Ask

I was reading over an article about a woman of color dealing with reactions to her taking care of her children (varying from "his he yours" to complimenting how good a nanny or babysitter she is and asking if she can be hired) or asking a racially diverse family "Where did you adopt [your child]?". To "is zie yours?": mixed feelings here- if the question is "are you really his mother or did you adopt him/is he a step-child?": that's busted, because an adopted/step child can be just as much yours as a "biological" child, and because it's probably at least a bit race based (if they looked the same, no one would assume the kid is adopted). People assuming she's the nanny? Busted. But if people just ask if a kid is the adult's rather than assuming? Not so much. One homophobic person replied demanding to know why it's okay to not assume a person is straight because "What? You think I look butch?!"- busted. Which allows for an excellent way to start my post. The difference between "Is this a "traditional" family or two mommies?" and "You’re one of the most prompt babysitter’s I’ve met.".


The question "Is it a "traditional" family or two mommies?"- is showing tolerance, depending on the tone ( a sarcastic or "two "mommies"?"- not so great) and reaction to "two mommies". The doctor is showing that zie is accepting of same-sex couples having children together and is (hopefully) non-judgemental about the fact that some children are raised by two parents who are not hetero. Not only that- but it makes no assumptions*. It isn't calling the person a lesbian- it's keeping an open mind because you can't tell sexuality by looking at a person. Assuming that everyone you meet is straight  does damage.

The statement "You’re one of the most prompt babysitter’s I’ve met"- is showing intolerance. Or, at least, close-mindedness. And it makes assumptions. It's assuming that an adult who is not close enough to the skin tone/facial structure/hair color or quality of the child cannot be the child's parent, because two people who aren't obviously of the same race couldn't have had a child. It also assumes that she couldn't be related to the child in any way- not even by friendship. That this person who is darker than the child couldn't possibly be a good enough friend of the "white" family to be taking care of the kid.

Next is intent or "what are they really asking". For example, "Is zie yours"- on the surface, tame. But not when the real question is "Is zie your biological child?" (as opposed to adopted/step/kidnapped/whatever the person thinks) and can be followed up with "Where did you get zem?" (because you couldn't be related to a kid with that much darker/lighter hair color/skintone/eyes than you!) or "I mean really yours" (because only biological children are REALLY yours). Obviously, this is pretty messed up for the same reason that assuming the person is the nanny/babysitter is- it's clear that the asker doesn't believe that mutli-racial children exist and doesn't think that a parent who doesn't look "enough like" their child is "really" that child's parent.  But sometimes the question is asked because the person is aware that  they can't exactly tell family dynamics just from meeting people and asking avoids complications that assuming creates- and then it isn't really a bad question.

Next I'll go with entitlement. Take this scenario: Person 1: "That's a really cool bracelet you have. Where did you get it?" Person 2: "Actually, it's a really long story and I'm just not up to telling it right now and I don't really know you well enough, sorry." And person 1 replies in one of these ways: 1. the person says "Oh, alright, if you ever feel comfortable telling me then" and leaves it at that. 2. the person demands to know what the backstory is, pestering the person about it.

If the response is the first: That's good. Person 1 is respecting Person 2's wishes. If the response is the second: VERY BAD. The person clearly feels entitled to this knowledge about Person 2- regardless of how Person 2 feels. (and, if Person 2 relents, it's very possible that zir right to making these decisions will be further attacked by Person 1 saying "I don't get why you didn't just tell me that in the first place") This one really depends on your relationship- but if you have a close enough relationship, you know what questions you are and aren't allowed to ask already.  This guide is pretty much for near strangers. And when you don't know someone well, you have no right to know anything about them that they don't want to tell you

That said, I hope we have a pretty decent grasp on good vs bad questions. Good: Respecting the person, not making busted assumptions, not having an underlying question that you can't ask because it's offensive. Bad: Disrespecting the person, making busted assumptions, having an underlying question that you can't ask because it's offensive. That said...

ASK!

Ask about anything and everything! Ask about pronouns! Ask about orientation (when relevant) rather than assuming straight! Ask about personal space/contact limitations! Ask about acceptable/unacceptable labels to use for the person!  If you don't know: ASK!

And this goes to people being asked, too. If a question makes you uncomfortable: Ask why it was asked. (and don't make busted assumptions, either!) if a person asks you what your sexuality is- don't assume that they think you "look gay", maybe they just don't want to add into the bustedness of heteronormativity. If someone asks you your pronouns- don't accuse them of saying you look like a [opposite gender], maybe they just realize that you can't tell a person's pronouns by looking at them. (you can guess correctly 90% of the time, but you can't know).

For the world to be a place where privilege no longer hurts people (especially regarding things that aren't visible)- we need to ask. We need to stop assuming things. Don't assume everyone is straight (or even sexual), don't assume that you know someone's gender & pronouns from looking at them, don't assume that they have the same education/views/experiences/abilities/needs as you, don't assume that one aspect of anyone's life/personality necessarily determines how they feel in any other part of their life, don't assume that a person in a wheelchair or with a seeing eye dog or anything else needs your help just because they're in a wheelchair or have a seeing eye dog or anything else and you aren't. Just don't assume!

But we also need to be in a place where questions CAN be asked. I do NOT mean that you have to answer every question- I already made it clear that people 100% have the right to say "I don't want to answer that". But reacting violently because someone doesn't assume something? That's not going to get us anywhere (and, of course, it's mostly privileged people who do it- because privileged people are allowed to get offended when a person asks them something that attacks their privilege and are also allowed to demand answers and get offended when we don't get them).

*okay, well, it does. It assumes a monogamous relationship in which the two partners have binary genders. Baby steps....

Sexuality, Sexism and Why I Care

As I'm extremely loud about- I am asexual. I don't experience sexual attraction and, beyond that- I don't want sex, I don't have sex, I don't particularly want to hear if anyone else has sex but I accept that they do. So it might be a bit strange that I support the pro-sex movement, seeing as, by all rights, you'd think I'd be happy if everyone were ashamed of their sexuality and never talked about it, right? Wrong.

What the bible says- and doesn’t say- about Homosexuality

I'm not Christian, I don't belong to any religion, I'm not an atheist. I do like Jesus- he seemed like a great guy- but I haven't had the best experience with Christians have never been into religion and still can't get interested. But, it's a big deal to people. And I have to admit- I really appreciate and respect when people look into it this much.

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

We gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Christians take the Bible seriously, too. Personally, I've spent more than 50 years reading, studying, memorizing, preaching, and teaching from the sacred texts. I earned my master's and doctoral degrees at a conservative biblical seminary to better equip myself to "rightly divide the word of truth." I learned Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the biblical texts. I studied the lives and times of the biblical authors to help me know what they were saying in their day so I could better apply it to my own.

The entire thing is a good- though long- read. It covers the history of how human interpretation of scriptures has led to a great deal of bloodshed and pain throughout the years and still now, how many people don't actually know what the bible says and how humans can misinterpret it, the effect homophobia it has on, well, mostly on CLG(b) people- but it effects trans people as well, and then goes on to tackle the parts of the bible that are used to attack homosexuality. It even talks about the problems that translations have caused- including two words that no one is actually sure what a literal translation would be, but that someone decided to call "homosexual" in 1958.

Transgender Sexuality

So someone made the claim that "LGBT people are heterophobic". They weren't listening to logic anyways, so why use logic, I just pointed out that some trans people are straight- and not all of the LGBT is heterophobic. They argued that trans sexuality (not to be confused with transsexuality) is based on assigned-sex, so trans people can't be straight. Let's ignore everything wrong with this statement. Here's my argument on why trans sexuality should be based on gender (if the person prefers it) more often than assigned-sex. I'm not going to get into "real" sex or surgery or anything like that. It pretty much comes down to this, for me.

The public part of a person's relationship is rarely sexual.

On Zucker

Kenneth Zucker is probably one of my least favorite people on the planet. I dislike his ideas about trans people, but more than that I hate what he gets away with doing to children. If you're not aware- he takes trans kids and forces them into the most rigid hetero/cisnormative gender roles that many cisgendered kids aren't expected to fit into these days.

It is completely backwards thinking. "Boys can't play with Barbie, girls can't play with GI Joe". What century are we in?! So what if a boy wants to wear pink? So what if a girl likes her hair short? Can someone please provide me with proof that children are scarred for life, utterly traumatized by being allowed to play with the toys they like?

Asexuality and Orientation

"Sex is God's joke on human beings." -Bette Davis
"Sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock.

I try my very best to make sure that this is not a secret, but I am Asexual. This essentially means that I don't experience sexual attraction, which is a sticky enough thing to define so I won't even try. I also don't have any personal interest in sex, and find the whole thing a bit squicky. The last one isn't a common thing among asexuals, it's just a personal issue I have.

Now, I honestly don't care if you want to have sex. I don't care who with. I don't care what objects you involve. As long as it's all consensual- it's fine by me. I also don't want to know about it, so please don't go out of your way to tell me about it. If there's something I'm telling you about that you genuinely don't want to hear about, I promise I'll do my best to stop telling you about it as well.

I've seen a lot of transgender people identify as asexual before transitioning, only to realize they aren't during or afterwards. There are also some who identified as asexual throughout, and maybe even a few who identified as sexual before but realized they were asexual afterwards. I'm totally fine with people having a fluid orientation, and acknowledge the chance that I may become sexual one day. But I bring this up because I think it's pretty unlikely that my sexuality is caused by my gender dysphoria.

My ideal body would be without genitals at all. I don't think I'll be getting this unless I become a billionaire, but that is the ideal. While sex is possible without genitals- the fact I'm not interested in having any major sex organs says a bit of something. For another thing, I really can't imagine a body that I'd want to have sex in or a person I'd want to have sex with. Even when I have "sex dreams" it's just two people who are fully clothed making out- neither of whom are me. There's just some bump where I try to reconcile "me" with "having sex". It just doesn't fit together.

However, me and dating are pretty damn reconcilable. This probably confuses a few people- I've seen a lot of "the only difference between a friend and a girlfriend is sex" sentiments out there. Well, if that was true, we wouldn't need terms like "Friend with Benefits" because that's all dating/marriage/etc would be. We wouldn't have a problem of someone cheating on their spouse with an online relationship, because if there wasn't any sex how could it be cheating? There is a difference between friend-love and romantic-love, it's just hard to put your finger on what it is so it's easier to just say it's sex. Look at it like this:

Sexual Relationship-Friends with Benefits=Romantic Relationship

In other words, I want a romantic relationship without all that sex stuff. As I said earlier- you guys can have all that sex stuff. But I don't want it. In fact, you can have mine. Here- take extra. As you can imagine, I pretty much only consider dating other asexuals. I realize that an asexual/sexual relationship is possible, but I have no interest in compromising sexually, so unless I find a fully celibate or polyamorous sexual that I'm attracted to, it really isn't worth the heartache. But to get into who I am interested in dating a bit more, just for the curious:

'Panromantic' (-romantic refers to romantic orientation) is the simplest way of putting it because gender/sex doesn't really matter to me- but I dislike the all-encompassingness of it. I'm attracted to non-conformity in terms of both gender and presentation, as well as every day life. But there really isn't a word for that. So mostly, I just say I'm asexual.