The above article is an update. Her mother went to appeal to keep her out of the psychiatric ward and lost. She will be institutionalized because of her expression of her gender. She will be held until she conforms to male gender and then released to foster care, not her mother who was supporting her.
Please, if you haven’t signed the petition, sign it, reblog it, ask your friends to sign it. We’ve managed to get 40K signatures for a pageant model, we’ve only gotten 11K for a little girl about to have her life ruined. Lets get on the ball and spread the word.
This weekend, the New York Times published an extremely exploitative article about a transgender woman who had died in a fire. The article, about Lorena Escalera, only mentions that she was killed in a fire after telling readers that she was “curvaceous,” that she “drew admiring glances” in her “gritty Brooklyn neighborhood,” that she “was known to invite men for visits to her apartment,” that Lorena was “called Lorena” (as opposed to saying she was “named Lorena” or that she simply was Lorena) and that she “brought two men to her apartment” sometime between late Friday night and early Saturday morning.
The article by Al Baker and Nate Schweber treats Escalera completely disrespectfully, later describing a pile of debris outside the burned apartment which “contained many colorful items. Among them were wigs, women’s shoes, coins from around the world, makeup, hair spray, handbags, a shopping bag from Spandex House, a red feather boa and a pamphlet on how to quit smoking.”
Would the New York Times ever describe a woman who is not transgender, who had died in a fire, as “curvaceous” - in the first sentence, no less? Would it carefully note that her apartment contained makeup and “women’s shoes?” Would it say that she was “called” whatever her name was - especially if police later identified her by that name?
Janet Mock and other noted leaders in the trans advocacy movement have been speaking out about this article online. Thank you to all of you who submitted incident reports about this article, or alerted us to it through Twitter. We are reaching out to the Times to discuss the many incident reports we received, and to ensure that exploitative pieces like this don’t get printed in the future.
it kinda sounds like the only feminist you know is Jessie Spano. i mean, not all feminists hate men or think "all men are pigs", etc. did you know men themselves can be feminists? Feminism is about equality, not about making women 'better' than men. when you start being defensive for white males, your privilege is showing. sorry, everything you posted in regard to the sexism/racism post made me laugh and i had to respond.
No, I completely understand that and agree to feminism. I myself subscribe to their beliefs about people of all walks of life having equal merit, regardless of what their genitalia is or what other biological traits set them apart.
However, there is still a radical arm that is distincively anti-male, to the point of eschewing gender inequality with transgender women. To me, that’s fucked up, and completely goes against any semblance of equality.
I’m for equality in all people, but to say that you can’t be sexist or racist towards white males when society clearly demonstrates otherwise is a double standard, and still creates a social inequality.
I’m not looking to marginalize the struggles of other people, but I don’t feel that there’s actual social progress in creating divisive concepts and barriers in the fight for being treated equally. It is simply not constructive or unifying at all, it only shows and enforces the existing social barriers between demographics of people.
-You cannot be sexist toward men. Sexism is based on a system of oppression. You CAN be discriminatory, rude, inconsiderate, and/or prejudiced against men but you CANNOT be sexist toward them.
-You cannot be racist towards white people. Racism is based on a system of oppression. You CAN be discriminatory, rude, inconsiderate, and/or prejudiced against white people but you CANNOT be racist toward them.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think that’s right. Neither of these systems are based on oppression per se, rather, they’re both based on a system of separatism for the sake of passing blame. As someone who’s both:
B.) Biologically male
I don’t feel like I should have to walk on eggshells just because of how I was born. Everyone rambles on and on about “White Male Privilege”, but you know what, this is the 21st century. Such a thing shouldn’t exist anymore. Yeah, I didn’t have to go through certain struggles, but I still have to deal with my own reality of being hated by certain groups simply because my ancestors were fucking cunts.
You can totally be sexist towards men. It’s called misandry, and it’s prevalent in the more radical arm of the feminist movement. The whole mindset of “men are pigs” is kind of an unfair classification when you think about it. It’s as equally bad as passing stereotypes about women off as true. Or people in the wide spectrum of transgenderism. As an equalist, I believe that everyone has an equal represenatation, and that gender isn’t part of a social equation.
The same goes for race. The fact is, we live in an age now where things like race and gender should be largely irrelevant in factoring how people treat each other. Just because a group of people doesn’t deal with your group’s problems doesn’t mean they are without struggle and are “privileged”. I, for one, may have every semblance of being a privileged white male, but I also have to deal with my own struggles based on the fact that I’m primarily attracted to trans* people. I have my own sets of odd looks, ridicule, and awkward discrimination to deal with.
So, let’s stop thinking in terms of separatism and towards something more unified and humanistic, mmkay?
Question of the Day: Let’s say that you have it in your power to make one vast change to society, but ultimately you are limited to two choices due to a lack of resources (economy, politics, etc).
One option is to force people to live healthy, highly moralistic-to-your-standards lifestyle, causing society to ultimately become healthy, but completely unhappy.
The other option is to allow people to indulge more in everything unhealthy and immoral to save your economy and keep the power structure intact, shortening the average human lifespan by sheer decades, but everyone is too decadent to care.
Well, how about that? Creative Commons, Mozilla, OpenGameArt, and the Free Software Foundation have teamed up to create and indie game development competition. It seems like a dream come true for anyone in the Free Software/Creative Commons camps, and these are some pretty amazing communities converging together to make artwork and games that are actually entertaining to play. The potential of this is pretty extraordinary, let me explain why.
#completelydiggablesensibility oh wow….youre a great fan of comic legends i see. then i wont feel like a troll if i ever got to tell you why nolan sucks :P
I don’t disagree with that.The guy’s overrated, and so are his movies. I enjoyed the Batman ones, they were enjoyable for different reasons, but most of his films are kind of over-the-top ridiculous. :P
ill see it but i cant go outta my way to…unless of course its to see TDKR trailer =P im team DC
Yeah, I think that’s a given actually. I just hope neither movie is going to become totally overhyped, though. Everyone I talk to is like “OHHH MY GOD, AVENGERS.”, or “OHHH MY GOD, BATMAN.”, and Tumblr’s fandom is even more of that. :P
That being said, I’ve heard good things about the movie, apparently it’s a hit with critics. I’m kind of skeptical about comic-film adaptations; there’s just always so many important things that happen in the comics that they can’t possibly stuff into a two-hour movie. Green Lantern was kind of disappointing in that respect (as well as for other reasons, but Ryan Reynolds made a good Hal Jordan at least).
Wait, how does that work? Is it just RPing in an arena-style combat?
Basically, it works like regular story-driven D&D. The significant difference is how rounds are done.
-Every player gets a Trainer turn, in which their trainer can move or attack
-Said player also has Pokemon, which can be summoned during a trainer turn in combat. Additionally, a trainer can have multiple Pokemon out, but only one can be used in combat at a time during a Pokemon turn.
-Multiple players can attack the same enemies.
-Different attacks and moves are determined by different dice. The handbook actually has stats on every move and every pokemon.
A few other unique things is that during questing, your pokemon act as NPC’s that you can interact with. You can take care of them, talk to them, etc etc. Basically, they can be used as characters attached to you for the sake of advancing plot.