Sorry for the absence. Posting will continue to be infrequent, since I'm a college student doing too much stuff. Today I was inspired to share many of the insightful things I've been reading.
Great post on sex-positive feminism.
I am glad to see that Dr. Pepper's popular opinion seems to be suffering because of its blatantly sexist ad campaign.
Dr. Pepper is often my go-to soda (I don't drink it very often), but I haven't bought any since learning of the campaign.
I think you should read this piece on the popular myths in the media about Occupy Wall Street.
I am slightly intrigued by reading about this book. I have been interested in thinking more about feminism in relation to relationships.
Post from Shakesville about disturbing social experiments being performed on prisoners. At the end of the post are things you can do to take action.
Finally, a reminder that cultural appropriation, misrepresentation, and racism do not make for a good Halloween costume (or costume at any time).
Monday, October 24, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
My Views on the President
Disclaimer: If we had a more progressive congress we would not have nearly as many problems as we do now and the Republicans in office deserve most of the blame (at least if talking about politicians) for the current political mess. However, I do not think the president is effectively dealing with them and not all of my issues with President Obama stem from the Republicans. Also, I am not citing sources on my information here because, frankly, there are too many things. If anyone questions facts I present, let me know in comments and I will find sources (though if you wish to further question that I ask that you also back up your point). Also, I welcome different opinions and I invite you to share other things that you think Obama has done well.
There is quite a lot of back-and-forth about President Obama in progressive circles, at least the feminist and queer/trans ones that I follow online. I have also noticed many of my friends calling out people on the left who dislike Obama. So, I would like to weigh in on my specific views on President Obama.
First and foremost, in 2008 I supported and voted for Obama. I would have voted for him in the primaries had I registered in time.
My feelings now are a little different. First and foremost, I must acknowledge that I am more left-wing than I was in 2008. Obama the candidate would now be too moderate for me and Obama the president is certainly not progressive enough.
I support many of the things Obama has done. He was working to improve our international relations. He has done many things to support LGBTQ people. Examples include DADT (though I am very anti-military), stopping the defense of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act must go, regardless of my views on marriage) and supporting its repeal, changing passport regulations for trans people, attempting to change hospital visitation policies (I have heard that it didn’t do much—I would love if people could weigh in on that), allowing HIV+ people to come to the U.S. (not exclusively queer/trans, but significant), appointing queer and trans people to his cabinet, and more. He also signed the hate crimes bill (though others before him did most of the work on that), but I have mixed views on hate crimes that I may discuss later. These are, regardless of what many queer bloggers might say, significant to the LGBTQ community—they are more than “cookie crumbs.” I think he could do more to advocate for LGBTQ people, but, all-in-all, I am not displeased with the LGBTQ-related work that he has done.
However, my politics go beyond LGBTQ-focused legislation. Here is where I have issues with the things Obama has and has not done. Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan and has sent troops into Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen. We are still engaged in combat in Iraq. Though he said he would shut down Guantanamo Bay, it is still active. While he was trying to improve our international relations, which we really need, I am under the impression that he has not done too much more on that front since early in his presidency (please correct me if I am wrong—I am relying on the oh-so-reliable media for this). He has not nearly taken a hard enough stance on offshore drilling, even immediately after the oil spill in the Gulf. In general, his public stance and effort on energy is not nearly where it should be. Obama also extended the “Patriot Act.” His administration defended the epically failing “war on drugs,” even after a UN group detailed why it is not working.
I think health care was kind of a disaster. Yes, most of the blame lies with Republicans and much of it on “blue dog Democrats.” However, he was attempting to negotiate with people who would not negotiate. I hate politics and don’t know too much about them, but the fact that he took the public option off the table with nary a fight was ridiculous. In the end, I hope the bill paves the way for better health care later, because I don’t think it does much right now. Obama’s extension of the Bush tax cuts is also inexcusable. Yes, again the Republicans deserve much of the blame, but his negotiations started in the middle while the Republican negotiations started much further right. That is NOT the way to negotiate. I am very nervous about the negotiations regarding the debt ceiling—I will acknowledge that changes to Medicare and Social Security aren’t necessarily terrible, but Obama’s track record on negotiating with the Republicans is. I appreciate his attempt to be bipartisan, but it’s not working. He should change his strategy. When the U.S. becomes LESS progressive in ways, yet we have a purportedly progressive president, there is a major issue.
I also think Obama should lend more of his voice to issues like reproductive rights, racial justice, and immigration justice. I seem to recall a major part of his campaign centered on access to higher education—I have seen minimal aid to students seeking higher education in the last four years (were Pell Grants increased, decreased, or both?).
One could justifiable argue that Obama is better than McCain, Palin, Bacchmann, etc. That is DEFINITELY true. However, that doesn’t mean I can’t call Obama out on his shit. I ALSO don’t think “better” is necessarily “good enough.” Yes, the legislative branch of the government has made things very difficult for Obama, but I don’t think he has responded as well as he should.
People may wonder what I plan to do in 2012. I want a president who fights hard for justice—as hard as if not harder than opposing sides. I want a more progressive president. I don’t want one who is ready to expand conflict, cave to oil companies, or not do enough to help the lower classes of this nation. I also want to change the two-party system (as well as the voting system) in this country. Will it actually change? Who knows? More people seem to vote for third-party candidates every election. So, I will vote for the candidate who most represents my views. Will that deny my vote from the more progressive mainstream candidate and give it to someone who has no hope of winning this cycle? Most likely. But, things are not changing as I want them to (not simply “moving too slowly”), and I have a right to vote for the candidate who most represents me.
There is quite a lot of back-and-forth about President Obama in progressive circles, at least the feminist and queer/trans ones that I follow online. I have also noticed many of my friends calling out people on the left who dislike Obama. So, I would like to weigh in on my specific views on President Obama.
First and foremost, in 2008 I supported and voted for Obama. I would have voted for him in the primaries had I registered in time.
My feelings now are a little different. First and foremost, I must acknowledge that I am more left-wing than I was in 2008. Obama the candidate would now be too moderate for me and Obama the president is certainly not progressive enough.
I support many of the things Obama has done. He was working to improve our international relations. He has done many things to support LGBTQ people. Examples include DADT (though I am very anti-military), stopping the defense of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act must go, regardless of my views on marriage) and supporting its repeal, changing passport regulations for trans people, attempting to change hospital visitation policies (I have heard that it didn’t do much—I would love if people could weigh in on that), allowing HIV+ people to come to the U.S. (not exclusively queer/trans, but significant), appointing queer and trans people to his cabinet, and more. He also signed the hate crimes bill (though others before him did most of the work on that), but I have mixed views on hate crimes that I may discuss later. These are, regardless of what many queer bloggers might say, significant to the LGBTQ community—they are more than “cookie crumbs.” I think he could do more to advocate for LGBTQ people, but, all-in-all, I am not displeased with the LGBTQ-related work that he has done.
However, my politics go beyond LGBTQ-focused legislation. Here is where I have issues with the things Obama has and has not done. Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan and has sent troops into Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen. We are still engaged in combat in Iraq. Though he said he would shut down Guantanamo Bay, it is still active. While he was trying to improve our international relations, which we really need, I am under the impression that he has not done too much more on that front since early in his presidency (please correct me if I am wrong—I am relying on the oh-so-reliable media for this). He has not nearly taken a hard enough stance on offshore drilling, even immediately after the oil spill in the Gulf. In general, his public stance and effort on energy is not nearly where it should be. Obama also extended the “Patriot Act.” His administration defended the epically failing “war on drugs,” even after a UN group detailed why it is not working.
I think health care was kind of a disaster. Yes, most of the blame lies with Republicans and much of it on “blue dog Democrats.” However, he was attempting to negotiate with people who would not negotiate. I hate politics and don’t know too much about them, but the fact that he took the public option off the table with nary a fight was ridiculous. In the end, I hope the bill paves the way for better health care later, because I don’t think it does much right now. Obama’s extension of the Bush tax cuts is also inexcusable. Yes, again the Republicans deserve much of the blame, but his negotiations started in the middle while the Republican negotiations started much further right. That is NOT the way to negotiate. I am very nervous about the negotiations regarding the debt ceiling—I will acknowledge that changes to Medicare and Social Security aren’t necessarily terrible, but Obama’s track record on negotiating with the Republicans is. I appreciate his attempt to be bipartisan, but it’s not working. He should change his strategy. When the U.S. becomes LESS progressive in ways, yet we have a purportedly progressive president, there is a major issue.
I also think Obama should lend more of his voice to issues like reproductive rights, racial justice, and immigration justice. I seem to recall a major part of his campaign centered on access to higher education—I have seen minimal aid to students seeking higher education in the last four years (were Pell Grants increased, decreased, or both?).
One could justifiable argue that Obama is better than McCain, Palin, Bacchmann, etc. That is DEFINITELY true. However, that doesn’t mean I can’t call Obama out on his shit. I ALSO don’t think “better” is necessarily “good enough.” Yes, the legislative branch of the government has made things very difficult for Obama, but I don’t think he has responded as well as he should.
People may wonder what I plan to do in 2012. I want a president who fights hard for justice—as hard as if not harder than opposing sides. I want a more progressive president. I don’t want one who is ready to expand conflict, cave to oil companies, or not do enough to help the lower classes of this nation. I also want to change the two-party system (as well as the voting system) in this country. Will it actually change? Who knows? More people seem to vote for third-party candidates every election. So, I will vote for the candidate who most represents my views. Will that deny my vote from the more progressive mainstream candidate and give it to someone who has no hope of winning this cycle? Most likely. But, things are not changing as I want them to (not simply “moving too slowly”), and I have a right to vote for the candidate who most represents me.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Open Thread on the "Respect for Marriage Act" Senate Hearing
This blog probably doesn't have enough following to warrant an open thread, but to avoid spamming Facebook too much, I'll try it anyway.
I would like to point out that DOMA prevents relationship recognition beyond marriage for LGBTQ folks. For that reason, I think it should be repealed, regardless of my views on marriage and the emphasis that is placed on it.
[Edit 1:25 PM]
Of course just after I post this the hearing is over...
I would like to point out that DOMA prevents relationship recognition beyond marriage for LGBTQ folks. For that reason, I think it should be repealed, regardless of my views on marriage and the emphasis that is placed on it.
[Edit 1:25 PM]
Of course just after I post this the hearing is over...
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Stuff I've Been Reading (7-13-11)
Like many blogs, I think I will post things that I have been reading around the internet. This way I can share things without making an entire blog post about them and I don't have to spam my Facebook friends.
Oh, in case you were wondering about Holly Tree: she is busy attempting to be an adult in the real world, so at least for now is still taking a break from the blog.
Awesome coverage both of the U.S. vs. Brazil women’s soccer game and the responses to it.
http://feministing.com/2011/07/12/rachel-maddow-on-womens-soccer-amazingness/
Thank you! http://www.bilerico.com/2011/07/you_are_not_transsexual.php
We should not be fighting over terminology so much. Nor, might I add, fight to split up a trans movement that has enough pressure from the outside.
I particularly like this post because, on the same blog, another blogger has recently written several posts insists upon terminology and separating binary from non-binary trans folks (not linking).
Kate, a blogger from Shakesville (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/), is raising money for her new vagina and is educating people about trans folks as well.
http://acuntofonesown.org/2011/07/11/introducing-a-cunt-of-ones-own/
Jos thinks Google+ has a gender problem. I agree (though my gender is listed publicly as “other”), and Google seems to be listening. Their current solution is to give users the option to make gender private. Not self-identification, but a necessary step regardless.
http://feministing.com/2011/07/12/google-has-a-gender-problem/#more-35848
Oh, in case you were wondering about Holly Tree: she is busy attempting to be an adult in the real world, so at least for now is still taking a break from the blog.
Awesome coverage both of the U.S. vs. Brazil women’s soccer game and the responses to it.
http://feministing.com/2011/07/12/rachel-maddow-on-womens-soccer-amazingness/
Thank you! http://www.bilerico.com/2011/07/you_are_not_transsexual.php
We should not be fighting over terminology so much. Nor, might I add, fight to split up a trans movement that has enough pressure from the outside.
I particularly like this post because, on the same blog, another blogger has recently written several posts insists upon terminology and separating binary from non-binary trans folks (not linking).
Kate, a blogger from Shakesville (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/), is raising money for her new vagina and is educating people about trans folks as well.
http://acuntofonesown.org/2011/07/11/introducing-a-cunt-of-ones-own/
Jos thinks Google+ has a gender problem. I agree (though my gender is listed publicly as “other”), and Google seems to be listening. Their current solution is to give users the option to make gender private. Not self-identification, but a necessary step regardless.
http://feministing.com/2011/07/12/google-has-a-gender-problem/#more-35848
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Polygamy?
I know, I know, more marriage-related stuff. What can I say, it's still in the news. =P
I read a very interesting post by Dr. Jillian T. Weiss on The Bilerico Project about someone who is challenging the Utah law against polygamy.
Before getting into that post, allow me to share my views on polygamy. First, some terminology. Polygamy means marrying multiple people. Most examples of polygamy are polygyny (hence the conflation of terms sometimes), having multiple wives. Then there is polyandry, having multiple husbands. Finally, polyamory is, based on its prefix and root, multiple loves (marriage is not necessary for polyamory). Polyamory is often more complicated than that, but that’s a post for another day.
I don’t care for polygamy because I don’t care for marriage. However, if polygamy was a legal option, I would dislike marriage less than I do now. Marriage would be open to a wider range of relationship types, though it would still ignore many living arrangements and not provide many people rights they deserve. In the mainstream, at the moment, the best I can hope for regarding things related to polyamory is polygamy. Ideally, as I said before, civil marriage wouldn’t exist and the rights associated with it would be given more justly. The next-best alternative for me (and what may be more likely—though I won’t give up) is that marriage is opened up to more living and relationship arrangements (I find this much more complicated and sill problematic). I also want to point out that many people who practice polygamy have misogyny issues. Misogyny is not a requirement for polygamy, however.
I think Dr. Weiss gets things right here, morally speaking (I don’t know much about the legal issues she’s talking about). She states “I think Mr. Brown has as much of a right to his relationships, as do his wives, as same-sex couples, or people who have multiple sex partners.” This is a much different tone from many advocates for “marriage equality” who respond to the claim that “same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy” with “NO! Polygamy is bad!” That is a direct affront to many people in polyamorous relationships, many of whom are queer. In this and other ways, I don’t think the current fight for same-sex marriage is doing anything to help (and is in fact hindering) polyamorous people from having their relationships recognized.
I don’t have much more to say on this note, though I do have a few requests. 1) Read the rest of the post. It’s short and Dr. Weiss makes a few more good points. 2) Don’t forget the poly people when fighting for relationship recognition. 3) Don’t respond to the argument that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy with disgust.
I read a very interesting post by Dr. Jillian T. Weiss on The Bilerico Project about someone who is challenging the Utah law against polygamy.
Before getting into that post, allow me to share my views on polygamy. First, some terminology. Polygamy means marrying multiple people. Most examples of polygamy are polygyny (hence the conflation of terms sometimes), having multiple wives. Then there is polyandry, having multiple husbands. Finally, polyamory is, based on its prefix and root, multiple loves (marriage is not necessary for polyamory). Polyamory is often more complicated than that, but that’s a post for another day.
I don’t care for polygamy because I don’t care for marriage. However, if polygamy was a legal option, I would dislike marriage less than I do now. Marriage would be open to a wider range of relationship types, though it would still ignore many living arrangements and not provide many people rights they deserve. In the mainstream, at the moment, the best I can hope for regarding things related to polyamory is polygamy. Ideally, as I said before, civil marriage wouldn’t exist and the rights associated with it would be given more justly. The next-best alternative for me (and what may be more likely—though I won’t give up) is that marriage is opened up to more living and relationship arrangements (I find this much more complicated and sill problematic). I also want to point out that many people who practice polygamy have misogyny issues. Misogyny is not a requirement for polygamy, however.
I think Dr. Weiss gets things right here, morally speaking (I don’t know much about the legal issues she’s talking about). She states “I think Mr. Brown has as much of a right to his relationships, as do his wives, as same-sex couples, or people who have multiple sex partners.” This is a much different tone from many advocates for “marriage equality” who respond to the claim that “same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy” with “NO! Polygamy is bad!” That is a direct affront to many people in polyamorous relationships, many of whom are queer. In this and other ways, I don’t think the current fight for same-sex marriage is doing anything to help (and is in fact hindering) polyamorous people from having their relationships recognized.
I don’t have much more to say on this note, though I do have a few requests. 1) Read the rest of the post. It’s short and Dr. Weiss makes a few more good points. 2) Don’t forget the poly people when fighting for relationship recognition. 3) Don’t respond to the argument that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy with disgust.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Why I Could Not Celebrate
We're back from the unannounced hiatus! I apologize to anyone who followed the blog. I'm hope to say active this time. Now to jump back in!
(Disclaimer: This post focuses on civil marriage. Because the government is not supposed to force religion on anyone, I don’t think religious arguments fit with civil marriage.)
On June 24, 2011, around 10:30 p.m., the New York senate passed bill 8520, a marriage equality bill, it was called. Thousands of people celebrated that night, crowding bars, streets, and rooftops. But I found it difficult to join them. I couldn’t feel everyone's joy even though I tried. Part of the problem was circumstantial; I was running around Manhattan trying to find a friend with whom I lost contact that night. However, two other things tainted what many LGBT people were claiming as a “victory” (I will concede, for many people it was). The first was the repeated failure of the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA). It passed the NY Assembly before marriage, but most politicians and political groups ignored GENDA and focused on marriage. As a result, GENDA has been delayed yet another congressional term. Trans people were forgotten yet again. My other issue is with marriage itself.
First, allow me to share my views on marriage. My view is that marriage should carry no legal weight. Government should not regulate anyone’s relationships and anyone should have access to the benefits associated with marriage (if the benefit fits their situation). For example, there should be universal health care. Many of the tax breaks that are associated with marriage serve little to no purpose other than promoting the institution and should either be made universal or scrapped. Rights associated with raising children should be able to go to anyone or any group raising children, whether it is a single parent or a commune with shared child caring responsibilities. Name another benefit and I could probably state my opinion on it. I think that anyone should be able to get married as a personal ceremony for whatever reason (religion, tradition, etc.), but the rights should be completely separate. I don’t think domestic partnerships or civil unions that are modeled after marriage, as is often the case, should be regulated by the government, either. They should be expanded beyond monogamous, romantically involved couples or something new should be put in their place.
I feel that way because marriage will probably not benefit me and it will not benefit many others. I am polyamorous. I have the potential to be romantically attracted to multiple people at once and I am willing to enter into relationships that reflect that fact. Marriage, as it is now and as the movement is fighting for it, does not respect that. While I know poly people who are married, I do not feel I could and I certainly would not want to. Marriage does not help people such as myself who refuse to get married for whatever reason, whether for ideological or practical concerns (I think their decision should be respected and they still deserve rights associated with marriage). Marriage does not help cohabiting friends who are not romantically involved and do not marry, yet they deserve rights associated with ownership, hospital visitation, etc. Marriage does not or only slightly benefits people who are homeless, unemployed, or working minimum wage with no benefits. Tax breaks aren’t much help if you don’t have enough of an income to tax in the first place. The ability to share insurance isn’t much help if neither partner has insurance.
People might argue that I could still support marriage while also fighting for other relationships to also be recognized. However, I feel that they way the LGb“t” movement is fighting for marriage is not only pointless for many people, it further de-legitimizes those who cannot or will not marry. For example, in Massachusetts after marriage was legalized for people of any gender, people in domestic partnerships, which often include a wide variety of types of relationships, started losing their rights (I encourage you to read the entire article). I am sure this is not exclusive to that state. I bet the same thing will happen in New York, though I hope it will not. It seems to me, as marriage is pushed forward, it is increasingly seen as the only legitimate kind of relationship.
I would like to engage people on what I presented in this post. In fact, I want you to prove me wrong. I want to believe that the LGBT movement is truly working for the benefit of everyone. I want to believe that marriage will help us all. I want to believe that, after getting marriage, the allies of trans people, poly people, homeless people, and others I named before will come back for us. Meanwhile, I will be working to abolish the institution of civil marriage, to pass non-discrimination measures that benefit everyone, and to get everyone affordable health care (to name a few).
For more information on re-framing the marriage debate, visit http://www.beyondmarriage.org/
(Disclaimer: This post focuses on civil marriage. Because the government is not supposed to force religion on anyone, I don’t think religious arguments fit with civil marriage.)
On June 24, 2011, around 10:30 p.m., the New York senate passed bill 8520, a marriage equality bill, it was called. Thousands of people celebrated that night, crowding bars, streets, and rooftops. But I found it difficult to join them. I couldn’t feel everyone's joy even though I tried. Part of the problem was circumstantial; I was running around Manhattan trying to find a friend with whom I lost contact that night. However, two other things tainted what many LGBT people were claiming as a “victory” (I will concede, for many people it was). The first was the repeated failure of the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA). It passed the NY Assembly before marriage, but most politicians and political groups ignored GENDA and focused on marriage. As a result, GENDA has been delayed yet another congressional term. Trans people were forgotten yet again. My other issue is with marriage itself.
First, allow me to share my views on marriage. My view is that marriage should carry no legal weight. Government should not regulate anyone’s relationships and anyone should have access to the benefits associated with marriage (if the benefit fits their situation). For example, there should be universal health care. Many of the tax breaks that are associated with marriage serve little to no purpose other than promoting the institution and should either be made universal or scrapped. Rights associated with raising children should be able to go to anyone or any group raising children, whether it is a single parent or a commune with shared child caring responsibilities. Name another benefit and I could probably state my opinion on it. I think that anyone should be able to get married as a personal ceremony for whatever reason (religion, tradition, etc.), but the rights should be completely separate. I don’t think domestic partnerships or civil unions that are modeled after marriage, as is often the case, should be regulated by the government, either. They should be expanded beyond monogamous, romantically involved couples or something new should be put in their place.
I feel that way because marriage will probably not benefit me and it will not benefit many others. I am polyamorous. I have the potential to be romantically attracted to multiple people at once and I am willing to enter into relationships that reflect that fact. Marriage, as it is now and as the movement is fighting for it, does not respect that. While I know poly people who are married, I do not feel I could and I certainly would not want to. Marriage does not help people such as myself who refuse to get married for whatever reason, whether for ideological or practical concerns (I think their decision should be respected and they still deserve rights associated with marriage). Marriage does not help cohabiting friends who are not romantically involved and do not marry, yet they deserve rights associated with ownership, hospital visitation, etc. Marriage does not or only slightly benefits people who are homeless, unemployed, or working minimum wage with no benefits. Tax breaks aren’t much help if you don’t have enough of an income to tax in the first place. The ability to share insurance isn’t much help if neither partner has insurance.
People might argue that I could still support marriage while also fighting for other relationships to also be recognized. However, I feel that they way the LGb“t” movement is fighting for marriage is not only pointless for many people, it further de-legitimizes those who cannot or will not marry. For example, in Massachusetts after marriage was legalized for people of any gender, people in domestic partnerships, which often include a wide variety of types of relationships, started losing their rights (I encourage you to read the entire article). I am sure this is not exclusive to that state. I bet the same thing will happen in New York, though I hope it will not. It seems to me, as marriage is pushed forward, it is increasingly seen as the only legitimate kind of relationship.
I would like to engage people on what I presented in this post. In fact, I want you to prove me wrong. I want to believe that the LGBT movement is truly working for the benefit of everyone. I want to believe that marriage will help us all. I want to believe that, after getting marriage, the allies of trans people, poly people, homeless people, and others I named before will come back for us. Meanwhile, I will be working to abolish the institution of civil marriage, to pass non-discrimination measures that benefit everyone, and to get everyone affordable health care (to name a few).
For more information on re-framing the marriage debate, visit http://www.beyondmarriage.org/
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Everyday Ethicist roundup
A new column in the Cornell Daily Sun reeks of heterosexist privilege.
This. Yes.
One of the worst and most insidious ways that homophobia manifests itself in our culture is isolating GLBT people from the rest of the world and attempting to regulate when and how they’re allowed to interact with straight people, because their weird, unnatural attractions make it unsafe and uncomfortable for the majority group. It’s a fallacy of hetero privilege that straight people should be allowed to choose exactly how much time, if any, they ever have to spend around a gay person. We aren’t dangerous, and no one needs to be protected from us. This is, in essence, what this poor student is asking – “Am I a threat to the people around me? Do I need to warn them?” and this columnist should be ashamed for answering “Yes, you are, and you do.” - Rachel K.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)