Stupid Girls

Thursday, May 31, 2012

GenderQueer identity

You are reading
Share |

AndytheNerd posted the following on Tumblr.

Here's a VERY incomplete response to the post. This needs decades of research, not a first-draft blog post on only 2 cups of coffee, first thing in the morning. But I think it's better I post something, rather than nothing at all. Maybe we can start looking at this stuff?

The problem with all these conversations -- feminist, GenderQueer, Trans*, Queer, Intersex, etc. -- is the emphasis on SOCIAL science theories, rather than BIOLOGICAL science theories.

Anybody can define anything, as long as they are in the academy, have alphabet soup after their name, publish, teach and live in the hermetically sealed chambers of the hallowed halls. Many of these social theories are based on faulty input. Someone has a pet political ideology and that completely colors their statements of "fact" about a social issue. We see this in the influence of Marxism in some schools of feminism, for example. Marx is very limited and limiting. My argument is: ok, under Marx, the WORKERS own the factories. Fine and dandy. But, if the factories are still destroying the planet, what good is THAT doing anybody?

Social theory is a great STARTING point for conversations about social issues/isms. But it's JUST a starting point; it's speculation, at best and ideological dogma, at worst.

The influence of so-called "radical" "feminism" on the Trans* community is having a negative, reactionary impact, as an example. Trans* people have been so verbally abused, vilified, disrespected by shrill, self-righteous women who accuse them of monstrous things, put words in their mouths without listening to them, attribute motives that have little to do with Trans* folks' real experiences.

Therefore, it's not safe to even ASK biological science questions among some Trans* folk, not trained in scientific method. That's seen as a potential threat, a judgment, a condemnation and is met with a great deal of hurt, suspicion, resentment and hostility. How can we assess reality, if asking questions is taboo.

Here's a set of questions some Trans* folk sometimes react defensively toward.

Why can't children just be children? Why is it even considered appropriate to assign specific, material objects (such as toys, wardrobe, etc.) to one of two genders, and then assign an individual child to one of those genders, based on interest in those material items? How is it appropriate to assign a pre-pubescent child into this "either/or" category, merely based on the child's interest in objects?

Do human beings create material objects, or do material objects create human beings?

If the child lived in a culture in which cis-gendered males wear elaborate make up and wardrobe and exhibit very stylized postures and facial expressions, would we assign that child as male or female? How much of our social science definitions about gender are completely prejudiced and influenced by Western cultural values, rather than innate gender differences?

presumably Heterosexual, cis-gendered male Wodaabe, seeking mate
When a person who identifies as GenderQueer asks these questions, they're met with suspicion and hostility. They're also met with assumptions: "well, YOU are GENDERQUEER! YOU probably don't believe there ARE genders. Let me assure you THERE ARE! So STOP being so judgmental." said the pot to the kettle.

GenderQueer doesn't mean there are no genders. Part of the discussion, in fact, is that there are a LOT of genders, most of them unexamined, suppressed, vilified, stigmatized and controlled via SOCIAL sciences, such as religion, politics, psychology, etc.

We're not even allowed to have a conversation about their existence, let alone their expression, their usefulness and significance to human evolution or their civil rights!

Language informs how people think and learn. We have no language for other genders, not even the broad varieties of Intersex, let alone GenderQueer. We struggle over pronouns, trying to invent and adapt our way into language that simply acknowledges that we exist! Again, here's a scientific question: is our lack of language and thinking about gender diversity specific to Western cultures? Are there cultures where this binary language doesn't think us out of existence?

An example is the Native American phrase, "Two-Spirit," which is becoming increasingly popular in academic circles. What does it really mean? Some say it means "Gay" or "Lesbian." Some imply it means "Trans*" or even cis-gendered "bisexual." From which cultural tradition does this term come? What is the cultural context of the use of this term? Does this culture have other such language for other kinds of genders or sexual orientations? How far out from this culture, into surrounding cultures, does this spread? Or have the evangelical missionaries so shamed these cultures, they now have either forgotten about, or been shamed into silence regarding, these other genders and orientations? And here's a thought: What if "Two-Spirit" was simply language for "Intersex," and never MEANT to be interpreted as anything else?

Who's doing any real research on all the varieties, expressions and realities of gender, all the shades and hues, beyond black/white, male/female? I mean, real, solid, scientific research: anthropology, biology, neuroscience, endocrinology, etc? Is anybody doing this?

or are we just wildly speculating and forming crack-pot theories to soothe and comfort us, to wave as flags and slogans in the faces of the bigots who want us ALL dead, and simply see us all as "Queers?"

Trans* oppression is REAL. Forty percent of all LGBTQI murder victims are Trans*, usually women, usually of Color. Yet Trans* people comprise about one percent of the total LGBTQI population. That's REAL!

However, GenderQueers do not oppress, negate, vilify, disrespect nor erase Trans* issues, simply for asking about our OWN issues! We are perfectly justified in asking about gender, our experiences, our histories.

Setting a place for ourselves at the table does not mean we're starving anybody else. It simply means more for everybody, and a wider menu from which to choose.


Thursday, May 24, 2012

GQA History Moment: Anita Bryant Pie in the Face

"secular humanist" Trans*phobia

You are reading
Share |
so, does this mean Global Secular Humanist Movement thinks Trans*phobia is an effective method of discrediting an ideological opponent? Is there some secret homophobia going on here? Because you're not insulting this guy. You're not discrediting his policies. What you're doing is saying it's not ok for humans to step out of rigidly defined, binary gender roles. And, if you, the opponent, do not behave the way I think you should, I'll accuse you of being feminine. And by that, I will mean "weak, soft, silly, easy to dismiss, foolish, immature, unmanly." So, what you're really saying is that anyone who presents as feminine must be an untrustworthy monster, a loser and an enemy. So, the next time a Trans* woman gets beaten to death by insecure ass hats, just because she's walking home, you won't feel a bit responsible for reinforcing stereotypes that lead to her death, right? And forty percent of murders in the LGBT community are of Trans* women, even though they only constitute one percent of the LGBT community. But you're so educated on LGBT issues, on gender issues, on sexual orientation that you already knew that, right? So you'll say something self defensive, like I'm a party pooper or a rad fem or a "crazy" for bringing up the fact that this picture is COMPLETELY inappropriate for a GLOBAL and SECULAR (because we ALL KNOW religions don't contribute to sexism, heterosexism, homophobia or Trans*phobia) HUMANIST (because feminine presentation, Trans* people, GenderQueer people and Queer people are NOT HUMAN and NOT globally endangered) movement or facebook post or anything else that has to do with critical thinking, rationality and the other stuff you spout AT YOUR CONVENIENCE, when it suits you, whether or not it KILLS US! What a SHITTY THING TO DO!

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Porn on my Delta flight this morning!

You are reading
Share |

Porn on my Delta flight this morning!

 And you did nothing that explained it to her. She saw you suddenly scream at someone who was quietly minding his own business. What could have been an opportunity to educate people turned into "proof" that feminists are shrill, man-hating "fascists," from their point of view. If we just demand everybody think & act like us, they'll just resent us and laugh. Getting louder won't make people listen. Getting smarter, more creative, will. We turn it around by focusing on what women & girls are doing right, not on what men are doing wrong, and the exploitation will dissolve overnight. Power won't be handed over because we demand/beg for it. We take our own power, and theirs can't hurt us anymore.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

sneering at sex work

You are reading
Share |

 Notice how it's always white, upper middle class, educated, cis-gendered and, too frequently, heterosexual women who look down their noses at sex workers, like we aren't sisters, like we aren't making choices in our lives that empower us, while they hog all their privileges to themselves and encourage governments like India to STOP allowing us the means by which we can make our jobs safer, such as condom distribution? Wow, arrogant much? I'd rather be a sex worker, where I can make my own hours, control my working conditions and have a high enough standard of living, thanks. You can take your sweat shop jobs and sewing machines and shove them up your brittle, narrow-minded, globalization apologist neo-theories, babies. We are liberating ourselves so, lead, follow or, better yet, get the hell out of the way.

Women doing "Satan's" work

You are reading
Share |

Evil is coming in through thewoman,” says Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, of Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND). He cites the use of birth control and having “sex without shame” as his evidence. Seemingly unaware that his own attitudes might be influencing his experience of women, he elaborated that they have “no patience and no love.”

Sean Hannity, host of “Fox andFriends,” made Peterson a frequent guest on his show. Skeptics like speculate this was because it would be more palatable to have an African American inject racist comments into media. Hannity had financial interests in Peterson's BOND organization, finally distancing himself from him in 2009 over Peterson's declaration, “I Think We All Agree That Barack Obama Was Elected Mostly By Black Racists And White Guilty People.”

Peterson's new obsession is that, because women vote, America is over, “Satan is having his way.”

Don't discriminate against incest

You are reading
Share |

I want the law to discriminate against all alternative lifestyles,” Bill Donahue said recently on CNN. He includes “co-habitating” couples and LGBT couples. The current president of the Catholic League is divorced, in direct conflict with Catholic law. He challenged ordered Chad Griffin – Presidential appointee to presidency of the Human Rights Campaign – to endorse incestuous marriages. If the nation endorses marriage equality, the logical outcome would be equality for incestuous unions. His confrontational and disruptive behavior during this debate were noted and summarily ignored by both Griffin and CNN's host, Piers Morgan. Donahue claimed definitive proof that the gold standard for marriage is between a man and a woman. He failed to cite any sources of such proof.

According to The Catechism of the CatholicChurch, divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. Sacramental marriage is the sign of the covenant of salvation, to which divorce does incredible injury.


Tuesday, May 15, 2012

oh, boo hoo: 8 whole days of "gay" marriage

You are reading
Share |
Comment to NPR's Ombudsman: NO, You covered 8 days of cis-gendered, heterosexual, privileged men, not "Gay" marriage. And it's NOT "Gay marriage;" it's MARRIAGE EQUALITY. And you only discussed it for eight days. Queer/lgbtiq rights has been going on in this country for generations. Your treatments are superficial tokens. We're a political football, used as the bogey man, by reactionaries and as fundraising pinatas by the "liberals." How's your reporting on GenderQueers? What's going on with rights of families who don't want or need church/state sanction? What about non-monogamous families? Why aren't their rights to be recognized? Whining about eight days has no interest to me. My companions and I have been struggling with this superficiality and willful ignorance for generations. FAIL 

Catholic pedophelia obsession: Girl Scouts

You are reading
Share |

Michelle Obama With Girls Scout
Michelle Obama is the national honorary president of the Girl Scouts. (Manuel Balce Ceneta / AP Photo)

Vatican Investigating Girl Scouts for Links to Safe-Sex Education Groups

The Girl Scout leadership is waiting to learn more about the U.S. bishops’ inquiry, but they maintain that they do not have an official relationship with Planned Parenthood, and that each individual chapter is free to choose resource materials that are suitable to their members’ base communities, meaning the Catholic troops don’t have to use the “Healthy, Happy and Hot” booklet or any materials that contradict the local leadership bylaws. "We have had a very strong relationship with the Catholic Church for 98 years, and we don't expect that to change," said Girl Scout spokesperson Michelle Tompkins in a statement. "We are working very closely with the Council of Bishops to address the issues they have raised and that work continues. We share a common belief that working together, we can have a very positive impact on the lives of millions of girls and women."
That’s certainly more than the Vatican can say of its own agenda on women’s rights. 

 See, they THINK this is gonna cow people, make 'em submit, silence them, etc. But this isn't the Dark Ages anymore. We're connected globally. Look at the Gender Identity revolution in Argentina, for example: direct result of Catholic shenanigans, most progressive gender legislation on Earth. There won't be centuries of witch burning this time; they're shooting themselves in their gold-encased tootsies, the damn fools

speaking of feminity and fuckability . . .

You are reading
Share |

A provocative read. A lot of it is spot-on, though there are parts I'm less sure about.
The Unfuckables By Anna Breslaw image by imp kerr “Ooh, the bitch,” Jenny said. “Just let me get my hands on her. That’s real immoral, is that … They get us girls a bad name, they do, bitches like that. Ooh, that bloody bitch, I can’t get her out of my head.” Graham smiled...

This is just my thoughts on the article, linked above, compared to the article, linked below. 

This is too dependent on using celebrities as metaphors, so I can't track it. I finally gave up. It's so Hollywood. I don't know most of the people it's talking about. They have no impact or direct influence on my life that I know about.They sound a bit silly and impressed with themselves. Fact is, women attack other women the same way members of marginalized groups attack each other: to fend off the self hatred of internalized messages of unworthiness, to vie for approval from the dominant pardigm, to compete for Master's hand-me-downs and scraps and because horizontal hostility seems safer than going after the seats of real power. Are these all white, cis-gender females of privilege? I wish this article didn't depend so heavily on celebrity icons of a toxic culture I avoid worse than dog poop on a lawn; I'd understand it better. I finally gave up reading; I couldn't track it with all the references to people I don't even care about, anyway. After Simone and Germaine, I was clueless. Now, if you want to read a truly juicy article about feminine/masculine, powerful/lessness, self actualization and authenticity, here's one I read this morning that actually made me jump up and down, it so excited me: 

Thursday, May 10, 2012

When Religion Bans Health Care

You are reading
Share |

By Rogi Riverstone
All rights reserved

Religious-based hospitals receive over forty-five billion U.S. Taxpayer dollars per yer, according to Merger Watch, a watchdog group that works to protect patents' rights when U.S. hospitals merge.

Patients are discovering they lose reproductive health care services and personal decision-making about end-of-life care when secular community hospitals and clinics merge with religiously-sponsored hospitals.
Low-income women and women of Color tend to depend more on hospitals and hospital outpatient clinics for their health care. They, along with rural women who might not have accessible alternative providers, are disproportionately affected by religious health care restrictions. Almost all Catholic hospitals, for instance, are located in rural areas.

Obstetrician–gynecologists,religious institutions, and conflicts regarding patient care policies” is a survey of 1,800 medical professionals. The study, which appears in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

Its Objective:

To assess how common it is for obstetrician-gynecologists working in religiously-affiliated hospitals or practices to experience conflict with those institutions over religiously-based policies for patient care, and to identify the proportion of obstetrician-gynecologists who report that their hospitals restrict their options for treating ectopic pregnancy.”

The results of the survey showed that, among obstetrician–gynecologists who practice in religiously affiliated institutions, more than one third have had a conflict with their institution over religiously-based policies. These conflicts are most common in Catholic institutions (52%). Few report that their options for treating ectopic pregnancy are limited by their hospitals (2.5% at non-Catholic institutions vs. 5.5% at Catholic providers).

Debra Stulberg, an assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Chicago Medical School, is lead author of the study. In a news report by NPR, titled, “When Religious Rules And Women's Health Collide,” journalist Julie Rovner interviewed Stulberg about specific impact to women's health.

Stulberg stated that, in Catholic facilities, restrictions on -- and prohibitions against -- abortion are the rule, but that it doesn't end there. Physicians who participated in the study reported to her, in personal conversations, that, in religiously affiliated hospitals the most frequent issues arise around birth control and sterilization, particularly for women who want to be sterilized just after giving birth.

"Those are things that most OB-GYNs support giving to women and that they want to be able to offer to women," Stulberg says. "And they are completely prohibited at Catholic hospitals."

Women who undergo Caesarian section, she says, are often forced to go to a separate hospital and have a second surgery, complete with the further risk of another round of anesthesia. "It's not medically good for a woman to have two surgeries when she could have one," she says.

Only 2.9 percent of physicians treating ectopic pregnancies face restrictions from religously-based hospitals; with Catholic providers, it was 5.5 percent. An ectopic pregnancy occurs outside the uterus, usually in a Fallopian tube, and is life-threatening to the mother. While laproscopic surgeries to remove these non-viable pregnancies are common, a less-invasive drug therapy utilizes Methotrexate, which is ninety percent effective in qualified cases.

Stulberg questions whether Methotrexate therapy will face resistance within religious-based hospitals, swept up with abortion bans.

Stulberg is aware that the survey results bring up more specific questions about quality of care in religously-based hospitals and plans for follow-up research are formulating.

Tuesday, May 08, 2012

RoboClinton, South Africa "Traditional Chiefs"

You are reading

women shouldn't vote

You are reading
Share |

do I need to point out that the reason our dear Rev. ain't gettin no love -- or nookie, either, I'd imagine -- might just have something to do with the fact he's such a repulsive ass hat? Ain't no woman in the WORLD not gonna put the hate on THAT joker!

Fox News guest laments ‘mistake’ of letting women vote

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a tea party activist that’s appeared several times on Fox News, and founder of an organization where Sean Hannity serves as an advisory board member, said in a sermon recently published to YouTube that America’s greatest mistake was allowing women the right to vote, adding that back in “the good old days, men knew that women are crazy and they knew how to deal with them.”
In the video, published to YouTube in March, Peterson explains that he believes women simply can’t handle “anything,” and that in his experience, “You walk up to them with a issue, they freak out right away. They go nuts. They get mad. They get upset, just like that. They have no patience because it’s not in their nature. They don’t have love. They don’t have love.”
Despite his statements being online for more than a month, Hannity welcomed Peterson on his show last Tuesday to castigate the Obama administration over “taking credit” for the Osama bin Laden assassination — but the segment didn’t exactly go as planned.
In his March sermon, Peterson adds that Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law student who recently spoke to a House Democratic hearing on contraception coverage, was actually revealing “all the sex” college students are having. “It’s really all about maintaining the freedom to kill babies in the womb,” he says. “Women are now degraded. Women have no shame.”

Mirror: It Could Happen To You

You are reading