100 BILLION THINGS TO DO AND NO TIME! On the plus side: Two hour video chat with Patty this morning.
Things that happened last night: I bought a cute dress for the NYMF closing party, a sewer rat headbutted my foot and I heard gunshots. Er, yay?
Can someone help me parse this? Margaret Cho eliminated from Dancing with the Stars because of gay dress. Look, not to feed cliches -- but, I think, there are a few reasons I'm at least vaguely entitled to here: um, HELLO, IT'S A VERY KITSCHY BALLROOM DANCE COMPETITION SHOW WITH C-LIST CELEBS. I am confused. Also, her dance partner? Not handling this elegantly. !?!?!?!!?
Mmmm, speaking of ever so tangentially, Pam Cook book is sort of annoying me now. That's a long post for another time and place. But this is the problem with overview books. Passing reference to queer theory by people who aren't queer theorists, pointing out a couple of inflammatory papers, glossing over some of the most interesting elements in the subject work that are on point, and, OH YEAH, apparently having read fewer media interviews with relevant parties than I have. And I'm just like -- what's up with that? I don't like any of the answers I'm coming up with. Luckily, it's like a couple of pages, before we're back to something else, but grrrrrr, Grrrrrrr.
It is a shame he's being a bit of an asshole about it, because he has some interesting points, and I'm inclined to agree there are circumstances under which trying to count such a diverse group of people, facing such diverse challenges, under one banner risks diluting the meaningfulness, and drowning out voices - not to mention it fosters a tendancy among activists to imagine including the letter is all you need to do to be genuinely inclusive, which is not so. It's a little too easy to start talking about the LGBTQQAOP community and then never bother to touch on the concerns of, say, asexual people, or intersex people, or bisexual people at all. And having encountered more than a few LGBT groups which have no idea how to deal with trans people, I'd almost rather people were honest enough to leave letters out if that's really just not what they're about sometimes.
Which is not to say I don't think a wide acronym has a place in the way we talk about ourselves; it absolutely does, but I think the tendancy to push for it as a sort of One True Acronym that's universally appropriate is flawed, because whether it's most meaningful to speak about LGB people, LGBT people, or LGBTQQAIOP people pretty much depends on what it is you happen to be talking about. Article writer there is coming over as very cis male and exclusive about it, but it's a legitimate point from other points of the spectrum too - I've certainly met straight trans people who aren't clear on why they're being counted as part of the gay community, for example.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rm
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-10-16 05:05 pm (UTC)Which is not to say I don't think a wide acronym has a place in the way we talk about ourselves; it absolutely does, but I think the tendancy to push for it as a sort of One True Acronym that's universally appropriate is flawed, because whether it's most meaningful to speak about LGB people, LGBT people, or LGBTQQAIOP people pretty much depends on what it is you happen to be talking about. Article writer there is coming over as very cis male and exclusive about it, but it's a legitimate point from other points of the spectrum too - I've certainly met straight trans people who aren't clear on why they're being counted as part of the gay community, for example.