Love, rage and pride
Don’t ask me how I found this… but it’s definitely recommended! And bi, too! :D
Also: it has a previous chapter, which is one of only 5 stories tagged “genderqueer” in all of Literotica (<— if you click this link - WARNING: watch out for the story “Blue Hornbill Inn”, it’s heavily orientalist/racist).
Check it out :)
Asher Bauer, Not Your Mom’s Trans 101
Read the whole thing, it is awesome and important.
Reblogged from veganmudblood
TYLER
I’MA DINOSAUR. :D
Hah. Black and green are the trans colors in Israel :)
(Source: romantiqueer)
Reblogged from bialogue-group
Sorry to be the party pooper, but: bi assimilationism. Why do we need to base our legitimacy on similarity to the gay mainstream?
Also: what’s with the token black man? Racism much?
These are for a brand new Canadian Campaign aimed at getting better health-care for bisexual people within the greater LGBTQ+ community. As mentioned in the accompanying literature, “The four posters provide visibility to groups identified in our pilot study, and in the literature on bisexual health, as strongly impacted by biphobia.”. The aim being to get health-care providers to re-think preconceived notions about who Queer people are and what they might possibly look like in order to make sure all LGBTQ+ people are provided with the best services possible.
There are only a total of four photos and Canada is a multi-ethnic/multi-racial country, so it would be counterproductive to use people of European background only. As it is one half of those pictured are not cisgendered (one Trans* person and one Genderqueer/Two-spirit person) and one half of those pictured are of non-European background (one First Nation person and one person of African decent).
This doesn’t seem to be assimilationist or tokenism, merely representational of the actual types of people an Ontario Health-care provider might reasonably be expected to come across in their daily practice.
Thanks for the link, that was really helpful and might help me make my point clearer.
Let me start by saying that the goal of this campaign is doubtlessly a noble one. Lack of appropriate health care is one of the biggest problems stemming from biphobia and monosexism, and the idea of a campaign addressing the health needs of bisexual people is both necessary and laudable.
On the other hand: wait, what? I don’t see any reference to bi people’s health anywhere on these posters. There’s no way of knowing what these posters are actually about unless you go on the website and read about it. So, here’s my first point: the posters fail pretty much completely at reflecting the original message.
Second point: What do these posters even have to do with the purpose of the campaign? If an organization wants to address the grave problem of bisexual health, why do it through posters? Is this really the most efficient method to counter misconceptions and lack of knowledge amongst care givers? Just off the top of my head, some more efficient methods would be: getting into contact with care givers, giving lectures about bisexual health needs, forming new care guidelines or a “standard of care” for bisexual people, launching a booklet containing information about the health needs of bisexual people, creating a network of bi friendly care givers, etc. etc… All of these methods would have contained a lot more information, carried more knowledge and therefore produced more results than a poster ever could. So why a poster?
Third point: Why a poster like this? To quote the campaign page: “The “This is Our Community” posters address the issue of bisexual inclusion in LGBTQ communities”. As I mentioned in my first point, this totally fails to address the goal of the campaign. But not only that, but this stance also presumes that in order to get better health care, bisexuals needs to become assimilated into the gay community. To me this implies a presumption that bisexuality by itself isn’t a good enough reason for demanding acceptance - it needs a legitimizing agent, and this agent is gay normativity. “Homophobia hurts me too”, as if biphobia isn’t reason enough, or, “I fight for all our rights”, as if bisexuals have to redeem ourselves - our bisexuality - by “community service” and political commitment. Acceptance is conditioned. The point in all the posters (except perhaps the pregnant one?) is similarity to other people and “redemption” of bisexuality through gayness (or being trans), meaning anything but bi. Just to be clear, this is what I call “bi assimilationism”.
Fourth point: The presumption that stereotypes and “invisibility” are the main sources of biphobia and monosexism, and that if we only change those stereotypes then both these structures would magically be resolved and go away. In fact, monosexism and biphobia are much deeper than mere stereotyping, and more significant work than simple “myth busting” needs to be done first in order to challenge them.
Fifth point: Regarding people of color - I wasn’t suggesting that only white people needed to be in this campaign. That would be overtly racist rather than the current covertly racist message which I saw in black tokenism. After reading the campaign link I now realize that the person whom “homophobia also hurts” is supposed to also represent racialized people. So here I’m guessing that the campaign designers expected people to have telepathic abilities, since the person in the picture passes for white (which is to be expected in a racist society where white is the default) and no mention of their racialized identity is made. So, huh?
Reblogged from bialogue-group
Rainbow Health Ontario, CAMH and The Public are incredibly excited to launch the Bisexual anti-stigma campaign in Toronto this fall. Check out the launch party on September 9th. For more information check out http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=199052006821971
We are thrilled to have been a part of this exciting initiative. Challenging biphobia is part of building strength in our communities!
That top one really makes me happy. YAY VISIBILITY AND INTERSECTION AND YES.
Today on “fabulous things that show up on my dash”.
(Because, seriously, unfuck the fact that this has to be an issue at all, since the whole anti-bi thing I understand even less than normal heterosexism, which says a lot.
But hella props to this lot.)
Woo!
BITASTIC!
Sorry to be the party pooper, but: bi assimilationism. Why do we need to base our legitimacy on similarity to the gay mainstream?
Also: what’s with the token black man? Racism much?
I am not a woman trapped in a man’s body. This body is no man’s; it is mine, it is me, and there is no man in that equation. And I am not trapped in it. There are a million and one ways out of this body, and I have clung to it, tooth and claw, despite an endless line of people and institutions who would rather I vacate the premises, and have sometimes been willing to make me bleed to convince me they’re right.
This body is mine, and I claim it and its bruises, and it is not a man’s, and I am not trapped here. I have looked leaving my body in the eye and I have said, in the end, hell no. There is too much to do, too much to love, too many who need one more of us to say hell no and help them say the same.
"Reblogged from fuckyeahradicalquotes
little light, the seam of skin and scales (Taking Steps)
(Source: kiriamaya)
Reblogged from damaskandplaid-deactivated20111
If “bisexual” is indeed binary and forbidden to use, then people need to also stop using some other words, like “transgender”, “androgynous”, “cross dresser”, and “transexual”.
Just saying.
“Trans” means “across” (as in, “to cross to…
I’m just going to jump in and say that it’s very nice of all of you to define what bisexuality means, but if you don’t identify as bisexual yourself, kindly stfu :) This situation in which anyone is allowed to jump in and define what bisexuality means or should mean for bisexual people is un-solidary at best and reeks of biphobia at worst. The only people who can define what bisexuality means for them are bisexual people, and it is no one’s place to define it for us.
Consider that throughout history (and in many ways to this day), the people who have had the most power to define the meaning of bisexuality have been everyone other than bisexuals themselves - at first the scientific and medical institutions, then psychology, sociology and sexology, later the media, film and literature, then even the L, G, and T communities. In fact, inasmuch as someone does not identify as bisexual, their definition holds more weight and is given more credit and respect than that of bisexuals themselves. That’s fucked up and it needs to change.
Also:
Likewise, even though “bi” was the Latin preposition for “two,” this does not mean that everyone who uses the term “bisexual” thinks there are only two sides to gender. Many, perhaps even most, non-binary people identify as bi, and things like “bi*” are an explicit effort to include people who are attracted to more than one gender but don’t identify as bisexual. It’s pretty obvious that in many circles, the term “bi” has undergone a semantic shift (link changed, do check it out), and now means “someone who is attracted to people of more than one gender.”
Reblogged from subconciousevolution
based upon personal experience.
Spread the trans love people! Don’t leave our lovely “t”s behind!
FORGET THE B. ALWAYS FORGET THE B.
PRETEND THAT B’S ARE BENEFACTORS OF ASSIMILATIONIST GAY PRIVILEGE.
SEPARATE THE B’S FROM THE T’S. TEAR THEM APART AS FAR AWAY AS POSSIBLE.
ERASE. SUBSUME. DO THEIR WORK FOR THEM.
