Passing and Gender Queues

So yesterday I met my partner in the city for lunch, as she took the afternoon off. Since I have electrolysis later in the week (hopefully getting close to down *crosses fingers*), I hadn't shaved that day. So, I was also dressed in fairly androgynous-to-masculine clothing (men's jeans, t-shirt, the like). Even so, I got read as a girl. Maybe long hair cancels out subtle facial hair. Maybe it wasn't as obvious as I thought that I hadn't shaved. Either way, it amused me.

Stargate Universe

There's been some controversy over an upcoming episode of an upcoming show, Stargate Universe. The episode, "Sabotage", features a lead guest character who is quadriplegic.  Dr. Eleanor Perry comes on board the Destiny via a long-range communications device, which allows her to trade bodies with someone on board the ship. Perry trades bodies with the main character Camilla, who is lesbian. The outcry was sparked by the casting call description, which reads:

ELEANOR PERRY, (35-40) and quite attractive. A brilliant scientist who happens to be a quadriplegic. Affected since childhood, her disability has rendered her body physically useless. However, after being brought on board the Destiny as the only person who may be able to save the ship and her crew from certain annihilation, she is given temporary powers that enable her to walk again and to finally experience intimacy. Strong guest lead. NAMES PREFERRED. ACTRESS MUST BE PHYSICALLY THIN. (THINK CALISTA FLOCKHART).

The shows creators responded to the criticism, posting on the Gateworld forum:

Recently, a casting breakdown was released to agents for a upcoming character in our television show, Stargate Universe. The character, Doctor Eleanor Perry, is a brilliant scientist at the top of her field, who also happens to be a quadriplegic. As part of a science fiction conceit that is core to our series, Perry’s consciousness is temporarily exchanged with one our series main characters, Camile Wray, who is a lesbian.

In the course of the story, Perry has the experience of being able bodied for the first time since she was a child. At the same time, Wray, temporarily encumbered by Perry’s physical disability, experiences the unconditional love of her life partner.

The language of the breakdown was insensitive and inaccurate, and we sincerely apologize to those who may have been offended. The audition pages that have been under scrutiny were from an early draft and released out of context. It is our desire and intention to portray both characters with dignity and respect, while remaining mindful of the ethical issues we’re raising.

It's good that the creators responded, because the original character breakdown was insensitive, although it wasn't intended for the public. The episode has the potential to be interesting and good, although I more expect Stargate to be fun adventures, and not insightful social commentary. But it's possible Stargate Universe will have more of that, since it starts off with an out lesbian character, in a relationship.

Afterellen.com has further commentary on the controversy, but mostly focuses on the lesbian-having-sex-with-a-man controversy (since Eleanor, while in Camile's body, will apparently have a sexual encounter with a man). Based on the information so far, this isn't accurate and ignores the sci-fi aspects of the episode. Camile, the lesbian, isn't having sex with a man. Her body is, but while it's inhabited by a (presumably straight) woman. This raises it's own ethical issues - what is ethical to do with someone else's body, does this change if there are potential long-term consequences, is there consent beforehand, how much is this changed by the circumstances (presumably risking getting shot/killed is fine, since it's a routine part of their life on the ship, but does this change if the two characters have vastly different occupations), etc. And hopefully the show will address some of those, since body swapping is going to be a theme, apparently. But, at least in this episode, there isn't a lesbian having sex with a man, because the lesbian is off in a different body, on Earth, presumably pursuing her relationship with her partner.

Also, one thing I'm left wondering is how does the episode title ("Sabotage"), although still open to change, tie into this. Presumably something boring, like the reason why Eleanor is on the ship, but I'm left wondering if it also ties into the interpersonal relationships related to the body-swapping (and maybe the long-term consequences).

(As an aside, I still want to know who the secretly-gay Stargate Atlantis character is. My bet's on Zelenka.)

Queer Catholicism

Last night my partner & I went to mass at an independent, queer-friendly catholic church. I'd been intending to go since moving in May, but for one reason and another (including services being in the evening), we didn't get around to it until yesterday. But I'm glad we finally went. It's a small, very friendly parish - we probably spent more time talking with people after mass, than time in mass. The mass was the traditional Catholic liturgy (Novus Ordo) with a few changes: making the references to God more gender-neutral (totally awesome, although it was hard for me to not recite some of the things by rote), a homily open to everyone to comment on the readings, and the congregation going up around the altar for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. While sometimes I'm fond of more formal ritual, it was the same liturgy, and I liked the intent of the changes.

My partner also liked the church, which is good. It was her first time at any sort of Catholic service, so she was a bit lost by some of the things I take for granted and that the missalette wasn't too helpful on (like the signs of the cross before the gospel). And she left the missalette at her seat during the communion liturgy, but that at least is close enough to the Methodist one that she's familiar with.

It amuses me that it was pointed out which people are straight, but none of the queer people had their orientation mentioned directly.

All in all, it seems to be what I was looking for: something Catholic (since there are some things, particular the ritual and some theology, that I like about Catholicism) that's queer friendly and liberal.

GLAAD Homophobia & Gaming Panel

GLAAD is hosting a panel about homophobia & gaming, titled "Homophobia in Virtual Communities", including representatives from EA, Microsoft & Linden Labs.

As a casual gamer, it's very good to see this happening. Homophobia (and other bigotry) is far too rampant in most gaming communities. And things like Microsoft's policy for Xbox Live accounts forbidding mention of sexual orientation only help encourage it. (They have apparently pledged to reexamine their policy. Won't hold my breath.)

I don't tend to play much online games (I prefer God games and the like), and I'm generally unsocial when I do play online. But the rampant homophobia, and sexism, are such that I'll tend to avoid anything that would give away that I'm queer or a girl. And forget about letting people know I'm trans; people are even more transphobic. While this doesn't bother me most of the time, occasionally it would be nice to have an easier time finding a friendly community in online games.

It's not going to be an easy problem to solve, but it's good to know that game companies are interesting in attempting to solve it.

Trans-inclusive ENDA introduced

A trans-inclusive ENDA has been introduced in the house. So far it has 118 co-sponsors, including 6 Republicans. (None of the Republicans attended the press conference announcing the bill though.)

Hopefully it'll pass this time, although I'm not holding my breath. It's well past due. It's a good sign that Barney Frank thinks the bill is likely to pass (in the House anyway). If the fiasco of last time around can be avoided, even better.

Pride parades

This weekend my partner and I went to the local pride parade. It was the first time we'd watched this parade; last year we marched in it with her church. We'd been to other larger parades, but this was a different experience (although still quite fun).

As my partner put it, the parade wasn't as queer. There weren't very many 'queer' groups; there was 1 leather group and 2 motorcycle clubs. Most of the parade was church groups, school/youth groups,  PFLAG and similar. The only topless/nearly-naked people were 2 people on one bar's float (the other people on the bar floats were all clothed!).

It was a nice parade, and it's good to see more mainstream LGBT groups, but I can't wait to go to the much larger nearby parade in a couple weeks and enjoy its queer wonderfulness.

Letterman's Palin Jokes

I was going to ignore the controversy over David Letterman's jokes about Sarah Palin & her daughter, but after seeing this article in the Washington Post I felt compelled to write something. The outrage over it has gotten to be too ridiculous not to.

First of all, I don't know whether or not Letterman knew which daughter of Palin's was at the baseball game. It seems quite likely he didn't, especially since the joke works better about the older daughter, Bristol (the one who did get knocked up).  But even if he did intend it to be about Willow (who's 14), it isn't that bad. It's not a rape joke. It's a joke about hypothetical sex between Willow and Alex Rodriguez. Yes, if the sex were to occur, it might be statutory rape, depending on where it happened. But illegal does not mean immoral or unethical. It is a joke; statutory rape doesn't exist in jokes. 

Statutory rape exists to prevent coercion in relationships with vast age disparities. That's why, in Maryland for example, a 14 year old can legally have sex with an 18 year old, but not with a 30 year old (or anyone more than 4 years older). But, the fundamental presumption is that a 14 year old is capable of consenting to sex. Furthermore, this is a reasonable assumption. And if a 14 year old can consent, there's no problem having jokes involving them consenting.

To take the oppositions logic one step further, consider a 14 year old. Suppose the fantasize about sex, possibly with an adult (a teacher, favorite singer, actor, etc). Suppose in their fantasies the sex is consensual. While such sex would be statutory rape were it to occur, these are not rape fantasies. They are not fantasies about rape. They are fantasies about consensual sex; sex which may reasonably be criminalized to protect teenagers from coercion by adults. But, in the fantasies, it is not rape. Similarly, in Letterman's joke, it is not rape. It does not make light of rape, or encourage rape culture, or any similar thing.

LGBT health survey for New Yorks

http://www.nylgbtsurvey.org/

Survey period ends April 20th (2 days). It's a bit of a strange survey, but hopefully it'll be useful.

The survey also reflects some recent trends in surveys that I'm quite happy to see.  No longer is "transsexual" often listed under sexual orientation, or listed in gender where you can only choose one ("male, female or transgender?"). For gender choices, this survey had male, female, transgender, and other (fill-in blank); and you could pick more than one. It's not perfect (adding genderqueer or third-gender might be a good choice), but its very good, especially with a fill-in-the-blank option. Also, the number of choices for sexual orientation is increasing; this survey included queer and other (in addition to LGB), and another recent one had many other options (e.g. pansexual, same gender loving, etc). It's refreshing to see LGBT organizations (and the like) becoming more aware of the populations they serve.

Annoying abbreviations

Unnecessary, 2 syllable abbreviations, such as WaPo (Washington Post), WaMu (Washington Mutual - now their actual name *gag*), MoCo (Montgomery County), etc. Is it that hard to write out the whole word? They're not clever, or cute, or anything, and they're potentially confusing especially if they're uncommon.

Feminism and sex rant

In part in response to this post on feministing.

First of all, the number of negative responses surprised me.  Especially the few about how society would better if people didn't do BDSM. Which, to not beat around the bush, is anti-sex. Along with the people who oppose pornography and sex work (to be distinguished from people who oppose certain practices/traits common in those industries, without being opposed to them in general), as there are and always will be people who freely chose to get involved in those. But such people are anti-sex. They might not be as extreme as the religious right, and they might not want their opinions put into law, but they're still anti-sex and they're still harmful to others.

Then there are the well-meaning people who are interested in cultural critiques of why people are into BDSM (or other sexual practices). Which can be an interesting question, but raising such issues has to be worded very carefully, to make it clear that you're interested in cultural trends, and not the reasons behind a specific person's inclinations. Because questioning the basis behind another person's sexuality gets to be a very touchy subject.

There are also the people who appear to be very interested in introspection. Which is fine, but you have to realize that you're strange and quirky, and like thinking about the motives behind your actions/desires/etc, and not suggest that everyone else should do so. Because there's no reason they should. As long as it's not harming themselves or others, then it doesn't matter what the reason behind it is, if there even is one. If another person wants to, they can, but there's no reason they should.

Furthermore, there's the oddity of people trying to reconcile their sexuality with feminism, or pondering whether certain sexual practices are feminist or not. Sexuality and sexual practices cannot be non-feminist or feminist. They just can't. They're separate things. If people feel pressured to regarding sexuality because of society, that might be a feminist issue. Perhaps this is more clear to me, because I'm a queer woman who is predominantly involved with other women, so I know that gender has nothing to do with whether I'm submissive, or prefer some sex position over another, or such. Maybe if I were dating someone of a different gender, so that gender could be an issue more often, I'd be more inclined to question whether parts of my sexuality were "feminist" or not. But I don't; I see them as almost completely separate things. As long as it's consensual, and people are aware of what there doing, then it's ok.

I wonder if the concern over whether or not something is "feminist" (which isn't limited to sexuality) is because the term exists. There isn't (and wasn't, as far as I'm aware) an English word for anti-racist, or pro-LGBT/anti-heterosexist, etc. So one can't sit around pondering whether something is LGBTist; one can only consider whether something is heterosexist/homophobic. But one can ponder whether something is "feminist" without considering that it's sexist/patriarchial, because those mean different things. And so it can go downhill from there.

In the news: Gene therapy treatment for HIV trial

A California biotech company is starting human testing of a potential HIV treatment that alters the patient's T cells to make them similar to those that are resistant to infection. Wired also has an article with some different details. While it's just a preliminary study to determine safety, so no one knows if it'll be effective, it's still interesting and vaguely promising.

Heterosexism in the TS community

I'm a member of several online trans communities,  and while they're often quite informative, one thing that continues to surprise me is how non-queer or even heterosexist many of the people (mostly trans women,  as that's the majority in the communities) are. These people tend to be straight before transitioning (attracted to women), and straight after transitioning (attracted to men). Which is fine, until they tell others that hormones will cause them to be more attracted to men, and put down those who are attracted to women. E.g., as part of a longer post in the same vein, "I feel many only associate with Lesbian women because they still feel that "dominate role" that they were use to". Because of course trans women wouldn't associate with lesbians because they're attracted to women. Nope. They continue with "Or they just can't fathom the thought of sleeping with a man and are afraid of being hurt physically. Transition requires a lot of sacrifice and soul searching about what a person is willing to give up and suffer at the hands of others."

One possible explanation for this is that trans groups seem to be divided largely between older people, who were straight and often married, and younger people who grew up in the queer/LGBT community. (This is a broad generalization, and there are many people who don't fit either of those.) I, of course, fall in the latter group. But there are many people, who don't see themselves as part of any larger queer or transgender community (which is a topic for another post). I suspect that it's these people, who have limited experience with the queer community and want to be accepted by society as simply women, who refuse to see themselves as anything other than straight, and think that transsexuals 'should' be straight.

While I see their line of thinking, it seems so alien to me, as I've been part of the queer community since before I identified as trans, and I see being trans as part of my queer identity.

Intro

So I've decided to attempt blogging again. This'll mainly focus on queer and feminist topics, with the occasionally foray into other things I find interesting, such as politics, religion and language. But I'll try to keep it mainly on topic, and update regularly.