Doctor Who: Let's Kill Hitler - review, analysis, rambling →

The slippery staircase, and other mixed metaphors

So, Ed Whelan, a conservative man who runs the Ethics and Public Policy Center, said the following in defense of the Defense of Marriage Act:

If the male-female nature of traditional marriage can be dismissed as an artifact and its inherent link to procreation denied, then surely the distinction between a marriage of two persons and a marriage of three or more is all the more arbitrary and irrational.

Whose side are you on here, Ed? Because you’re making all our points for us here. The distinction is arbitrary and irrational, and should be considered in those terms.

The key difference in our thinking here is that all of these things you see as horrifying, we see as liberating, necessary, logical. This is a fundamental disconnect - you are even able to see our line of reasoning, but you then stand that reasoning up as ‘obviously bad’, without bothering to explain why you think it is bad.

And that’s because there is no reason (that is, based in logic) for your belief; it is entirely emotional, founded on values you unquestioningly assimilated and never once stopped to analyze on the basis of whether they actually improve the lives of either individuals or communities.

Or, to quote professor of Law William Jacobson:

The polyamory slippery slope argument was met with derision precisely because it raised a legitimate point….

Yeah. That.

Please, just stop

Sometimes you apologize. That’s great, but it’d be even better if you could stop doing it altogether. I don’t want an apology, I want you to stop doing it.

More often, you make excuses. “Oh, I call everyone ‘man’. I use it gender-neutrally.” But even ignoring the sexism that entails, it’s disingenuous; you don’t call everyone ‘man’. When you talk to other women, (that is, women who are not me) you just say “What’s up?”, never “What’s up, man?”

Yes, I pay attention to that sort of thing. It’s relevant to the way I have to navigate social interactions.

So, please, stop lying to yourself. Stop clinging to your privilege and couching it as an unavoidable personality quirk. Stop insinuating that I’m not really a woman. Because that’s what you’re doing, every single time you say “Thanks, man!” or use the wrong pronoun. It’s painful, it’s annoying, and frankly, I’m tired of it.

Look. I know. It’s awkward. You’re still “getting used to it”. Sure. Except it’s been almost three months now, and you’ve been seeing me and interacting with me five days a week during that time. At some point “getting used to it” becomes “obstinately refusing to get used to it”.

Like I said, I’m tired of it. I’d call you out on it, but, well, it’s not like I have security against being fired if someone complains to HR. So, could you just stop? Is it really that fucking important to you that you not have to make a tiny alteration to your worldview?

Because I can’t handle this shit any more.

iamwhoiamandidontgiveadamn:

lookoutsideyourself:

stfuhatemongers:

Um wow. That is a slippery slope if I have ever seen one.

I agree that churches should have the right to marry whoever they want to marry. However, there are many ways to get married aside from in churches, and the state should not be able to dictate who can and cannot get married.

Well, that was my attempt to take this Jason person’s sentiment seriously. “Poisoned by occultic beliefs”? You really are an idiot.

I’m amused that they have the face of “V”, but then I remember what Guy Fawkes was REALLY trying to do, and it seems appropriate.

And yeah…church weddings are just ONE option for getting married. I think it’s interesting that all people assume that ALL people entering into a non-hetero marriage (cause not everyone who is not hetero is “gay”…just a reminder) is Christian.  What about pagans, satanists (the real kind, not movie satanists), atheists, jewish, muslim, hindu, buddhist…

Yeah…maybe we (the non-hetero community) should keep trying to separate this debate form religion so as not to erase the non-Christian non-hetero people who want to get married. 

As an added note, and something that seems to get overlooked…

Marriage pre-dates Christianity. It is a custom that stretches back (at least) almost as far as recorded history. The Greeks did it. The Romans did it. It was done throughout the Heathen world. I don’t know a whole lot about Sumerian culture, but I bet they had marriage too (A quick googling shows that they did). Marriage has been happening in India and China and Japan and Java and countless other cultures since long before any of the Abrahamic religions found their way to them.

So, can we please stop talking about marriage in terms of the “purity of the Christian faith”? You don’t have some kind of monopoly on marriage. There are Jews and Buddhists and Muslims and Bahá’í and Heathens in the United States that perform marriage ceremonies too.

Christians: marriage doesn’t belong to you. It belongs to all of us. Get over yourselves and get some damn perspective.

(via iamwhoiamandidontgiveadamn-deac)

Duke Nukem Forever should not exist →

I wrote this angry rant over on my blog about Duke Nukem and rape culture.

howwillthestoryend-deactivated2 asked: Hello. I've just started following you because I find what you post really interesting. Ugh, I have absolutely no idea how to express what I want to say/ask, because I'm ashamed to say I have never met or even really heard of anyone such as yourself. I am really intrigued by this male-and-female-not-being-defined-by-genitalia idea. And even that makes me sound even more ignorant. I am a complete believer that education about everything is the key, that's where all our issues come from -religion, race, homophobia whatever, so I really really want to understand this. I am so so sorry if any of this is coming across offensive to either you or your followers. It seems to me first things first. Could you possibly explain how you would define gender? Thank you so much, and I'm glad to hear that your transition went well.

Thanks! And for what it’s worth, nothing you said came across as offensive to me, at least.

One way to look at it is pragmatically - by and large, when you interact with people, you don’t interact with their genitals. Since gender is a large factor in how we interact with each other (whether this is a good thing or not is immaterial here - the fact is that it is a factor), no meaningful definition of gender should be talking about genitals at all, because very few people (relatively speaking) ever even see them.

So, we need a better criteria for defining gender. Behavior and outward physical appearance are an option, but they are still a terrible option, because defining gender that way is sexist and gender-normative, to say nothing of how cissexist it is. It also just isn’t useful, because it doesn’t lead to consistent definitions - different societies and even different people have differing conceptions on what constitutes masculine or feminine features and behaviors.

The only option we really have, then, is to define gender via identity - that is, allowing people to assert their own gender identity, and using that and no other criteria to define gender. My resulting definition of gender, then, is:

Gender is an innate quality of consciousness that many people possess. The two most common gender identities are ‘man’ and ‘woman’, although there are many others. Many people announce their gender identity through gender-coded expression - mannerisms, clothing choices, etc. - but this is not a reliable way to ascertain someone’s actual gender, since it is sometimes at odds with perceived gender, especially in the case of non-binary gender identities (people who do not identify as either male or female).

Some people would then take this and say ‘but genitals have to mean something!’ and try to establish a difference between biological sex and gender. I would point those people here, for starters:

http://genderbitch.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/male-female-broken-language/

For my part, I discount the validity of ‘biological sex’ as a useful concept for a number of reasons, of which Kinsey’s post is one.

At any rate, with my above definition of gender, we can also define the terms cisgender and transgender succinctly, like this:

Someone is cisgender if the gender they were assigned at birth matches their gender identity. Someone is transgender if the gender they were assigned at birth does not match their gender identity.

I hope this helps answer some of your questions. There are a lot of good resources out there for getting a better handle on this - The Feminist Hub is one, Kinsey’s site (linked above) is another, and this may also help:

http://tranarchism.com/2010/11/26/not-your-moms-trans-101/

Or, just google ‘trans 101’ for a lot of reading material (of varying quality).

"Instead of trying to fictionalize gender, let’s talk about the moments in life when gender feels all too real. Because gender doesn’t feel like drag when you’re a young trans child begging your parents not to cut your hair or not to force you to wear that dress. And gender doesn’t feel like a performance when, for the first time in your life, you feel safe and empowered enough to express yourself in ways that resonate with you, rather than remaining closeted for the benefit of others. And gender doesn’t feel like a construct when you finally find that special person whose body, personality, identity, and energy feels like a perfect fit with yours. Let’s stop trying to deconstruct gender into nonexistence, and instead start celebrating it as inexplicable, varied, profound, and intricate."

-Julia Serano, Performance Piece (Gender Outlaws: The Next Generation eds. Kate Bornstein and S. Bear Bergman)

Fuck, yeah, Julia! I wish you’d made out to the Philadelphia Trans Health Conference this year. I had such a fun time hanging around with you last year!

(via gemmaseymour)

I got to see her at a workshop in NC two years ago and found it awesome!

(via agentdani)

(Source: littlemattyrand, via agentdani)

My other blog

A long time ago, I had another blog. It was a good blog, with some neat technical material (programming and Linux and Second Life stuff) and rants about video games. It fell by the wayside while the real world (i.e. transition) got in the way.

But now, it’s back, and likely to be geekier than ever. I may even end up putting Social Justice stuff over there, I’m not sure (tumblr seems like a better place for it (given the established community), and the tone of that blog doesn’t quite… fit, somehow. Tones can change, though, so we’ll see).

Anyway, anyone who might be interested in the geekier things I write about, check it out over at A Random String of Bits. A lot has changed since I wrote most of the content on there, so what exactly the blog will become remains to be seen.

"You never know how strong you are until being strong is the only choice you have."

(via iwannagoalltheway)

(Source: occupymyheart, via 77825225672443)

Liberal Hypocrisy, “Vanilla Privilege”

blackenedbutterfly:

tchy:

Trigger warning: explicit discussion of BDSM practices, rough sex—possible trigger for rape or sexual assault.

notforallthewealthofcaesar:

cosmocumsmoothie:

communismkills:

Apparently, someone who is “vanilla privileged” is someone who does not enjoy abusive sex. By abusive, I meant all of the harmful kinks—spanking, choking, etc. You name something self-deprecating, and there is a person out there who is interested in it. These people who are opposed to that kind of sex are “privileged” because they don’t get off on being kicked or punched.

Ironically, the people who are against “vanilla privilege” are also the people who are outspokenly about “stopping violence against women”. How is having violent sex not abusive? If these liberals weren’t hypocrites, they’d support mutually-beneficial, mutually-satisfactory sex without the pain.

this post is the DEFINITION of vanilla privilege.

you have the privilege to sit there and tell people that they are having sex the wrong way because you wouldn’t do it that way.

there is a HUGE difference between BDSM and violence. the difference is called consent. with BDSM there is trust and consent involved. the person is doing this for your pleasure (and theirs), not to hurt you. intent fucking matters, okay?

STOP CONCERNING YOURSELF WITH OTHER PEOPLE’S SEX LIVES. 

i would get into a discussion of kink as it applies to me and why it is not the omg horrible abuse that people paint it as and why it has actually been helpful to me an abuse survivor but i’m pretty sure it would a) not be a discussion and b) not solve a thing and c) just mutually exasperate everyone involved.
so…naaaah.
and omg, those liberals, what will they do next.

Hi. I’m a dom. Fuck you.

My partner and I do all sorts of things that you, in your ignorance, would read as abuse. I have handcuffed her, chained her ankles, collared her, and tugged her around by a leash, I have blindfolded her, gagged her, and forced her back by her hair, I have hit her with a riding crop across her back, rear, and legs, and with my hands across her face and rear, I have restrained her body, her limbs, and her breathing, I have dominated her emotionally and physically, and directed her, either physically or verbally, to do things in a way that you would read as coercion or rape. And none of these things constitute abuse, because they were pre-negotiated, consensual, and carried out with the use of a safety word and other precautions designed so that if at any point she was uncomfortable with what I was doing, she could make me stop. And you know what? She never has. Nothing I have done to her has ever been nonconsensual.

Being able to characterize my sexual practices as abusive, despite the reality of my situation, is a manifestation of vanilla privilege. That you can write my sexual practices off as “getting off on being kicked or punched” is a manifestation of vanilla privilege. Treating mine and my partner’s sex as if it’s not mutually beneficial or mutually satisfactory is a manifestation of vanilla privilege. Never having to be afraid of revealing your sexual preferences for fear of being judged for them is a manifestation of vanilla privilege.

Sex is not abusive if partners consent, risk is minimized, precautions are put in place, and negotiated boundaries are observed—and this is true for all sex, not just violent sex. And people in the D/s community are often very specific about boundaries—which I would venture to guess helps minimize the risk of abuse. I would feel much safer with someone who opens up a sexual relationship with discussion of what’s allowed and how far they can go, rather than someone who just assumes they’ll be told to stop if their partner doesn’t want it.

Not to mention, you mischaracterize the D/s community immensely by equating D/s to violence against women. Do you think there are no female dommes, and that women would automatically have to be submissive? How sexist can you get? Not to mention all the gay people in the scene—where exactly does “violence” against women enter into the picture in a relationship with two men? Try not to be so heterosexist next time.

And as for supporting “mutually-beneficial, mutually-satisfactory sex without the pain?” Thanks, but no thanks. I’d rather have mutually beneficial, mutually satisfactory sex with pain. Because, guess what? I like pain. And if my girlfriend wants to scratch her name into my back with her fingernails, I am sure as fuck not about to stop her.

Thanks again, fuck you, and goodnight.

Guys, remember when I said communismkills was just a fuckup with absolutely no credibility? 

Think about posts like this from her when you see her appear on your dash.

tchy, I am breaking my rule not to follow any new tumblrs in order to follow you. Because damn, that rhetoric was wonderful.

(via 77825225672443)

Why Day of the Moon is absolutely brilliant

Okay. It’s officially time to derail this into a Doctor Who blog. It’s not like I’ve been using it for anything else lately. So, without further ado…

Spoiler Warning for Series 5 and 6

This Post not Dr. Song Approved

(Source: wilwheaton)

Gender for kids: the discussion so far! →

sententiola:

Hi everyone.  Remember this post in which I wondered how one could raise children without gendering them?  It has had various responses in various forms.  I’m going to collect them here rather than reblogging the reblogs, answering the asks, and so on.

Okay, this is some fantastic commentary and discussion. Everyone should read the original post, and then this, and then follow sententiola to read even more.

On Thor (and Þórr)

I’m writing this in response to this ask, but I’m not sending it to Raven as an ask because it’s mostly just me rambling.

So, let’s talk about gods and comic books.

Raven is, of course, correct - Thor (Þórr in Old Norse) is described in the heathen lore as having red hair (and I’ve never heard anyone question that on the grounds of UPG). But then, Sif’s defining feature is her golden hair (actual gold, that is - a gift from Loki to make amends for stealing her original golden blond hair), and Marvel makes her hair decidedly raven black. These seemingly pointless departures from the lore (pointless in that they add nothing to the story of the comic) are the result of Jack Kirby’s character designs. He was handed Thor with little knowledge of Norse myth beyond “some big guy with a hammer”, and nearly everyone after him has a) copied his designs for consistency and b) followed his tendency to not actually study the origin of Thor.

So, here’s my secret: I really like Marvel’s Thor. It’s J. Michael Straczynski’s fault. His run of thore (the first 16 issues of the latest run, 1-12, 600-603, and the “giant-size finale”) is phenomenal. It is as heathen as the comic book Thor is ever likely to get. There is still a good/evil dichotomy going on that feels out of place, especially in the treatment of Hel. Loki’s actions can at least be explained here by greed and jealousy, but Hel simply seems out of place - a Marvel character in JMS’ very un-Marvel take on Thor.

In particular, the scene where Thor talks to Captain America’s ghost is as heathen as anything I’ve ever read that ended in -saga. It talks of the power of oaths and evokes images of the warrior-king sitting out on the mound to seek counsel with the honored dead.

Also, the story of Bill is absolutely classic - it could easily have come straight out of the lore - call it Williamsmál, perhaps.

So, JMS really did his homework, and he wrote something that was powerful and heathen at its core. And after the comic got its hooks in me through JMS, I found that the story that picks up where he left off has retained a lot of his influence on it.

Is Marvel’s Thor culturally appropriative? How about Neil Gaiman’s American Gods, or Sandman in its entirety? It is possible. Certainly there is a common idea that our religion is ‘dead’ and so no one thinks twice about using symbols and figures from it for their own ends (this is a problem shared by most reconstructionist religions, I suspect). But I do think Thor himself would approve of these things, to say nothing of Bragi.

Also, in anticipation of anyone who wants to take this post and use it to talk about certain casting choices in the upcoming movie, I think the idea of casting Heimdall as a black man is fantastic. So stuff that in your racist pipe and, as they say, smoke it.

slytherinsdragqueen-deactivated asked: hey, I'm MtF and aso heathen/asatru- just saying hi! :) Found what you wrote about fylgja really interesting.

Hi, always good to meet more trans heathens! I’m glad you hear you liked my information on fylgja. I am lucky enough to be in a Hof with a lot of people whose knowledge of the Lore is phenomenal.

My spiritual beliefs don’t show up here on my tumblr very often, mostly because they only intersect with the things I talk about here in a very personal way. So, feel free to follow, but I can’t guarantee a lot of heathen-focused content (although I do have one article on Marvel’s Thor vs the mythical Thor in the queue).