Trans* people do need special arrangements because of how cis people react to our bodies—especially the reactions of all cis people to trans* women. It’s not that we necessarily want special treatment, it’s that it might be necessary in order to avoid verbal and physical abuse.
The special treatment we get in some cases is also probably coded cissexism, in that the arrangements are done to prevent delicate cis people from seeing somebody with different bits.
My point is, it’s not that we all want “special treatment”, it’s that it might be necessary or forced upon us as a means of protecting delicate cis feelings.
- Every LGBT Company Ever: I have an idea! Let's make Pride gear for teh gays!
- Teh Gays: Yay, pride!
- Trans* People Everywhere: ...Oh goodie.
- Every LGBT Company Ever: Oh yeah, we should probably put LGBT in our title so we sound open minded and progressive and all of that.
- Teh Gays: Whatever, give us our rainbows.
- Trans* People Everywhere: God. Not again. *facepalms*
- Every LGBT Company Ever: It's all right that we don't actually have any transgender related content in our company. No one will notice.
- Teh Gays: YAY, RAINBOWS.
- Trans* People Everywhere: This is so fucking offensive.
For those individuals—queer or straight—who feel compelled to defend Chris Brown in this matter (because he’s “talented” or “cute” or “because They defend Charlie Sheen” or “because if we don’t defend him, then white people win” or because “there are worse instances of homophobia”), suddenly becoming linguists who follow the letter of the law, but couldn’t understand the spirit of it if it wrapped itself around their necks like a scarf, please read this so that both you and I can stop repeating ourselves.
This conversation is exactly like the conversations I have with some white people and other supporters of White Supremacy who feel that they have to whitesplain what racism is to me.
Just because you seem to be unclear on what the term means doesn’t mean I am or have to be.
1. Yes, I understand: “No homo” is not a slur, unlike “faggot,” “bull dagger” or some other terms meant to degrade queer people.
2. “No homo” is, however, a homophobic term. It is the FEAR that some action or gesture or word might be interpreted as homosexual.
It is NOT another way of saying, “I have nothing against homosexual people; I’m just not gay” as some people have insisted. That is a LIE. Because if you REALLY had nothing against homosexual people then there would be no need to constantly reassert your heterosexuality during even the most benign encounters, contact, or speech.
Why would it be so horrible to be thought of as homosexual? Heterosexism prevents straight people (and sadly, many queer people) from allowing anything other than heterosexuality to be considered “default” or “normal” or “proper” or “natural.” Goodness forbid someone thinks you’re a homosexual person! Because then some homosexual person might make a pass at you (and you, Defender of All Things Heterosexual, might be forced to put them in their place—with physical force if necessary). Or worse: You might accidentally be subject to the same kinds of abuse, sanction, and scorn homosexual people routinely (and, in your mind, deservedly) receive because of their homosexuality. So yeah: It’s important for you to assert your heterosexuality at all times with a disclaimer so that people know, for certain, that you “don’t get down like that.”
For the vocabularily and conceptually challenged: THAT IS WHAT HOMOPHOBIA IS. THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS.
“No homo” functions as a shorthand for reinforcing heterosexist and homophobic cultures, customs, laws, mores, and norms. It’s a gender policing tool that’s employed to assure heterosexists that a simple hug or a handshake held too long or a turn of phrase is devoid of homosexual undertones or overtones—because, well, that would just be the worst thing EVER. It’s ALWAYS anti-gay sentiment, even when it’s used by queer people in jest.
“No homo” isn’t a slur. But it might as well be. It has PRECISELY the same function.
Thank you, Son of Baldwin!
There is a virus going around.
If someone reblogs something to do with giveaway headphones, don’t click the link, and don’t go to the person’s blog.
Also, I suggest not doing read mores for a while. There’s something up with them, too.
Please reblog and spread this around.
In The Gift of Fear by Gavin De Becker, he explicitly says that people who intend to harm others often display niceness towards them in order to make them feel safe and let their guard down. This trick only works because we have been taught that niceness indicates goodness. What is more, according to De Becker, women have been socially conditioned to feel indebted to men who are ‘nice’ to them, which is often exploited by abusers. If this doesn’t seem obvious to you, I suggest you pick up the book – it talks a lot about how socialisation of men and women makes it easier for men to abuse women.” —
shit is just totally backwards these days. when did speaking about your oppression turn into being mean, bitter, combative, and complaining? when did those who speak up about our oppression need to be “nice” about it? my rapist was a nice, charming man who made me laugh & then took advantage of his position as someone who had infinite power over me. My molester was a family member, who begged me to have sex with her, and she was ALWAYS nice about it & when I said no, she would be sad, making me feel as if I was being “mean.” I don’t care about niceness, I care about respect and justice. I’m mean as hell & I don’t curr about your feelings. Pets are nice. They liked to be touched and held & played with. I don’t. If you want someone to coddle your feelings, buy a pet. Cuz I am no one’s pet, no one’s mammy. Your feelings mean less than nothing to me, as long as they are in opposition with my survival, my self determination.
This. Abusers aren’t just nice in the sense of “oh, he seemed so friendly and he offered me candy!” They can be funny, generous, charming, genuinely engaging up until the actual moment they hurt you and even after. My parents remember my abusers as nice, warm, pleasant people, because that’s the way they acted. That’s the way they wanted me to think of them, too, because it makes it harder to even conceptualize what happened as being wrong, let alone take action against those who would hurt me. It’s important to be kind, but there is nothing kind about abuse. Someone who superficially displays kindness and niceness to gain your trust is neither kind nor nice.
White privilege is Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen smashing the world record for the 400m medley (and beating a whole lot of white boys in the process)…and immediately being suspected for doping by American and Australian media. Even if other more well-known (white) winning athletes have never been been subjected to such suspicion but have tested positive for drugs in the past.
Appropriate substitutes to refer to the roaming cultures of the 17th-19th centuries (which were not necessarily Romani):
- Tinkers (though not appropriate when applied to Romani people because it is derogatory in that context, it refers to a trade common among nomadic people of the period)
Thank you and have a nice day.
Individualism and Meritocracy
These two things form the perfect storm in white ignorance and arrogance in America. It lets them ignore the detrimental effects of systematic oppression by falling back to individualism where everything and everyone performs divorced from one another. So, everything just amounts to isolated incidents. It additionally lets them ignore advantageous effects of systematic oppression by them believing all things they have personally gained in society were simply done to their merit and nothing else. This is why penetrating why thought to have useful conversations on race is so difficult. The foundation to their entire world view runs aggressively in the opposite direction of any systematic change. Everything only needs to be tweaked or reformed.
And in order to have productive conversations on oppression, one must first be aware and acknowledge that oppression doesn’t solely function on an individual level. It requires an entire deconstruction and unlearning process before we can even get into the details of what is going on. I see people skipping or starting half way through the unlearning process all the time. Granted, it is impossible to completely unlearn every single facet without years of self-reflection while being in an environment with other people who are dedicated to doing the same. However, people who start learning new things usually still hold several major problematic views. When this happens, all that they are really learning at that point is the correct rhetoric and verbiage to use in support or in one of those worst case scenarios: to pretend that they are oppressed by creating some fictitious axis out of their ass.
This had me thinking about the various and diverse forms white supremacy takes in the west. And thanks to your piece I just realized that way too often, we skip this very important bit: Every western culture is built on and around a very specific set of values which obviously tremendously affects the mechanisms and structures of racism in the said culture and results in very diverse patterns of ‘resistance’ from oppressed groups. It is crazy that I had never really thought about it.
From my experience, US anti-racism activists are some of the most vocal I have ever encountered and I am certain, it has a lot to do with a strong sense of individualism. This is definitively not the case in most European countries. So these two values are not necessarily a disservice to anti-racism. For instance, affirmative action is a very good example of how meritocracy as core national value was used to uplift an oppressed part of the population. In itself, it is a contestation of the idea that what most whites have is out of their own merit. I think throughout their history,African American have managed to skillfully and effectively use these values to their benefit, placing themselves as those who built America for example.
This would NEVER happen in France for example. The key value in France is equality, the most symbolic legacy of the French revolution. This value is so strong that it makes any identity political debates almost impossible and destined to be attacked for communautarism i.e. a threat against the French republic. Race census are actually against the law in France, the general mantra being ‘We are all French’ which rings out exactly like the white cry ‘we all bleed red’.
From what I have gathered, your post is actually about an approach of race relations in the US from a white perspective and is debating the possibility of a race debate, right?? Well, this is where we disagree. I think that no amount of personal reflection, introspection or intellectual journey would very lead white people to give away their privilege. It is not that it is too hard for them to understand, it is just that it is so far away out of their cognitive dissanance and totally to their disadvantage, that very few white people ever have the courage to venture there. This is just totally impossible to me. Which is why they simply must be excluded from the debate. There is no conversation to be taken, white opinions or ideas are totally irrelevant, what is relevant is our survival and TAKING/DEMANDING our rights! No conversations about it!