guided by a new era

We're on the abortion unit of my philosophy class. And it is filled with fail, as expected.

The unit centers around a group of readings we have to do. None of the writers are 100% pro-choice; there are two pro-lifers and two pro-choice-buts. The first of the latter group is "pro-choice-unless-I-deem-your-reasons-stupid", and the second is all about time restrictions. Our assignment for tonight is to read the other pro-lifer's essay and critique her characteristics of what makes something a person. I'll have fun shredding her argument, but all the same (and I will sound sooo narrow-minded when I say this, but believe me, I've heard it all) I do not want to have to slog through pro-life drivel that is all about the fetus. It's bad enough that our class discussions only mention the woman as an after thought, as though she were barely relevant, and that the entire discussion is made in terms of the fetus. I would almost call it a pro-life slant, as not only are all of our readings pro-life in some way, shape or form, but pro-lifers also center the discussion around the fetus, while the pro-choice side tends to center it around the woman. I'm sure almost all you know my position on the issue, and though I've piped up a LOT during this whole debacle (the only person who has said more than me is the teacher himself), it isn't doing much good. There are still a bunch of stupid freshmen who continue to say things like, "since she made the decision to get pregnant" when we are not discussing a situation in which a woman has sex with a man in order to get pregnant, and they do not listen to me (or any of the other menstruating people in the class) when I tell them that conception is not voluntary, nor is ovulation. It doesn't matter that PIV sex can lead to pregnancy, becoming pregnant is NOT something you consciously do. It happens outside of your control if you have had PIV sex. FUCKING DUH, PLEASE GO BACK TO FIFTH GRADE SCIENCE. I've managed to kick their ass, though. It's very rewarding, once they shut up. But it's extremely frustrating.

Also, do you know what else is frustrating? Straight people who think they have a gaydar. Assfriend said today in forum that he thought Katy Perry's song "Ur So Gay" was funny, and I told him it wasn't funny, it was offensive. So then he starts on this whole spiel about gay men who are in the closet but you can tell they're gay because they exhibit something that he didn't say because I cut him off (knowing he would say "effeminate tendencies" or something to that effect, because that's what I was pointing out to him was wrong with the song) and told him that straight people do not have gaydars. No, sorry, they don't. When a straight person says they have a gaydar, it means they can see gay stereotypes. People who are actually queer are better at spotting people who are also actually queer because we are able to see behavior that we exhibited as well as closeted or out people. It's like a sixth sense. We have the experiences and we can see them in other people. Straight people do not have the experiences and therefore cannot see them in other people.

ETA: And, because most of my recent posts have been negative, I thought I should add that the weather today was spectacular. IT IS 67 DEGREES, AAAAAAAAAAH. Two months ago I had a "You know you live in Michigan when..." moment when I walked out into 20 degree weather and my first thought was, "It's so warm!" -___-

"Couple fight gender-neutral language in wedding license"

Last month, Rachel Bird exchanged vows with Gideon Codding in a church wedding in front of family and friends. As far as Bird is concerned, she is a bride.

To the state of California, however, she is either "Party A" or "Party B."

Those are the terms that have replaced "bride" and "groom" on the state's new gender-neutral marriage licenses. And to Bird and Codding, that is unacceptable.

"We are traditionalists – we just want to be called bride and groom," said Bird, 25, who works part time for her father's church. "Those words have been used for generations and now they just changed them."

[...]

And Rachel Bird described her position as "personal – not religious."

"We just feel that our rights have been violated," she said.

These poor people. How will they ever cope with their marriage documents using the legal terms (y'know, the kind found on all the other legal documents) "Party A" and "Party B" instead of the traditional laymen terms "bride" and "groom"? LOOK AT HOW OPPRESSED THEY ARE.

via Feministe

All right, hetero male who is an otherwise awesome person except for this aspect, please ride your bike straight into the middle of Division Street and wait for the light to turn green.

I don't even know where to start. Basically, I got into a conversation/argument with him today after the senior meeting, and he said a shitload of privileged, assholish things regarding oppression, especially homophobia and racism (and, get this: HE'S FILIPINO). The argument started because he said "That's so gay", I asked him not to use that phrase, and he kept defending it. It's such a trivial issue, but it pisses me off that so many people think that "That's so gay" isn't offensive or homophobic. The worst is that it's really hard for me to argue why "that's so gay" *is* offensive and homophobic. I've used the argument that saying "that's so gay" instead of "that's stupid/shitty" is using someone's identity as an insult, but he kept saying that "the meanings of words change". And it was hard for me to explain it anyway else, because it's something that I feel more than I know as something that can be put into words. You know?

sdfghjkl; This is so frustrating. One of my least favorite things in the world is when I find out that really cool people believe really bigoted things.

Okay, now that the first day of school is getting closer, I'm starting to get really nervous about my class. I'm worried that what I do won't live up my students' expectations, that I'll screw up, that I've bitten off more than I can chew. I'm excited for it, but all that excitement is being drowned in the anxiety. I just finished practicing for one of my presentations, and I'm super worried that what I have planned for a number of classes won't last the whole 90 minutes. Not to mention the fact that I'm not done will all the stuff that I need for the class.

AARGH. I need to stop being so nervous.

...*runs off to play Harry Potter*

Wow, Newsweek. Way to be five months late, and then write a terrible article about it.

I'm getting really sick of people labeling the murder of Lawrence King as only an anti-gay hate crime. It wasn't just anti-gay, it was also anti-gender nonconformity. Lawrence King was murdered for his gender expression AND his sexual orientation. The Newsweek article frames it as if Lawrence King wearing heels, make-up and jewelry were a part of him being gay, instead of a part of his gender expression. Not only does it make the underlying issues of gender expression and identity completely invisible, it perpetuates that stereotype that men can't be effeminate without being gay, and that being effeminate is a characteristic of being gay. The article likes to talk about how Lawrence has become a gay rights icon, but fails to interview any gay rights organizations. Instead, it opted to interview a few people who would rather say that the school could have prevented Lawrence's murder, not by teaching the students to accept each other's differences and to resolve conflict in a non-violent way, but by preventing Lawrence from expressing himself and forcing him to stop dressing and acting in an effeminate manner. But they're not *blaming* Lawrence for his death, goodness no, they're just saying that this all could have been prevented if he hadn't been so controversial. The victim blaming is nauseating, as are the anti-gay language and assumptions present in the article. The author uses the phrase, "flaunting his sexuality" and explains the dilemma many middle schools are facing when dealing with gay students with this sentence: "How do you protect legitimate, personal expression while preventing inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behavior?" Because gay students being open about their sexual orientation is likely to lead to "inappropriate" behavior, apparently. The author did a good job implying that "inappropriate" and "sometimes harmful" behavior are a part of being gay, as well as making it out as if the only way to know that you're gay is if your attractions are sexual.

Of course, Newsweek has never exactly had a good track record with LGBT issues in my book. They almost never cover them, and when they do there's nothing about transgender people at all, and they never cover issues other than marriage (except for this article, which is such a failure on so many levels that I wouldn't count it). Still, I was expecting better than this. Good job, Newsweek. You've lost what little reverence I had left of you.