“I F*cking Hate @RuPaul”

As a side note (since I’m still not really comfortable throwing in 100% with either side here), I find it baffling when people who have no problem with the word “transgender” get all huffy about “cisgender.” It is only and exactly a shorter way to say “not transgender.” When pressed, they’ll sometimes say “you shouldn’t label people!” which is a really irritating way to co-opt a noble concept: it’s supposed to mean that you shouldn’t define and stereotype people based on a single feature, not that you’re forbidden to discuss or even recognize the many variations of humanity.


The term you’re all looking for is “circular firing squad.”


Yes. And, as someone who is in their 30th year of formally doing volunteer work for the trans community, who did come out in drag bars before then and has had some small activist contributions - I’m dismayed to see people I respect making disparaging distinctions about women with trans history based upon their sexual orientations.

This is exactly the type of nonsense challenged in Ms. James laudable activism in the J. Michael Bailey contretemps. And she certainly didn’t shy away from strong language there or challenging tying behavior characteristics to ones orientation or the supposed “etiology” of their trans identity.

For surely if one could say such things towards gay, bi or pan women of trans experience one could just as easily make snarky comments regarding trans women who claim heteronormative privilege and wonder how it is they spend so much time in gay male culture and so much of their professional life depends upon that immersion.

Pretty ugly all around when you question someones’ identity and motivation, isn’t it?

I am glad both Ms. James and Ms. Molloy - and most trans people challenged Mr. Charles on his use of language that is patently offensive.

Whether you like him or not - at least you agree on that. And I agree with you.


It’s difficult, being a straight, middle-class, white male. But someone has to bear the burden!


It’s a very old, very problematic argument - that was used to dis-empower trans women regardless of whether they were lesbian, bi, straight or pan. Dismaying to see it dredged up in service to a personal conflict.


Personally I fucking hate salt on chocolate bars. Stop it.


http://genderidentitywatch.com/2014/04/04/jokestress-parkermolloy/ I may not agree with this article but it has found praise elsewhere…

1 Like

It’s worth noting that this article is by Cathy Brennan, who has previously harassed young trans women to the point of sending messages to their employers with the aim of getting them fired. Cathy Brennan is not a good source of useful messages around trans issues.


Soooo basically:

  • Twitter is evil
  • Asian people and other trans*people’s views on subjects are just
  • Certain transpeople aren’t trans enough
  • Reddit and 4chan backlashes are proof of something
  • Bret Easton Ellis (the man who Tweeted “There’s no such thing as ‘inappropriate’ AIDS comments, rape
    comments, pedophile comments. That world is over now. It doesn’t exist anymore.”) is somehow relevant
  • “Jesters” and “artists” are awesome but fuck anyone who’s ever offended by slurs, what uptight bigoted schoolmarms!
  • The only real activism is the author’s activism

Because that’s what I’m getting.


And Cathy Brennan has also worked with the Pacific Justice institute to harass trans teenagers, spread false accusations, and basically hurt people, to prevent policy changes that would have helped limit anti-trans bullying, and ‘conversion therapy.’


It’s a very old, very problematic argument.

Problematized arguments are exciting!

After forty some very odd years of stigmatization - it just makes me feel tired all over.

But. Sure, fun if it doesn’t effect you.


It’s notable as well that RuPaul has stated many times that he doesn’t consider himself transgender.

His language is directed at a group he acknowledges not being a part of. Regardless of how broadly others may conceptualize the community. He does not include himself among those he disparages.


For what it’s worth, some of us feel that bigotry in all it’s forms is bad for society at large, so it really does affect all of us, albeit some more intensely and directly than others.


I regret that I have but one :purple_heart: click to give this. It’s a perennial problem in left wing politics too. I sometimes wonder if we don’t savage each other by preference because it makes for an easy ‘victory’ and an illusory feeling of having achieved something.


“The only difference between a heckler and a critic is manners”

Siskel and Ebert were critics. Hecklers are straight-up trolls.


A good critique is an application of an informed point of view.


Drag and being transgender are completely different subjects. And a person who is transgender wearing clothing that is not associated with their biological gender isn’t in drag (unless they decide to do so). Finally, I have never heard it clarified whether or not RuPaul is transgender (to me, it doesn’t look like he is since he doesn’t live as a woman, he only dresses up in drag professionally as a woman). Thus, RuPaul’s transgender slurs are clearly not acceptable nor are they self-hating. They are just old-fashioned bigotry.


OK, but can we also deal with the fact that this article implies that “cis het” is a slur? Which it is not. I say this as a cisgender person, but I’m pretty confident in saying that no good ever comes from a privileged group being encouraged to feel like they are somehow oppressed by the fact of their privilege being pointed out. Give me a break.


Don’t be silly. Cis-het is designed to make you uncomfortable.


I was unclear in that godawful meandering sentence. What I meant to say is, when a privileged person has their privilege pointed out (such as with a term that differentiates one from an oppressed group as cis het does), that privileged person is NOT being oppressed. But often they feel like they are because they have to actually have to notice their privilege for one damn second.