Being a Nazi Vs. Punching a Nazi: Two Sides of the Same Coin

We’ve all been touted the ancient infallible wisdom that “two wrongs don’t make a right,” and that we should all love one another. This flawless ideology has never ceased to be relevant, and holds true even amidst the chaos of 2017 United States. Don’t believe me? These following points effortlessly highlight the undeniable similarities to both sides of the on-going human rights issue.

Who is hurt?

Nazis:  Nazi ideology hurts POC, queer people, women, and immigrants of all ages and political alignment. Not only are these the blatant outspoken targets of their movements, but these people will eventually be effected knowingly or otherwise should the mindset persist and seep into society.

Opponents:  Those audacious enough to forego polite society and physically brutalize Nazis have a tangible effect on whichever Nazi was attacked. And though Nazis are their primary victims, what’s stopping these people from also harassing rapists? You need to carefully refine who you are to fit into their elite “unpunchable” club.

How to stay safe

Nazis: To stay on the safe side, refrain from having a dark skin tone. If your name is foreign-sounding, try a legal name change to something like “William Bradshawshire,” “Kenneth Footballington,” or “Abigail Elizabeth Marie III.”  Ladies, don’t be a whore and be mindful of your husband’s reputation (if you don’t have a husband, what are you even doing with your life?). Men, be sure to never hug your “bros” or you’re probably gay. Oh yeah, and don’t be gay.

Opponents:  Don’t ostentatiously exist in any public place as a Nazi.


Nazis: I mean, historically there may have been lynchings, firing squads, concentration camps, discriminatory laws/revoking legal rights, rape, and arson involved, but in our civilized modern days the worst that every happens is some hurt feelings! Oh, and vehicular manslaughter, a few stabbings, maybe one or two LGBTQ centers burned down, getting a handful of queers fired, a molotov cocktail in a house or two, carjacking some trans woman, threats of lynchings (followed by physical assault resulting in a hospital stay), hitting a couple black children with a hatchet handle, vandalizing buildings in an effort to make it seem like liberals did it, acid thrown at a girl who dated a black person (also at her irrelevant 8-year old sibling), and a couple handfuls of shootings….but there’s NO WAY that it could ever escalate into anything more. Like, mostly hurt feelings. And what’s acid in the face if not hurt feelings, technically?*

Opponents: Aside from tragically assaulting people with different opinions (which could result in a hospital stay, but typically haven’t yet), some of these nefarious heathens once kicked down a mini-wall made by Trump supporters. But wait, it get’s worse. Take a deep breath, because you’ll need some time to mentally prepare for heinous action to soon be described. Ready? Historically….they engaged in WARFARE. Yep, that’s right. Did you know the truth about WWII? The liberal media has been trying to keep it from the public eye, but these anti-Nazi Grendelians mercilessly murdered MILLIONS of Nazis Different-Political-Opinions-People. And it was portrayed in the liberal media as heroic! I mean, sure, the stuff above is bad too, don’t get me wrong…but engaging in warfare? At least Nazis have never willingly formed any sort of armed militia, ever.

What to do if targeted by the other group

Nazis:  Carry a pack of bandages when rioting, just in case. Some ice and vitamin K might help with minor bruising if you’re lucky enough to become a ‘martyr’ by getting punched. But don’t worry about these pesky little assaults! The real valuable advice is to always bring earplugs, since your most common form of assault will be noisy protesters, sobbing by people you frighten, or possibly children screaming in fear and confusion.

Opponents: Go to your local police. No police officer has ever, ever shot a minority or praised the actions of Nazis, especially not within the past few days. N-no wait…..Well, you can always bring the incident to public attention. It’s definitely not common for news sources to victim blame or spend 90% of the time clarifying that Not All Conservatives™ are racist/queerphobic/islamophobic/xenophobic instead of actually addressing the racism/queerphobia/islamophobia/xenophobia. Well, actually….no. How about moving away? Your local area might be bad, but it’d be impossible for these Naziesque rallies to be currently planned in major cities across the United States! Never mind. Some cities might be facing some issues, but the rural parts of America have never had an issue with minorities, right? Okay, okay…..actually, just stop being a minority. Bam! Fool-proof idea right there. At least this way, you wont be tempted to become a horrible excuse of a human being and speak out, or much worse, defend (or be willing to, at least) yourself against the Nazis. That’d just be hypocritical and totally not the only objective idea of Peaceful™

Direct Consequences

Nazis: Okay. ignoring the direct consequences of the previously mentioned crimes, let’s say that this is merely Peaceful™ hate-fueled rioting. No crimes, just the torches and yelling. I mean, at the very worst (but don’t worry, it totally isn’t likely and hasn’t historically played out this way) we continually gain supporters (especially from people high ranking in society), encourage and support one another into positions of authority, and then twist laws and circumstances to our favor whilst getting away with more crime. There’s definitely no way that our words will appeal to a mass group of people who could do something about their feelings of innate superiority, right? There’s no way that we ourselves could merely reiterate the same bigoted ideology and it cause others to adopt and act on that ideology. Ideas throughout humanity have never rapidly spread, especially concerning social hierarchy and social justice. I can’t think of a single historical figure who himself was evil and appealed to the disparaged working class and made them evil by blaming all their issues on any given minority. This especially never happened in Germany circa 1933-1945. It’s just words, and words will never have a tangible outcome (especially when you use the powerful tool of cognitive dissonance to keep reminding yourself that you’re not ∼technically∼ responsible for your words possibly being influential….I mean, someone doesn’t go to jail for telling someone to kill their spouse for them, right? Only the one holding the gun! At least that’s how it should be).

Opponents:  Either a Nazi has minor bruising, maybe looses a tooth, maybe cries….But ‘worse’ case scenario? A child of an oppressed group might be reassured that he is safe, that people care about him. Minorities might feel emboldened, that they cannot be walked on, that they have as much autonomy as everyone else. Nazis might get the impression that they’re not wanted here, that blind hatred isn’t tolerated, that they have a much bigger battle than they thought they’d have. That they’re not willingly to risk their own safety to literally put someone else’s at stake.


“The first premise is that morality is abstracted from circumstance, meaning in this case that (direct) violence is always—under each and every circumstance—wrong, even when it might be necessary to stop even more violence, implying as well that one has no moral responsibility to halt monstrous acts that happen even on one’s own doorstep if stopping those acts would require muddying one’s spiritual hands…

….There is an idea, no, a wish cherished by many, that love implies pacifism. If we love we cannot ever consider violence, even to protect those we love. I’m not sure that mother grizzly bears would agree, nor mother moose (I’ve heard it said that the most dangerous creature in the forest, apart, of course, from civilized humans, is a moose when you’re between her and her child), nor many other mothers I’ve known. I’ve been attacked by mother horses, cows, mice, chickens, geese, eagles, hawks, and hummingbirds who thought I was threatening their children. I have known many human mothers who would kill anyone who was going to harm their little ones. If a mother mouse is willing to put her life on the line by attacking someone eight thousand times her size, how pathetic it is that we construct religious and spiritual philosophies that tell us that to attack even those who are killing those we most dearly love—or those we pretend we love—is to not love at all.

….I have a friend, a former prisoner, who is very smart, and who says that dogmatic pacifists are the most selfish people he knows, because they place their moral purity—or to be more precise, their self-conception of moral purity— above stopping injustice.” -Derrick Jensen


“Violence is like a very strong pill. For a certain illness, it may be very useful, but the side effects are enormous. On a practical level it’s very complicated, so it’s much safer to avoid acts of violence. There is a pertinent point in the Vinaya literature, which explains the disciplinary codes that monks and nuns must observe to retain the purity of their vows. Take the example of a monk or a nun confronting a situation where there are only two alternatives: either to take the life of another person, or to take one’s own life. Under such circumstances, taking one’s life is justified to avoid taking the life of another human being, which would entail transgressing one of the four cardinal vows…Of course, this assumes one accepts the theory of rebirth; otherwise this is very silly.” -The Dalai Lama


“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34, Jesus


“We are nonviolent with people who are nonviolent with us.”

“Concerning nonviolence, it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks.”

“I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those that do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the systems of exploitation.”

“If the white people realize what the alternative is (aggression), perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King (proponent of peace).”

-Malcolm X


*Instances I used for the modern example purposes are factual events, many of which occured all within the past few months.

“Okay, but has YOUR life changed at all?”

Eight months ago people kept dismissively repeating “It’s not going to affect YOU, so stop whining!”And this is probably the epitome of ignorance, this absurd assertion that the LEADER OF A NATION’s actions don’t have legitimate consequences for the CITIZENS.

Trump’s position of authority gives a false validity to a variety of problematic groups of people, regardless of what he necessarily has or hasn’t done.

Directly or indirectly, he is responsible for:
1. Furthering anti-vaxx sentiment by encouraging unnecessary caution and skepticism. Any parents already doubting modern medicine may take this as a “green light” to not give proper medical care to their children. Those children ARE affected. Any children not vaccinated because this movement is now growing ARE affected.

2. Furthering transphobia. Not only did Trump directly insist that trans people should no longer be permitted to serve in the U.S military, he propagates myths regarding trans members of the military by implying that they’re “too expensive” and a burden, unable to effectively serve the nation. And of course, the AHCA would’ve considered being trans a “pre-existing condition,” and removed many of the protections trans people had previously. And let’s not forget that he also revoked the ability of trans students to use the restroom of their choice, effectively endangering and invalidating trans youth.

Trans people in uniform ARE affected, as are trans people in general especially because this opens the door of people becoming more receptive of discrimination on the basis of flawed arguments like “manageability.”

3. Encouraging xenophobia and racism. Not only are many Trump supporters also incidentally ostentatiously racist, and not only has he been praised by the KKK, but….Trump himself has lied about personally witnessing hundreds of Arabs cheering in New York after 9/11 (an event that has no evidence and has been debunked by many actual eye-witnesses to the tragedy), he has insisted that Mexican immigrants are most likely to be dangerous criminals and rapists (despite no actual reasoning behind this idea, nor any statistics or evidence mentioned), and he now has the audacity to undermine the aggression and violence by alt-right white nationalists as a result of problems on “both sides,” as though being anti-racist is in anyway comparable to being an actual racist. He has refused to specify WHO is the bellicose group and WHY, and instead gives a half-assed “all hate is bad” Twitter address. Likewise, he refused to admit that the Portland stabbing incident was an act of terrorism, and even stayed silent about the situation for far longer than he has when addressing Muslim extremists. It has also been reported by CAIR that since he took office, anti-Muslim violence has increased exponentially. And though Trump has plenty of energy and aggression reserved for vehemently refuting allegations of racism, he doesn’t have the same passion when speaking out against racism itself.

So yeah, immigrants ARE affected, many poc ARE affected, and many Muslims ARE affected.

4. Reinforcing scientific illiteracy.  It’s no surprise that the majority of American citizens are less-than acquainted with the reality of science, due to the persistent belief that evolution is “just a theory,” and with how easily healing crystals and similar products sell. But Trump is certainly making no effort to get us out of this scientific regression, and has instead erroneously claimed (and then denying he made such a claim) that climate change is a “Chinese hoax” , as well as showing his fundamental lack of understanding of the concept by asserting large amounts of snowfall negate climate change. In addition to this, he has appointed Scott Pruitt the head of the EPA, someone who clearly lacks a basic understanding of the concept and has no interest in the actual facts behind it. Trump and his administration have merely continued the unnecessary reinforcement of climate change as a bipartisan issue, rather than a legitimate concern backed by research. He has also withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, and has no scruples against implying that a healthy economy is superior to a healthy planet or healthy people. Not surprising, since as previously mentioned, Trump clearly doubts the legitimacy of modern medicine as well. Keep in mind that Trump is a man who has been rather fond of Alex Jones, the avid conspiracy theorist who believes chemicals in tap water makes people/frogs gay and that random and obscure overpriced alternative medicine is the only REAL medicine.

Therefore, anyone in the field of (or pursuing) science IS affected. Frankly, anyone not content to live in the folie à plusieurs  that is becoming our general society IS affected. Those of us who value reality ARE affected.

5. Misogyny. From allegations of rape (including of a minor), to proudly asserting that he can do whatever he wants to whomever due to his status (like ‘grabbing them by the pussy’), to genuinely believing in the skewed “alpha male” idea of human pseudosociology, Trump has never been anything remotely close to “not sexist.” Far from just these things, he has also claimed women need to be treated like shit, he has belittled and insulted his own wife, he has reduced accomplished women to their appearance, he clings to the “housewife” notion and believes wives shouldn’t work, has implied attractive women cannot be intelligent, has literally had to promise then 17-year-old Ivanka that he wouldn’t date anyone younger than her, suggested there be a reality show wherein ‘trashy girls’ went to a school to learn to be more lady-like, told a lawyer she was “disgusting” for breastfeeding her infant, has made numerous incest jokes and implications about his daughter Ivanka, claimed rape is a result of cohabitation, has a (now) pro-life stance, and has an exceptionally long history of body-shaming and bullying various women. And of course, a president who manages to persist through all of these actions coming to light has shown that MORE of our citizens can get away with sexism as well. From the alt-right’s favorite ‘joke’ being that of the singularity of gender (“There is only one gender. Women are objects.”), to women proudly boasting “Yes, grab her by the pussy!” slogans. Needless to say, this is an incomplete list of Trump’s misogyny. Click here for more.

Therefore, it makes sense that many plus-sized women ARE affected, that many young school girls facing more harassment ARE affected, that any woman in need of an abortion IS affected, and that women in general ARE affected (hence the Women’s March in January boasting somewhere between 3-4 million attendees).

6. Tension between the U.S and North Korea. Not only has Trump threatened North Korea with phrases such as of our “fire and fury” and our military being “locked and loaded,” he has suggested that he might meet Kim Jong-un for a hamburger, and maybe even become best friends. Of course, he may be willing to befriend a tyrannical dictator and offer up Guam as North Korea’s target practice. Though Trump claims the media attention will bring tourism to Guam, and he doesn’t expect war with Kim Jong-un, understandably, many Americans are still very uneasy about the entire situation, though conversely, some ardent Trump-supporters are actively calling for the battle to break out.

So, our military IS affected, citizens of Guam ARE affected, and anyone who doesn’t want our nation caught up in the literal and financial tragedy of war IS affected.

7. Borderline infringement of the Bill of Rights. Trump is notorious for his “fake news” cop-out, considering anything that he disagrees with to be an automatically invalid source of information. He has gone from insulting and harassing journalists that criticize or question him (such as Arianna Huffington and Gail Collins), to having tweeted a poorly photo-shopped video of himself physically assaulting the entity of CNN. This, along with the White House’s ban of certain media from an informal press briefing, have all pointed toward an infringement of our Freedom of Press. While Trump may be aware that he cannot (yet) get away with outright attempting to criminalize the media he dislikes, he is well aware of his abilities with propaganda. Instead of technically outlawing all the news sources he disagrees with, he vehemently denies any credibility they may have and warns citizens not to trust them. This is reminiscent of Nazi book burnings, or of the alleged events of 213-210BC Qin Dynasty.

Those who value accurate details of global events ARE affected, those who value their Constitutional rights ARE affected. 

8. Putting our health at risk. As mentioned a few times above, Trump clearly isn’t a doctor, nor does he necessarily care about the health of his citizens. From questioning modern medicine, to befriending those who sell faux cures, to claiming autism is a result of vaccines, he clearly doesn’t know what he is doing. Aside from this, the American Health Care Act of 2017 was predicted to leave 23 million Americans uninsured, the “skinny repeal” an additional 16 million. His plans for health care have consistently left poor, disabled, and queer citizens in the dirt.

This is only a handful of grievances. This doesn’t address numerous of his lies, his colluding with Russians, or his everyday irrational Tweeting. This is only scraping the surface, and the fact that this alone isn’t enough for his supporters to think twice is incredibly alarming.

But overall, no one should be so callous as to ask if any given individual is actually adversely affected by Trump’s reign. The real question is, “How can’t you be affected?”

This asinine implication that just because every detail of one’s life hasn’t changed, they aren’t truly experiencing any result of Trump’s presidency needs to just fucking stop.

What about when the whole nation was emotionally devastated by 9/11, and we subsequently adopted stricter safety measures? Not all of us were tangibly affected (at first). But did it simply not matter?

And when the world started Praying For Paris, when you probably had that Facebook profile filter, were you not “actually” affected by those terrorist attacks? Your life went on, did it not? You weren’t fired, were you?

Is the oppression of PC culture somehow legitimate, but concern over our presidency not?

Are those who whine about Starbuck’s cup designs doing so because they are affected on a serious, personal, integral level?

Are you truly affected by homelessness? Starving children? Does knowing that some areas of the world lack access to clean drinking water “bother” you, but not like, enough?

Does it “count” as being “actually affected” anytime some old conservative man passionately protests and argues against abortion? I mean, he still probably goes to work, so….

The reality of the situation is that if you personally feel that you are not negatively affected by Trump in any possible way, ask yourself the following: a) Do I believe in privilege? b) Am I rich/cis/het/white/able/male?

If the answer to “a” was “no,” but the answer to “b” was “yes,” then congratulations! The very fact that YOU are not adversely affected is in and of itself is a privilege! If you’ve never understood it before, now you can.

But otherwise, not being aware of something doesn’t negate its existence. Even if you’re a member of an oppressed or marginalized community, living in denial won’t let you escape the consequences of our current president and his avid supporters. Caitlyn Jenner may be transgender, but that doesn’t change the fact that Trump did insist on banning trans people from the military. Tomi Lahren may be another conservative woman, but that doesn’t change the fact that she got fired for her stance on abortion (something Trump is now against).

Whether you’re a Republican, Democrat, or other, Trump is certainly not the best at representing or supporting the American people as a whole. Maybe you don’t feel like any of this is affecting you, but it should be. You should care about those who are tangibly or even inadvertently affected, even if you feel like you’re not.


We Need to be Told “Roma Lives Exist!” in Addition to Mattering

In the United States, when someone hears “gypsy,” they think “flower child” or “free-spirit.” Especially in Pagan/New Age communities, “gypsy” is a word they believe fully captures the aesthetic of crystal and flowing skirts. It’s a cute adjective that anyone can choose to apply to themselves.

This is because Americans, for the most part, don’t actually know the history of the word (and its significance) because they have no idea that an ethnicity known as “Roma” or “Romani” exists. Those who do likely don’t know anything outside of My Big Fat American Gypsy Wedding. The sheer ignorance of Roma existence may be what makes the U.S one of the few places without federally legal active racism against them. So, on the off chance that someone walks into some New Age community and winces at the use of the phrase “gypsy,” they’re likely to receive odd glances or eye rolling at how oppressive “pc culture” has gotten.

But the reality of the situation is that Antiziganism is incredibly serious and widespread problem. In fact, Roma may very well be the most persecuted group throughout human history. 

While the vast majority of us know the history of Antisemitism and the heinous tragedy that befell Jewish people during the Holocaust, very few know or care about the 500,000 Roma victims under Hitler. Or that, even before that, Europe legalized random hangings of Roma people. And unfortunately, not all of it is a matter of history…a lot of Antiziganism is very recent.

Antiziganism has taken place in form of forced assimilation, slavery, genocide, legal murders, legal rape, forced evictions, arson, forced sterilization, segregation, and pure hate speech. And as mentioned before, a lot of this is recent or on going. 

Just in 2007, in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, Roma children were forcibly segregated in regards to schooling and placed in “special” classes or classes for “troubled” students. This was even a temporary practice in Denmark as well.

According to a 2012 Human Rights First report, Roma regularly experience hate crimes, often with the attacker seeking out the victim’s family to attack as well.

We talk about how disproportionate the amount of POC citizens to POC prisoners are in the U.S, but we’re not aware that Roma make up as little as 2-3% of the Czech Republic yet up to 60% of their prisoners. And this is not uncommon. It is no coincidence therefore than that a 2010 survey found up to 83% of Czechs consider Roma “asocial,” and that nearly half the population wants them expelled from the nation.

In 2009, the Vitkov Arson Attack took place wherein three petrol bombs were thrown into the house of a Roma family with the accompanying phrase “Burn, Gypsys!” The most gravely injured victim was 3-year-old Natalie, whose body was covered up to 80% in serious burns, as well as losing three fingers and muscular control of her hand. Her extreme treatments necessary for her survival (she is the first child in the Czech Republic to survive such fatal burns) have damaged her cognitive abilities as well. The ‘mastermind’ behind this attack was nicknamed by the media “The Lonely Wolf.” Not “Racist psychopath,” not “Egotistical maniac.” Nope. Just a poor, little lonely woof.

Within the past 10-14 years, Italy has seen multiple Romani settlements set aflame, legal justification of public outcry for Romani expulsion with the logic that basically “it isn’t hate speech to demand safety from thieves,” and a legal requirement for Roma to be fingerprinted (children included). Two Roma children were drowned on a beach, while tourists continued with their daily lives a few feet away. Italy declared Emergenza Nomadi, asserting that Roma were weakening national security, and passed Antiziganist acts. This is a catastrophic level of racism within such a short time span, and yet it is virtually unheard of.

In Romania, in 2011 (if I recall correctly), it was suggested that a Roma community be enclosed in a concrete wall. An expensive form of segregation. Some of our own citizens are still hopelessly chanting “Build A Wall!” and it’s a pretty disturbing similarity. Not so long ago as 1993, several Roma households were burnt down, over 100 people forced to leave, and a handful of Roma lynched all as a result of one murder committed by a Romani. Even Roma music is illegal in Romania’s public transport due to it “creating unease” for passengers. Ironically enough, several of the world’s greatest musicians and composers have been inspired by traditional Roma music.

In the UK, Roma are reported as the most disliked racial group. A conservative politician even outright said that Roma do not deserve the same human rights as everyone else. In 2011, Leeds’ educational and support center for Roma was vandalized and attempted to burn down as a result of Antiziganism.

Norway forcefully sterilized Roma people until 1977. In Slovakia, 2013, Romani women were sterilized without consent and it was deemed “nondiscriminatory.” This has occurred to more than 100 women.


The list of atrocities committed against the Roma people could (and does) go on and on. And its time that we pay attention to it. Being an ally to POC and marginalized groups means being an ally to all of them, not just the ones nearby. The LGBT+ community in the US, for a large part, is outraged over Chechnya. We need to be outraged about Antiziganism as well.


Furthering reading: click here, here, or here







Why Leftbook Doesn’t (and Shouldn’t) Have Room for Aphobes

“Leftbook” is a colloquialism for the (in terms of American political spectrum) Leftist side of Facebook, typically Facebook groups that aren’t necessarily inherently political but are intended to bring a like-minded community together. Leftbook ranges from craft and DIY groups, to parenting groups, to tagging groups, to legitimate political debate groups, to meme groups and more.

A uniting characteristic of these groups, aside from the general political leaning of the members, are the rules. These rules generally consist of respecting others and being anodyne, which is a hardly shocking requirement. But as of late, there has been a lot of controversy  gratuitous rage over one such rule, that is: Asexual people are to be respected, and are a part of the LGBT+ community.

And while I’ve specified Leftbook in this case, I’m referring to all left-leaning and queer spaces in general, but aphobes do not, in fact, belong here.


Well, let’s get to the basis of the outrage to begin with. The idea that aces are an intrinsic part of the queer community offends people mainly because of the following:

  • Other members of the community fearing it as an easy way for cishets to infiltrate safe spaces
  • Aces allegedly face no oppression and have never been targeted the way others in the community have been and have more privilege, they don’t know our experiences
  • Because aces aren’t real


However, in regards to the first point, the fear is simply unfounded. If malicious cishets are intending to infiltrate any sort of space, all they have to do is lie and lie well. Why use their supposedly legitimate orientation to get in? They wouldn’t even have to. Especially because so many people are pushing back against the inclusion of aces, they’ll just latch onto another identity to infiltrate with. Besides the fact that this whole mindset of online social groups needing strategic defenses and trolls getting through as “infiltrations” is excessively dramatic and over-thought, forbidding the entrance of aces is not a logical approach to keeping members safe at all. You’ve got to be lying to yourself if you genuinely believe that’ll reduce the numbers of trolls getting into your spaces.


The second point is purely asinine, and yet I see it everywhere. “Aces don’t experience the same things!” they cry, not knowing that there’s literally no uniform queer experience. We all have different experiences and obstacles based on different things.

I’m sure pansexual trans people definitely have different experiences than, say, a cis lesbian. Are lesbians now no longer in the community? Would they get the right to gatekeep like that? No.

A white gay guy has different experiences that most gay MOC, but that doesn’t mean white gay guys aren’t a part of the community anymore.

A disabled trans person has more difficulties to overcome than able-bodied trans people. But that doesn’t negate the “t” in “lgbt+” either.

Though we all may have different experiences, there are some things that are nearly true of all us: We all are part of a minority, we all have been judged and discriminated against as whole, we all have been seen as abnormal because of our sexuality or gender identity.

It is that somehow aces cannot relate at all? Hmmm…no.

There are aces that have had to endure conversion therapy, just for being ace. 

There are aces that have undergone forced medication, just for being ace. 

There are aces that have been considered broken, just for being ace. 

There are aces that are victims of corrective rape, just because they’re ace. 

Even just one ace experiencing one of these in the name of aphobia is enough for their inclusion. Apply any of the above to any other sexuality or to trans people, and you have what’s called oppression. Why does this not count for aces, if not because of aphobia?

Our community isn’t composed of carbon-copies, and this isn’t solely a matter of privilege or relatability. Is Caitlyn Jenner all that relatable? No. She’s still trans though. Is Blair White well-liked? No. But she’s still here. Is Milo Yiannopolous not far more privileged than many of those he outright hates? And yet, he’s still gay. And I know trans women who would’ve loved to live in a nice Florida home with an incredibly supportive family and had puberty blockers like Jazz Jennings. It’s unfortunately unrelatable and a privilege she gets, but much of the community adores her!

Plenty of people within our spaces have more privilege than others, but it isn’t about that.

We might not all face the same troubles or have the same experiences, but what we do have in common is enough of a reason for the community to exist. And I know aces who certainly share more hardships in common with myself and others than white cisgays. If they belong here, aces damn well do too.


And finally, your disbelief in something doesn’t negate its existence. If I could simply wish away anti-vaxxers, I would. There are still people who don’t “believe” in gender dysphoria, nonbinary genders, or bisexuality. But again, “beliefs” don’t always align with reality. A lack of comprehension for something won’t make it go away either. Aces are as real as any other allegedly fake member of the community, who are in turn just as real as your run-of-the-mill gay guy.

Thankfully, Leftbook is tired of seeing hypocritical rhetoric and the irony of aphobia. So yeah, aphobes don’t belong there.

Okay, But Are You REALLY Pansexual?

Yes, it’s the year 12,017 HE and people are learning to embrace their sexuality again. Whether or not you’re into the whole “labels” thing, many more people are openly considering themselves bisexual, sexually fluid, queer, or “pansexual.”

But, are they right though?

Identity policing is problematic, yeah, but so is a lot of the rationale behind many people’s apparent pansexuality.

To be pansexual is to be attracted to people regardless of their gender, or to be attracted to people of all genders. Note the prefix “pan” here, which means “all.”

“Bisexual” refers to attraction to people of two genders, typically those of your own gender and those of another gender. Some may define bisexuality as the attraction to “two or more” genders, but that may also (and more accurately) be referred to as “polysexuality.” Again, note the prefix “bi” here that denotes a quantity of two.

So where’s the problem?

First, many people assume that bisexuality refers only to attraction to binary genders. However, you could rightfully consider yourself bisexual if you were attracted to a binary and a nonbinary gender, or if you were attracted to two nonbinary genders. Ex: “I am attracted to men and androgynes. I am bisexual,” or “I find both neutrois and intergender people attractive, I am bisexual.”

Secondly, repeat after me: Bisexuality is not inherently transphobic. 

Yes, many bisexual people are transphobic. A lot of people of many sexualities are. But bisexuality in and of itself isn’t a transphobic concept.

So a huge problem arises when pansexuals define their distinction from bisexuals as something along the lines of “Yeah I like men and women, but like…I’ll also date trans men and trans women, so technically I’m pan and not bi.”

Literally no.

Trans women are the exact same gender as cis women, and trans men have the exact same gender as cis men. Are you doing the math? Because that totals two genders. You don’t need a separate category for your inclusion of trans people. Furthermore, your implication that bisexual people inherently don’t also date trans people is incorrect.

And as discussed before, not all bisexual people are only attracted to binary genders. But one hilariously ironic thing is that so many pansexual people subscribe to the myth of the gender binary.

Do you proudly call yourself pansexual? And do you also find yourself scoffing at those who don’t identify as men or women?

Then congratulations, you’re fucking preposterous! The pansexual pride flag, shown above, literally includes yellow as a representation of attraction to those outside the binary. Pink for women, blue for men, and yellow for…you guessed it, enbies.

So, to recap, if you “don’t believe in” nonbinary people but you still consider yourself pansexual, you’re probably just a transphobic bisexual. If that’s the case, you can find your flag here.

My Friend ‘Came Out’ as Nonbinary; Now What?

Assuming that you’re the kind of person who considers themself to be generally open-minded and you want to accept your friend for who they are, there are some things you should be aware of concerning nonbinary identities to help you avoid rude or inappropriate comments and behaviors.

“Does this mean my friend is under the trans* umbrella?”

First, there is no asterisk behind “trans.” While you may intend it to be inclusive or representative of the aforementioned “umbrella,” the asterisk is generally inappropriate and othering. Why? This is because the term “trans” (or “transgender”) is already inclusive. You need not add an asterisk to include those who haven’t transitioned, those who are nonbinary, etc. because those people are already included. The term “transgender” refers to anyone who identifies as a gender other than, or in addition to, whichever one they were assigned at birth. If someone does not fit that category, such as cis crossdressers or cis people who disregard gender norms, then they are not trans and do not need to be included with an asterisk either.

Therefore, the answer to the above question is technically “yes.” Though if your friend specifies that they feel they are not transgender, for any reason, and does not identify with the term, then the answer would be “no.”

In addition to this information, here are some other things to keep in mind:

  • Your friend’s preferred pronouns are grammatically correct. 

People often erroneously take issue with neopronouns or neutral pronouns with the reasoning that they are “grammatically incorrect.” For starters, this is technically untrue, as English has recognized the singular “they” since the late fourteenth century. Its use to refer to someone of unknown or unspecified gender is far from a new phenomenon. While its use as a specifically nonbinary term is relatively new, this makes little difference. In my personal experience, the vast majority of those who take issue with whether or not singular “they” is grammatically correct tend to do so hypocritically: They often make grammatically errors in casual writing, they use a regional dialect that may be considered (again, erroneously) by outsiders to be incorrect, etc. In other words, those that make these complaints are hardly holding themselves to the grammatical standards that they hold nb/trans people to. Not only this, but few of these people understand how a language forms and becomes officially recognized, and what makes certain grammar correct or incorrect. There’s a high probability that your own personal grammar 24/7 is not stellar, let alone entirely flawless, so don’t fret over the ‘correctness.’ So while it may sound strange and may be uncomfortable to use at first, you should always make an effort to learn and use your friend’s chosen pronouns.

  • Their gender is not a matter of debate. 

Yes, your friend’s gender is certainly “real.” If you’re only looking to accept them on the basis of “well, people can do whatever they want and call themselves what they want even if its technically not real,” then you need to take a step back and educate yourself further on gender and what it means to be a friend. Not only does your friend likely know themselves better than you do, but it you’re cis (unless you happen to hold a degree in gender studies and human biology), there’s a really good chance that your friend understands the concept of gender a bit better than you do. And that is perfectly fine! No one needs to know everything about everything, but it means that you should respect your friend’s knowledge of themself and gender. Unfortunately, gender is seldom ever discussed in-depth or actually accurately in lower levels of education. So it is important to remember that your eighth grade class on sexual reproduction by no means gives you the qualifications to invalidate your friend or critique anyone’s sense of gender. Not only do you probably not know what you’re talking about, but it is a very unnecessary, callous, and inappropriate debate topic.

  • Support and Acceptance =/= Patronizing Comments and Being OTT

By all means, let your friend confide in you if they choose. Use their preferred name and pronouns. Reassure them. Defend and protect them. But realize that there is a difference between being a good friend and ally, and being…embarrassing. If your friend happens to be transfemme, for example, save the “YAAASSS gurl, slay hunny! omg” comments every time they wear makeup or something. Unless that is how you respond to all your friends wearing makeup every time they wear it, in which case I’m not sure how you still have friends. All jokes aside, casual compliments will suffice. Don’t try too hard in being supportive, just be genuinely accepting.

  • Avoid Performative Allyship

On a related note, there is a difference between genuine support and the above. Performative allyship is basically anything that serves as a (whether or not you are conscious of it) “Look at how unproblematic I am!” And it doesn’t actually help at all. For example, consistently apologizing to trans/nb people for what cis society has done doesn’t really help anyone at all. All that tells us is that you, for some reason, feel the need to apologize for something you allegedly aren’t doing or partaking in. Don’t go around talking about how you’re so much unlike other cis people, don’t be a social media activist who spouts about how “good” you are, don’t conflate jokes about cis people to actual issues and oppression faced by trans/nb people, don’t demand any awards or good treatment for being a decent human being, don’t claim to be a flawless source of information on trans/nb topics just because you have trans/nb friends, etc. Truly being an ally doesn’t require just a media outlet or an audience. “Ally” isn’t part of your qualifications or identity, so don’t bother including that in every bio on every social media. If you’re an actual ally, we’ll know.


It is also important to remember that your friend is still who they have likely always been, and is just beginning to express themselves better- not actually changing overall as a person. You don’t have to change how you feel or change your relationship to/with your friend. Liked shopping before? Great, you can still do that together! Liked gaming? Yep, you both can still do that as well. Surfing? Go for it.

And while it may take some time to get used to a name change or using different pronouns, and it may be strange to get used to an overall different appearance/presentation if your friend chooses to start HRT, it shouldn’t be anything that makes you generally uncomfortable. It may seem weird at first, but the more you dwell on the transition of your friend rather than go about a normal friendship, the weirder it will seem. Things will only be awkward or uncomfortable if you let them be.

Furthermore, however difficult or strange things may feel for you at first, remember that it is far easier to support someone during transitioning or be the friend of a nonbinary person than it is to actually come out or begin transitioning yourself. Your friend may have already felt very uncomfortable and dysphoric before coming out or transitioning as well, so remember that it is best to keep their feelings in mind.



The Trees Are Transphobic, Too: How Social Justice is Ironically Lacking in Rewilding

I have discussed the topic of rewilding many times previously, so if you are unaware of what is meant by the term “rewild,” perhaps read either Rewilding: A Radical Approach to Environmentalism? or Towards a Better Understanding of “Progress” first.

However, if you are already acquainted the community, you are well aware of the intense social justice movement that has been at the core of true rewilding. Rewilding groups have long since served to give indigenous peoples a valid voice, to help white people acknowledge their potentially racist views, to give women a stand, and to confront toxic masculinity. Seldom does one come across an anti-civ or anarcho-primitivist without also encountering radical feminism.

In other words, a large portion of rewilders or “hunter-gatherer wannabees,” are self-proclaimed Social Justice Warriors…and proud of it. After all, racism, sexism, and classism are all problematic results of civilizations. These must therefore also be abolished, along with civilization itself.

The reality of many of these people, however, is that you’re unlikely to find a more ironically harmful sanctimonious group in any other area of activism. How? Let’s break this down.


More women are harmed than empowered

If you’re a victim of sexual assault or harassment, you might want to steer clear of these groups. They will frequently equate deforestation to rape, or virtually anything they deem harmful to rape. And content warnings? Ha. Women with PTSD have obviously never existed…especially not from rape! (sarcasm).

In addition, though well meaning, you will often be valued as a woman before being valued as an individual. For example, do you have some interesting point to add to a conversation that is irrelevant to gender? Prepare to hear “I appreciate the input of a woman” before you hear “I appreciate your unique perspective.” And if your gender is for some reason undisclosed, you can always increase the validity of any argument you make with “As a woman,” or “and this is coming from a woman!” despite the actual content of your argument.


Science is an enemy, conspiracies are valid. 

While you might gain some respect as a scientist if you loudly and frequently remind everyone you’re a woman, you’ll still have a fair chance of being equated to a rapist man.

Any science relevant to medicine is automatically “Big Pharma” propaganda, any science relevant to the origin of humanity is probably racist colonial ideology, any science regarding nature is probably imposing on the spirits of wildlife and the spirituality of indigenous peoples.

Science is regularly condemned for sexism, animal cruelty, and racism. And while not all of these criticisms are invalid, the overwhelming proposed solutions are (i.e “fuck science.”)

There is also heavy use of cherry-picking, wherein problematic scientists from the (18)eighties are regularly cited as examples to the faults of science, but virtually no one takes note of up-to-date articles or analyzes currently active research facilities and practices. Essentially because there is an idea that any information we have on past scientists is 100% verifiable, but any information on modern science (or scientists) must inherently be false information meant to disguise the truth…that is, unless the information reveals more problematic practices or beliefs.


But mainly, I want to discuss one grievance I have in particular: Transphobia. And, not surprisingly, how it is hurting everyone.


First and foremost, supporting a minority group means supporting all of that group and not just those it is easy to support, not just those you agree with politically, not just those you’re friends with.

Therefore, it doesn’t matter how many Nazis you want to punch, you’re still not anti-racism if you blatantly refuse to address the fact that transwomen of color face some of the highest murder rates in predominately white nations. We’re only four months into 2017 and at least eight trans WoC have been murdered already.

You say Black Lives Matter. You update you profile picture to say that you stand with Standing Rock. You call out Stormfront. You address the growing white supremacy among Asatruar/heathens.

But I haven’t seen a single person outrage over these murders. In fact, I haven’t even seen anyone briefly mention any of these women.

Where’s your allyship now? Does the gender of these women somehow negate their skin color? I’d love to say something along the lines of “Please explain, I’ll wait” but if anything, I’ve learned from these various rewilding micro-communities that you can’t wait for hypocrites to address their own hypocrisy.

Let me know when you not only know what “DAPL” stands for, but who Jamie Lee Wounded Arrow was. Let me know when you not only know who Trayvon Martin was, but who Ciara Mcelveen was. Until then, fuck off because you’re still very much your average white person.

And yes, these rewilding communities tend to be primarily composed of cishet white men regardless of how socially progressive they claim to be or how humble they try to be. So I suppose you can only hope for so much when you think of a group of radical feminists founded and composed of the above.

Here, you’ll find assertions that there is more to a woman than tits and a vagina whilst transwomen are invalidated because of the genitalia they had at birth (regardless of whatever their physical anatomy may be currently, although this is irrelevant).

Here, you’ll find claims that gender is a social construct that results from patriarchy, alongside claims that transwomen cannot be women because of “biology” (which is an evil science anyway, right?)

Here, you’ll find criticisms of the illogical standards of beauty women have been held to, while gender non-conforming ciswomen are also criticized for not embracing their femininity (which has to look like dresses and makeup, according to some).

Here, you’ll see the “it doesn’t matter that she was raped and is someone’s mother/daughter/sister, because she is SOMEONE period” signs with commentary that includes how women are women because of motherhood and nurturing.

And in addition to the above, you’ll see transwomen invalidated because they cannot have children or breastfeed. As though infertile women are just men, as though women who have had to undergo hysterectomies are just men, as though women who have every right to have NO interest in mothering are just men.

You’ll find the literally just false idea that misogyny only ever affects ciswomen. And despite the large number of ciswomen who claim to have never experienced misogyny and don’t need feminism, these rewilders will say it applies to all women. Yet when a transwoman has tangibly experienced misogyny and pleads to be included in feminism, they will either cover their ears and eyes or go from radical feminist to misogynist themselves in less than five seconds.

Rewilding groups are meant to provide education and be a safe-space for minorities. But there is virtually no appeal. I, being an AFAB person, find no comfort among these people. I, being a victim of sexual assault, feel no safer around these people. And yet they have the audacity to claim to genuinely care for people like myself. Funny how that works.


Another significant complaint: Ableism

Science and scientists in general will be called “eugenicists” insultingly. Eugenics is bad, they say, because it has been used as a tool of racists. It isn’t just PoC who are targeted, but they’re evidently all who matters. In fact, a PoC (who had no photos of themselves, but asking for proof of their ethnicity would’ve been racist too), who was a member of one such group recently posted about “fake genders” that the eugenicist scientists were now recognizing. And yet, being queer was legitimately once considered a mental disorder. Trans people are still erroneously considered “mentally ill.” And the mentally disabled were one of, if not the primary target of eugenics. While the vast majority of people today wouldn’t dare suggest culling society of PoC, far more people are perfectly accepting of abortion of fetuses that may be born disabled (even if they’re otherwise aggressively pro-life) and of “putting down” or euthanizing  mentally ill people. “Rehabilitation costs money, and extra care requires too much energy” is commonly held sentiment in regards to the existence of the disabled.

And as mentioned earlier, there are few accommodations for those who are neurodivergent. No content warnings on posts or discussions, and certainly no “trigger warnings.” No or few clarifications of sarcasm in case anyone involved lacks the ability to pick up on sarcasm and differentiate it from normal speech.

Oh yeah, along the lines of insensitivity to women who have been raped by the callous equation of environmental destruction to forcibly engaging in sex with an unwilling person there is the equation of civilization/industrialization being a product of collective mental illness or that the average person (who doesn’t want to leave civilization) suffers from psychosis.

One could also argue that the rewilding movement in and of itself is purely ableist due to its rejection of modern medicines that depend on industrial society, and what with how industrialization in medicine is part of what is keeping so many people alive at all. This is something I have seen briefly refuted once, but the idea is reasonably still there.

So in other words, these communities often don’t genuinely care about people per se, but rather their ideology and anyone they can use or exploit to further said ideology. If women see civilization as inherently patriarchal, they will further the movement. If more PoC want to return to “pre-contact” states of existence, they will further the movement.  Trans people and disabled people simply don’t fit it here, they’re useless…or worse, a threat.


Although, there is a humorous aspect to all of this. Despite the numerous shitty people with shitty illogical opinions that tend to dominate these communities, queer people are still here. The otherly-abled are still here.

I’ve been, in various degrees of activity, involved in rewilding groups for about five years or so. I never once would have thought other trans people had any knowledge of the existence of this movement, let alone had any interest. I never once stumbled upon an openly trans person. It wasn’t until I became more active in trans support groups and trans-friendly spaces that I found others who had experiences with some of the same exact people I observed in these groups. In fact, I vaguely mentioned some transphobia I came across by one prominent member of the rewilding movement, and someone messaged me afterwards knowing exactly who I was vaguely referring to.

Trans people can be feminists.

Trans people can be radical environmentalists.

Trans people aren’t always white, and can experience racism.

Trans people can be a part of this movement, and have been, without many knowing. Many of these trans people I contacted later have actually worked with specific people in such groups and organizations, and yet I doubt that if any of these rewilders happen to read this, that they have been aware they’ve worked with trans people before.

So regardless of any passerby’s opinion on environmentalism, or social justice, or the existence of queer people….it is worth noting that many people in this particular group are in fact hypocritical and potentially dangerous. This isn’t an argument on the validity of the rewilding ideology or feminism, but merely an observation that the social justice involved therein is hardly social justice.

I previously mentioned in Why I Left the Wiccan Faith the concept of “breaking up” with a religion and why. This concept might also now have to apply to this rewilding subculture, as like a scientist (cue laughter), I change and grow with more information. And a lot of information is slowly raising up a red flag over these groups.


No, Patricia, black women do not dress that way because of slavery.

A post that has been making the rounds on Facebook by a woman named Patricia expresses her disappointment with the, for lack of a better word, slutty appearance of other black women. She goes so far as to claim that “they feel compelled to walk around half naked, showing their bodies and see nothing wrong with it is because it was beaten and forced upon them during slavery.” And proceeds to claim that “before we were put on those slave ships, we never expose our bodies.”

Essentially, all these black women who attempt to disregard an out-dated subjective moral stance by general society are only doing so because white people forced their ancestors to. Makes sense, right?

Not really. In fact, not even remotely. Why? Let’s break this down (and explain how it itself contains its own racism)

  1. So white slave masters forced women to strip, so the descendants of those women also want to expose their bodies? Okay, and do you have proof that every single “slutty” black woman’s ancestry shows slavery? Humans are not dogs. It is quite literally impossible, biologically speaking, for a woman to have any inherent behavior just because something happened to her ancestors. That isn’t to say the actions of the past do not still affect us, but that is because racism is a modern issue as well. Racism is still relevant. Those that do anything allegedly because of white supremacy aren’t doing so because it once existed. It’s because it still does affect people in 2017. In fact, research has shown that the more subtle a form of prejudice or discrimination exists in society, the greater the impact it has on the target group cognitively. It isn’t enough that slavery is over.
  2. “Slave masters made us strip to humiliate us/punish us.” Did you look at a painting and just guess that? Or do you just ‘feel’ like that makes sense? OR did you actually use historical reverences and first-hand accounts? Yes, there is no question that slave masters humiliated and punished slaves. And yes, white men would rape slaves as a form of control. Sexuality and dominance had a very disturbing significance in relation to slavery, so it actually makes sense to assume that this was why many illustrations of slave women show their bare breasts. But is it the only factor? Of course not. Men were also largely bare in many of these instances, so why is there no supposed inherent black male slutiness? Well for starters, this lack of clothing often was used for slave masters to inspect the physique of the people in question, to see what work (if any) they were deemed useful for. This also allowed easier access to the skin for physical punishment. Female slaves often had their breasts exposed to sexualize the women and make them uncomfortable,and to perhaps increase the chances of sexual assault. But while this did occur, it isn’t true of every female slave. What about the descendants of the females slaves who didn’t have to expose their breasts? Are they the modest women we see today? Unlikely. If it was far more common for female slaves to be paraded around in the nude than it was for them to dress modestly, wouldn’t that mean that virtually all black women in the US are these immodest women? Is that not a bit of a stretch?


But easily the most blatantly incorrect and ironically Eurocentric of Patricia’s claims is that “before we were put on those slave ships, we never expose our bodies.” In saying this, Patricia not only reveals her ignorance of history, but she reveals her disrespect of fellow contemporary African women. She erases centuries of history of African women. She shows shame in the very ancestors that are responsible for her existence. How? 


This is a family of the Twa peoples of Africa. This is no painting from a history book. It’s real, modern life. The Twa are a group of the Pygmy* peoples whose history dates back several centuries. Hundreds of years before the existence of “African-Americans.” Before many Africans were uprooted. See that woman and two lovely children? Now show me the white man forcing them to dress like this. You can’t. But the worst thing is, is that there is an effect from racism on these people. But you cannot see it here. They’ve experienced genocidal violence, cannibalism, eviction from their land, and more. And for what? So that they will dress modestly and settle into society as accountants or electricians or whatever other fantasy that the surrounding areas want. This is not who they are, it is not who they have been and it is not what they want. They would prefer to continue their proudly indigenous lifestyle (that, yes, includes being topless *gasp*) that to be robbed of their cultural identity just because some white cultures across the seas find them offensive.

“A ‘Pygmy’ loves the forest as she loves her own body” -MBENDJELE SAYING 


Guess who else never left Africa, and whose traditions predate much of foreign slave-trade history? These proud Himba women. Still modern. Still not forced to be this way. And still enjoying their rich African heritage. That is of course, when white tourists aren’t stopping by and looking at them like they’ve arrived at a freak show. Or when all the men and boys are being forced to live to go to the cities to try in vain for jobs that they wouldn’t need, if they were just left alone. Or when foreign people aren’t introducing drugs, alcohol, and junk food.


As you can see, indigenous Africa isn’t all just white little churches and dresses from 1950’s America. If you are a black women, you most definitely had ancestors at some point in history who exposed their bodies long before white man even knew what Africa was. And why? Because their cultures, yes…plural, don’t always perfectly mirror the standards of Western civilization. And they don’t need to. The African peoples who cover themselves head to toe are just as African as any of the people listed here. You cannot just generalize all black women outside of Africa and say with certainty that no ones ancestors happened to be like these people. And if they did, all the more power to them!

So what about historical Africa then? The great civilizations? Well surely there was no way a woman ever exposed her skin! Wrong. 

“…some of the archaeologists who unraveled the story of the Sun Pharaoh had difficulty accepting what they found and became highly critical of Akhen-Aton and Nefertiti. “‘Brought up in an environment of Victorian and puritanical notions, they condemned these entrancing figures of Egyptian history because they discovered that not only the Pharaoh and his wife but also their children and officials went around with too few clothes (transparent at that!) or no clothes at all, that they practiced nudity in the royal palace, in the royal gardens and swimming pool, that they loved physical beauty, valued good food and wine, and led a frankly joyful existence’.”

What was that about skin exposure not existing before the slave ships arrived? Hm…

African history is full of women who dressed in a variety of less-than-your-idea-of-modest ways. This wasn’t the result of white people (ha, like they could be responsible for that much diversity in cultures). It’s purely African, purely human. To look at this history and all these variety of people with shame or disgust is to be ridiculously shallow and indicated nothing more than your lack of true values. Not theirs. 

But anyway, does it really matter if white people actually were responsible for this alleged epidemic of black slutiness? Well, let’s think about it. Things white people definitely aren’t responsible for: Nudity. Things white people definitely are responsible for: Crusading around the globe to erase indigenous culture and force people to convert to Christianity (often at gun point and/or threat or rape). Hmmm. Yet there appears to be an issue many people have here with nudity, because of their Christian values. Interesting. Patricia claims white people want black women to be overly sexualized, but white people have most certainly instilled the idea into everyone’s heads that there is only one good way to be: Capitalist (contrary to the vast majority of indigenous cultures), monogamous (still contradictory to many indigenous cultures), Christian (contradictory to virtually every indigenous population), and the list goes on and on. Let us also not forget the plethora of other indigenous POC currently facing hardships due to racism who also still have and have had nudity or skin exposure in their cultures as well. May as well say white people created the moon, if they are responsible for that much of human global culture and all of human history. 

Have you ever asked: “Are my values really mine, or were they too enforced upon my ancestors?”

But to conclude, the REAL reason anyone is any amount of “slutty” is because this is the United States** (or other area) where we have the freedom to be. Confidence. The primal beauty of courting. Self-love. Enjoyment of what it means to truly embrace humanity. The way YOU respect YOURSELF doesn’t have to align with every other woman in existence. Because just like Africa, women too are diverse with a variety of different beliefs, values, and traditions. 

*”Pygmy” was once a derogatory term but is now preferred by many of these tribe members.

**Not everyone is here  in the US, obviously. But many of the black women I knew personally were. If she wants to refer specifically to her own black ethnic group or nationality, that is fine (albeit still inaccurate). Yet now many black American women feel their self-love is a shameful result of dark American history, and that isn’t okay.

***Yes, not everything white people do is bad, not all of white history is bad, POC history has faults too, etc. This all is beside the point, and everyone is aware of this already.

Are Men Obsolete?

In the modern and ever-progressing world of science, we’ve discovered ways in which it is possible for two biological females to produce a child without the use of a man’s sperm. Along with a modern perspective on gender and feminism, we’ve seen women running for presidency to plumbing to computer science and more. So why do men even still exist? Would it not, logically of course, be more productive for a society to now ‘prevent’ men? In some nations, women already outnumber men, so it might be an easier transition from a male inclusive world to a male exclusive world than we thought. Saves time, at least?

I’ll go ahead and take my chances with assuming that, so far, someone has been offended and thought “this is so sexist!” And trust me, I understand where you are coming from. You probably should be questioning my intent of this post. But I assure you, it isn’t sexism. I am merely pointing out a reality.

The reality is that around 1.7% of children have been born “intersex.” This means their physical anatomy, hormone levels, and chromosomes in consideration do not match either “male” guidelines or “female” guidelines. They fall out of our binary concept of human sex. Yes, 1.7% is a small percentage. However, it equates to roughly 119,000,000 people. This means that about 1 in every 1,500-2,000 babies are born with genitalia that require a specialist to help determine the sex of the baby (even though these babies are the minority, as many more infants are born with subtle or internal sex differences).

Yet, instead of accepting or embracing this harmless occurence, we’ve considered it a repulsive disability. We’ve historically put these people as performers in freak shows. We’ll force expensive surgeries on people to “cure” them.

And why?

  • “They’re already a minority anyway.” It being relatively rare justifies this? But…men are outnumbered in some nations too. Is the frequency of occurrence so significant to warrant an entire exclusion of a sex of people?
  • “They’re gross/unappealing.” I’m sure lesbians could say the same of a penis, but again, should be really be considering men useless because of that? Clearly not everyone is lesbian though. And not everyone has the idea that intersex people are disgusting. Furthermore, many intersex people have subtle internal differences- you wouldn’t be able to tell if someone was intersex or not. I cannot burn every shoe store that sells Crocs just because think they’re disgusting. So what could possibly give anyone the idea that preventing an entire group of human beings based on the same concept is rational or anything less than extremely egotistical?
  • “They’re broken/a mistake.” Anyone could say the same of any other sex as well. Imagine, now that men are obsolete, attending a birth wherein instead of blue It’s a Boy! balloons, you see weeping family members. Instead of hearing “Congratulations on bearing a healthy baby boy!,” you hear “I’m sorry to inform you, but your child has been diagnosed as heterogametic. It’s an XY. The penis can probably be removed, but…” In fact, there already historically have been similar attitudes towards the births of females, due to them being economically less valued or not permitted to rule in a monarchy, or for other reasons.

And while people can continue to deny the reality, with at least some level of logic remaining visible to some people, that being transgender or queer is a choice, there is literally no question no matter how hard you pretend otherwise in this case. Most of us are aware of the fact that being queer isn’t a choice, but all of anyone with even a minute amount of sense knows that no one can choose the hormones, chromosomes, or anatomy they were born with. Sure, continue annoying everyone with “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” posters. But it’d be quite a stretch to start saying “It’s Adam the penis-having, XY heterogametite and Eve the vagina-and-breast XX homogametite, nOT ANYTHING ELSE EVER!” That’s akin to protesting anyone with blue eyes because you think Adam and Eve had brown eyes, or protesting anyone who uses the internet because Adam and Eve couldn’t back in their day. Hell, why not start naming every boy Adam and every girl Eve because it was only ever them who ever mattered…ever. (Oh, but….not everyone is born a boy or girl!)

If intersex people do exist, and they do, maybe instead of getting upset, we could finally acknowledge the persistent fact that sex is not binary, but it in reality a spectrum. The only thing that results in these illogical attitudes towards intersex people is the completely unneccessary expectation of sex to be binary. But clearly, it isn’t. I can expect a rose bush to grow where I planted any given random seed, but that by no means ensures that a rose bush will grow. So why throw a fit when a coleus grows instead?

There isn’t anything inherently wrong with wanting a daughter, or looking forward to finally having a son. The issue arises when you can only love your child if it results in the expected daughter or the expected son. The issue arises when you abuse, neglect, or disown your own child over this mere expectation.

So if the first paragraph disturbed you, you have no reason to not be disturbed by the erasure and abuse of intersex individuals.