kengr: (Default)
Police raid Stonewall Inn, 01:20 am EDT, June 28, 1969 (10:20 PM June 27 PDT)

Not the first times trans folks fought back (that was the Compton's Cafeteria Riot). But the first time it really stuck.

And yes, it was trans folks, and POC at that that did much of the fighting over then days that followed.

Here's some more info on what was going on before Stonewall:
kengr: (Default)
Got a bunch of stressors going on, for one, annual inspection is Friday, but I figured I should get this one out here.

I hadn't really noticed it until Pride. With the shootings in Orlando, I really felt I should go. Even if it might be somewhat risky.

But I didn't. Why? Because I wasn't going to do the jeans and t-shirt I wear every day. But I couldn't bring myself to do genderfuck. I thought really hard about it, and even dug some stuff out, but I couldn't.

What I *wanted* was to go as Brooke. But that involved a lot of effort and a moderate bit of expense. Since my electric rtazor died a few years back (they unplugged it from the wal to thest the GFI outlet in the bathroom, and I didn't notice until weeks later, the batteries wouldn't take a charge anymore. :-(

So to properly "de-hair" myself, I'd have needed a lot of Veet or Nair. Did have the spare cash,, and it just felt like way too much trouble.

There *are* spaces where I'd be ok with genderfuck, but none of them are "public" places. And Pride *is* public in that there are a lot of "allies" around, and then of course there's taking public transit to and from.

This drives home that I''m actually a lot more dysphoric than I thought.

Also reminded me that I wish I'd figured out that I was trans a year or two earlier when I still had the money for laser or electro. *sigh*.

And of course, the depression doesn't help (the whole "way too much trouble" thing)
kengr: (I'm one of them)
I came across this post today
Getting Straight To The Point

TL;DR: guy worried about gays hitting on him, instructors asks hopw many girls have hit on him

This demonstrates an all too common problem. Men are afraid of "gays" hitting on them.

I'd have been tempted to ask the guy "Do you hit on girls?" And (assuming he said yes) "So what do you do if they say no?"

*That* is what most of these guys are actually afraid of. That gay men would treat them the way they treat women.

Pointing that out might just help them to treat women better.
kengr: (antenna girl)
After making the case that the Obergefell decision does not even apply to Alabama, Parker absurdly asserted that the Supreme Court had no grounds upon which to issue the decision in the first place because gays are not being denied equal treatment under the law since everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Gee, one of the big arguments made in Loving v Virginia was that blacks weren't being discriminated against because everyone had the right to marry someone of the same race.

That's what's so amazing about these people.

If you check the records, you'll see pretty much the same arguments that were used against blacks have been used against gays. And not just about marriage.

Back when they were integrating the military you got the same arguments that were used against letting gays be in the military. I mean *word for word*. Just swap a few phrase from being about race to being about homosexuality.

Ditto for more general civil rights for blacks. I don't think anybody said being black was a sin (except maybe for the Mormons before that revelation that changed their doctrine about admitting blacks) But there were a lot of people who said it was God's will to keep the races separate.

In my not-so-humble opinion, this is symptomatic of a xenophobic mindset and/or a certain sort of narrow mindedness.

It'd never fly, but just imagine the time we'd save in the courts if we listed those sort of arguments in "fill in the blank" form and passed a law (probably need to be a constitutional amendment) saying that such argument were not legally admissible.

Or at the very least, that they required *strong* proof in their favor.

Of course, these sorts of people would complain that they were being discriminated against.

To which my reply is "it is not, nor should it be, illegal to discriminate against stupidity, ignorant prejudices and the like"
kengr: (I'm one of them)
I'm posting this early because at the "proper" time, I'll be in the middle of the WNBR.

June 28,1969 at 1:20 am EDT Police raid on the Stonewall Inn leads to the Stonewall Riots which were the start of the modern gay rights movement.

June 28, 1970 First Gay Pride marches.

June 26, 2003 Lawrence v. Texas strikes down anti-sodomy laws in all US states and territories (though a number of states still have the laws on the books and a couple have voted *down* attempts to remove them)

June 26, 2013 United States v. Windsor struck down section 3 of DOMA, making Federal recognition of same-sex marriages possible.

June 26, 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges strikes down all gay marriage bans in US & territories (also *explicitly* struck down Baker v. Nelson a 1971 decision that has been a stumbling block for marriage equality cases)

So, we have marriage equality. Which, BTW not only helps gays, but helps trans folks. No longer can the marriage license folks start arguing about what sex you "really" are. And it only took 46 years...

Now we just have to get anti-discrimination laws in place protecting GLBT folks in the places that don't have such laws. Which is *most* of the US!)
kengr: (seperation of church & hate)

Of course states like Alabama, Kansas andf others will still try to wiggle around it, but they are running out of wiggle room fast.
kengr: (antenna girl)
... really need to do their research.

Tonight's NCIS: New Orleans has a baby getting kidnapped. the parents are a married gay couple. One of whom is in the Navy (not sure about the other).

Just a *minor* little problem.

In Louisiana, gay marriage is illegal. So is adoption by gays.

So the NOPD *wouldn't* be cheerfully supporting NCIS in the search. even if the officers involved were sympathetic, *legally* there'd be all sorts of problems.

But the episode doesn't have a hint of the fact that there'd be any problems with the marriage or the adoption (and from the storyline, the adoption *was* done in the state).

So while it's nice to have a storyline involving a couple of dedicated gay dads and their daughter, it is ignoring the not *remotely* "minor" issue that they could *have* the kid legally in that state, nor would the state recognize that they were married.

NCIS: LA, it'd work. Original NCIS, maybe. But NCIS: New Orleans? Not a chance.
kengr: (I'm one of them)
45 years ago (June 28, 1969 at 1:20 am EDT) A bunch of transvestite, drag guens and other "undesirables" did something unexpected.

When the New York City police raided the Stonewall Inn, they didn't go meekly and try to aavoid trouble.

Instead they fought back. And things quickly escalated to a riot.

The riot died down eventually only to revive the next night. Go google "Stoonewall Riots" for details.

Some things haven't changed. TG folks still gret tossed under the bus by the rest of the LGBT "community" when it looks like they'll be an embarsassment. Same goes for bisexuals.

But thing have improved a *lot*. Heck, at the current time marriage equality is either the law or the subject of a lawsuit to make it legal in every state of the US.

Maybe in another 5 years, things will be even better.
kengr: (Default)
I can just imagine how one of the jerks who tells lesbians "Yoiu just haven't met the right man yet" would react to being told "Oh, you just think you're straight. You just haven't met the right man yet."

Alas, while I can see the outrage. I can't see it being very likely that they'd *learn* anything from it. :-(
kengr: (Default)
Yep, a punk band filmed a (very short) bit of porn on the front lawn of the "church" we love to hate.

I don't entirely approve, but then again, the odds of *that* ground actually being hallowed are slim.

Do I have to tell you this is Not Safe For Work?

So true

Aug. 29th, 2013 11:53 am
kengr: (Default)

That's not merely a guy vs gal thing. TG folks and even gays go thru a lot of the same protective steps.

And I'd not be surprised to find that black males (especially young ones) need to do the route choosing stuff in some places.
kengr: (idiot-free)
Seems that the supporters of Prop 8 in California are petitioning the Supreme Court to stop California from resuming gay marriages.

My immediate thought is "What part of "you do not have standing to appeal" don't these folks understand?

I rather hope the SC justices are pissed off enough be this stupidity to administer a major slapdown of some sort. I don't suppose the SC can cite people for contempt of court can they?

I especially love the claim I heard one of them making on the TV that the Ninth Circuit court didn't have the jurisdiction to lift the stay on Judge Walker's order invalidating Prop 8.

Excuse me? The Ninth Circuit *issued* that stay. If they have the autority to issue it (which the Prop 8 supporters were all for) then they damn well have the jurisdiction to lift it.

The *only* remotely reasonable argument I've heard about not resuming same sex marriages in CA is that apparently California law requires an appelate court decision to quit enforcing a law. And with the Supreme Court decision, they no longer have one.

I don't really see that one going very far though.
kengr: (gender menace)
... in a city far away.

1:20 am EDT, June 28, 1969

The NYC police raid an obscure bar in Greenwich Village. Things start out as usual as they start harassing the "queers" in the Stonewall Inn.

But then things start going awry. They aren't co-operating. And as they slowly release the ones they aren't going to charge, instead of dispersing, they gather with others on the streets outside.

At last a flash point is reached. The Stonewall Riots have begun. And things will never be the same again
kengr: (he is us)
(the below was a response to a post about the Readercon mess that noted men pretty much don't understand what it's like for women in the world. I figured it could use a larger audience because it's something far too few people grasp.)

I hear you. Oh lord do I hear you.

And I agree, straight, cis males don't get it. And gay or trans bio-males only get it after an incident drives it home.

Two defining moments for me, that might help some guy understand. Years and years back (mid-70s) a gay friend I had a crush on had to warn me that holding hands or otherwise showing affection in public could get us beaten up or worse.

A dozen years back, when I was starting to get involved in the local TG community, poor planning on my part wound up with me having to walk 3/4ths of a mile to a bus stop after dark. En femme.

I was only nervous until I saw a group of guys approaching. *Then* the fear hit. Fear of rape, fear of what would happen if they "made" me as "a guy in a dress", and fear of if they didn't make me and tried sexual assault *then* found out...

Until you have to consciously consider (as a *reality*, not some abstract) that you can be assaulted or even killed by some random guy or guys, just for being female/trans/gay "in public" it's not gonna be real to you. :-

And as a person who was bullied a lot growing up, let me tell the guys who think that they understand what it'd be like just because they were bullied.

No, it's *not* the same. Not remotely. Bullies will intimidate you and play dominance games. Up to and including beating on you some.

But the stuff women (and trans folks) have to worry about *starts* with rape and rapidly gets worse.
kengr: (Default)
According to a New York Time article that looks at the distribution of gay couples based on census data, Multnomah County is number 4 in the country.
kengr: (Still Queer)
Over on the Antir mailing list someone mentioned something about wearing ribbons for "Inspirational Equality" at an upcoming Crown event.

It was mostly ignored but someone posted asking what it was. It was explained it was about allowing same sex consorts in the SCA.

Which led to several people including a couple who are normally "fight the establishment, stick up for the underdog" types to post complaints.

One even used the phrase "rub your sexual preferences in our faces".

That's when I wrote several pointed replies.

Oh yes, another one somehow got the idea this would mean having what he referred to as "male Queens" (except he called it transgendered queens first).

I had a few things to say about that too.

kengr: (Default)
One of the really common arguments you'll hear is that it is necessary to ban same-sex marriage to "protect" "traditional marriage".

This argument has been demolished again and again. Heck, in the Prop 8 trial in CA, their own expert witnesses couldn't come up with evidence that stopping gays from marrying would have any effect on whether or not non-gays would marry.

Yet they continue to assert this is every state that they are fighting the issue.

But just a bit ago, something reminded me of this argument and something clicked.

The argument against them is flawed because of a basic premise, a fundamental postulate if you will, that differs between them and us.

Quite simply, we assume that if you aren't attracted to the opposite sex, there's no sensible reason for you to marry one.

But to *them* men and women *need* to be married. Men need to have a wife and women need to have husbands. It's both a "personal" issue and a *social* one.

Besides the idea of women needing a man to "guide" (read: "control") it also reinforces their desired social order in many ways.

Add in the fact that many of them *still* believe that gays can be "cured" and they definitely have reason to think that it's better for a gay man or women to be in a loveless marriage with a member of the opposite sex, than for them to be single, much less married to a member of their own sex, and their arguments make sense.

Alas, no court is going to be able to allow those arguments because they are either based on "facts" that science has disproven ("gays can be cured") or they are based on religious/cultural beliefs that run counter to things like equality for women.

This means that they are going to get a lot more desperate and a lot shriller as they keep losing and any victories they get are going to be short lived unless they get really lucky.

And since they are "right" anybody opposing them must be being deliberately evil.

So expect things to get a lot uglier as they lose ground.
kengr: (Demons of stupidity)
You don't get to pick and choose. If you are going to insist folks follow the Old Testament rules, then you have to go with *all* of them.

If you go with the New Testament, you get to ignore the Old Testament (for rules) because Christ explicitly says he's there to replace those rules.

But you have to follow the rules *He* laid out.

What triggered this?

Idiot friend of a gay-basher *tattooed* Leviticus 18:22 on his arm (the verse about men laying with men).

Why does this make him an idiot? Leviticus 19:28 forbids tattoos.
kengr: (Default)
Happened to get March of Cambreadth on my playlist while reading one of the Horseclans books.

Works pretty good, Since the first time I'd heard the marxch was long after Adams died,, I'd never thought of the two together.

On the other hand, as I read more of the books (I hadn't been able to get at them since the early 90s) I'm having my face rubbed in Adam's homophobia.

The bad guy characters are quite often gay. The nasty sort. Non-con, men forcing boys, women forcing women, and *every* gay character is evil/sick/etc.

Even back in the 80s there were comments about it. a quarter century later, it's something I just remind myself to treat as any other "period literature".

Measure 9

Jan. 15th, 2011 01:51 am
kengr: (Default)
This is based on a nightmare or possibly nightmares I had 20 years ago,

For the younger readers, at that time the Oregon Citizens Alliance (OCA) had gotten a ballot measure passed overturning an executive order by the state's governor that had forbidden discrimination based on sexual orientation by state agencies.

Emboldened by that success, they had put another measure on the ballot. This one forbade the state, or lower levels of government from "recognizing" homosexuals, sadomasochists and witches. With language that said that recognizing included issuing any sort of license or permit.

And there may have been something about schools saying anything "positive" (essentially, worded such that the only allowable mentions would have to be negative). Or that may have been part of the one they tried the next election.

Supposedly the bit about licenses and permits was supposed to keep them from becoming "professionals". You know, doctors, lawyers etc. But as some folks pointed out, the actual wording allowed a lot more.

Campaigning on both sides got rather heated. And then there was a firebombing of a house that a number of folks in the state capitol who were important in the campaign against Measure 9. It latter turned out to be totally unrelated to the campaign (idiots got the wrong house!). But at the time it really ratcheted up the fear.

Now consider that at the time I was on the Board of a local BDSM group and before the ballot measure went public we'd done some publicity that included photos of all the board members. And while not strictly gay, I was definitely bi.

So against that background...
Read more... )

September 2017

     1 2
101112 1314 15 16
1718 192021 2223


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 07:59 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios