I prefer bars not run by douchehats

Edit: This story has made the ODT.

UniQ Otago is hitting out at the owner of The Southern Break bar in Dunedin after he posted homophobic comments on his Facebook wall. After some kind of altercation at a competing bar, the owner went home to say that they can “suck a dick” immediately followed by calling them “fucking faggots”, later saying the bar was run on “liquidation letters and aids.”

UniQ Otago is not happy:

“Those comments are disgusting and should not be tolerated in our society.

“Running an establishment full of people under the influence of alcohol, they must provide an environment that is safe for all their patrons. We do not believe this is truly possible if the owners are being outwardly homophobic.”

I’ve read the comments myself, though I shan’t publish them in full here, and another person further down the comments said “Loving the banter.. feed the fagot [sic] fire!!!”

UniQ Otago is right to be incensed and outraged. I’m incensed and outraged. Once again, we see an example of people turning to homophobia as an attack. He may well have had a bad experience at the other establishment, but that does not excuse him of shouting “faggots”, not at all!

Furthermore, as a bar owner, he has a duty to the community. If he is unable to show that he is an upstanding member of the public, then he’s ineligible to have his liquor licence renewed. This is precisely the sort of thing that shows that his standing is not up.

Homophobia is still rife in this country, and it’s shit like this that keeps knocking us down. Homophobia and intolerance like this is something up with which we should not put.


Persecution in NZ

A 4 year old child has effectively kicked out of kindergarten and his family ostracised because he is living with HIV.

The outrage over this is already loud, so I thought I’d add a little to the cacophony. I’m simply going to link to the Campbell Live episode OnDemand:

Clicky clicky click.

And a quote from Shaun Robinson, NZAF Executive Director:

“The reaction of the childcare centre management isn’t due to a lack of information or awareness or education. The NZAF, community members and doctors have all spoken to them on the phone, given them information and materials and been to hui with them. They’ve been very well informed but the sad fact is, the management team don’t want to know that there is no risk whatsoever to the other children, they’d prefer to persecute this child and create hysteria in the community.” [Emphasis mine]

The treatment of this boy and his family is abhorrent. I find it amazing how quick we were to forget our past and continue persecution into the future.

It’s 2012 for fuck’s sake.

Dissenting points of view

The other day I wrote a post about bigotry within the queer online dating world. La Dida had managed to beat me to the punch with something I largely agreed with (save for that one line that irked me). In the interest of not repeating him I decided to explore the complexity surrounding the issue (granted, he was only given 400 words to work with), and at the same time took a risk. It’s an issue that I feel is best approached by spurring debate, even if that debate becomes an argument; the risk I took was in being deliberately ambivalent. Whether I was successful I’ll leave up to the reader.

The response to my post were not at all mixed — they were polarised. Though no one seemed to be pro-racism, people either liked my arguments or didn’t. There was little middle ground. The feedback I got was mostly in my favour (though I’m well aware of confirmation bias and the fact that Kiwis tend not to criticise each other as much as they perhaps should), and the negative feedback prompted me to post the comment I did. (I’m going to get things wrong — don’t be afraid to tell me.)

But (putting aside that some people saw it as a personal attack, rather than a disagreement of ideas) most of the negative feedback I received was on the tone of my argument. I’ve run into this time and time again in a lot of different fora: We don’t have to agree on everything, but don’t disagree too strongly. I ran into it a lot when I was the secretary of UniQ Otago, a lot of us ran into it with the Labour Party (which was one of the factors that led to me tearing up my membership card), and I’ve seen it (from the periphery) in some feminist circles. “You’re hurting the cause.” And it gets in the way.

I will not be silenced on tone.

Complaining about tone is a silencing tool: you’re too shrill, too negative, too loud. It doesn’t address the real argument and does nothing to further any cause — in fact, it does the opposite, shutting it down and smoothing it into a trite, sit-around-and-have-tea do nothing committee meeting.

There is room, and necessity, for different approaches to issues, and they can happen at the same time.

In the queer community, sometimes we do need to wear special gloves and approach certain issues with extreme delicacy (teens committing suicide will necessitate that). But if people put forward ideas that I think are bad, I refuse to be denied the ability to say so.

When the stakes are high, and in the queer community they can be very high indeed, I can understand people not being comfortable with disagreement, and I can understand the intent behind only wanting positive reinforcement. But our ideas, all of our ideas, must be open to scrutiny, regardless of how politely that scrutiny comes.

I’m not saying we should throw out civility and compassion. Far from it. People deserve to be treated with warmth and dignity, and we should never allow someone’s abrasiveness to shut us down either. But ideas are not people, and we shouldn’t take it personally when people don’t like them. Good ideas should be praised, but bad ideas should be destroyed, and we can only decide which way to handle ideas by vigorously testing them.

Apple’s success under the insufferable Steve Jobs is testament to the fact that creativity works best in an environment hostile to ideas. In fact, the notion of ‘brainstorming’ put forward by Alex Osborn in the 1940s that promoted a judgement free environment, actually diminishes creative ability, and hinders our capacity for good ideas.

We must be careful to not allow our privilege to blind us to when we are stomping over other people’s perspectives, but we should never be afraid of criticism, especially when it comes from our friends. We’re still fighting to advance our rights — gay marriage and adoption are still before us, bi-erasure is still a thing, and trans* people are still fighting for basic dignities — and our arguments need to be strong.

For our arguments to be strong, first we need to have them.

Online dating, redux

There’s a point I omitted in my last post that I feel is important to make:

La Dida’s column quoted several lines from the blog Douchebags of Grindr:

“I’ve blocked more Asians than the Great Wall of China.”

“Not into femmes, fatties and furballs.”

“Vanilla and spice, no chocolate and rice.”

Now, I do believe that people are entitled to like whatever they want, and are entitled to seek out what interests them and turn away what doesn’t. But the above sentences — and they are fairly typical — go beyond that, and start reeking of racism and bigotry.

The question is, can dating or hookup sites police this without pressing on people’s freedom of desires and expression; and should we even police it at all, or let these douchebags identify themselves so we know who to avoid?

Soz, No Asians

I have noticed, as I’m sure practically everyone else has too, that on dating sites such as NZ Dating or Grindr, a lot of people state that they don’t want you to contact them if you’re a different race, or otherwise “undesirable”. “No Asians,” “No fatties,” “No fems,” the list goes on… On this front, Critic’s La Dida has beaten me to the post.

I’m going to deliberately take a slightly ambivalent approach, not only to avoid re-hashing what La Dida has written, but also because there’s a bit of complexity to the matter, and I’d like to try to spur people into thinking about the issue, rather than just passively reading my text.

There’s two fronts to this argument. The first is that deliberately excluding Asians because they’re Asian is, obviously, racism. (I’ll stick to racism at the moment, rather than dealing with fatphobia or ageism etc., for the sake of simplicity) As is excluding blacks, Maori or any other race. (For some reason, Asians seem to be the most discriminated against in this particular field).

The second front, is that you can’t very much help whom you’re attracted to. I’m attracted to men with facial hair, strong arms and a friendly disposition; I’m turned off by men more than a few years younger than me and guys who care more about maintaing back dimples than eating McDonalds. In this regard, race is another trait about a person that determines whether you’ll find them sexy or not — humans typically find most attractive those who are within their own tribe or race.

It is because of the second that the first has snuck in (or rather, why the first is so pernicious). But that second front isn’t set in stone.

We all have our tastes and preferences, but these bend and change depending on the culture we’re immersed in. I, for example, thought Hipsters were hot, until the sub-culture was ruined by Hipsters. Now I barely find it sexy at all. And the same is certainly true of ethnicity.

At the risk of delving into pop-evolutionary psychology, finding people of your own ethnic group sexually attractive and others not, makes sense from a survival perspective. But I think that it’s more of a “tribal” thing than a racial one. I believe that you find things within your own culture or subculture attractive, rather than ethnicity, and these things shift like the wind.

But on these sites, and especially on sex sites like Grindr, is it actually discrimination do preclude hookups from people due to their body shape, mannerisms or even ethnicity? When people are looking for sex, they’re looking for what they’re interested in, and what they’re interested in is not entirely a conscious thing, nor is it really anyone else’s business.

When you look up porn (don’t deny it) you look up whatever “genres” get you off. For some people, that means looking to specialist niches, for others it means broadly sweeping across the internet. Most of us have something specific, some trait or set of traits, that we innately consider sexy. Hooking up with people beyond the porn shoots is an extension of that. I happen to not do twinks, does that make me ageist?

But the problem with dating sites, is that you’re dealing with real people, not just porn personae (well… typically). Furthermore, our culture is increasingly being pushed onto these online media to meet people, be it for relationships or just sex. Our ability to challenge or warp our cultural preferences aren’t challenged if we can just block people that don’t fit into them before we’ve even given them a chance. Even today, our sexualities are still closeted — most of us struggle to pull without going to gay bars rather than mainstream ones, and public parks and toilets have given way to NZ Dating and Grindr. We’re still pushed into niche areas where we naturally form cliques.

This allows racism and bigotry to fester and grow.

We must be careful in our arguments. We must be careful in policing bigotry when it comes to people’s sex lives. We fought long and hard, and are still fighting, for the rights to own our sexualities — to be able to have (consensual) sex with whomever we will. Our sexual autonomy is sacred. If we are to fight bigotry in our communities, which I agree is something we must do, we must do it across the board, but not force ourselves into each other’s pants.

Yes, it is dehumanising to consistently see your traits listed as undesirable on everyone’s profiles, and we seriously need to shift our attitudes. But policing our sexuality is not the way to do it.

One thing I have to strongly disagree with in La Dida’s column is the line “The sad reality is that within the queer* community we often repeat the mistakes of our hetero cousins: Body and gender policing, ageism and racism to name a few.”

I’ve seen other things like this in his writings as well as in conversations I’ve had with him in person outside our nom de plumes. Heterosexuality is not the source of all the world’s ills. It’s not the source of sexism, ageism, racism or body policing.

I heard the same argument from a member of the once-noble International Socialists, except that capitalism was the source of all these ills. I take great umbrage at the diminishing of these problems by blaming them on our perceived enemies. That’s scapegoating, and it doesn’t recognise the actual sources of these problems that affect us all. By labelling racism and fatphobia as “hetero” things, and that we shouldn’t emulate them because they’re hetero things, denies our own hand in their perpetuation, and doesn’t actually look to the source.

We’re all humans. We’re all bound by, and fight against, human nature. It’s not the hetero’s fault, it’s all of our faults. And we have to own that if we’re going to have any honesty.

Maybe ego trippers shouldn’t write op eds…

“Maybe having kids is egotistical. You think you’ll somehow live on forever through your amazingly gifted and beautiful descendants.”

I guess it kind of is… for shallow narcissists… but most of us aren’t. Most of us have kids because evolution saw fit to fill us with the desire to procreate.

But that’s just a weird aside to set readers up so that the people in the article look like they’re having kids purely to inflate their egos.

When actually they’re having kids because they actually want them—because animals have evolved to breed.

Rosemary McLeod, who’s previous editorial ejaculations have included an article that reads like “Kim Dotcom is both rich and fat! Isn’t that weird? If he gave me his money, I’d save a failing clothing retailer!”, goes on to talk shit about trans* men who have given birth:

“Thomas Beatie was born a woman, had sex reassignment surgery and legally changed his/her identity in Hawaii to male. He/she is now married to a woman, had all along kept his/her ovaries and stuff, and never opted for a surgically created penis thingy.

“This, to my mind, makes him/her a woman who may shave in the morning and have short hair and a deep voice, as may many women with a hormonal imbalance. But if you called him/her a gay woman you’d hurt his feelings. I’m a bit lost here.”

That after a weird throwaway non sequitur about abortion rates and “the pill”, which have nothing to do with anything else in the article. You’re a bit lost because you’re an idiot. You don’t need a penis “thingy” to be a man. Likewise, possessing ovaries does not make you a woman.

The article is full of the “he/she” nonsense, instead of the male pronouns that these men have opted to use. That’s discrimination. McLeod is insisting that her opinions of gender should override those of the person that the gender belongs to. Using “he/she” is an attack on the very concept of being trans*.

This, combined with lines like “if you called him/her a gay woman you’d hurt his feelings,” are an attempt to silence trans* people, and bully them into conforming with antiquated sex/gender roles. To pass a trans* man off as just a “women with a hormonal imbalance” is to belittle him, and all trans* people, as just being confused.

“Why should I care? Because if it’s happening today in California, it’ll be happening here next week.”

Should I tell her that it already is? There are already plenty of trans* people having kids, just not that many who go public about it in the mainstream media. Not everyone wants to draw to themselves the attention of people like Rosemary McLeod. Trans* people already face enough discrimination and bigotry in their day to day lives.

“He/she can give birth to live goldfish for all I care, but I dislike ego trippers bent on being famous, especially at other people’s expense.”

And she completes the circle. These people aren’t “ego trippers”. They’re just people who want to have kids because we all (well, most of us) want to have kids.

At the expense of whom? At McLeod’s expense? At the expense of people who try to tell others what to do with their bodies? Or at the expense of the kids?

“It would be all very well if their mother/father had kept his/her unusual situation private, but he/she has boasted about it publicly, and that stands a good chance of rebounding against the kids, which hardly seems fair.”

So, the only problem with trans* people having kids is the bigotry of other people. That’s not a reason to deny them their rights, that a reason to tell people like McLeod to shut up and let people live their lives.

I get so tired of the cry that queer people only want kids to inflate their egos, or as fashion accessories or whatever. We’re human beings, not heartless fashionists. To accuse queer people of wanting children purely for show is to deny us our very humanity.

If she’s accusing these particular men of ego tripping for inviting the press into their lives, then she is also mistaken.  Trans* people face a huge amount of discrimination in their day to day lives, constantly having to defend themselves against cissexism. There are 5 trans* men who have been pregnant that I know of who took their stories to the media. They went to the media, not looking for their 15 minutes of fame, but to show that it is possible, to break down misconceptions of sex and gender, and to contribute to a building a world where all trans* people can be comfortable and free in their bodies without fear of discrimination.

“To think we once relied on Asti Spumante and the back seat of a Ford Cortina. But that was when reproduction was – it seems so silly now – sexy.”

If that’s what McLeod finds sexy, then she’s welcome to park up any time she likes. I’m not even sure what she’s trying to say with this closing line; something to do with insinuating that sex used to be like a cheesy high-school drama, losing-your-virginity cliché, but now it’s different. I don’t know, her writing doesn’t seem to make much sense…

As I write this, there is a protest under way in Wellington outside the offices of Fairfax Media, who own the Dominion Post in which the article was published. It’ll be interesting to see how it goes.

[UPDATE: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/6475995/Trans-gender-community-protest-against-column]

This post on The Hand Mirror has a nice list of points about the article. No. 7 is a good one: “Have you ever considered the fact that maybe the couple are modelling pride in who they are, openness and the fact everyone is entitled to respect for their children?”

† I do know plenty of people, both queer and not, who don’t want to have kids at all. Just as a fun aside, I used to think I never wanted kids, but then I turned 26 and I was all like “I want babies!” Now I’m looking for a nest to feather. Not that I’m typical, but wanting to be a parent is instinctive and we all have that right.