most of whom are really just straight) are the most vocal group and they change their sexual orientation with a new label every week.

      • Leo Says:

        NP, Lizzy. : ) Yeah, true, I guess sexuality more generally also, as well as asexuality specifically (and whether it even does work in a similar way to other orientations or is something different – really I’m open to and curious about all potential explanations), how the mechanisms actually work, is still pretty poorly understood. I’d love a full explanation to be found, it’s one of the things I’d really hope for from scientific research, but only if society had first progressed to the point where it wouldn’t be used to try to ‘cure’ homosexual people.

        If you don’t mind me trying to explain a bit more (sorry for the off-topicness, Gallus)… What demisexuality is actually supposed to mean, is that the person simply doesn’t -it’s not about them consciously not wanting to, it’s that they just don’t- experience any sexual attraction, until they’ve formed a strong, long term emotional/romantic bond with the person (and that even in that situation, it still doesn’t always happen). The example I remember seeing was that of a woman who’d been with her partner over two years before starting to be sexually attracted to him, and she’d been in other long term relationships before but only experienced romantic feelings, no sexual attraction. So, though it’s not something I really understand or know that much about (so I won’t speculate) and it’s different from my experiences so I’m not really convinced if it’s the same thing or related, or something different, I’d acknowledge that based on that description, it sounds like it, at least, isn’t typical of most people’s experience of sexuality. It does sounds like in that case it’s probably different than just ‘straight but doesn’t want to be promiscuous’ – obviously it would have likely made her relationships a lot simpler if she consistently experienced sexual attraction, most sexual people are going to be reluctant to date someone who isn’t sexually attracted to them and might never be. So I’d figure she’s probably not so likely to have been simply snowflaking, not when it would’ve just caused her more hassle than being straightforward straight.

        I usually judge (and the community can shoot me for being judgey, if they like) the likelihood someone is really asexual based on whether they talk about sexuality like an asexual person (non-typical descriptions, general sense of ‘not getting it’ etc.), or more like a sexual person.

        I’ve certainly seen a few kids do it, indeed, but still can’t fathom why someone would decide to claim to be asexual because they thought it would make them queer and hip (I guess probably not that many do, really, it probs. just seems more than it is thanks to the tumblrs…sigh). Even within the whole ‘queer community’ it’s not really that accepted (a MtT made a few unpleasant comments about it to me…literally right before I was going to tell him I was asexual, assuming at the time that here might -at last- be someone who’d accept it. Guess the irony of the timing was amusing at least. Well, I suppose posting here is technically an appropriate personal revenge, haha ; ) ). To me, it’s always been something that made me a target for jokes (heard enough amoeba ones to last a lifetime), disbelief, accusations of being repressed and being a prude, the assumption I must be a cold person who is just always distant from others and doesn’t want to or can’t connect with them (if not an outright sociopath…), having to deal with my mother’s disappointment at my failure to just get married and have grandkids (it’s not like I can help it! I expected to grow up and be attracted to guys just like she assumed I would, it just hasn’t happened), attempts at bullying into being heterosexual ‘just try it!’, increased likelihood of dying alone and being eaten by felines… A nuisance, really, at least in a society that prioritises heterosexual relationships over all other types of emotional connection. Certainly not ‘hip’ in any way.

    • born free & female Says:

      “Bisexual” = “attracted to both men and women”
      “Pansexual” = “straight female undergraduate who’s bought into the gender bullshit and believes she can abolish the gender binary by declaring herself sexually available to everyone”

      • kfb3 Says:

        Ha Ha! I thought Pan Sexual was people who enjoyed listening to reed flutes while having sex with half-men/half-goats!

      • jdmarsh89 Says:

        Pansexual: n. Straight female undergrad from the burbs that acts super hardcore alt, but hides her piercings and tattoos when it’s parent week.

      • Lizzy Shaw Says:

        Isn’t that the entire basis of third wave feminism too, to brag about how “liberated” you are by being kinky and sexually available to everyone, especially men? Oh and don’t forget the pornography industry–oops I mean the empowerment industry!

        That does bring up a good point though; I have never met a pansexual man. And with one exception, all the pansexual women I’ve met ended up in heterosexual relationships.

        My advice is don’t believe the sex-pozzie lies. Porn is not empowering just because a few women like working in the industry or like to watch it. Neither is being a sex toy and available to everyone.

  8. Miep Says:

    This shit is like Ebola. “Get thee to thine suburbs, Lesbian Chicks. If you are sufficiently docile, maybe we’ll allow you a sentence or two in an article now and then.”

    Also, I never refer to women or girls as “chicks” anymore, though I’ll admit to having done so in the past. Sorry about that. Lo siento.

    I do use “dick” a lot when referring to men, though. When they are all about their dicks, I call them dicks. I don’t see what the problem is with that.

    • Lizzy Shaw Says:

      I’m trying to break the habit of referring to girls and women as chicks in conversations in real life for the reasons others have mentioned.

  9. liberalsareinsane Says:

    “I’m a woman with a penis”.

    NO. SUCH. THING! You’re just a garden variety MAN who is a pervert. Go crawl back under your rock, sicko.

  10. silverside Says:

    Actually the article is pretty interesting. It deals extensively not only with the loss of lesbian bars, bookstores, etc., but the loss of lesbian neighborhoods, which are harder to establish in the cheaper suburbs. As a result, it’s getting harder and harder for lesbians to get political representation at the local level, because there is no voting block. However, I have increasingly heard that lesbians in other cities that are cheaper than NYC or SF are very discretely buying up houses next to each other in order to create a safer space. But you still don’t have the institutions. Just cheaper single-family homes or duplexes owned by potentially friendlier neighbors. Which is still nice. Tends to make the crime rate lower.

    • Loup-loup garou Says:

      The institutions may start popping up in a few years, once it’s clear there’s a population to support them. A bar here, a restaurant there.


    • I think there’s a community like that in the Atlanta suburbs (knowing Atlanta, there’s probably more than one). I didn’t really notice first, but it dawned on me that there were a lot of ‘two mommy” families on my son’s soccer team. Usually there are one or two same sex families on any team, but at one point three years running, there were five or more. Finally it dawned on me that this must be on purpose. Makes good sense, especially in light of the way women-only spaces are being destroyed.

  11. Choco Says:

    How long will it be til they argue that lesbians are moving to the suburbs b/c all lesbians are white and rich, and use their privileges to keep down poor pansexual transwomen of color? Oh those evil lesbians with all their money and refusal to have sex with people who aren’t female.

    • Loup-loup garou Says:

      The first rule of Suburban Dyke Club is, you don’t talk about Suburban Dyke Club. At least not to the alternative press.

    • Lizzy Shaw Says:

      I wouldn’t be surprised if they are already doing it. After all, most of the head honchos of mainstream trans activism are white male transgenders who accuse everyone who disagrees with them even slightly of being white. I’ve been accused of only caring about rich people for my views on gender in spite of coming from a lower-middle class family that is still struggling after the recession and despite being unemployed for about a year myself. The thing is though, you can view gender (which used to be called “sex roles”) as a system designed to subjugate females regardless of your race or income level.

      “Privilege” used to be a useful concept but now it’s used as a tool to silence your opponent in third wave circles. I’ve even seen furies arguing over which type of furry is more privileged and non-Wiccan pagans claiming that “Wicca privilege” exists because Wicca is the most popular of the neo-pagan religions.

      • a cat Says:

        “I’ve even seen furies arguing over which type of furry is more privileged” This sentence made me despair of humanity.

      • Lizzy Shaw Says:

        Sorry a cat. Unfortunately, this is what happens when people turn social justice into a fad or into another fandom and this is what happens when you get a lot of bored young people who think that people will give them pity points if they belong to a marginalized group. Furries would be people I don’t really pay a lot of attention to because I just don’t care, but that was wack. You really shouldn’t politicize your weird hobby or take it too seriously.

  12. silverside Says:

    Demographically, the suburbs are changing. As richer, white professionals (mostly het couples and gay men) are “discovering” how exciting urban life is, they are driving up housing prices. As a result, many lower-income families are being driven into the older inner-ring suburbs, the ones with the older 1,000 square foot ranches built in the early 1950s and now needing substantial updating. In my old town, a lot of these towns are increasingly black and Latino two-income families who can just barely afford the house. Poverty rates are going up outside the central city too due to redevelopment and gentrification driving working people out (and among these are a lot of lesbian families). Even in the town I live in now, houses are now cheaper in the suburbs than in a lot of city neighborhoods. And I’m not even talking about fancy neighborhoods. Given that this a rustbelt city, which has been slow to get on the gentrification bandwagon, the price flip flop is astonishing. What is happening in SF is happening in many places to varying degrees.

    • kesher Says:

      It’s already happened in San Francisco though. I grew up in a suburb 30 miles down the peninsula. Thirty-five years ago the town was still largely affordable to the professional middle class; my childhood best friend’s parents were a teacher and a NASA engineer, and they could afford a modest middle class home back then. Today, my friend and her husband are teachers, living and working even farther away from the city, and they’ve pretty much given up on buying a home.

      In the Bay Area the inner-ring suburbs have been unaffordable for two decades. The poor and middle class are getting pushed out to the exurbs.

  13. anon male Says:

    http://www.damemagazine.com/2014/06/01/laverne-cox-i-absolutely-consider-myself-feminist

    So silly. Claims to never had male privilege (and other males treat him the same after transition except when they don’t) and despite this non difference he knows more than actual women about feminists since trans are the best at everything they do.

    Dame is currently making money off a partnership with Salon for click bait articles so this one might show up there, too.

    • jdmarsh89 Says:

      I just left a snarky comment. Thanks for the link. I make it a point to leave a dissenting voice whenever I see something this stupid.

    • Mar Iguana Says:

      At least a couple people commenting aren’t kissing Cox’s ass:

      Dana Scully • 3 hours ago

      Yay! Now everyone can be a woman because living in a female body and being raised as a girl is not relevant to women’s reality in any way!

      Avatar
      Mar Iguana Dana Scully • a minute ago

      Plug your ears, male2trans. I’m going to spew some
      discriminatory hate speech: Uterus, menstruation, lactation, vulva,
      vagina, womb, cervix, ovulation, contractions, fallopian tubes, abortion, miscarriage,
      preclampsia, xx sex chromosomes, vulva amputation, episiotomy, cesarean section, hysterectomy,
      tubal ligation, birth control, gynecology, misogyny, etc., etc.,
      etc.

      Avatar
      miranda Dana Scully • 15 minutes ago

      Hurray! And let’s have a black man erase all of the lesbians and WOC and lesbians of color by claiming that 2nd wave feminism is “white and straight!” Feminism is nothing unless it caters to men. But naaaah, he certainly didn’t grow up with male privilege.

      • Motherhood Says:

        Mr. Dorsay should lighten up on the booze he sounds like some old bar fly has quite the delusion of grandeur and power and not much understanding of the constitution. He better sober up before he drags his skanky self up to Capital Hill to play Clarence Darrow.

        He is wrong. And in fact calling him by his proper male pronouns is protected speech for the speaker. Somebody should give the him the heads up on that. It not only most women that know he is a compulsive prick and fetish driven male. The entire Transgender pile it is rejected in writing by some major religions–(not Islam). Orthodox Jews and Catholics ain’t buying gender at all–only biological sex.

        So know he is male and saying it and using male pronouns is protected under the 1st Amendment. I am betting pricks like him swell the ranks, hahaha. people living in of Kentucky and North Dakota will be yelling Mazel Tov.

        He wants to get talked to as if he is a women–he should call a sex hot line like all the other men.


    • This is the new doctrine: no trans women have EVER had male privilege. Period. This means the trans women who have dared to speak honestly about the impact of male priv in their lives and on their transitions (the change can be pretty jarring, as Miriam Afloat wrote on her blog recently), are being ignored and/or attacked. Seeing this, others are quietly changing their tune so they won’t be driven out of the trans community by the new McCarthyism/ideological lockstep.

      I’ve seen several arguments about this now. Trans women who risk telling the truth and say “but really, I am not taken as seriously now, I get interrupted now and it never used to happen…” etc etc are taken down a notch or five, and told to shut up, they are playing into the hands of the evil TERFS! They are instructed that there is “no reason” to talk about this kind of thing out loud, and so they shouldn’t. Its amazing, the way they are now policing the trans women who won’t go along with their anti-feminism. We can only hope that as with trans women like Snowflake Special or Miriam, that this will backfire, as some refuse to shut up and censor their own experiences to please the ‘movement heavies’.

      The trans party line currently decrees: there is no such thing as male socialization, or rather, it doesn’t have any impact on them, but it does impact cis men. (?) I don’t understand what the hell they are talking about and how such a thing could be possible. This is utterly inane and conservative at base. It has always been conservatives who have argued against the idea that people are socialized into cultural roles.

      For the record: This is when I got off the bus.

      If there is no socialization, what are they transitioning to? Isn’t it the “results of socialization” that they hope to leave behind during transition? I have asked this question a number of times now, and got called a TERF just for asking. (Toni Dorsay said I actually asked the question in a transmisogynist manner and therefore did not deserve an answer.)

      The fact that Cox says this? Means she has gotten the memo. This is now the official response: Trans women have never received male privilege. Amen. (They intend to just keep repeating this until the entire culture parrots it back obediently.)

      I think this is one of those things that is going to piss off cis women in droves…women who have never really called themselves feminists, women who know nothing about “queer theory”… they will still recognize this self-serving bullshit for exactly what it is.

      • Motherhood Says:

        The are a bunch of con men, grifters. So they play fast and loose with the delusion and party line–that’s pretty much the definition of male privilege. They made the whole thing up anyway. So they can keep changing the lie–it is still all male all the time–A bunch of repulsive violent fetishistic pricks shooting their wad hither and yon.

      • jdmarsh89 Says:

        UUUUGH AGREE 100%

        Toni Dorsay is a total troll. He is so ridiculous that I’m suprised they haven’t taken away his microphone. Whenever he speaks, a TERF is born. He has argued with me that not only are M2Ts not subject to male socialization, but that they are more oppressed than women and moreover, that their oppressors are not homophobic heterosexual males, but women themselves. He posts things like ‘anyone who is gender critical is a violent racist poopoohead in opposition to human rights and my right to use the ladies bathroom so I can affirm my ownership of all that is female’… I’m paraphrasing, of course. He posts things like that because it’s bait for anyone with a functioning brain. He KNOWS someone will respond.

        He also posts these indescribably ugly selfies with all his rants as if they are going to make you sympathize with him when you see he is “really” a woman. Like, dude, you look like a toothless long-haul trucker with tits put on with a melon baller and hair like Carrot Top. That does not make me sympathize with you. It did make me snort the water I was drinking when I scrolled down to it. Maybe he just wants to show off his cleavage? Honestly I have no idea.

        I mean, if M2Ts were *really* transGENDER they wouldn’t concern themselves so much with emulating female biology since our biology is not the result of socialization… meh, whatever.

      • Choco Says:

        Interesting to know where “you get off the bus” since in your comment you use the words “cis” for biological women and she wrt to transwomen…

      • GallusMag Says:

        @Choco- word.

      • Ashland Avenue Says:

        JD, you crack me up, big time! And yeah, Dorsay is a violent, abusive prick with teeth that look like they’re about to rot out of his damn head.

        Daisy, the whole “MtT never had male privilege” thing was pushed forward by “Julia” Serano. His thinking is that MtT were never men, and therefore weren’t treated as men, or some such bullshit. He is, of course, completely ignoring the very important fact that regardless of what they may have “felt inside”, the rest of society sure as hell perceived them as men, and they were privileged accordingly.


      • Choco, I use the easiest words. Sorry if that is inappropriate here. I happen to think writing “cis” is easy, although I suppose writing “non-trans” would work.

        The problem I have with “cis” is that when you say it, sounds like “sis” and around here, that is slang for a “regular girl”–like a “working class gal” is called Sissy or Sis. (I think the word “mensch” might be the equivalent) So I would never use the word in conversation or on the radio since nobody would know what the hell I was talking about.

        I agree with Appropriately-Inappropriate about using whatever pronouns they want. I can’t find her post about this now (I have a terrible time finding anything on Tumblr; is there some “trick” to searching?), but it accurately reflected my own feelings on the matter.

        Choco, do you post on Tumblr? Under what name?

      • Miep Says:

        Daisy, actions have consequences and set precedents. You start out going along with pretending men are women, because they tell you to, and next thing you know they’re getting legislation passed and perving around in the girls’ locker room.

        “Cis” is used pejoratively, generally to mean “not as good a woman as glamourous us,” and there is no need for such modifiers if one acknowledges reality: there are men, and there are women, and we express ourselves differently, and many of these expressions are socially assigned to one sex or the other, in an arbitrary manner that works overall, however, to keep women down, so really not so arbitrary at all.

        Being transgender-identified does not change what you are, it just changes what clubs you can get into, and whom you have social permission to hate.

      • Choco Says:

        No, I’m not on tumblr actually b/c I couldn’t stomach the lesbophobia and antisemitism I found on so called radical feminists blogs. I don’t know appropriatley inappropriate personally, but I would question why her concern is being nice and polite to men who appropriate womanhood. Please please please don’t compare mensch to cis or your region’s slang. It’s a Yiddish word that doesn’t just mean “guy,” it refers to a man who lives righteously under Judaism. Please I again ask you not to flippantly refer to a culture that’s so demonized and misunderstood.

      • Lizzy Shaw Says:

        Yeah, every time Toni Dorsay speaks, another TERF is born. I remember a while ago snowflakeespecial was telling him that even if people no longer perceive him to be a man (though I don’t know how people are fooled with that), he sure acts like a man what with spending a ridiculous amount of time online harasing teenage girls and making long, rambling posts that make no sense as well as posting pictures of his dick in the lesbophobia tag. Also he’s a murderer who brags about being a “female sniper” (hint: they don’t actually let women do that in the US military) and killing people.

        Julia Serano is exactly, 100% the same as those Nice Guy TM than many of my heterosexual former friends have had to deal with, especially in nerd culture. I read some of his stuff and I wanted to barf. He brags about his dick, and his articles are basically about how lesbians should date him because he’s such a nice person and change their sexual orientation for him. Now the reason I say former friends is because in spite of me sympathizing with them over the straight men who thought women should put out if you show them a basic level of decency, they picked Serano over me. They sympathized with the “poor, marginalized trans woman” and I was called a bigot. Male entitlement is a-okay if the male claims to be a woman. The left is so damn hypocritical. If you get most oppressed status, you can be an entitled jerk and harass lesbians all you want.

        Also, Serano is responsible for, or at least contributes to the idea that criticizing femininity is misogynistic. Yes, criticizing all those harmful beauty practices or questioning why women should have to do it is misogyny, because what about meeee and the fact that I like them? Me, me, me! (That’s a common theme with Serano; his latest book is about how queer culture isn’t kowtowing to trans people hard enough yet.)

      • morag99 Says:

        The problem with “cis” is not that it sounds like “sis” and that hardly anyone (thank goodness!) would know what the term means. The problem is that women are NOT “cis”–we are women. In the same vein, men are not “she.”

        Refusing their terms is about refusing their lies and asserting our truths.

      • jdmarsh89 Says:

        Cisters before missters

        LOL


      • Toni Dorsay told me (while we were arguing) that federal laws will eventually make it “hate speech” to call a trans woman “he” — aren’t you worried about that? I am.

        They fully intend to make it against the law to call them him or he. I believe them, too.

        Even if its a “honest mistake”–Toni told me there is no such thing.

      • Miep Says:

        Daisy, if it’s made a hate crime to refer to male transgenders as “he,” misgendering will be the least of our problems, because such would thoroughly enforce the caste of actual women as non-existent. You’ll note nobody ever talks about making it a hate crime to refer to actual women as “he.”


      • Toni the Monster Dorsay is an ex sniper who killed people. I don’t believe any word of this piece of filth.

      • Lizzy Shaw Says:

        @DaisyDeadhead

        I doubt that conservatives will go for it, but I could see such a law maybe passing in smaller, more liberal towns. Either way, I would be worried especially if more people agree with Toni.

        Never underestimate the depths that men will go to in order to make women cater to them. I doubt Toni cares as much if men “misgender” him. It seems like his main goal is to get teenage girls and younger women to go along with his bullshit. Brainwash the next generation early, tell them that older feminist women are bad and evil and that we shouldn’t talk to them or even read their works and make up our own mind. It’s not just Toni who does it, it’s the main operating mode of the trans cult.


      • The trouble with the word “cis” is that it continues to grant to men the privilege of conferring names on women. This is a continuation of the tradition of giving women male designated names like “Mrs. Andrew Johnson” which goes back hundreds of years. The more things change……….

      • Lizzy Shaw Says:

        @elizabeth1848

        Exactly. I refuse to prefix myself with the word “cis” because I view it as an insult. That word implies that I am comfortable with the gender hierarchy because the most popular definition of it is “someone who is comfortable with their assigned gender”, which is total bullshit because I am a gender abolitionist. Gender, formerly called sex roles, is an institutionalized system designed to enforce male domination and female subordination.

        And you are right, “cis” is more of the same bullshit of letting men name us. The word “cis” implies that there are two kinds of women; cis-women and trans-women and that the former somehow oppresses the later. That is not true. The only women are adult human females and trans-women are not women, but males who want to live as women. Actual women do not oppress male-bodied transgenders/transsexuals just because they are jealous that they weren’t born female. It is not a privilege to be born female. I dare these fuckers to tell those kidnapped school girls in Nigeria that they have cis privilege and wouldn’t have been kidnapped and sold into slavery if only they claimed to identify as men. Or what about all those girls and women who were grievously injured by “Jane Doe”? I guess they have some mighty “cis female privilege” because the state of Connecticut keeps being such a big enabler and housing a violent male with them because they think his gender feels are more important than the safety of women and girls. Oh wait, I forgot that mainstream trans activists don’t care how many women get hurt because the reality of women’s lives interferes with their fantasy that Jane Doe is female and women are privileged and that you can just identify your way out of oppression.

        To all my sisters, don’t call yourself or other women “cis”. There is no such thing as a “cis-woman” or “cis-privilege” or “cis-sexism”. It’s a lie invented by fucked up men who are trying to trick you into believing the MRA idea that female privilege exists. Don’t fall for it and stop drinking the Kool-Aid!

  14. anon male Says:

    http://www.salon.com/2014/07/07/dallas_buyers_club_drives_me_crazy_ariel_schrag_on_chronicling_queer_life_through_a_straight_mans_eyes/

    evidently, all us cismen need a transman to tell me how to be a good person (which I guess means “doing masculinity right”).

    • Ashland Avenue Says:

      Ha! Was that first comment left you, by chance? (“While I do find it problematic that the word ‘problematic’ is not used…”)

      The interviewer states “It struck me as a sort of call to action to cisgender men and women, queer and straight, to learn.” Ugh. No. How about MtT learn about what it’s like to be female? Instead of simply fetishizing the whole damn thing?

    • GallusMag Says:

      Ariel Schrag is a heterosexual woman marketing a hetero version of “lesbianism” to men. She is partnered with a transgender man who believes he is a “male butch lesbian top”, which he and Ariel apparently believe is a descriptor for heterosexual male autogynophiles who enjoy penetrating their heterosexual female partners with their sperminating penis.
      http://www.usatoday.com/story/happyeverafter/2014/07/10/ariel-schrag-adam-transgender-stereotypes/12420731/

      • kesher Says:

        That’s supposed to be a positive anecdote? It actually sounds unbelievably creepy. Why would you expose a minor to some genderspecial’s strap-on?

        I have a pretty liberal approach to what young kids are allowed to be exposed to. My parents never tried to censor what I was allowed to watch on TV, for example. But, as a general rule, that should be up to the parents to decide based on their assessment of their own child’s maturity. If I were Schrag’s aunt/uncle, I would be livid.

      • anon male Says:

        http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/08/02/ariel_schrag_on_adam_her_new_novel_and_writing_for_the_l_word.html

        Evidently she ends her book with her educated cis man at Camp Trans listening to Serano demystify his cock as a female organ because power and privilege are all non physical things based on hot young co-eds who get to decide whether their affections render someone cis or trans which is an absolute matter of life and death.

        For realsies.

        I’m not even sure Schrag knows that MWMF is in Michigan — which is in what she terms a flyover state and thus isn’t worth visiting by true humans in her hierarchy of life.

      • Motherhood Says:

        The “poetry critic” Stephen Burt–Mr. Professor by day, call me Lilly at night. A pretty powerful lit guy is pushing this book. He did a review in the NY Times I think. She comes from money and what she lacks in talent she more than makes up for in careerism and connections.

      • anon male Says:

        Schrag is also old (omg, I said it) enough to have her Camp Trans experience helmed by Wilchins; I guess he didn’t provide the look she was going for and wouldn’t be able to play himself when this gets turned into a HBO series by Diablo Cody.

      • Ashland Avenue Says:

        Diablo Cody. Jesus.

  15. Krs Says:

    I know what the trans community is doing the lesbian community is horrific but I can’t help but laugh at how the hell they’re going to get gay men to go along with the charade. Bored straight women calling themselves gay men? Yawn! Next please.

    • Krs Says:

      *doing to the lesbian community

      (my keyboard needs new batteries)


    • Well they try it over and over again trough guilt tripping but gay men are not easy targets like women.

    • Krs Says:

      Not sure if relevant, don’t publish if you think it’s not.

      There was a mass shit fest about “Mr Gay Philidephia” on http://www.queerty.com/mr-gay-philly-crowns-its-first-transgender-winner-20140624 ,lots of people in the comments disagreeing that a woman can be a gay man.

      Plus the trans/queers activists decided to protest a gay men’s sex party because it was prison themed (not hugely tasteful but still…)

      It’s all very surreal….


    • Gay men have been courting and nurturing “drag queens” and the culture of female impersonation for centuries. What else is Carmen Carrera, Lorraine Cox, Jenna Talackova, Janet Mock, Joseph E. Duncan, and their trans* cohorts? While this culture has existed far longer and more extensively than the now extinct minstrel culture, which mocked minorities, it often serves the same purpose, that is, of ridiculing and providing a macabre, insulting entertainment of a globally (at least in the case of women) oppressed group. While both men and women have sought to impersonate the other sex it has usually been for very different reasons. Women throughout history have sometimes sought to pass as men for economic survival, liberty to travel, occupational opportunities, freedom of mobility, or to camouflage themselves to avoid sexual predation. Men, on the other hand, historically, as well as today, impersonate women to ridicule women, for sexual preference or fetishes, to harass or stalk women and/or to avoid legal consequences for their acts (ala Douglas “Donna” Perry). Within the gay culture the trans* culture has a secure place in the “T” of the LGB”T,” which has shown itself to be more protective and fostering than critical of womanface posturing of the queen culture – “beauties” like Jordan Davis or otherwise.

      • FabFro Says:

        Put that way, yes, that does make a lot of sense. Very thought provoking.
        Also, loved your comment in the post “A member of my family”.

      • Lizzy Shaw Says:

        This is a good comment. When I first saw I drag show I wasn’t that into it, but then I realized that it’s pretty much always offensive caricatures of women. This is why drag kings aren’t all that common. (And interestingly enough, the male characters played by the drag kings tended to have more well-rounded personalities. Gee, I wonder why.)

        I don’t get why people think that drag is so subversive when it’s misogynistic. I remember when I had a drag queen insult me over wearing sneakers and not high heels in the middle of the winter. It’s like, buddy if you want to fuck up your feet and freeze them off, I don’t care, but don’t act like you know more about being a female than I do because you put on a dress and heals. I just think it’s very telling how often trangender males or just regular gay males think that hyper-feminine clothing=women, especially when they’re always prattling on about how everything is a social constructions.

        You’re right that the reason for women impersonating men has been to gain more social status or to avoid sexual predators, not to mock them. “Riding Freedom” was one of my favorite books as a kid and it was about a woman who lived in the 1800s who pretended to be a man so should could live the life she wanted.

        I think “Who is Cis” has a pretty good post about this subject: http://whoiscis.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/when-gay-men-are-a-problem/

  16. Choco Says:

    Hey Gallus, if this is inappropriate to post here please disregard. I think this comment section is a disgusting example of straight privilege and lesbophobia at work: http://feministcurrent.com/9237/eves-punishment-rebooted-the-ideology-of-natural-birth/

    • Motherhood Says:

      Choco, if you watch old movies with, the baby is coming boil the water scene, they always sound like porn and I think they were. I had natural only because the epidural was $700 and up and always had to be paid up front and we didn’t have it. It felt like my uterus was being slammed in a car door. I thought those comments were kinda navel gazing–I mean who cares if the baby is healthy–But there are real issues with births The nice ladies in feminist and natural birth land who have maybe 2 babies should be brought up to speed that in communities where women have 6-14 babies the inconteince rate of women over 30 is 40% and medical centers will not even look at this because of a double whammy misogyny–the educated sophisticated docs–many who are women hold these women in such utter contempt that they let labors get out of control–to teach them a lesson. They dismiss it as the price of breeding–but it did not afflict the earlier generation of women.

    • Mar Iguana Says:

      Choco, could you please tell me what it is about those comments at Feminist Current that makes them an example of straight privilege and lesbophobia? I’m not asking this question to be snarky or argumentative. It’s a sincere question. If there’s some aspect of straight privilege and lesbophobia there I’m oblivious to I’d appreciate knowing what it is so I can eradicate it in myself.

      • Choco Says:

        I found the refusal of some of the people on that thread to acknowledge the privilege mothers hold over lesbians to be pretty myopic. I found very few comments actually responding to what the author wrote-it seems like many of them took the article as a personal attack on themselves. This is why I have a problem with my fellow striaght radical feminists-most have no problem critically thinking about the sex industry or transgenderism, but when it comes to heterosexuality and childbirth they draw the line. “I’m a radical feminist til someone questions my right to sleep with a man and have children.” Acknowledging straight privilege is not the same as saying mothers have a completely easy life.

        A lot of comments on that thread assume that having children is “natural,” but for many women the idea of partnering with a man and having children is anything but. Also the refusal to acknowledge that motherhood for nonwhite women is treated differently by patriarchy. When a nonwhite woman says “my motherhood is not idealized like white motherhood is,” the last response should be “but white mothers have it tough toooo.” And calling a woman who disagrees with you “a misogynist rape apologist” and “like a man” is not feminist. EVER.

        “The nice ladies in feminist and natural birth land who have maybe 2 babies should be brought up to speed that in communities where women have 6-14 babies the inconteince rate of women over 30 is 40% and medical centers will not even look at this because of a double whammy misogyny–the educated sophisticated docs–many who are women hold these women in such utter contempt that they let labors get out of control–to teach them a lesson.”
        Absolutely, Motherhood. The women that you describe would never be treated like the women who are forced to have over 10 children-since the latter women come from developing countries and are often referred to as “multiplying cockroaches.” Pointing this out is not anti-woman, and calling the nice white mommys with 2.5 kids “breeders” isn’t either since there is no historical context backing it up. The nice women get to be earth goddess mommies, and the rest are just broodmares-kind of like how some women get to be high class call girls and the rest are just “naturally” streetwalkers. Don’t you think it’s funny that no one responded to the comment about Jewish mothers? And by funny I mean completely predictable that no one wanted to admit that some women never get a piece of that patriarchy approved motherhood cake.

      • druidwinter Says:

        That is what I was wondering,😉

      • GallusMag Says:

        How about those damn mothers that wield their strollers like a battering ram??!!! OK THAT IS A JOKE, PEOPLE. Attempting against my better judgement to attempt some levity into what is looking to be a spillover discussion from a very acrimonious thread on another post on another blog. Thank you for sharing the link Choco, and your thoughts, but I’m actually not interested in pulling that thread over here, if that is what is happening. There are certainly conditional “privileges” and also penalties accorded to women based on their reproductive status. I personally keep a giant baby picture (my Lesbian friend’s kid) in my wallet to flash at the cop whenever I get pulled over- Haven’t got a ticket since I started doing this. LOL.

        I encourage interested readers to check out the post and conversation on the topic over there, at the above link that Choco posted. Feel free to share your thoughts on that post over there.

    • druidwinter Says:

      @Choco: I can’t seem to find the straight privilege and lesbophobia, What paragraph is that in?

      • Mar Iguana Says:

        GallusMag, I so appreciate the important work you do on this blog, this island of sanity, and apologize for my part in derailing this comment.

        Choco, I would love to see you boldly go on over to Feminist Current (that disgusting hotbed of straight privilege and lesbophobia), share your thoughts and help those women prioritize their concerns.

      • GallusMag Says:

        I do not accept your “apology” because you used it as a pretext to ignore my moderation and insert a final, shitty, sarcastic poke at Choco. Seriously, fuck you.

  17. jdmarsh89 Says:

    Ladies, I found this rant (posted by a man) on facebook. Granted, it’s more generally about postmodern capitalism, but it touches on the absurdity of identity politics too. Made me a little bit happy inside.

    ““The Collapse” is not a new idea but something which has the intent to identify and analyze “trends” or “symptoms” we have experienced in the last year or so. Most of this essay has to do with those who trivialize the radical and those whose existence revolves around copying the radical: recuperators and simulators, respectively. I will examine (mainly) five topics here: 1. Sexual identity theft, or the regression/appropriation of feminism (a project that was never completed and was at its height in its most radical form in the event of an occupation of a bank in France in the 19th century) by male capitalists who have determined that identity (like intellectual pursuits) are merely a product for rabid consumption, 2. Augmented reality, which has come on the scene with complex “apps” as well as with the introduction of Google Glass to the masses, 3. Social networking (disorder), especially on Tumblr, at once lending itself to those already affected with Histrionic Personality Disorder and at the same time warping future generations into embracing a disorder which has been largely de-medicalized by our technocratic society, 4. James Francoisms, or the legacy and choices of a celebrity who can identify with the micro-gens who fall into the broad category of “Millennials” (18-35) and the political machinations (known or unknown) behind such actions, and lastly 5. The rabid Neo-Randians of the two major convict colonies of the 21st (and past) centuries. What, you might ask, do America and Australia have in common, politically as well as culturally? With the import of quite a few films, memes, and musical acts from Australia to America, the world is getting a lot smaller. To name a couple (in the realm of music entertainment), Lorde and Iggy Azalea come to mind, defining American culture with as much swag as our own artists, and this is because our cultures have become (or always have been) radically similar. In terms of artistic expression, we both embrace the industrialized Anglo notion of not knowing whether we are desperate for revolution or revolutionarily desperate. We are both convict colonies that have ignorantly decimated aborigines and aboriginal culture, we both have too much land to realistically govern, and this last fact has bred rural Neo-Randian yayhoos as well as (in major cities) conservative feminists and transgenders that have benefited from a definitive disconnect between town and country. While in reality, transgender individuals deserve the respect we in democratic society should afford to all minorities, in “truth,” we are currently in a process of “conceptual minority extinction” tactics brought on by post-modern politics which, enhanced by both physical and digital alterations of self might turn the NAACP into the National Association for the Advancement of Trans-Colored People. In a post-modern world, I find the more conservative part of myself asking “how many acres and how many guns are too many?” while the liberal part might have drawn the line of civil rights progress of manufactured identities a year or so ago. When identity is histrionic, when life is a play, what can the real victims of a patriarchal racist capitalist society say? Rape victims, blacks economically marginalized by history, young girls put into sex trafficking or victims of genital mutilation; How ironic is it that white capitalist men have the luxury of mutilating their own genitals and congratulating their new “peers” with the news of the luck associated with womanhood? A leader for the cult of HPD, our James Dean of Tumblr, has gladly posed as Cindy Sherman in a series of not-so-ironic photographs for a show in the U.S. Not just offensive, not quite a publicity stunt, not only a meta post-modern reference to the art world, James Franco’s Cindy Sherman is consequently “the new feminist”; The pivotal stoic man in drag speaking for the timid insecure CIS women whose marginalization was never quite severe enough to be recognized for it. CIS straight women are Uncle Toms for their husbands but if they don’t have consensual lesbian sex with these “new feminists” they are “traitors” to the cause. The world is upside-down, and micro-gens incrementally exposed to the horde of techno-mirrors at our disposal are our issue, and with augmented reality on the edge of total fruition, we are in major trouble. My biggest issue is that I am not a Luddite, not a bigot, not a rural Neo-Randian, but I feel as if there is no place for me in the liberal sector except for the role of the science-fiction writer, because reality has essentially become science-fiction, and the only truth is a cathartic exaggeration thus exclaiming “It could be worse!” This is the collapse.”

    Yeehaw… and the comments section isn’t as dismal as I would have imagined either. It’s pretty interesting anyway.

  18. FabFro Says:

    elizabeth1848@~ “The trouble with the word “cis” is that it continues to grant to men the privilege of conferring names on women. This is a continuation of the tradition of giving women male designated names like “Mrs. Andrew Johnson” which goes back hundreds of years. The more things change……….”

    Lizzy Shaw @~”To all my sisters, don’t call yourself or other women “cis”. There is no such thing as a “cis-woman” or “cis-privilege” or “cis-sexism”. It’s a lie invented by fucked up men who are trying to trick you into believing the MRA idea that female privilege exists. Don’t fall for it and stop drinking the Kool-Aid!”

    All of this!❤ <3<3


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: