Tag Archives: Lesbian

*Breaking News* Lesbians stage protest of heterosexual male keynote speaker at London Dyke March 2014 , threatened with arrest

Standard

In our country we’re often bombarded by tabloid headlines by stories of how bad things are ‘over there’; how little respect they have for ‘their’ women; how little regard ‘they’ have for life, particularly ‘ours’.

Read this and weep – or not – conservatives (and liberals): this is where the dichotomy really begins; and we’re as guilty as ‘them’.

Can’t be seen to silence women – wouldn’t be politic these days. would it? – send in a drag act to mouth platitudes on their behalf. Presto! Who could object…

And I’m supposed to be proud to be British…

GenderTrender

BqqddNQIIAE4M5- Lesbians KICKING ASS! for Lesbians! at London Dyke March 2014

After weeks of online protest surrounding the controversial appointment of former LibDem Councilor Sarah Brown, a male transgender, as keynote speaker at the London Dyke March, a group of courageous lesbians staged an effective demonstration today at the march, raising awareness of how Dyke Marches worldwide have been aggressively colonized by “male lesbians”.

Flyer handed out by Lesbian protesters at Dyke March today Flyer handed out by Lesbian protesters at Dyke March today

Many readers will recall former Councilor Brown as the male self-identified “polyamourous dyke with one male partner” who launched a public campaign to name the foul smelling drainage created by his surgically inverted penis (what he describes as “the smegma-like mixture of dead skin cells, gynaecological lube, stale urine (gives it its distinctive smell) and sweat that is sometimes present as a white residue on the end of a dilation stent when a post-operative trans woman…

View original post 1,078 more words

Advertisements

Les Miserables

Standard

‘These are very unusual offences,’ Lord Bannatyne said during sentencing. ‘The case is clearly an exceptional one.

Well, sort of… sexual assaults committed by females are much the exception than the rule. But Bannatyne‘s judgement had little to to with her sex, and everything to do with her gender: her apprehension and his perception thereof…

The admission of Gender Identity Disorder by Bannatyne as a mitigating factor raises a question: does he mean to imply that because Wilson believed herself to be male her actions were more acceptable, by dint of being stereotypically ‘male’ actions? He said of her disorder, ‘I accept that this leads you to genuinely feel you are male rather than female. This significantly lowers your culpability.’ In other words, males are not culpable – or significantly less so – for their violent actions, in this case sexual assault and fraud.

The implications of such judgements are worrying, as much for what they appear to say about the victims as the perpetrators: that men (including Trans*men) should expect to be excused from the consequences of their actions by dint of being (or believing themselves) male; that females should expect to be victimized and bear those consequences.
Males are more typically violent, but male and violent are not synonyms, any more than female and victim are. The condition of men under patriarchy simply affords them access to a wider choice of victims; and such conditions conspire to protect them from the consequences to themselves of their actions. The consequences for their victims are not held to be terribly significant, if at all, and both theirs and the perpetrators’ debasements are equally feted as natural and desirable. When females do engage in violent abuse – which of course they do, as these cases show – they invariably victimize women or girls less enfranchised than themselves, children; or themselves. But they’re punished twice – think Myra Hindley, Rose West – both for their violence and for being ‘aberrant’ females. As atypical as these cases are, it’s striking how the words and decisions of the presiding judges are seen to reinforce gendered codes of behaviour rather than treat the protagonists as individuals. Wilson was convicted as a female, but punished as a male: i.e. barely (though she’ll no doubt continue to suffer psychological issues, possibly pose a risk to other girls) whilst Adie has been left – all too typically – high and dry.
Surely what matters here is the HUMAN trauma inflicted upon one HUMAN by another HUMAN. Physical assault hurts. Deception hurts. Both physically and psychologically such trauma has been shown throughout history to have repercussions for years afterward. That these girls suffered sexual violence at the hands of other women does little to diminish those repercussions, excepting the risk of pregnancy that might arise in instances of male rape. Adie was nonetheless hurt. That is the point. And the law, in its capacity as gender policeman, has seen fit to hurt her again.
The mutability of male and female behaviours is a matter for debate; though in the light of opportunities created for women by the actions of suffragettes and others since, it’s notable that ambitious females haven’t been shy of stepping up to the plate in the business and political worlds, albeit by co-opting ‘masculine’ values to an extent, and in spite of often violent backlash and having to carry the ‘second shift’ in the home. In different ways, women’s successes and failures within an andro-centric (and hetero-normative) system teach us lessons about the false norms – of both sex and gender – on which that system is founded.  If women have shown themselves able to adapt to the – frankly, often unreasonable – demands of the masculine world and still thrive, or at least survive….
Perhaps the bigger lesson here is that, far from trotting out ‘male’ (masculine) as a handy ‘get out clause’ for female bad behaviour; we might hold up ‘female’ as a standard to aspire to for – rather more often – badly-behaved males.
Maybe we should look for the strength inherent in our sex, rather than play to the weakness enforced by gender.

Normal family, abnormal morality…

Standard

This ‘What Would You Do?’ clip, which arrived in my inbox today via Upworthy, recorded the reactions of diners in a Texas restaurant to same-sex couples enjoying lunch out with their families. In the same way that many in the UK were surprised that it was a Tory government that finally pushed same-sex marriage legislation thru the House of Commons, the clip shows that the connection between party politics and private attitudes isn’t always as clear cut as one might assume…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JibZ2U3o-M&feature=player_embedded

Disappointingly, the guy at 6.17 still resorts to using a sexist slur whilst taking the ‘waitress’ to task – misogyny might be the perennial #1 in the bigotry charts, yet remains the least recognized, and most casually perpetuated – but we can still take heart that in a world (or in the US, at least) where 1 in 5 gay couples raising kids, and a ‘normal family’ is a relative term, many ‘ordinary Joes’ are able to recognize injustice and are willing to claim the moral high-ground.

At 3.04 our ‘waitress’ berates the ‘couple’ (one of whom actually is lesbian) ‘…I actually have morals and standards’ so it’s not insignificant, then, that Donovan, who next takes the couple’s side is openly Christian in his extortion that she ‘not judge’ them. It’s refreshing that he interprets Christ‘s words in the spirit they were apparently intended, in an age when so-called Christian groups are too-often reactionary, narrow-minded and proscriptive in their thinking.

Andrea Dworkin‘s words ‘The worst immorality is in apathy, a deadening of caring about others, not because they have some special claim but because they have no claim at all’ are especially pertinent here; as Donovan says at 4.54 ‘I think silence is one of the failures of people today … when they see an injustice … they stay silent…’. Texas is one of 29 US states where gay people can legally be refused service, yet half the diners come to the defence of the harrassed couples; in liberal NY, by comparison, less than a quarter do so…

Back in the UK, the Marriage (same-sex couples) bill (2013) was passed in the House of Commons by a majority of 400 vs 175. British PM, David Cameron was brave and enlightened enough to make this a free vote, and fully half his party voted against or abstained. Much of the resistance was predicated on the notion that marriage is an institution designed around the ‘proper’ raising of children. Beyond party politics and religious orthodoxy, it is heartening that many people recognize this reasoning as specious; that marriage and family are fundamentally about commitment and love. Indeed, a recent study in The Netherlands suggests that kids of same-sex couples (female) actually do better than their Mum/Dad peers.

The Quakers and Unitarians, along with some Protestant groups beat Cameron to the punch with Gay Marriage. Sometimes ‘Conservatives’ don’t feel the way one might expect. Conventional ‘morality’ is changing: let’s not let human decency and real morality go the way of the ‘y’, for all our sakes…