everythingbutharleyquinn:

rare-basement:

ravurian:

http://www.towleroad.com/2013/08/chenoweth.html

At last night’s concert at the Hollywood Bowl, Kristin Chenoweth chose a random audience member to join her on stage for a performance of “For Good” from Wicked.

The audience member (also, a voice teacher) Sarah Horn, explains:

Toward the end of the second half of the performance, Kristin wanders on to the pasarel. She held a mic up to a lady in front of me and asked if she knew the song “For Good.” Nope. I took the chance, as I was directly behind Kristin, to stand up and wave and say, “I know the song!”

This is not like me - to jump up and wave my arms like a crazy person and raise my voice at a celebrity. As soon as she turned to look at me, I say right back down… and calmly said, “Hiiiii.” …

After this, she moved down the line and asked a guy if he knew the song and bantered with him for a few seconds. Afterwards, she said something about going back to pick me because I was a girl. Then, she invited me up on stage.

I sat there for a moment, stunned. Then the backup singer motioned for me to get up. I shot up out of my chair as my heart leaped up past my throat and started beating in my ears. I don’t really remember what happened between the box and when I first set foot onstage except that there was now a microphone in my hand.

Kristin had no idea what was to come. And that’s pretty much where the video picks up.

(Via towleroad)

MY COLD HEARTT HAS MELTED IM A CRYING

I have something in my eye.

(also 3:37)

Goddamn, this song. Gets me every time.

Warning: discussion of sexual violence and victim blaming

kaninchenzero:

"he deserves the presumption of innocence"

fuck that. this is not court, social opprobrium is not equivalent to the armed might of the state.

the only way to ensure every person accused of sexual violence is presumed to be innocent in every circumstance is to assume that every victim is always lying.

presuming the accused to be innocent is setting the standard for prosecution in criminal courts. the people deciding the case must begin by assuming the accused is innocent.

ONLY THE PEOPLE DECIDING THE OUTCOME OF THE CRIMINAL CASE MUST PRESUME THE ACCUSED IS INNOCENT BEFORE TRIAL BEGINS.

no one else.

we cannot apply the rules of criminal courts to every human interaction. they are designed to have artificially high standards because the state has an enormous amount of power over nearly everyone.

a victim of sexual violence does not have that kind of power over their assailant. victims of sexual violence only very rarely can invoke the armed might of the state on their behalf and risk further violence and humiliation if they do.

to move towards any kind of justice we — those of us who are not involved in criminal proceedings — must presume an assault has taken place and the victim can reliably identify their assailant.

otherwise we maintain the status quo where perpetrators of sexual violence can act in the near certainty they will never be even mildly inconvenienced for their sins.

I don’t think the presumption of innocence make sense in a case of sexual assault or abuse? The nature of sexual assault is that it’s (1) usually committed by someone the victim knows (and knows well), so the identity of the perpetrator isn’t usually something the victim would be confused about, and (2) usually committed in private, or away from the attention of people who would stop it and hold the perpetrator to account, so the victim’s account is essential to both establishing that a crime was committed at all, and to identifying the perpetrator. In other criminal acts, it can be difficult to establish that an accused person is guilty of the crime in question. In a sexual assault, because of the circumstances, there’s no question that the crime happened, and a presumption of innocence only serves to invalidate the victim’s experiences.

Thanks! First of all, please don't feel offended because apparently someone was offended by what I told them about this subject and I don't want to... So, for you, is it transmisogynistic to be only sexually attracted to women with vaginas? I'm not saying I'm not physically attracted to women with penis though because I am. Is it transmisogynistic not to like penis, whether a male or female?

skysquids:

valkyriethunderbitch:

rambleonamazon:

skysquids:

well, i get this question a lot.  i’m not offended because you did ask if i wanted to respond - i appreciate that.

so yes.  if you are only attracted to women with vaginas i think the nature of your desire, and the social conditioning that goes into forming that desire, is transmisogynistic.  when people talk about going on a date with a cis woman, its considered rude and shallow to judge her entirely based on her pussy, but this is the normal way to talk about trans women.  desire is shaped by our culture, and our culture is heteropatriarchy.

now, your friend who doesn’t like women with penises.  i don’t think he should date trans women, or like, try to date trans women.  that would be awful for everyone.  but i do think its important to acknowledge that in our culture we are raised to devalue trans women.  it would be wrong to pretend that ‘its just what i like’ and it has nothing to do with the constant social conditioning to find trans women disgusting.

Also worth noting that many, many trans women absorb those messages and take them to heart, and spend a lot of time struggling with this deep-set notion that we’re disgusting just for existing. It takes a lot of love and examination to clear that social BS out, even in the first-person. So while it’s not excusable that people are “not attracted” to women with penises, it’s understandable how this attitude tends to be the default starting position. The patriarchy is very good at what it does.

This connects to that really fucked up phenomenon where people will try to avoid taking direct ownership of their feelings, including biases and prejudices, because they want to avoid feeling pressure or obligation to change those attitudes or confront the underlying issues that obviously make them uncomfortable.

Admitting that, for example, they associate penises very strongly with maleness and heteronormative masculinity and that this keeps them from seeing a trans woman as female — or at least her genitals as female — would seem to put one at risk of being labeled a bigot, and this is why we so often see a defensive, hostile reaction where people claim they’re being “forced” to like trans women or to like penises.

It’s a symptom of a failure to recognize transmisogyny as the default in our culture rather than the exception, just like white people don’t tend to get that racism and white supremacy are a default in our culture.  So just like many white people will say that they “just don’t find black people attractive” without owning the role that systemic racism played in shaping those attitudes, people tend not to recognize the role that similar forces play in shaping their attitudes towards gender, bodies, sexuality, and so forth.

The “I don’t want to be forced to date people I’m not attracted to” response is a result of a misunderstanding of the situation.  No one is asking anyone to ADD feelings or attractions that aren’t naturally there, but rather to DEPROGRAM the problematic shit that has been absorbed.

Deep down, people recognize this shit which is why they avoid dealing with it so desperately.  Trans women have such little power and influence that really the only consequence you’ll face for excluding us is going to be some posts on the internet and your own conscience.  Why own up to your own transmisogyny when everyone wants to help you ignore it just like they do? 

And then there’s always the “same-SEX attraction” bullshit to fall back on, trying to dismiss gender as irrelevant and redefine orientation solely in terms of physical sex, and that only in genital terms where, for example, your vagina is only attracted to other vaginas and that’s why a cis woman is attractive but an otherwise identical woman with a penis would not be, despite the fact that she only becomes unattractive AFTER you find out she has a cock, and a trans man is attractive when an otherwise identical cis man wouldn’t be, even when genitals are the only significant difference.

The catch, of course, is that virtually no cis people actually think that would be the only difference.  The trans woman would OBVIOUSLY be less attractive because, you know, she’s “less of a woman”, but they don’t want to say that or add in the assumptions about appearance or how she thinks or feels or her relationship to her body.  Similarly, they don’t want to address why a vagina magically cancels out all the things that would normally be unattractive about a cis man, or how this inherently implies that they view trans men as partially female or at least less male and that you’re basically treating his maleness as window-dressing over a less-threatening, not-capable-of-misogyny-because-shared-girlhood, “female-bodied man” or similarly transmisogynist bullshit.

Considering the role hormones play in human sexual differentiation, using biology as the primary justification for genital essentialist patterns of attraction doesn’t actually make very much sense.  It would make far, far more sense to look at sex hormones themselves, particularly considering that, unlike genitals, we can actually perceive them in others even when fully clothed, and they have a tremendous effect on not just the appearance of bodies but also smell, taste, and so forth.

This rant brought to you by my frustration with transmisogyny and my complete lack of sobriety this morning.  I know you don’t care, and I don’t care that you don’t care.  I just wrote this to vent some of the frustration so as to not reach critical mass and crack the planet in two with my bitter trans dyke rage.

i agree with everything you say here.  although transmisogyny is like, a systemic social problem, that doesn’t let individual cis people off the hook.  their desire is still shaped by transmisogyny, they harbor transmisogynist beliefs and belief structures, and i am probably going to be more wary and distrustful of them.

Anonymous

I followed the link to "Sex positivity is rape culture in disguise" with a general attitude of !!!, because. And then I read it, and sat back and thought, and reread it, and became aware of just how much I need to learn, and how grateful that I am that I read that article and began learning. So, thank you for posting it, very much. -- a slightly better educated anon

Ok, glad you found it piqued your interest and caused you to rethink your assumptions.Thanks for letting me know.

  • Jenny:

    You bought the same exact outfit? So does this mean we can finally give away that ratty coat?

  • Ichabod:

    Please. And risk it be worn ironically by purveyors of artisanal marmalade who discovered it at the local thrift shop? I thank you, no.

  • pekourl:

    refusing to call a trans person who has done bad things by their correct pronouns is enforcing the idea that trans people have to be worthy enough to gain even that basic fucking level of respect, whereas no matter what a cis person does no one would ever think of misgendering them for it

    If someone on the internet making fun of straight/cis people

    sexywexymarcy:

    If someone on the internet making fun of straight/cis people and it is making you angry…here is what you do:

    Log off the website.
    Turn off the computer.
    Go outside and look around you.
    It’s a world that caters to you in every way. In advertisements, turns of phrases, songs, movies, laws, and politics.
    A society where you are not shamed, beaten, forced from your family and killed for what you are.
    Where you have rights others don’t have.
    Then take a deep breath, think a moment, and realize:
    Is what was said that hurt your feelings really worth your anger?

    Paraphrased, via dredreidel

    This is how Ignorance and belief combine together to create a harmful idea that seems reasonable

    tonidorsay:

    The following post was tagged with radical feminism, which is one of the tags that I agreed to follow in order to get a group that I am often accused of being to be quiet.

    It is a example of how some folks, thinking that they have a decent grasp on complex subjects from having read a few things, combined with teh normative understanding that already exists in the world (and is not radical), act when given misinformation and then decide to use their beliefs and the ignorance and misinformation they have been given to spout an uninformed opinion that they likely think is meant positively, without realizing just how destructive it is.

    The individual who is posting it isn’t of import in what I’m about to do — it is the ideas that they are sharing that I’m going after. So here is the post:

    radfematheist:

    No Gender = No Transsexuality 

    I already know I’m going to probably start a shit storm and get called transphobic by posting this so let me explain. I’m going to make this as quick and simple as possible.

    Sex is what you were biologically born as. I was born with breast and a vagina so my biological sex is a woman.
    Gender is what you identify as and I identify as a woman.
    Gender is a socially constructed idea designed to make a clear distinction between men and woman. It feeds into patriarchy so men can clearly tell who is dominant vs. non-dominant in our culture. So because I identify as a woman I am automatically put in the non-dominant group.
    Now, if we were to get rid of gender and just go by our sex and live whichever identity we feel we truly are, the term Transsexuality wouldn’t exist. This is because everyone would be living in their purest form. Of course I am thinking of an ideal society. But basically what it boils down to is that, if we got rid of gender, we could live how we want in whatever sex identity we wanted.

    Note that the following things are the problem with this post.

    First, it presumes that transsexuality is a socially constructed issue based on Gender, which only exists in a social system and social sphere.  This is the first point of ignorance on transsexuality, which is better referred to as Transness. Transness has no basis in Gender — gender is one of the results of it, not the source. The source of it is in Self awareness, which is discounted and ignored because of the ignorance and prejudice of the author — which were passed to them by normative, conservative, anti-radical forces in the social groups they are active in.

    Secondly, it presumes that transness is a disease, a wrongness, a fault.  This is also incorrect, and an error that is derived from ignorance and the combined efforts of persons with a deep seated degree of animus, anxiety, and/or aversion to trans people (all of which, incidentally, are displayed above in the post). Transness, as we understand it today, has been present in every culture throughout all of time and is a naturally occurring variation of human diversity.

    Next, it starts off with an ethnocentric (and racist) assertion of a patriarchal system that has a long and well documented history of being used to further the goals of patriarchy and white supremacy, and is still very much structured in such a way that it embraces, supports, and patterns effective understanding in a way that reifies the Patriarchal notions that there are substantive differences between men and women and that there are only two forms. This is patently false, not radical, and decidedly prejudiced. As sex is a socially constructed system that posits a binary (even though the science being cited here recognizes that such a binary does not actually exist), and this fact is not acknowledged or incorporated into the statements made, it fails to recognize that the determination of what it means when subject A has these parts, subject B has these parts, and other subjects have a blending or variation or absence of those parts was made and continues to establish the role of subject A as a dominant and culturally neutral figure, while all related forms are Othered.

    The argument is specious, as well, as it relies on an essentialism that posits flesh before person, or essence before existence, when speaking within and about an existential framework, which fundamentally holds that existence precedes essence.It is, therefore, contradictory at a level that the author is almost certainly unaware of.

    To justify this, they use an example of their own flesh,not realizing that the flesh is not the problem, since gender is a social system that is, in all ways, the manifestation of sex in the social sphere. This is important, as it demonstrates that the author does not understand what Gender is, and more importantly, continues to use the same standards that have been used by patriarchy for decades to reinforce the idea that women are inferior.  Exactly the same two. Which happen to be the most prominent, visible traits associated with the role which patriarchy assigns and that are supported by the patriarchal system that they are relying on to prove their point — that is, they are literally using the tools of persecution of women to establish that they are defined by patriarchy and shaped by it and they do so without disagreement or noted radical statements, which means that they are accepting it and therefore are arguing on behalf of patriarchal standards.

    Next, it makes a faulty leap that colludes personal identification with social identification, despite these being two separate things, and ignores the methodology that they are pretending to follow (which is critical theory).

    How one identifies has nothing to do with Gender. Gender is how one expresses how one identifies, how one operates in connection with others while expressing it, and what roles one operates under within the given culture one is occupying — most of which base one’s gender on what one does, not what one carries around within them.

    So there we can see that the understanding of gender, in general, is not only flawed, but is also deeply ethnocentric and uninformed.

    It then presumes that gender is the mechanism of oppression, which is incorrect, It is a mechanism, but it is not the only one.  Since Gender is the social system that represents sex, it can only be undone by ridding the world of any distinctions relating to sex, including the patriarchy inspired ones that the author uses to create a distinction.

    This, then, indicates a juvenile understanding of the world at large, and an overly simplistic grasp of social system and in particular the Structures and how they operate interdependently.

    THey then make the assertion that by getting rid of gender and just operating by sex, that an entire class of persons who are literally outside either of these social constructions will cease to exist — as if one can change an element that exists in all cultures and in all populations simply by changing one cultural normative that can only exist so long as the other does.

    Gender is sex in the social sphere. Flat out. So getting rid of it means changing the social systems in which everyone operates to erase all distinctions of social sex and sex itself, since gender is social sex.

    That’s ignorance for you, though.  It is like peering through a tiny hole and think if you could just move a little further only to find out it is your own anus and you’ve stuck your head through it.

    They then get to an argument about purest forms, which becomes even more hilarious and laughable once one realizes that the process that trans people — in this case, the subset thereof defined by transsexuality — go through is to live an authentic life, and the actions of this person in this specific case are intentionally focused on the act of denying them an authentic life, thus creating existential Angst and feeling as if that is a good outcome.

    This is how the aspects of Violence against Trans people function and work without the persons engaging in that violence being aware that they are doing so intentionally, because of the source material (which is outside the trans world is based in the oppressive systems created to render trans people invisible already that they have been fighting for close to 175 years now) — the ciscentric source material that is hostile and prejudiced and filled with misinformation — that they have relied on.

    This is akin to the sort of thing being written by people who wanted to find a solution to the Civil war that relied on the arguments of the slave owners, since those seemed reasonable and they could always make the same appeal to authority that this person has made.

    They then get to the point where they note that they are referencing an idealized system, but it isn’t an idealized system because they are creating this thought from a position of ignorance.  They presume that gender exists in a vacuum, separate from other systems of oppression, and that it can be tackled in some way without having to tackle these other systems at the same time, and when one is being as ethnocentric in their focus as this person, one can see just how far they have to go in learning about these topics.

    this is why the stuff that is spoken by TERFs and other anti-trans type is so often poisonous and damaging to trans people, even when it seems reasonable and something that shouldn’t be argued with.  It isn’t radical to oppose the lives and existence of trans people — that is part of the normative systems and an aspect of patriarchy, in and of itself.

    This is also why I say that those who hate trans people cannot properaly be radical feminists and have any claim to the concept of being radical — hate isn’t radical, it is conservative and normative, and all one needs to do to realize that is look at the world around you.

    The individual who wrote this piece is merely an example of something that is prevalent, a symptom of a larger problem, and the level of ignorance they are dealing with is not their fault — it is part and parcel of the system which they unwittingly were actively engaged in supporting. 

    They have seen a great deal of horribly false testimony from people with a vested interest in preserving the status quo (men are men and women are women) in order to preserve the minimal amount of self image and ego they need to enable them to function to some degree in a social system that they are trapped in, just as the rest of us are.

    Rather than condemn this person for writing this, I think we should condemn the ideas that lead into this sort of thing and recognize the deception, deceit, and complexity of Structure, rather than attacking this persons Agency in trying to make sense of something they don’t understand, however misguided an attempt that was.

    Unless they are a hard core Terf who thinks CB, AnnTagonist, BevJo, Gallus, etc are all cool people, in which case, hey, have at them.