Pink News has reported on the NUS LGBT move to abolish gay male reps.

The National Union of Students’ LGBT Campaign has passed a motion calling for the abolition of representatives for gay men – because they “don’t face oppression” in the LGBT community.

The NUS LGBT+ Campaign discussed the issue at its annual conference, which took place in Sheffield this week.

At the event, delegates passed a motion that blames “cis gay men” for “misogyny, transphobia, racism and biphobia”.

It says: “Misogyny, transphobia, racism and biphobia are often present in LGBT+ societies. This is unfortunately more likely to occur when the society is dominated by white cis gay men.”

The only truly progressive people on earth are trans women. Trans women are so progressive that they’re not even white.

Via Edna Adan University Hospital on Facebook:

Generosity means sharing the last drops of water with your baby sister during the ongoing drought in Somaliland…

Only about one-third of the Somaliland population has access to safe drinking water. In recent months, devastating drought exacerbated by El Nino weather patterns has left over 240,000 of our people without enough food and killed 35% to 40% of our country’s precious livestock.

For this little girl, her sister, and all of us, ‪#‎WaterGives‬ life. Health and hope depend on it. ‪#‎WorldWaterDay‬

The Guardian asked “young people” around the world how they “define” their “gender.” The result is what you would expect from such a ridiculous question directed at such a demographic.

Some days Daniela Esquivel Asturias, 21, wakes up feeling feminine and puts on a dress or lipstick. But on others Asturias feels much more masculine and the thought of wearing a skirt induces an overwhelming sense of dysmorphia.

“I would be equally comfortable with a male or female body. My male personality is more outgoing than my female one. It’s like having both male and female energies and some days a mix of both,” Asturias says.

GASP

Oh my god have you ever heard anything so original and fascinating and new ever in your life before? Have you ever encountered a human being who had different moods before??

The student from Costa Rica is gender fluid, and doesn’t identify with one gender, instead fluctuating between feeling more male or female.

Unlike all the rest of us dull plodding not-young people who have always 100% “identified” with one “gender” our whole lives.

It’s hard to explain, Asturias says, before referring to the way society tends to define gender, on a spectrum. “At one end is being male and the other female, and you kind of move between the two, and usually remain in the middle.”

This is just one of the individual stories sent to the Guardian as part of a survey inviting millennials to define their gender.

Next up, the Guardian will report on an astounding new trick you can do where you add yeast to flour and make something they’re calling “bread”…

Young people are increasingly challenging conventional gender stereotypes

Let me stop you right there. No they’re not. They may think they are, you may think they are, but they’re not. Much of the time what they’re actually doing is reifying conventional gender stereotypes so that they can boast about being outside them.

This idea that nobody challenged gender stereotypes and rules until a couple of weeks ago is so clueless it’s a scandal.

Jesse Singal on Twitter yesterday, with four tweets run together. (I still think it’s absurd that people use Twitter this way.)

@LambdaLiterary has withdrawn @AliceDreger’s book from consideration for its nonfiction literary award. The (very strongly) implied message here is that you can’t simultaneously be an advocate for social justice and care about the principles of truth, accuracy, and fairness in argument. It was a message I heard loud and clear after my Zucker/GIC article, and one that will, in the long run, harm all of us greatly. @LambdaLiterary @AliceDreger

He’s right you know. It is absolutely not permitted to try to get at the truth on certain subjects – trans issues in particular, right now – by thinking and inquiring and reading and talking about them in your own way. The guardians of purity make that very explicit.

Singal included this email in his first tweet:

Dear Dr. Dreger,

Lambda Literary, a nonprofit corporation, was founded in 1989 with the express objective of promoting literature and art that increase knowledge, understanding, and acceptance of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Fundamental to that objective is the belief that LGBTQ lives are affirmed when our stories are written, published, and read.

After reviewing Galileo’s Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in Science, the organization has concluded the book is inconsistent with its mission of affirming LGBTQ lives. As a result, the decision was made to rescind the nomination for a 2016 Lambda Literary Award in the LGBT Nonfiction category.

Lambda Literary extends its apologies for any inconvenience caused by withdrawal of the nomination and wishes you well in your career endeavors.

Sincerely,

Tony Valenzuela
Executive Director

 The ugliness of that email is breathtaking.

Social justice? Don’t make me laugh.

Originally a comment by ZugTheMegasaurus on She had been brought up to make the people around her happy and comfortable.

I have been, at various times in my life, a rape victim, a legal advocate for domestic violence victims, and a survivor of domestic violence. This “why did she stay” question crops up in virtually every discussion of any man-on-woman violence, and there is one fact sorely lacking from the conversation: “she” did not think like an abuser. It’s so simple, and it doesn’t stop within gender lines, and that’s probably why people don’t see it.

Anyone who has been abused will probably agree on one thing: the abuse doesn’t make sense. We know this is true from an objective standpoint too; abuse isn’t actually a reaction to the other person or their behavior, but is instead something that is internally-generated by the abuser. That’s why saying “It’s not your fault” is more than a nice platitude; it’s actually the reason that no amount of effort on the part of a victim to change will ever be enough to end the abuse: it wasn’t about her in the first place.

The reason abused women stay with their abusers is that they see their abusers as people who love them, and they expect that their abuser is pretty similar to other people in that category. When a person who loves you attacks you, it’s confusing. You don’t just move that person into the “monster” category and leave; you twist yourself in knots trying to figure out what the fuck happened, to pinpoint what exactly went wrong, to identify whatever element made things go so suddenly bad.

People frame this in a way that makes it sound like women are stupid or naive or unprepared, but that’s wrong. The victim is the one who is acting normally; what’s wrong is the situation that’s been created by someone who is sneakily operating on a totally different set of rules. It’s very easy to identify a “bad guy” after the fact and say, “Who would spend time around such a bad guy?” Somehow people forget at the same time that “bad guys” had to earn that reputation at some point, and usually get it by hurting somebody who had no way of knowing.

From The New Backlash, Introduction:

Now, the dialog around “transgender” issues is dense and confusing and emotional and often downright abusive. Transgender identity politickers cloud the issues on purpose, but feminists can also fail to express ourselves clearly when we are 1) grounded in decades of theory most people have not read and/or 2) feeling defensive due to the endless attempts of anti-feminists to vilify/silence us.

So, first some clarification on my part: for several decades now, feminist theorists have been using the word gender to refer to the social and psychological expectations thrust upon women and men, otherwise referred to as sex stereotypes or sex roles. However, feminists and pro-feminists outside of academic circles may use the word gender to mean “biological category of male or female” (in contrast with the act of sexual intercourse) – and that’s understandable because we need words for all these things. However, to add to the confusion, transgender identity politickers use the term gender or gender identity to mean an innate-but-undefinable inner feeling that overrides and in fact determines biological sex. When discussing gender, always stay alert to the multiple possible definitions of the term, and ask for clarification when needed.

Next: sex v gender:

Gender: a socially constructed, oppressive hierarchy

Sperm producer = male. Ova producer = female. This is simple biological classification.

Male = masculine/dominant. Female = feminine/submissive. This is gender, as the word is used by feminist theorists.

Based on the (sexist) notion that sex determines personality and thus should determine social role and status, gender is a social tool to naturalize women’s dependence on men, and thereby ensure men’s access to women’s emotional, sexual, domestic and reproductive labor. It’s about power, not individual expression.

This is why feminists find chatter about “gender identity” so grating and wrongheaded. It’s like talking about “slave identity” or “camp inmate identity.” Gender isn’t a party, it isn’t looking hot in that tiny little dress, it isn’t walking so that your bum is shown off to advantage.

If this isn’t clear from the above, gender is not a binary of equals, it is a hierarchy. For millennia women were the legal property of men. Globally, women are still subject to female genital mutilation, child marriage, bride burning and sex trafficking. Luckier women are merely subject to lifelong discrimination in the family, school, and workplace; sexist medical care; constant street harassment; online misogyny; daily reminders that males are people and females are other; a persistent wage gap; legislative attacks on bodily autonomy; physical intimidation and physical violence – all of which tend to worsen along lines of race/ethnicity and economic class – and all of which is meant to keep us in our (supposed) place.

Gender is a hierarchy, and talking about one’s “hierarchy identity” is fatuous.

Zoskia Beliski at the Globe and Mail talks about the way women’s training in being polite and agreeable can interfere with their ability to stand up for themselves.

I didn’t want to seem frosty and I didn’t want to seem mad.

That was complainant Lucy DeCoutere during her time on the stand last month at the sexual assault trial of former CBC host Jian Ghomeshi, who faces a verdict Thursday. Asked to account for why DeCoutere had stayed at Ghomeshi’s house for an hour after he allegedly slapped and choked her, she explained that she had been brought up to make the people around her happy and comfortable, to “foster kind thoughts” with a “pleasing personality.” She said she’d been raised to be polite to a host – even an allegedly violent one, apparently.

The bar for being acceptably polite is in a different place for women compared to where it is for men. It takes very little in the way of defiance or refusal for us to be called bitches or cunts.

It’s been documented time and again by psychologists and counsellors who work with assault survivors: in reaction to trauma, many women will do things they later regret because they felt somehow compelled to “be nice.” It’s a bit of social conditioning – be deferential, fix problems, avoid conflict at all costs – that keeps women uniquely vulnerable as they recriminate themselves for things that aren’t their fault. Even though no one but rapists are to blame for rape, many women carry their pacifist conditioning over into the aftermath of sexual assault, especially when they know the attacker: Maybe I’m overreacting? Maybe I misinterpreted? Maybe it was me?

And it comes as a surprise to women who react that way.

If the reactions of the three complainants frustrated viewers of the Ghomeshi trial, they are also often a surprise to victims themselves: “As I say this now, it’s outrageous that I stayed and did not leave but that was my reaction,” DeCoutere told the packed Toronto courtroom in February.

“Many victims struggle to explain their own behaviour. We need to remember that until they were assaulted, they probably held all of the same myths about sexual violence as many other people,” says Nina Burrowes, a London-based psychologist who helps victims of sexual abuse.

“When you live your life assuming this will never happen to you or if it does happen, you’ll scream, fight and run away, it can be incredibly confusing when you experience the reality of abuse and find yourself reacting in a very different way.”

I can imagine that so easily – reacting like a wimp or a damn fool and then being confused as hell, since that’s hardly how I like to think of myself. In my head I’m a Woman of Steel but in the real world I’m not so metallic. I’m a great one for thinking “Well I wish I’d handled that differently.”

How to undo the conditioning that compels women to “be nice” at all costs? After all, minimizing doesn’t protect sexual assault survivors from experiencing long-term trauma.

One way? Feminism.

Bystander intervention, Jaclyn Friedman, author and podcaster, says: “We have to stick up for each other. When we see each other doing this kind of thing we need to say, ‘Hey, you know you don’t owe it to that person to be nice.’”

Psychologist Nina Burrowes, says we need to get better at hearing and responding to disclosures of abuse: “It can be massively empowering to help victims understand their own behaviour and their own reactions. Until they do they can think that they are weird, mad, or to blame.”

For Deborah Sinclair, a Toronto psychologist, the answer lies in feminism: “I try to raise my daughter differently and with all the women I come into contact with, I really encourage them to speak up and stand up for themselves. But they’re going against a lot of training. I was raised as a ‘nice Catholic girl,’ too.”

That’s “gender identity” for you.

The New York Times:

A series of deadly terrorist attacks struck Brussels on Tuesday, with two explosions at the city’s main international airport and a third in a subway station at the heart of the city, near the headquarters complex of the European Union.

At least 11 people were killed at the airport, according to news agencies, and the city’s transit agency said 15 were killed in the subway bombing. More than 130 others were reported wounded. At least one of the two airport explosions was touched off by a suicide bomber, officials said.

“We were fearing terrorist attacks, and that has now happened,” Prime Minister Charles Michel of Belgium said at a news conference, calling the attacks “blind, violent, cowardly.”

On Twitter, he issued an appeal to the population to “avoid all movement,” as the authorities braced for the possibility of additional violence.

Everyone submit, or else.

The attacks, a vivid illustration of the continued threat to Europe, occurred four days after the capture on Friday of Europe’s most wanted man, Salah Abdeslam. He is the sole survivor of the 10 men believed to have been directly involved in the attacks that killed 130 people in and around Paris on Nov. 13.

Allah is hungry. He wants more and more kaffirs to eat.

The attacks on Tuesday put the Belgian capital in a state of virtual lockdown, with the threat level raised to its highest possible level. Frédéric Van Leeuw, the Belgian federal prosecutor, said that border controls had been strengthened and extra police officers mobilized.

All flights to and from Brussels Airport were canceled for the day, and flights were diverted. Subway, tram and bus travel was shut down. Eurostar canceled its trains connecting Brussels with Paris and London. Thalys, which runs high-speed trains linking dozens of cities in Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands, suspended service.

Submit. Everyone submit.

Elizabeth Warren on Trump, the guy who loves to call people “Loser!”:

Let’s be honest – Donald Trump is a loser. Count all his failed businesses. See how he kept his father’s empire afloat by cheating people with scams like Trump University and by using strategic corporate bankruptcy (excuse me, bankruptcies) to skip out on debt. Listen to the experts who’ve concluded he’s so bad at business that he might have more money today if he’d put his entire inheritance into an index fund and just left it alone.

Trump seems to know he’s a loser. His embarrassing insecurities are on parade: petty bullying, attacks on women, cheap racism, and flagrant narcissism. But just because Trump is a loser everywhere else doesn’t mean he’ll lose this election. People have been underestimating his campaign for nearly a year – and it’s time to wake up.

People talk about how “this is the most important election” in our lifetime every four years, and it gets stale. But consider what hangs in the balance. Affordable college. Accountability for Wall Street. Healthcare for millions of Americans. The Supreme Court. Big corporations and billionaires paying their fair share of taxes. Expanded Social Security. Investments in infrastructure and medical research and jobs right here in America. The chance to turn our back on the ugliness of hatred, sexism, racism and xenophobia. The chance to be a better people.

More than anyone we’ve seen before come within reach of the presidency, Donald Trump stands ready to tear apart an America that was built on values like decency, community, and concern for our neighbors. Many of history’s worst authoritarians started out as losers – and Trump is a serious threat. The way I see it, it’s our job to make sure he ends this campaign every bit the loser that he started it.

Ah yes, this again.

Melissa Block at NPR says Think Twice Before Telling A Woman To Smile.

After the primaries last Tuesday a cable news guy tweeted at Hillary Clinton: “Smile. You just had a big night.”

Suffice to say, women – were not amused.

“Said no one to a man, ever” tweeted one.

Another offered: “Women LOVE it when you say this.”

And on it went, until comedian Samantha Bee was prompted to launch the hashtag “Smile for Joe,” thereby prompting a slew of women to post selfies as they make like Grumpy Cat: frowning, grimacing, and scowling.

The cable news guy said predictable “lighten up ladies!” type of thing – so why is this so annoying?

Because even women who don’t happen to be running for the highest office in the land are all too familiar with men telling them — not asking them, telling them — to smile.

Maybe it starts with well-intentioned grandparents when you’re a kid. And then graduates to not-so well-intentioned, unsolicited sidewalk advice when you’re older.

And to vitally necessary phrases like “bitchy resting face” because we all know women’s faces are public property at all times.

This kerfuffle over women and smiling? it’s not new territory, though it IS new for a presidential campaign. Back in 1970, the feminist writer Shulamith Firestone proposed her “dream action” for the women’s liberation movement: she called for “a smile boycott” in which, she wrote, “all women would instantly abandon their ‘pleasing’ smiles — henceforth smiling only when something pleased THEM.”

But it didn’t work, and the orders to smile have not stopped. Global warming will have wiped out all mammalian life before that happens.

Chris Moos on Twitter:

So @nonajasmine, why did you delete ur tweet attacking Muslim women challenging gender segregation as “unfeminist”?

It is unfeminist to lecture other women on what they should do and think & I include Muslim women in that

No. Feminism is not endorsing everything any woman says or does or thinks. It never has been. Feminism is all about saying X is better than Y, and that of course includes saying it to women.

It would be nice if this had changed more by now. Tell children to draw a pilot or a surgeon and what happens?

No prizes for getting it right.

A new short film has highlighted how children as young as five years old have already learnt common gender stereotypes and think of certain career opportunities as being more likely to be filled by men.

Kids in a school were asked to draw people in job roles, including firefighters, surgeons and pilots.

“Have a think in your head what this person looks like to you,” one of the teachers asked them.

Out of the 66 pictures drawn by the children, 61 pictures were of men and only five were of women.

Well the women are busy empowering themselves by dancing.

So the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) asked the internet for suggestions for the name of their new ship. Currently in the lead, whupping Endeavour, Henry Worsley, David Attenborough, Falcon, and similar grown-up names, is Boaty McBoatface. I think that would be a fabulous name for a boat – although Hotty McHotterson would also be nice.

The £200 million polar research vessel, which will be operational in 2019, is set to sail the waters of Antarctica and the Arctic carrying a team of 90 scientists and support staff.

In a statement NERC said: “Tonne-for-tonne, the ship – together with NERC’s existing two blue water research ships – will provide the UK with the most advanced floating research fleet in the world and will help put the UK at the forefront of ocean research for years to come.”

NERC was looking for a name to reflect the ship’s prowess in the oceans, symbolising the pioneering work they will undertake.

When thinking of submissions, they advised: “We’re looking for an inspirational name that exemplifies the work it will do.

“The ship could be named after a local historical figure, movement, or landmark – or a famous polar explorer or scientist.”

Ah well if they stipulated then they probably won’t go with Boaty McBoatface, but it was a nice idea.

Here’s Rebecca Reilly-Cooper at Coventry Skeptics in the Pub last Monday. I’m told it was the best-attended event they’d had in ages, and very well received.

She’s doing a talk at Conway Hall in May but that sold out on the first day.

Meghan Murphy detects some incoherence in the libertarian feminist approach to “sex work.”

Surprise! Gaming is a sexist industry that pornifies women. Through a particularly hypocritical post, even for Jezebel, it has come to light that Microsoft hired women in sexualized Catholic schoolgirl outfits to dance at an afterparty hosted by Xbox in San Francisco during last week’s Game Developer Conference.

Welcome to the industry, laydeez.

One woman who attended the party, named Kamina Vincent, a producer at an Australian games studio, told Jezebel that she spoke to one of the “dancers,” who told her “they had been hired to speak with attendees and encourage them to the dance floor.” Vincent correctly pointed out, “Decisions like these reinforce that women are decoration instead of a part of the industry.” You know, just like the video games themselves do, and just like pornography itself does: position women as decorative things for men to look at, use, and abuse, but never to view as full, equal human beings.

Brianna Wu, a video game developer who has been subjected to ongoing harassment by the man-children of Gamergate, told Jezebel:

“The problem is not the women. I am a sex-positive feminist and so are most women in the game industry… They are just trying to make a living. The issue is, this is wildly inappropriate at a professional networking event.”

Indeed. And so with that, we are left to wonder what, exactly, is an appropriate space for women to be paid to sexualize teen girls for the titillation of men? Both Wu and Jezebel, as a whole, are supporters of the sex industry — they advocate to legalize prostitution and treat pornography as something empowered women “choose.”

So they’re trying to have it both ways, are they? Saying it’s cool in general to position women as decorative things for men to look at and fuck but not cool to do that at a tech afterparty? If it’s cool in general why isn’t it cool at a tech afterparty?

Murphy shares some tweets by Brianna Wu saying how great sex work and Playboy are, and how sex-positive and pro-sex work and pro sexual empowerment she is.

The analysis doesn’t fly. As I wrote earlier this month, you can’t have both objectification and liberation. You can’t say that turning women into sexualized objects for male pleasure contributes to inequality and excludes women from participation in traditionally male-dominated spaces (i.e. life) but then say it’s totally acceptable in other spaces and, more generally, in society-at-large. Where is the invisible line drawn?

As Wu’s colleague, Anita Sarkeesian, points out, objectification dehumanizes women — not just some women, but all women. Treating women as things that exist for men normalizes male entitlement, which, in turn, creates rape culture and, more generally, a misogynist society.

How’s that worked out so far?