LGBTAitP #28: Come Taste the Rainbow!

[Asta Kask]

I...I can't even imagine...

How can anyone have that much HATE? Especially a group that says it is following in the footsteps of love?

Not a good way to start the weekend...


~Phoenix~

“I envy thee not thy faith, which is ever in thy mouth but never in thy heart nor in thy practice”
― Walter Scott, Ivanhoe

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I don't want to bring down the thread, but (warning, this will piss you off and upset you, you have been warned) this made me sick to my stomach, and I still have a complete lack of what to say. I am totally disgusted and appalled. This is the part of humanity that makes me sick. This will be law there by decemeber.......no words.

And if you thought that link was weekend-ruining, guess what, there's more.

[KenderWizard]

So much hate and sadness. I'm not even letting myself read the links, I can't cope at the moment.

Weird thing I wanted to mention; I've been reading feminist discussions of cosplay because I'm totally psyched up about cosplay at the moment and usually I spend internet time reading feminist discussions of my interest du jour. (Not that I'm only interested in cosplay now, but I'm Really Interested in cosplay at the moment, up from a baseline that's still interested enough to do it.)

ANYway, I read one article, about crossplay (cosplaying as a character of the opposite gender, while keeping their gender intact (like, me cosplaying a Lady version of Thor is a fem cosplay of a male character, but if I did a male-shaped set of armour and had a beard drawn on and bound my chest, to try to do an accurate male Thor, that would be crossplay)). In this article, they defined crossplay at the start, as I have just done, and their definition was something like "a male character portrayed by a cis woman, or a female character portrayed by a cis man". I think this is the first time I've come across someone who used the word "cis" while totally erasing trans people. I mean, it gets a bit complicated when you add in trans people who present as their wrong gender (like if they aren't out), but generally speaking, I have no idea why this author specified "cis". If a trans woman did a cosplay of Captain Mal Reynolds or Captain Jack Sparrow or Captain Jean-Luc Picard, that would still be crossplay. She'd be "hiding" her real gender to play a different gendered character. It just baffled me. What do ye think?

[noparlpf]

So much hate and sadness. I'm not even letting myself read the links, I can't cope at the moment.

Weird thing I wanted to mention; I've been reading feminist discussions of cosplay because I'm totally psyched up about cosplay at the moment and usually I spend internet time reading feminist discussions of my interest du jour. (Not that I'm only interested in cosplay now, but I'm Really Interested in cosplay at the moment, up from a baseline that's still interested enough to do it.)

ANYway, I read one article, about crossplay (cosplaying as a character of the opposite gender, while keeping their gender intact (like, me cosplaying a Lady version of Thor is a fem cosplay of a male character, but if I did a male-shaped set of armour and had a beard drawn on and bound my chest, to try to do an accurate male Thor, that would be crossplay)). In this article, they defined crossplay at the start, as I have just done, and their definition was something like "a male character portrayed by a cis woman, or a female character portrayed by a cis man". I think this is the first time I've come across someone who used the word "cis" while totally erasing trans people. I mean, it gets a bit complicated when you add in trans people who present as their wrong gender (like if they aren't out), but generally speaking, I have no idea why this author specified "cis". If a trans woman did a cosplay of Captain Mal Reynolds or Captain Jack Sparrow or Captain Jean-Luc Picard, that would still be crossplay. She'd be "hiding" her real gender to play a different gendered character. It just baffled me. What do ye think?

That's quite odd. I'm not sure what to think. I'm leaning towards "leaving out trans because crossplay is just dressing like their actual sex", which would be a rather transphobic perspective and rather upsetting. You could possibly email the author, if you want to pursue it.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

In this article, they defined crossplay at the start, as I have just done, and their definition was something like "a male character portrayed by a cis woman, or a female character portrayed by a cis man".

Being charitable for a moment, it's possible that the author was trying to be trans-inclusive and say "a male character portrayed by a female-bodied person or a female character portrayed by a male-bodied person" and just messed up the terms. Like you said, I can't see why someone would know about the term "cis" and use it to erase trans people when they could just say "a male character played by a woman" etc. and erase them by omission.

[noparlpf]

Being charitable for a moment, it's possible that the author was trying to be trans-inclusive and say "a male character portrayed by a female-bodied person or a female character portrayed by a male-bodied person" and just messed up the terms. Like you said, I can't see why someone would know about the term "cis" and use it to erase trans people when they could just say "a male character played by a woman" etc. and erase them by omission.

In any case, it's rather odd wording.

[SiuiS]

And if you thought that link was weekend-ruining, guess what, there's more.

I especially like the claim that homosexuality is a culture they do not have that must be imported and spread, as oppose to already endemic of humanity. Or of mammals in general, really. And cuttlefish, but they're bi, so I'm not sure they should be called homosexual fish do much as fig which engage in homosexual acts?

Weird thing I wanted to mention; I've been reading feminist discussions of cosplay because I'm totally psyched up about cosplay at the moment and usually I spend internet time reading feminist discussions of my interest du jour. (Not that I'm only interested in cosplay now, but I'm Really Interested in cosplay at the moment, up from a baseline that's still interested enough to do it.)

ANYway, I read one article, about crossplay (cosplaying as a character of the opposite gender, while keeping their gender intact (like, me cosplaying a Lady version of Thor is a fem cosplay of a male character, but if I did a male-shaped set of armour and had a beard drawn on and bound my chest, to try to do an accurate male Thor, that would be crossplay)). In this article, they defined crossplay at the start, as I have just done, and their definition was something like "a male character portrayed by a cis woman, or a female character portrayed by a cis man". I think this is the first time I've come across someone who used the word "cis" while totally erasing trans people. I mean, it gets a bit complicated when you add in trans people who present as their wrong gender (like if they aren't out), but generally speaking, I have no idea why this author specified "cis". If a trans woman did a cosplay of Captain Mal Reynolds or Captain Jack Sparrow or Captain Jean-Luc Picard, that would still be crossplay. She'd be "hiding" her real gender to play a different gendered character. It just baffled me. What do ye think?

I think the answer is simple human path-of-least-resistance. They are aware that Cis is the appropriate word to use, and is one of te buzzwords of feminism due to LGBTAQ+ crossover, but aren't sure why. It just safer to include the terms.

It's like people who think prophylactic means condom— just condom. Nothing else. Misinformation.

[noparlpf]

I think the answer is simple human path-of-least-resistance. They are aware that Cis is the appropriate word to use, and is one of te buzzwords of feminism due to LGBTAQ+ crossover, but aren't sure why. It just safer to include the terms.

It's like people who think prophylactic means condom— just condom. Nothing else. Misinformation.

I always thought prophylactic meant "in favor of the ascension to lichdom by the implantation of one's soul into a phylactery".

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I always thought prophylactic meant "in favor of the ascension to lichdom by the implantation of one's soul into a phylactery".

It refers to high-quality items that aid you in the lichification process. You don't want to trust your ascension to amateur phylactics, do you?

[noparlpf]

It refers to high-quality items that aid you in the lichification process. You don't want to trust your ascension to amateur phylactics, do you?

Hey, amateurs are cheaper.

[Astrella]

Re: Awful stuff; It's horrible isn't it? I've been following it with fear in my heart for a while now.

*sigh* I'm fairly stressed at the moment. I'm at my dad's place, which is always nice, because I don't get to see him all that often, but I can't really do anything... feminine. Heck, I hide my facebook and GitP accounts from him. Sorry, I'm rambling, I'll be quiet now...

Aw, that sucks. :c

So much hate and sadness. I'm not even letting myself read the links, I can't cope at the moment.

Weird thing I wanted to mention; I've been reading feminist discussions of cosplay because I'm totally psyched up about cosplay at the moment and usually I spend internet time reading feminist discussions of my interest du jour. (Not that I'm only interested in cosplay now, but I'm Really Interested in cosplay at the moment, up from a baseline that's still interested enough to do it.)

ANYway, I read one article, about crossplay (cosplaying as a character of the opposite gender, while keeping their gender intact (like, me cosplaying a Lady version of Thor is a fem cosplay of a male character, but if I did a male-shaped set of armour and had a beard drawn on and bound my chest, to try to do an accurate male Thor, that would be crossplay)). In this article, they defined crossplay at the start, as I have just done, and their definition was something like "a male character portrayed by a cis woman, or a female character portrayed by a cis man". I think this is the first time I've come across someone who used the word "cis" while totally erasing trans people. I mean, it gets a bit complicated when you add in trans people who present as their wrong gender (like if they aren't out), but generally speaking, I have no idea why this author specified "cis". If a trans woman did a cosplay of Captain Mal Reynolds or Captain Jack Sparrow or Captain Jean-Luc Picard, that would still be crossplay. She'd be "hiding" her real gender to play a different gendered character. It just baffled me. What do ye think?

Hmm, my guess would be that they wanted to avoid the whole "transgender = crossdresssing" falacy? Like, they might wanted to avoid implying that a trans woman dressing up as a female character would be doing crossplay? Or it's that idea that people sometimes have that trans people can't do crossdressing themselves. (But yeah, seconding that it's sorta formulated unfortunately.)

[KenderWizard]

Those are all good points. It didn't occur to me that someone might use a word like that without being 100% sure of its meaning, but I suppose some people are reckless with language! I hope it was a well-meaning miscommunication. If I find the article again, maybe I'll get in touch to ask.

It refers to high-quality items that aid you in the lichification process. You don't want to trust your ascension to amateur phylactics, do you?

I approve of this definition!

[SiuiS]

I always thought prophylactic meant "in favor of the ascension to lichdom by the implantation of one's soul into a phylactery".

It's obviously about using photosynthetic elements to induce a second wind.

Or I suck at language. Could go either way I suppose?

So I had a conversation with my filly that was interesting. The Uganda/Nigeria/camaroon stuff has made the rounds, and my stance is pretty much what it has always been – I am against any legislation which removes human rights.

But in the pseudo discussion, my bias was called on, seeing as how I'm directly indirectly involved(?). It had some interesting statements and questions from several sources, one of which was "you're, what? Asexual? Because you don't really have a gender, or aren't sure, or?" and before I got started – I am pedantic, I try to be technical with explanations, and where I see being thorough others see circumloquacity to the point of confusion – I stopped and thought.

"Well, no," I said "But I can totally understand why you would come up with that based on how asexual is used in the framework of the rest of the world."

Everyone dispersed, we got me off to work, and then my day went on, but it's interesting. If you look at events like this, like in Uganda, you can see how maybe it looks like all these divisions, labels and technicalities, that perhaps we are splitting hairs? What we would need to work on is not just the acceptance of the words and their proper usage, but on the underlying culture that would make people care. That makes being homosexual not being a homosexual, that makes it a trait and not an overarching, defining "race".

I can't help but think when problems or such are caused by nothing but coming from different perspectives that both sides have failed. Well, fail isn't where I'm going, but it's not a matter of disrespect or such (though that can be a symptom) but it is more about being entirely incapable of interfacing with this alternate perspective.

[Saskia]

In this article, they defined crossplay at the start, as I have just done, and their definition was something like "a male character portrayed by a cis woman, or a female character portrayed by a cis man". I think this is the first time I've come across someone who used the word "cis" while totally erasing trans people. I mean, it gets a bit complicated when you add in trans people who present as their wrong gender (like if they aren't out), but generally speaking, I have no idea why this author specified "cis".

We only tend to label behavior that is outside the norm, and behavior that is normal but varied: The fact that there's not a term for people who, for example, don't collect stamps speaks to my point. When a biologically female person dresses as a woman, it's not aberrant social behavior, which means it doesn't get a label. It may be out of character for that person if they happen to be trans, but we can't meaningfully use it as an identifying label if we include behaviors that can't be detected without being told. When a trans woman dresses as a man, what have I got to go on to discern whether the person is a man acting normal or a trans woman presenting as something she's not? Considering that labels like "crossdressing" and by extension "crossplay" are labels assigned visually there's no justification for assuming anything more than what you see--somebody presenting in a costume of a character which does not match their biological sex. Trying to shoehorn trans and cis into something that can't be determined visually will usually fail for this reason. Like you said, if you're going to bring cisgendered people in, logically you have to fit trans people into that narrative.

If you go to a con and see some guy dressed like Chun-Li, if you're like most people you won't immediately assume that it's actually a trans woman dressed like a woman. If you do make that assumption you're going to offend him if he's not trans after all, just like a trans woman would usually be offended if you assumed she's in drag. It's just one of the pitfalls of not knowing somebody that we can't tell whether they identify as male, female, or other at a glance, particularly when they're in costume. Everybody here knows that sex and sexuality are already complex enough. Trying to label individual combinations of sex, gender, and presentation seems like as exercise doomed to failure when the behaviors intentionally blur those already faded lines. It's also counterproductive.

Socially, is there really a significant difference between a trans woman dressing as a woman and a cis man dressing as a woman? Now, is there a significant difference between a cis man dressing like Chun-Li at a con and a cis man dressing like a woman in general society? Cosplay is an entirely different animal than standard gender presentation, and there's a lot more breathing room for atypical gender presentation. Labels and gender expectations are already hard enough to define; throw in the fact that they're costumes portryaing characters that are obviously not the individual themselves and you're guaranteed to get more people presenting as one thing and feeling like another.

It doesn't even seem to be aberrant behavior in the con scene; maybe the cons I've gone to are just more interesting and accepting than others, but if I had a dollar every time I heard something like "Is it bad that the guy in the King costume is kinda hot?" I've heard from even straight guys at cons I could buy Vermont. Besides, try to label that one, a guy dressing as a woman dressing as a guy, except not really pulling it off because the character barely does (at least, in later installments). Does a cis guy dressing as a female character on the border of transgender count as crossplay? Is it really a terribly useful distinction anyway?

[SiuiS]

Socially, is there really a significant difference between a trans woman dressing as a woman and a cis man dressing as a woman?

This sentence took way more processing power to figure out than I'd like to admit.

I had a question about labels but upon rereading you answered it with the very sentence that prompted it. I should go to bed >_<

[Lentrax]

I don't think there is a difference. I think that however you want to present yourself, I will accept you. It would be wrong of me to judge anyone for how they want to be.

[Socratov]

I think there is. In my opinion a transwoman wearing woman clothes identifies herself as a woman. A man (that is non trans) wearing women cclothes still identifies as a man. Though i am curious if I am right about the first part. Maybe a transgender/-sexual could say whether I'right or wrong in thinking this...

[Rawhide]

Socially, is there really a significant difference between a trans woman dressing as a woman and a cis man dressing as a woman?

The key word here people is socially. And no, in most societies, each is just about as "unacceptable" as the other.

If a man dresses as a woman, he will generally receive just as much stigma as a trans person.

The question is not about what's wrong and right, it's not about what you personally would do, it's not about what gender the person is or if they are cross dressing, it's about what is accepted socially.

[Zorg]

I think there is. In my opinion a transwoman wearing woman clothes identifies herself as a woman. A man (that is non trans) wearing women clothes still identifies as a man. Though i am curious if I am right about the first part. Maybe a transgender/-sexual could say whether I'right or wrong in thinking this...

I agree with you on all counts, though I must also sadly agree with Rawhide.

[Saskia]

This sentence took way more processing power to figure out than I'd like to admit.

Yeah, I had to do a double take myself

I think there is. In my opinion a transwoman wearing woman clothes identifies herself as a woman. A man (that is non trans) wearing women cclothes still identifies as a man. Though i am curious if I am right about the first part. Maybe a transgender/-sexual could say whether I'right or wrong in thinking this...

Well yeah, there is a difference, but that's in the individual rather than how they're perceived by the general population. In the realm of social acceptance though the behaviors are viewed as the same thing, or at least it seems that way. Obviously here that's not the case, but that's beacause the members of this site and this thread in particular are a self-selected group of people who are openly accepting of people who aren't straight and cisgendered. Unfortunately that's not how it is in large swaths of even the "civilized" nations of the world, and the acceptance of those people in the broader society are what I mean. Sorry if I was unclear.

The key word here people is socially. And no, in most societies, each is just about as "unacceptable" as the other.

If a man dresses as a woman, he will generally receive just as much stigma as a trans person.

The question is not about what's wrong and right, it's not about what you personally would do, it's not about what gender the person is or if they are cross dressing, it's about what is accepted socially.

Right, that's why I said "socially" Naturally you can't derive an "ought" from an "is", and that is sort of what I'm talking about. In society at large we have the terms "crossdressing" and "transvestitism" but in cosplay those terms don't really get used. He's not a transvestite, he's a dude in a King costume, and whether or not that male is a cis man or a trans woman is irrelevant because the gender of the individual in question isn't really what matters, except in the context of other social experiences (physical attraction as related to sexuality, for example). Even in those contexts gender blending is perfectly acceptable, and it's more of a "Oh so I totally just hit on that hot King chick walking around, but he's actually a dude, that's embarrassing" and everyone gets a laugh and that's pretty much the end of it, instead of the way you see in general society a trans woman presenting as a woman isn't even seen as charitably as "a guy in a dress."

Even terms like queer and gay have taken largely negative connotations despite the terms having been adopted to take the stigma away from homosexuality. The existence of terms to identify behaviors as apart from the norm seems to be itself a contributing factor to the wedge between people; literally using a synonym for "happy" for "homosexual" became corrupt because of the natural tendency of humans toward identifying "normal". We're generally very communication oriented, and without a label, in most cases we don't care. In the case of cosplaying a character of the opposite sex there is no label, and at least I have not seen any stigma except as you might expect by the sort of people who just happen by and see some busty and well-groomed androgynous person in men's clothing. To the uninitiated, it looks like transvestitism and thus easily labeled aberrant behavior, but even then not significantly more bizarre than any of the other weirdos dressing in Halloween costumes in March. Certainly if a woman can pull off a Zangief costume then more power to her, but why should it get a different label?

One of my cousins is a gay man, and was in the closet with the family until he was 19. When he came out to his parents he called and told me that his dad said "I could understand if you only liked men, but a HOMOSEXUAL?!" I could practically hear his dumbfounded look over the phone. That's not just an absurd anecdote though, look at the trouble we have just with the terms "gay marriage" or "evolution" or any number of other paradoxically evocative terms and how dramatically differently people feel about the concepts when explained as divorced from the terms used as shorthand. It's the labels people pay attention to; most of the time people don't even know what they're talking about, they just know in their heart of hearts that X is wrong (usually because somebody declared that it was by fiat power of perceived authority), and I worry that the adoption of an obviously gender-based term like "crossplay" distinct from the broader gender-neutral banner of "cosplay" might despoil that subculture of the freedom it currently enjoys for that reason. And then add that it's probably the safest subculture for trans people? I just can't understand how the addition of subcategories of cosplay based upon expectations of/relating to gendered behavior is a remotely trans-friendly proposition; it sounds to me like just putting trans people in their own special "not normal people" box... again.

[Astrella]

Aren't you making the assumption here that a trans woman will look like a cis guy?

[Asta Kask]

I...I can't even imagine...

How can anyone have that much HATE? Especially a group that says it is following in the footsteps of love?

Not a good way to start the weekend...


~Phoenix~

Take a deep breath and look at this.

[Kindablue]

For some cheerier news, here's an article from The New York Times about Spectrum, the US military's first gay straight alliance.

[Lentrax]

While that is an excellent step forward for us all, the unfortuneate fact is that there are a LOT of people in the military who are not so open about this.

The members of Spectrum are going to learn this the hard way. And while I applaud them for being able to step forward and admit it, and I would salute them with pride, I do not envy the next few years of thier lives.

It is not enough to say,"You can have whatever sexuality you wish, but we aren't going to do anything to change the minds of your coworkers."

[The Succubus]

When he came out to his parents he called and told me that his dad said "I could understand if you only liked men, but a HOMOSEXUAL?!"

I...wait, what now....? oO

Also, I liked the Spectrum article. Not only does it promote LGBTA issues in the military, it also has a kickass name. *approves*

[Asta Kask]

I...wait, what now....? oO

It makes sense in a certain way. I think they associate HOMOSEXUAL with what has become known as the "gay lifestyle". In other words, they're afraid he'll become the very, very campy gay you see on TV.

It's the same story with atheists. "If you only had been satisfied with not believing in God, but you're an ATHEIST!" Because "everybody knows" that atheists eat babies.

[Coidzor]

Aren't you making the assumption here that a trans woman will look like a cis guy?

Indeed, though most of the thought still seems to stand even with that.

Probably the idea there is that a transwoman who passes that well and completely will just scan as a ciswoman crossdressing if dressed as a man, otherwise it goes back to the argument made.

[Kindablue]

While that is an excellent step forward for us all, the unfortuneate fact is that there are a LOT of people in the military who are not so open about this.

The members of Spectrum are going to learn this the hard way. And while I applaud them for being able to step forward and admit it, and I would salute them with pride, I do not envy the next few years of thier lives.

It is not enough to say,"You can have whatever sexuality you wish, but we aren't going to do anything to change the minds of your coworkers."

While there is a problem, I actually really like the way the military is trying to fix it. The new cadets are going to get grief, but that's far better than the secrets and lies they had to go through for the two decades before, and I can only see the situation improving as more organizations like this sprout up and there's more discussion of the issue.

Also, I liked the Spectrum article. Not only does it promote LGBTA issues in the military, it also has a kickass name. *approves*

I couldn't get the James Bond theme out of my head the entire time I was reading it...

[Lentrax]

While there is a problem, I actually really like the way the military is trying to fix it. The new cadets are going to get grief, but that's far better than the secrets and lies they had to go through for the two decades before, and I can only see the situation improving as more organizations like this sprout up and there's more discussion of the issue.

I hope so, but as a former enlisted man, I know what the views of the current enlisted corps is, and it doesn't matter what our officers and senior enlisted says, the change has to start outside the service.

I'm not saying it won't change, just it's going to take longer than people think.

[golentan]

I hope so, but as a former enlisted man, I know what the views of the current enlisted corps is, and it doesn't matter what our officers and senior enlisted says, the change has to start outside the service.

I'm not saying it won't change, just it's going to take longer than people think.

Yeah, but similar problems and obstacles faced the 1948 racial integration of the armed forces, and it's now looked back upon as a major milestone in the fight for equality. I think that in 40-50 years, the consensus on this will be the same. It faced opposition and cultural barriers, but ultimately was the right thing to do and helped the cause.