Latest Tweets:

Quick update

Hi everyone, I’m only writing one or two original pieces a fortnight at the moment because I’m in the middle of collating all the most important and relevant pieces of this blog into a resource that can be more readily accessible. Blogs are so messy, and finding material I’ve written a year ago can be so hard, I’m discovering! So hopefully you don’t mind that instead of writing my own stuff, I’m posting other articles and thoughts I’ve been coming across online. Resuming normal programming ASAP!!!


Rage, or the lack thereof (from 2010)

Source (nomorepotlucks)

A man stands chained to a fence, his face carefully composed in a look that can only be described as telegenic martyrdom. He is wearing a camouflage military uniform, and a black beret. The fence, it turns out, is the one around the White House. The man’s name is Dan Choi, it is March 2010 and he is set to become a symbol of all the contradictions of the new political rage in the United States.

What was Dan Choi so angry about in March—and again in April—of 2010? My leftist, anti-war heart beats more quickly at such a sight because I always imagine that the soldier in question is about to launch into a critique of the U.S war machine: “With this act, I declare the end of my allegiance to the project of death and destruction carried out by our country.” Or some such thing. You get the point.

So it was a disappointment to me to learn that Choi was protesting the fact that he, a gay soldier discharged under the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, was protesting his ouster and demanding to be let back in. Wait. “What was that again?” you ask? A man enters an institution, a man is unfairly ejected after it is discovered that he is gay, thus revealing, we must assume, said institution to be deeply flawed and even dangerous. And then the man demands to be let back in. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again…is Dan Choi insane?

No, to the best of my knowledge, but he is has frequently taken on the mantle of martyrdom, often comparing himself to historical figures like Martin Luther King and Mahatman Gandhi, as in an interview with Newsweek shortly after his first protest.[1] In the same interview, he spoke grandly against the stereotype of West Point graduates like him as a privileged people[2]: “We are tired of being stereotyped as privileged, bourgeois elites. Is someone willing to give up their career, their relationships with powerful people, their Rolodex, or their parents’ love to stand up for who they are? I’m giving up my military rank, my unit—which to me is a family—my veterans’ benefits, my health care, so what are you willing to sacrifice?”

One might be excused for being stunned into (temporary) silence at the sheer audacity of this statement. To date, over 50 million in the U.S are without health insurance. Millions work without benefits or have seen a sizable cut in them. Medical costs constitute the leading cause of bankruptcy in the country. According to one report, citing a Harvard study, “62% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007 were caused by health problems—and 78% of those filers had insurance.”[3] Given all this, it is hard to be admonished by a member of the ever-shrinking elite with benefits when one has none to sacrifice. As for his question about whether or not the rest of us are willing to give up “relationships with powerful people”: he has, I think, a great many of us—who don’t have such relationships in the first place—stumped.

As if his statement about who has privilege and who does not was not startling enough, Choi went on to speak of his experience in Iraq, when the reporter asked him what it was like to be in jail: “I’ve detained people in Iraq, I’ve read them their rights, and I’ve applied handcuffs and zip ties. I’ve talked with people in Arabic who’ve just been arrested. I know what it means to arrest someone for my country’s mission. But I’ve never been incarcerated, and for something that I thought was not my country’s mission. I know my country’s mission is not to make an entire group of people into second-class citizens.”

This last sentence should give pause to anyone who knows anything of what goes on in Iraq and Afghanistan, or has even heard of the infamous Abu Ghraib photographs.

As expected, much of the gay press and community have held up Choi as their martyr. If there is dissension around him, it comes not from an examination of what his politics might mean but what they look like. While GetEqual, the group behind Choi, proclaims that it is “radical” for supposedly daring to engage in tactics like those used by Choi, the more conservative Human Rights Campaign (HRC), with a 35 million dollar budget, focuses on expensive fundraisers and lobbying politicians in D.C where the campaign is based. Broadly speaking, the mainstream LGBT community in the U.S. advances an agenda whose ideology ranges from the right to the centre of right. Issues like marriage, DADT, and hate crimes legislation take up the economic and political capital of the “community” while matters like the homelessness of queer youth or the drop in AIDS funding are routinely set aside with the explanation that the first three will take care of the rest. GetEqual, HRC, and GOPProud simply want the status quo—in the form of marriage and the rest—to be expanded to gays and lesbians. None of their activism, in any form, challenges the hierarchy established by marriage, for instance.

Which is to say: conservative issues like marriage, DADT, and hate crimes legislation are the emphasis in the mainstream gay community, and the only differences between such groups lie in the styles of the advocacy they engage in, not the content. Yet, a recent Washington Post article about the gay rights movement declared that HRC was on the left of the gay community and GOPProud, the gay Republican group, was on the right. The fact that both groups are fighting for exactly the same thing did not seem to have occurred to the reporter.

But therein lies the fundamental problem with the Left in the U.S: its utter inability to separate itself from conservatives and liberals who, after all, merely want more of the same. When it comes to defining who is left and who is right, the distinctions come down to style, not ideology. Under these circumstances, it is no surprise that Choi should emerge as the brave and angry martyr who has had enough and will risk such things as “relationships to important people.” And he is regarded as such even by those on the left, like Amy Goodman, the popular host of the progressive television and radio show Democracy Now, who should know better.

Amy Goodman is as popular as she is among lefties and liberals because she is often one of the few anti-war voices of reason on the radio. But Goodman has had Dan Choi on Democracy Now a few times and has never once criticised his fervent pro-war and pro-U.S imperialist rhetoric. Not only that, she has gone so far as to pen not one but two op-eds, one of them titled “Lt. Choi Won’t Lie for His Country,” in which she repeated some of what he said to during a 2009 interview: “Choi got a message from an Iraqi doctor whose hospital Choi helped to rebuild while he was there. He said the doctor is ‘in South Baghdad right now. And he’s seen some of the Internet, YouTube and CNN interviews and other appearances, and he said: ‘Brother, I know that you’re gay, but you’re still my brother, and you’re my friend. And if your country, that sent you to my country, if America, that sent you to Iraq, will discharge you such that you can’t get medical benefits, you can come to my hospital any day. You can come in, and I will give you treatment.’” More recently, Choi was on Democracy Now, in a debate with the queer radical anti-war activist Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore, and said, “…war is a force that gives us meaning. War is a force that teaches us lessons of humanity and allows us to realize something about our society and teaches us the lessons that we probably should have learned before we went to war.” Neither Goodman nor Juan Gonzalez, her co-host, blinked an eye. Goodman has not simply featured Choi’s views on her show, she has explicitly endorsed them in her op-eds outside her role as show co-host.

Within today’s left, or what passes for the same, it is actually possible to have someone like Goodman, who has spent many hours among commentators critiquing the devastation caused to Iraq, listen to Choi talk about “rebuilding” a country that he is helping to bomb and destroy, without a single question about his politics. In this case, identity—and its efflorescence under a neoliberal war—becomes the excuse for war and it erases the possibility of a critique of Choi’s ideology. Even further, the war on Iraq becomes a staging ground for Chois’s personal dramas, a backdrop to the possibility of a doomed romance. As Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore puts it, “How many Iraqis died in order for him to express the ‘truth of who I am?’ What about the truth of the war?…Did you hear that? He’s not worried about dying in an atrocious war, or killing innocent civilians, but about whether his boyfriend will be notified.”[4]

Choi’s anger at having been expelled from the military and his on-the-surface radical tactics are symptomatic of the failure of the Left in the U.S to mobilise for the things that matter, like health care, leaving the political arena wide open for the likes of gay soldiers to angrily demand that they should be allowed to fight unjust wars. Modern times have rarely been worse in the United Sates, and yet, all over, there is anger about maintaining the status quo instead of meaningful change. Hence the growth of the Tea Party and its deployment of anger, much of it foolish and misplaced, as in the signs that read, “Keep the government out of my Medicare [the government’s form of health care for the elderly].”

In the wake of such struggles, what happens to the efforts of those who do fight for actual change?

Here in Chicago, I am a member of Gender JUST (GJ), a largely youth-led organisation that has, for nearly two years, successfully fought for a Chicago Public Schools (CPS) to institute a grievance process that would make it easier for students to report harassment and bullying. The current CEO of CPS, Ron Huberman is an out gay man with a partner and an adopted infant. For nearly two years, Huberman stalled on meeting with GJ and acting upon his promise to help make schools safer for youth, particularly queer youth, despite public promises to do so. Finally, the group decided to enact the kind of tactics long employed by direct action groups: it showed up at Huberman’s public appearances and even went to his house with a basket of cookies and testimonials from youth who had been harassed and bullied. Eventually, after a series of such escalations, Huberman agreed to institute a grievance process.

In the wake of the protest outside his house, we were told by some that they were troubled or even offended by the fact that GJ would actually show up at the house—where his child was. It was as if GJ had shown up and threatened to take away the infant, or had thrown stones at it. As Sam Finkelstein, one of the lead organisers, put it to me, “Why is no one thinking of the children and youth who suffer daily harassment and agony simply for going to school?” Implicit in the criticism of the actions was the idea that Huberman’s private residence should be invulnerable and that GJ had committed a major social infraction by daring to go to his house. This kind of logic is typical of protests in the U.S where dissent and protest have been nearly squelched by endlessly minute and refined bureaucratic efforts, via the process of having to ask for permits for every action or the constant admonition, during protests, to keep moving and stay on the sidewalk, instead of taking over the streets.

The students of Chicago’s public schools study in the nation’s most militarised school district; its largely minority and often poor population is constantly targeted by the U.S army for recruitment. Over the years, there has been admirable resistance to such militarization from many local educators on the left and groups like Gender JUST who have consistently been critical of such developments. Those criticizing GJ for its tactics failed to make the connections between Huberman’s supposed imperviousness to protest while inside his home, and the extreme vulnerability of students within school walls.

Our rage, the productive sort which might actually demand change, is constantly being curtailed either by convenient distinctions between private and public or by a public discourse which fails to see the contradictions in a gay soldier who considers himself a second-class citizen of the U.S while handcuffing Iraqis. Rage appears in stylistic flourishes, as in the Tea Party protests where citizens rant and rave about policies about which they have little understanding or by soldiers demanding “fair” treatment in an institution that is fundamentally unfair to the rest of the world.

Rage has dissipated into conciliation and a call for the status quo.



[2] Choi was responding to criticisms that elite military personnel like him, who graduate from institutions like West Point and choose to enter the military with specialised skills, are different from the much poorer young Latino/a or African American youth aggressively recruited by the army with the explicit promise of social mobility. The U.S military still boasts of the G.I Bill of 1944 as the best example of how it provides college or vocational education for returning veterans, along with various loans for homes and businesses. But today, with military service being largely voluntary, the military must rely on aggressive and even duplicitous forms of recruitment. In its advertising, it shamelessly deploys narratives about troubled youth of colour within single-mother households who need the discipline, targeting them as ideal candidates for “discipline” on its visits to high schools (where it is allowed to enter for recruitment purposes); it even goes so far as to recruit undocumented youth with the false promise of eventual citizenship. Today, the military depends on a two-tier system for recruitment: elite soldiers like Choi, who enter voluntarily and the economically and politically disenfranchised who join out of desperation.



Yasmin Nair is a Chicago-based writer, academic, and activist. She is a member of Gender JUST and the Against Equality collective. Her work has appeared in publications like Bitch, Time Out Chicago, Maximum RockNRoll, makeshift, Discourse and the first AE book, Against Equality: Queer Critiques of Gay Marriage. Nair is currently at work on a book about affect and neoliberalism, and can be reached at nairyasmin[at] Her website is

(Source: queerdiscox, via lgbtlaughs)



You know, I’m just waiting for the day when all homosexual/bisexual/pansexual/etc. people get tired of all our straight people shit and our prejudice and just band together and rise in a glorious revolution, like the Civil War, and take over the world.

instead of the doing the complete opposite and campaigning endlessly for marriage rights….



The thing that pisses me off about anti-marriage equality is how religeousely based it is. Like its in the Constitution that “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religeon” Like, yay you believe in the Traditional Family, but that doesn’t mean you can make laws against it. The only time America based anything off a belief is when it stated the US’s sole belief in inalienable human rights. And wait, isn’t love an inalienable human right?

"The thing that pisses me off about anti-marriage equality is how religeousely based it is." True, a lot of the bigoted anti-marriage equality beliefs do find their support base in religion. BUT… then there’s all the liberationist queers who are NOT bigoted, NOT religious, and totally don’t support marriage equality. It’s more complex than just black/white, for us / against us. There’s three sides to this debate, but only two of them seem to be getting any air play.

Not supporting marriage equality doesn’t necessarily make a person a bigot. The rhetoric of Equality Evangelists is maddening, because at every turn they try to paint anyone who doesn’t agree with their one-issue political stance and their hijacking of liberationist language as being an enemy of non-heterosexuals. This is bullshit. Sure, there are huge numbers of actual bigoted arseholes out there in the world, who hate non-heterosexuals no matter what. Be against them as much as you like. But stop painting people who don’t agree with your dubious political stances as being bigots - there are many queers just like me who actually understand what liberation means, who are extremely proud to be queer, and who think of nothing else than liberating their queer brothers and sisters AND WHO COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH THE EQUALITY MOVEMENT.
For more information go to or buy their new book at:
Don’t let Equality Evangelists dictate what you should think and who you should be.

Not supporting marriage equality doesn’t necessarily make a person a bigot. The rhetoric of Equality Evangelists is maddening, because at every turn they try to paint anyone who doesn’t agree with their one-issue political stance and their hijacking of liberationist language as being an enemy of non-heterosexuals. This is bullshit. Sure, there are huge numbers of actual bigoted arseholes out there in the world, who hate non-heterosexuals no matter what. Be against them as much as you like. But stop painting people who don’t agree with your dubious political stances as being bigots - there are many queers just like me who actually understand what liberation means, who are extremely proud to be queer, and who think of nothing else than liberating their queer brothers and sisters AND WHO COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH THE EQUALITY MOVEMENT.

For more information go to or buy their new book at:

Don’t let Equality Evangelists dictate what you should think and who you should be.

(Source: yesimanatheist)


Beware of trolls, study warns

Digital Darkness, by Eric Adler

‘That is the thing about the internet, especially about trolls – most of these people are cowards.’

Darla Jaye, US radio talk-show host

Anyone who’s ever encountered internet trolls – vile, racist, sexist and often profane people who gorge themselves on others’ misery – might have concluded such individuals are psychologically disturbed.

That would be correct, new research suggests.

Trolls spew their bile using smartphone apps, online comments, texts or social media sites. ‘‘ It happens every night,’’ says Darla Jaye, a US radio talkshow host whose conservative views often serve as a lightning rod for trolls.

‘‘ I get stuff on the text line all the time where people swear at me and call me the foulest names,’’ she says. ‘‘ It’s easy to throw something out there when you’re anonymous. That is the thing about the internet, especially about trolls – most of these people are cowards.’’

Perhaps so. But according to a recent paper by Canadian researchers who have looked into the psychological underpinnings of trolls, they may be something else as well: sadists.

Yes, sadists. But not the psychopathic sadists who turn to actual physical torture or murder.

‘‘ We use the term ‘everyday sadist’ to emphasise that we are referring to sub-clinical levels of sadism, and not the more extreme forms that are seen in serial killers and criminals,’’ says psychologist Erin Buckels, of the University of Manitoba.

He is one of three authors of the paper on troll personality published in the February issue of the journal Personality and Individual Differences.

‘‘ The essential aspect of sadism,’’ Buckels says, ‘‘ is enjoyment of cruelty. Persons high in sadism gain some emotional benefit from causing or simply observing others’ suffering.’’

Although researchers delineate between cyber bullies and trolls – cyber bullies torment specific individuals and are often known by their victims; trolls like to cast their hurt about – they are linked by their penchant for cruelty. In their troll research, Buckels, Manitoba colleague Paul Trapnell, and Delroy Paulhus of the University of British Columbia gathered data from 1215 individuals – split nearly evenly between men and women – based on questions answered in two online surveys.

Both surveys included questions about the subjects’ internet habits, such as ‘‘ How many hours per day do you spend posting comments?’’ or ‘‘ What do you enjoy doing most on these comment sites? Debating issues, chatting, trolling, making new friends, something other?’’

They also included statements from well-known diagnostic tests of personality traits meant to detect various levels of sadism: ‘‘ Hurting people is exciting’ ’ or ‘‘ In video games, I like realistic blood spurts’’ .

The questionnaire also looked for signs and varying levels of what are known as the three other legs of the ‘‘ dark tetrad’ ’ of personality. Those are narcissism (I have been compared to famous people); sub-clinical psychopathology (payback needs to be quick and nasty) and Machiavellianism (it’s not wise to tell your secrets).

Conclusion: those who rated highest on the scales for narcissism, psychopathology, Machiavellianism and sadism – highest of all for the trait of sadism – were the same people who were trolls. Enjoyment of other online activities such as chatting and

debating was unrelated to sadism, the researchers concluded.

‘‘ It seems like one of their great joys in life is to make fun of other people and to criticise their opinions,’’ Paulhus says.

Trolls are often insatiably nasty, he adds. There is no reasoning with them. The more havoc they sow, getting more people to argue with them, the happier they are. It is that trait that has given rise to the internet advice: ‘‘ Don’t feed the trolls.’’ Like ravenous strays, they just come back.

Over the past two years, Emma A. Jane, a lecturer in media and communications at Sydney’s University of NSW, has been compiling and dissecting the vast range of electronic vitriol – whether by computer or mobile phone – as it is directed at women.

In her paper, Your a Ugly, Whorish, Slut, published in 2012 in the journal Feminist Media Studies, Jane pointed out how e-bile

directed at women frequently shared the same rhetorical elements: violence and misogyny.

‘‘ Gender stereotypes abound,’’ Jane writes. ‘‘ E-bile targeting women commonly includes charges of unintelligence, hysteria and ugliness; these are then combined with threats and/or fantasies of violent sex acts, which are often framed as ‘correctives’ . Constructions along the lines of ‘What you need is a good [insert graphic sexual act] to put you right’ appear with astounding regularity.’’

In her view, Jane says, ‘‘ gendered cyber hate is not rare or occurring only in the fringes of the cyber sphere, but has become part of the everyday online experience for many women’’ .

‘‘ I agree with the research on sadism,’’ she says, ‘‘ but I also think a lot of people are bored and simply running with the pack.’’

One particularly pernicious form of e-bile , known as ‘‘ revenge porn’ ’ – in which one posts or sends sexually explicit photos or videos of another person to degrade or harass them – has become enough of a concern that the American states of California and New Jersey recently passed laws criminalising the act. Twelve more US states have offered similar bills.

Compared with such acts, mere trolling seems tame.

Buckels said it’s still up for debate how much the veil of anonymity on the internet fuels such behaviours (in other words, without the veil the internet can provide, would they act this way?) or whether trolling helps vent it (thank goodness for the internet, lest they cause physical harm).

‘‘ Some researchers claim that anonymity is primarily to blame,’’ Buckels says. ‘‘ But, again, our research suggests that the picture is more complicated. Only certain types of people will act antisocially when they have the opportunity to do so. Most of the time, they can only fantasise about cruel behaviour or watch from a distance without risking punishment. Direct action is far more risky, unless the situation is relatively anonymous.’’

Buckels says the anonymity of the internet can no doubt provide a dark corner from which to strike. For some users, trolling may also offer the same outlet as do violent video games or movies, providing a dose of vicarious sadism as an alternative to the actual thing.

‘‘ Our research suggests that trolls also want to be mean to people in real life,’’ she says.

‘‘ Perhaps trolling online allows them to satisfy their appetites for cruelty without it creeping into real life.

‘‘ As someone recently suggested to me, maybe we should feed the trolls.’’


Copyright © 2014 Fairfax Media


The first picture is my Grindr profile, the rest is a conversation I had with some old man. I actually made that just as a joke, but internalized homophobia is nothing to joke about I guess…. As I said, I thrive on ignorance

Fantastic profile and great to see someone reading gay homophobes to filth. I wanna point out, though, that you kinda came undone the moment you wrote “some old man”. This is pretty ageist language, so if you’re gonna fight the fight against internalised homophobia, you probably should add ageism to the list as well. As an aside, assuming this man was over 40, it’s an absolute disgrace that people out of their twenties are still, after what can be assumed a very long time out of the closet, perpetuating the same heteronormative homophobia the heterosexuals have been visiting on us forever.


Homotopia (by Chris Vargas)

Set sometime in the future-present Homotopia chronicles a group of radical queer’s dedicated to exposing the trouble with gay marriage, dismantling the State, undoing Empire, while looking totally fierce. Woven into the story of Yoshi’s adventures in love, resistance, and sex, is a critique of the crushing violence of homonormativity and its deadly perpetuation of US patriotism, conservative kinship structures and affective accumulation. Homotopia holds cinematic assumptions hostage through its motley assemblage of never-passing crew. Race, gender, ability and desire are reworked through an anti-colonial take of queer struggle creating a visual rhythm of melancholic utopianism that knows there may be no future but still hopes today is not their last. Love revolution, not State delusion, Homotopia.


"Sex Itself: The Search for Male & Female in the Human Genome" by Sarah S. Richardson


"How to be Gay" by David Halperin







Open Letter to LGBT Leaders Who Are Pushing Marriage Equality

(source: kate bornstein)

To the leaders, membership, and supporters of The Human Rights Campaign, The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and state-wide groups supporting marriage equality as your primary goal,

Hello. I’m Kate Bornstein, and I’ve got a great deal to say to you, so you deserve to know more about me: I write books about postmodern gender theory and alternatives to suicide for teens, freaks and other outlaws. I’m a feminist, a Taoist, a sadomasochist, a femme, a nerd, a transperson, a Jew, and a tattooed lady. I’m a certified Post Traumatic Stress Disorder survivor. I’m a chronic over-eater who’s been diagnosed with anorexia. I’m sober, but I’m not always clean. I’ve got piercings in body parts I wasn’t born with. I’m also an elder in the community you claim to represent, and it is with great sorrow that I must write: you have not been representing us. 

Let’s talk about a love that unites more people than have ever before been united by love. Let’s defend some real equality.

The other day, New York State’s lesbian and gay bid for marriage equality went down in flames, enough flames to make people cry. Thousands of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people and their allies spent a lot of money and heart-filled hours of work to legalize marriage equality, with little to show for it. That sucks, and I think the reason it didn’t work is it’s because marriage equality is an incorrect priority for the LGBTQetc communities. 

Marriage equality—as it’s being pushed for now—is wasting resources that would be better deployed to save some lives. There are several major flaws with marriage equality as a priority for our people:

  1. Marriage as it’s practiced in the USA is unconstitutional… if you listen to Thomas Jerfferson’s interpretation of separation of church and state. The way it stands now, if you’re an ordained leader in a recognized religion, the US government gives you a package of 1500-1700 civil rights that only you can hand out to people. And you get to bestow or withhold these civil rights from any American citizen you choose, regardless of that citizen’s constitutionally-granted rights. The government has no constitutional right to hand that judgment call over to a religious body.
  2. Marriage equality—as it’s being fought for now by lesbian and gay leaders who claim they’re speaking for some majority of LGBTQetc people—will wind up being more marriage inequality. Single parents, many of whom are women of color, will not get the 1500-1700 rights they need to better and more easily raise their children. Nor will many other households made up of any combination of people who love each other and their children.
  3. When lesbian and gay community leaders whip up the community to fight for the right to marry, it’s a further expression of America’s institutionalized greed in that it benefits only its demographic constituency. There’s no reaching out beyond sexuality and gender expression to benefit people who aren’t just like us, and honestly… that is so 20th Century identity politics.
  4. Marriage is a privileging institution. It has privileged, and continues to privilege people along lines of not only religion, sexuality and gender, but also along the oppressive vectors of race, class, age, looks, ability, citizenship, family status, and language. Seeking to grab oneself a piece of the marriage-rights pie does little if anything at all for the oppression caused by the institution of marriage itself to many more people than sex and gender outlaws.
  5. The fight for “marriage equality” is simply not the highest priority for a movement based in sexuality and gender. By simple triage, the most widespread criminality against people whose identities are based in sex and gender is violence against women. Women still make up the single-most oppressed identity in the world, followed closely by kids who are determined to be freaky for any reason whatsoever.
Lesbian and gay leaders must cease being self-obssessed and take into account the very real damage that’s perpetrated on people who are more than simply lesbian women and/or gay men, more than bisexual or transgender even. Assuming a good-hearted but misplaced motivation for all the work done on behalf of fighting for marriage equality, it’s time to stop fighting on that front as a first priority of the LGBTQetc movement. It’s time to do some triage and base our priorities on a) who needs the most help and b) what battlefront will bring us the most allies. 

I’m asking that you to fight on behalf of change for someone besides yourself. Please. I promise the rewards of doing that will revisit you threefold. Who needs the most help is easy: women. To lesbian and gay leaders, I ask you to ally yourselves with the centuries-old feminist movements and their current incarnations. You want to get a bill passed through Congress? Take another run at the Equal Rights Amendment. Unlike gay marriage, the ERA stands a better chance of making it into law, given the Obama Administration and our loosely Democratic majority in congress. 

Stopping the violence against women and freaky children, and backing another run at the ERA have got the good chance of creating national front, lots of allies. On the home front of sex and gender, there’s plenty of room for change that doesn’t require millions of dollars and thousands of hours.

Looking into the community of people who base their lives on sexuality and gender, there’s a lot of door-opening to do. Beyond L, G, B and T, there’s also Q for queer and Q for questioning. There’s an S for sadomasochists, an I for intersex, an F for feminists, and another F for furries. Our community is additionally composed of sex educators, sex workers, adult entertainers, pornographers, men who have sex with men, women who have sex with women, and asexuals who have sex in whatever manner they define their asexuality. You want to create some real change? Make room for genderqueers, polyamorists, radical faeries, butches, femmes, drag queens, drag king, and other dragfuck royalty too fabulous to describe in this short letter. 

There are more and more people to add to this ever-growing list of communities whom you must own as family and represent in your activism. You cannot afford—politically, economically, or morally—to leave out a single person who bases a large part of their identity on being sex positive or in any way a proponent of gender anarchy.

That’s what I have to say to you. That and thank you for the good hearts you’ve clearly demonstrated in your activism. I’m asking you to open your hearts further is all. 

You’re welcome to leave comments on this blog, but the best way to engage me in a conversation or recruit me to help is to contact me through Twitter. I look forward to talking with you, and I hope we can work together on the terms I’ve outlined above.

Warmly, and with respect,

Your Auntie Kate 


End Racism & Homophobia in the Gay Community

narcissizm asked: I love this blog ❤️

Thank you :)