#and have signaled to other queer groups that we are acceptable targets

[a-polite-melody]

Look.

Even if it were true that every big name blogger talking about transandrophobia is a transmisogynistic trans man

That shouldn't deny every and all trans man and masc the opportunity to speak about the oppression that affects them.

That, "the coiner of transandrophobia—" or "the big name bloggers talking about transandrophobia—" or even, "everyone I've seen talking about transandrophobia is a transmisogynist," is used as a blanket statement to systemically deny language to trans men and mascs is, in itself, a form of the infantilization and silencing and forced invisibility trans men and mascs face.

Call out transmisogyny when you see it. Sure. No one wants that to stop happening.

But stop pretending that trans men and mascs having a word is in-and-of-itself transmisogynistic, or coming up with reasons that it must be. It's not trans men and mascs speaking on their oppression that is causing the transmisogyny they may be also saying, it's the transmisogyny. It's not productive to place the blame for transmisogyny on something that isn't the transmisogyny.

Even if every single trans man and masc were violently transmisogynistic, what would need to change would be their attitude and views on trans women, not their being able to talk about their own oppression.

[houseofpurplestars]

"At the core of ‘anti’ debates is a foundation of beliefs rooted in conservatism that what a person consumes in fiction determines their real-life behaviours. Thus, an anti-shipper who is against those viewed to be pro-shippers is already deemed more morally pure."

"...no kind of communal fandom restoration can begin to occur until those targeted by such anti-shippers are viewed as human beings (not sub-human) and a universal understanding of fiction, reality, psychology and human behaviour based in science is established."

Further reading:

"Antis' foundation is the belief that fiction affects reality, in that any problematic behaviors or topics in media, fictitious or not, will cause people to normalize those behaviors, resulting in people (specifically minors) thinking that such actions are acceptable in real life. This is a common argument used by conservative groups to enact queer censorship, who argue that children who see LGBTQIA+ characters in television or books will "turn gay.""

"Ex-antis' responses indicated that antis compartmentalize media categorized as good versus sinful in order to feel powerful and in control."

"Antis attempt to glorify their ideology by rebranding it as antipedophilia and anti-incest, but it is actually a loose ideology of disinformation, virtue signaling, and legitimate abuse. Similar to the QAnon cult phenomena, which began in 2017, anti dogma is designed to promote paranoia and play off people's fears and emotions to spread disinformation."

"The overt misuse and oversaturation of the term "pedophilia," to the extent that it loses all significance from its original context, is arguably another method of desensitization."

"Since the primary creators of transformative fandom are women, people of color, and LGBTQIA+ people, it becomes readily apparent how the anti movement seeks to limit the voices of those who are already vulnerable, thus promoting further isolation and violence against them."

"Instead of being given the tools and resources to make safe and educated decisions on a case-by-case basis, teens in anti spaces are called to arms and encouraged to engage in recklessly abusive behavior toward themselves and others over topics they do not yet fully understand while simultaneously spreading troubling ideologic misinformation."

"Environments where authoritative figures go unquestioned and where fear is instilled to coerce obedience are precisely where many abusers are able to thrive."

"The cult structure of antis sets individuals up for failure; the extreme variance and overreach in individual antis' standards means that their ideology becomes impossible to live up to. Real-world harmful effects have been documented in adults and minors alike regarding the mental, physical, and emotional well-being of fans subjected to anti rhetoric, demonstrating just how vital nuanced research is needed in these areas."

"What truly marks a cult is the control attempted over behavior and thought. Participants in anti circles perpetuate a climate of fear, shame, and trauma in fan spaces. The most common targets of such abuse are women, people of color, teens, abuse survivors, and members of the LGBTQIA+ community. Fans who are already marginalized are further deprived of safety, anonymity, outlets for growth, self-expression, and relationships. It is therefore vital that we closely monitor hate speech in fan spaces and study these behaviors. Our failure to do so may open doors for bigotry, violence, and disinformation."

[idreamtofmanderleyagain]

Hot takes about Severus Snape are a wierdly decent glimpse into how a person with progressive values analyses things. Literally every time someone talks about Snape, it’s like this tiny window into how one-dimentionally people actually think.

Recently saw a twitter post that was a fantastic example. Here’s how it goes (paraphrasing):

Person A:“Snape is POC and Queer coded, that’s why you guy’s hate him uwu lol.”

Person B: “Actually I hate him because he was mean and abusive to children under his care uwu but go off I guess lol”

Both of these takes are designed to be dramatic and/or reactionary. They each use partial truths to paint very broad strokes. These are get-em-in-one-hit quips. This is virtue signalling, if you’ll excuse that loaded phrase. Nobody had a substantial conversation, but now everyone who sees their statement knows the high ground they took.

At least a hundred other people chimed in to add their own little quippy hot takes into play, none of which add anything significant, but clearly made everyone feel very highly of themselves.

So many layers of nuance and complex analysis is completely lost in this kind of discussion. On tumblr, you get more of this kind of bullshit, but you don’t have a word count limit, so you guys just spew endless mountains of weak overblown evidence backing up your bullshit arguments, none of which was really about engaging in a real conversation anyway.

Here’s the thing about Snape.

He is a childhood domestic abuse victim. His abuser is a muggle.

He becomes a student at a magical school that takes him away from his abuser and immediately instills in him the idea that being a part of this magical world is a badge of self-worth, empowerment, and provides safety and security - provided that he keeps in line.

There is a war is being waged in that world over his right to exist (he is a half blood).

He is a marginalized person within the context of the narrative, forced to constantly be in the same living space as the children of his own oppressors who are being groomed and recruited into a hate group militia (the pureblood slytherins). They are in turn trying to do the same to him.

He is marginalized person bullied by children who are also part of his oppressor group, but who have “more liberal” leanings and aren’t direct about why he’s being targeted (the mauraders are all purebloods, Sirius, who was the worst offender, was raised in a bigoted household, the same one that produced Bellatrix.).

He had a crush on a girl who is a muggleborn, and therefore she is considered even lesser than him and carries a stigma to those who associate with her. That girl was his only real friend. In his entire life.

For both Snape and Lily, allying themselves to a pureblood clique within their own houses would be a great way of shielding themselves from a measure of the bigotry they were probably facing. There would have been obvious pressure from those cliques to disconnect with one and other.

Every other person who associates with Snape in his adulthood carries some sort of sociopolitical or workplace (or hate cult) baggage with their association. Some of them will physically harm and/or kill him if he steps out of line. He hasn’t at any point had the right environment to heal and adjust from these childhood experiences. Even his relationship with Dumbledore is charged with constant baggage, including the purebloods who almost killed him during their bullying getting a slap on the wrist, the werewolf that almost killed him as a child being placed in an authority position over new children, etc. Dumbledore is canonically manipulative no matter his good qualities, and he has literally been manipulating Snape for years in order to cultivate a necessary asset in the war.

He is a person who is not in the stable mental state necessary to be teaching children, whom has been forced to teach children. While also playing the role of double agent against the hate group militia, the one that will literally torture you for mistakes or backtalk or just for fun. The one that will torture and kill him if he makes one wrong move.

Is the math clicking yet? From all of this, it’s not difficult to see how everything shitty about Snape was cultivated for him by his environment. Snape was not given great options. Snape made amazingly awful choices, and also some amazingly difficult, courageous ones. Snape was ultimately a human who had an extremely bad life, in which his options were incredibly grim and limited.

In fact, pretty much every point people make about how shitty Snape is as a person makes 100% logical sense as something that would emerge from how he was treated. Some if it he’s kind of right about, some of it is the inevitable reality of suffering, and some of it is part of the cycle of abuse and harm.

Even Snape’s emotional obsession with Lily makes logical sense when you have the perspective that he literally has no substantial positive experiences with other human beings that we know of, and he has an extreme, soul destroying guilt complex over her death. Calling him an Incel mysoginist nice guy projects a real-world political ideology and behavior that does not really apply to the context of what happened to him and her.

Even Snape’s specific little acts of cruelty to certain students is a reflection of his own life experiences. He identifies with Neville; more specifically, he identifies his own percieved emotional weaknesses in his childhood in Neville. There’s a very sad reason there why he feels the urge to be so harsh.

Snape very clearly hates himself, in a world where everyone else hates him, too. Imagine that, for a second. Imagine total internal and external hatred, an yearning for just a little bit of true connection. For years. Imagine then also trying to save that world, even if it’s motivated by guilt. Even if nobody ever knows you did it and you expect to die a miserable death alone.

There are more elements here to consider, including the way Rowling described his looks (there may be something in there re: ugliness and swarthy stereotyping). These are just the things that stand out the most prominently to me.

J.K. Rowling is clearly also not reliable as an imparter of moral or sociopolitical philosophies. I don’t feel that her grasp of minority experiences is a solid one, considering how she picks and chooses who is acceptable and who is a threat.

All of that said, this is a logically consistent character arc. Within the context of his narrative, Snape is a marginalized person with severe PTSD and emotional instability issues who has absolutely no room available to him for self-improvement or healing, and never really has. And yes, he’s also mean, and caustic, and verbally abusive to the students. He’s also a completey miserable, lonely person.

There are elements in his character arc that mirror real world experiences quite well. If nothing else, Rowling is enough of an emotional adult to recognise these kinds of things and portray something that feels authentic.

In my opinion, it’s not appropriate to whittle all this down by comparing him directly to the real world experiences of marginalized groups - at least if you are not a part of the group you are comparing him to. There have been many individuals who have compared his arc to their own personal experiences of marginalization, and that is valid. But generally speaking, comparing a white straight dude to people who are not that can often be pretty offensive. This is not a valuable way to discuss either subject.

Also, I believe that while it’s perfectly okay to not like Snape as a character, many of the people who act like Person B are carrying Harry’s childhood POV about Snape in their hearts well into their own adulthood. And if nothing else, Rowling was attempting to say something here about how our perspectives (should) grow and change as we emotionally mature.  She doesn’t have to be a good person herself to have expressed something true about the world in this instance, and since this story is a part of our popular culture, people have a right to feel whatever way they do about this story and it’s characters.

The complexity of this particular snapshot of fictionalized marginalization, and what it reveals about the human experience, cannot be reduced down to “he’s an abuser so he’s not worth anyone’s time/you are bad for liking him.”

And to be honest, I think that it reveals a lot about many of us in progressive spaces, particularly those of us who less marginalized but very loud about our values, that we refuse to engage with these complexities in leu of totally condemning him. Particularly because a lot of the elements I listed above are indeed reflected in real world examples of people who have experienced marginalization and thus had to deal with the resulting emotional damage, an mental illness, and behavior troubles, and bad decisions. Our inability to address the full scope of this may be a good reflection of how we are handling the complexity of real world examples.

Real people are not perfect angels in their victimhood. They are just humans who are victims, and we all have the capacity to be cruel and abusive in a world where we have been given cruelty and abuse. This is just a part of existing. If you cannot sympathise with that, or at least grasp it and aknowledge it and respect the people who are emotionally drawn to a character who refects that, then you may be telling on yourself to be honest.

To be honest, this is especially true if you hate Snape but just really, really love the Mauraduers. You have a right to those feelings, but if you are moralizing this and judging others for liking Snape, you’ve confessed to something about how you’ve mentally constructed your personal values in a way I don’t think you’ve fully grasped yet.

I have a hard time imagining a mindset where a story like Snape’s does not move one to empathy and vicarious grief, if I’m honest. I feel like some people really just cannot be bothered to imagine themselves in other people’s shoes, feeling what they feel and living like they live. I struggle to trust the social politics of people who show these kinds of colors, tbh.

But maybe that’s just me.

[incarnateirony]

i think destiel has been intentionally written in starting around like season 8 and getting more overt as time goes on, but a part of me still cant accept it unless its explicit. in these kinds of situations, with Any show or media, i always feel like im on the verge of being tricked or told that i Was just making it all up. i know queer media had always lived in subtext and ambiguity and that history is important, but is it so much to want a kiss? even a handhold? (1/2)

i dont have any goalposts for canon and d/c are definitely canon in some sense but im honestly feeling a little hurt that we get a het kiss after barely any buildup (not a slight i love saileen lol) and im expected to stay satisfied with no actual touch for the gay ship. im just So tired of having to dig around in subtext. i just want them to be allowed to touch each other. ill be happy with an ambiguous ending but the way I love is not ambiguous and im tired of it being seen that way (2/2)

No, it’s absolutely not too much to want those things. We all want those things. I want those things. The difference is making sure you don’t stampede over the other valid canon content, created by queer people, for queer people, in your pursuit of those things. This fandom has a terrible habit of trying to invalidate the representation people are already resonating with because their personal validation of the presentation, form, or delivery they want hasn’t happened, regardless of the efforts around it or the cause-and-effect, or even if they’re teh actual target represented demographic (in this case middle aged LGBT male) and that’s the problem I’m always addressing.

This also isn’t just a het thing, recently someone – I think it was @thecoffeebrain-blog – pointed out a list of situations even in het where the secondary, less important pairing got a kiss and the primary, central pairing didn’t, but instead got a wide exposition of their feelings, which the other pairing only got by borrowing words and sealing the rest silently in a kiss. Sound familiar?

It’s definitely fair to want more of those explicit moments. But at some point this fandom signed on to the idea that explicit is the only form of valid, and it does great damage to our representation and media discussion over time. 

This fandom’s obsession with “kiss pics or it didn’t happen” or choking down the ways to express love not only specifically to “I love you” but specifically like “I love you. Like, you and only you. Just you. And in a gay way. Specifically.” as character dialogue to “textualize” it “so nobody can ever argue” while flushing all the other texts is purely birthed by this stupid competitive ship conversation when there’s minor league teams wanting to play against the Red Sox. And, quite frankly, it’s FUCKING toxic.

We can get mad at the unlevel playing field. That doesn’t remove the value of the existing canon content though. We can and should be mad that corporate is even an issue. That’s WHY THERE IS A REP FIGHT THOUGH. So yes. Go be mad at corporations. Don’t stomp over what activists are currently giving you. No amount of “BUT WE DESERVE” changes that. Yes, we fucking do. Again, THAT IS WHY THERE IS A FIGHT. It’s called a FIGHT. Not a twitter trend. Not tumblr stanitis. It’s a fucking fight that long predates this show and will continue long after it. But the content made by gays, for gays, still remains. We’re living in Trump’s America right now, don’t sit there selling yourself that this should be an “easy choice” for the market. Markets don’t work on ethics, not really. They’ll virtue signal, but that’s what it is to get your money. It’s always about the money.

Since when do we get what we deserve? So maybe we can’t kill or cage corporate god, but we can find another way. We can subvert it. And hell, maybe with a perfect roll of the dice in this whole WB Merger Collapse/CEO void we really will be able to address that Lucky Elephant spinning in the room overseeing the cast down officiation of a sacred marriage ceremony for the mark but HEY sure.

Welcome to the circus. We’re all clowns, grab some spare shoes, the ringmaster is writing the show, we’ll just see if dumbo gets to fly.

I get wanting more. I, like you, want more. That’s natural in any story, whether about gay shit or rights or… just personal flavors of story.  Just make sure that completely manufactured competitive dialogue hasn’t stripped you of your ability to enjoy the content.

Anyway here’s to clowning forward.

For the record, any cussing isn’t @ you, Nonnie, it’s just at frustration at the toxic bullshit that has been allowed to fester in this fandom hidden in masks of activism or socially conscious dialogue, thoroughly misappropriated and designed to pit intersectional marginalized group points against each other for benefit (eg pretending Eileen is “just a plaything” for Sam now, rather than a full character who just happens to be with Sam, or that it’s anti-feminist to connect Rowena to a mother arc despite all her textualized grief over Crowley). It’s gone on and been welcomed and even encouraged as “opinion”, inserting outright phobic dialogues and trying to pit marginalized groups against each other through the veil of “just fiction” that at some point years ago people lost sight of what and where the rep battle started in this show much less any actual LGBT media history understanding. 

90% of this fandom yelling about representation couldn’t tell you shit beyond google-fu about the Hayes Codes’ impact or the impact of the AIDS epidemic or anything else and yet here we fucking are with them fursuiting activism and attacking a queer author en route. Hell, most of them couldn’t tell you the history of Gay Rage in this show beyond a few key markers because they just picked up and ran with the Rage Torch and then refused to read up on the full spread of events.

[cotecoyotegrrrl]

by Tom Davila-Witkowski 

 We’re in the final hours of Pride month 2021, so I’m going to take you back in time for a history lesson and hopefully share a little about the importance of LGBTQ+ Pride, and what it means besides parades, celebrations and drag brunches. This photo was taken in August 1991, 30 years ago, and, yes, that is me on the right. 

 Let’s go back to 1991 for a minute—an AIDS diagnosis was still a death sentence. We were still four years from the approval of the combination therapy that would be known as the drug cocktail that would save so many lives and make AIDS a manageable disease. The Catholic Church’s institutional pedophilia was still just rumored while the church devoted its resources to discrimination against LGBTQ+ people (some things never change) and trying to stop people from giving out condoms to slow the spread of AIDS. At this point, the LGBTQ+ community was still fighting to stay alive and activist groups like ACT UP and Queer Nation, two groups in which I played some small role, were on the front lines. Marriage equality wasn’t even on our political roadmap because we were more focused on being more visible as LGBTQ+ people—getting police to stop harassing us, stopping bars from kicking us out for dancing together, and fighting back against gay bashers. That was what our day-to-day lives were like when a group of us in Queer Nation asked what would be more audacious than to not only demand that we be allowed to live our lives in peace, but that our love and relationships be treated as equal and entitled to the same rights and protections as straight people. So in a grand gesture of F—k you to the legal establishment and the Catholic Church, we decided to leapfrog forward and just start getting married. 

 Over the summer of 1991, we met weekly in Queer Nation members’ apartments in Cambridge and Somerville to plan a day of protest and street theater. We connected with another activist group, Food Not Bombs, and had them cater the party—fluffernutter sandwiches for everyone. We planned to take over the streets abutting the Holy Cross Cathedral, the seat of the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, as the ideal location for our wedding. We wheat-pasted flyers to poles all over Boston’s gay neighborhoods, Cambridge, and Somerville. We found a pagan priestess to officiate. We recruited couples willing to take vows and commit to each other. And I took on the job as official wedding photographer. We brought hundreds of people to a fabulous wedding that afternoon. It would be another 12 years before the US Supreme Court would rule that same gender people having sex wasn’t a crime, and 14 years before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and 24 years before the US Supreme Court would rule in favor of marriage equality. 

 As a protest and street theater, the Queer Wedding was a great success—we achieved the media coverage we were hoping for. The two guys in this photo with me, who were visiting for the summer from France, made the front page of the Boston Herald. I didn’t know them well, and cannot remember their names, but I remember important parts of their story. They were here because one of them had a job with a Boston company for the summer as part of their university education. And, within days of his photo appearing in the Boston Herald, he was fired by that company, his sponsorship to be in the US working was revoked, and they were sent back to France. He was fired from his job for being gay and demonstrating in favor of gay rights. And, until a Supreme Court decision in 2020, that could still happen in many states in this country. 

 Fast forward to about 2006, Mark and I were beginning our journey toward starting a family and meeting with adoption experts. Although marriage equality was now possible in Massachusetts, and we were engaged, we were not yet married. And our adoption agency advised us to stay unmarried. It would give us more options when adopting. You see, in many states LGBTQ+ people were prohibited from adopting and, if we were not married, and we were matched with a baby in one of those states, we could pretend we weren’t gay, one of us would do a single parent adoption in that state, and then he and the baby would fly back to Massachusetts where the other of us would then legally adopt the baby here. That’s right, to create a family, we would have had to deny our relationship and love and closet ourselves until we were back in the safety of Massachusetts. It took a US Supreme Court ruling in 2017—a very different Supreme Court—to make it illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ+ adoptive and foster parents. 

 Until the current Supreme Court, many of our rights as LGBTQ+ people have been upheld by rulings of the Court in our favor, something we can no longer count on, thanks to the supporters of 45 and the ignorant or malicious people who voted for him. And this month, in a case known as Fulton v. the City of Philadelphia, which we have been watching work its way through the courts since 2018, we were given a view of the future under the current far-right Supreme Court. In this case, the city of Philadelphia told two foster care agencies that it would no longer refer children to them if they would not accept same-sex couples as foster parents. One of those agencies, Catholic Social Services, sued the city claiming that because of their religion they had the right to discriminate. After losing the case in the lower courts, Catholic Social Services took the case all the way to the far-right Supreme Court. That’s right, rather than focus on placing foster children in need of families and parents with same-sex couples, the Catholic agency devoted its resources to ensuring it could discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, because the institution that has done so much to protect pedophiles prioritized discrimination over helping children, and a far-right Supreme Court agreed. While the ruling was very narrow and can be easily rectified by the city of Philadelphia fixing its policies, the Court’s written decisions made it clear that this Supreme Court, a far-right Court that we will be living with for possibly the next generation, prioritizes allowing religions to discriminate over LGBTQ+ civil rights. 

 What this means is that in the years to come, court cases that have already been or are going to be filed to try and limit or reduce LGBTQ+ rights in the name of religious discrimination with the express intention of ending up in the Supreme Court will come before a far-right Supreme Court that has signaled it will not protect the rights of LGBTQ+ people at the federal level. 

 And so, as Pride month 2021 comes to a close and I think back 30 years, it’s important to note we’re not celebrating because we’re gay. We’re celebrating because we survived. We survived the bullies and the bashers. We survived the “Moral Majority” and the Reagans. Hundreds of thousands of LGBTQ+ people died from a disease while conservatives ignored their suffering, blamed them for their illness, and targeted them because of who they were, but for some reason we survived. We survived the people who ignorantly voted for those conservatives, not willing or interested in knowing the impact of their votes. We survived to make great progress in LGBTQ+ rights since those dark, dark days of the late 1980s and early 1990s. But we also survived to once again have to fight battles we thought were long past as we navigate a dangerous time, with a far-right Supreme Court, and the tremendous damage caused by the previous occupant of the White House that it will likely take a generation to repair—if we can at all. And I ask you to understand the pride we celebrate this month is pride in surviving—that the month represents more than parties and drag brunches. And think about where you have stood in these three decades of history. Have you fought for LGBTQ+ rights? Have you fought against discrimination? Have you voted for politicians who have actively (Ronald Reagan, George Bush, George W. Bush) or maliciously (Ronald Reagan and the last occupant of the White House) tried to harm the LGBTQ+ community? Have you been actively working to end LGBTQ+ discrimination, or have you been one of the challenges we have had to survive?

[elsiesmith672]

The Rise of Gender-Neutral Branding

Fashion, cosmetic and fragrance companies are connecting to a new generation of consumers by doing away with gender-specific branding.

Even before birth, gender norms are thrust on all of us, from gender reveal parties to pink and blue blankets. Gender has traditionally been treated as a foundational building block of our identities. From early childhood through adolescence, gender creates separation and definition that provides a cultural yardstick for measuring our adherence to this same-said societal norm: feminine qualities (cultural norms of soft, gentle, nurturing) and masculine qualities (cultural norms of dominant, strong, aggressive), creating an echo chamber of confirmation bias.

Consequently, people who demonstrate gender traits that fly in the face of their biological sex have historically been marginalized and scorned for their lack of adherence to these gender “rules.” Abandoning social norms and opting to adopt an individualized meaning of gender has created a cultural movement that, without digging into the rich and important sociological and political implications, has been coined by marketers as gender fluidity. Often defined as the fluid shifting of gender expression between masculine and feminine, gender fluidity has surfaced as a reflection of our era of self-critique: a postmodern state of being.

As transparency, technology and connectivity become ubiquitous in our lives, gender binaries and their tropes are less conventionally accepted as a core building block of identity.  Generation Z and the millennials are key drivers in the acceptance of the concept of gender fluidity. According to a 2017 Harris Poll, 12% of millennials identify as transgender or gender non-conforming and 35% of Generation Z (18 to 21 year olds) respondents in a 2018 Pew Research Center survey claimed that they know someone who uses gender-neutral pronouns (they, them) to identify themselves.

With the broader acceptance of gender fluidity comes the opportunity for not only new brands but for marketers to create narratives that can form closer relationships with these younger consumers — but the brand and what it stands for must be authentic. And to do that, marketers must deeply immerse in, and understand, this important cultural shift.

The beauty and fashion categories have been early adopters of these sociocultural drivers — from haute couture to prestige cosmetics and fragrance. Jean-Paul Gaultier has playfully poked at gender stereotypes for nearly 30 years. Brands like Issey Miyake and Commes des Garcons have historically prioritized the architectural and structural elements of design over gender. In the 1990s, Calvin Klein’s CK One pioneered the first unisex fragrance, with a supporting campaign featuring beautifully androgynous models. MAC Cosmetics was a pioneer in bringing cosmetics to everyone, hiring trans and gender-queer makeup artists and sales reps, and using RuPaul as its celebrity spokesperson in campaigns as early as 1994.

Traditionally, consumer packaged goods have leaned hard into gender cues via color, type, imagery, texture and shape to definitively signal feminine or masculine. Functionally led packaging may dial up or even create gender-driven need states, supported by kitchen-logic reasons to believe that support the delineation. In the face of highly educated and savvy consumers as well as the political landscape, in part represented by consumer advocacy groups criticizing price differences in gendered offerings (the Pink Tax), CPGs are starting to re-examine these strategies.

Consequently, a more gender-neutral approach is bubbling to the surface yet again, particularly in the personal care category. Successful brands are shifting focus to product experience, universal ingredients and benefit stories manifested in good, smart design over the gender of their target consumer.

In the current fragrance category, decoupling gender to provide consumer choice speaks broadly rather than limiting their appeal to the confines of accepted gender. Brands are increasingly launching genderless fragrances — Chanel’s Les Eaux des Chanel, LVMH and its line of fragrances that prioritize experiential fantasy over gender-specific fragrance notes; celebrities like Grande are breaking gender boundaries with the launch of Cloud eau de Parfum. In fact, in 2018, 51% of global fragrance launches were considered unisex or gender neutral.

Mass, prestige, celebrity and start-up beauty brands are all making an effort to appear to a gender-fluid announce. At mass, CoverGirl launched “So Lashy!” mascara with James Charles as the spokesperson, the first drugstore cosmetics brand to signal that cosmetics are for everyone. Fenty Beauty (FENTY BEAUTY) is the cosmetics brand launched in 2017 by singer Rihanna. The brand is popular for its broad inclusivity across skin tones and gender.

New beauty lines have also made an impact with a minimalist brand presentation, signaling high quality and modernity that appeals to anyone. Fluide offers makeup for all gender expressions, gender identities and skin tones and understands that makeup is a tool of transformation and a powerful means of self-actualization. Andrew Glass self-funded Non Gender Specific in 2018 and in the company’s first quarter sold over 20,000 bottles of its debut product, The Everything Serum. Luxury brands are also continuing the trajectory into gender-fluid offerings globally, with Chanel unveiling its first foray into cosmetics for men in China; Boy de Chanel was launched online with significant interest and has now been rolled out globally.

In fashion retail, we see the confines of gender-binary lifting: Victoria Secret recently hired hired Brazilian model Valentina Sampaio — the company’s first openly transgender model. Fast-fashion leader H&M unveiled a gender-neutral collection of clothing, shoes, and accessories earlier this year for kids and adults, and earlier this year Abercrombie introduced a gender-neutral line of kids clothing. Apparel and shoes in the line took on boxier cuts with a color palette of neutrals and brights. For children, not only are some retailers offering gender-neutral clothing, they are moving to a combined merchandising strategy versus separate “girl” and “boy” areas of the store. Furthermore, major retailers like Target have eliminated “boy and girl” distinctions in store signage and end-cap displays in their toy departments.

The shift toward genderless identification signals real change largely driven by consumers, and marketers must take great care as they respond. Brands must truly understand the importance of this sociocultural movement — they must go beyond shallow “mirroring” and demonstrate empathy, reflect meaning and speak with authenticity. It’s paramount that brands examine every aspect of behavior in the stakeholder chain, both internally and externally, and enroll them in the new paradigm to deeply understand where gender assumptions live inside the organization and how to redefine them. Think of gender fluidity as a creative opportunity that sets new guardrails and removes others — instigating new internal behaviors and opportunities, and unlocking exciting new external semiotic design landscapes.

Assumptions of “unified” and “fragmented” are changing; brand marketers can speak in a single voice while communicating sensitively, responsively, and personally. Much like how gender is no longer a binary proposition, our old notions of “niche” versus “mass” markets must be in the rearview mirror.

If you don’t have the people or processes in place to manage the systematic creation, evaluation and verification of color and graphics in packaging, graphic design company can help.

[trendingnewsb]

The Fight for LGBT Equality in 2018 Will Be Fierce

Jay Michaelson: So, here we are at the end of a strange year for LGBTQ Americans. On the one hand, mainstream acceptance of gay people continues to spread; gays are now officially boring. On the other hand, trans people are being singled out for government persecution on the one hand and continued street violence on the other.

Meanwhile, as all three of us have written, the Trump-Pence administration is inflicting the "death of a thousand blows" against LGBTQ civil rights, severely limiting employment rights, marital rights, access to healthcare, access to safe facilities in schools, and so onwhile literally erasing LGBTQ people from government forms, proclamations, and observances.

For that reason, it's even harder than usual to look toward 2018 with any sense of certainty. What are we most hoping for in the year to come? And what do we fear?

Samantha Allen: I have written the word bathroom hundreds of times over the past two years of covering the various state-level attempts to restrict transgender peoples restroom use. I wish I never had to type it again; I didnt sign up to be a reporter to write about the human excretory system every week.

But in 2018, I am hoping to talk about bathrooms a lot less frequentlyand I have reason to believe that will be the case.

One of the most important victories for transgender people this year came in the form of something we avoided: a bathroom bill in Texas that would have effectively made birth certificates into tickets of entry for restrooms in public schools and government buildings. But that was scuttled at the last second by the business community, local law enforcement, and a sympathetic speaker of the House who said he [didnt] want the suicide of a single Texan on [his] hands.

Im confident that well see somebut fewerred-state legislatures really push for bathroom bills. Theyre political losers and money drainersand everyone in elected office knows that by now

I was in the state this summer when this thing almost got passed and I witnessed firsthand the gloriously outsized Texas rage against a bill that could have cost them billions (Tim wrote about the Texas bathroom battle at the time for the Daily Beast).

Between that and North Carolina being forced to repeal the most controversial aspects of HB 2 under pressure from the NCAA, Im confident that well see somebut fewerred-state legislatures really push for bathroom bills. Theyre political losers and money drainersand everyone in elected office knows that by now.

Tim Teeman: Id like to share your optimism, but Roy Moore supplies a harsh correctivefor me anyway. In the celebrations that followed his defeat at the hands of Doug Jones in the Alabama Senate race, some difficult questions were left hanging.

Moore was a candidate whose rampant homophobiahis actual desire to see discrimination enacted against millions of LGBT Americans, his desire to see prejudice and discrimination enshrined in lawwent mostly unchallenged and unquestioned. Only on the last day of the race did Jake Tapper of CNN ask his spokesman whether Moore believed homosexuality should be illegal (the answer: Probably).

This was a shameful and telling omission by the media. The depressing footnote to Moores loss is that extreme homophobia itself is not a disqualification for a political candidate in 2017. Active homophobia was seen as a valid mandate to hold by the modern Republican Party.

Moore was only too happy to hold it close even in defeat, as he showed by posting (on Facebook) Carson Jones, Doug Jones gay sons, post-election interview with The Advocate. It was a sly attempt to stir up anti-gay poison. Politicians like Moore are thankfully fewer and fewer in number, but homophobia and transphobia are still a major currency in this White Houseand that Trump and other of Moores high-profile Republican supporters dont see it as a disqualifying characteristic tells us something very sad and alarming indeed.

Since ordinary gays are now not so novel, Hollywood's search for novelty is causing them to explore stories of people of color, rural folks, genderqueer folks, and other people who aren't Will or Grace

Jay Michaelson: I am putting most of my hopes outside the machinery of the state. Hollywood told some beautiful queer stories in 2017; I hope this expands and continues in 2018. A decade ago, when I was a professional activist, we had it drilled into us that the number one factor in someone "evolving" on any particular LGBTQ issue was knowing someone who was L, G, B, T, or Q. And if they didn't have firsthand knowledge, media figures counted too.

So, while the Republican party caters to its Christian Right base, I hope that continued media visibility makes them pay for doing so. There's a nice irony too: since ordinary gays are now not so novel, Hollywood's search for novelty is causing them to explore stories of people of color, rural folks, genderqueer folks, and other people who aren't Will or Grace. That might not be for the best motive, but the consequences could be profound.

Tim Teeman: Then we have the 'wedding cake' case at SCOTUS, which you have written about Jay. That seems currently going in favor of the baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. This isn't just about a wedding cake, of course, but providing a signal that discrimination based on "beliefs" is OK, which can be used against LGBT people in so many contexts.

Samantha Allen: Im afraid the Trump administrations attacks on the LGBT community will continue to be so persistent and so piecemeal that they will continue to get shuffled to the side. This past month, we were stunned when the Washington Post reported that the CDC had been discouraged from using the term transgender in preparing their annual budget, but if people had been paying closer attention to Trumps appointments in the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies, this wouldnt have been a surprise.

We cant afford to pretend anymore like these are stunningly cruel attacks that come out of nowhere: leaders of anti-LGBT groups regularly walk the White House halls, they wield tremendous influence right now, and the administration is quietly giving them what they want.

Im worried that, with so many other scandals dominating the headlines, the systematic erosion of LGBT rights will continue to fly under the radar

Trumps tweets on transgender military service created a media shockwave, but that moment aside, the administrations attacks on LGBT people in 2017 have been considerably less flashy: amicus briefs filed to the Supreme Court, tinkering with executive orders, adjusting the Department of Justices approach to transgender students. All of these perniciously subtle attacks have taken place against a cultural backdrop of continuing bigotry and violence: In the last year, for example, at least 28 trans people have been killed, most of them transgender women of color.

Tim Teeman: I think one of the things the U.S. would do well to figure out (he said vainly) is the separation of Church and State. The Religious Right has such a grip on the levers of power here, in certain states and in certain administrations like President Trumps which is greatly relying on the bedrock of its support. LGBT people, activists and groups are facing a traumatic 2018, as the far right of the Republican support seeks to shore up support around Trump, and trans people especially are especially vulnerable in such an atmosphere.

Jay makes a good point: at a time when the Right seeks a ratcheting up of the LGBT culture war, LGBT people and their straight allies working in the culture at large should work to put a wide diversity of LGBT lives and characters into that culture, whether it be TV, film, literature, art, or whatever. Actual LGBT presence will be vital in 2018.

If this global backlash isn't stopped, queer people will be murdered, arrested, targeted, stigmatized, and forced to leave their countries (and then denied refugee status) in numbers we have never seen before

Samantha Allen: The death of a thousand blows of LGBT rights under Trump is only going to continue in 2018, and Im worried that, with so many other scandals dominating the headlines, the systematic erosion of LGBT rightsa phenomenon thats directly affecting at least 4 percent of the U.S. population and 7 percent of millennialswill continue to fly under the radar.

Thatd be like the Trump administration deciding one day that everyone in the state of Pennsylvania didnt deserve human rightsand it somehow not being front-page news every single day until it got fixed.

Jay Michaelson: My greatest fear for 2018 is on a somewhat macro-scale. The rise of nationalism, nativism, and right-wing populism around the world is terrifying. On one level, it's an understandable backlash against globalization, multiculturalism, and technology: people unable or unwilling to change are clinging to old identities and myths. But it's also profoundly dangerous, and queers are just one population endangered by it. It's not to be taken lightly.

Already we've seen the United States retreat from the whole concept of human rights, giving carte blanche to murderous anti-LGBTQ elements in Russia, Egypt, Chechnya, Indonesia, and elsewhere.

In 2018, the US will practically zero out its aid to vulnerable LGBT populations around the world. At the UN as elsewhere, America is now allied with Putin's Russia, in this case withdrawing protection from LGBT people and instead defending the oppression of us.

But this is just the beginning. If this global backlash isn't stopped, queer people will be murdered, arrested, targeted, stigmatized, and forced to leave their countries (and then denied refugee status) in numbers we have never seen before.

Figure out some way to help those who dont have as much, or who are especially politically and culturally vulnerable, and who could do with support. Give money, volunteer, whateverdo what you can

Tim Teeman: On that basis, LGBT people and their allies with any time, money, commitment and energy might think about involving themselves with activism and campaigning for organizations like The Trevor Project, HRC, Anti-Violence Project, National Center For Transgender Equality, GLSEN, PFLAG, OutRight Action International, and groups in their local area. If they don't want to do something overtly political, then maybe figure out a way to help those who dont have as much, or who are especially vulnerable, and who could do with supportwhether that be financial and pastoral.

If you need inspiration, look to Nathan Mathis who wasn't going to let Roy Moore winor lose at it turned outin Alabama without shaming him over his homophobia; and without remembering, in the most moving way possible, his dead lesbian daughter, Patti Sue.

Listen to, and be inspired by, the stirring stories of those from times when things were not just bleak but political progress and cultural evolution seemed alien and utterly distant. Eric Marcus has distilled, and continues to distill, amazing interviews with the likes of Sylvia Rivera and Frank Kameny, conducted for his landmark book Making Gay History: The Half-Century Fight For Lesbian and Gay Equal Rights, into a must-listen podcast.

Read more: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-fight-for-lgbt-equality-in-2018-will-be-fierce

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2Eudf8o via Viral News HQ

[bestmovies0]

The Fight for LGBT Equality in 2018 Will Be Fierce

Jay Michaelson : So, here we are at the end of a strange time for LGBTQ Americans. On the one hand, mainstream acceptance of lesbian people continues to spread; homosexuals are now officially boring. On the other hand, trans people are being singled out for government mistreatment on the one hand and continued street violence on the other.

Meanwhile, as all three of us have written, the Trump-Pence administration is imposing the “death of a thousand blows” against LGBTQ civil right, severely restriction employment rights, marital rights, access to healthcare, access to safe facilities in schools, and so on-while literally deleting LGBTQ people from government forms, proclamations, and observances.

For that reason, it &# x27; s even harder than usual to look toward 2018 with any sense of certainty. What are we most hoping for in the year to come? And what do we fear?

Samantha Allen : I have written the word “bathroom” hundreds of periods over the past two years of covering the various state-level attempts to restrict transgender people’s restroom use. I wish I never had to type it again; I didn’t sign up to be a reporter to write about the human excretory system each week.

But in 2018, I am hoping to talk about bathrooms a lot less frequently–and I have reason to believe that will be the case.

One of the most important success for transgender people this year came in the form of something we avoided: a” bathroom bill” in Texas that would have effectively built birth certificates into tickets of entry for restrooms in public schools and government buildings. But that was scampered at the last second by the business community, local law enforcement, and a sympathetic talker of the House who said he “[ didn’t] crave the suicide of a single Texan on[ his] hands .”

” I’m confident that we’ll visualize some–but fewer–red-state legislatures really push for “bathroom” bills. They’re political losers and fund drainers–and everyone in elected office knows that by now “ div > div>

I was in the government the summer months when this thing almost get passed and I witnessed firsthand the gloriously outsized Texas rage against a bill that could have cost them billions( Tim wrote about the Texas bathroom battle at the time for the Daily Beast ).

Between that and North Carolina being was necessary to repeal the more controversial aspects of HB 2 under pressure from the NCAA, I’m confident that we’ll understand some–but fewer–red-state parliaments truly push for “bathroom” bills. They’re political losers and money drainers–and everyone in elected agency known to be by now.

Tim Teeman : I’d like to share your optimism, but Roy Moore supplies a harsh corrective–for me anyway. In the celebrations that followed his defeat at the hands of Doug Jones in the Alabama Senate race, some difficult questions were left dangling.

Moore was a candidate whose rampant homophobia-his actual desire to see discrimination enacted against millions of LGBT Americans, his desire to see prejudice and discrimination are set forth in law-went largely unchallenged and unquestioned. Simply on the last day of the race did Jake Tapper of CNN ask his spokesman whether Moore believed homosexuality should be illegal( the answer: “Probably” ).

This was a shameful and telling omission by the media. The depressing footnote to Moore’s loss is that extreme homophobia itself is not a disqualification for a political nominee in 2017. Active homophobia was seen as a valid mandate to comprised by the modern Republican Party.

Moore was only too happy to hold it close even in overcome, as he proven by posting( on Facebook ) Carson Jones, Doug Jones’ lesbian son’s, post-election interview with The Advocate . It was a sly attempt to stir up anti-gay poison. Legislators like Moore are thankfully fewer and fewer in number, but homophobia and transphobia are still a major currency in this White House–and that Trump and other of Moore’s high-profile Republican supporters don’t see it as a disqualifying characteristic tells us something very sad and alarming indeed.

” Since ordinary gays are now not so novel, Hollywood &# x27; s search for novelty is causing them to explore tales of people of color, rural folks, genderqueer folks, and other people who aren &# x27; t Will or Grace “ div > div > div>

Jay Michaelson : I am putting most of my hopes outside the machinery of the state. Hollywood told some beautiful faggot tales in 2017; I hope this expands and continues in 2018. A decade ago, when I was a professional activist, we had it drilled into us that the number one taken into account in someone “evolving” on any particular LGBTQ issue was knowing someone who was L, G, B, T, or Q. And if they didn &# x27; t have firsthand knowledge, media figures counted too.

So, while the Republican party caters to its Christian Right base, I hope that continued media visibility stimulates them pay for doing so. There &# x27; s a nice irony too: since ordinary lesbians are now not so novel, Hollywood &# x27; s search for novelty is causing them to explore tales of people of color, rural folks, genderqueer folks, and other people who aren &# x27; t Will or Grace. That might not be for the best motive, but the consequences could be profound.

Tim Teeman : Then we have the &# x27; wedding cake &# x27; case at SCOTUS, which you have written about Jay. That seems currently going in favor of the baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. This isn &# x27; t just about a wedding cake, of course, but furnishing a signal that discrimination based on “beliefs” is OK, which can be used against LGBT people in so many contexts.

Samantha Allen : I’m afraid the Trump administration’s attempts on the LGBT community will continue to be so persistent and so piecemeal that they will continue to get shuffled to the side. This past month, we were stunned when the Washington Post reported that the CDC had been deterred from employing the term “transgender” in preparing their annual budget, but if people had been paying closer attention to Trump’s appointments in the Department of Health and Human Service and other federal agencies, this wouldn’t have been a surprise.

We can’t afford to pretend anymore like these are stunningly cruel onslaughts that come out of nowhere: leaders of anti-LGBT groups regularly walk the White House dormitories, they wield tremendous influence right now, and the concerned authorities is softly giving them what they want.

” I’m worried that, with so many other scandals dominating the headlines, the systematic eroding of LGBT rights will continue to fly under the radar “ div > div>

Trump’s tweets on transgender military service made a media shockwave, but that moment aside, the administration’s assaults on LGBT people in 2017 have been considerably less flashy: amicus summaries filed to the Supreme Court, tinkering with executive orders, adapting the Department of Justice’s approach to transgender students. All of these perniciously subtle assaults have taken place against a cultural backdrop of continuing bigotry and violence: In the last year, for example, at least 28 trans people have been killed, most of them transgender women of color.

Tim Teeman : I reckon one of the things the U.S. would do well to figure out( he said vainly) is the separation of Church and State. The Religious Right has such a clutch on the levers of power here, in certain states and in certain administrations like President Trump’s which is greatly relying on the bedrock of its support. LGBT people, activists and groups are facing a traumatic 2018, as the extreme right of the Republican support seeks to shore up support around Trump, and trans people specially are particularly susceptible in such an atmosphere.

Jay makes a good point: at a time when the Right seeks a ratcheting up of the LGBT culture war, LGBT people and their straight friends working in the culture at large should work to threw a wide diversity of LGBT lives and characters into that culture, whether it be Tv, movie, literature, art, or whatever. Actual LGBT existence will be vital in 2018.

” If this world backlash isn &# x27; t stopped, gay people will be murdered, arrested, targeted, stigmatized, and forced to leave their countries( and then denied refugee status) in numbers we have never seen before “ div > div>

Samantha Allen: The” death of a thousand blows” of LGBT rights under Trump is simply going to continue in 2018, and I’m worried that, with so many other scandals dominating the headlines, the systematic corrosion of LGBT rights–a phenomenon that’s immediately affecting at the least 4 percent of the U.S. population and 7 percent of millennials–will continue to fly under the radar.

That’d be like the Trump administration deciding one day that everyone in the country of Pennsylvania didn’t deserve human rights–and it somehow not being front-page news every single period until it get fixed.

Jay Michaelson : My greatest anxiety for 2018 is on a somewhat macro-scale. The rise of nationalism, nativism, and right-wing populism around the world is terrifying. On one level, it &# x27; s an understandable backlash against globalization, multiculturalism, and technology: people unable or unwilling to change are clinging to old identities and myths. But it &# x27; s also profoundly dangerous, and queers are just one population endangered by it. It &# x27; s not to be taken lightly.

Already we &# x27; ve appreciated the United States retreat from the whole concept of human rights, devoting carte blanche to murderous anti-LGBTQ factors in Russia, Egypt, Chechnya, Indonesia, and elsewhere.

In 2018, the US will practically zero out its aid to vulnerable LGBT populations around the world. At the UN as elsewhere, America is now allied with Putin &# x27; s Russia, in this case withdrawing protection from LGBT people and instead protecting the oppression of us.

But this is just the beginning. If this world backlash isn &# x27; t stopped, homosexual people will be slaughtered, apprehended, targeted, stigmatized, and forced to leave their countries( and then denied refugee status) in numbers we have never seen before.

” Figure out some behavior to aid those who don’t have as much, or who are especially politically and culturally vulnerable, and which is able do with subsistence. Make money, volunteer, whatever–do what you can “ div > div>

Tim Teeman : On that basis, LGBT people and their allies with any time, fund, commitment and energy might think about involving themselves with activism and campaigning for organizations like The Trevor Project, HRC, Anti-Violence Project, National Center For Transgender Equality, GLSEN, PFLAG, OutRight Action International, and groups in their local region. If they don &# x27; t wishes to do something overtly political, then maybe figure out a style to assist the individuals who don’t have as much, or who are especially vulnerable, and who could do with support-whether that be fiscal and pastoral.

If you need inspiration, look to Nathan Mathis who wasn &# x27; t is letting Roy Moore win-or lose at it turned out-in Alabama without dishonor him over his homophobia; and without remembering, in the most moving lane possible, his dead lesbian daughter, Patti Sue.

Listen to, and be inspired by, the conjuring tales of those from periods when things were not just bleak but political progress and cultural evolution seemed alien and utterly remote. Eric Marcus has distilled, and continues to distill, astonishing interviews with the likes of Sylvia Rivera and Frank Kameny, conducted for his landmark book Making Gay History: The Half-Century Fight For Lesbian and Gay Equal Rights, into a must-listen podcast.

Read more: https :// www.thedailybeast.com/ the-fight-for-lgbt-equality-in-2 018 -will-be-fierce

from https://bestmovies.fun/2017/12/30/the-fight-for-lgbt-equality-in-2018-will-be-fierce/

[tragicbooks]

'People who just don’t exist': 6 things to keep in mind as gay men disappear in Chechnya.

<br>

More than 100 gay men have quietly been "rounded up" by law enforcement in Chechnya, a semi-independent state of southern Russia, according to Moscow-based newspaper Novaya Gazeta. At least three men are believed to have been killed.

This atrocity may be happening on the other side of the globe, but the message it's sending to the world hits very close to home.

Here are six facts to keep in mind as this story develops:

1. The move to round up men suspected of being gay began with gay pride parades — an irrational threat to any homophobe.

GayRussia.ru, a gay rights group, had begun applying for permits in order to hold LGBTQ pride parades in many cities across Russia. The group didn't expect any of the applications to be accepted under President Vladimir Putin's notoriously anti-gay policies, of course (and, in fact, none of them were), but GayRussia.ru was planning to use the permit denials to build a civil rights case to take to the European Court of Human Rights in France.

Russian police detain an LGBTQ rights activist in Moscow in 2015. Photo by Dmitry Serebryakov/AFP/Getty Images.

Tragically, even talk of gay pride parades emboldened anti-LGBTQ law enforcement, and the move by GayRussia.ru galvanized authorities to push back against even an attempt at pursuing equality.

“In Chechnya, the command was given for a ‘prophylactic sweep,’" Novaya Gazeta reported. "And it went as far as real murders."

Confirming the exact number of men affected by the "sweep," however, is near-impossible at the moment.

2. Hard facts have been difficult to verify because the subject of gay rights is taboo in that region of the world.

Ekaterina Sokirianskaia, an International Crisis Group worker, told The Guardian that she'd been hearing concerning information about law enforcement targeting gay men in and around Grozny, Chechnya's capital, for nearly two weeks prior to widespread news reports on the matter.

But proving any connections between missing persons and the authorities allegedly responsible for their disappearances has been difficult. The topic of gay rights is so taboo and frowned upon in Chechnya that people refuse to speak up — Sokirianskaia was only getting information from second- or third-hand accounts.

Photo by Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP/Getty Images.

Still, Sokirianskaia knows the arrests and murders aren't imaginary: "The number of signals I’m receiving from different people makes it hard not to believe detentions and violence are indeed happening," she told The Guardian.

It doesn't help that officials cannot be trusted with the truth either.

3. Often, gay people conveniently don't "exist" in the very places they're oppressed (or so we're told to believe). That same myth is being sold in Chechnya.

Confronted with the alarming revelation that the government may be behind these disappearances, Alvi Karimov, a spokesperson for Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, suggested the report by Novaya Gazeta is a fallacy, claiming gay people simply don't exist in that region of Russia.

And even if they did, he claimed, their own families would have fixed the issue.

“You cannot detain and persecute people who simply do not exist in the republic,” Karimov said in a statement, according to Radio Free Europe. “If there were such people in Chechnya, the law-enforcement organs wouldn't need to have anything to do with them because their relatives would send them somewhere from which there is no returning."

Police arrest an LGBTQ rights activist in Moscow in 2013. Photo by Alexander Nemeno/AFP/Getty Images.

If this specific tactic of deflecting reality seems familiar, it may be because former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad infamously told an audience at Columbia University in 2007 that Iran doesn't "have homosexuals, like in your country," when asked about Iran's crackdown on LGBTQ rights. Kadyrov's lie has been told before.

Considering who one of the Chechen leader's dear friends is, however, this news maybe isn't quite as shocking as it should be. Which brings us to...

4. Kadyrov, head of the Chechen Republic, is a close ally and friend of Putin, who has a heinous track record on LGBTQ rights.

Photo by Natalia Kolesnikova/AFP/Getty Images.

While Chechnya is technically part of Russia, it operates independently in some ways under Kadyrov, a "vulgar, vicious, and very rich" ally to — and political instrument used by — Putin, The Guardian explained. Kadyrov is like a son to Putin, and Putin is one of Kadyrov's idols.

In 2013, Russia passed vague but far-reaching legislation that banned "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations" — a major step backward for LGBTQ rights advocates. According to Human Rights Watch, the law legalized discrimination against queer Russians and encouraged violence spurred by homophobia. Anti-LGBTQ hate crimes spiked in the lead-up to and aftermath of the bill's passing.

Vladimir Putin (left) and Ramzan Kadyrov. Mikhail Klimentyev/AFP/Getty Images.

It makes sense that Kadyrov may try to replicate Putin's disturbing crackdown on gay rights in his own territory.

But one thing he hasn't been able to vanquish is hope.

5. Although the work has been difficult, there is some hope to be found: A Russian LGBTQ rights organization is helping gay men in Chechnya.

Fighting for equality in Chechnya has proven to be nearly impossible, so one civil rights group is trying to aid LGBTQ people in finding refuge elsewhere. It may be a small glimmer of light in very dark circumstances, but an organization based in St. Petersburg has reportedly set up an anonymous hotline for Chechens to call to find help in escaping the region to find a more tolerant place.

LGBTQ rights activists march in St. Petersburg in 2013. Photo by Olga Maltseva/AFP/Getty Images.

6. While this problem may seem oceans away to many of us, news travels fast when the world is as small as it is today. That's a good thing.

That means people can help make a difference, even from miles away. To make a difference, you can help the news travel even faster.

Share this story with friends and family online and keep track of developments in the days and weeks ahead. Demand your leaders — including our own president with questionable ties to Russia — speak out on the atrocities happening in Chechnya. Do your part in spreading the truth.

We can't let these gay men be forgotten.

<br>

[socialviralnews]

'People who just don’t exist': 6 things to keep in mind as gay men disappear in Chechnya.

<br>

More than 100 gay men have quietly been "rounded up" by law enforcement in Chechnya, a semi-independent state of southern Russia, according to Moscow-based newspaper Novaya Gazeta. At least three men are believed to have been killed.

This atrocity may be happening on the other side of the globe, but the message it's sending to the world hits very close to home.

Here are six facts to keep in mind as this story develops:

1. The move to round up men suspected of being gay began with gay pride parades — an irrational threat to any homophobe.

GayRussia.ru, a gay rights group, had begun applying for permits in order to hold LGBTQ pride parades in many cities across Russia. The group didn't expect any of the applications to be accepted under President Vladimir Putin's notoriously anti-gay policies, of course (and, in fact, none of them were), but GayRussia.ru was planning to use the permit denials to build a civil rights case to take to the European Court of Human Rights in France.

Russian police detain an LGBTQ rights activist in Moscow in 2015. Photo by Dmitry Serebryakov/AFP/Getty Images.

Tragically, even talk of gay pride parades emboldened anti-LGBTQ law enforcement, and the move by GayRussia.ru galvanized authorities to push back against even an attempt at pursuing equality.

“In Chechnya, the command was given for a ‘prophylactic sweep,’" Novaya Gazeta reported. "And it went as far as real murders."

Confirming the exact number of men affected by the "sweep," however, is near-impossible at the moment.

2. Hard facts have been difficult to verify because the subject of gay rights is taboo in that region of the world.

Ekaterina Sokirianskaia, an International Crisis Group worker, told The Guardian that she'd been hearing concerning information about law enforcement targeting gay men in and around Grozny, Chechnya's capital, for nearly two weeks prior to widespread news reports on the matter.

But proving any connections between missing persons and the authorities allegedly responsible for their disappearances has been difficult. The topic of gay rights is so taboo and frowned upon in Chechnya that people refuse to speak up — Sokirianskaia was only getting information from second- or third-hand accounts.

Photo by Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP/Getty Images.

Still, Sokirianskaia knows the arrests and murders aren't imaginary: "The number of signals I’m receiving from different people makes it hard not to believe detentions and violence are indeed happening," she told The Guardian.

It doesn't help that officials cannot be trusted with the truth either.

3. Often, gay people conveniently don't "exist" in the very places they're oppressed (or so we're told to believe). That same myth is being sold in Chechnya.

Confronted with the alarming revelation that the government may be behind these disappearances, Alvi Karimov, a spokesperson for Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, suggested the report by Novaya Gazeta is a fallacy, claiming gay people simply don't exist in that region of Russia.

And even if they did, he claimed, their own families would have fixed the issue.

“You cannot detain and persecute people who simply do not exist in the republic,” Karimov said in a statement, according to Radio Free Europe. “If there were such people in Chechnya, the law-enforcement organs wouldn't need to have anything to do with them because their relatives would send them somewhere from which there is no returning."

Police arrest an LGBTQ rights activist in Moscow in 2013. Photo by Alexander Nemeno/AFP/Getty Images.

If this specific tactic of deflecting reality seems familiar, it may be because former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad infamously told an audience at Columbia University in 2007 that Iran doesn't "have homosexuals, like in your country," when asked about Iran's crackdown on LGBTQ rights. Kadyrov's lie has been told before.

Considering who one of the Chechen leader's dear friends is, however, this news maybe isn't quite as shocking as it should be. Which brings us to...

4. Kadyrov, head of the Chechen Republic, is a close ally and friend of Putin, who has a heinous track record on LGBTQ rights.

Photo by Natalia Kolesnikova/AFP/Getty Images.

While Chechnya is technically part of Russia, it operates independently in some ways under Kadyrov, a "vulgar, vicious, and very rich" ally to — and political instrument used by — Putin, The Guardian explained. Kadyrov is like a son to Putin, and Putin is one of Kadyrov's idols.

In 2013, Russia passed vague but far-reaching legislation that banned "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations" — a major step backward for LGBTQ rights advocates. According to Human Rights Watch, the law legalized discrimination against queer Russians and encouraged violence spurred by homophobia. Anti-LGBTQ hate crimes spiked in the lead-up to and aftermath of the bill's passing.

Vladimir Putin (left) and Ramzan Kadyrov. Mikhail Klimentyev/AFP/Getty Images.

It makes sense that Kadyrov may try to replicate Putin's disturbing crackdown on gay rights in his own territory.

But one thing he hasn't been able to vanquish is hope.

5. Although the work has been difficult, there is some hope to be found: A Russian LGBTQ rights organization is helping gay men in Chechnya.

Fighting for equality in Chechnya has proven to be nearly impossible, so one civil rights group is trying to aid LGBTQ people in finding refuge elsewhere. It may be a small glimmer of light in very dark circumstances, but an organization based in St. Petersburg has reportedly set up an anonymous hotline for Chechens to call to find help in escaping the region to find a more tolerant place.

LGBTQ rights activists march in St. Petersburg in 2013. Photo by Olga Maltseva/AFP/Getty Images.

6. While this problem may seem oceans away to many of us, news travels fast when the world is as small as it is today. That's a good thing.

That means people can help make a difference, even from miles away. To make a difference, you can help the news travel even faster.

Share this story with friends and family online and keep track of developments in the days and weeks ahead. Demand your leaders — including our own president with questionable ties to Russia — speak out on the atrocities happening in Chechnya. Do your part in spreading the truth.

We can't let these gay men be forgotten.

<br> from Upworthy http://ift.tt/2oCksIE via cheap web hosting

[trendingnewsb]

The Fight for LGBT Equality in 2018 Will Be Fierce

Jay Michaelson: So, here we are at the end of a strange year for LGBTQ Americans. On the one hand, mainstream acceptance of gay people continues to spread; gays are now officially boring. On the other hand, trans people are being singled out for government persecution on the one hand and continued street violence on the other.

Meanwhile, as all three of us have written, the Trump-Pence administration is inflicting the "death of a thousand blows" against LGBTQ civil rights, severely limiting employment rights, marital rights, access to healthcare, access to safe facilities in schools, and so onwhile literally erasing LGBTQ people from government forms, proclamations, and observances.

For that reason, it's even harder than usual to look toward 2018 with any sense of certainty. What are we most hoping for in the year to come? And what do we fear?

Samantha Allen: I have written the word bathroom hundreds of times over the past two years of covering the various state-level attempts to restrict transgender peoples restroom use. I wish I never had to type it again; I didnt sign up to be a reporter to write about the human excretory system every week.

But in 2018, I am hoping to talk about bathrooms a lot less frequentlyand I have reason to believe that will be the case.

One of the most important victories for transgender people this year came in the form of something we avoided: a bathroom bill in Texas that would have effectively made birth certificates into tickets of entry for restrooms in public schools and government buildings. But that was scuttled at the last second by the business community, local law enforcement, and a sympathetic speaker of the House who said he [didnt] want the suicide of a single Texan on [his] hands.

Im confident that well see somebut fewerred-state legislatures really push for bathroom bills. Theyre political losers and money drainersand everyone in elected office knows that by now

I was in the state this summer when this thing almost got passed and I witnessed firsthand the gloriously outsized Texas rage against a bill that could have cost them billions (Tim wrote about the Texas bathroom battle at the time for the Daily Beast).

Between that and North Carolina being forced to repeal the most controversial aspects of HB 2 under pressure from the NCAA, Im confident that well see somebut fewerred-state legislatures really push for bathroom bills. Theyre political losers and money drainersand everyone in elected office knows that by now.

Tim Teeman: Id like to share your optimism, but Roy Moore supplies a harsh correctivefor me anyway. In the celebrations that followed his defeat at the hands of Doug Jones in the Alabama Senate race, some difficult questions were left hanging.

Moore was a candidate whose rampant homophobiahis actual desire to see discrimination enacted against millions of LGBT Americans, his desire to see prejudice and discrimination enshrined in lawwent mostly unchallenged and unquestioned. Only on the last day of the race did Jake Tapper of CNN ask his spokesman whether Moore believed homosexuality should be illegal (the answer: Probably).

This was a shameful and telling omission by the media. The depressing footnote to Moores loss is that extreme homophobia itself is not a disqualification for a political candidate in 2017. Active homophobia was seen as a valid mandate to hold by the modern Republican Party.

Moore was only too happy to hold it close even in defeat, as he showed by posting (on Facebook) Carson Jones, Doug Jones gay sons, post-election interview with The Advocate. It was a sly attempt to stir up anti-gay poison. Politicians like Moore are thankfully fewer and fewer in number, but homophobia and transphobia are still a major currency in this White Houseand that Trump and other of Moores high-profile Republican supporters dont see it as a disqualifying characteristic tells us something very sad and alarming indeed.

Since ordinary gays are now not so novel, Hollywood's search for novelty is causing them to explore stories of people of color, rural folks, genderqueer folks, and other people who aren't Will or Grace

Jay Michaelson: I am putting most of my hopes outside the machinery of the state. Hollywood told some beautiful queer stories in 2017; I hope this expands and continues in 2018. A decade ago, when I was a professional activist, we had it drilled into us that the number one factor in someone "evolving" on any particular LGBTQ issue was knowing someone who was L, G, B, T, or Q. And if they didn't have firsthand knowledge, media figures counted too.

So, while the Republican party caters to its Christian Right base, I hope that continued media visibility makes them pay for doing so. There's a nice irony too: since ordinary gays are now not so novel, Hollywood's search for novelty is causing them to explore stories of people of color, rural folks, genderqueer folks, and other people who aren't Will or Grace. That might not be for the best motive, but the consequences could be profound.

Tim Teeman: Then we have the 'wedding cake' case at SCOTUS, which you have written about Jay. That seems currently going in favor of the baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. This isn't just about a wedding cake, of course, but providing a signal that discrimination based on "beliefs" is OK, which can be used against LGBT people in so many contexts.

Samantha Allen: Im afraid the Trump administrations attacks on the LGBT community will continue to be so persistent and so piecemeal that they will continue to get shuffled to the side. This past month, we were stunned when the Washington Post reported that the CDC had been discouraged from using the term transgender in preparing their annual budget, but if people had been paying closer attention to Trumps appointments in the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies, this wouldnt have been a surprise.

We cant afford to pretend anymore like these are stunningly cruel attacks that come out of nowhere: leaders of anti-LGBT groups regularly walk the White House halls, they wield tremendous influence right now, and the administration is quietly giving them what they want.

Im worried that, with so many other scandals dominating the headlines, the systematic erosion of LGBT rights will continue to fly under the radar

Trumps tweets on transgender military service created a media shockwave, but that moment aside, the administrations attacks on LGBT people in 2017 have been considerably less flashy: amicus briefs filed to the Supreme Court, tinkering with executive orders, adjusting the Department of Justices approach to transgender students. All of these perniciously subtle attacks have taken place against a cultural backdrop of continuing bigotry and violence: In the last year, for example, at least 28 trans people have been killed, most of them transgender women of color.

Tim Teeman: I think one of the things the U.S. would do well to figure out (he said vainly) is the separation of Church and State. The Religious Right has such a grip on the levers of power here, in certain states and in certain administrations like President Trumps which is greatly relying on the bedrock of its support. LGBT people, activists and groups are facing a traumatic 2018, as the far right of the Republican support seeks to shore up support around Trump, and trans people especially are especially vulnerable in such an atmosphere.

Jay makes a good point: at a time when the Right seeks a ratcheting up of the LGBT culture war, LGBT people and their straight allies working in the culture at large should work to put a wide diversity of LGBT lives and characters into that culture, whether it be TV, film, literature, art, or whatever. Actual LGBT presence will be vital in 2018.

If this global backlash isn't stopped, queer people will be murdered, arrested, targeted, stigmatized, and forced to leave their countries (and then denied refugee status) in numbers we have never seen before

Samantha Allen: The death of a thousand blows of LGBT rights under Trump is only going to continue in 2018, and Im worried that, with so many other scandals dominating the headlines, the systematic erosion of LGBT rightsa phenomenon thats directly affecting at least 4 percent of the U.S. population and 7 percent of millennialswill continue to fly under the radar.

Thatd be like the Trump administration deciding one day that everyone in the state of Pennsylvania didnt deserve human rightsand it somehow not being front-page news every single day until it got fixed.

Jay Michaelson: My greatest fear for 2018 is on a somewhat macro-scale. The rise of nationalism, nativism, and right-wing populism around the world is terrifying. On one level, it's an understandable backlash against globalization, multiculturalism, and technology: people unable or unwilling to change are clinging to old identities and myths. But it's also profoundly dangerous, and queers are just one population endangered by it. It's not to be taken lightly.

Already we've seen the United States retreat from the whole concept of human rights, giving carte blanche to murderous anti-LGBTQ elements in Russia, Egypt, Chechnya, Indonesia, and elsewhere.

In 2018, the US will practically zero out its aid to vulnerable LGBT populations around the world. At the UN as elsewhere, America is now allied with Putin's Russia, in this case withdrawing protection from LGBT people and instead defending the oppression of us.

But this is just the beginning. If this global backlash isn't stopped, queer people will be murdered, arrested, targeted, stigmatized, and forced to leave their countries (and then denied refugee status) in numbers we have never seen before.

Figure out some way to help those who dont have as much, or who are especially politically and culturally vulnerable, and who could do with support. Give money, volunteer, whateverdo what you can

Tim Teeman: On that basis, LGBT people and their allies with any time, money, commitment and energy might think about involving themselves with activism and campaigning for organizations like The Trevor Project, HRC, Anti-Violence Project, National Center For Transgender Equality, GLSEN, PFLAG, OutRight Action International, and groups in their local area. If they don't want to do something overtly political, then maybe figure out a way to help those who dont have as much, or who are especially vulnerable, and who could do with supportwhether that be financial and pastoral.

If you need inspiration, look to Nathan Mathis who wasn't going to let Roy Moore winor lose at it turned outin Alabama without shaming him over his homophobia; and without remembering, in the most moving way possible, his dead lesbian daughter, Patti Sue.

Listen to, and be inspired by, the stirring stories of those from times when things were not just bleak but political progress and cultural evolution seemed alien and utterly distant. Eric Marcus has distilled, and continues to distill, amazing interviews with the likes of Sylvia Rivera and Frank Kameny, conducted for his landmark book Making Gay History: The Half-Century Fight For Lesbian and Gay Equal Rights, into a must-listen podcast.

Read more: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-fight-for-lgbt-equality-in-2018-will-be-fierce

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2Eudf8o via Viral News HQ