#Queering sex based violence is just men making any issue about themselves

[coochiequeens]

A Canadian college invited a trans-identified male to speak on violence against women in observation of the 33rd anniversary of an act of mass femicide.

Fae Johnstone, a trans-identified male, gave a keynote address today at Durham College in North Oshawa, Ontario as part of the school’s National Day of Remembrance Ceremony marking the anniversary of a massacre that left 14 women dead.

Johnstone, who describes himself as “trans feminine and non-binary,” is the Executive Director at Wisdom2Action, an LGBT-focused consulting firm. Johnstone’s website lists him as a “public speaker, consultant, educator and community organizer on unceded, unsurrended Algonquin territory.”

On Twitter, Johnstone announced his speech was part of the school’s “16 Days of Activism” to end “GBV [gender-based violence].”

The event Johnstone spoke at today is described on the Durham College website as commemorating the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women in Canada.

The Day was first inaugurated by Parliament in 1991 as a way to honor the lives lost during the École Polytechnique massacre, which took place on December 6, 1989 in Montreal, Quebec. On the campus of the scientific university, a man identifying as an “anti-feminist” targeted female students for slaughter. 

Prior to shooting all of the women in a mechanical engineering class, Marc Lépine, born Gamil Rodrigue Liass Gharbi, told the male students to leave the room. He then told the women he was “fighting feminism” and expressed a hatred of women’s rights to an education.

“You’re women, you’re going to be engineers. You’re all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists,” Lépine said, before opening fire on the female students. Lépine later committed suicide on the campus after taking 14 women’s lives, and injuring 10 more people.

In total, Lépine murdered 14 women in an act that has since been recognized an act of terrorism.

After his speech at Durham College tonight, Johnstone was confronted by Jennifer Anne, a Canadian women’s rights advocate who has been working to secure the release of the analysis that was done on gender self-identification legislation in Canada. 

Anne attended the event and recorded some of Johnstone’s address before proposing a question when given the opportunity by the event’s host. 

“Today is the day we mark 14 women who were killed in Montreal by a man who subjected them simply because they were female. It is sex-based violence, not gender based violence. I am a female,” Anne is heard saying, before listing off examples where self-identification lead to the victimization of women.

“I am wondering why, on this day, we would have a man dressed in women’s garb to talk to us about sex-based violence and keeping women safe? How can women stay safe in this environment?”

Johnstone replies curtly: “Thank you. Next question!”

“Really? So you’re not going to answer it because you know I’m right?” Anne responds. The host of the event, as well as other administrators, are then heard trying to discourage Anne from continuing to assert her question.

Anne uploaded the recordings to her Twitter account.

Johnstone’s consulting firm, Wisdom2Action, marked the anniversary of the women’s deaths by posting an infographic titled “Queering GBV,” which asserted that “gender based violence disproportionately impacts 2SLGBTQ+ people who are BIPOC, transfeminine, bisexual, youth, newcomers, disabled, homeless, and/or involved in sex work.”

For Canadian Women’s History Month in October, Johnstone was “honored” by a Government ministry for his work with “2SLGBTQI+” people.

Johnstone had previously slammed the Canadian Femicide Observatory for “retweeting TERF and TERF rhetoric.” TERF is a derogatory term most frequently applied to women who acknowledge two distinct sex groups.

He also claimed the Declaration on Women’s Sex Based Rights was a “roadmap for erasing trans people from public life, denying our rights and restricting our healthcare.”

Johnstone is not the first trans-identified male be given a platform to speak on the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women. 

Last year on December 6, the Prince Edward Island Advisory Council on the Status of Women invited Anastasia Preston, a biological male who identifies as a woman, to speak on “gender-based violence” at a vigil honoring the women murdered in the École Polytechnique massacre.

Preston, a “trans community outreach coordinator” at a sexually transmitted disease resource service, became the subject of widespread outrage on social media after he was interviewed by the Prince Edward Island branch of the CBC and claimed that trans-identified males were not given enough opportunities to speak on violence against women.

“For decades, trans women have been kept out of the conversation around gender-based violence,” Preston was quoted as saying, going on to assert that he intended to “speak about some of [his] experiences of harassment on P.E.I.” at the event memorializing the 14 women who were murdered.

After the article began to circulate, CBC P.E.I was so inundated with backlash they had to turn off their Twitter comment section. Johnstone defended Preston at the time, calling him a “hero and a champion.”

By Jennifer Seiland Jennifer is a founding member of the Reduxx team, writing with a focus on crimes against women and sex-based rights advocacy. She is located in the American south where she is a passionate animal welfare advocate and avid coffee drinker.

[taliabhattwrites]

I don't think there is a significant or notable number of people who believe transmascs are not oppressed.

I feel slightly insane just having to type this out, but this is rhetoric you inevitably come across if you discuss transfeminism on Tumblr.

The mainstream, cissexist understanding of transmasculine people is the Irreversible Damage narrative (one that's old enough to show up in Transsexual Empire as well) of transmascs as "misguided little girls", "tricked" into "mutilating themselves". It is a deliberately emasculating and transphobic narrative that very explicitly centers on oppression, even if the fevered imaginings misattribute the cause. As anyone who's dealt with the gatekeeping medical establishment knows, they are far from giving away HRT or even consults with both hands, and most transfems I know have a hard enough time convincing people to take DIY T advice, leave alone "tricking" anyone into top surgery.

Arguably, the misogyny that transmasculine folks experience is the defining narrative surrounding their existence, as transmasculinity is frequently and erroneously attributed to "tomboyish women" who resent their position in the patriarchy so much they seek to transition out of it. This rhetoric is an invisiblization of transmasculinity, constructed deliberately to preserve gendered verticality, for if it were possible to "gain status" under the sexed regime, its entire basis, its ideological naturalization, would fall apart.

Honestly, the actual discussions I see are centered around whether "transmisogyny" is a term that should apply to transmascs and transfems alike. While I understand the impetus for that discussion, I feel like the assertion that transmisogyny is a specific oppression that transfems experience for our perceived abandonment of the "male sex" is often conflated with the incorrect idea that we believe transmasculine people are not oppressed at all. This is not true, and we understand, rather acutely, that our society is entirely organized around reproductive exploitation. That is, in fact, the source of transfeminine disposability!

I know I'm someone who "just got here" and there is a history here that I'm not a part of, but so much of that history is speckled with hearsay and fabrication that I can't even attempt to make sense of it. All I know is that I, in 2024, have been called a revived medieval slur for effeminate men by people who attribute certain beliefs to me based on my being a trans woman who is also a feminist, and I simply do not hold those views, nor do I know anyone who sincerely does.

If you're going to attempt to discredit a transfeminist, or transfeminism in general, then please at least do us the courtesy of responding to things we actually say and have actually argued instead of ascribing to us phantom ideologies in a frankly conspiratorial fashion. I also implore people to pay attention to how transphobic rhetoric operates out in the wider world, how actual reactionaries talk about and think of trans people, instead of fixating so hard on internecine social media clique drama that one enters an alternate reality--a phantasm, as Judith Butler would put it.

Speaking of which--do y'all have any idea how overrepresented transmascs are in trans studies and queer theory? Can we like, stop and reckon with reality-as-it-is, instead of hallucinating a transfeminine hegemony where it doesn't exist? I'm aware a lot of their output isn't particularly explicative on the material realities of transmasculine oppression despite their prominence in the academy, but that is ... not the fault of trans women, who face extremely harsh epistemic injustice even in trans studies.

The actual issue is how invisiblized transmasculine oppression is and how the epistemicide that transmasculine people face manifests as a refusal to differentiate between the misogyny all women face, reproductive exploitation in particular, and the contours of violence, erasure, and oppression directed at specifically transmasculine people.

You will notice that is a society-wide problem, motivated by a desire to erase the possibilities of transmasculinity, to the point of not even being willing to name it. You will notice that I am quite familiar with how this works, and how it's completely compatible with a materialist transfeminist framework that analyzes how our oppression is--while distinct--interlinked and stems from the same root.

I sincerely hope that whoever needs to see this post sees it, and that something productive--more productive dialogue, at least--can arise from it.

[gabrielsbubblegumbitch]

Please, elaborate more on these Hazbin Hotel headcanons. I’m very interested in hearing about them.

I would like to preface all my posts on headcanons related to psychology and mental illness with a disclaimer: diagnosing mental conditions, especially personality disorders, can be extremely challenging. It's a complicated process that relies heavily on a psychologist's interpretation of facts, making it susceptible to biases. Personality disorders cannot be diagnosed based on surface-level observations and are not just labels that we can assign to people like in the case of MBTI. Additionally, I am not a clinician with any expertise in diagnosing people. Therefore, the following post should not be taken as a reliable professional opinion. It's simply my interpretation of the internal mechanisms that may be responsible for the behavior of certain characters in my fan fiction. Furthermore, I want to make it clear that I have no intention of stigmatizing people with personality disorders by associating them with villains. A personality disorder does not determine someone's character or make them a bad person. Some characters may be evil because of the choices they make, not as a result of their mental conditions.

Since you didn't ask about anything specific, I'll just give some headcanons on Vs since I think about them the most.

> Vs are not a polycule, it's VoxVal + Velvette because she would never touch any of these losers. What's more, Vox and Val are extremely sexist (I mean it's kinda canon, we heard how they speak about women) so if she had sex with any (or both) of them, she would no longer be one of the boys and become one of the bitches.

> Vox has NPD, Val has BPD, Vel has APD.

> Vox is continuously overstimulated because he's constantly connected to his web. That's why snaps so easily and sometimes goes through 5 stages of grief in 5 seconds. He could disconnect (and sometimes he does) but he's too much of a control freak to not lurk constantly.

> During his life on earth, Valentino had a terrible, toxic father. Very much machismo who abused him relentlessly for being queer. (Not that I want to make him sympathetic, I just think that evil people are often miserable before they become evil.) Because Val is very queer, not just "man occasionally fucking other men", he's always been loud and proud pansexual and gender non-conforming. He wasn't some kind of activist, very concerned about queer issues, he just refused to stay in the closet out of spite, and because it made men around him uncomfortable. He just enjoyed being perceived as a deviant. It was one of the things that eventually got him killed.

> Vox is like a hardcore sadist. He cuts people open just to feel powerful.

> During his life on Earth, Vox used to be extremely homophobic because his bisexuality was threatening to his masculinity. He's also the embodiment of toxic white masculinity from the 50's. He actually did some personal growth in Hell, eg. He gave up racism, homophobia, transphobia, and most other -phobias, and now he despites everyone rather equally. He just bullies women more because misogynistic violence is a low-hanging fruit.

> So with Velvette I had some fun because she manifested in Hell not so long ago and happened to be as powerful as other Vs, who had much more experience and souls collected. So I assumed she must be completely deranged. I came up with the idea that she used to be a toxic influencer who built a cult-like following around her. She weaponized it against multiple people, ruining lives, and manipulating kids into committing crimes or even suicides. Her methods are very fine, Vox and Val have nothing on her when it comes to cruelty.

> Velvette is not misogynistic per se but she despises weak women who can't fight for themselves. That's why other Vs behavior don't bother her, she doesn't feel threatened by their aggression.

> Angel Dust has BPD and an eating disorder. That's why he fell for Valentino so terribly, to trust him with his soul. He used to think that Valentino is the only person fucked up enough to truly love him as damaged as he'd been. (More hc about Val and Angel here). Actually Val has a very similar backstory to him - a queer, gender non-conforming man in a very masculine environment (I'm not sure how canonic is Angel working for the Italian Mafia at this point but I stick to it until proven otherwise).

Other headcanos about Vox and Val ❤️🩵

[the-rainbow-lesbian]

you know just because you don't like girls with dick doesn't mean you need to trash on people that do. you're getting mad about death threats on twitter when there are laws across the world being developed or enacted prohibiting trans people from existing, i'm not gonna try to explain empathy to you tho. like its not that big of a deal dude lmao if someone makes you uncomfortable that's completely valid but there's no reason to just hate an entire people group because of some trauma you must have. someone's interpretation of womanhood shouldn't threaten yours

“just because you don’t like girls with dicks”

it’s not about “liking them” or not I am just a homosexual female, by nature I can’t be attracted to them and lesbians in general deserve a space without men.

“you're getting mad about death threats on twitter when there are laws across the world being developed or enacted prohibiting trans people from existing”

there are laws or push for laws to eradicate female spaces, include men in the female category, which pushes women out of opportunities in favor of men, and also laws that prohibits lesbians and women in general from gathering in spaces without men. this is not about “death threats” and me being an asshole, including men in the category of women threatens sex-based rights women fought hard for.

“i'm not gonna try to explain empathy to you tho.”

I do have empathy, I have empathy for women who are afraid of speaking up and are losing their sex-based rights, I have empathy for lesbians who are being sexually harassed and assaulted in “queer” spaces and being told their sexuality is not real/wrong, I have empathy for children who aren’t able to make decisions they don’t understand the consequences of, but are pushed to alter their bodies in irreversible ways because their mental health is not being addressed properly because it’s not profitable. the question is, do YOU have empathy?

“like its not that big of a deal dude Imao if someone makes you uncomfortable that's completely valid but there's no reason to just hate an entire people group because of some trauma you must have.”

as I explained this goes beyond a personal issue or discomfort, this impacts all women as we are all affected by the laws this movement is trying to force. women’s trauma are always minimized and treated as a personal incident or a failing rather than a pattern. women have the right to protect themselves from male violence, female spaces were not created for arbitrary reasons, they are necessary due to material reality.

“someone's interpretation of womanhood shouldn't threaten yours”

it does actually when men can legally change their gender to female for all the reasons I explained above, laws should be based on material reality not individual feelings. when men define womanhood as the state of being feminine it hurts all the girls and women who don’t conform to femininity.

language matters, anon is trying to frame this issue as me being a big hater who is irrational due to trauma or whatever but the reality is women have every right to speak up and protect our rights. they want women to be doormats and also they want us to do all the work of stripping our own rights away, that’s their version of “empathy” empathy is when women never have any self-preservation instincts and just serve men and their interests.

[starblaster]

im confused, what type of information do terfs say about fgm and stuff? could you elaborate pls?

in my addition on this post, i mentioned “fgm” specifically because it tends to be a hallmark issue discussed by terfs/radfems, which is why i specifically said that you may see it on terf blogs in combination with other dogwhistles. however, as some of us know, there are also plenty of covert/crypto terfs on this site who won’t share obviously-transphobic content but they will share, for example, islamophobic and antisemitic posts about muslim or jewish men being inherently misogynistic, or racist and sinophobic posts calling all chinese men evil sexists, or saying that all nigerian men are rapists. you get the picture.

terfs/cryptoterfs tend to post or share articles about “female genital mutilation”, “female infanticide”, “sex-selective abortion”, and “same-sex” attraction being under attack as a way of legitimizing their radfem ‘paltform’ of issues, much like how qanon used “protect the children” arguments to make their radical arguments, which are entirely detached from reality, seem true or legitimate by virtue of this 1 kernel of truth, and sometimes not even that; 1 kernel of (perceived) half-truth, or less.

for example, it is of course true that queer people are attacked for being queer. queerphobic and homophobic violence is a real thing that happens all over the world. this is an objective fact. terfs, however, take this fact and load it up with untruths supporting their ideology in a wide assortment of ways, such as insisting that that some recorded-as-male victims of homophobia-motivated hate crimes are actually “gender-confused women” or “confused lesbians” or that recorded-as-female perpetrators are “actually men” (because, according to terfs and their beliefs in biological essentialism, cis women could never ever be perpetrators of violence...) and suddenly they’re using these ‘points’, founded on baseless speculations, to say, “see?! this is why we need to make it illegal for people to get their sex changed on official documents!” and they’ll also intentionally disregard instances multiple-bias hate crimes, in which an attack on a trans person was motivated by transphobia as well as homophobia—whether it’s because they don’t consider transphobia to be real, or they think transphobia isn’t a hate crime, or they think transphobia statistics are based entirely on false reports.

but let’s return to the “fgm” topic. yes, it’s true that genital mutilation happens. however, terfs often inflate or fabricate statistics to fearmonger (when worldwide genital mutilation rates are actually on the decline) and they also, ironically and predictably, don’t believe that forced intersex surgery is genital mutilation (when it is) because they believe it’s medically necessary (when it’s not). you know what they do think counts as genital mutilation? top surgery, phalloplasty, and even chest binding. they are convinced that they need to ‘save’ people from it, which is why they want to make it harder for trans people to access trans healthcare or gender-affirmation of any kind.

when this happens to trans women and trans girls, it’s also worth mentioning that they don’t care about the dangers of tucking because, in their opinion, "males" (in quotes) "deserve it" even when the negative effects of prolonged and improper tucking are more immediate than improper/prolonged chest binding, which of course terfs target because they’re oh-so-obsessed with the safety of ‘females’. which is not to say that people who tuck improperly or for too long are doing it to hurt themselves; they just want to pass and be comfortable in their bodies and may not know of safer alternatives yet. just. for the sake of comparison, it’s worth noting that terfs really do unilaterally wish suffering and agony upon trans women and transfeminine people... while also trying to convince trans men, nonbinary people, genderqueer people, gnc and butch women that they’re ‘traitors’ to ‘females’ because they’re ‘endorsing, encouraging, enabling, and participating in “female genital mutilation”‘ which is just fucking insane

[hellomynameisbisexual]

Most people know to anticipate some degree of change when they’re in a committed, long-term romantic relationship: a desire for more nights in with Netflix instead of drunken ragers on the dance floor; the inevitable shift of physical appearances; the unexpected transformation of a side gig into a career. But many people assume sexual orientation is fairly stable—that whether you’re gay or straight, you’re “born this way,” and that’s what you’ll be forever.

That definitely isn’t always the case. But even though coming out as queer or bisexual in a committed straight relationship isn’t unheard of, a change in sexual identity is not something that many people anticipate happening within a long-term partnership, nor is it widely discussed. Despite the advancements in broader social understanding of LGBTQ issues made in the past decade, therapists Jared Anderson and Tamala Poljak told VICE that many of their patients fear that being bi or queer when straight-partnered could doom their relationship. There’s also a pervasive idea that a person in a hetero relationship can’t be LGBTQ because they have chosen to commit, and are presumably attracted to, a member of the opposite sex. But bisexuality is a valid orientation, and while it may feel intimidating to embrace this discovery and stay hetero-partnered, it’s by no means impossible.

“I believe both gender and sexuality [are] fluid, meaning we change throughout a lifespan,” Poljak said, adding that recent cultural shifts have likely led to light bulb moments for some individuals who has been denying or simply not recognizing their queer feelings.

Sexuality doula Isabella Frappier, whose work includes helping clients own and define their sexual expression, said that a person doesn’t need to have acted on any same-sex-attracted feelings in order to label themselves as queer or bisexual, and that bisexuality can be explored while still honoring an extant relationship, especially since everyone has different definitions of what it means to explore.

Bisexuality is often dismissed as a phase, and the idea that bisexual people are "just confused" persists. This is especially true for men; while bisexuality among women is slightly more socially acceptable (albeit because it’s fetishized and often viewed as an "experiment"), men often have to contend with the belief that bisexuality, as Carrie once put it on Sex and the City, is “a pit stop on the way to gay town.”

These myths stem from our society’s historically rigid approach to sexual expression. Experts are adamant that a person's bisexuality does not invalidate the love they have for their opposite-sex partner. According to Poljak, an associate marriage and family therapist, the idea that a person needs to “pick a side” is a rooted in heteronormative expectations.

The question, “Am I queer or bi enough?” can also weigh heavily on people who think they might not be all the way straight, as though there is a certain amount of "proof" that could confirm their sexuality. As much as those questioning might like to think there’s a litmus test that will tell them whether or not they’re truly bi, that’s simply not the case.

“For queer folks, it just isn’t so cut and dry,” Poljak said. “The hope to ‘figure it out’ and/or find ‘an answer’ is a pretty rigid idea steeped in heteronormative expectations. It also puts a lot of pressure on a person to have to declare one thing and stick to it. If you know you are attracted to one or more genders, then it’s really that simple.”

A journey into one’s queerness doesn’t have to involve sex outside of the relationship, or even sex in general. Just noticing that you’re attracted to other genders can be the extent of this exploration. The act of coming out to yourself, or maybe saying, “I’m bi. I don’t know what that looks like yet, and that’s OK,” has the potential to be extremely affirming.

You might find comfort in connecting with other queer folks, especially since identifying as queer might otherwise make you feel vulnerable or isolated. Some people are validated by coming out to friends and family, or by getting involved with the queer community. Frappier encouraged people exploring their bi/queer identity to go to LGBTQ events, read books about sexuality or written by queer authors, support bisexual artists and musicians, or join queer groups. Online, Reddit’s r/bisexual subreddit is a funny and informative space for bi folks to ask questions or simply discuss their experiences, while the Fluid Arizona resource page and Autostraddle's events and meet-ups can help queer folks build an IRL community.

If you decide you want to connect more physically with your queer sexual desires, but aren’t sure where to begin, start small. “I’d first encourage a person in this situation to start by considering the multiple ways they can explore their queerness on their own,” Frappier said. “That can be through watching ethical same-sex porn, or writing your own erotica.”

Experts strongly encouraged discussing your queerness with your partner eventually, as the secrecy can ultimately strain the relationship. (It can also contribute to the harmful idea that your queerness is somehow scandalous, or something to be ashamed of.) If you’re worried that your partner will react poorly, or you aren’t ready to share your feelings with them yet, consider talking to a professional, a trusted friend or loved one, or a queer friend who may relate a bit to what you are going through. Poljak, who is trained as an LGBTQ-affirmative therapist, said it’s crucial for people questioning their sexuality to have a solid support system. Studies show that bisexual people are at a higher risk of depression, anxiety, and experiencing violence than their gay, lesbian, and heterosexual counterparts. While staying in the closet can be a necessary choice for a myriad of reasons, research shows that the stress of concealment contributes to disrupted relationships, feelings of shame and guilt, and symptoms of anxiety and depression.

If you feel ready to talk with your significant other, avoid starting the conversation when either of you are tired or distracted, in the middle of a fight, or in any situation where tensions are high. Instead, choose a time when you both feel relaxed and won’t be rushed, like over coffee on a Saturday morning.

You don’t have to have everything figured out before you talk to your partner. Frappier said that it’s perfectly fine to tell them you’re in a questioning, exploratory phase, and then communicate what you’d like that to look like. There’s no need to choose a label unless you’d like to.

“Explain to [your partner] how you’ve been feeling, what you’re desiring to explore, and how you imagine that could look within your relationship,” Frappier said. She advised that it’s wise to let your partner know that your sexual expression is not a reflection of the relationship, but more about exploring a new part of yourself.

“Once you’re finished speaking, it’s important to give them space to share, and to really listen to how they are feeling,” Frappier said. “They may take it in stride, or need a little time to process it.”

Don’t stress if the first conversation doesn’t go as well as you’d hoped; this will likely be the first of many discussions. Anderson, who specializes in trauma and relationships, said that if any of these conversations get heated or overly emotional, it’s a good idea to press pause and revisit the topic once both partners have had a chance to cool off.

Couples therapy can also be extremely beneficial. “Ideally, both the person coming out and the partner of that person would be in individual therapy with a therapist who is trained in LGBTQ-affirmative therapy,” Poljak said. “The same is true if [you're] deciding to open your marriage, explore polyamory or emotional monogamy, and/or redefine your marital contract. The therapist needs to have more than just general knowledge of alternative, queer lifestyles, and understand the multiple systems at play.”

Psychology Today is the most thorough national network for finding mental health professionals, and allows users to search using various classifications, including sexuality and type of therapy (the “compassion-based” and “culturally sensitive” filters are good options for LGTBQ folks). Some health insurance plans allow users to filter for therapists who specialize in LGBTQ issues when searching for in-network providers. For POC-specific options, the National Queer and and Trans Therapists of Color Network is a good resource. For those struggling to find an in-person therapist, Pride Counseling offers digital therapy sessions via phone, messaging, and video call.

After your initial conversations and once you've sought any additional support you might find helpful, you and your partner may want to formulate an action plan. If you want to include your partner in your sexual exploration (and they are comfortable with that), the plan might include attending queer events, watching queer porn together, role-playing, engaging in threesomes, and/or swinging. If you’d prefer to explore your sexuality without your partner, but with other people, you may need to discuss opening up your relationship.

“Some folks find it exciting or even sexy, and perhaps a discussion unfolds about opening up the marriage or exploring poly or engaging in new kinds of play and fantasy with their partners,” Poljak said. “Maybe it even inspires their partner to share with honesty some queerness of their own that is emerging. Ideally, there is space for people’s differences and otherness to be expressed without having to lose the relationship, or having to abandon or sacrifice yourself.”

This sort of exploration is not one-size-fits-all. Regardless of the route you take, Frappier stresses the importance of discussing boundaries and safety throughout. If the two of you are struggling to find some sort of consensus when it comes to boundaries, that doesn’t mean the discussion regarding exploration is over forever. It’s very common for couples to have multiple conversations surrounding this topic, especially if one partner is asking to renegotiate the marital contract in some way.

Just as it’s reasonable for a person to want to explore their burgeoning sexuality outside of the relationship, it’s also reasonable for the other partner to say, “I’m not cool with that.” In some instances, it might be in the interest of both individuals to go their separate ways… and that’s OK, too.

“A marriage is a partnership that lasts as long as it’s right,” writer Nadia Rawls said after coming out to, and, later, ending things with her now–ex-husband. Rawls said she tried to make it work with her husband for six months, but ultimately realized that separating was the best option. “It takes a hell of a partner to help their spouse grow into the person they really are,” Rawls wrote. “Even if that means losing them.”

Rawls’s story is just one of many—Frappier and Poljak said that many couples make it work, too. It’s hard to predict how your partner might react, or how you’ll feel or what you’ll want, once you start exploring your queerness or bisexuality. That uncertainty is part of what makes the process of coming out in a straight relationship so intimidating. But the reward of being honest—both with yourself and with your partner—is the gift of a more authentic life. Regardless of the outcome, that is worth pursuing.

[filmmakerdreamst]

‘Boy Meets World’ Re-watch (as an Adult)

‘Girl Meets World’ doesn’t count as a sequel. Not because of the writing/tonal choices but because in the original show - despite continuity issues - the characters felt like real people e.g. the way they spoke/acted/dressed was the way people behaved in the 90s where as in the spin off, they were Disney characters e.g. hyper versions of themselves especially Cory and Eric. And the transition between both shows didn’t come naturally. It’s not an objectivity badly written show but it was pretty much a re-do of the old show with the same storylines/tropes without continuing the story. (I say the same thing about ‘The Incredibles’. vs ‘Incredibles 2’.) Also there were too many cooks in the kitchen pushing one way or another. You could see Micheal Jacobs style, all the aspects were there, but he was also creating a ‘DISNEY’ show at the same time. I don’t know about you but the one message I took from the original show was ‘finding out that life cannot be packenged into a lovely little present ’ which kind of contradicts everything that the new show is. If anything GMW is an AU universe (and it really felt like that, rewatching it right after BMW e.g. it felt flipped) almost like Disney’s version of ‘what happened next?’ The primal difference between both shows is BMW is portraying what is real and GMW is based on what is real.

Going off my point, I will however be always thankful that it exists because I probably wouldn’t of found out about ‘Boy Meets World’ otherwise. Although saying that, I never thought that the original show needed a continuation of any kind (a lot of things make sense about the spin off if you acknowledge that Disney requested it - I think it would of been much better off on its original platform) ‘Boy Meets World’ was very much a product of its time i.e. when tv shows were still relevetivley new and had no rules - like there is stuff in there that not even adult shows today have. Plus there was something about it that felt very personal (such as the characters and setting) as if the creator based it on his own childhood growing up and I think that was part of its charm and why it had such a big effect on pop culture - I’m not so sure you can repeat that.

BMW is big on meta I’ll tell you that. I love how it’s so aware of itself. The amount of depth that it has never ceases to amaze me. It’s whole universe is so dense and huge. Every quote/storyline is so unique it sticks in your brain forever. (I swear the humour got more and more deranged every season). The show was also incredibly queer and progressive.  It didn’t give a crap about sexuality. Much more than I remember. Proof to never use ‘but it was made in the 90s’ excuse.        

I loved how the show kept reinventing itself every season as Cory grew up so you really felt you were growing up with him and all the characters. The Character Development on this show was so natural/authentic. Every single character got a chance to shine. No one changed their look in one episode and no one had an intervention every time someone had an identity crisis (GMW) My favourite development was Shawn Hunter. He went from a cool kid to a ladies man to a poetic soul. It was so satisfying to watch.

I realised that Cory Matthews is actually my favourite character (before it was Eric or Shawn) I already have a special soft spot for ‘annoying’ characters because they tend to be the most memorable/real. For example, Karma Ashcroft from ‘Faking it’ was my babe while everyone was hating on her. I really related to his anxiety/self hatred about being average and I loved that he constantly made mistakes. It was very refreshing. He’s also incredibly queer-coded. I found that alot of his mannerisms make sense if you see him with extreme compulsory heterosexuality (because identity’s such as bisexual or gay couldn’t exist normally in the 90s) There are moments in the show where he literally mimics his best friend’s behaviour around girls e.g. when the class pretty much gets brainwashed by the sex ed video in ‘Boy Meets Girl’ Shawn gets asked out by a girl, making Cory jealous - which pushes him to ask out Topanga.

It’s funny how a few years of life experience can change perspectives completely because when I was sixteen (aka the same age as Cory and Topanga) watching BMW for the first time, I was mad at Amy for ‘not understanding that they were in love’ (in ‘A Walk to Pittsburg’) but now that I’m older I’m actually agreeing with her. Yeah, what do they know about love? Because all season long they were acting quite superficially.

Cory and Topanga became somewhat of a toxic couple in seasons 5 -7. Reminded me of my parents relationship because my mum gave up her chosen university to be closer to my dad and they aren’t together any more. Topanga’s love for Cory was very conditional and Cory cheated on her multiple times/openly begged for sex  (Again like my parents) And you should never be in a relationship with someone who makes you say “You make me think not so very much of myself” There are arguably much more signs of emotional abuse than love in their relationship especially from Topanga’s side. Plus their story was altered so many times to give it more basis (they retconned Shawn and Cory’s friendship to do this) I could write an essay on how Kevin and Winnie’s love story on ‘The Wonder Years’ is much more believable because it actually addresses how toxic it was and they grow apart in the end. If GMW was a realistic continuation, they would be divorced with a little girl - leave them in the 90s where they belong.

Alan and Amy were couple goals! Cory and Topanga wish that they could have what they have. Literally the definition of ‘a healthy relationship on tv that keeps thriving and over coming obstacles without big drama’. Best TV parents ever.

I loved the Matthews family; how they all had individual arcs and developments of their own. One of my favourite arcs was in season 5, when Eric and Cory were both jealous of what they ‘didn’t have’ with their dad, so Alan made an effort to give them both that they needed. Honestly, I had never seen so much healthy communication on TV before. Alan is the best father around. His whole personal arc of giving up managing a supermarket because he wasn’t passsionate about it anymore and buying a mountain store was so inspired. I found it funny that the family had more of a relationship with Shawn than Topanga.

Shawn Hunter never caught a break. It got a bit tiring. He was never allowed to be happy for five minutes. Every time he laughed or smiled, 5 years were added onto my lifespan. Why didn’t Johnathan Turner adopt him? I loved their dynamic. Why did he let him go back to his abusive father who just dumped him anyway?

Jack and Shawn’s complicated dynamic was possibly the most unique/interesting arc of the entire show and no one talks about it. I don’t care what y’all say - despite them being very different, Jack was the only one who fully took care of Shawn without second thoughts (Turner and the Matthews family had doubts)

I liked Shawn and Angela. I thought they were much better suited than Cory and Topanga. I honestly wouldn’t of minded if they ended up together even though I always had a feeling they wouldn’t. (Like I’m glad she went with her dad in the end) And considering how important they were as a interracial couple in the 90s, GMW handled that very poorly.

Shawn and Cory should of ended up together. And before you come at me with ‘it’s important to have m/m friendships without toxic masculinity’ (which is an important arguement to have) - yeah no shit there’s an entire Industry based around that/pitting women against each other. While it is important to have those friendships between men that are close and even intimate (take Chandler and Joey, Schmidt and Nick, Isak and Jonas and Jake and Charles for example) there was also another layer to their relationship which the narrative played off sometimes as them “going out” or “in love”.  I actually recently found out that a writer - who came into the show in season 3 - confirmed that she wrote gay undertones into their relationship on purpose ‘In my opinion as a writer, they thought they were “straight”, they both didn’t realise or understand their feelings for eachother’ but couldn’t deliever because the producers wanted to keep the show “kid friendly”. Kind of like Xena and Gabby. I know people prefer Jack & Eric (I love them as well) but everything got ruined for me as soon as they introduced the ‘love triangle’ and I always tend to prefer emotional tension over sexual. They were just so unconditional with each other/ their friendship was so good and healthy and now I’m so bitter that it never happened.

I never understood why Shawn and Cory had to stop being best friends after he got married. He’s not Topanga’s property. I always hated how Topanga tried to interrupt/interfere with their dynamic — although now I realise it was because the two of them purposely left her out. Looking back at it, If it really was just a intimate friendship then why would she get so easily jealous if she didn’t sense there was something else deeper going on? You should never marry someone who puts you second.

I didn’t like Topanga when she was with Cory (or vice versa) Especially after they got married. She was a great character on her own. Feminist before her time. Hermione Granger before her time. I always felt she deserved a lot better than him in a way e.g. if someone I considered a friend speard a rumour around high school that we slept together - I would never speak to that person again. SHE SHOULD OF GONE TO YALE GOD DAMN IT. And as someone pointed out the other day, if the roles were reversed some of the stuff she does or says to Cory would be considered domestic violence. ‘She’s always blaming Cory on shit that isn't even his fault or makes him feel bad or shuts down his emotions and turns it around so he's comforting her instead.’ There was even a moment in GMW (not that I consider that show a continuation) where she locks him out the house for a few days after he insulted her chicken, and his son Auggie had to bring him spaghetti. If Cory was a woman, that would not be played off as a joke - that would be considered abuse. They were however a better couple in GMW ironically.

Angela Moore is now one of my favourite characters on BMW. She was beautiful. Her friendship with Rachel (and Topanga) was the best. And I frickin’ loved her and Cory’s friendship development - when they could of easily not played into that. I hate that she got villiaized in GMW.

My favourite seasons are 4, 5 & 1. My least favourites are 3 & 2 & 7. And even then the show was still pretty darn good.

The back and fourth clash between Turner and Mr Feeny in season 2 was very entertaining.

Mr Feeny and Eric are my favourite relationship on ‘Boy Meets World’. I love how Eric was the only person that Feeny directly told that he loved him. Also, why didn’t Eric become the new Mr Feeny? He showed more traits of becoming a teacher in the show than Cory did.

Eric and Tommy was probably the most heartbreaking plot line in season 6. (That season was an emotional train wreck) I cried for a fourth time. The world doesn’t deserve him.

I loved the development of Shawn and Topanga’s friendship. Even though there was a silent competition over Cory, they eventually became good friends. I found out that the song ‘She will be loved’ was inspired by them which is awesome but it’s also proof that people ship for less if it’s an m/f dynamic - just sayin’. I however see a more convincing potiental romance with the two of them than Cory and Topanga sometimes.

On Cory and Topanga again - they weren’t a bad couple overall. I liked them in s1 - 3. They had some great moments. But upon my rewatch (getting out of that 90s idealised headspace) I found them to be too similar at times - chafing as another person put it - to the point where they cancel each other out. A lot of people pointed out that Riley and Maya paralleled them and I was thinking “That’s not nesserily a good thing.”

‘Dream. Try. Do good.’ is on my mantelpiece.

[magdolenelives]

Tweet here, article here. Highly recommend reading the whole article, but just a few choice quotes: I want to first question whether trans-exclusionary feminists are really the same as mainstream feminists. If you are right to identify the one with the other, then a feminist position opposing transphobia is a marginal position. I think this may be wrong. My wager is that most feminists support trans rights and oppose all forms of transphobia. So I find it worrisome that suddenly the trans-exclusionary radical feminist position is understood as commonly accepted or even mainstream. I think it is actually a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream, and that our responsibility is to refuse to let that happen. -- AF: One example of mainstream public discourse on this issue in the UK is the argument about allowing people to self-identify in terms of their gender. In an open letter she published in June, JK Rowling articulated the concern that this would "throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman", potentially putting women at risk of violence. JB: If we look closely at the example that you characterise as “mainstream” we can see that a domain of fantasy is at work, one which reflects more about the feminist who has such a fear than any actually existing situation in trans life. The feminist who holds such a view presumes that the penis does define the person, and that anyone with a penis would identify as a woman for the purposes of entering such changing rooms and posing a threat to the women inside. It assumes that the penis is the threat, or that any person who has a penis who identifies as a woman is engaging in a base, deceitful, and harmful form of disguise. This is a rich fantasy, and one that comes from powerful fears, but it does not describe a social reality. Trans women are often discriminated against in men’s bathrooms, and their modes of self-identification are ways of describing a lived reality, one that cannot be captured or regulated by the fantasies brought to bear upon them. The fact that such fantasies pass as public argument is itself cause for worry. -- AF: The consensus among progressives seems to be that feminists who are on JK Rowling’s side of the argument are on the wrong side of history. Is this fair, or is there any merit in their arguments? JB: Let us be clear that the debate here is not between feminists and trans activists. There are trans-affirmative feminists, and many trans people are also committed feminists. So one clear problem is the framing that acts as if the debate is between feminists and trans people. It is not. One reason to militate against this framing is because trans activism is linked to queer activism and to feminist legacies that remain very alive today. Feminism has always been committed to the proposition that the social meanings of what it is to be a man or a woman are not yet settled. We tell histories about what it meant to be a woman at a certain time and place, and we track the transformation of those categories over time. We depend on gender as a historical category, and that means we do not yet know all the ways it may come to signify, and we are open to new understandings of its social meanings. It would be a disaster for feminism to return either to a strictly biological understanding of gender or to reduce social conduct to a body part or to impose fearful fantasies, their own anxieties, on trans women... Their abiding and very real sense of gender ought to be recognised socially and publicly as a relatively simple matter of according another human dignity. The trans-exclusionary radical feminist position attacks the dignity of trans people.  -- First, one does not have to be a woman to be a feminist, and we should not confuse the categories. Men who are feminists, non-binary and trans people who are feminists, are part of the movement if they hold to the basic propositions of freedom and equality that are part of any feminist political struggle. When laws and social policies represent women, they make tacit decisions about who counts as a woman, and very often make presuppositions about what a woman is. We have seen this in the domain of reproductive rights. So the question I was asking then is: do we need to have a settled idea of women, or of any gender, in order to advance feminist goals?   I put the question that way… to remind us that feminists are committed to thinking about the diverse and historically shifting meanings of gender, and to the ideals of gender freedom. By gender freedom, I do not mean we all get to choose our gender. Rather, we get to make a political claim to live freely and without fear of discrimination and violence against the genders that we are. Many people who were assigned “female” at birth never felt at home with that assignment, and those people (including me) tell all of us something important about the constraints of traditional gender norms for many who fall outside its terms.   Feminists know that women with ambition are called “monstrous” or that women who are not heterosexual are pathologised. We fight those misrepresentations because they are false and because they reflect more about the misogyny of those who make demeaning caricatures than they do about the complex social diversity of women. Women should not engage in the forms of phobic caricature by which they have been traditionally demeaned. And by “women” I mean all those who identify in that way. -- AF: Threats of violence and abuse would seem to take these “anti-intellectual times” to an extreme. What do you have to say about violent or abusive language used online against people like JK Rowling? JB: I am against online abuse of all kinds. I confess to being perplexed by the fact that you point out the abuse levelled against JK Rowling, but you do not cite the abuse against trans people and their allies that happens online and in person. I disagree with JK Rowling's view on trans people, but I do not think she should suffer harassment and threats. Let us also remember, though, the threats against trans people in places like Brazil, the harassment of trans people in the streets and on the job in places like Poland and Romania – or indeed right here in the US. So if we are going to object to harassment and threats, as we surely should, we should also make sure we have a large picture of where that is happening, who is most profoundly affected, and whether it is tolerated by those who should be opposing it. It won’t do to say that threats against some people are tolerable but against others are intolerable. -- It is painful to see that Trump’s position that gender should be defined by biological sex, and that the evangelical and right-wing Catholic effort to purge “gender” from education and public policy accords with the trans-exclusionary radical feminists' return to biological essentialism. It is a sad day when some feminists promote the anti-gender ideology position of the most reactionary forces in our society. -- My point in the recent book is to suggest that we rethink equality in terms of interdependency. We tend to say that one person should be treated the same as another, and we measure whether or not equality has been achieved by comparing individual cases. But what if the individual – and individualism – is part of the problem? It makes a difference to understand ourselves as living in a world in which we are fundamentally dependent on others, on institutions, on the Earth, and to see that this life depends on a sustaining organisation for various forms of life. If no one escapes that interdependency, then we are equal in a different sense. We are equally dependent, that is, equally social and ecological, and that means we cease to understand ourselves only as demarcated individuals. If trans-exclusionary radical feminists understood themselves as sharing a world with trans people, in a common struggle for equality, freedom from violence, and for social recognition, there would be no more trans-exclusionary radical feminists. But feminism would surely survive as a coalitional practice and vision of solidarity.

[cavehags]

I know you've talked/reblogued about how lesbophobia and biphobia against women are essentially the same thing (Very eye opening btw!) and I'm cujrious if you've ever talked/thought about the differences in homophobia against gay/bi men and homophobia against lesbian/Bi women! If you don't want to talk about it just ignore, but I love hearing your opinions on stuff!

yeah so just like with the “lesbophobia”/“biphobia” stuff, i think these are different manifestations of the same violent bigotry. 

homophobia is the resistance to anything that undermines the gender roles that support the patriarchy. it is an offshoot of misogyny in that way. through homophobia, both gay/bi women and gay/bi men are punished for living our lives in ways that are not prescribed by gender roles. if men and women can live happily alone or in same-gender relationships, that undermines the party line of the patriarchy that says that the sexes are opposites and need each other. in a society governed by this expectation, all men are kept straining to perform masculinity while all women must not only perform their role, but also do so while trapped in a weakened and subservient social position. 

homophobia limits and punishes gay men and gay women differently, but we’re still being disciplined for the same “crime.” the way men are steered away from forming intimate friendships with other men, even in childhood, allows internalized homophobia to root itself very deeply in men. physical violence is also normalized among men to a certain extent, from childhood bullying to gay-panic-motivated hate crimes. on the other hand, since homophobia is a function of misogyny, it hits women hard in a range of subtle and explicit ways. girls are conditioned to rely on men for validation and survival no matter what, and that can inhibit the process of self-discovery or severely limit a woman’s options if she chooses to live without a male partner. compulsory heterosexuality is maintained through the all-encompassing culture around sex and romance for girls. there is also an institutional element to this; throughout history, the social order of the patriarchy has used norms and institutions to prevent women from living without men. and like men, women are also subject to violence for deviation, with corrective rape being one example. 

significantly, since men are the dominant class, in some societies and in some limited contexts men have shown other men some degree of leniency. men living alone or with another man throughout history have at least been able to support themselves financially, while women have been denied that freedom. men throughout history also had access to the public sphere, so even a gay man married to a woman could live a whole life outside the home. life for gay men would not have been free or easy, and in many cases the punishment for being discovered would have been severe, but for gay women there is an added dimension of constraint that is obviously a function of misogyny. 

all this is to say that while the expressions of homophobia obviously differ, and the specific types of behaviors that are discouraged vary between women and men, the chief goal of homophobia in maintaining the patriarchal social order is the same.  

there’s also obviously a lot of intra-community infighting that illuminates how deeply homophobic biases are rooted even in gay people. it’s a common trend for gay and bi women to downplay the homophobia that gay and bi men experience and distance themselves from them as if repulsed. this is especially true online. just think of the memeification of the term “gay panic” or the past decade of artists trying to canonize a “lesbian flag” separate from the all-purpose rainbow flag. or consider the homophobic, serophobic stereotypes that tend to orbit any discussion of how gay men approach sex and partying compared to how lesbians do. i have personally observed many lesbian and bi women, especially those my age and younger, half-jokingly saying that cis gay men don’t deserve a voice in queer circles. while that may be partially a joke (and while i remain mystified about what “a voice in queer circles” even means), this claim reflects a lot of ignorance about what gay men have to fear from homophobic society and why they are obviously qualified to speak on gay issues. and then on the flip side, many gay men gravitate toward feminine gender expression as an act of resistance, but are unable to make sense of women who repudiate the feminine gender expression standards that were beaten into them growing up. weight-based stigma is also common in some gay male circles. lesbians who are fat or unfeminine are often the butt of the joke among gay men whose perfectly understandable concentration on their own self-image has led them to become judgmental of women’s as well. 

to be clear, i do not believe that there is an inherent animosity between gay men and lesbians, and i hope the first part of this post clearly lays out why our communities have so much in common that we should be able to find safety with each other. but our society is homophobic, and homophobic beliefs and stereotypes drive us apart. i think the ability to create hypercurated microcommunities on social media is largely to blame. it is very easy for lesbians on twitter or wherever to only hear from other lesbians and somehow come away with homophobic misunderstandings about what gay men’s lives are like. i would like to see us rally together but social media makes that very hard. we should be uplifting each other and talking to each other about our lives instead of fracturing our community and fueling the homophobia that is only going to hurt us.

[eelsfeelgross]

Conclusions: Trans Activism v. Radical Feminism, a first-hand account

This is current stance after a lot of direct investigation on both radfems online and trans activists online. No group is judged based on the observations, rhetoric, or propaganda of any outside group, but from my own first-hand observations in combination with objective knowable facts such as actions known to be committed in public record by the likes of criminals or celebrities. However, the bulk of this is based on what I have seen, what I know to be true because it’s been done before my own eyes. While my conclusion may lack information on the more nitpicked aspects of things, I believe their overall impressions still hold true with the amount of experience I’ve had. Keep in mind: this is not my only account. I have dipped into the radfem community before, each time from a different perspective, at a different time, and with open eyes ready to receive whatever I was given. The same is true of the trans community.

Trans Activism

I want to make clear that these conclusions were mainly drawn from my direct experience with the trans community from within. I am not relying on critics of the trans ideology to tell me any of this, though they often echo the same concerns and observations.

The trans community has a serious problem with misogyny, homophobia, and sex denial. They employ magical thinking and emotional pleas to justify their conclusions and commit to arguments of definition that are ultimately lacking substance. However, while lacking rational, they are abundant with emotional reasoning and can be incredibly powerful rhetorical tools in convincing others to believe them without the necessary evidence of anything claimed.

This is especially prevalent when discussing sexual biology and sexual orientation. They consider self-harm to be the fault of other people, even in adults, and use this as a manipulation tactic to make it seem as if they’re being killed at higher rates than their general demographics. This plays hand in hand with the appropriation of statistics around things like racial violence or violence against sex workers to make it appear trans people, particularly white heterosexual (attracted to the opposite sex) trans women from the middle class of Amerca who aren’t victims of prostitution, are under much more persecution than their lived experiences actually reflects.

This has grown into a political ideology not dissimilar to a religion, but without the usual trappings we associate with a religious group. It requires blind faith in the concept of gender and the “life saving” virtues of expensive hormone treatments and plastic surgeries without proper regard for the risks and consequences of these procedures. Challenging the dogma or asking critical questions is considered a sin itself, even when done with excessive caution for other’s feelings. Violence towards known dissenting groups is considered not just ok, but admirable. Expressions of this desire for violence against the out-group is seen as virtuous to the point that doing it too much will be taken as virtue signalling rather than a sign of deep-seeded anger issues as it would for any other situation. Self-identity is their belief system, and public shame are their tools of punishment to control those within the belief system. Due to sex denial, females suffer especially in this paradigm no matter how they identify or what presentations they choose.

However,

Radical Feminism

Once again, I want to make clear that these conclusions were mainly drawn from my direct experience with the radfem community from within. I am not relying on critics of the radical feminist ideology to tell me any of this, though they may echo similar observations.

Radical feminism, as it exists today in action and not in theories from the 1990s, has a huge problem with transphobia, homophobia, and racism. The focus has shifted almost entirely from protecting women to attacking trans women, understandable on some level but counter-productive to all but the individual ego. There is a preoccupation with what women are “allowed” to do, rather than whether their actions and the consequences of those actions actually benefit the cause of anti-sexism. People feel entitled to be nasty, hurtful and even downright transphobic and homophobic if it means hurting their “enemies” somehow. I’m not sure if they fail to see the big picture or have just given up on caring, but it makes all their pleas for compassion and an end to the trans community’s homophobia seem pretty disingenuous.

This focus on “women deserve more as reparations”, when self-applied to the individual, does nothing to combat sexism as these self serving actions often do little to stop sexism and everything to benefit the individual currently existing within a sexist system. It totally ignores the vital role women play in perpetrating sexism through the generations, from mother to daughter or sister or sister or peer to peer through an intricate web of social pressures.Its not totally ignored mind you, but it is conveniently unaddressed whenever addressing it would prevent them from acting aggressive and toxic toward someone else. However others in the community who aren’t personally benefitting from this at the time will notice, thus leading to endless pointless arguments as the egos clash.

This hypocrisy undermines all attempts at broadening their reach to a new generation of women. Similarly, this toxic attitude undermines all opportunity for organization and real activism which requires a certain level of tolerance and the ability to give basic respect to those you don’t like or agree with. All those who do not tolerate such behavior will simply assume radical feminism must be a hate movement because all they see is vitriol and toxicity, no matter how justified the perpetrator feels about it or the underlying motivators. They will not take the time to read theory because they’ve already seen the practice and they have the sense to know it’s bad. Then when these newcomers see this bad behavior for what it is, they’re belittled or deprived of their agency for their decision to turn away from your movement, called things like “handmaidens” and accused of being either selfishly misogynistic or plainly brainwashed, driving them ever further away. The refusal to take responsibility for your own image and the consequences of your behavior under some false impression of ideological purity justifying it only further cements this takeaway outsiders have.

The most egregious example that comes to mind is the “queers” issue. Radfems are adamant about queer being slur, and they’re right. I myself grew up having queer flung at me by violent straight men and I’m not even that old. I feel no joy in the sanitation and generalization of the term. That is not reclamation, that is erasure and appropriation of pain. Most radfems agree on this wholeheartedly. That is, until you decide to spell it “kweer” and start flinging it at trans people who fit a particular homophobic stereotype: strange appearances, unorthodox body modifications like piercing and colored hair, unwashed, perverted to the point of being predatory, self important children who are just playing pretend to be different. All these qualities call back to the stereotype of queers, gays, and it is deeply intrenched in homophobia going back generations. And yet, while radfems would condemn the trans community for the appropriation of queer and its homophobic implications, they have no problem employing it as a slur when it suits their own toxic impulses.

Some even seem to believe that misspelling the word or being homosexual themselves absolves this. It does not. Anybody without the blinders of radfem internal rhetoric will quickly see past this nonsense. If the trans community came back and started calling radfems “diques” and associating the term with severely lesbophobic stereotypes like being unwashed or too ugly to get a man or any of the other countless stereotypes around the slur “dyke”, radfems would be rightly livid. Making a point to only target straight radfems with this insult would not make it any different. But addressing these kinds of hypocritical positions has become a taboo within the radfem community, yet another spark to relight the fires of senseless infighting.

This is the worst example I’ve personally seen, but it is not the only one. There’s also the tendency for radfems, desperate for others who are gender critical to connect with, to make alliances with right wing conservatives despite their racism and homophobia simply because they’re also transphobic but for completely different reasons. And also a tendency to be much more forgiving of misogyny coming from these new “allies” that will glady destroy you too once trans people are out of the way. But I will not labor my point any further by bringing up everything all at once. Regardless, for those who harp on and on about getting to the root of the problem, the moment anyone suggests you try getting to the root of your own problems, taking accountability and making changes, all that self-righteous posturing seems to go out the window just like it does in the trans community. You’ve become a reflection of what you hate in an attempt to combat it, and it will be the death of your movement if you don’t make a serious effort to reform these behaviors and distance yourself from those who employ these forms of rhetoric.

It’s a harsh fact, but the world at large does not care what you deserve, just like sexual biology doesn’t care about your personal feelings about your sex. It just doesn’t. That’s why patriarchy exists in the first place. It is your job as a social movement to use your words and actions to convince them to care. That is what the trans community has managed to do successfully, in my opinion often for the wrong reasons but successfully nonetheless, but such things do not stroke the ego of the individual radfem and therefore simply doesn’t happen in an organized, ideology-wide manner. Small islands of rational stand isolated in a sea of this pointless vitriol, and alone they are hopeless against the attacks against radical feminism born from the trans community and their sex denial that leads to egregious misogyny.

Conclusion

When it comes to the underlying theory, the ideological core, I find that radical feminism has the best chance of growing to become a social movement for genuinely good change in the world, particularly for women and women-loving-women specifically. Trans ideology, in my opinion, is inherently flawed as its core tenants require faith in what one cannot prove and a rejection of science that doesn’t support said faith.

Trans ideology as it exists in 2020 is more akin to religion than science, and has proven its capability to do harm through its use of magical thinking and distorted points of view that constantly shift and change to make space for the core trans ideology to be “correct”. Core ideas such as: sex is either fake or less relevant than gender, that gender is an objective fact of the human psyche, that others failing to fix your own poor mental health are responsible for your harm or death, that transition is always a good idea if someone wants it and no gatekeeping should be performed regarding using plastic surgery to treat mental discomforts, and so on. Remove all these ideas, and the whole thing falls apart.

Meanwhile, removing the toxicity of the radfem community as it exists now will not destroy its underlying core beliefs. Its just that the current people who advertise themselves as radfems and take up that mantle do not actually follow the core ideology of their own movement when it doesn’t benefit them. It has been infiltrated and run amok with bad faith actors who abuse the movement for personal gain, whether they are aware of it or not. And with their combination of being excessively vocal and lacking any shame for their misdeeds, more and more are drawn into their toxic games to the point that the ones who actually speak to the spirit of the core theory get drowned out or attacked to the point none will associate with them openly. The ones who actually know the theory and practice it end up effectively shunned from a community that widely hasn’t even read the theory and thinks hating trans people and thinking pussy = superior makes them a radfem. And thus, by allowing this, that is what radical feminism has become in practice. No amount of appealing to that core philosophy will matter if the actual people don’t apply that theory properly.

So my conclusion? Radical feminism has the greatest potential for good, but it is grossly unrealized and will remain that way without radical internal changes. However, if anyone is equipped to get to the root of the problem and make a radical change it should be radfems. Or at least, the good faith radfems who aren’t abusing the movement, of which I’m convinced have become the minority of radfems in the present day. Perhaps it is time for feminism to once again branch off, not to try returning to the 2nd wave but to set the stage for a true 4th wave as many have talked about. A 4th wave that is based on the foundations set by 2nd wave feminist thinkers, but forward thinking, self-critiquing, and not limited by the hangups of the last wave. I guess only time will tell what radfems value more: their egos in attachment to the idea of identifying as a radfem, or the effective dis-empowerment of patriarchy through organized effort at the expense of satisfying your personal vendettas against all men.

[thejakeformerlyknownasprince]

I don't know how much this adds to the discussion regarding Animorphs being children's lit, but I think it's important to keep in mind that kids' books can get away with heavier themes than kids' shows tend to, so if someone's coming into the discussion with the framework of "for children" they may need to keep in mind that as a book it can cover more ground than a tv show that grownups just have to glance at to decide if it's "too much" for their kiddos (whether it is too much or not).

This definitely adds to the discussion of Animorphs as children’s lit!  I think you’re hitting the nail right on the head.  Many people don’t realize this (I didn’t realize this until I was in college and had a class on the subject) but television shows have to justify themselves to a metric shitton of people before they’re allowed to go on the air.  Books only have to justify themselves to a moderate-sized committee, if that.

People who have the power to veto content on TV shows include (but are not limited to): individual writers who have a particular idea, head writers who don’t like the idea, script editors who might take it out, directors who refuse to film what they don’t like, videographers or artists who add their own creative vision to ideas, visual effects teams who can cut things based on budget, voice actors who can protest decisions they don’t like, episode editors who might take an idea out, producers who won’t back anything that might cause controversy, studio executives who can pull content that’s not “on brand,” national network crews that can decide not to air certain content, local network crews that can also decide not to air certain content, and future “backers” who might decide not to invest in a show based on its content.

People who have the power to veto content in books include: the author with the idea, the agent who publicizes it, the editor who polishes it, and the publishing agent who sells the idea.  At most.

Nowadays, one can self-publish one’s own work with ZERO outside input, or else very little.  The Martian was read by exactly two (2!) people before Andy Weir put it on the internet, and it became an international bestseller.  It would be possible to make a self-published TV show with that little outside input… but most platforms wouldn’t promote it, and would probably take it down if it got hate-reported or had content violations.  Not only that, but (as Cates pointed out) books get edited as content that has already been written, in a story that already exists.  Shows get edited in the context of deciding whether it’s worth the trouble to write an idea that’s still hypothetical.

Television is ultra-conservative (in the sense of never rocking any boats in any direction) because it has to please hundreds of people with creative input and to justify its multi-million-dollar budgets.  Books can reach the minimum production value necessary to be good with the influence of one person (okay, lbr, two people) and fifty bucks for printing or web-hosting fees.  That’s the reason that only 42% of non-animated roles and 39% of animated roles go to women on TV, including only 12% of non-animated roles and 4% of animated roles going to women of color.  By contrast, 63% of children’s lit on The Atlantic’s bestsellers list is written by women, about female protagonists; that’s not counting books by men about female protagonists.  (They didn’t collect data on authors’ ethnicity; if anyone has this stat, HMU.)

It’s the reason that Arthur just made national news THIS FUCKING YEAR by depicting a same-sex (traditional) (Christian-coded) wedding ceremony, one that local networks in Alabama chose not to air.  Meanwhile, in 2015 Cates presented a conference paper about the history of kids’ picture books with queer protagonists, a history that goes back to 1981 (Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin) and covers such mainstream 1990s series as Bruce Coville’s Magic Shop and Dav Pilkey’s Captain Underpants.  We see the importance of the lack of gatekeepers: for instance, the author of Heather Has Two Mommies struggled to get a mainstream children’s press to pick up her book, so she went to a lesbian publisher, which ended up creating an entirely new branch for children’s books.  (Apparently there were entire publishing houses just for lesbian books in 1987?  The more you know.)  One other interesting case study for queer content is Gore Vidal: in 1948 he published what would today be classified as a YA gay romance novel (The City and the Pillar) but in 1959 he had to “code” and hide the queer content in the Hollywood film (Ben-Hur) that he also wrote.  Television to this day uses queer-coding in lieu of actual romance, especially when it’s kids’ TV (see: Legend of Korra or Adventure Time), while children’s literature has already made the push all the way into demanding that the queer romances in Grasshopper Jungle and Geography Club be more intersectional.

To be clear, it’s not like children’s books have carte blanche in this regard — Applegate and Grant have both apologized for having to code Mertil and Gafinilan rather than just marrying them off, and have expressed regret over not getting to write an openly bisexual Marco or openly trans Tobias.  But kids’ books can still fly under the radar of the wowsers in a way that kids’ shows often cannot.

Anyway.  Queer representation is obviously just one of a plethora of issues that get very different treatment in children’s books vs. children’s shows.  There are plenty of others.  Children’s shows can depict violence, but have to treat it as silly or inconsequential and avoid showing blood.  (Because that’s a great way to teach kids about not harming others!!!)  Children’s books can have as much blood — and, apparently, as many spilled entrails — as they would like, as long as those things don’t happen in the first couple of pages or make the cover summary.  Neal Shusterman is responsible for some of the most cringe-inducingly silly AniTV episodes, and also some of the most brutally unflinching works of children’s literature I’ve ever read.  American screen media are no longer subject to the Hays Code, but its marks still remain.  American literature has pretty much always been the Wild West, and with the advent of online self-publishing, the west is getting wilder.

Don’t judge a book by its movie.  And don’t judge a book by its show.  AniTV is tame and silly, treating its violence as inconsequential and its characters’ mental health struggles as harmlessly or innocent.  Animorphs has the courage to show that when you shoot a man he doesn’t just silently fall over and disappear but bleeds and screams and dies, that being a victim or a perpetrator of such violence can leave even “innocent kids” fighting for their lives against PTSD and depression.  It has the courage… but it also has the freedom to do so.  That’s an extremely important distinction that should not be overlooked.

[aboycalledeverything]

An In-depth Response to JK Rowling from a Transman

**CW: transphobia, suicide, surgery, discrimination, assault**

Let me first say that we should not allow this conversation to derail the progress and momentum of the Black Lives Matter movement. Though race and sexuality intersect in many fascinating and important ways, it is important to allow the voices of our BlPOC to be heard and amplified for as long as it takes for meaningful, sweeping changes to be made in our society. That being said, I would be remiss if I did not take the time to process and respond to the conversation you have chosen to bring to the table. 

TLDR: To JK’s assertion that trans women threaten the political and biological class of ‘women’,  Acknowledging that trans women are women is not the erosion of a political and biological class. It is strengthening those classes by accepting the women who, despite all threats of assault or death, stand by their identity and celebrate womanhood.

Let me also begin by saying thank you. For surviving, for persisting, for blessing the world with the gift of magic. The books-which-need-not-be-named were and are pillars of my childhood, identity, and life philosophy. I will never stop finding solace in the pages of those books. 

Before we can continue the conversation, I need to introduce myself. I am a (relatively) young white transman and former D1 softball player. I chose to defer physical transition but came out socially as a transman in my sophomore year and was one of the few openly trans NCAA athletes at the time. I was also a student, and spent a large portion of my collegiate career studying LGBTQ+ issues and how they connect to human psychology. My senior capstone was a paper titled “Transmen and Suicide: Unique Contributors to a Disproportionately High Suicide Attempt Rate.” This involved both an in-depth literature review of trans research and theory as well as an independent collection and analysis of transman testimonies. The year after graduation was spent as a Lab Coordinator for the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity: Health and Human Rights Lab at the University of Texas at Austin which does phenomenal sociological and psychological research on queer youth in particular. This is not to say that I am an expert, but rather to make it clear that I, too, have spent years researching the fraught topics of gender and sexuality.

Thank you for referring to my trans brothers as “notably sensitive and clever people.” We do try to use the unique empathy granted by being seen and treated as both women and men. Most of us grew up as girls and have been targeted by the misogyny and sexism that you reference; we try to use those experiences to inform our responses and opinions to societal issues. I, specifically, am going to use my lived experiences to respond to your essay. There are some points with which I agree and appreciate your recognition - freedom of speech, the importance of nuanced conversation, and the fact that both women and trans people are at disproportionate risk of violence and must be safeguarded. There are other points with which I take umbrage and will address one by one.

JKR: “It’s been clear to me for a while that the new trans activism is having (or is likely to have, if all its demands are met) a significant impact on many of the causes I support, because it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.”

Response:  Let’s be clear: trans activists - at least the majority of us - are not trying to erase sex as a definition. Instead, we are asking that the parameters be reconsidered to make space for intersex people and who have biologically transitioned. Your points about the biological differences in treatments for MS are well taken. Ignoring intersex people and focusing on only the binary sexes male and female, you’re right. There are often sex differences in diseases and health disorders. But the problem is that we don’t always know what drives those differences; if they’re based on hormones, physical bodies, or something else entirely. Intersex and trans people, if they choose, now have the medical capability to change their hormones and physical bodies to the extent that they can be classified as male or female.

I’m not going to give you a full explanation on sex as an expression of levels of hormones, chromosomes, and physical organs. I’m sure you already know that both biological men and women have varying amounts of the same hormones, and that hormone replacement therapy can and does give trans men and women the hormonal levels that correspond to each definition. I have been taking testosterone for just under 2 years and, for all intents and purposes, have the chemistry of a biological man. In the same way, surgeries can and do affect physical biology and organ makeup, from removal or reconstruction of a penis or vagina to the removal of ovaries and uterus entirely. 

This creates a gray area as to how to medically treat diseases like MS in trans people. We’re still learning, and I’ll be the first to admit that. What I can say is that there are many binary trans people who are not trying to replace legal definitions of sex with gender, but rather are trying to expand the legal definitions of sex to those who, for all intents and purposes, are biologically male or female.

JKR: “I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.”

Response:  I would very much like to see the studies that you are referencing in this “huge explosion” of detransitioning individuals. If you’re referencing the article by Lisa Littman, it is definitely worth noting that her study was a) descriptive rather than empirical and b) based on the testimonials of parents and not the actual trans youth.

According to a different and arguably more experienced researcher, Dr. Johanna Olsen, regret and detransitioning as you talk about it are extremely rare. I encourage you to watch her video below and read over some of the other research she is and has been doing.

Even if we were to listen to descriptive research such as Littman’s and assume that there are people who wish to detransition, the lack of fertility you’re talking about is not universal and, as with people assigned female at birth, varies. According to recent studies, trans men who wish to reproduce biologically can take a break from testosterone while carrying their children and resume afterwards. So far, there are no negative side effects for the children of transmen.

What should also be considered, especially in youth, is that hormone blockers are entirely reversible. But puberty is not. When trans children are put on hormone blockers, they are essentially delaying permanent puberty and taking time to examine whether it’s right for them. Access to medical care such as hormone blockers are essential to trans youth because it does give them time to figure out their identity before going through the male or female puberty that affects them.

I have not seen any cases of transition driven by homophobia, but would like to note that working to make parents less homophobic and transphobic seems to be a better use of time than arguing against the right of many trans youth who do need access to medical intervention.

JKR: “The argument of many current trans activists is that if you don’t let a gender dysphoric teenager transition, they will kill themselves. In an article explaining why he resigned from the Tavistock (an NHS gender clinic in England) psychiatrist Marcus Evans stated that claims that children will kill themselves if not permitted to transition do not ‘align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area. Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist.’”

Response: This point is one of the more frustrating parts of your article because it is using one medical professional’s opinion to ignore a horrifying truth. Trans adults and youths experience suicidality and depression at staggering rates. While I cannot comment on studies in the UK, here in the US the lifetime suicide ideation rates for trans adults is 81.7%. The attempt rate is 40.4%, almost 10x the national average of 4.6%. 

And those are just the statistics of the people who survived long enough to participate in the study. Denying the real threat of suicidality in trans youth is not only saddening - it is actively harmful.

JKR: “The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.”

Response: This is one of the most frequent arguments I see for people denying trans men their identity. My own mother has suggested that I transitioned to escape sexism. To this, I respond that choosing to transition does not provide an escape to discrimination and harrassment. I was well aware, when choosing to come out and transition, of the statistics of discrimination I was entering. I was well aware that it might mean the loss of my athletic scholarship, the dismissal of the team of sisters that I played on, It was not a matter of escaping sexism, but rather a matter of being my most authentic self. Even if you dismiss my own personal experience, I would point to the trans women who actively transition and give up their male privilege in exchange for the trials and tribulations of womanhood. Either way, I can assure you that the suicidality trans people experience makes the “choice” to transition no more of a choice than raising your hands because a gun is pointed at your head. 

JKR:  “ I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria”

Response:  I appreciate your recognition of our reality! I would love to see the studies that present a 30% difference. In my experience, those of us that lived long enough to see adulthood have not grown out of dysphoria, even if we’ve learned coping strategies to make it bearable. And again, hormone blockers for teens allow the opportunity for them to grow however they need to without permanent changes being made.

JKR:  “So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.”

Response:  Once again I cannot speak to the politics or legislation of the UK. What I can say is that “bathroom bans” on trans people that require us to use the fitting room/bathroom/locker room of the sex we were assigned at birth lead to significant sexual and physical assault on trans people, which already face a disproportionate risk (as you mentioned). I personally have been fortunate enough to have not been physically assaulted when I was trying to go to the bathroom, but have been harassed in both mens and womens bathrooms (which I varied between during my transition, depending on how well I thought I was passing). Many of my friends are not as lucky.

JKR:  “But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive.”

Response:  The implication that trans women - who are literally dying to be acknowledged as women - putting on a “costume” is flagrantly offensive. I am choosing to believe that you did not intend this implication and instead are confusing sex and gender. In which case,would refer you to the seminal work Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity by Judith Butler. According to her, gender is literally a performance that one chooses to express. Transwomen define their gender and femininity as individuals, and do not choose to go through the grueling process of changing their biological sex because they like Jimmy Choos. The gender ‘woman’ is not a “pink brain” but rather an identity that can be inwardly cultivated and outwardly expressed. The sex ‘woman’ or female is an amalgamation of complex physiological systems that, as we’ve already discussed, can be altered. 

JKR: “I refuse to bow down to a movement...” 

Response: There is undeniably a movement, a “cancel culture” that dismisses nuanced conversation. I, like you, am concerned about the erosion of free speech and the expression of alternative points of view in nuanced discussions such as this one. But this movement is not specific to trans people and should not be described as such. Most trans activists and researchers that I know are not asking you to “bow down.” We’re asking you to come to the table and have an open mind. We’re asking you to use your huge platform to help trans people (as you clearly want to) without harming them (as you clearly have).

JKR: “...that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it.”

Response: This is the crux of the “TERF wars”. The refusal to accept trans women as women. To this, I would simply say: Acknowledging that trans women are women is not the erosion of a political and biological class. It is strengthening those classes by accepting the women who, despite all threats of assault or death, stand by their identity and celebrate womanhood.

[thevividgreenmoss]

Men, compounded by straightness and whiteness as applicable, are the worst theorists of loneliness. They operate from the mind-boggling assumption that there must be something structurally wrong with the world if they are faced with any indication that it does not wish to keep company with them. They can fathom no structural reasons as to why they might be deemed unwanted. Even the U.K.-based Campaign to End Loneliness (which does useful work focused on the demographic of aged people of all genders) claims that “nobody who wants company should be without it.” If you try, however, to apply this logic to childcare, health care, a minimum wage, or housing, you’ll be told that there are structural reasons why your needs are impractical. And pointing out that sex workers, like massage- and psychotherapists, are also in the business of treating loneliness and should therefore be able to negotiate for ethical recompense just leads to morality lectures. Companionship for men, as patriarchy tells us, is the natural order of things, and there must be something terribly wrong if a Regular Nice Guy has to pay for it.

Because straight white men refuse to recognize their own unpalatability, they come up with solutions to loneliness that appropriate the rhetoric of justice- and freedom-based ideologies without actually engaging in any rigorous structural analyses of their culpability in oppression. They don’t want revolutionary change but merely a polite tolerance that would make them more bearable. And this selfishness renders them incompetent to address the structures of loneliness as a social ill.

There are, broadly, two kinds of structural lonelinesses. One is the benign loneliness of the socially alienated, the other the malignant melancholy of the erstwhile master.

The loneliness of the oppressed is the condition of being exiled, being shunned, or having to flee relationship and community structures that have become abusive. All support structures can warp under toxicity, and family and community are especially vulnerable to the impositions of structural oppressions because of the unrelenting intimacy they demand from their constituents. The violence that patriarchy, casteism, racism, capitalism, and cisheterocentrism enact is multifaceted, but all of these structural oppressions remove the nourishment of companionship from the spaces they operate in. To be oppressed by any of these is to encounter loneliness.

Domestic-abuse survivors, migrant laborers, queer young people, religious minorities, ethnic transplants, non-men in organized workforces, people living with disabilities either physical or mental: These are some of the people who have loneliness thrust upon them. They are punished, as an identity, for existing, because prejudiced people with structural power around them reject them. That they face multiple kinds of bigotries, violences, and dehumanizations does not detract from the severity of the loneliness imposed on them, and to not notice that amidst all their other problems and griefs that they are also lonely, as soul-churningly lonely as any sad white boy with an MFA, is part of the crime humanity commits against itself.

Another social pattern of loneliness is particularly wretched because it is deemed a self-imposed choice by an indifferent observer. This is the loneliness we have to choose in order to protect our bodily needs: sexual safety, privacy, self-identity, self-worth, freedom, integrity. An epidemic that no surgeon general seems to have thought to talk about is that of domestic violence and partner rape. Men are often in the habit of asking why women choose to stay in abusive relationships. It does not occur to them that the oft cited “prolonged loneliness being equivalent to 15 cigarettes a day” might be a factor, in addition to every other indirect isolating consequence like financial vulnerability and societal disapproval. There is some—albeit scarce—visibility given to the loneliness of women surrounded by men—outliers in white-collar jobs, visitors to segregated spaces, travelers on the street, migrants in phallic territory. But there is almost no structural cognizance taken of the loneliness of women trapped inside family spaces. Public policy takes note of the elderly who live on their own and who are lonely because they have no caregivers. But what about the loneliness of those deemed caretakers? What structural analysis of loneliness accounts for mothers trapped in a space where their predominant relationship is with an immature individual who provides no reciprocal caretaking? What public cost calculation is made regarding the loneliness of children across the world whose biological families have to leave them without adequate care in pursuit of subsistence-level employment? What health care is being provided to treat the loneliness on both sides of international remittance economies across the globe?

The other kind of structural loneliness—that of the erstwhile master—is a side effect of resistance and victory. Which is not to say that MRAs are justified in blaming their loneliness on feminists but rather that their alienation is a symptom of the malignant misogyny that feminism has finally been able to diagnose and quarantine for. The modern male urgency to calculate the economic burden of their loneliness is appropriated from the struggle to ensure men pay a fair price for the care work they need to alleviate it.

...It is imperative to resist the disproportionate foregrounding of cishet male loneliness because the structurally oppressed manifest their benign loneliness symptoms differently from those who suffer from the malignant disease of thwarted entitlement. Buried inside the lonely-men essays is the threat disguised as suggestion that we feel concern for Lonely Men because Lonely Men can turn violent. This is a red herring in much the same way that alcoholism is used as an excuse for male violence; the problem isn’t alcohol or loneliness but patriarchal masculinity. Meanwhile no surgeon general is declaring racism or misogyny to be an epidemic despite the increasing number of people literally being killed by men “suffering” from these states of mind. It takes a special kind of self-centeredness to be able to cite stats that show that marriage hurts women’s life expectancy and continue to advocate it as a solution to save lonely men instead of trying to fix the toxic husband syndrome that is killing women. Men who demand that women concern themselves with the problem of lonely men in order to ensure their own safety are issuing the same hackneyed threats that patriarchy entrenches—a disguised demand that women invest their energy in socializing boys, in dating men, in doing even more care work than we already do.

Looking at some of the funded programs tackling the “epidemic” it becomes clear that creating spaces where men can feel free to be misogynists is one of the effects of how men warp community responses to loneliness. The first Men’s Shed—a community space where mostly older men could get together to work with their hands and socialize—was set up in Australia in 1998 and by 2010 was receiving funding from the Australian government under its National Male Health Policy. (There are no Men’s Sheds for any of the men trapped in Australia’s detention centers for the crime of being refugees on a boat.) According to the U.K. Men’s Shed Association the rate of growth of Men’s Sheds is between six and nine new sheds a month. (The U.K. government is planning to remove domestic-abuse shelters from housing benefits. On average in England men kill two women a week.) Public policy approves of self-segregating spaces with “old-fashioned mateship and . . . no pressure” (a liability-free way to say “No Homo No Feminist Cooties”) where men can be cajoled and lured into being cared for. Meanwhile sex workers, drug users, and transgender people are more likely to be harassed and jailed by police than be provided with spaces where they can be gently encouraged to talk about their loneliness.

The Malignant Melancholy

[understandingsexwork-blog]

Understanding Sex Work and Applying an Intersectional Lens to Provide Resources to Grand Rapids Sex Workers

By Lauren Monahan, Kayla Kaminski, Marissa DeGonia, and Larenz Rivero

Sex work can be defined as a commercial exchange of a sexual service for money or other benefits such as housing, transportation, drugs, or more. This term is used to describe a wide range of transactions, and does not mean that all sex workers are one homogenous group. Some types of sex workers are escorts, exotic dancers, dominatrices, phone sex operators, sensual massage professionals, actors in adult films, or other professions that involve the trade of sex or erotic performances (Avenatti). Most frequently, the definition of sex work is limited to work that explicitly either involves sex or sexual gestures. This neglects the emotional work that takes place in the sex work industry and provides a limited scope to the needs and experiences of sex workers.

The language we use when speaking about sex work is important. The way we talk about sex work is not neutral as it influences the way people think about sex work and the way policy is created (Stella 2013). The language used to describe sex work and sex workers varies depending upon the type of sex work, the region, and the historical context. The language we use explains the differences in the histories of different kinds of sex workers, and the language used is often times framed in a very stereotypical and simplistic way. This erases the complexity of the lived realities of sex workers, whether they be good or bad (Stella 2013). Because the words that sex workers use to describe their experiences and their identities can be used to discredit them and enact violence, the words they themselves use may differ depending on who they are communicating with. While within their respective communities they may respect everyone’s choice of language to identify themselves, they may not use the same language when talking to people outside of that community. In this light, it is important to remember that language is culturally and linguistically specific and means different things depending on its translation and cultural context. The difference in language used is complicated and has many layers, but when an intersectional lens is employed we can begin to see how word choice intersects with intention and meaning.

For example, when speaking about consensual and forced sex work, there is a tendency to rush towards distinguishing between the two terms. It may be easy to draw a strict line in saying that consensual sex work is done by choice and forced sex work is not work, but rather abuse or assault. While it is important to acknowledge the difference between the two, there can be unintended consequences of doing so. By having a public opinion that sees sex work within this binary, the perspective that some sex workers should be blamed and criminalized while others should be victimized and saved becomes prominent. This can lead to a black-and-white public thought around the issue that can silence the voices of actual sex workers within the profession. Another unintended consequence is that it obscures the difference between good and bad working conditions (Stella 2013). Although workers may consent to the act, they may not consent to the working conditions they experience. A person may consent to a certain act but feel forced to do so in an area or setting by outside forces. This is why it is important that sex work is looked at through an evidence based, human rights advocacy lens. If we start raising the voices of sex workers over those that seek to simply criminalize or victimize them, we can start to move towards improving the conditions that all sex workers operate within so that each worker has the opportunity to decide what, where, and how they should perform in their profession.

Another complicated and racialized aspect of language present in sex work discourse is that around the word ‘pimp’. This word indicates a gendered, racialized, and classist image of who third party managers are in the industry (Stella 2013). This erases the diversity present amongst third party roles and creates a damaging narrative against poor men of color. By using the word ‘pimp,’ porn directors and producers, massage parlor managers, and escort service managers--as well as their potentially empowering or exploitative techniques are ignored.

Sex Work and LGBTQ Experiences

In an interview with the three New York City based activists Amber Hollibaugh, Ignacio Rivera, and Felix Gardon, sex work in relation to queer politics is explained. Sex work has always had a place amongst queer and trans communities. It has been both a source of income and livelihood as well as an issue that has shaped “the space between social and political margins and the centralities of queer and trans communities” (Shah 2012) It is impossible to speak about sex work without acknowledging its deep interweaving history with trans and queer communities, as well as how it intersects with race. The intersection between the marginalized identities of queer and trans people with the marginalization of sex workers cannot be ignored. It is the social factors around sex work, HIV transmission, poverty, and incarceration that connect to form a more complete picture of how sex work is neither victimless nor fully suppressive.

Sex work for many is seen as a problem, with sex workers being the victims. Amber Hollibaugh explain how the relationship between victimization and self empowerment through sex work is complicated. For Amber and many sex workers she knew, sex work was a privilege compared to the other options available. There were many reasons as to why people consensually choose to engage in sex work. People choose to do sex work during times of unemployment, as a way to do community organizing, or because their marginalized identities left them with few other choices.. For others, like activist and sex worker Ignacio Rivera, sex work was a way out of poverty while also being an avenue to pursue activism they felt other lesbian and gay organizations were ignoring. Others became sex workers to pay for school. Regardless of the reason, there are many workers who engage in sex work while also holding legal jobs to support their financial needs.

Historically, the lens that non-normative sex has been perceived through has conflated LGBTQ identities and sex work. To the police in New York, during the 1960’s-1980’s, being visibly LGBTQ was indicative of being a sex worker and LGBTQ people were incarcerated at high rates. At the time, people could be arrested for prostitution for merely carrying a condom on them. Hallibaugh reports that about half of the sex workers she worked with in New York City were “endlessly incarcerated” (Shah 2012). By understanding the way that LGBTQ narratives are intertwined with the negative narratives of sex work, we can better see that sex work is not inherently problematic, just as LGBTQ identities are not. Rather, society’s notion of normative sex and bodies creates problematic situations for sex workers.

The successful attempt to marginalize and stratify sex work is a function of a greater cause to regulate bodies. Bodies “have been regulated by the state, starting with slavery and forced sterilizations, to the scare tactics around HIV and STDs and sex work” (Shah 2012). This is all to dictate the way that people should use their bodies, and when those people do not use their bodies in that way they are ostracized, marginalized, and discriminated against. This leads to violence against sex workers and marginalized groups that is validated by the underlying ideologies set forth by the state. By looking at the ways that bodies have been controlled throughout history, we can see that bodies are and have been controlled by race and sexuality, where black people are the most controlled and sex outside reproduction being considered immoral or vagrant. This, allows us to see the multiple societal forces that stigmatize sex work.

In order to create safer environments and long lasting ideologies that destigmatize sex workers, sexual liberation must be considered. By seeing sex work as a path to sexual liberation, we get closer to seeing sex work as legitimate work. It is important to validate this profession because it leads to more open discussions that focus on harm reduction and prevention for the sex work industry. By removing the negative stigma from sex work and legitimizing it as a form of work, LGBTQ people and other marginalized groups who have been ostracized from other forms of normative work because of their identities have a legitimate avenue to make their living and to create community.

Overall, this change to destigmatizing and decriminalizing sex work allows individuals to express their own bodily autonomy, reduces the power of the state in regulating bodies, and works towards expanding the narrow category of what normative bodies must be and how they must act. The activists interviewed assert that we need to see race, class, gender, and sexuality as intersecting and to see the way that power constitutes them.

Decriminalization vs. Legalization of Sex Work

There has been debate over whether decriminalization is better than legalization of sex work. Distinguishing the difference is vital in terms of legislation regarding sex work. Although both legalization and decriminalization sound appealing for the rights of sex workers, the former carries with it many unintended consequences.

University of Rhode Island professor Donna Hughes explains the two terms as follows: “Legalization would mean the regulation of prostitution with laws regarding where, when, and how prostitution could take place. Decriminalization eliminates all laws and prohibits the state and law-enforcement officials from intervening in any prostitution-related activities or transactions, unless other laws apply.” Even though legalizing prostitution is often seen as a tolerant, practical solution, the legalized model “disproportionately excludes sex workers who are already marginalized, like people who use drugs or who are undocumented”, Smith argues. One key fact to remember is that those who resort to sex work as an occupation are often doing so as means of support for their children and/or living expenses. Research has shown that criminalizing the acts of sex workers “creates conditions of impunity and enhances sex workers’ vulnerabilities to violence and exploitation, including trafficking.” Therefore, those that make a living doing sex work in a society that criminalizes it are forced to work in more vulnerable situations, increasing the risk of abuse, violence, and sex trafficking. Another reason sex workers may not prefer legalization is that it provides a new system for controlling bodies, which is exactly the opposite of what sex workers want from legalization (Lutnick 2009). The process it takes to legally work in the sex industry is extensive and requires getting permits and subjecting oneself to medical exams. By placing standards of who can do sex work under a legalized system, bodies are controlled and deemed acceptable or not for sex work.

Failing to comply with the legal rules of sex work would make a sex worker a criminal. The consequences of having sexual crimes on one’s record range far and wide, further marginalizing sex workers. Having a charge for prostitution, for example, can affect housing, employment, and the opportunity to receive social benefits. This further limits the chances of getting out of the sex work industry if one wishes to do so.

Many sex workers have opted for decriminalization instead of legalization (Lutnick 2009). It provides freedom, safety, and support while allowing people control over their own bodies. Decriminalization would essentially make sex work operate as any other business would. This would enable workers to seek out legal help and support to deal with exploitive and unsafe working conditions. It also allows sex workers to be able to employ the police for their protection, which would reduce the amount of immobility experienced by sex workers who may be trapped in bad situations. By decriminalizing sex work, the process of de-stigmatizing sex work is furthered and open negotiations create consent and safer conditions.

An article in the AMA Journal of Ethics by Erin Albright and Kate D'Adamo argues four reasons to oppose criminalizing sex work:

increased violence 

erosion of trust

increased vulnerability

stigma

When sex workers are pushed into more vulnerable communities, not only does their risk of violence increase but they are more prone to never report that violence. Fear of judgment, discrimination, and a lower quality of service erodes trust between healthcare professionals and sex workers. As previously mentioned, having a record with prostitution increases one’s vulnerability in terms of limited employment opportunities, housing options, and chance to receive any social benefits. Lastly, criminalization fuels stigma. “Research supports the fact that sex workers are some of the most marginalized people in the world,” says Albright and D’Adamo. “Too often, sex workers are spoken for instead of given a platform for speaking themselves, and a result is a lack of recognition and enforcement of their basic human rights.”

Criminalizing sex work ultimately creates the cycle of the discrimination and marginalization of sex workers. Decriminalizing sex work would counter the stigma against sex work and be a large step into reducing the harm and violence sex workers often encounter.

Sex Work in Michigan

A study was conducted in 2004 by the State of Michigan called “HIV/AIDS and Health Related Needs Among Commercial Sex Workers in Michigan” in search of statistics and research from commercial sex workers on their health related needs, expectations and resources for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS. 59 subjects participated from Benton Harbor, Grand Rapids, Detroit, Flint, and Ypsilanti which were given structured self-reported interviews on their experience for exchanging sex for drugs and money (Lapinski-LaFaive 2004). Data from the study showed that the majority of participants were from Detroit and that their number one fear of contributing to sex work was contracting HIV/AIDS despite 90% of the participants reporting that they had been tested for HIV/AIDS in the past.

Data from the study showed:

Detroit had the highest percentage of interviews conducted.

22% of the participants expressed their main concern was contracting HIV/AIDS.

13.6% responded to getting killed or injured was their primary concern.

66% of participants reported to having only one primary partner.

One of Michigan’s recommendations is to implement prevention interventions to encourage risk reduction strategies. There is limited research done on the Grand Rapids area in specific, but the Nokomis Foundation, an organization which provides help to women and girls involved in street prostitution, states that from the information known, there is estimated to be hundreds of people involved in prostitution in the city. However, there is limited awareness, knowledge, and understanding about those involved. An article by The Nokomis Foundation focused on the sex work and prostitution rates within Grand Rapids and stated that within Grand Rapids, the crack/cocaine influx was proportional to the prostitution rates in the areas of Fulton and 28th Street. Popular areas of the city of Grand Rapids are known to be Fulton, 28th Street, Division Ave, Grandville Ave, and Madison Ave. The article references that women often partake in prostitution in Grand Rapids because of the winter weather. Some people offer their sexual services in exchange for someone taking them home at night to avoid the dangerously cold temperatures. Research on sex work and resources for sex workers within the Grand Rapids community is lacking and more research needs to be focused on this portion of Michigan’s population.

Resources

Importance of Access to Resources

Due to criminalization of sex work within the United States, sex workers are often left without access to the same resources that other members of their community can access. Criminalization escalates risks and vulnerabilities of sex workers and often prevents them from receiving reliable sexual information, harm reduction services, medical services, legal help, and mental health services. Below, we aim to give resources to Grand Valley students, Grand Rapid residents, and local service providers to better help the community who participate in the sex work industry.  

Education for Local Service Providers

In order to have accessible resources within our community, we must push service providers to be sex work competent. We can do this by providing them information on what sex work is, important terminology, information on how criminalization adversely affects sex workers’ health, the needs and risk for people in the sex work industry, and how to effectively communicate with sex workers in our communities.

Cassandra Avenatti, an executive board member of Sex Workers Outreach Project-Chicago (SWOP), created an online training presentation titled “Understanding Sex Work & Supporting Individuals Involved in the Sex Trade” (Avenatti). This training includes an introductory lesson on the sex work industry and the criminalization of sex work, as well as guidelines that service providers should utilize when working with sex workers.

“Understanding Sex Work & Supporting Individuals Involved in the Sex Trade”

The National Healthcare for the Homeless Council also provides some competency training on sex work and some of its intersections with other social issues. These trainings come in many different formats, but some of interest for Grand Rapids businesses are the remote webinars and online courses.

Training from the National Healthcare for the Homeless Council 

Resources for Sex Workers in the Grand Rapids Area

Harm Reduction Services

Harm reduction services focus on reducing the harm caused by drug usage or other practices that can be detrimental to people’s health. The Grand Rapid’s sex worker community may find the following services useful in providing sexual healthcare and education, reducing STD/HIV transmission, reducing opioid overdoses,  LGBTQ-specific healthcare needs, and more.

The Red Project is a 501c3 non-profit organization that aims to reduce risk, provide healthcare related services, and prevent HIV transmission. A list of their many services offered can be found at redproject.org/services/, and a few are outlined below. All services are offered for free and anonymously.

Rapid HIV and Hepatitis C testing from five walk-in locations in Grand Rapids. Locations and times found by calling the number below or located on their website. Website Phone: (616) 456-9063

Needle exchange, sexual health products, and personal hygiene products. Locations and times can be located on their website. Website 

Opioid overdose reversal training and Nalaxone/Narcan dispersal. Locations and times can be located on their website. Website

Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) assistance and early intervention programs. Assistance can be found by calling the number below and asking for Nathan Bentley, the Red Project’s Early Intervention Specialist and PrEP Coordinator. Website Phone: (616) 456-9063 

San Francisco Sex Information provides free and non-judgemental information on sex practices and sexual health by phone or email. They also provide information via their website. Website Phone: (415) 989-7374 Email: ask-us@sfsi.org Planned Parenthood is a 501c3 nonprofit organization that provides healthcare for millions of people worldwide for free or reduced cost.

The Grand Rapid’s Planned Parenthood branch provides general healthcare, birth control, pregnancy testing, sexual education, abortion services, HIV services, STD testing and vaccines, LGBTQ-specific services such as hormone therapy, and more. A full list of services and how to access them can be found at their website. Website

Planned Parenthood provides an online chat or text messaging service that connect you with educators that can give answers to sexual education, birth control, pregnancy, abortion, and STD questions. Text Messaging Number: Text “PPNOW” to 774636

Sex Worker Allied Mental Health Services

Some mental healthcare providers identify themselves as sex worker allied. Below are a few that are providing services to Grand Rapids or surrounding areas that identified online as being sex worker allied.

Brenda Benjamin, Licensed Professional Counselor Located: Grandville, Michigan Phone: (616) 952-2525

Sharon Depcinski, Clinical Social Work/Therapist Located: Grand Rapids, Michigan Phone: (616) 236-2992

Victoria Fisher, Clinical Social Work/Therapist Located: Grand Rapids, Michigan Phone: (616) 710-4378

Transitional Housing & Residential Assistance

Some sex workers may choose at some point to leave the industry. Regardless of the reason, leaving the industry can be a difficult and vulnerable time. Some organizations aim to help make that transition easier by offering discreet counseling, a supportive community, and residential assistance. One such organization is Eve’s Angels, a faith-based nonprofit led by former sex workers that offers counseling, transitional housing, reintegration programs, and a supportive and understanding community.

To contact Eve’s Angels in Grand Rapids, go to their website or write to them at PO Box 150923 Grand Rapids, MI 49515 USA.

Human Trafficking Assistance

While sex work is not synonymous with sex trafficking or human trafficking, some members of the sex work industry can be at a higher risk of being human trafficked. The National Human Trafficking Hotline provides a way to report human trafficking or get safely out of human trafficking.

National Human Trafficking Resource Center Website SMS: 233733 (Text “HELP” or “INFO”) Hotline: 1 (888) 373-7888 (24 hours, 7 days a week) Languages: English, Spanish and 200 more languages

Michigan Laws Regarding Prostitution and Local Legal Assistance

Knowing Michigan law is important for sex workers who have to navigate within its constraints. Though prostitution is only one kind of sex work, it tends to be the one that is criminalized most often within states. The act of prostitution and soliciting prostitution are considered misdemeanors under Michigan laws, while pimping/pandering is considered a felony.

If you are stopped by law enforcement officers for prostitution or suspected prostitution, SWOP-MI recommends staying calm and polite with the officer, remain silent if possible, refuse consent to be searched, try to remember all details of the encounter, and ask for an attorney. It is also recommended to not attempt to run away from, resist, or lie to the officer (“What To Do”).

Michigan laws of interest for sex workers that trade sex include:

750.448-750.462 of the Michigan Penal Code, (“Michigan Penal Code,” 2009) which deals with the laws regarding prostitution.

750.451a of the Michigan Penal Code (2009), which states that prostitution laws in Michigan do not pertain to officers while they are performing their duties. While its purpose is to allow officers to go undercover without being found out, it allows room for potential abuse in that law enforcement officers can coerce vulnerable individuals into performing act of prostitution.

There are various criminal defense lawyers that serve the Grand Rapids population and specialize in prostitution or sexual crimes, including those outlined below.

The Criminal Defense Law Center West Michigan Website Phone: (616) 438-6719

The Bar One Defense Firm Website Phone: (248) 826-2565

                    References  

Albright, E., & D'Adamo, K. (2017, January 01). Decreasing Human Trafficking through Sex Work Decriminalization. Retrieved February 24, 2019, from https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/decreasing-human-trafficking-through-sex-work-decriminalization/2017-01

Avenatti, C. (n.d.). Understanding Sex Work & Supporting Individuals Involved in the Sex Trade.

Retrieved from https://www.nhchc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/cultural-competence-w-persons-involved-with-the-sex-trade_avenatti1.pdf.

Bruckert, C., Caouette, A., Clamen, J., Gillies, K. Kiselbach, S., Laliberte, E.,... Symons, E.

(2013, April). Language Matters: Talking About Sex Work. Retrieved from https://www.nswp.org/sites/nswp.org/files/StellaInfoSheetLanguageMatters.pdf.

Chapter 750. Michigan Penal Code. (2009, February). [PDF Document]. Retrieved from

http://legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-chap750.pdf.  

Clune, D., & Hosey, J. (n.d.). How We Can Do Better: Helping Prostituted Women and Girls in Grand Rapids Make Healthy Choices. Retrieved from

http://www.nokomisfoundation.org/documents/WeCanDoBetter.pdf.      

Eve’s Angels Inc. NFP. (n.d.) In Guidestar. Retrieved from

https://www.guidestar.org/profile/26-3823877.   

Lapinski-LaFaive, M. K., & Simpson, H. L. (2004). HIV/AIDS and Health Related Needs

Among Commercial Sex Workers in Michigan. Retrieved from https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/HIV_Needs_Commercial_Sex_Workers_2004_389436_7.pdf.              

Lutnick, A., & Cohan, D. (2009). Criminalization, legalization or decriminalization of sex work: What female sex workers say in San Francisco, USA. Reproductive Health Matters, 17(34), 38-46. doi:10.1016/s0968-8080(09)34469-9.

National Human Trafficking Hotline. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://humantraffickinghotline.org/.

Paglia, A. (2017, November 16). Sex Trafficking vs. Sex Work: What You Need to Know

Human Trafficking Search. Retrieved from http://humantraffickingsearch.org/2017725sex-trafficking-vs-sex-work-what-you-need-to-know/.    

San Francisco Sex Information. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://sfsi.org/.

Services. (n.d.) In The Red Project. Retrieved from http://redproject.org/services/.

Shah, S.P. (2012). Sex Work and Queer Politics in Three Acts. The Scholarly & Feminist Online, 10.1-10.2. Retrieved from http://sfonline.barnard.edu/a-new-queer-agenda/sex-work-and-queer-politics-in-three-acts.          

Training and Technical Assistance. (n.d.) In National Health Care for the Homeless Council. Retrieved from https://www.nhchc.org/training-technical-assistance/.

What To Do If You Are Stopped By Law Enforcement. (n.d.) Retrieved from

http://www.swop-mi.org/swop.law.htm.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

[20llb090]

MALE RAPE: THE UNTOLD STORY

INTRODUCTION

Rape is India's fourth most common crime, and it's a major problem all across the world. It is commonly regarded to be a crime committed by a man against a woman, but have we ever considered the possibility that it may be the other way around?

Rape is defined as illicit sexual activity, generally sexual intercourse carried out against a person's will, violently or under fear of injury, or with a person under the age of 18 or incapable of legitimate consent owing to mental disease, mental unconsciousness, deficiency drunkenness etc.

Rape can occur at any age, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or age. There are many such incidents, but the majority of them go unreported because individuals are afraid that revealing them will cast doubt on their efficacy. Rape of people who aren't females is frequently undetected, and as a result, most people are unaware of it.

Male rape victims were researched for the first time in the 1980s, and the research was mostly focused on child sexual assaults. In the twenty-first century, a male rape victim still finds it difficult to disclose sexual assault because we live in a society that values men's ability to defend themselves and others. Most individuals are worried that reporting a sexual assault will raise concerns about their virility or that if they were raped by a man, they will be labelled queer.

Need for making law against male rape

In a nation like India, males are continuously encouraged to hide their feelings behind the phrase "Mard ko dard nahi hota," leaving them divided between the fear of societal repercussions and the need to express themselves. According to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, rape is a crime that can only be committed by a man against a woman. People have been made to think that because of their privilege and status in a patriarchal culture, a man or boy cannot be raped or sexually attacked. Sexual abuse is a national issue that requires the attention.

Men have been trained that showing vulnerability or any emotion that makes them appear weak is inappropriate. Toxic masculinity requires that males project a dominant and "alpha" personality. Men are ignorant of their sentiments and how to deal with them because of this unreasonable ideal. Men's anger difficulties and violence have been connected to the taboo against expressing natural human emotions like grief, fear, and disgust.

The idea of establishing gender-neutral anti-rape legislation has been continuously rejected by the Indian Parliament. In India, a male rape victim is not considered a victim at all. The male problem is rapidly worsening, showing itself mostly in jails, but also in our everyday lives.

Male Rape and Indian law

In India, there is no particular regulation in place whether a man or a woman rapes another man. Only under section 377 [10] of the IPC, which is based on the 1533 Buggery Crime, which defines unnatural contact as a "act against God," may they be sodomised.All other laws and provisions, with the exception of this one, are aimed only at women.The whole concept of rape is based on the rape of just women, with no provision for the rape of males.

In India, men are seen to be invulnerable and to utilise their authority to abuse women. However, according to a study of 1500 males conducted by Insia Dariwala, 71% of men claimed they had been mistreated, and 84.9 percent indicated they had not informed anybody about it. Shame (55.6 percent), bewilderment (50.9 percent), fear (43.5 percent), and guilt were the most common causes (28.7 percent)

Constitution of India provides Article 14 and 15. Article 14 deals that the “state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”. Article 15 states that the “state shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them”. We must recognise that sexual assault is not about sex or gender, the state may adopt new gender-neutral rape legislation. Only two legislation currently recognise that males can be sexually assaulted. If we follow this logic, we may alter Section 375 of the IPC to protect males as defined in Article 15. There is no reason why a sexual attack on a male should be regarded differently than a similar crime against a women. Why can't we create the same provision for rape of male that we have for rape of female

Conclusion

We have to change the law in order bring equality for women and men. A criminal's penalty should be as terrible as the crime itself, and it should be applied to all people, regardless of gender. Whether male, female, or trans, the victim suffers the same physical, mental, and emotional agony. Due to the usage of gendered terminology, a male cannot bring a rape prosecution against a woman. This means that a man cannot claim sexual assault by a woman because rape can only be committed by a male.

Gender-neutral rape legislation must be introduced in India's parliament, just as they are in Bhutan and other nations. Males may be raped by women as well, and the Indian court system and citizens must acknowledge this. The law should recognise men as victims, not just abusers.

[mulechurchyard-blog]

Is reality a social construct?

In the beginning, God speaks. His language is a creative force. Through the language of God, darkness and light, earth and stars, living creatures, man and woman come into existence. The modest power of our language is described in two modest verses of Genesis Chapter Two:

(19) Now the Lord God formed out of the ground all the wild animals and the birds of the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. (20) So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the sky and all the wild animals.

Now whatever you make of the Genesis stories this shows us something very important about our relationship with God and His created reality. Our role within reality is to name and describe it; through observation, science and discover. We ourselves do not created reality through our language, yet this is a central tenant of social constructionist theory.

Social construction theory suggests that there is no reality, only language-based descriptions. These descriptions are used by those who have the means to produce them as a coercive force to exact power over people. The theory suggests that by “problematizing” and undermining the descriptions, humanity will discover its truly humane-nature which is being hidden from us by the wicked forces of capitalism, patriarchy, religion, heteronormativity and scientific fact. This is very convenient if you find that you do not like reality, and through whatever maladjustment do not feel yourself fitting into it. You can insist that it is not you who is maladjusted, but that you are excluded from the prevailing description, and it is this exclusion that is causing your guilt, shame, sense of alienation, addictions, mental health issues and suicidal thoughts rather than the maladjustment (indeed it is a “violence” to even describe it as a maladjustment).

It is interesting to me that two of the most influential thinkers in the area, Michelle Foucault and Judith Butler, were/are gay. I am not suggesting that social constructionism is a queer conspiracy but as both Foucault and Butler live(d) in maladjusted, misdescribed realities, it is no surprise that they find themselves at home with the theory and that it has found such traction amongst LGBT people. As a recent essay I was reading pointed out, gender is not a social construct, unless you are trans in which case it is. I would say it is the case for LGB people too, and indeed, it seems to be that case LGBTQ people are at the forefront of the social constructivist movement. It suits them to push the idea that heterosexuality and non-trans gender identity are social constructions too. The “truth” they are attempting to reveal is that once we are free of authoritarian descriptions of gender and sexuality we are just flesh blobs, and in a free society there would be no differences between any of us. Paradoxically this shows a deep desire to free on the way in which they have found themselves (mis)described. They want to fit in with reality, but they want it to be their own, socially constructed, misdescribed reality. Their frustrations grow from mainstream, non-LGBT people’s lack of interest or belief in their theories, being as they are (more or less) correctly described and therefore already living freely within their naturally derived identities (although let’s not stray into the dangerous territory of imagining that state of heterosexuality is salvation itself or that secular understandings of heterosexuality are not riddled with delusions, but that’s for another time).

The relationship between a social constructed identity and nature is then an interesting one. When I believed I was gay my desire was led by head. Fantasy played a key role. I would look and imagine, and then become aroused. Even in sex, I would have to close my eyes and imagine because that is where my arousal came from. Desire for women is led by my body. It requires no conscious effort. It begins in lips, which push forward, undulates down my spine, hits my lower back and forces my pelvis forward in and out in a slow rhythm, arousal is softer and more-steady. However, for this to happen, I have to allow nature (God’s created reality) to happen and this is something that I was unwilling to do for a very long time. Both Susan Sontag, in her Notes On Camp, and Camille Paglia write about the artificiality of homosexuality and homosexual tastes. Homosexuality is a conquering of nature, and nature is viewed with a sense of disgust and alienation. Paglia’s visceral description of female sexuality in the open chapters of Sexual Personae helped me to understand what I was repelled by both in women and in my own body; I was repelled by nature which I was not in control of. That was a definite maladjustment.

Social constructionists are disgusted by and fearful of nature. To them it is violent and beyond control. Instead, language and theory are everything (Paglia also points out the ludicrousness of gender-theories that make no reference to biology). But, whilst if we misdescribe reality we can hope to shut nature out, it still works its way in. When we deny nature, mental health problems follow as our bodily subconsciences beg our consciences to notice them, and these problems are outworked through destructive behaviours enacted against the self and others. But nature isn’t the only thing at play here. Paglia’s work is a lot of fun to read, but it is entrenched in a pagan spirituality of nature. The God of The Bible is for Paglia a “sky-cult;” that is a social constructed force to control the cravenness of naturalist earth-cults. This removes God from reality, leaving only nature to go wild and Paglia can sound quasi-fascistic in her calls for “strong-men” and “strong-women.” This is a problem for a lot of pro-science secular thinkers; there is a lack of grace. If you are maladjusted, then you are pretty much on your own. They can sound harsh and unsympathetic. There is no tool for change. However, through God’s word and His spirit, we can discover the desire  and understanding we need to admit to and take responsibility for our natures. Christianity is an antidote to the chaotic, uncontrolled forces of Paglia’s sexual earth cult, but it is not a high-minded clamp of artificiality that shuts nature out (although it can easily become that when it is misunderstood). As with everything in God’s plan, body/nature and mind/language serve each other and they become Godly when we understand the relationship between them.

The language of God created the universe, time and everything. However, when he created man he gave us free will. This means we have the capacity to interpret reality in accordance to our own suit, but without His guidance we are lost to the forces of our natural bodies and have no tool of understanding what those forces mean. Any meaning we ascribe to them can be accused of being an arbitrary social construct to fit the real or imagined agenda of the describer.  This is why He has given us His word. Setting aside the institution of the church and its myriad of problems, if we personally construct our subjective, conscious realities on His word, then the true nature of objective, created reality is revealed, bringing with it peace and contentedness. Even for Christians describing reality is hard though, and we are constantly tempted to describe it in a way that befits us most (even though that never works out well). The true nature of reality will only be revealed fully at the end of time, and until then we must manage as best we can to view it through the lens of scripture.

For now what we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I shall know fully; even as I am fully known.

                                                                                   (1 Corinthians, 13:12)

Is reality a social construct?

That depends. If facets of reality are described correctly, then no it isn’t. If the facets of reality are described incorrectly, and attempts are made to live by those descriptions, then yes, it is.