States' rights for the win?

i'll be very upfront here: i am not a legal scholar, and everything i'm about to say comes from my amateur ability to analyze court opinions.

according to my facebook newsfeed, equality (that pesky concept) has been achieved! the supreme court overturned DOMA! even google incorporated a rainbow graphic for folks who searched words like 'gay' or 'lesbian'.

i certainly would not begrudge folks their celebrations. many people have worked very hard on multiple levels to facilitate this legal gain. congratulations! however, it's important to note that the same supreme court that overturned DOMA also dismantled the voting rights act of 1965. so, when we exclaim 'equality!', whose equality are we really talking about?

there is something strikingly similar about these two cases. most notably, both opinions rely on federalism and the ability of states to make their own decisions. in justice kennedy's majority opinion for overturning DOMA, he commented that it would violate federalism and states' rights to "chart their own course" (new york times). justice roberts wrote the majority for the decision on the voting rights act, explaining that the voting rights act of 1965 departed from the principle of states' rights.

now i understand that these are complicated, multi-faceted decisions that deal with more than the question of federalism. however, that they both had this thread in common is not inconsequential. there is a relationship between the court deciding that states have the right to grant marital status and the court determining that the federal government does not have the right to regulate states' voting laws. i don't know what the connection is between the timing of these decisions or the convergence of their use of federalism. i'd love to hear what folks think about this!

i do think that if the gay and lesbian movement is invested in fighting for equality, then today is a difficult day because many gained legal access to rights based on the same principles that the court used to de-prioritize the rights of others. therefore, at the same time that gay, lesbian, and queer couples will celebrate their legal claim to marital status, other folks will confront greater obstacles to their right to vote. for example, the state of texas already announced its intention to go ahead with voter id laws - racist laws that will disenfranchise many.

while overturning DOMA certainly facilitates greater access to rights for many glq couples, the connection between these two decisions is troubling. it's more than time to consider who is being included and who is being excluded from the idea of 'equality'.

For all the gay female athletes who did it first.

"with 'i'm gay', a sports barrier is broken'. that's the headline on the front page of the online version of the new york times today, which is, honestly, a little confusing. we'll get to that in a second though. we all know the build-up is the best part.

i have a conflicted relationship with sports. when i was a kid i read the sports page every morning. i was a dedicated celtics and red sox fan. i knew a lot about my teams. i went to games. i also played basketball and softball for years. i was an umpire and ref too. i was all about it. i stopped in high school. for a lot of reasons. since distancing myself from the world of competitive sports, i have ambled back in a few ways. one of the ways was through starting to follow women's sports like roller derby and the wnba.

i lived in seattle for three years, and the storm is a fierce team of talented athletes. they won the title. twice. still, i couldn't tell you how many times i have overheard conversations from folks bemoaning the fact that seattle doesn't have a professional basketball team since they lost the sonics. apparently, the storm doesn't count.

in the past few weeks i've read a number of articles pondering over the lack of out gay male athletes in professional sports. especially after brittney griner, a ncaa champ and #1 draft pick for the wnba, came out this past month. when she made her announcement, sports media asked: when will a man come out? until today, there were no active professional male athletes who were out, but there are a whole bunch of active professional female athletes who are and have been for years. it's just that no one (aka the media) really cares.

for comparison, the headline of the article covering griner's coming out was: female star comes out as gay, and the sports world shrugs. female athletes are, in large part, expected to be gay. by participating in spaces that are overwhelmingly considered to be male, they are transgressing gendered boundaries and thus not 'appropriately' performing femininity. women who play professional sports are like tomboys who never grew up. they either need to prove their femininity by being really 'girly' (since somehow mainstream society still doesn't understand femme queerness) or they need to prove their heterosexuality by being hetero-coupled. if they don't, they are read as masculinized women and assumed to be gay. when they come out, no one cares because a) they already expected it b) no one watches their sports anyway and c) why care about women's sport if you're not attracted to the women (and you can't be attracted to gay women; that's wrong).

there are numerous issues with a system that 'forces' all people who are not the 'dominant' sexuality to come out and identify themselves to begin with. that's a bigger issue than this post, and i'm not going to address it right now. i think it's great that jason collins has come out. maybe he will be a great role model for young gay (male) athletes. it's important to note, however, that he is not the first out professional athlete. there have been many before him, and the mechanisms that contribute to their invisibility are real. so for all three of you who read this post, i'd like to make some of these female athletes a little bit more visible. here's a link to a list ellen made of some out athletes. check it out:
http://www.afterellen.com/content/2012/05/12-our-favorite-out-athletes-last-40-years?page=2,0

Not everything needs to be reenacted.

i know, i haven't been posting. i created this blog for a number of reasons. one of them was to have a welcome distraction from my school work. it turns out, i have had more 'welcome distractions' than i have had time for lately. here's hoping that with the fast approaching end of my masters (oh wow), i will again feel highly committed to my blog! and, you know, find a job or something...

since the title for my blog comes from the haggadah, i felt that i really should sit down and get some thoughts out during passover. so here goes! (forgive me if i'm rusty).

the other night when i was making dinner and listening to this american life, i learned about the conner prairie interactive history park in indiana. they bring history to life! they have a special event called: follow the north star. guess what that re-imagines? well, according to their website, during the 'follow the north star' event, you get to "become a fugitive slave on the Underground Railroad, fleeing from captivity, risking everything for freedom". that's right, with a simple payment of $20 for non-members and $17 for members (yeah, they have members), you too can experience slavery.

there are innumerable problems with this interpretation of a 'history' lesson. i mean, people are paying money to re-enact slavery. they are re-imagining slavery. just let that sink in for another moment.

since there is no way i could present an exhaustive list of all the issues with 'follow the north star', i'm going to raise two that strike me as particularly salient. one, this is not what slavery was like. conner prairie boasts authenticity due to extensive research. it seems, however, that they are forgetting one highly distinguishing characteristic - slavery was not a choice. when teachers bring a school group to participate in follow the north star, the kids come away believing they now know what slavery was like. this is a quote from an eighth grader pulled from one of the testimonials one their website: "'Follow the North Star' puts you in their place". however, they all got permission slips signed. they elected to go. they were probably excited for their field trip. i hope we're all on the same page here. creating the opportunity for a bunch of americans (mostly white americans) to believe they understand what it felt like to be a slave works toward erasing the experience of actual slaves and the complicated legacy slavery left in the states.

two, 're-enacting' slavery firmly establishes it as something of the past. school groups can go and learn about how mean white people were to black 'way back when'. it's as if all of these 'bad' things (as in, racist and violent attitudes and behaviours) happened back then and are a part of 'history' not present day. teaching slavery in an old-timey fashion without concurrently locating everything within a post-colonial context really just seems to re/produce a post-racial attitude.

like i said, these certainly are not the only problems with 'follow the north star'. also, 'follow the north star' is not the only event at conner prairie interactive history park! check out their website for more rousing trips you could go on: http://www.connerprairie.org. or, consider having your wedding on the prairie!

i'm interested to hear what other people think about this 'history' park. what strikes you?

also, check out the episode of this american life in which they visit it: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/120/be-careful-who-you-pretend-to-be

To the women who harassed me at the pool.

i've struggled writing this post. i meant to write it days ago, but it's proving to be more difficult than i anticipated. i'm pretty sure i know why.

sometimes i get made fun of, looked at, whispered about, and called names. it doesn't happen a lot and, honestly, i don't usually mind all that much. the most contentious space for me seems to be washrooms. i have a lot of privilege though - i'm white, i'm able-bodied, i live in a progressive city, and i grew up middle class. equipped with all that privilege, i often walk into a washroom feeling a bit antagonistic, ready to challenge anyone who dares tell me where i do and don't belong.

this may sound strange, but i far prefer outright harassment. if someone takes issue with my gender identity or my sexuality, i want them to come out and say it to my face. when they opt instead to whisper it to their friends or communicate through caustic stares, the onus is on me to confront them if i want to have a dialogue. and this is where our story begins.

last week i went to school early to swim as i often do. typically i go with a couple of friends, but classes are over, so i went on my own. i had finished changing and was about to head to the showers before starting my swim. at this point, a couple women came into the area of the changing room that i was in. immediately upon seeing me, they shared some intense sort of reaction. it was startling. for context, it was about 7:30 in the morning. i was definitely still waking up. it took me a little bit to realize what was going on. however, from the changing rooms to the showers to the lanes to the whirlpool back to the showers and the changing rooms, they were always there. they were always looking at me and whispering and laughing with another friend. they communicated to me with a quickness and sharpness that made me feel judged, humiliated and profoundly uncomfortable.

they never spoke to me. since we never directly interacted, i began to think i was probably paranoid. chances were i was making this up, creating their hostility. but why when i finished a lap were they waiting at the end of the lane glaring at me? why, when i switched lanes, were they still keeping track of my whereabouts? i'd finish a lap and look up to see all three of them from the other end of the pool, staring at me. it was not a friendly stare.

when i finished my swim, they were in the whirlpool. i always go into the whirlpool when i finish. it's the best part! i figured i should skip it though. it would just be the four us. no, that's ridiculous. i would go in and, anyway, i was probably making this situation up. i went into the whirlpool. the energy was so remarkably hostile, that i felt honestly nervous about changing in front of them. i left quickly to get a head start.

i was changing as quickly as i could. they arrived as i was putting on my binder. they laughed at me, and i turned to face the wall. they were clearly good friends, but they kept their towels glued to their bodies and their backs to me as they changed. people were walking around naked, but these women were painstakingly meticulous about not being exposed. of course, it's totally possible that this is always how they changed and that it had nothing to do with me, but it felt very personal.

i was flustered and trying to leave as quickly as possible. i walked out the wrong way on accident and had to turn around and walk past them again. when i passed them, they were talking about me. we all caught eyes for a moment. they looked at me and looked briefly, maybe, embarrassed but it might just have been the shock of being caught in the act. they put their hands over their mouth. i kept walking, and i heard them laugh. i paused and turned to walk back and confront them.

here's the issue: they never said anything to me. they harassed me for an hour. for an entire hour they made me feel like less and less of a person, but they did it so insidiously that there was nothing i could grasp ahold of in order to confront them. i was left with 'feelings' - a sense of hostility. as i stood paused in the hall, ready to go back and start something, i realized how it would go. i would say: do you have a problem? and they would simply say: no. that would be it. what recourse did i really have? what could i really say? would i tell them that i had seen them whispering and pointing? to which i'm sure they would respond with an apology instead of an explanation for what they were 'actually' talking about. it was a no-win situation for me. confronting them would not make me feel better about what had happened, so i left.

i felt horrible though. i took me longer than usual to shake off the interaction. it certainly wasn't the first time i've been harassed. it wasn't really the worst time, either. i struggled to understand why i couldn't seem to get over it, why i felt so upset. i think i've figured it out. i think it was the insidiousness of it along with how outnumbered i felt. there were three of them and just one of me, and the way they went about it left no room for a dialogue. i felt like i was just receiving hostility for an hour and had no way to respond without coming off as a belligerent, paranoid person. i felt backed into a corner and powerless, and that's why it seemed so much worse.

i guess the point of this post is to regain a bit of that power through telling the story.

Stop spending so much on your tomboy

i tend to be late to the celebrity gossip game. i also tend to be late to new fads and latest trends in general. it's kind of an anomaly that i have a blog. ask any of my close friends and they will tell you that i'm actually very 'bad' at the internet. i know the internet is this incredibly vast resource that i could be utilizing in a much more interesting way, but i just have no idea how to go about doing it. so then i get bored or frustrated and go do something else.

for years, i've learned about key pop culture icons and issues through reading bitch magazine, a publication my sister turned me onto when i was younger. i want to make something clear though: this is not something that i'm touting as being awesome. i'm not proud of my lack of pop knowledge. i think pop culture is fascinating! i'm just really, really bad at keeping up.

all of this is really just a disclaimer to the fact that i just became aware of this whole shiloh jolie-pitt gender identity crisis story-line.

what! how did i not know this? someone who probably knows me too well snagged a left-behind tabloid with a nannies reveal on on suri cruise and shiloh jolie-pitt. i'd like to point out that i also learned many other interesting things in this tabloid, like all about prince harry's nudey photos. fascinating.

a moment of catch-up for folks who may also be new to this whole suri and shiloh business. suri is the daughter of the infamous scientologist (and actor?) tom cruise and katie holmes (ahem, joey potter). shiloh is the 'daughter' of angelina jolie and brad pitt. both of these kids are six years old and have been compared to each other for years. moreover, both of these kids, apparently, have some serious issues that will inevitably land them in a therapist's office (according to star magazine and unnamed sources - the best kind of sources). this would be a good place to say that all of 'the information' in this post comes from what i read in the tabloid. it is in no way credible.

the premise of the article i devoured yesterday was that suri and shiloh are both suffering from significant 'abnormalities' which their parents overindulge due to a) their financial ability to and b) their guilt over their inability to spend enough time together. suri and shiloh's 'issues' are laid out and compared, then a "board-certified psychiatrist" chimes in.

suri's problems revolve around an overindulgence of material items. suri has her own credit card. suri has a separate bedroom for her imaginary friends. suri likes to eat off of gold plates. this proclivity for consumerism is compared to shiloh's desire to be a boy. that's right, shiloh's main issue is that 'she' prefers to present as a boy and, in fact, has stated that she wants to be a boy. [note: i'm using female pronouns in quotes for shiloh because i have no way of knowing how shiloh actually identifies but at least want to acknowledge some instability of the feminine]. initially chalked up to imitation of 'her' father, the psychiatrist in the article furthers the analysis of shiloh's troubles by claiming: "only having boy haircuits, wanting to be a boy - that's more than being a tomboy. it's closer to a gender-identity problem" (emphasis mine).

let's review. there are two six year old children of celebrities being compared in this article. they are both presented as having boundary issues. the article states that whatever they want, they get - ie, they are overindulged. for suri, this accounts to lavish material goods. for shiloh, this means not preventing 'her' from dressing in the clothes that feel most comfortable for 'her' identity and engaging in the type of play that 'she' wants. how are these two the same? oh, that's right, they're not.

the article does end by distinguishing between them. one of these issues (unchecked consumerism versus gender exploration) is clearly far worse than the other. according to the board-certified psychiatrist, the answer is obvious. shiloh has deeper problems.

i know, this is a tabloid. however, tabloids are designed to sell. they aim for mass appeal. what does it say about where north american society is at in terms of creating space for gender variance that this is the kind of popular talk around shiloh? why does it even seem appropriate for 'us' to invade this young kid's life and make wildly unfounded conclusions about the potential harm of letting kids explore gender? if anything, i think this article demonstrates that gender is not losing its significance as a category in mainstream north american society. we use gender to understand other people. if we can't immediately identify their gender, that is a problem. how do we know if we can be sexually attracted to them without being gay, for instance? the horror! if we can't identify someone's gender, that is a problem with them (or their parents, as with shiloh), and it should be remedied immediately. that way we can go on our merry way, content in where we stand in this genderist society.

but maybe ask some of us who have worked to understand our gender and the ways that it just cannot fit into the so beloved binaries about what a difference the intentional, active creation of space for gender exploration would have made. i can't speak for everyone and would never try to, so i'll just say that for this genderqueer, it would have been a world of a difference to have had that space. maybe i should have been indulged. maybe it shouldn't have just been about being a tomboy or a girly-girl, which is just another false binary that obscures lived experience. maybe meeting kids where they're at and validating their experience is the key to turning gender identity 'problems' into just gender identities.

I'm coming out...as a grinch.

i feel like the grinch. it's not christmas, but that's not the type of grinch i feel like. i think i'm the 'gay equality campaign' grinch. what is the target of my grinchiness? well,  there's a new song and accompanying video that is being held up as the next anthem of the gay movement. in case this video hasn't shown up in your internet world yet, here it is

heralded as equality's new anthem, 'same love' is a hip hop song about how okay it is to be gay. the video focuses on an interracial, wealthy gay male couple during their journey to marriage and beyond. the song is being used as part of the referendum 74 campaign in washington to support gay marriage.

there is a lot to this song that is really positive. macklemore and lewis (responsible for the song) discuss stereotyping and some of the oppressions faced by queer people today. they also criticize the prevalence of 'that's gay' in hip hop music. i'm going to go out on a limb and say the issue of prejudice isn't widely covered in music, so good on them! how wonderful to have people singing along to lyrics that promote positive associations with marginalized identities!

i said i feel like a grinch, so clearly it's not all sunshine and rainbows for me. the first time i listened to this i was just getting into the song when the chorus (sung by mary lambert) started up. here are the lyrics to the chorus: and i can't change, even if i tried, even if i wanted to...

wait, why am i trying to change? why do i want to? there is nothing about being queer that makes me want to lift a finger toward heterosexuality. i do not mean to discount the obstacles faced daily by queer folks (including myself). however, let's be clear about the cause of these difficulties. queerness is not inherently problematic or inherently a struggle. it is society's reaction to queerness that results in barriers and challenges. the wording that a queer person can't change even if they tried or even if they wanted to  suggests that there are reasons to change. there is a strong discourse around the idea that queer people are born queer, so we can't change and you have to tolerate us because there is nothing we can do about it! i do not see this as helpful language. folded into that argument is the suggestion that if queer people could try really hard to change their ways, they not only should but that they would want to. regardless of whether or not people do choose to be queer (which is a blog post for another day), the language in this chorus insinuates that there are reasons why queer people would try or want to not be queer. i don't see that an affirmation of my identity.

i also have an issue with the underlying theme of the song, which is that it's all the same love. gay, straight, queer, bi - everyone loves the same, so what's the difference? an interesting discussion around this topic surfaced during the gay marriage debate in iowa. a strapping american eagle scout raised by two moms stood up in the state senate to proclaim that there was absolutely nothing different about being raised by two women in a queer household. in response, a young queer woman wrote that she was also raised by two moms and she felt that growing up in a queer household was a different experience than being raised within a heterosexual one. unfortunately, i can't find the article, but i'm going to keep looking and then i'll post it. the point, however, is not whether zach wahls or this young woman is right. the point is why is the 'gay equality' movement so invested in presenting queerness as the same? this framing raises similar questions as the chorus: do i want to be the same? why do i want to be the same? i don't.

fluidity and variation are two of the beautiful elements of queerness. proclamations of sameness and attempts to 'market' queerness as 'just like everybody else' actually work to erase some of the distinguishing, liberating, and empowering aspects of queerness itself. many queer people fight not be reduced to boxes. so why is the movement so interested in fitting entire identities into pre-established boxes?

i guess for me, it's not important that everyone loves the same. every time i've fallen in love, it's felt different, so i suppose i'm a bit skeptical that everyone does in fact love the same. again, not the point. really, i think the argument that everyone loves the same is weak. the point is that no one should be in position to tell others how, whom, how many, when, why (etc) to love. who has the right to make those decisions for others? i don't trust anyone to make decisions about love for me. i barely trust myself. we don't all love the same, and that's a beautiful thing because we can learn from each other, grow in our ideas about love, and change.

i've had this post in my mind for a while now, but i was feeling hesitant to really come into my grinch identity. however, as the internet community gets so excited about this wonderfully produced anthem, i can't fight it anymore. i take issue with these messages. they do not represent me. i think it's important to make that known, and if that makes me a grinch, well, i can't change, even i tried...even if i wanted to.

Only super hot women get the blues.

there's probably no reason why life needs to take its toll on my blog updating, but i guess that is what has happened. it's been a while. life certainly got in the way. i guess i just needed something particularly provocative to pull me out of myself and push me back into the blogosphere. well, i found it.

on september 21st jezebel ran an article [http://jezebel.com/5945355/super-hot-women-more-likely-to-have-super-painful-endometriosis] with the headline: super hot women more likely to have super painful endometriosis. i went right to it for a couple of reasons. first, i have endometriosis, so i'm particularly interested in 'research' on it. mostly though, that's a fairly bogus proposition for any study. it sounded more like something i would read in the onion. after checking to make sure i was accidently reading the onion, i checked out the article.

the blogger covering the story mixed the report with a healthy balance of incredulity, sarcasm, and the facts of the case. basically, some italian doctors got 300 women (a shockingly small number of participants for a study like this) together according to three groups. 1) 100 who identified as having retrovaginal endometriosis (this is a really bad type); 2) 200 who identified as having regular endometriosis; and 3) 100 who didn't have it. this next part is amazing and really makes me wonder what they wrote down on their ethics application. after getting these 300 women together, the doctors measured their bmi, breast size, and waist-to-hip ratio. yes, you read that correctly. in fact, go back and re-read it. then, just to make sure there weren't too many biases impacting the data, they had two doctors who didn't know the endometriosis status of the women rate their physical attractiveness on a scale of 1-5. but wait, there's more! wary of making false claims, the doctors added a questionnaire component to the study. they asked about sexual history. why? obviously because women who have sex before age 18 are hotter than women who don't. duh.

through this finely crafted study, the doctors found that women with retrovaginal endometriosis were more likely to have small bmi's and big breasts and were more likely to have intercourse before age 18. the doctors thought it might have something to do with estrogen, but only because high levels of estrogen have already been linked with endometriosis.

this study is terrifying. besides the fact that it is very poorly done, it is based on highly subjective ideas about what it means to be attractive. you know what, that's not even my biggest problem with this blatantly offensive research. as someone who deals with endometriosis, i have been consistently frustrated by the lack of substantive research in this area. researchers consistently understudy health issues associated with female bodies. it is both not surprising and immensely depressing to see that when a study in this topic was funded and completed, that study was so entirely bogus, so entirely offensive, and so entirely pointless. how in the world would it help anyone with endometriosis to know the likelihood that they would have lower bmi's and bigger breasts? this study provides absolutely nothing for people who are actually experiencing pain.

The stop and frisk policy is racist.

i made the mistake of reading the comments section at the end of an article in the new york times online. the article was posted today under the headline: majority in city see police as favoring whites, poll finds.

unsurprisingly (to anyone who regularly reads the new york times), this article was a disappointment. the poll had a large margin of error, and i'm dubious of the research tactics. however, the article itself is the real letdown. there is very little 'new' in this 'news' story. in two pages, the journalist takes readers through very tired conversations and arguments: the stop and frisk policy isn't perfect but something must be done, at least new york is dealing better with crime than detroit, and, the kicker, white people commit less crime. this last argument is the one that lingers. this last argument is the one the article is really about.

the article points to the glaring racial divide in opinions about the stop and frisk policy. with less emphasis, it also notes the glaring racial divide in how the stop and frisk policy is implemented. underlying this divide is the false belief that white people just commit less crime. fueled by this inaccuracy, white people across the nation, but specifically in new york for our purposes, contend that people of color should be stopped and frisked more frequently. it's about proportions, really.

of course, this argument is based on false ideas of criminality and an overwhelming lack of attention to institutional racism. do these white people really believe that people of color are that much more likely to commit crimes? because they're, what - bad people at heart? or is it possible that people of color are dealing with a different system than white people? and that 'white people crime' doesn't seem to register with society, like corporate crime? i mean, what is more likely - people of color are inherently more prone to commit crime than white people or there is something going on an institutional level?

the racist arguments which are hinted at but not fully explored by the article are delved into more fully (and bluntly) in the comments section, where suddenly everyone has a statistic about the crime rates of young black men. i wasn't surprised by what i read, but honestly, how depressing is it that i'm not surprised by rampant racism?

What's in a name?

Quotable phrases from English literature aside, I would venture to say a whole lot.

Names are tricky. People name us when we're born (usually before), and we rarely have a say in the matter. Some people are named from books, as statements, as homages. Some people, like my sister, are named for family members. Her name carries with it the legacy of our families escape from Eastern Europe and memories of a grandmother we never met. I suppose the hope is that we will grow into our names, like I grew into the incredibly large ears I had as a baby.

For some this works; for others, this system presents a problem. What if your name just doesn't feel right? What if it doesn't reflect who you think you are or who you want to be? Names are salient aspects of our identities. Every time we introduce ourselves to another person, we exchange names. Identities become attached to our names.

Over the past few years, I have been working on understanding my gender identity. It's a complicated process. It's also a process that makes me feel more whole. Integral to this process is finding a comfortable balance between the external presentation/others' perception of my gender and the way I feel about my gender. Since my name is a very obvious, external identity marker, I've ended up thinking on and struggling with it a lot.

Now, I have a very feminine name. At times I'm hesitant to introduce myself with it. My name gets pulled from me because it's my name and people always want to know your name. It doesn't fit me, though, and people tend to notice that. That's why I tend to acquire nicknames that are either androgynous or masculine. As my housemates in Vancouver turned into friends, they told me they weren't really going to call me Larissa anymore. They had come up with a better name. They were right.

My new name just felt better. I felt confident introducing myself. Finally, my name felt more like it belonged to me than the name I had been lugging around for 26 years. It was exciting and empowering to impact my identity in this way.

Initially I only used this new name in my social life and not in my academic one. I introduced myself as 'Lars' to new people but remained 'Larissa' in school. It did not take long for this duality to start feeling uncomfortable and for members of both worlds to start overlapping in complicated ways. There are many people in Vancouver who have only ever known me as Lars and don't even recognize the name 'Larissa' as being associated with me. It's exciting to take control of how I present myself and create this shift; however, it's also a bit overwhelming.

When I used to think about changing my name, what stopped me was always my fear of permanency (a constant fear that I have regarding almost everything save for, very surprisingly, tattoos). I am afraid of 1) ultimately changing my mind about the name I choose 2) the way other people (mostly people from my past) will react and 3) what kind of statement it is regarding my gender identity. Changing my name has always felt so decisive, and, to me, gender is anything but decisive.

Using both names has made salient how detached I feel from 'Larissa'. Though I had struggled with my name for years and never actually felt like it suited me, it wasn't until I had the workable option of another one at my disposal that I could understand what it felt like to be comfortable with my name. There were a few key people in my life who picked up on the ways in which 'Larissa' was not working for me and who helped me gain the confidence to finally take another name. I guess I'd just like to thank them.

Just like a little boy

when i was a little kid, my mother took me shopping in the boy's department. we both thought the clothes just fit me better. now that i'm 26, i'm back shopping in the boy's department because, again, the clothes just fit me better.

recently my housemate and i were at a thrift shop looking for softball-appropriate clothes when we stumbled down into the boy's section. it was like making a miraculous discovery! in one place there were rows of clothes that i feel comfortable in and want to wear...and they were all in my size! well, to be fair, many of them were far to small. however, plenty looked as if they had been made for me.

i disdain shopping for clothes. mostly, i loathe clothes shopping because it is nearly impossible for me to find clothes. women's departments overwhelmingly stock feminine styles, cuts, and prints. if you're not into or don't feel comfortable in flowers or tops that accentuate your breasts, the women's section is the wrong section for you. since i'm small, i can't shop in the men's department. i look like a child trying on their dad's clothes in even the smallest men's clothes. it's sad. i have a really hard time finding clothes and often end up wearing a lot of things that don't fit me well because it's just too difficult (or too expensive) to do anything else.

enter the boy's department! despite the fact that i feel a bit like a creep sifting through clothes meant for small boys alongside mostly mothers who give me suspicious eyes, i have no qualms about shopping in the boy's section. of course, i doubt i will ever find a pair of pants or shorts there - boys have no hips.

even though shopping in the boy's section provides a nice solution for my clothes issue, i think it would be far nicer if there were (affordable) places for folks with non-conforming genders to shop and not feel judged or like their bodies are wrong. face it, when there are no clothes for your presentation or your body, it feels like you don't exist. this issue has been getting a little bit of attention from the fat positivity movement of late - if stores are not stocking clothes big enough for actual people, then the stores are essentially disregarding these people's existence. well, bodies exceed the fashion industry's standard expectations and bodies present in all sorts of limitless ways. wouldn't it be great if all the people unsatisfied with the dominant standards imposed by the fashion industry opted out of participating at all? wouldn't it be great if there were alternatives? maybe some of the folks left out by this system will create some other choices and we could all support those instead!

Tear up your gaydar quiz

i started reading the blog effing dykes when i was living in seattle. it was all the rage among my friends. over the past couple years, effing dykes has received a lot of attention and krista, its author, even more. the blog, which professes to assist struggling gays with their gaydar, has always irked me, but i keep reading it much in the same way i watched the entire six seasons of the L Word (more than once). sometimes it feels like there are just so few options in queer media that many of us settle for remarkably subpar products just to feel included.

typically i read the new effing dyke's post and grumble a bit about it, then i move on. not this time though. this time i'm grumbling onto the internet. partially because second term has ended and i've re-committed myself to blogging regularly. partially because i think i've finally realized this may be what the internet is about.

this past week krista posted one of her 'gaydar quizzes'. these are the crux of effing dykes. she set up the scenario of a gay woman (who is not high femme) going shopping. readers are supposed to select which items this fictional character would pick out, given our knowledge of her as a 'lesbian'. we know nothing else about her.

okay, before even diving into how this is really just an exercise in reinforcing tired stereotypes, i want to address the problem of language in this blog. krista alternates somewhat haphazardly among queer, dyke, gay, lesbian, and a litany of slang for these populations. however, who is she actually talking about and to? is she talking about cisgendered women who fuck other cisgendered women? that's a distinct population and, importantly, distinct from queer folks who approach gender and sexuality with more fluidity. these are not words that can just be interchanged without intention. (i will use her words in this post, but in quotes)

moving right along! the outcome of the gaydar quiz is a grand theory about a universal truth of 'lesbian' fashion: simplicity and functionality. according to krista, these are two of the cornerstones of 'lesbian' style. she discovers this by observing the 'gay' population and asking "why did i think they looked gay? what did that even mean?" these are good and important questions to ask, i think. in earlier posts i've written about why i believe it's important to be able to recognize community. how and why you know someone else is queer is an interesting, complicated, and potentially problematic endeavor. krista goes in a different direction, however. from these questions, she develops her theory by noting overwhelming similarities in style. now i would say another question would be: what is the point of fashion?

clearly that's a huge question that cannot be answered by me. still, i think it's important to examine fashion a bit. fashion and style have many uses and are employed differently by different people, certainly. however, one point is presenting an image of yourself to society so you can be read the way you want to be. we learn by observing those around us and by living in a media saturated society how to dress ourselves into these images. if you wanted to become a punk, how hard would it really be for you to think of the types of outfits and accessories you would need to at least craft a passing image for that community?

we rely on stereotypes constantly, especially when deducing information about someone based on their appearance. effing dykes reinforces these stereotypes constantly. why are all of these 'women' so recognizable as 'gay'? maybe because they are intentionally presenting themselves as such. they know what to wear in order to fit in to the queer community because the messages are all around, including in krista's blog posts. have you ever gone out at night and realized that everyone seems to be wearing a variation on the same theme? this is not a coincidence.

the problem is these are stereotypes. they are not universally true at all. who do they leave out? in what ways do they streamline what it looks like to be queer? krista points out that no one sees her as 'gay' at first because she is a femme. since she does not don the uniform she so heavily reinforces as the 'gay look' in her blog, no one knows she is 'gay'. the more heavily we perpetuate these tired ideas of 'what it means to be gay' or 'what gay looks like' the more people we exclude.

though she ends the post with a statement from "we, as a people", she has to insert a small print caveat "cept for femmes". this qualifier is significant. the queer community is not homogenous by far and any sweeping claim is probably falling short on many accounts. however, it's a fairly weak universal theory if within it there has to be a small print exception made for a huge portion of the community. maybe it's just not necessary to try to find clever generalizations for a community that prides itself on difference. we don't have to all dress the same, fuck the same, smirk the same to be queer. we're queer, that's enough.

Who has the time for that?

i remember when i used to blog. when i used to want to blog. when i used to feel like i had time to blog. those were nice days.

lately, i've been thinking a lot about time, and not just because i wish i had more of it but because of its uncanny ability to impact everything. i've been trying to be aware of the fact that how i think about time influences the way i experience time.

a few weeks ago a friend told me that they measure time by seasons. she has trouble attaching years to events. this conversation made me interrogate how i perceive time. i have a very visual memory, and when i think back, i don't remember years or seasons. i remember my environment. sure, from places i can figure out the year, but time for me builds from statements like 'that was when i was living in (fill in the blank)'.

i've started writing this post a fair few times. it's gone in several different directions. apparently, i have a lot that i want to say about time. i doubt my interest in time is, er, fleeting, so instead of articulating thoughts that are still rather rough, i think it'd be more interesting to hear from anyone who happens to be reading this:

when you stop to think about it - how do you measure time? what are your markers for time?

The privilege behind the 's' word

Hey folks! A few people asked me about a tangential comment I made in my last post regarding white privilege and the book The Ethical Slut. I thought it would make sense to address that in a little post.

Language is rarely, if ever, neutral. Words come to have meaning through historical and cultural legacies. A word that invokes a strong negative reaction in North America might not mean anything particularly provocative in another country. Words are largely context-dependent.

The word slut has a long history in the United States - a product of chattel slavery and white mens' concerns over black female 'promiscuity'. Instead of delving further into this history and the implications for black women myself, I'm going to direct everyone to an article written by the Black Women's Blueprint. They are an intersectional activist group based in Brooklyn, NY. They say it all. I encourage everyone to read it. And thanks to my friend Apu for sharing the link!

http://www.blackwomensblueprint.org/2011/09/23/an-open-letter-from-black-women-to-the-slutwalk/

The myth of monogamy

My first term has ended, and I've been meandering about the Northwest ever since. One night in Seattle, my partner and I were feeling a bit under the weather. We made a delicious pot of soup, and settled in for the evening. We discovered a movie on Netflix that we had both watched and enjoyed in high school - Never Been Kissed.

In Never Been Kissed , '25 year old' Drew Barrymore finds true, everlasting, heterosexual love. Prior to her fantastical discovery, she has never kissed anyone, been in love, or had a relationship. Yet she has no doubts that she is totally emotionally and sexually prepared to enter into a relationship that will be forever (with a man she has misled and betrayed!). Why does she think this? Because it's her destiny!

From the very beginning of the movie, Barrymore's character lectures the audience on the process of true love. First, you share a kiss similar to a fireworks display. Second, you get married and live happily ever after.

Now, it doesn't really matter if you haven't seen this movie. It could have been any movie. The specifics of the plots may differ, but the message remains constant. Growing up in North America, it's difficult to wonder at what the 'appropriate' path for development is. However, if one were to have doubts, they could just have a little movie night.

The relationships portrayed in these movies are not just overwhelmingly white and heterosexual, they are monogamous. They are unquestionably monogamous. Barrymore's character believes that she will share her life with the first person she kisses. In fact, she saves her first kiss for this person. The audience is supposed to support this idea. Further, we are supposed to cheer when the 'happy' couple share their much-anticipated kiss.

Realistically, it is far more likely that their partnership will not work out than that they will triumph in heterosexual monogamous bliss. Divorce rates alone would suggest this; however, what about something way more basic? Monogamy is not simply natural for people. Monogamy must be worked at. It is something that we as North Americans learn to view as natural. And talk about a construction that is heavily promoted! The promotion of monogamy basically engulfs us from birth. Never Been Kissed is one measly example of a movie that reinforces the myth of monogamy.

I wrote this (in a little notebook) while on a plane to Austin, TX. My partner sat next to me, reading the Ethical Slut, a practical guide to polyamory (a book that should have seriously rethought the white privilege of their title), and the man across the aisle kept eyeing us and the book. It is not a coincidence that non-monogamous relationships are more common in the queer community. As queers, we have already failed to fit the bill. We will never be able to live up to society's standard for appropriate, hegemonic relationships. This failure opens up a lot of possibilities. One of them is polyamory. Of course, this isn't just about queerness. This is about all types of relationships that are non-normative: ones that cross racial lines, span age differences, cross religions and cultures. Any failure to fit the mold creates new spaces for exploration. Let's fail in style.

Point of clarification: I do not mean to suggest that people cannot choose to be in monogamous relationships. But that's what they are doing - choosing. Monogamous relationships are not the natural form of relating to each other as in they are social constructions - just like so much of our worlds. They should not be privileged over other types of relationships. People should be able to choose whatever types of relationships fulfill them; no relationship model is inherently more 'natural' than any other in this way.

The assumption game

Welcome back. Today we're going to play a game inspired by my latest trip to the gynecologist. It's called 'find all the assumptions'! It's pretty self-explanatory. I'm going to recount the major verbal interaction in the visit, and we're all going to see how many assumptions we can find 'buried' within the conversation. Ready? Okay, let's play!

Today I went to the gynecologist. After a (very) brief chat about why I was there, the doctor dug into some important basic, background questions. We were discussing sexual activity and partners, when she asked/stated: you're heterosexual, yeah?

L: No, I'm not.

Dr: Oh, then who are your sexual partners?

L: I sleep with women.

At this point, the doctor is getting ready to do a pelvic exam. She asks me if I have ever had sex with a man. This seems entirely irrelevant to my visit and, well, my life, but I responded in the affirmative.

She was relieved! The fact that I had slept with a man meant that she would be able to perform a pelvic exam on me. This seemed like strange logic to me. Luckily, she explained.

L: You know, you could use a speculum even if I had only been with females.

Dr: Many lesbians (her term) can't have a speculum inside.

L: I find that hard to believe. You know females who have sex with females also have penetration, right?

Dr: Some do. Many don't.

Our conversation went on, but that was real gist of the interaction. Let's discuss, shall we?

First, clearly, is the assumption of heterosexuality. Not only did the doctor assume that I was heterosexual, but the way she asked the question implied that it would be offensive to suggest otherwise. I present as queer. There are many reasons for this. One of the reasons is that I want to be read as queer. I am certainly not offended when someone assumes I'm queer. In North American society, you are assumed straight until proven queer. From her question, tone, and inflection, it's clear that my doctor really wanted to give me the benefit of the doubt and the 'chance' to be straight.

While not an assumption, I'm going to go ahead and say her question about my experience with men is inappropriate and, again, offensive. But oh, did it get better! Assumption: queer women can't fuck each other. This is, obviously, false. Unfortunately, my (ex)doctor still labors under the misapprehension that sex is a penis-in-the-vagina game. That's too bad for her. It's also too bad for every one of her queer patients. There are many issues with power dynamics involved in doctor-patient relationships. These can be exacerbated in a gynecological setting because of the vulnerability of the set-up. When a doctor systematically disregards or pathologizes your identity, it doesn't exactly neutralize those concerns.

Moreover, not only is it entirely offensive to suggest that I would not be able to receive a pelvic exam because I don't sleep with men, but it's also just bad medicine. I'm a 25 year old, sexually active female. You are a gynecologist. You need to find a way to give me an exam. That is your job.

I spoke to a pretty rad medical student recently. She told me about the training on GLBTQ issues they were receiving at her school. It makes me hopeful that ultimately there will be some shift in language and care. However, the basic assumptions my doctor made (of heterosexuality and that queer women don't have 'real' sex) are not just part of the medical community. Those assumptions exist everywhere. They are constantly reinforced.

Where do you see them in your life? How do they affect you?

Performing heterosexiness on the main stage

The interwebs are pulsing: Jenelle Hutcherson is Long Beach's first openly gay pageant contestant!

Beauty pageants have a lot of notoriety, famous in feminist discourse for reifying a very strict standard of femininity. What then does it mean when a lesbian enters a beauty pageant?

I think this question is interesting because it cuts at the core of what femininity really is and who is able to achieve/possess it. Already the discourse around Hutcherson's participation in the pageant affirms the heterosexual core of femininity.

I have already read two different versions of the statement with which I started this post. One depicts Hutcherson as simply the first openly gay pageant contestant. The other, however, posits her as the first openly gay pageant contestant to wear a tux, insinuating that there have been other openly gay contestants but they did not perform gender deviance as Hutcherson plans to by presenting in the formalwear associated with the male gender.

This distinction necessitates the question: What is the difference between the participation of a lesbian (I'm using the words Hutcherson uses to label herself) who performs normative gender and the participation of a lesbian who does not?

Femininity is a hegemonic category. Basically, femininity is seen as a given category. Femininity is seen as natural, not constructed. The naturalness of femininity makes all the ways in which it is constructed invisible. It also makes invisible the assumption that there is an understood natural category of the ideal feminine. Hegemonic femininity is inextricably linked with white heterosexuality. It is not possible to be appropriately feminine without being a white heterosexual. 'Real' femininity is constructed in relation to men within the context of heterosexuality.

A critical analysis of the behaviors and actions that a female must engage in to construct femininity further emphasizes this point. Many of the behaviors are centered around sexual desirability. But sexual desirability for whom? The intended, implied, or assumed audience is not queer. It's white heterosexual men. The aim is to be heterosexy.

Okay, let's apply this lens back to Hutcherson. Hutcherson is always already marked as not a real woman because she does not engage in heterosexuality. Further, however, she presents a non-normative gender. She cannot 'pass' as heterosexual because of her gender identity. In North American society there is a strong association between gender identity and sexual identity. It is not always accurate, far from it. It is a product of the heteronormativity of society. If heterosexuality is the norm, then females will behave in order to be sexually desirable to males. Intentionally bunking socially accepted and expected norms around gender presentation implies that a person is not interested in taking part in heterosexuality.

Of course, that may or may not be accurate. What is important is that such behavior is read that way. A person who presents a non-normative gender is coded as queer.

So, Hutcherson, with her non-normative gender presentation, would not be able to 'pass' as heterosexual in the competition. Would she want to? Probably not. She seems pretty loud and proud about her position in the gay community. She is running specifically as an other in the pageant. However, as an other, she doesn't really have an option. Her status as a contestant will always be qualified by lesbian.

And what do people think about her entrance into an event that preserves, embraces, and defines femininity?

Well, it really hasn't been that long since she announced her participation. However, she is not just any other contestant. Clearly. She is the gay contestant. Hey, did you know Hutcherson is gay? That means she is not like all the other contestants. Hutcherson cannot compete in the same way as the other contestants because, well, you know. She's gay.

All comments that I have read so far, whether positive or negative, affirm this otherness.

I want to highlight a few themes I have noticed so far in the comments: appearance.

Oh, did I say few? I meant ONE. Yes, about that. The main theme, not surprisingly, is about Hutcherson's appearance. She is "ugly", "butch", and "gross". People wonder why she won't just find a lesbian contest she could enter - I mean, you don't find straight women trying to enter lesbian contests so clearly lesbians shouldn't try to enter straight contests. Fair is fair, mos.

I won't go through all the comments (I know this post is getting long), but I want to check out one in particular: "I don't care that she is a lesbian but she is really ugly!"

I think this comment nicely sums up some of the points that I was trying to get at in this post. Hutcherson is an attractive person. Really though, Hutcherson is an attractive lesbian. She is certainly not heterosexy. So, in terms of that comment, it does matter that she is a lesbian because that is constructing the frame through which the speaker is defining beauty. The speaker is referring to heterosexual attractiveness, or hegemonic beauty. That is why Hutcherson, who does not perform normative gender or sexuality, is not viewed as possessing it or able to achieve it.

I'm interested to see how the discourse around her participation will develop.

What if this is how it worked

Okay, full disclaimer: this is not a well thought out plan. This plan was hatched by my housemate and me during an evolving rant in our kitchen this past Saturday night. It is not a 'real' idea. It is mostly for fun that I share it.

This past week I read the latest (and most conservative) estimate on the current gender gap in wages. This estimate put women earning an average of 86 cents on the man's dollar.

My housemate and I were discussing equity in rent/utility bills. You can probably see where this is going now. If 'women' (I am using quotes because what is this monolithic 'women' category?) make an average of 86 cents to the dollar, is it really equitable to charge them the same amount as 'men'? Further breakdowns along race, gender identity, sexual identity, class, education level, and so on would clearly be necessary to approach that ever fleeting equity.

Think about it though. If you take two people who have the same job and account for education, professional experience, all the necessary qualifications, part-time status, children in the household, and race - the woman in the dyad will still make 86 cents on that man's dollar. So, in that case, when that fictional woman goes to buy groceries, shouldn't she be able to pay 86 cents to the dollar? Why should she pay the same amount for amenities etc when she is underpaid her wage?

Just wait for it

Last weekend a gay teenager in Ottawa committed suicide. In his suicide note, he referenced the 'It Gets Better' campaign, saying that he just couldn't wait.

I think his comment points to one of the biggest failures of the 'It Gets Better' campaign. Its central message is:

Hey, we know high school is tough - we've been there! But hold on because after you graduate life is going to get a whole lot better. Look, you could have partners and cool jobs and live around other queers. Just wait out that difficult high school period and it will get better!

Certainly, the notion that life gets better after high school, especially for those who are bullied, is an important part of the message. However, especially for those who are bullied, that cannot be the whole message.

Focusing on the idea of 'it gets better' is neglecting the very concrete concerns of the present. Right now there are queer teenagers who are dealing with real hatred, hostility, and violence. Why should they wait for it to get better? They've done nothing wrong. They need it better now. We need to make it better now.

Moreover, when a whole litany of successful queer people say 'yeah, high school was hard for me too, but look at me now!' it unintentionally sends the message that if they can do it, you should be able to do it. No one's high school experience is the same. No one experiences bullying the same way. No queer teenager who is dealing with bullying needs to worry, what's wrong with me? All those queer adults were able to handle it, why can't I? That is an unproductive discourse for a struggling teenager.

The 'It Gets Better' campaign may have been a good way to start having a national conversation about bullying, but the campaign itself is neglecting core issues in favor of having teenagers 'wait it out'. Where does bullying come from? This is about gender, sexism, sexuality, racism, classism. This is about hatred and violence. Real change needs to happen now to address how kids learn about difference. No one should have to wait for there to be less violence in their life.

Check out this video from a group in Seattle called Reteaching Gender and Sexuality. They posted this in response to the 'It Gets Better' campaign when it first started.

And now for something a bit different

I haven't posted in a bit. Apparently grad school requires a bit of work. Also I've had several visitors up here in Canada. This is just a tiny post on a topic that I end up thinking about pretty much daily - bicycling!

I'm a bicycle commuter. I love my bike ride! It's about 16 km to campus. The ride gives me time to unwind, debrief, make little plans in my head, and just think to myself about whatever I want! I really covet that time. It helps me feel balanced.

Vancouver has a pretty developed infrastructure for cyclists - bike lanes, greenways, traffic light buttons specially located for cyclists. They seem to know what they're doing. I take greenways for the majority of my ride to campus. These are non-arterial streets that have been designated as routes for cyclists instead of the busier streets they parallel. They are heavily trafficked by cyclists. I have mixed feelings about them.

On the one hand, it feels safer, and probably is, to travel in large packs of cyclists. Safety in numbers? I like biking with other cyclists. I like the camaraderie. I like when cyclists take over the road and cars just have to wait.

Here's the flip side. These streets are low-car-traffic areas. When drivers use them, they are not expecting to run into other cars. They should be expecting to see cyclists, but, hey, cyclist-awareness is not at the level it could/should be yet. When drivers are not concerned with the possibility of other drivers, they drive differently. Here are the three biggest issues I have observed so far:

Often drivers do the 'rolling stop', briefly looking side to side for cars as they roll part way into the intersection - a notoriously dangerous move for cyclists.

Drivers will approach the small roundabouts, which serve as intersections for many streets, really fast - again, not expecting other drivers so not worried about slowing.

Drivers really want to pass cyclists because they are using this route to bypass the traffic on the busier, arterial street. They pull up real close behind and pass dangerously, driving way too quickly for a small side street that is heavily traveled by cyclists.

I guess what it ultimately comes down to is that it is not enough to create these paths through the city, although they are a nice start. Real safety for cyclists is in awareness. Greenways would work really well if drivers who used those roads only used them for local traffic and then with the extra caution necessary, highly aware that those roads are predominantly utilized by cyclists. Drivers need to care half as much about a cyclist's life as they about getting where they are going as fast as possible. They need to take the extra time to look twice or three times for a cyclist.

Safety is not just the responsibility of a the cyclist. It cannot be.

Do you bike? How is it where you live? Any great ideas?

I didn't realize you were in Sociology

Last night I was joking around with my housemates about this recurring situation, but it's something that I've been thinking about, and I think it's worth sharing.

Many of us in the Sociology department have just finished a 3 week TA training program. Since the Women and Gender Studies Department is fairly small, their students came to our training. A few facts must be stated at the onset: I met many graduate students for the first time at the TA training; my only interaction with many of the grad students was at the TA training; the Sociology graduate population is mostly female and fairly straight.

I've been starting to get my footing more and more at school. I'm on top of my work, I'm understanding what I'm learning, and I'm engaged. I'm beginning to feel like a grad student in Sociology. At the last few training sessions, I was having conversations with other soci students. During these conversations, I figured out that everyone thought I was a Women and Gender Studies student. This is despite introducing myself as a Sociology student. Hm.

In total I was asked 3 times last week if I was in Women and Gender Studies. That's 3 people out of about twenty (including around seven who are in my cohort and know for certain what department I am in and thus would certainly not ask). Well, that's just plain interesting. The trainings were predominantly Sociology students, so it was usually a safer bet to assume someone was in soci. I always said I was in soci. Why, then, would someone think I was in Women and Gender Studies?

Of course, everyone I tell this too immediately knows. Look at me, I just look like the type of person who would study gender. And I do study gender. I study it through the Sociology department, but I study gender and sexuality and feminism and all that super gay stuff.

I think this is super interesting because people see me, take in my identity, and then immediately create ideas about what I must be interested in and concerned with. Now, I happen to study gender; however, there are many queermos out there who do not and that's totally great. Just because someone cannot walk down the street without everyone noticing the salience of their gender identity or their sexuality, does not mean that those concepts have to make up the primary focus of their lives.

I mean, what would be the comparable response in a given situation - when a heterosexual, white woman is surprised to learn that I am not in the Women and Gender Studies program? Oh, you're in Sociology? I thought you were studying...what? What is the stereotypical subject for a straight, white woman to study? Maybe it is Sociology. Maybe that's why there are so many straight, white women and, if it's possible that I could have another affiliation, they assume it's so.

I'm not offended by an affiliation with Women and Gender Studies, clearly. I hail from a Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies background. I study gender. I am in the Sociology department to study gender and sexuality in a way that will provide me with more opportunities.

I do not, however, like being reduced to my identity in that way. Also, shout out to all queer and genderqueer folks out there doing non-gender work and breaking down those barriers.