Ghost

My Button Collection

boygeorgemichaelbluth:

So Paula Deen has a new cooking network. Not one show but a whole network. Tell me again about the poor racists having their lives ruined.

Paula Deen has taken more crap for being a fat woman who cooks with butter than she has for her extensive, documented racist work practices.

plaidadder:

image

OK, so, I know I said the show should have ended with “One Son.” But I do love “Monday.” No doubt I will be importuning the public with a post about it soon, but for now, let me just say:

In “Monday,” Mulder and Scully are trapped in a repeating loop in which they live the same day over and…

I live in the USA & anyone can DEPOSIT money into an account as long as they have the appropriate routing numbers etc. It’s WITHDRAWING money that’s a different story.

mshoneysucklepink:

gingerandfair:

thebicker:

About a third of the passengers killed on the Malaysian flight that was shot down yesterday were on their way to an international AIDS conference. They were scientists, researchers and activists, some of whom have already changed and saved thousands of lives with their work.
Bryan Fischer - the head of the American Family Association - is mad that Barack Obama acknowledged that. Here’s what Obama said (which, no, YOU’RE tearing up reading it!)

Let me close by making one additional comment. On board Malaysian Airlines Flight MH-17 there were apparently near 100 researchers and advocates traveling to an international conference in Australia dedicated to combating AIDS/HIV. These were men and women who had dedicated their own lives to saving the lives of others, and they were taken from us in a senseless act of violence.
In this world today we shouldn’t forget that in the midst of conflict and killing, there are people like these, people who are focused on what can be built rather than what can be destroyed, people who are focused on how they can help people that they’ve never met, people that define themselves not by what makes them different from other people but by the humanity that we hold in common. It’s important for us to lift them up and to affirm their lives. And it’s time for us to heed their example.
The United States of America is going to continue to stand for the basic principle that people have the right to live as they choose, that nations have the right to determine their own destiny, and that when terrible events like this occur, the international community stands on the side of justice and on the side of truth.

Wonkette did a roundup of some of the medical advancements the people on that plane helped create, including antiretrovirals to reduce mother-child spread of HIV/AIDS and access to treatment in developing nations. And of course, they’ve affected the lives of millions of gay men who have contracted the disease. Who are just as worthy of medical care as anyone else. Who were ignored by Reagan when the HIV outbreak first happened, which actually made the disease spread farther and faster before anyone knew how it was transmitted. Who are motherfucking human beings, much to the dismay of the American Family Association.
Obviously we all knew the AFA was a piece of shit. In case you were wondering - since it’s been a while since we heard from them, what with same-sex marriage getting legalized in a new state every week or so - in case you were wondering whether they were still homophobic pieces of shit, yes, yes they are.

Nothing about that tweet says “Christian values.” NOTHING.

Seriously and sadly, I was just waiting for the “God killed the researchers because AIDS was meant to punish sexual perversion” assholes to come crawling out of the woodwork. This is pretty close.

mshoneysucklepink:

gingerandfair:

thebicker:

About a third of the passengers killed on the Malaysian flight that was shot down yesterday were on their way to an international AIDS conference. They were scientists, researchers and activists, some of whom have already changed and saved thousands of lives with their work.

Bryan Fischer - the head of the American Family Association - is mad that Barack Obama acknowledged that. Here’s what Obama said (which, no, YOU’RE tearing up reading it!)

Let me close by making one additional comment. On board Malaysian Airlines Flight MH-17 there were apparently near 100 researchers and advocates traveling to an international conference in Australia dedicated to combating AIDS/HIV. These were men and women who had dedicated their own lives to saving the lives of others, and they were taken from us in a senseless act of violence.

In this world today we shouldn’t forget that in the midst of conflict and killing, there are people like these, people who are focused on what can be built rather than what can be destroyed, people who are focused on how they can help people that they’ve never met, people that define themselves not by what makes them different from other people but by the humanity that we hold in common. It’s important for us to lift them up and to affirm their lives. And it’s time for us to heed their example.

The United States of America is going to continue to stand for the basic principle that people have the right to live as they choose, that nations have the right to determine their own destiny, and that when terrible events like this occur, the international community stands on the side of justice and on the side of truth.

Wonkette did a roundup of some of the medical advancements the people on that plane helped create, including antiretrovirals to reduce mother-child spread of HIV/AIDS and access to treatment in developing nations. And of course, they’ve affected the lives of millions of gay men who have contracted the disease. Who are just as worthy of medical care as anyone else. Who were ignored by Reagan when the HIV outbreak first happened, which actually made the disease spread farther and faster before anyone knew how it was transmitted. Who are motherfucking human beings, much to the dismay of the American Family Association.

Obviously we all knew the AFA was a piece of shit. In case you were wondering - since it’s been a while since we heard from them, what with same-sex marriage getting legalized in a new state every week or so - in case you were wondering whether they were still homophobic pieces of shit, yes, yes they are.

Nothing about that tweet says “Christian values.” NOTHING.

Seriously and sadly, I was just waiting for the “God killed the researchers because AIDS was meant to punish sexual perversion” assholes to come crawling out of the woodwork. This is pretty close.

pussyharvest:

jesuswithalacefront:

gadaboutgreen:

scienceyoucanlove:




How many women can you guess? Do you remember/know what each one of them did/discovered?
Once you make your guess, head over to All Science, All the Time to see if you were right:http://ow.ly/pXjrG






source

Oh wow, that’s AN AWESOME LIST OF WHITE WOMEN SCIENTISTS! But how could you forget:
Asima Chatterjee: The awesome Indian woman who help discover drugs we use to treat cancer, malaria, and epilepsy!ORChien-Shiung Wu: THE FIRST LADY OF PHYSICS?! OR WHADDABOUTEllen Ochoa: The first Latina in SPACE! AND the First Latina Director of the Johnson Space Center.Oo, and don’t forget!!Flossie Wong-Staal: The woman that successfully map HIV and pave the way to prove that HIV causes AIDS. GURL!Mae Jemison: First Black woman IN SPACE!!! And worked the first flight into space after the Challenger Accident.But don’t stop!Patricia Bath: The First Black woman doctor awarded a patent for a medical device: a laser that removes cataracts! (Fancy that!)AND THE BOSSEST!Shirley Ann Jackson: The first Black woman to earn a PhD from MIT in nuclear physics.
Hot damn! Women of Color in Science!!! 

reblogging solely for the criticisms and shade.

I’m fucking cackling

pussyharvest:

jesuswithalacefront:

gadaboutgreen:

scienceyoucanlove:

How many women can you guess? Do you remember/know what each one of them did/discovered?

Once you make your guess, head over to All Science, All the Time to see if you were right:http://ow.ly/pXjrG

Oh wow, that’s AN AWESOME LIST OF WHITE WOMEN SCIENTISTS! But how could you forget:

Asima Chatterjee: The awesome Indian woman who help discover drugs we use to treat cancer, malaria, and epilepsy!

OR

Chien-Shiung Wu: THE FIRST LADY OF PHYSICS?! 

OR WHADDABOUT

Ellen Ochoa: The first Latina in SPACE! AND the First Latina Director of the Johnson Space Center.

Oo, and don’t forget!!

Flossie Wong-Staal: The woman that successfully map HIV and pave the way to prove that HIV causes AIDS. 

GURL!

Mae Jemison: First Black woman IN SPACE!!! And worked the first flight into space after the Challenger Accident.

But don’t stop!

Patricia Bath: The First Black woman doctor awarded a patent for a medical device: a laser that removes cataracts! (Fancy that!)

AND THE BOSSEST!

Shirley Ann Jackson: The first Black woman to earn a PhD from MIT in nuclear physics.

Hot damn! Women of Color in Science!!! 

reblogging solely for the criticisms and shade.

I’m fucking cackling

claudiaboleyn:

People are getting angry at Beyonce for posing as Rosie the Riveter because apparently Rosie is ‘unfeminist’ and classist.

And while I can understand the reasoning behind people being reluctant to take to Rosie as a feminist iconic figure, I think a lot of critics are missing the point of what…

Could someone explain to me how Rosie the Riveter is “classist”? The women portrayed as various Rosies were working class women doing manual labor.

ellenkushner:

amadansmound:

via bookporn:

Threats and Warnings on Bookplates
It was traditional, particularly before the invention of the printing press when books were all hand written manuscripts, to letter a curse into the book to prevent theft. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to have worked very well, as the books also had to be chained into place. Even chains had limited effect. Witness the many ancient libraries where there are still chains in place… but no books.
Here are a few examples:
Thys boke is one
And God’s curse another;
They that take the one
God geve them the other.
He who steals this book
may he die the death
may he be frizzled in a pan…
This present book legible in scripture
Here in this place thus tacched with a cheyn
Purposed of entent for to endure
And here perpetuelli stylle to remeyne
Fro eyre to eyre wherfore appone peyn
Of cryst is curs of faders and of moderes
Non of hem hens atempt it to dereyne
Whille ani leef may goodeli hange with oder.
Steal not this Book my honest Friend
For fear the Galows should be your hend,
And when you die the Lord will say
And wares the Book you stole away?
A variation on the same theme:
Steal not this book, my worthy friend
For fear the gallows will be your end;
Up the ladder, and down the rope,
There you’ll hang until you choke;
Then I’ll come along and say -
"Where’s that book you stole away?"
From the Monastery of San Pedro, Barcelona, a blanket curse for the entire library…(I really wish this one existed, but unfortunately, it appears that it is apocryphal — there is no monastery in San Pedro. It’s so nasty though that I include it anyway.)
For him that Stealeth a Book from this Library,
Let it change into a Serpent in his hand & rend him.
Let him be struck with Palsy, & all his Members blasted.
Let him languish in Pain crying aloud for Mercy,
Let there be no Surcease to his Agony till he sink to Dissolution.
Let Bookworms gnaw his Entrails in token of the Worm that dieth not,
When at last he goeth to his final Punishment,
Let the flames of hell consume him for ever & aye.”

(source: Littera Scripta).

Lew Jaffe, from Confessions of a Bookplate Junkie, shared his collection of bookplate threats and warnings done by different artists.

1. Lloyd Douglas. 2. Marion Nutt. 3.  Stanley Dressler Lovegrove. 4. Malcolm M. Ferguson. 5. Philip Reed. 6. Artist unknown.

"I should warn you, however, that I have several volumes devoted to curses for people who don’t return books.” “I’d like to borrow those, too.” ― Steven Brust (Morrolan e’Drien, Vlad Taltos; Dragon)

Mmmm hmmmm

I used to write “This Book Stolen From Brigid Lastname” in my books before lending them to people. I got MOST of them back.

Pretty sure it's trans exclusionary, not eradicating. TERFs come from the school of thought that gender itself should be abolished since it is used often to keep people in certain roles and to keep stereotypes alive. (I.e. That gender as a social construct causes trans people's dysphoria) Basic third wave feminism. I'm not a TERF but have friends who are, they really are not as selfish or as hateful as they are perceived to be. lavendertowne

joshreads:

rosalarian:

I’ve heard exclusionary, eradicating, and erasing, and you know what? Same difference.

By excluding trans women from feminism, one is effectively eradicating them. By saying “I don’t care about the violence you face as a trans woman” either through disbelief or ignoring their situation, one becomes part of the system that perpetuates that violence. By saying trans women are “really men,” that’s actively harmful. By saying trans women’s issues are irrelevant to feminism, that’s actively harmful. Whether by their own hand or someone else’s, trans people in general and trans women in particular face an amount of violence that we can’t exclude from the issues of the feminist movement, can’t erase from the feminist movement, without the result being effectively eradicating them.

It is hateful to tell trans women that they aren’t women. It’s just as bad as telling lesbians we just need a good dicking or telling women to get back in the kitchen. Bigotry is bigotry. I’m sure your friends have some other wonderful qualities, but that particular one is incredibly ugly and don’t make excuses for it.

so wait on the one hand they’re saying the gender is a social construct, but on the other hand they’re saying trans women are “really” men? sure, sounds legit

There are a lot of TERFs, including ones that get paid to speak/write and are considered spokespersons for TERFs/Feminism In General, who go out of their way to advocate violence against transwomen including harassing them at home and work to get them fired/evicted. TERFs work hard to exclude transwomen from all aspects of feminism, and many of them also work hard to literally physically put them in danger by outing them. If that’s not hateful, I really don’t know what is. I mean, telling a woman that she isn’t a woman is hateful in and of itself. That’s just utterly awful. But to further wage campaigns of aggression against them? That’s, like, the definition of hateful.

NOTICE

deantrippe:

If women and minorities taking on major superhero character roles (while the main characters are still prominently featured and going on new journeys) is offensive to you: PLEASE JUST UNFOLLOW THIS BLOG. No need to reblog me just to complain about “political correctness” and “pandering” and both of them being “shoved down your throat.” Write your own post. I’m not interested in your note.

On the subject of Falcap, specifically: Were you whining when Bucky Barnes took over the job? Do you even read the comics? You loved Captain America: The Winter Soldier, though, right? So maybe there’s a reason why this particular change is getting under your skin. Sam Wilson will be the seventh person in Marvel Universe continuity to be called Captain America. And he’ll be awesome.

If you can’t like Captain America anymore because he’s black, there’s a word for that.

nedahoyin:

to-them00n-andback:

theblackoaksyndicate:

lakotapeopleslawproject:

Become a member at http://lakota.cc/1kvf8ka. This is just an example of the corruption that South Dakota DSS perpetuates. Learn more about the Mette Case at http://lakotalaw.org/special-reports/the-mette-affair. There are many stories like this, which is why we are assisting the Lakota tribes to create their own foster care system. Free the Mette Children! The South Dakota Dept. of Social Services placed 7 Lakota foster children into foster care with a non-Native, known molester. In what appears to be a common situation, the state of South Dakota placed 7 Lakota children into a foster family with a known molester, Richard Mette, and his enabling wife, Wendy Mette, from 2000 to 2013. The DSS knew of the accusations against Mr. Mette, but still placed Lakota foster children with him. The state ignored MULTIPLE complaints of sexual and physical abuse, and pleas for help from the children. 1. In 2001, the state ignored the foster boys’ complaints of molestation, and simply made the Mette adoptive parents sign a contract pledging to discontinue any illegal behavior. 2. In 2007, one of the girls told the police how she was sexually molested by Mr. Mette. She reported that Mrs. Mette knew about the molestations. Again, the DSS defended the Mette foster parents, and allowed the children to stay in the home. 3. Afterwards, Kelly, the older foster sister who had aged out of the Mette foster family, was getting reports from her younger siblings that the sexual and physical abuse was increasing and intensifying. She reported this to the South Dakota DSS, who ignored it and said they did not believe the children. Yankton Doctor sees bruises and reports abuse. In October 2010, the only boy among the Mette foster siblings at that time went to see a doctor at the Human Services Center in Yankton, S.D. The child, covered with bruises, disclosed abuse occurring in his adoptive home. He also detailed how Richard Mette, the adoptive father, was molesting the girls. The doctor contacted the authorities at once.  Brandon Taliaferro, the Assistant State’s Attorney responsible for criminal child abuse cases in Brown County, immediately began an investigation. The police search the Mette house and find more evidence of sexual abuse, including enough pornography to “pack a store”, including “family incest” porn. The children revealed they had been subjected to physical abuse, sexual molestation and threats of being beaten if they did not comply with the molestation or if they told anyone. In addition, the children explained that they were often given a choice between “b***jobs or beatings”. The children say they were forced to watch incest porn with Mr. Mette. The children were told that the porn, with titles like “Family Heat”, is how families are supposed to act.  The disgusted police charged Mr. Mette with 23 counts of child rape and incest, and Mrs. Mette with 11 counts of physical abuse and enabling. The State prosecutor, however, first attempted to drop all charges, and charged sexual predator Mr. Mette with only one count of “spanking”. When the State was not allowed to do this, they decided to charge Mr. Mette with only one count of rape of a child under 10. The other 22 charges of aggravated child rape and incest were dropped. The State then dropped all charges against Mrs. Mette, who the children said knew about and enabled the abuse. Children are now back with Mrs. Mette, where they can’t sue the State DSS. As the state’s DCI agent explained, South Dakota fears that they will face an expensive lawsuit by the seven Lakota foster children whose complaints of sexual abuse were ignored by the state for 10 years. Since they are now minors in the custody of Wendy Mette, the person who enabled the abuse, they cannot sue the state without her permission and support. What can we do?  Please call Tony West, the Associate Attorney General of the United States, and let him know that the federal Department of Justice needs to Free the Mette Children immediately!  (202) 514-9500 Learn more: www.lakotalaw.org/special-reports/the-mette-affair

SIGNAL. FUCKING. BOOST.

This is fucking ATROCIOUS. What the everloving fuck????

White supremacy..

nedahoyin:

to-them00n-andback:

theblackoaksyndicate:

lakotapeopleslawproject:

Become a member at http://lakota.cc/1kvf8ka. This is just an example of the corruption that South Dakota DSS perpetuates. Learn more about the Mette Case at http://lakotalaw.org/special-reports/the-mette-affair. There are many stories like this, which is why we are assisting the Lakota tribes to create their own foster care system.

Free the Mette Children!

The South Dakota Dept. of Social Services placed 7 Lakota foster
children into foster care with a non-Native, known molester.

In what appears to be a common situation, the state of South Dakota placed 7 Lakota children into a foster family with a known molester, Richard Mette, and his enabling wife, Wendy Mette, from 2000 to 2013. The DSS knew of the accusations against Mr. Mette, but still placed Lakota foster children with him.

The state ignored MULTIPLE complaints of sexual and physical
abuse, and pleas for help from the children.

1. In 2001, the state ignored the foster boys’ complaints of molestation, and simply made the Mette adoptive parents sign a contract pledging to discontinue any illegal behavior.

2. In 2007, one of the girls told the police how she was sexually molested by Mr. Mette. She reported that Mrs. Mette knew about the molestations. Again, the DSS defended the Mette foster parents, and allowed the children to stay in the home.

3. Afterwards, Kelly, the older foster sister who had aged out of the Mette foster family, was getting reports from her younger siblings that the sexual and physical abuse was increasing and intensifying. She reported this to the South Dakota DSS, who ignored it and said they did not believe the children.

Yankton Doctor sees bruises and reports abuse. In October 2010, the only boy among the Mette foster siblings at that time went to see a doctor at the Human Services Center in Yankton, S.D. The child, covered with bruises, disclosed abuse occurring in his adoptive home. He also detailed how Richard Mette, the adoptive father, was molesting the girls. The doctor contacted the authorities at once.

Brandon Taliaferro, the Assistant State’s Attorney responsible for criminal child abuse cases in Brown County, immediately began an investigation.

The police search the Mette house and find more evidence of sexual abuse, including enough pornography to “pack a store”, including “family incest” porn.

The children revealed they had been subjected to physical abuse, sexual molestation and threats of being beaten if they did not comply with the molestation or if they told anyone. In addition, the children explained that they were often given a choice between “b***jobs or beatings”.

The children say they were forced to watch incest porn with Mr. Mette. The children were told that the porn, with titles like “Family Heat”, is how families are supposed to act.

The disgusted police charged Mr. Mette with 23 counts of child rape and incest, and Mrs. Mette with 11 counts of physical abuse and enabling.

The State prosecutor, however, first attempted to drop all charges, and charged sexual predator Mr. Mette with only one count of “spanking”.

When the State was not allowed to do this, they decided to charge Mr. Mette with only one count of rape of a child under 10. The other 22 charges of aggravated child rape and incest were
dropped.

The State then dropped all charges against Mrs. Mette, who the children said knew about and enabled the abuse.

Children are now back with Mrs. Mette, where they can’t sue the State DSS. As the state’s DCI agent explained, South Dakota fears that they will face an expensive lawsuit by the seven Lakota foster children whose complaints of sexual abuse were ignored by the state
for 10 years. Since they are now minors in the custody of Wendy Mette, the person who enabled the abuse, they cannot sue the state without her permission and support.

What can we do?

Please call Tony West, the Associate Attorney General of the United States, and let him know that the federal Department of Justice needs to Free the Mette Children immediately!
(202) 514-9500

Learn more: www.lakotalaw.org/special-reports/the-mette-affair

SIGNAL. FUCKING. BOOST.

This is fucking ATROCIOUS. What the everloving fuck????

White supremacy..

holybatshitrobin:

haha this is awesome.

gailsimone:


the preeminent gail simone of our time

Still a huge problem.

gailsimone:

the preeminent gail simone of our time

Still a huge problem.

(Source: dee-lirious)

Originally, in the 20s and 30s, the stereotype of someone who was schizophrenic was the housewife who was sad and withdrawn, and would not do her duties as a housewife; would not do the housework. This was the typical case of schizophrenia. And then, in the 60s, something shifted. The actual criteria for schizophrenia shifted. A lot of psychiatrists and hospitals and police were encountering young, angry black men who were part of the civil rights movement. Who were part of the riots – the uprisings – in the Black Power movement. Who were angry. Who were perceiving a conspiracy of power against them, that was called paranoia. They would see it is white privilege, but it was called paranoia. And so we actually see the diagnositc criteria for schizophrenia change. So now you have anger and paranoia and hostility being included as criteria, whereas 30 years before they hadn’t been. Because the stereotype has changed. So there’s a way in which the DSM and the perspectives of the psychiatrists and the doctors who were giving these diagnoses is thoroughly politically constructed, and thoroughly dependent on the culture and context that they’re within.

Will Hall at Unitarian Church Vancouver Canada March 2012 - Transcript | Madness Radio (via blinko)

for anyone interested in reading more about how schizophrenia moved from being a diagnosis assigned to white, middle-class women to one used to pathologize and institutionalize noncompliant black men in the 1960s, jonathan metzl’s the protest psychosis: how schizophrenia became a black disease is a good place to start. i have a PDF scan of it, too — just ask.

(via onegirlrhumba)

Language Tips for Cis Feminists Speaking on Trans Issues

unpitchable:

Over the past two years, I’ve shared a lot of space with cisgender feminists who are seeking to add a trans voice to their panel, event, or conference. I can often sense that these feminists’ hearts are in the right place with regards to trans issues. They’re trying and their effort is real but they’re still struggling to work past some conceptual issues that might affect their language.

So let’s start with the language and work backwards. Trans-inclusive cisgender feminists still have some pretty pernicious habits of language that stubbornly persist in their vocabulary.

Many friends and colleagues have written or tweeted about this problematic language but, much like I did in this frequently shared post on the sex/gender distinction, I wanted to compose a handy reference for cisgender feminists who know they want to be trans-inclusive and have learned some basic vocabulary, but want to learn “how to talk about it” without setting off any alarm bells.

1) Please remove the phrases “female-identified,” “male-identified,””female-bodied,” and “male-bodied” from your vocabulary.

These phrases are my number one pet peeve. Often the people using them think that they’re being really good by using these phrases instead of saying “women” and “men.” What they don’t know is that these phrases have a troubled, transphobic history and carry a lot of conceptual baggage. In their current instantiation, people who use these phrases are often just hypercorrecting, using language that is technically incorrect because it “sounds good.”

But why are they bad? “Female-identified” is a phrase that needlessly divides women with different body types from one another. When combined with language like “female-bodied,” “female-identified” carries with it the suggestion that women without vaginas are not really women, that they only identify as such in spite of their “male” bodies.

Bodies, furthermore, are not inherently male or female. Sex assignment is a social process governed largely by more-or-less arbitrary medical conventions surrounding ideal, normative genital appearance and heterosexual reproductive viability. The rigidity of our society’s two-sex system is by no means a natural outgrowth of our bodily characteristics: it’s our commitment to a two-gender system mapped in reverse onto our bodies.

“But chromsomes!” you might say. Nope. The things that you have learned and internalized about the sex of the human body are so affected by our social ideologies that they cannot be separated from them.

Even if distinctions like male/female-bodied vs. male/female identified were non-invasive or politically expedient (they’re neither), they also are semantically meaningless when we consider the full range of bodies that the category women includes. An intersex woman, for example, might not have a body that correlates with the full connotations of the phrase “female-bodied,” but may not have born with a penis, either.

Transgender women who have undergone genital reassignment surgery also frustrate the way in which “female-bodied” is used as a distinction between cisgender and transgender women: they have breasts, they have vaginas, and their bodies do not natively produce substantial quantities of testosterone. They don’t have a uterus, sure, but many cisgender women are born without a uterus as well.

By conventional and socially dominant methods of visible measurement, these bodies are female. But I’m pretty sure that people who use the phrase “female-bodied” are intending to exclude these bodies when they deploy that language.

What’s the solution to all this confusion? It’s easier than you might think. “Women” is a category that includes a variety of gender expressions and bodies. It will do just fine when you want to talk about women. “Men” is a category that includes a variety of gender expressions and bodies. It will do just fine when you want to talk about men.

You might not think it’s that simple, however. Feminism and other progressive political movements rightly engage with bodies in their political activism. Feminism, for example, focuses on reproductive justice and healthcare. How can we talk about sex, bodies, and reproduction without drawing lines between transgender women and cisgender women’s bodies?

Easy. When you want to talk about gender, talk about gender. When you want to talk about body politics, talk about bodies. If you want to talk about issues that affect people with vaginas, for example, you’re talking about both men and women.

And, as Katherine Cross observes on Feministing, feminism should fully integrate a focus on transgender women’s reproductive rights and healthcare with a focus on issues like abortion and birth control. Trans women’s bodies are women’s bodies and they deserve a place in the mainstream of feminist body politics and reproductive justice efforts.

To summarize, then, phrases like “female-identified” and “female-bodied” are biologically reductionist, needlessly divisive, and functionally meaningless. If you feel like they are necessary to engage in your form of feminist body politics, it’s time to shake up your body politics. EIther way, please quit using these phrases.

2) Please do not list “women” and “trans women” as different categories when listing marginalized groups or talking about oppression.

Separating out “trans women” from “women” carries with it the suggestion that a “trans woman” is not a woman unmodified, that she is a different kind of person entirely. “Women” is allowed to stand alone as an unquestioned and unmarked category while “trans women” are marked as the Other to a de facto group of cisgender women.

This linguistic habit also runs the risk of suggesting that trans women do not experience the same marginalization that women do. I most recently heard it used in the context of “I know what it’s like to be a woman but I don’t know what it’s like to be a trans woman.”

While there are forms of oppression that are unique to transgender people, transgender women share in cisgender women’s oppression. Sexual and domestic violence, street harassment, employment discrimination, body image issues, lack of access to reproductive health care, eating disorders, self-harm, the list goes on; if it affects cisgender women, it affects transgender women, too.

Furthermore, if you utter the word “women,” you are already including transgender women by definition. At that point, it’s up to you to be sure that your feminist politics also includes issues that acutely affect transgender women in particular such as police harassment, stop and frisk laws, gender identity inclusion in civil rights legislation, access to trans-inclusive healthcare, etc.

In some contexts where it’s necessary to highlight your own privilege, it might be worthwhile to note that you are unaware of the added layers of marginalization that transgender women experience. But do not do this at the expense of disavowing the common struggles of women, unmarked, unmodified, transgender and cisgender alike.

When you must speak to the specific issues that affect cisgender women and transgender women respectively, don’t leave your own womanhood unmarked while marking a transgender woman’s womanhood.

Transgender women’s particular struggles are yours too as a fellow woman; they’re not mythical, comprehension-defying.forms of oppression. If you’re a cisgender woman, you don’t get to speak from experience about transgender women’s specific oppression, true, nor do you have the authority to prescribe directions for transfeminist politics, but you also don’t get to mark transgender issues as a very important special interest compartment of feminism. They’re your issues, too.

3) Please do not self-label as “cisgender” unless you are directly commenting on your own privilege.

There are moments when one’s cisgender status needs to be acknowledged. When making claims about transgender people or speaking about transfeminist politics, it’s probably useful to let your audience know the location from which you’re speaking.

But don’t drop your “cisgender” status so much that it becomes an empty disclaimer. You do need to consider issues of authority and perspective, but please be aware that constantly reminding everyone that you’re cisgender is a way of highlighting differences between women rather than building community among them.

This is why I generally advise other women not to disclose their cisgender status on Facebook now that gender options have expanded unless they primarily use their Facebook as a political platform and feel it necessary to disclose their position of privilege.

4) Don’t make distinctions between sex and gender or use phrases like “biological woman” or “biowoman.”

I have written about this before: here and here. The justification for removing these phrases from your vocabulary follows point #1 in this piece as well.

***

The general lesson across all these points is: don’t draw distinctions between cisgender and transgender women unless you have to. When you do need to draw these distinctions, don’t use language that ties specific genders to specific kinds of bodies.

While I generally give most cisgender feminists who use this language the benefit of a doubt, I do want to mark a troubling mindset that often lurks behind these phrases and linguistic habits. If you’ve read through this article, clearly see what’s been happening with your language, and you’re ready to change it, congratulations! My work here is done.

If you were still encountering some internal resistance as you scrolled through this piece, read on:

Some cisgender feminists want to practice trans-inclusive politics, they know how to repeat the mantra “trans women are women” like it’s their job, but somewhere in their heart of hearts, they still approach a transgender woman on an interpersonal level as a different kind of woman. Somewhere, it still matters to them what kind of genitals another woman has. Somewhere, they don’t feel a transgender woman as their sister, they see her as an asterisk.

If this is you, you’ve got some internal work to do that goes beyond your use of language. You have to ask yourself what womanhood means to you, you have to internalize what it means for you personally that the category of “woman” includes people without vaginas or people who did not have them since birth, you have to examine and challenge your own cisnormative feelings of entitlement to know the intimate details of other women’s bodies. You have to figure out a way not just to say that transgender women are women, but to embrace transgender women as such in a way that is not tokenistic, condescending, or hollow. If this describes your position, start with the language and let your heart follow.

snarkbender:

melissabeck:

One is in diapers and the other is a busybody. Both knew better than to trample through the sugar on the floor to sit on top of, beneath the vulva of the exhibit like Pat did.
Let’s forget, for a moment, the subject matter of A Subtlety. And think about plain good home training. You don’t go to any place housing any works of art and touch. 
You quietly observe.
You show respect.
You keep your hands to yourself.
You do not touch. 
And now let’s think (for days and days since visiting the exhibit) specifically about the subject matter and all of its tentacles. And to that I say again, 
It’s not yours to touch and 
You show some respect. 

what’chu wanna bet the person sitting down in this photo spent all kinds of time talking about how beautiful their experience was, w/o taking a moment to think about context, etc.

This.
Is a statue.
Made of SUGAR.
That is like the DEFINITION of delicate.
This person’s actions are extremely rude & insulting to the art, the artist, & the message.

snarkbender:

melissabeck:

One is in diapers and the other is a busybody. Both knew better than to trample through the sugar on the floor to sit on top of, beneath the vulva of the exhibit like Pat did.

Let’s forget, for a moment, the subject matter of A Subtlety. And think about plain good home training. You don’t go to any place housing any works of art and touch. 

You quietly observe.

You show respect.

You keep your hands to yourself.

You do not touch. 

And now let’s think (for days and days since visiting the exhibit) specifically about the subject matter and all of its tentacles. And to that I say again, 

It’s not yours to touch and 

You show some respect. 

what’chu wanna bet the person sitting down in this photo spent all kinds of time talking about how beautiful their experience was, w/o taking a moment to think about context, etc.

This.

Is a statue.

Made of SUGAR.

That is like the DEFINITION of delicate.

This person’s actions are extremely rude & insulting to the art, the artist, & the message.

Hi, I emailed the Dublin Comic-Con about their lack of a harassment policy, they have a long policy on weapons but one line about how "reserve the right to ask you to leave the convention and refuse to refund your money if you are acting in an inappropiate (sic) fashion" In their response they said that there were no complaints last year, there's no alcohol and it's a friendly family environment. It is a small event, do you think there lack of a policy checks out or is it as bogus as it sounds? ironicpopculturereference

postcardsfromspace:

whowasntthere:

postcardsfromspace:

Bogus as hell. Policies are preventative, not just responsive, and they play a really important role in establishing the priorities and climate of a convention.

This.

And I know a lot of folks (myself included) that won’t attend a Con unless such a policy is laid out in full. It would be more beneficial for Cons to be inclusive, responsible and protective of their attendees/exhibitors. Otherwise, what guarantee do we have that if such an event occurs it will be treated with any sort of professional action? I’ve heard too many stories about people getting harassed at Cons without harassment policies and the Con Staff/harassed parties have 0 clue what to do about it. Not a cool atmosphere to create, in my opinion. 

Also worth noting: It’s likely there were no complaints because, in absence of a policy, people didn’t know how or where to report harassment, or what kind and degree merited attention from the con staff—or whether said staff would even give a fuck. Harassment is disconcerting and dehumanizing; in absence of clear policy, the odds of victims deciding to feel their way through a likely hostile system are pretty fucking low.

This is probably ALSO a good time to mention: If you run a con, and you are serious about developing a working harassment policy, I can help you with that. And if you are a small or nonprofit convention? I will help you with that for free.

Button Theme