mainstream gay rights

15 Trans People who Have Made History

I feel it is extremely important to know about the people in our community who came before us. Throughout history trans people have made history by acting as activists, advocates, and just by being themselves in a world at that against them. This list is by no means complete but the point is to highlight some of the trans people who have made history for our community. 

1) Frances Thompson: Frances was most likely the first trans person to testify before a congressional committee in the US. In 1866 she was a victim of the Memphis Riot. The riot occurred when a group of white men went into a neighbourhood where former slaves, such as Frances, lived. They burned buildings and attacked the former slaves. It was on this matter that she testified before the committee. Ten years later she was arrested for “transvestism.”

2) Lucy Hicks Anderson: Lucy was born in 1886 and began living as a woman a young age. She was first married in 1929 and then attempted to get married again in 1944.However, in 1944 her marriage was denied and she was accused of perjury for saying that she was a woman. After then she became one of the first fighters for marriage equality in America.

3) Marsha “Pay it No Mind” Johnson: Marsha is most known for being one of the leaders at the Stonewall Riot in 1969 however her involvement in the LGBT community stretches beyond that. She was the co-founder of S.T.A.R. which provided support and resources for homeless trans youth. She was also heavily involved in the Gay Liberation Front. She fought for LGBT rights and for people living with HIV and AIDS. She supported the community until her life was cut short in 1992 under suspicious circumstances.

4) Sylvia Rivera: Sylvia was also one of the leaders at the Stonewall Riots. At only seventeen years old she co-founded S.T.A.R. She was also a founder of the Gay Liberation Front. She spent a lot of time advocating for trans people, drag queens, and other people who were not included in the mainstream gay rights movement including fighting against the exclusion of transgender people from the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act in New York. She was an advocate for the community until her death in 2002.

5) Miss Major Griffin-Gracy: Miss Major was another leader at the Stonewall Riots in 1969 and the community in New York at the time. In the late 1970s she moved to San Diego and started grassroots movements such as working with a food bank to serve trans women who were incarcerated, struggling with addiction, or were homeless. During the AIDS epidemic she provided people with healthcare and organized funerals often one or more a week.  In 1990 she moved to the San Francisco area where she worked with many HIV/AIDs organizations. In 2003 she began working at the Transgender GenderVariant Intersex Justice Project where she works to help transgender women who have been imprisoned. She continues to work as an activist to this day.

6) Hiromasa Ando: Hiromasa was a professional speedboat racer in Japan and publically transitioned when he was given permission to start competing as a male in 2002 becoming the first openly trans person in the sport. He also is one of the first openly trans athletes in the world. 

7) Aya Kamikawa: In 2003 Aya made history when she became the first openly transgender person to be elected into office in Japan. She has also worked for the LGBT community both as a politician and before as a committee member for Trans-Net Japan.

8) Trudie Jackson: Trudie Jackson is a long-time activist for the LGBT and Native American Communities. She has worked with the ASU Rainbow Coalition, the Native American Student Organization, The National LGBTQ Task Force, and the Southwest American Indian Rainbow Gathering. She has been the recipient of numerous awards including the Equality Arizona Skip Schrader Spirit of Activism Award, one of the 2013 Trans 100, and Echo Magazine’s 2013 Woman of the Year. She is a huge advocate for the Native American trans community.

9) Kim Coco Iwamoto: When elected to the Hawaiian Board of Education in 2006 she held the highest office of any openly trans person in America. She served two terms on the Board of Education and is now a commissioner on the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.

10) Diego Sanchez: Sanchez was the first openly trans person to hold a senior congressional staff position on Capitol Hill in America when he was appointed by Barney Frank in 2008.

11) Kylar Broadas: Broadas is an attorney, professor, and the first openly trans person to testify in front of the U.S. Supreme Court when he spoke in support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in 2012. In 2010 he founded the Trans People of Color Coalition.

12) Isis King: She became the first openly trans person to be on America’s Next Top Model in 2008. Her openess and involvement in the show and involvement in the show attracted a lot of both negative and positive attention. She has continued to work as a model, role-model, and advocate for transgender people. 

13) Blake Brockington: Blake first made headlines when he became the first openly transgender high school homecoming king in North Carolina. He was also an activist for the LGBT community, transgender youth and fought against police brutality. Sadly, Brockington lost his life at the age of 18 in 2015 after committing suicide.

14) Diane Marie Rodriguez Zambrano: She has been a human rights and LGBT rights activist in Ecuador for many years. In 2009 she sued the Civil Registry to change her name and set precedent for other trans people to be able to change their names. In 2013 she became the first openly trans person, or LGBT person, in Ecuador to run for office.

15) Ruby Corado: She is an activist born in El Salvador but living in America. She was involved in the Coalition to Clarify the D.C. Human Rights Act which was changed the act to include gender identity and expression. In 2012 she opened Casa Ruby which is the only bilingual and multicultural LGBT organization in Washington, D.C. She has been working for human rights for over 20 years.

Why we changed our name to People Against Prisons Aotearoa

On the 1st of September 2017, No Pride in Prisons (NPIP) changed its name to People Against Prisons Aotearoa (PAPA). We made this decision to better reflect the fundamental purpose of the organisation. It marks the next step in our commitment to building the prison abolitionist movement in Aotearoa.

No Pride in Prisons started organising in 2015, when it was announced that Auckland Pride had invited uniformed Police and Corrections Officers to march in the Pride Parade. Several of our founding members decided to protest this decision by interrupting the parade. We could not allow the Auckland Pride Board to turn a blind eye to the fact that police and prisons are deeply violent, inhumane institutions. Our aim was to contest the claims by the New Zealand and Department of Corrections that they were now “queer-friendly.” We showed that they can never be “queer-friendly.”

Our original name, No Pride in Prisons, reflected our initial focus on combatting pinkwashing, which we defined as “the promotion of mainstream ‘gay rights’ by corporate or political entities as a veil to excuse or hide unethical practices, particularly where those practices ignore basic human and workers’ rights.” Our protest at Pride forced open a conversation about how queer and trans people were being treated by organisations that outwardly claimed to support them.

We also brought attention to the way pinkwashing weakens the left. The appropriation of queer and trans struggles by oppressive institutions and corporations sends the message that queer and trans people are okay with their exploitative practices. This can undermine the bonds of solidarity between queer and trans people and people fighting these exploitative practices.

In 2016, three hundred people brought the Pride Parade to a halt for an hour and a half. They were voicing their anger at the Police and the Department of Corrections using Pride as a PR stunt for the second year in a row. This action demonstrated the power of collective action, forcing the queer community to reevaluate our relation to these violent institutions. Forcing the Police and Corrections out of the Pride parade publicly reasserted the humanity of prisoners.

Although we were, at first, most known for our protests at Pride Parades, we do much more as an organisation. In 2016, we began to run social programmes and advocate for prisoners on a day to day basis. We also began to put direct pressure on Corrections when they were not meeting prisoners’ basic needs. In November last year, four No Pride in Prisons organisers were arrested for occupying a Corrections office to demand that a trans prisoner be moved out of solitary confinement.

Our day-to-day work was always grounded in the understanding that the best way to support prisoners is to free them from the system that causes their suffering in the first place. We understand that prisons are inherently violent, degrading, and racist institutions. As long as prisons continue to exist in Aotearoa, there will always be more people to help and more cases of abuse.

However, it became increasingly clear to us that, in order to achieve our long term goal of abolishing prisons entirely, it no longer made sense to focus just on queer and trans prisoners. Although queer and trans people certainly experience some of the worst excesses of the prison system’s violence, such violence is also experienced by people from many other walks of life. The queer and trans community cannot abolish prisons just by ourselves or just for ourselves. We came to the conclusion that the prison abolitionist movement we want to see in Aotearoa must include as many people as possible. In particular, it is essential that this movement involves as many currently and formerly incarcerated people as possible, most of whom are not queer or trans.

In February 2017, we opened up our membership to anyone who agreed with our kaupapa, and began to consciously reorient ourselves towards working for all prisoners. This began with our 10,000 Too Many march to Mt Eden Prison, in response to the news that New Zealand’s prison population had just reached 10,000 people for the first time. This record represents a new era in New Zealand’s epidemic of mass incarceration.

The march received huge support from people of many different backgrounds, confirming to us that everyone has a reason to oppose the violence of prisons. Further, it confirmed that there was an urgent need for a mass-based organisation to fight it.

As an organisation no longer exclusive to queer and trans members, and with pinkwashing no longer an emphasis in our organising, the name No Pride in Prisons became increasingly confusing and inappropriate. Many of the previously and currently incarcerated people we reached out to, who were not queer or trans, were hesitant about our name. Removed from its original context, the “Pride” reference does not hold, and the name is (understandably) often taken to mean something like “prisoners should be ashamed.” That the people we recognise as absolutely essential to our movement were sometimes put off by our name was a sign that it was becoming an obstacle to our organising. In the interests of clarity, and of better reflecting our new direction, we began discussing a name change. We arrived at People Against Prisons Aotearoa (PAPA).

As an acronym, PAPA serves as a reminder of this organisation’s commitment to the struggle for mana motuhake. The prison system in Aotearoa has been used to enforce and maintain the racist oppression of Māori. Papatūānuku, the most ancient ancestress of all humans, is a guarding and nurturing force in all our lives. We bear her in mind while we go about the revolutionary task of dismantling the prison system.

Our new name, People Against Prisons Aotearoa, better reflects our ultimate goal of seeing the unqualified abolition of prisons in Aotearoa. We are people against prisons, and we are people for each and every prisoner. We are more committed to this now than ever before.
Hey, Young Queer Women, Baby Boomer Lesbians Are Not the Enemy

Dyke Culture and the Disappearing L

By Bonnie J. Morris

My generation of lesbian activists, who honed our identity politics and confronted racism and classism in the spaces of women’s music events and women’s bookstores, are approaching a cultural expiration date. Having achieved many of the radical goals we pursued through the late 20th century—same-sex marriage, antidiscrimination laws, openly lesbian celebrities and politicians—we are indeed celebrating new opportunities to be out and proud. Yet having been permitted to be “out,” many of us are now spending the energy of our menopausal years pushing back against encroaching disappearance; our own invisibility. Dyke identity, that specific nomenclature of the fierce woman-identified woman, has been replaced by the more inclusive queer, as a new era of thoughtful LGBT activists proclaim their disidentification with the categories woman and lesbian.

The recent, ongoing interrogation of those categories in academic theory and cyberactivism clashes with concurrent efforts to preserve, as historically meaningful and valuable, the past 40 years of lesbian cultural spaces. Yet making peace with the radical separatist past is an important historical step for those charting the progression of LGBT visibility, rights, and power. The present impasse, in the LGBT movement, is over how to frame lesbians’ successful construction of an autonomous subculture that was not G, that was not T, but L.

My concern is that as we advance further into the 21st century, we are witnessing the almost flippant dismissal of recent, late 20th-century lesbian culture, particularly the loss of physical sites such as women’s bookstores and women’s music festivals and their material legacies (books, journals, albums, tapes, magazine interviews with artists). This was a specific performance culture: a movement through which fresh ideas about woman-loving were transmitted via song, speech, and the written word and marketed to a like-minded audience at quasi-public but distinctively lesbian-feminist spaces. At its peak, lesbian performance culture in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s was every bit as unique as gay male drag, punk rock, Seattle grunge, and other genres, particularly because it put a new face on the tradition of grassroots American folk. However, because most women’s music recording artists earned very little money, and not only neglected but rejected commercial male approval and participation, their contributions are difficult to place on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame timeline.

Despite so many gains in LGBT rights, sexism and sex discrimination have not been vanquished, and scholarly support for examining women’s lives and communities remains contested. The traditional academic canon, with its focus on male achievement and leadership, embeds many contributions by gay men through the ages, whereas lesbians have had barely a generation and a half of scholarly scrutiny (corresponding to how recently women were allowed to attend college at all). Although women’s studies programs have always been charged with pushing a lesbian agenda, or just being controlled by man-hating lesbians, this was never true and is even less true now. In fact, as women’s studies programs expand to attract male and trans-identifying faculty and students, many administrators are backing away from the word women altogether, striving for inclusion by renaming departments gender studies.

Although various woman-identified, lesbian separatist platforms and events that characterized a self-proclaimed dyke subculture throughout the 1970s–’90s still exist, they aren’t yet popular subjects of historical inquiry. Instead, these remaining activists and institutions have become popular subjects of criticism and contempt. Despite a wealth of feminist scholarship on aging, elder abuse, and the intersectionality of ageism and sexism in older women’s economic vulnerability, far less work has been produced on the aging lesbian, who (whether activist veteran or not) offers a wealth of generational tales and insights.

The disappearance of lesbian spaces is also one aspect of the aging baby-boomer generation. Many, though not all, of the most creative, visionary, and accomplished lesbian activists from the 1970s and ’80s were born in the late 1940s and early ’50s, their politics informed by childhoods spent crouched in Cold War air raid drills, McCarthy hearings on new television sets, and the civil rights movement.  It’s not coincidental that the lesbian-feminist movement included intense scrutiny of militarism and racism and turned politics into a musical stance. Although younger women (and men) may feel that Americans born between 1945 and 1961 have been studied enough, have indeed monopolized cultural attention for decades, are a tiresomely overcredited American demographic, with lesbians it’s a different story. Despite our national fascination with the 1970s, most historians still fail to inscribe the accomplishments of that decade’s lesbian pioneers in our national textbooks. Right now, it’s imperative that we find better ways for the vanishing ideas, sites, and inherited stuff of late 20th-century lesbian culture to be valued, preserved, and known by future generations. Later, we’ll wish we had these feisty dykes in front of us to explain what they did—and what it meant—and how they did it with no internet.

Who’s still willing to bat for Team L? Once an empowered statement of out and proud, it’s now an identity buried within the topical hierarchy of queer studies, gay marriage, gender identity. The disappearance of the L may be due in part to mainstreaming LGBTQ civil rights issues into one catch phrase, but it’s also an intentional disruption of what the aging “flannel shirt lesbian” stereotype signifies: a person who symbolizes folk guitar at festivals in the woods; politically correct potlucks attended by crystal-wearing numerologists in Birkenstocks and bi-level haircuts. These images are all white, as well as derisive. If the L-defined woman and her separatist cultural spaces are troubling remnants of an exclusive, retroactive essentialism, why would anyone want to interview her now? Lost in the stereotype is the backstory of unlearning racism workshops, disability activism, drum circles, and poverty activism, which characterized events of the 1980s and ’90s.

Generational change is inevitable, healthy, and necessary to progress. What I am living through right now is a painful transitional moment in which some of those older lesbian institutions are still going strong, and seeking participation and funding, while a current generation of activists are distancing themselves from such events, or even demonstrating against them. Younger, queer activists were vocal in opposing the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival; right-wing religious groups once eager to shut the festival down had moved on to bigger targets. This dynamic—a next generation of feminists attacking earlier lesbian institutions and disparaging their participants as less evolved—is not unique to the 21st century or the United States; it is embedded in Jill Gardiner’s powerful book From the Closet to the Screen, which describes a 1970–71 Gay Liberation Front “zap” against London’s Gateways Club bar. As this generational shift grinds on, how should the most recent decades of cultural production be interpreted, understood, and preserved? How will we use the tools of history to examine something we know existed as an investigable community?

For veterans of a certain kind of lesbian activism, who poured time, energy, and resources into sustaining alternative spaces when other doors were closed to us, the triumph of civil rights is a bittersweet victory if our tremendous efforts and contributions are to be written out of the record. The fearless Amazon generation that built an entire network of lesbian music festivals, albums, bookstores, bars, presses, production companies, publications, and softball teams is teetering on the brink of oblivion, just gray-haired enough to be brushed aside with an impatient “good riddance” by younger activists, yet too recent a movement to enjoy critical historical acclaim.

The mainstreaming of gay rights and gay marriage, the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the elevation of Ellen DeGeneres to talk show mogul and cosmetics cover girl on billboards in every mall, and the gradual inclusion of same-sex couples by institutions of faith was inconceivable when I first came out as a lesbian teenager—on the eve of Ronald Reagan’s election, in 1980. There were few youth support services, no anti-bullying programs in schools, no LGBT studies conferences in academia. In fact, at age 19 I attended my first lesbian concert less than half a mile from the gates of Georgetown University, then in the midst of its costly legal battle against its own gay students, who simply wanted to form a campus group. Thirty years later, this same Jesuit campus now hosts an annual Lavender Graduation, as well as funding a well-staffed LGBT Center and paying me a handsome part-time salary to lecture on lesbian history. Today we see far greater representation of LGBT families and couples on prime time television and in commercially successful films. Thankfully, across global entertainment networks there are also more and more heterosexual artists willing to speak out for equality (and/or to play LGBT roles). This gradually LGBT-friendly media is redefining who “lesbian stars” are.

But while it is a victory to see lesbians gaining acceptance into the mainstream of American culture—due to stronger civil rights protections, informed political allies, and other successful advocacy—recent media validation has been limited to those lesbian couples with “successful” roles or individual women who are beautiful, able-bodied, affluent, and white. Less often depicted is working-class lesbian culture, which thrives in small towns and urban bars; in house parties and social events where women still meet as they always have. And the politically engaged lesbian activist is portrayed as dressed for Congress. For better or for worse, the stereotype of the angry radical lesbian marching with fist raised against the patriarchy has been replaced by the embossed wedding invitation to Megan and Carmen’s nuptials.

This shift in media representation idealizes lesbians’ participation in the American dream: settling down with a partner, marrying a beautiful wife, raising children, being active in the local school PTA and church community. It’s a wholesome, nonthreatening participation in middle-class values by women who just happen to be gay. This is the image mainstream LGBT groups have promoted since the late 1990s: lesbians as soccer moms, as consumers, as participants in faith, nuclear family, and military service. Vanishing from this landscape are the many large-scale gatherings once typifying dyke subculture, where talking points included some very tough critiques of church, state, family dynamics, and military imperialism.

We’re still here. But there we were. And we remember.

Adapted from The Disappearing L: Erasure of Lesbian Spaces and Culture, by Bonnie J. Morris. Reprinted with permission from SUNY Press.


American activist, Stonewall Riots instigator, “Queen Mother” and “saint.” She moved to New York City in 1966, where her outgoing, ebullient personality made her a well-known fixture among the drag queens and trans women on Christopher Street. She was often homeless, but she was also known for giving her last few dollars away to someone who might need it more. When asked what her middle initial stood for, she would say, “Pay it no mind.” She was present in 1969 when the police raided the Stonewall Inn, proclaiming “I got my civil rights!” and throwing a shot glass at a mirror. The “shot glass heard around the world” is believed by some to be the inciting action of the ensuing riots. After Stonewall, as “crossdressers” were being shunted away from the mainstream gay rights movement, Johnson and her close friend Sylvia Rivera founded the Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries, or STAR. Securing a run-down apartment, they took in as many drag queens and transgender youth as they could, then hustled the streets to raise money so that their children wouldn’t have to. In 1972 she joined the queer performance troupe Hot Peaches, and in 1974 Andy Warhol painted her portrait as part of his series “Ladies and Gentlemen.” She fought for LGBTQ rights all her life, and later joined ACT UP to advocate for people with AIDS. In 1992, shortly after the Pride March, Johnson’s body was found in the Hudson River. The police ruled it a suicide, and refused to investigate the death further.

anonymous asked:

As far as presidents go where would you rate Barack Hussein Obama? Some have stated he's the best president, some have stated he's the worst. To be honest it's mostly white people saying he's the worst which makes no sense when you look at American history and toxic waste like Reagan and Dubya. So based on the details of what the man has accomplished and his failings based on every other president where do you put the man?

Obama was great for Israel, Weapons Manufactures, the Auto Industry, the International Bankers, Wall Street (Institutional Investors), the Saudi Royal Family, the Tech Monopolies, For-Profit Insurance Industry, ISIL…

Obama was good for the (mainstream) Gay Rights Movement, the Negro Elites, Affluent White Liberals, Big Coal, the Struggling Nuclear Power Industry, NATO, Central & South American Oligarchs, Bio-tech Firms, Military Contractors, (mainstream) Feminist, African Oligarchs…

Obama has been a catastrophe for the Black masses (the African Diaspora and Continental Africans), the world’s ecosystems, endangered species (plant & animals), Whistle Blowers, Investigative Journalism, Social Justice Movements (Occupy/BLM), the Global Anti-War Movement, Haiti, Public Education, the Single-Payer Healthcare Struggle, Palestine, The Bolivarian Revolution, World Peace (he ignited a new Cole War)….

So, overall Obama is Great, Good, or Bad depending on where you fall in the Racial, Class, and Ideological spectrum. 

No president can be favored by all, in a nation and a world full of competing and conflicting interest; presidents, just like the rest of us, have to pic a side.  Obama picked and repped his side hard.  Obama is on the side of Empire, Capitalist Class, the Elites, and the Status Quo.

I’m Black, Poor, Socialist, Pro-Peace, Pro-Justice, and Pan-African so for me, the Obama Administration and his policies have been horrible, not the worst, but far as fuck from the best, way far; like Nixon was better than Obama, seriously.  Obama is as bad as Woodrow Wilson, not as Racist, but just as manipulative, warmongering, and elitist as Wilson. 

What saves Obama, Bush, Clinton and many other modern presidents is that there were presidents who owned slaves, who would openly rape African women, father Black children, then sell those children on the auction block; it’s kinda hard for post-Emancipation presidents to top that level of evil in the modern era, but it ain’t for lack of trying. 

As for me personally, excluding the POTUS’s that were elected during Chattel Enslavement of my ancestors, I would say Obama was the worst for one primary reason: Cuz He Black, and should fucking know/do better!  I have higher expectations for my own people, no matter how often I’m left down, I still do.  So, to see a Black man behaving like a White man is worse than a White man doing White man things; but that’s just my own bias. 

So, you have both my objective and subjective assessment of Obama’s Administration.

I will be glad when he’s out of office and I hope no other Black man ascends to the helm of the US Empire, I hope the Empire collapses or is dismantled long before then.   

My problems with tumblr.

I think its worth mentioning that first of all, I don’t think I’ll be introducing any new ideas here but I felt kind of urged into converging my thoughts all in one spot. Secondly, I’m only sixteen, meaning I’ll probably be spewing absolute bullshit most of the time. Thirdly, I’m a white, straight, middle-class kid from London who suffers from no physical or mental conditions whatsoever. So here goes:

1: In order to discuss woman’s rights, gay rights, racial prejudice, fat shaming or anyother civil rights movement, you have to be part of those groups.

When Macklemore & Ryan Lewis’ song “Same Love” became famous, it introduced the mainstream to ideas about gay rights in music. Even if you think “Same Love” is a corny song, you have to give it credit for being the first rap song to hit the mainstream that stands up for gay rights. As a hip-hop fan myself I felt it was a fresh change from the typical money, sluts, parties rap songs to hit the mainstream. I felt it talked about the topic quite well, talking about homophobia in a lot of rappers’ lyrics.

Of course, the song was not good enough for tumblr. As Macklemore wasn’t gay the lyrics should be completely discredited and he was simply just “exploiting gay people”. If only gay people can stand up for gay rights then gay rights aren’t going to go anywhere. Why? Because there are no gay people at the top. Its unfair, I know, but its true. You have to be  a feminist to discuss feminism, you have to be black or asian or hispanic to talk about racial prejudice etcetara etcetara.

2: You’re all the same, bland, unique snowflake

Nobody on tumblr is the typical, average person. Everyone is their own unique snowflake. 90% of people on tumblr are asian, feminist, wolfkin, genderly-ambiguous, size enabled people in their teens. What I’m saying is by being so unique through your lables your removing any kind of actual personality you might have and making your disability, size, race, gender sexuality etc your personality. And its kind of boring honestly. A lot of the times in films when there is a homosexual character the writer will make their sexuality their personality. So you’re basically doing to yourself what hollywood executives do to please the audience.

3: Cultural Appropriation is a steaming pile of elephant shit watch this shit.

People who believe in cultural appropration believe fun is offensive.

4: Political correctness does not equal correctness

The Adventures of Tintin, Herge’s classic comics from the 1950’s demonstrate a lot of negative attitudes towards black people and japanese people. Using blackface for afrcans in “Tintin in Congo” and having the stereotypical squinty eyes and buck teeth for a japanese businessman in “The Blue Lotus”. Should they be treated as a look at contemporary ideas in comics at the time, as well as fantastic stories about adventure? Yes. Or should they be banned for teaching kids unethical ideas about race?

A lot of Disney films aren’t exactly “politically correct” but you guys still seem to love them. I never felt the indians from Peter Pan were bad I thought they were cool and Disney didn’t teach me to be negative towards black people through the crows in Dumbo.

I always felt a lot of the politically correct terms tumblr makes up were sort of patronizing and very jarring.

5: Big words don’t help prove a point

This one isn’t exclusively for Tumblr but it deserves to be mentioned.

Remember the Friends episode where Joey is writing his vows for Chandler and Monica’s wedding? He feels his vows are too simple so uses Microsoft Word’s synonym function in order to make him sound more intelligent but ends up sucking all the heartfelt meaning out of his words. Well, this applies to tumblr.

6: People who say “I can’t even” or “literally”

Fuck off. Literally.

7: This website is the laughing stock of the entire internet.

Even deviantart thinks you’re a fucking joke tumblr. You stand up for all these unheard people but end up not really saying anything, or you are saying something but people stop reading because you start by saying “white, cis scum”. You think you’re doing so much for political activism but you aren’t. You’re overly pretensious, judgemental and you’re standing on a 20m tall horse. You aren’t charmigly righteous like Bob Marley or Public Enemy, you’re just kind of obnoxious.

If you would like to debate with my points, please try to actually discuss with me rather than just attack me.

anonymous asked:

Hi what is it that bothers you about gay marriage becoming legal in the US?

What am I supposed to celebrate here? That cis white gay people were successfully able to co-opt a protest against police brutality to push their agenda of “marriage equality”? That “marriage equality” represents the mainstream racist and classist gay rights movement that compares “not being able to marry” to racial apartheid? That liberals managed to turn a potentially radical movement into assimilationist notions of “marriage equality” and “gay pride”? That Uncle Sam has managed to tame the Radical Queer by telling him that all he needs is the ability to marry and have children like straight people, thus making him into another happy consumer who does not challenge the hegemony of a capitalist system? That every time a warmongering US senator or money-hoarding CEO “comes out”, gay people wear it as a badge of honor? That “marriage equality” has become a marker for progress in LGBT rights and it purposely glosses over racial violence, class inequalities, homelessness, discrimination, transphobia, police abuse, prisoner abuse? That by pushing for such legislation, LGBT rights activists have effectively strengthened the state and allowed it to regulate their sexualities and gender identities? That the state can now use gay poster boys to legitimize its discrimination against the new social others? That such legislation is supported by gay people in the military who rape, torture, murder people like me? That gay people take pride in working for the US army and bombing my homeland and killing innocent children? That such legislation relies on and perpetuates a nationalistic narrative that also legitimizes the abuse and torture of people from Third World countries? That such legislation represents precisely how homosexuality has been used as a tool of torture by US soldiers? That people in the US can now wave “marriage equality” and “gay rights” in my face to prove how progressive and modern they are, as compared to a “barbaric”, “illiterate”, “Moslem terrorist” like me? That democrats like Obama who have been pushing for “marriage equality” legislation for a long time can now finally use the “gay card” in the international political landscape to pinkwash US and bully other states into accepting their demands? That such legislation has potentially paved the way for US to use human rights abuses against LGBT people in Third World countries as an excuse to wage wars and pass economic sanctions in the future? That “LGBT rights” organizations working in the US can now hijack the struggles and experiences of queer people from Pakistan like me and use that to define the trajectory of queer rights movements working in my country? That such organizations can now open chapters in countries like Pakistan to “liberate the poor oppressed gays” and jeopardize the local movements and patronize the local activists because they can pretend to be superior on the basis of “marriage equality” in US? That people in the US can now look down upon me and my fellow brothers and sisters as some “backward homophobes” because our main priority is not to have gay weddings and glittered parades? What am I supposed to celebrate? That “gay” just became more capitalist and imperialist?

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been presented with the argument that fighting assimilation takes attention away from the “real” battle, which is fighting anti-gay violence. Assimilation IS violence, not just violent cultural erasure, by the violence of stepping on anyone who might get in the way of your upward mobility.
—  Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore, That’s Revolting - Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation

Privileged, rich conservative white trans lady: *comes out*

Mainstream gay movement: “WOW!” *applause and praise*

Undocumented trans woman of colour: *risks safety and well-being to come out against racial injustice and institutional abuse perpetuated by the Obama administration*

Mainstream gay movement: “HOW DARE YOU INTERRUPT OBAMA!” *comments with racism and transmisogyny and ignores the issues at hand*

I, for one, am hoping that Jennicet Gutiérrez gets more positive attention in the media than Caitlyn Jenner.
An L.G.B.T. Movement Should Be More Radical
By Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore

The gay establishment has always taken “L.G.B.T.” to mean “gay, with lesbian in parentheses, throw out the bisexuals, and put trans on for a little bit of window dressing.” But I’m not interested in trans inclusion in a gay movement narrowly focused on marriage and military inclusion, hate crime legislation, gentrification, consumerism and patriotism.

The gay movement would like us to think that gay marriage will give everyone housing and health care; that openly gay soldiers pressing buttons in Nevada to obliterate Somali villages means homophobia is on the wane; that strengthening the criminal legal system through hate crime legislation will bring murdered queers back to life. This is what we lose when we think of identity as an endpoint – just add “gay” (or even less acceptable terms like “queer” or “trans”) to any oppressive institution, and suddenly you have the new civil rights struggle. Gay marriage, gays in the military, gay members of Congress, gay priests, gay cops — what’s next?

Click the header link to read the full article.

Assimilation means erasure: A ravenous gay mainstream seeks control, not only of our bodies and minds, but of the very ways we represent our own identities.
—  Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore - There’s More to Life Than Platinum: Challenging the Tyranny of Sweatshop-Produced Rainbow Flags and Participatory Patriarchy

everybody’s like, “I know my history! The movement started in 1969 when a handful of trans people of color in the United States did something at Stonewall to fight against the oppression of same-gender attracted and trans people!” 

like never even mind the fact that the mainstream gay rights movement didn’t accept trans people into the acronym for another 30-35 years

even if you just stick to the Western and specifically gay rights movement you’re still erasing a good hundred years or so of activist history just stop 

What the ever living fuck, Darren!?!

I’m not going to reblog the photo that Darren posted (and deleted) because I don’t want to spread this filth on everyone’s dashes, but it’s one of those time when I really do believe that Darren is as big an asshole as his detractors (which I proudly call myself) see him as. For those who have had the good fortune not to see it, Darren is seen humping (crotch to ass) against another man who appears to be sleeping. I’m sure that Darren (and his friend) just see this as harmless horsing around but Gods… that image was really disturbing and really, really sickening.

The fact that a man who plays a gay character on television, and who’s primary claim to fame is being part of a fan-beloved pairing with another male character, and who is known for being a gay ally who is routinely lauded by mainstream gay rights organizations (like the Advocate and the Trevor Project) would not stop and think that maybe what he’s doing looks really disturbing. As in rape imagery. That it looks like he’s in the process of having sex with a man who appears to be sleeping or unconscious. How the hell could anyone think that this is “cute” or just Darren playing around.

One of the biggest myths that are used to pillory gay men is the idiotic fear that they want to have sex with every straight man they come across and that straight men need to fear being sexually assaulted. That gay men just can’t help themselves so straight men are right to be fearful in a locker room or the army. So for Darren to play around with this kind of imagery is really disturbing to me. He might be an “ally” but it’s clear that he has no clue of the kind of bullshit that gay men have to deal with in trying to get people to see that they are not a threat.

I have tried very hard to give Darren some benefit of the doubt, and that maybe he’s just awkward and doesn’t realize how things appear to others. But that grace period is beyond over a this point. Not after Darren has been playing into the fantasies of the Klaine and Crisscolfer mouth breathers (and Chris has suffered as a result). He’s the worst kind of ally the gay community has. He uses gay men and gay imagery for his own benefit, but it’s clear that he has no real understanding and mocks them for his own amusement. This is beyond repulsive and beyond reprehensible.