evilkate: (Default)
This was what I expected, given that most courts would be hesitant to overturn a public poll and just as hesitant to remove a right granted to some. So there we go - a 3-tier system with: traditional married couples; special case married gay couples and the rest who may not wed.

For this to happen in California of all places today is truly staggering, given that Iowa now allows gay marriage along with 4 other US states.


Ah well, 2010 will be interesting.

Kate Out
evilkate: (Default)
I've been prompted to think a lot lately - how unusual  - about perception and the endurance of a self's identity. How anyone who isn't cisgendered has a perspective so much sharper in many ways. My thinking was partly prompted by a blog post from a good friend and kicked into focus when I did a favour for another friend.

In the first case, the friend was noting how, as non-cisgendered people, we often see things behaviourly re male/female that most others miss. It's true. Some would call these stereotypes and there is often a knee-jerk reaction to that word - but these differences do exist. Gender embeds people into social frameworks in differing ways. Now, of course, not all stereotypes apply to all people. That is what makes them stereotypes - the fact that they are broad summaries of complex behaviour. Nor do I see gender as anything close to binary - rather it seems to be a continuum and we all sit upon it somewhere. Furthermore, one cannot confuses sex and gender as many do instinctively: even many who are trans do this at times. After all, for those who cannot reconcile themselves (myself included) without transition - isn't that process partly about bringing physicality and emotional details into sync? Then there are those who manage to reconcile without transition and that makes them no less trans. That whole topic of 'authentic' is a discussion for another day though. For now - let's focus.

So it is not a simple thing but it has a simple resolution. If people can simply respect each other and offer whatever pronoun is preferred, regardless of transitional status, well that's easy ... isn't it?

But apparently it is not. This is where we come to the second friend, the one I did a favour for. He was in a forum where a transwoman was bemoaning how many lesbians would refuse to accept her. My friend wanted to know what her point was. He didn't quite 'get it' but, he had the decency to ask someone and to realise his issue.

Reading through that thread, I grew steadily angrier. Not only because so many responses were callous; selfish and basically vicious, but because of the general reality that they 'did not get it' - and these were people who SHOULD have.

I find it incredibly ironic - and somewhat tragic - how any gay girl could say "Sorry, I can't be with you because you are not a 'real' woman" - and that was the basic argument. They will say the same to post-ops, including those who past extremely well. Now don't mistake me here. People are allowed their preferences and we all have them. If someone isn't attracted to someone else, then they aren't - and if that is because they are not into some physical or emotional detail, that also is their right.

However, what ever happened to compassion and being polite? Why would anyone need to rabidly assert some kind of viciousness, by actually naming their preference as "only real women."

So what makes a woman real even? Having a womb? - hey there are woman born without those, a medical condition. Having a cycle? - so are we really defining gender based of binary ideals of physical characteristics? Being 'born' female? - well that might cause conflicts if we drop the whole binary gender model. Hrmm?

There was once a large movement within feminism - much of it centred among the gay population - that worked toward deconstructing gender. Where did that movement go? Did I miss something? :) People who have fought to own their identity, to not be defined by the views of others - some seem to have little issue with defining "not a real woman/man" and then imposing that on someone who is trans. How can these people not see what they do?

Most of all, I find it incredulous - that women who have had to fight for their place; to assert themselves as gay and proud; to push constantly against the weight of bigotry and institutional discrimination ... how tragic that some of those people who then inflict the same kinds of ignorance on others?

So there you have it. I always knew and had commented and discussed it with friends before this - but seeing the attitudes in that room. It was all so jarring ... that we have not moved as far as some keep telling us we have. Ignorance still abounds. People are still embedded in selfish realities and the world is still a harsh place to many.

Kate Out

PS: Oh - and don't go into the "Harden Up" argument people. I think that itself is a bogus argument, used by many to disavow any personal need to care. What? - so the world can be a harsh reality ... I don't agree that we need to surrender our compassion; fold inwards and become overtly self-interested beings. The world becomes less harsh only when we bother to care for the plight of others. Compassion is not a weakness ... it is the best thing we have going for us :)
evilkate: (Default)
It is so easy to think the battles are almost won. We aren't even close until items like this become a fiction.



Kate Out
evilkate: (Default)
Okay, this is a perfect example of why I despise the notion of "Private" Education - not the British backwards version, but the non-state run version that is widespread in the US (and much of Oz) and is ever increasing it's coverage as the middle classes expand in such modern economies.


So this school can apparently enforce itself on the actions of a pupil who is outside of its direct sphere of influence?! How very concerning. Or is that just me? - am I somehow being bigoted or too harsh? After all, the school did get the pupil to sign a binding pledge on entry. I assume they also gained similar assurances from the parents.

But the issue I have is simple - education should be open to all and an institution should not have the right to act beyond its essential sphere of influence - that being education and the duty of care it has during such. After all, in many parts of the US, there aren't a wide range of schools to choose from. Many small towns have one - and it is often private, so what would happen in such circumstances? Furthermore, many areas are homogeneous in their beliefs and attitudes - so does that mean anyone dissenting (in their PRIVATE life) should be denied?

It's a question of access and as private schools continue to spread - the options will be limited. This is associated with the ongoing debates regarding creationism vs evolution in such schools. Curriculum should be centrally established by neutral agencies and so to should the rules regarding what a student can, or cannot, do on their private time.

Egads people. I can't believe such nonsense is still flourishing in this day. What social progress?! :)

I'd probably be much more ranty, if I wasn't laughing in quiet disbelief. I am truly staggered.

Kate Out


Apr. 13th, 2009 03:41 am
evilkate: (Default)
I'm on ventage run of late and, thanks to a straight friend who was outrage when he saw this, I can spread some attention to it. :)


Thanks J

Grrrrr ...

Email Amazon - bomb the blitz out of them. Complain. This is NOT acceptable. Whether you are straight or gay or red or blue or a pixie who likes to wear yellow feathers, please, if you find this as reprehensible as I do ... help stop them from getting away with it.
evilkate: (Default)
It's true - and just keeps being reiterated.

I live with two of the nicest girls anywhere - they got married and everything. So, one of them was at her work yesterday and a male coworker asks her how she came to be in Australia (she was born far away, in a land of snow and ice).

She replied with her stock answer #3719: "I moved here to live with my wife."

After the obligatory "really"'s and "Oh my"'s from the guy, he had to ventured into the danger zone ...

"So then, how long have you been gay?" - good grief!

and then, the one known of and dreaded amongst gay girlies everywhere,

"Do you guys have a spare room available then?"

She stood while replying: "No thanks, we don't have any room for dicks in our life."

and walks away calmly (how she managed the calmly bit is beyond me)


Yeeeerse, I have so much to look forward to :D

*Okay, okay I do - but the baggage that comes with kinda sucks*

evilkate: (Default)
This article:

inspired a response from this guy:

He closed off comments before I could respond to his insultingly rude logic.

So - I will simply reply here :P

Do note that the author I am responding to stated, in comment replies:

"You will note that I did not judge people. I made no judgment on any individual. I I did not say, regarding those who call themselves “transgendered” (which they are not), that I am “not willing to begin to consider [them] as life” — whatever that means. I know they are human; I know they are alive; I know they are people. I wish they would act naturally — neither seeking to mutilate themselves nor to inflict this perverse morality on others via legislation"

Nooo - no judgement there!? WTF?

So - the logic of my response is framed and expressed in a manner similar to his. :)


Legitimizing intolerance is a fundamental act of cruelty for some religious voices. New Hampshire House Bill 415, dubbed by compassionate people from all walks of life, “a Sensible and Fair Bill,” is an effort to protect the lives and welfare of people who voluntarily take the brave and difficult decision, to live life as their authentic self.

Just as those children born with cancer can get treated (despite the fact that God gave them that cancer) and just as people who voluntarily get cosmetic surgery (to improve their body beyond anything God gave them) - these transgendered people (which they are) should be allowed to express themselves authentically.

Have you all gone mad for opposing this essential Bill?

Do you not realize that gender is , like most things in nature, evolving with regard to the scientific understanding of it, regardless of the intolerant, bigoted “feelings”, desires, and wishes of some humans.

Regardless of your ignorant assertions, assumptions and misguided faith? Are you not aware of the obvious differences in the compassion of liberal voices and conservatives too blind to accept that, while God probably knows everything, that they risk hubris to assume they know the mind of God.

How are we supposed to, as transgendered people, enter public bathrooms without fear or risk of serious danger - including attacks and murders - if you do NOT pass this decent legislation? How are we supposed to preserve their lives and welfare or protect them from the viscious predations of this bill’s opponents?

With every bill that has been introduced into this session of the NH legislature, we become more convinced that we are being extremely WELL served by representatives, and not being ruled by incompassionate, dogmatic tyrants.


The author's response to one of the commentators is even easier to invert (his comment to Nikki)

So here is my reply to that:


Brother André Marie: I must note that you DID judge people. You made several comments equating transgendered to a perversion. Just because you do not judge a specific individual, does not mean you have not judged. If I made a broadly-targeted racist comment, I could not hide behind the defence of "I did not target any individual." You did NOT say, regarding those who call themselves “transgendered” (which they ARE), that you WERE “willing to begin to consider [them] as life” — whatever that means. You may know they are human; You may know they are alive; You may know they are people. But the very call that "they would act naturally" belies all that. What is natural? Is it 'natural' to have a heart transplant? Is it 'natural' to have ones ears pierced? Is it 'natural' to, as some transgendered are, be born with the chromosomes of a male but grow up with the body of a female? Is is natural to be born one half of siamese twins? Get a better argument!

We are not seeking to mutilate ourselves to express perversity - rather to free ourselves of a standard defined by a religious perverse morality, when we KNOW who we are.

What is wrong with this legislation is that it is opposed by an old class of humans — “religiously bigoted” (which they ARE) — who want a special place under the law previously only heard of in ancient, premodern, ignorant civilizations. It is unacceptable because, without this legal recognition, there will not be protection for the “rights” of this very real aspect of humanity. Eventually, children will accept “transgenderism” — thinking that it is legally protected (and therefore OK) for someone to do something so very courageous.

Lions eat zebras because we don't throw them Christians anymore (Which I think is a good thing btw - since I have many good friends who are Christian and open-minded!)

Perhaps you could show me the passage in Holy Scripture which REFUSES rights to those who attempt to align their internal and external genders.

Kate Sylvia


Okay, I feel better now :P


evilkate: (Default)

October 2010

24252627 282930


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 12:39 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios