# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Difference Between Radical Feminism and Patriarchy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For many socialist feminists, critiquing liberal feminism is easy. Many of us came to socialism from liberalism and have a clear understanding of its limits and flaws.

However, the history and substance of radical feminism is less well known. While the "radical" in radical feminism seems to suggest a politics that socialists would embrace, a closer look reveals an ideology that's incompatible with socialist feminism. Plagued by a narrow understanding of gendered oppression and a misguided strategy for change, radical feminism ultimately fails to offer women a clear path to liberation.

Radical feminism arose out of second-wave feminism in the 1970s, alongside, but mutually exclusive from, socialist and Marxist feminism. Nonetheless, they share some commonalities. Like socialist feminists, radical feminists take issue with the individualism of liberalism and argue that personal choices and individual achievement are not enough to transform society. And they locate women's oppression in a broader, societal context.

From the beginning, radical feminists have been especially concerned with sexual and domestic violence, seeing it as fundamental to women's oppression. Andrea Dworkin, one of the most prominent radical feminists of the 1980s, distinguished herself with her crusade against sexual violence. In one of her most famous speeches, "I Want a 24 Hour Truce During Which There is No Rape," Dworkin implored men in the audience to try to understand the profound fear of sexual violence that women live with every day.

This commitment to combatting sexual violence - a scourge that hinders all aspects of women's lives - is admirable. So too is radical feminists' emphasis on large-scale reform rather than small-scale tweaks.

But the way that radical feminists have gone about enacting change is both troubling and symptomatic of deeper flaws in their ideology.

Their anti-pornography work is emblematic of this. In the 1980s, many radical feminists worked to ban porn, viewing it as inherently misogynistic and violent. Some, like Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon - a radical feminist academic, lawyer, and professor - went to even greater lengths. Joining hands with Christian right-wingers like Edwin Meese, they pushed for a number of local ordinances to stamp out pornography. "Among the many legislators with whom we have worked on the ordinance," MacKinnon enthused in a 1990 New York Times op-ed, "one is a political conservative. We were honored to work with her."

Some aspects of pornography are undoubtedly despicable, racist, and violent. But outlawing pornography would do little to address the immediate, material concerns of women involved in the industry. And it makes no sense to work with conservatives to fight women's oppression. These are the same people who want to restrict women's access to reproductive health and roll back the already-meager welfare state.

Radical feminists' anti-porn work throws into sharp relief the dangers of misidentifying the roots of women's oppression. Relying on the state for censorship, emboldening the carceral apparatus, making alliances with opponents of progressive change - this is where radical feminism's analysis leads us.

At the core of radical feminism's theoretical blunders is its conception of class.

For radical feminists, the two main classes in society are not the working class (who sell their labor power) and capitalists (who exploit them), but men (the oppressors) and women (the oppressed). They call this patriarchy theory.

Radical feminists don't always acknowledge capitalism, but even when they do, they regard it as a completely separate sphere, siloed off from female oppression. Their ultimate goal is to abolish gender, which they see as inherently hierarchal and oppressive toward women.

While Marxists share this antipathy toward patriarchy, we have a different conception of both class and the roots of women's oppression. We define class not in gender but in economic terms: a person's class is determined by their relationship to the means of production and the state. Hillary Clinton and Sheryl Sandberg, for example, reside in much a different class than the female graduate student fighting for unionization or the mother of four working at a fast-food restaurant for minimum wage.

Socialists oppose any and all sexist comments hurled at Clinton, Sandberg, and other elite women. But the fact remains that their interests as capitalists and well-heeled politicians are fundamentally at odds with the interests of the vast majority of society.

Take a recent example: when female hotel workers attempted to unionize a Double Tree Hilton in Cambridge, Massachusetts a couple years ago, they explicitly asked for Sandberg's support, stating that they were taking her advice to " lean in." Sandberg refused to back them. And it's no wonder. Universal "sisterhood" ran up against the concrete interests of capital. Sandberg's true allegiances came through, loud and clear.

As Marxists, we know the enemy is not men, but the capitalist class - which itself is multi-gendered and multiracial - and that our strategy must reflect this. Women's oppression is not innate in humans but instead arose at a particular historical and political moment, alongside the development of class society and the nuclear family.

Women's oppression persists not simply because men hate us, but because of the role we've played historically in the nuclear family. While men headed off to work each morning to engage in capitalist production - making cars at the factory, writing legal briefs at the office - women typically engaged in what is known as social reproduction: the biological reproduction of new workers (i.e. having children) and the day-to-day reproduction of workers - doing laundry, feeding the family, getting children ready for school, and so on.

Even in recent decades, as women have entered the paid workforce en masse, they've still tended to be saddled with the " second shift," carrying out social reproduction at home after they return from work.

These tasks are all vital to capitalism. Workers must be fed, clothed, and prepared every day for capitalism to function. But it is in capitalism's interest for this work to be done for free and in the private sphere.

As a result, socialist feminists argue that the only way we can liberate women is to end class society, once and for all.

Along the way, there are reforms we can and should fight for, like raising the minimum wage, introducing paid maternity leave, and implementing universal child care. Socialist feminists like Sylvia Federici have also advocated " wages for housework," in order to provide women financial independence and recognize their work in the domestic sphere as labor. Others, like Angela Davis, have proposed socializing these domestic tasks to remove the uneven and gendered burden from women.

But none of these reforms - much less the overthrow of capitalism - will be won without massive and united social movements. And that's where the working class comes in. Because of its position in society, the working class as a whole - in all its multi-gendered, multiracial, multigenerational glory - is the societal agent that can fight to radically reform, and ultimately go beyond, capitalism.

Does this end goal include the abolition of gender? Probably! To quote Engels:

That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman's surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual - and that will be the end of it.

In recent years, many people's understanding of radical feminism has been colored by their opinions of TERFs, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists. Not all radical feminists are TERFs. MacKinnon has been an outspoken supporter of trans rights for decades, and has criticized TERFs for their bigotry. "Anybody who identifies as a woman, wants to be a woman, is going around being a woman, as far as I'm concerned, is a woman," she said in a 2015 interview.

But while not synonymous, radical feminism contains many TERFs in its ranks, and its core ideas lend themselves to an exclusion of trans people, especially trans women.

For many radical feminists, it doesn't matter what gender someone identifies and presents as - it only matters what gender they were assigned at birth. If men are the oppressors and the source of women's oppression, it follows that those men maintain that oppressive power, even after they transition. Their socialization as men, no matter how short-lived or plagued by gender dysphoria and violence, renders them agents of female oppression. Thus, many radical feminists ban trans people, and particularly trans women, from their politics and organizing spaces.

This exclusion isn't just bigoted - it's hypocritical: while radical feminists campaign vigorously against sexual violence, it's trans women who suffer from disproportionately high rates of sexual and physical violence (particularly trans women of color).

TERFs may argue that trans women do not share a reproductive system with cis women, and thus can't understand women's struggles for birth control and against forced sterilization. But then what do they say of solidarity with lesbian women, or cis women who cannot or choose not to have children? The arguments that TERFs put forth are both weak and prejudiced.

Radical feminism is also noticeably silent on the question of racism, and is burdened by a politically suspect strategy for fighting it.

Men of color perpetuate sexism just like white men. But their experience of racism also binds them together with the women of color in their communities. As Sharon Smith writes, "the need to fight alongside men in the fight against racism or in the class struggle [has] made separatist ideas unappealing" for women of color.

Indeed, for many women, the struggle against racism is inextricably linked to the struggle against sexist oppression (both of which are ingrained in capitalism).

The Combahee River Collective, a legendary group of black feminist socialists, embodied this understanding, writing in their 1979 statement: "We need to articulate the real class situation of persons who are not merely raceless, sexless workers, but for whom racial and sexual oppression are significant determinants in their working/economic lives."

Women cannot reduce their experiences of oppression merely to their gender. Most of us are workers. Many of us are mothers, people of color, members of the LGBTQ community, and more. We need to understand how all of these things are tied together in order to fight domination in all spheres - and in order to win.

While radical feminists posit separatism as a political strategy - and for some, the goal - socialist feminists understand that our power lies in our numbers. The division between working-class men and women, between cisgender people and transgender people - these fissures are detrimental to our overall aims. They only make us weaker and our fight against capitalism that much harder.

Socialist feminists' goal is to build solidarity across the entire working class. Our fates are tied together, and the struggle against gendered oppression is inseparable from the struggle against transphobia, racism, and capitalism more broadly. Any movement or theory of feminism that either explicitly or implicitly excludes trans people, intentionally misgenders them, or perpetuates transphobia has no business being on the Left.

Recently, Left Forum came under fire for including a panel that questioned the legitimacy of transgender people and their need for health care. After much controversy, it was ultimately cancelled - and rightly so. As the movement for transgender rights gains steam, the Left must be forthright in our solidarity with transgender and gender non-conforming people.

While there are things we can find inspiring within radical feminism, such as the emphasis on sexual violence, its analysis of the roots of women's oppression and resulting ideas about how we should organize politically fall flat.

Rather than seeing men as the core source of women's oppression, we must identify class society as the culprit. Fighting capitalism remains the only path toward women's full liberation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For many socialist feminists, critiquing liberal feminism is easy. Many of us came to socialism from liberalism and have a clear understanding of its limits and flaws. However, the history and substance of radical feminism is less well known.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TERF is used to describe cisgender women who self-identify as feminist but who are opposed to including transgender women in spaces they reserve for people who were assigned female at birth. This is because they believe trans women are men and since men cannot coexist with their feminist ideologies, they exclude them from their beliefs and support. In fact, they often believe they should be denied rights and sometimes advocate for harm against trans people.

In use online since at least 2008, TERF has different connotations, depending on who is using it. Those who use it to describe others note that it's descriptive in nature, and not insulting.

But, well-known feminists who have been labeled TERF on the internet have come out to call the term a slur, because it is associated with violence and hatred.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TERF is used to describe cisgender women who self-identify as feminist but who are opposed to including transgender women in spaces they reserve for people who were assigned female at birth. This is because they believe trans women are men and since men cannot coexist with their feminist ideologies, they exclude them from their beliefs and support.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Exclusionists are a groups of aphobes who are against the idea of asexual and aromantic people being in the LGBT+ community. This is often due to the claim that the the LGBT+ community is for people who are "same gender attracted" (SGA). People who are for the inclusion of a-spec people are called inclusionists and the argument between the two groups is often called "ace discourse" or simply "discourse".

Exclusionist Ideology

Because exclusionism is fairly wide spread there are many different "levels" of exclusionist ideology. This ranges from the belief that asexual people should make their own community to claiming that asexual people do not exist. The following list will go through the beliefs held by most exclusionists.

The word cishet was originally used by trans people, with the implication being someone who is cisgender, heterosexual, and heteroromantic. However it was adopted by exclusionist as a dogwhistle meaning a-spec people. Originally it meant heteroromantic asexuals, or aromantic heteroromantics, however for some exclusionist it has come to mean aroace people or even all a-spec people. Some exclusionist claim to be fine with trans a-spec people and people who are gay as well and a-spec, however exclusionist often harass a-spec people regardless of their other identities.

Denial of Asexuals

Some exclusionist will claim that asexuals do not exist. This can be for a variety of reasons. Some of the most common are:

Asexuals are virgins who are mad they can't get layed.

Asexuals are straight people who want to be "special" or invade LGBT+ spaces.

Asexuals are gay/lesbian and are have too much internalized homophobia to admit their attracted to the same sex.

Asexuals are children who don't feel sexual attraction because they haven't hit puberty yet.

Asexuals are sexually repressed or have a hormonal disorder.

Many claim that demisexuality and other ace-spec identities don't exist because "it's normal to not want to have sex with everyone you see", completely missing the point of ace-spec identities.

Similar claims are used against aro-spec people, such as claims that aromantics are men who "just what to have one night stands and not deal with the emotional repercussions". They also frequently make fun of aromantic terminology, such as queerplatonic relationships, and aplatonic aros. They will say that aromantics have no friends/don't know what friendship is.

Some will claim that asexual and aromantic are "modifiers" to one's attraction, denying the existence of aroace people.

Denial of Oppression

Exclusionist will often claim that asexuals are not a part of the LGBT community because asexuals do not experience oppression. When presented with evidence of asexual oppression they will either outright refuse to admit that it happened, sometimes trying to gaslight rape victims by staying that they weren't actually raped. Or they will claim that the oppression experienced was actually misdirected homophobia or misogyny.

Demonetization of Asexuals

Exclusionist will go out of their way to make fun of asexuals or make them look bad. They often claim that claiming asexuality exists inherently sexualizes all other LGB identities. Similarly they often claim that minors cannot identify as asexual because it's an inherently sexualized identity. They will claim that asexuals prey on young child, convincing them that they're asexual. Some exclusionist once identitied as asexual, then realized that they weren't asexual, and they are convinced that all asexuals must be the same as them.

Exclusions also will claim that allosexual is a slur used again them, because it groups LGB people with straight people. They also claim that the existence of the term allosexual is shaming people for wanting sex.

Exclusionist will often pose as asexuals, and make posts about how much they "like being ace" and how they're "glad they aren't a dirty allo, always thinking about sex". Since most people do not realize that these post were made be trolls they're often spread in exclusionist circles as "prove" of how all asexuals are actually homophobic.

Queerphobia

There is a large amount of overlap between exclusionist and other bigoted groups. Many exclusionist originally took part in " bisexual discourse" where they excluded bisexuals using many of the same or similar arguments. Along with biphobia, exclusionists also gatekeep the community against pansexuals and non-binary people. Exclusionists often dislike anyone who is not strictly lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender and as such many dislike the usage of the word queer, as it's too inclusive of people they don't want in the community. Many claim that queer is a slur and do not want anyone to use the term. Many exclusionists are also truscum, and some are TERFs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Exclusionists are a groups of aphobes who are against the idea of asexual and aromantic people being in the LGBT+ community. This is often due to the claim that the the LGBT+ community is for people who are "same gender attracted" (SGA).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By: Nicole Magas, Opinions Editor
I'm not going to lie: being asexual is like being the weird kid sitting in the back of the queer bus who gives a little too much intense eye contact and has an odd obsession with collecting bugs. We don't quite fit in on the rainbow, which explains why our flag is predominently greyscale with a little bit of queer purple thrown in there like, "I don't know, I guess?"

And don't get me wrong, it's great to have a little niche place under the rainbow. But when you make your home within an umbrella identity defined by sexuality, and you yourself have none, occasionally the thought bubbles up: "Do I belong here? And if not here, then where?"

I know on the representation scale ace folk must be a pretty low priority - in no small part, I suspect, because allosexual people (those who experience sexual desire) don't know what to do with us. Honestly, I don't know what to do with me half the time, either. Personally, recognition is more important to me than representation. I don't need to see myself clumsily represented on TV or in movies or books. What I need is to feel like I belong to something. That I have a place and a people.

I'm not going to use this space to comment on ace erasure or exclusion within the LGBTQ2+ community. Although I'm sure it exists out there, it has fortunately not been a part of my experience. My queer friends are some of the most accepting, loving, and generous people I know. I couldn't ask for a better found-family than this one. So I'm not going to complain. What I'm going to do instead is express how gratifying it is when someone - - actually notices and recognizes us ace folk. Because in a society that feels over-saturated in sex and sexuality, having no sexual attraction makes one start to feel invisible - and no one likes that feeling.

A lack of ace representation in media , specifically, representation that doesn't border on the pathologic , is rare. How do you represent a lack of something in a casual and organic way? In particular, how do you represent a lack of sexual desire when so many of humanity's staple plots revolve around the active quest for romance or sexual intimacy? It feels as though there is very little space in the modern media landscape for narratives that don't make sexual desire a foundation for plots and characters.

I don't have an easy answer for this. Even having a character casually drop, "Oh, yeah, I'm not attracted to anyone," opens up the narrative doors to inspect, dissect, and overanalyse such a character as a supreme oddity in a context where sexuality is the norm. This creates the feeling that, even within the LGBTQ2+ community, being asexual is like being the queerest of the queer.

In the end, I don't mind listening to my friends talk about their latest Tinder adventure, or dish about a classmate who sits three rows up that they would just to bump uglies with. I find sex to be a fascinating subject, even if I don't feel attraction personally. But at the same time, I also get a little thrill of excitement whenever I hear someone mention asexuality positively - when someone remembers that we exist and makes the effort to talk to us asexuals.

I know that we don't often make our voices heard on the queer bus, but know this: whenever anyone mentions asexuality kindly, they are making at least one weird asexual kid out there smile a little more brightly at their bug collection.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Making room for asexual folk is more important than awkward representation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By: Nicole Magas, Opinions Editor I'm not going to lie: being asexual is like being the weird kid sitting in the back of the queer bus who gives a little too much intense eye contact and has an odd obsession with collecting bugs.

# data[].attributes.body
Die Farben der Flagge der asexuellen Menschen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It was just three years ago that I was a high school student ready to explore the realm of internet dating. One day, I decided to get my phone out and download an app; I prepared my thumbs for all sorts of left- and right-swiping. But my highly romanticized journey with dating apps took a confusing turn when I repeatedly encountered a phrase I soon realized was treacherous: "Masc 4 Masc."

"Masc 4 Masc" is a phrase with which many gay men on dating apps are familiar. Men often describe themselves this way to indicate that they're masculine-acting, and are seeking other masculine-acting individuals. Those who use the term tend to be straight-passing men who refuse to communicate with anyone other than straight-passing men, and therefore dismiss and/or degrade feminine or androgynous people. They sometimes use the term " no fems " as well.

Some try to defend these actions and "preferences" by saying things like "everyone has a type," "it's just a description," and "it's not what I'm into."

But I certainly find "Masc 4 Masc" problematic. The phrase excludes feminine and androgynous queer individuals - a type of exclusion that speaks to a long legacy of internalized homophobia and misogyny both in the gay community as well as in broader American society. Ingrained homophobia teaches us to accept and normalize relationships that fit into a heterosexist framework and oppress queerness, while ingrained misogyny simultaneously teaches us to privilege masculinity over femininity. Being queer in this type of society already marginalizes gay men, but the way in which they present their gender and sexuality in their own community can ultimately marginalize them further. In a world that expects men to be stereotypically masculine, being effeminate leaves you particularly vulnerable.

Homophobia and misogyny create a looming cloud over queer men: Many are worried of being "noticeably" gay, overly flamboyant, or even slightly feminine. We are taught to monitor ourselves and not disrupt the serene façade of heterosexuality. Queer men who oblige get to establish a false sense of protection from "fitting in."

I've unfortunately experienced both the consequences and the rewards of this dynamic. During my first year of college, I met one of my best friends, whom I'll refer to as "Ethan." Ethan and I are both gay, and we bonded through confiding in one another about our lives. I had just recently come out as gay after years of denial, shameful secrets, and emotional breakdowns - not to mention numerous failed attempts to be straight and overly masculine. Ethan was more comfortable with his sexuality and expressed himself in more feminine ways. As we had one kiki after another, I felt increasingly comfortable with my sexuality.

But I also learned that being true to yourself can come with challenges. During one of my school breaks, I invited Ethan to my home and introduced him to someone else I know. We spent some time at my house until Ethan had to leave. After he left, this person and I started casually talking in the kitchen. At first, we just talked about our days and our plans for the week. But as the conversation continued, their thoughts about Ethan slowly came out.

"I'm glad you're not one of those type of gays," this person said.

I didn't feel that I had enough knowledge about how to best respond, so I remained silent instead of defending my friend. I unknowingly reaped the benefits of not challenging gender expectations.

While I believe that nothing is wrong with being and expressing yourself in whatever way you desire - whether masculine, feminine, or androgynous - it's undeniable that masculine-acting queer men reap unparalleled benefits of the patriarchal dividend, and receive unwarranted advantages for being male and masculine in a society that devalues and antagonizes femininity. This leaves room for misogynistic gay men to flaunt their male privilege while screaming for their exclusionary gay rights.

In terms of queer, virtual dating spaces, using the term "Masc 4 Masc" to describe oneself, or being attracted to masculine men, isn't the problem. It's that, as a phenomenon, this phrase doesn't just symbolize a dating preference, but also the dominant, sexist notion that femininity is less valuable than masculinity, and it reinstates the oppressive structures that diminish feminine and queer people. It references and even bolsters the constant distancing, othering, and exclusion of a community that is supposed to be fighting for equality.

We are all products of the societies that we live in, and so are our ways of thinking - even what we find to be attractive. We are all imperfect in this way. But we must constantly question the systems of power in our lives. Why do we find certain characteristics to be attractive? What ideologies could have contributed to how we view different things?

While misogyny and homophobia are two separate (yet often overlapping) spheres of oppression, they are only pieces of the story when it comes to gender, sexuality, and systems of identity. Race, socioeconomic status, ability, global position, and other sexualities and genders are also parts of this broader story that need to be told and listened to in order to achieve true equality.

Back then, I saw "Masc 4 Masc" as just another label into which I didn't fit. Now, I can see it for its exclusionary and oppressive nature.

And to all of the "Ethans" out there, I've got your (our) back now.
Want to be an MTV Founders contributor? Send your full name, age, and pitches to mtvfounders@gmail.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It was just three years ago that I was a high school student ready to explore the realm of internet dating. One day, I decided to get my phone out and download an app; I prepared my thumbs for all sorts of left- and right-swiping.

# data[].attributes.body
Paris is Burning

# data[].attributes.body
The Jury and the trophies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Στιγμιότυπο οθόνης (56)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Voguing wird in Deutschland immer beliebter. Die Szene bietet all denjenigen Platz, die benachteiligt oder ausgegrenzt sind.

Aus den Boxentürmen im Theater am Halleschen Ufer in Berlin- Kreuzberg pumpen treibende House-Beats, hinter den Decks hüpft der MC auf und ab. Unter ihm auf dem Runway läuft ein schmächtiger Mann in High Heels, sein Oberkörper ist in eine bunte Stoffblüte gehüllt.

Vor der Jury am Ende des Laufstegs schält er sich elegant aus den Blättern und steht in knappem Höschen und einem bodenlangen Mantel aus Fischernetz da. Dramatische Pose - das Publikum, das zu beiden Seiten auf stufenförmigen Tribünen sitzt, tobt.

„Gimme Bizarre", ruft eine Frau mit Afro rhythmisch ins Mikrophon. Georgina Leo Melody ist nicht nur Host dieses „Incrediballs", der im Rahmen des 5. Berlin Voguing Out Festivals stattfindet - dem bereits zweiten in diesem etablierten Berliner Theater. Melody ist auch der Kopf einer ganzen Szene.

Inspiriert durch einen Tanzworkshop bei der New Yorker Voguing Legende Archie Burnett veranstaltete die studierte Tänzerin vor vier Jahren das erste Voguing Festival mit ihrer Kollegin Mic Oala, damals noch in wechselnden, vor allem queer konnotierten Locations - und brachte damit den Tanzstil nach Deutschland. Mittlerweile wird Voguing immer beliebter. Tanzstudios bieten entsprechende Kurse an.

„Beim Voguing ahmt man die Posen der Covermodels von Modemagazinen nach. Erst aus der Aneinanderreihung der Posen ist der Tanz entstanden", erklärt Mitorganisatorin Mic Oala die kantigen, dramatischen Bewegungen. Mit jedem Schlag der Musik posieren die bunt kostümierten Tänzerinnen und Tänzern auf dem Laufsteg für eine imaginäre Kamera.

Ballroom Culture

Entstanden ist die sogenannte Ballroom Culture in der queeren New Yorker Subkultur der 1960er Jahre, weltweite Beachtung fand sie 1991 durch Jennie Livingstons Dokumentation „Paris is Burning".

Sie zeigt die New Yorker Szene der 1980er Jahre, deren Mitglieder, meist Transsexuelle, Schwule und People of Colour, bei Drag Balls gegeneinander antreten, um eine vorgegebene Rolle möglichst authentisch durch Kostümierung und Tanz zu verkörpern. Aus diesen Walks entwickelte sich das Voguing. Doch was nach ungehemmtem Spaß aussieht, hat einen ernsten Hintergrund.

Für die New Yorker Queer Szene bot Voguing die Flucht in eine Parallelwelt, in der die Leute Anerkennung erfuhren, die ihnen gesellschaftlich oft verwehrt blieb. In den geschützten Räumen der Balls wurden die Ausgegrenzten zu Stars, erlebten seltene Momente der Freiheit und konnten ihren oft harten Alltag für den Augenblick vergessen.

Da viele Queers, Transpersonen und People of Colour aufgrund ihrer vermeintlichen Andersartigkeit bis heute oft aus konventionellen Beschäftigungsverhältnissen ausgeschlossen werden, werden sie häufig in die Armut oder Illegalität gedrängt.

Viele Anhänger der frühen Voguing-Szene waren obdachlos und gezwungen, als Prostituierte zu arbeiten. Die Stoffe, aus denen sie die extravaganten Kostüme schneiderten, mussten sie häufig stehlen - Mopping wurde das im Szenejargon genannt.

Madonna

Nachdem Madonna für ihre „Blond Ambition Tour" 1990 Ballroom-Tänzer buchte, wurde Voguing auch im Mainstream bekannt - mittlerweile sind Rhianna und Beyoncé mit Voguern auf Tour, Willow Smith lässt sich von ihnen das „Hair Whipping" beibringen und FKA Twigs interpretiert den Stil passend zu ihrem Future R 'n' B-Sound neu.

Obwohl dies durchaus eine Wertschätzung der Szene bedeutet und Jobs für Tänzer schafft, sieht Mic Oala diese Entwicklung auch kritisch. Meist würden auf den Touren nur schlanke, weiße Cis-Frauen als Tänzerinnen gebucht. „Eine schwule Black Queen auf High Heels oder eine Big Queen außerhalb der heteronormativen Körpernorm abgehen zu sehen, ist für das Mainstream Publikum oft immer noch zu verrückt."

Die Voguing-Szene bietet Platz für diejenigen, die benachteiligt oder ausgegrenzt werden. Alter, Herkunft, Aussehen oder Können spielen keine Rolle. Im Gegensatz zur New Yorker Szene, die traditionell eher von homo- und transsexuellen Männern dominiert wurde, ist die deutsche Szene auch offen für Frauen und Menschen außerhalb der queeren Community.

Mic Oala sieht darin keinen Widerspruch: „Voguing ist Selbstermächtigung. Ob du 'ne Skinny Bitch bist oder so 'nen Arsch hast, Mann oder Frau oder irgendwas dazwischen - es geht darum, dich mit dem was du hast wohlzufühlen." Wie divers die Szene in Deutschland ist, spiegelt sich auch beim „Incrediball" im Berliner HAU2.

Eine rothaarige Frau Mitte Vierzig vogued im Prince-Gedächtnis-Look mit lila Jacket und Rüschenkragen, ein spindeldürrer schwarzer Mann posiert in weißen Strapsen mit High Heels neben einem gedrungenen Asiaten mit Bart und Herrenanzug.

House

Eine Vierergruppe in schwarzen Lederoutfits ist extra aus Russland angereist, andere kommen aus Litauen, Tschechien und Holland, um hier auf dem Runway für ihr House gegeneinander anzutreten. A propos House.

„Ein House ist eine Familie für Menschen, die keine Familie haben", definierte Pepper LaBeija, eine zentrale Figur der New Yorker Szene der 1980er Jahre, in „Paris is Burning". Ganz oben in der Hierarchie dieser Wahlfamilien steht die „Mother", im Fall des ersten deutschen Voguing Houses „House of Melody" ist dies - natürlich - Georgina Leo Melody.

Sie bestimmt, wer in ihr House, das zur Zeit aus 13 Mitgliedern besteht, aufgenommen wird und wer auf den Balls in welcher Kategorie laufen darf. „Als Mitglied eines Houses trägst du eine größere Verantwortung, da du den Namen trägst und das House auf den Balls repräsentierst", erklärt Andra Wöllert, Mitglied des legendären internationalen House of Mizrahi.

Die freiberufliche Journalistin vogued schon seit über fünf Jahren, vor Kurzem wurde sie nach einem Ball im House of Mizrahi aufgenommen; eine große Ehre in der Szene. Auf den Balls treten die Houses in unterschiedlichen Kategorien gegeneinander an.

Old Way, die Ursprungsform des Tanzstils, zeichnet sich durch kantige Bewegungen aus, New Way, eine spätere Form, nimmt akrobatische Verrenkungen mit auf, Vogue Femme, die jüngste Form, verkörpert eine fast hysterische Weiblichkeit.

Realness

Erstmals gibt es in Berlin auch sogenannte „Realness Kategorien". In der Kategorie „Pretty Boy Realness" geht es darum, als schwuler, eher femininer Mann einen heterosexuellen Mann überzeugend zu verkörpern - aber bitte pretty! Eben noch in Glitzerleggings und High Heels schlendern einige männlichen Tänzer nun in Cordsakko und Krawatte über den Laufsteg.

„She's a pretty boy", kommentiert Georgina Leo Melody mehr rappend als sprechend über das Mikrofon. He oder she, Femme oder Butch - alles ist fließend, binäre Geschlechterkategorien lösen sich im kollektiven Wir auf.

Obwohl sich Voguing in Deutschland, anders als in den USA, aus Tänzerkreisen heraus entwickelt hat, ist die Nähe zur LGBTQ-Szene essentiell. Für Mic Oala bleibt daher trotz aller Öffnungen der Szene das Anliegen, diejenigen, die wegen ihres Genders oder ihrer Hautfarbe benachteiligt werden, nach vorne zu stellen.

Das Thema kulturelle Aneignung, also die Übernahme kultureller Ausdrucksformen einer marginalisierten Minderheit durch die privilegierte Mehrheit, ist für sie zentral: „Wenn wir Voguing in Deutschland etablieren wollen, braucht es Respekt und ein Bewusstsein für die Anfänge dieser Subkultur. Keiner von uns hier ist im Getto aufgewachsen, das Märkische Viertel ist nicht die Bronx."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ballroom Culture im Berliner HAU: She's a pretty boy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voguing wird in Deutschland immer beliebter. Die Szene bietet all denjenigen Platz, die benachteiligt oder ausgegrenzt sind. Aus den Boxentürmen im Theater am Halleschen Ufer in Berlin- Kreuzberg pumpen treibende House-Beats, hinter den Decks hüpft der MC auf und ab. Unter ihm auf dem Runway läuft ein schmächtiger Mann in High Heels, sein Oberkörper ist in eine bunte Stoffblüte gehüllt.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Aimee Stephens had been working in funeral services for 20 years, nearly six of which were at Harris Funeral Homes, when she came out to her boss as transgender.

She had known since she was 5 years old that she was a girl and had been living as a woman outside of work for some time. Though she loved her job at Harris, where she had worked her way up from apprentice to funeral director, she felt she had to hide who she was there. Until she couldn't any longer.

In 2013, she gave the funeral home's owner, Thomas Rost, a note that she also shared with friends and colleagues. "I realize that some of you may have trouble understanding this. In truth, I have had to live with it every day of my life and even I do not fully understand it myself," she wrote. "As distressing as this is sure to be to my friends and some of my family, I need to do this for myself and for my own peace of mind, and to end the agony in my soul."

After he read the note, Rost simply said, "Okay." Stephens was fired two weeks later. Rost told her that it was "not going to work out."

Stephens sued, claiming her dismissal was discrimination on the basis of her sex, setting off a flurry of legal activity. According to court documents, Rost testified that he fired Stephens because "[she] was no longer going to represent [herself] as a man. [She] wanted to dress as a woman."

Last March, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor. "It is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee's status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee's sex," the court said in its decision. "An employer cannot discriminate on the basis of transgender status without imposing its stereotypical notions of how sexual organs and gender identity ought to align."

Harris Funeral Homes appealed to the Supreme Court, which took up the case and will hear oral arguments on October 8.

How anti-trans "radical feminist" groups could affect the outcome of a civil rights discrimination case

In recent weeks, a flurry of amicus briefs have been filed in the case R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC and Aimee Stephens. Major medical organizations, advocacy groups, and legal experts have weighed in mostly in favor of allowing trans people to be free of discrimination at work. Meanwhile, a slew of conservative and religious groups have claimed the right to fire anyone for being trans.

Even President Trump's Department of Justice filed a brief in August arguing in part that Stephens was fired by Harris Funeral Homes not for her gender identity but because she refused to follow her employer's dress code, which requires men - and by "men," the DOJ means men of "biological sex" - to wear a suit with pants and women to wear a dress or a skirt. The ACLU attorneys representing Stephens, in turn, argued that their client was fired because Stephens failed to perform the sex role her employer expected of her, violating the legal precedent established in 1989 in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.

In that case, Ann Hopkins was denied promotions and a partnership because she didn't look, dress, or behave in a stereotypically feminine enough manner. Her bosses instructed her to wear more makeup and skirts to work in order to get the promotion. The court sided with Hopkins, establishing a legal standard for sex stereotyping that has fundamentally transformed the workplace for women for the past 30 years.

Now that precedent is being put to the test. And joining the Trump administration and conservatives in the fight over sex-based discrimination and stereotypes are several somewhat unexpected allies: so-called "radical feminist" groups with long records of opposing the rights of transgender people.

In their amicus brief to the Supreme Court, the Women's Liberation Front, or WoLF, writes, "Simply, Aimee Stephens is a man. He wanted to wear a skirt while at work, and his 'gender identity' argument is an ideology that dictates that people who wear skirts must be women, precisely the type of sex stereotyping forbidden by Price Waterhouse."

Groups like WoLF are commonly referred to as "trans-exclusionary radical feminists," or TERFs. They alternate among several theories that all claim that trans women are really men, who are the ultimate oppressors of women. Most of their ideas - like that trans women are a threat to cisgender women's safety - are based on cherry-picked cases of horrific behavior by a small number of trans people. Above all else, their ideology doesn't allow for trans people to have self-definition or any autonomy over their gender expression.

"Sex is grounded in materiality, whereas 'gender identity' is simply an ideology that has no grounding in science," WoLF told Vox in a statement. "The redefinition of the word 'sex' to mean 'gender identity' would have myriad harmful effects on women and girls, and women and girls as a distinct category deserve civil rights protections."

The key to understanding why a self-proclaimed radical feminist group would side with conservatives arguing for the right to force cisgender women into skirts at work is to understand who TERFs are and what they've been up to for the past 50 years. Because now, under the Trump administration and a conservative-majority Supreme Court, their alliance with these far-right groups could have lasting, widespread consequences for trans civil rights - and for the rights of women in general.

TERFs, explained

Online roots of the term TERF originated in the late 2000s but grew out of 1970s radical feminist circles after it became apparent that there needed to be a term to separate radical feminists who support trans women and those who don't. Many anti-trans feminists today claim it's a slur, despite what many see as an accurate description of their beliefs. They now prefer to call themselves "gender critical," a euphemism akin to white supremacists calling themselves " race realists."

In the early '70s, groups of what would now be called "gender critical" feminists threatened violence against many trans women who dared exist in women's and lesbian spaces. For example, trans woman Beth Elliott, who was at the 1973 West Coast Lesbian Feminist Conference to perform with her lesbian band, was ridiculed onstage and had her existence protested. In 1979, radical feminist Janice Raymond, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, wrote the defining work of the TERF movement, "Transsexual Empire: The Making of the Shemale," in which she argued that "transsexualism" should be "morally mandating it out of existence" mainly by restricting access to transition care (a political position shared by the Trump administration). Soon after she wrote another paper - this one published for the government-funded, Health and Human Services-linked National Center for Healthcare Technology - the Reagan administration cut off Medicare and private health insurance coverage for transition-related care.

After those early flashpoints, the dispute between trans people and gender-critical folks simmered for the next 20 years. One exception is the high-profile conflicts at the Michigan Womyn's Folk Festival, or MichFest, which caught plenty of attention. In the 1990s and early aughts, pro-trans festival attendees organized "Camp Trans," a space specifically welcoming to trans women who were otherwise banned from attending the event. The two groups clashed for a number of years, until more artists and organizations boycotted MichFest and organizers chose to end the event in 2015.

However, in the past several years, TERFism has found new life and fostered fertile recruiting ground in many online spaces. Though trans people experienced a dramatic increase in visibility with the rise of trans actress Laverne Cox and Caitlyn Jenner's headline-grabbing transition, that visibility has resulted in a growing cultural backlash. While the majority of that backlash is simply a continuation of the conservative-driven culture war, some extremist "feminists" have decided that trans rights go too far.

TERF ideology has become the de facto face of feminism in the UK, helped along by media leadership from Rupert Murdoch and the Times of London. Any vague opposition to gender-critical thought in the UK brings along accusations of "silencing women" and a splashy feature or op-ed in a British national newspaper. Australian radical feminist Sheila Jeffreys went before the UK Parliament in March 2018 and declared that trans women are "parasites," language that sounds an awful lot like Trump speaking about immigrants.

According to Heron Greenesmith, who studies the modern gender-critical movement as a senior research associate with the social justice think tank Political Research Associates, gender-critical feminism in the UK grew out of a toxic mix of historical imperialism and the influence of the broader UK skeptical movement in the early aughts - which was hyper-focused on debunking "junk science" and any idea that considered sociological and historical influence and not just biology. Those who rose to prominence in the movement did so through a lot of "non-tolerant calling-out and attacking people," Greenesmith said, much like gender-critical feminism. "Anti-trans feminists think they have science on their side. It is bananas how ascientific their rhetoric is, and yet literally they say, 'Biology isn't bigotry.' In fact, biology has been used as bigotry as long as biology has been a thing." (See scientific racism, eugenics, and the justification for slavery that black people were intellectually inferior to white people.)

Though TERFism got its start in the US in the '70s, the ideology has largely fallen out of favor as the country's mainstream feminist movement has continuously battled against the religious right for abortion access and LGBTQ rights. In a country where political coalitions on the feminist left are crucial to the survival of basic women's rights, it doesn't make much sense to spend time oppressing a tiny population who are otherwise valuable allies in the culture war.

Anti-trans rhetoric, though, has power, and anti-trans harassment certainly exists. While the hardcore in-person gender-critical organizing is largely run by a small handful of people, it has become sport for these self-proclaimed feminists to harass and mock trans people and their allies on Twitter and other social media platforms. Check out some of the 80-plus replies to a tweet last month by prominent feminist writer Sady Doyle promoting a piece she wrote denouncing TERFs (some accused Doyle of being a handmaid of the patriarchy, a common insult lobbed at cis women who ally with trans people), or check the inevitable replies to my tweet sharing this piece when it goes online.

But probably where "gender critical" feminism has the potential to wield the most influence is in government. US-based "gender critical" feminist groups like WoLF and Hands Across the Aisle, which sent a letter to the Department of Housing and Urban Development in favor of barring trans women from women's homeless shelters, are happy to work alongside conservatives to limit the rights of trans people - even if those same conservatives want to pass legislation limiting their reproductive rights.

TERFs treat trans women as predators and trans men as victims of the patriarchy

Gender-critical feminism, at its core, opposes the self-definition of trans people, arguing that anyone born with a vagina is in its own oppressed sex class, while anyone born with a penis is automatically an oppressor. In a TERF world, gender is a system that exists solely to oppress women, which it does through the imposition of femininity on those assigned female at birth.

"Legally redefining 'female' as anyone who claims to be female results in the erasure of female people as a class," WoLF wrote in its SCOTUS brief. "If, as a matter of law, anyone can be a woman, then no one is a woman, and sex-based protections in the law have no meaning whatsoever."

This conception of gender as a system would be relatively sound if not for the existence of LGBTQ people. Gender- and sex-based oppression can be imposed on a range of people who were assigned male at birth, like gay men and, of course, trans women. In practice, however, the movement more closely resembles an organized hate campaign against a marginalized community - whether that's through online harassment or filing briefs in landmark civil rights cases.

Adherents to TERF ideology treat trans women, trans men, and nonbinary people much differently. Gender-critical feminists blame the patriarchy for deluding trans men into thinking they can identify out of female oppression, or blame structural homophobia for convincing trans men they can become straight men rather than lesbians.

"The women in our coalition chose to set aside their differences and work together after we saw firsthand the deeply negative and downright dangerous consequences of ignoring bodily sex," Hands Across the Aisle, an organization that connects radical feminists with anti-LGBTQ groups to campaign against trans rights, said in a statement to Vox. "We watched as doctors enabled irreversible damage to our daughters' bodies, we sat stunned as boys took away our sisters' sports opportunities, and we wept as our lesbian friends poisoned their bodies with testosterone in an attempt to appear male."

For anti-trans activists, establishing a narrative that trans men are really just lesbians attempting to identify out of womanhood is absolutely essential. By doing this, transitioning can be positioned as a form of "conversion therapy," whereby a lesbian is forced into a male identity and de facto heterosexuality. It opens a pathway for anti-trans activists to ban trans-affirming health care through "conversion therapy" bans.

However, trans men themselves have pointed out that the argument fails to take into account the bodily autonomy of transmasculine people and it is therefore not a feminist position. Trans author Jay Hulme recently described in a recent blog post why and how gender-critical feminists work to get trans men to "return to womanhood" and ultimately detransition.

"As a trans man, I am, and always will be, belittled, disrespected, spoken down to, and patronised, by transphobes," wrote Hulme. "After all, they think I have been brainwashed and fooled into 'thinking I'm a man,' what could I possibly know? What value could my words or experience possibly have? ... This is, again, anti-feminist - the idea that trans men are just foolish women whose words cannot have any value is deeply troubling, and mirrors partiarchal behaviours towards 'silly girls,' no matter how old or how accomplished the women in question actually are."

Nonbinary people, meanwhile, are often dismissed in discussions by gender critical feminists. "Nonbinary people muddle the scientism that anti-trans feminists rely on to justify their gender essentialism, so they choose not to acknowledge [nonbinary] existence or agency," said Greenesmith. When not erasing them entirely, TERFs will often parrot right-wing rhetoric by mocking nonbinary people, suggesting they are attention seekers who don't understand their birth sex.

How fear is weaponized against trans women

Gender-critical propaganda is almost entirely focused on the supposed depravity of trans women, citing rare cases to paint trans women as threats to women and children.

TERFs often point to the case of Karen White. White was in prison for sexual assault when she came out as a trans woman and applied for a transfer to a women's prison. Once there, she allegedly raped several fellow prisoners before she was eventually caught. Prison officials later admitted that they did not follow existing safeguarding procedures in granting the transfer.

As a rape survivor myself, I find White detestable and am outraged that prison officials were so lax with their procedures and allowed White access to a vulnerable population of women. Where I differ from gender-critical feminists is I don't agree that White is representative of all trans women; gender-critical feminists essentially believe the existence of trans women's penises in a women's space represents an automatic risk of rape.

"These are how stereotypes are weaponized against marginalized groups," Gillian Branstetter, media relations manager at the National Center for Transgender Equality, told Vox. "Given transgender people's relatively recent rise to public life, and the fact that many people still don't know a transgender person, we're very vulnerable to being mischaracterized, to being maligned, and to being drowned out by dog whistles."

Many gender-critical feminists refuse to contend with the fact that 47 percent of trans women have been victims of sexual assault in their lives, instead questioning the survey methods used to reach the conclusion. However, many trans people don't see how such questioning is any different from cis men who claim women are falsely accusing men of rape in ever-larger numbers.

This supposed concern for cis women and children has become the primary method for radicalizing gender-critical feminists, similar to how Islamophobes play up threats of gang rape of white women by Muslim men, or white supremacists have historically painted black men as sexual threats to justify segregation. Defending the purity of white womanhood has always been a significant axis of common bigotries, and gender-critical feminism operates in the same fashion. With "stranger danger" drilled into the heads of women and girls from a young age, anti-trans feminists can easily paint "the other" as a constant sexual threat - despite the fact that studies have repeatedly shown that women are most likely to be sexually assaulted by someone they already know.

If trans people are given anti-discrimination protections, WoLF writes in its brief, "it will mark a truly fundamental shift in American law and policy that strips women of their right to privacy, threatens their physical safety, undercuts the means by which women can achieve professional and educational equality, and ultimately works to erase women and girls under the law."

With its hyperfocus on the supposed threat of trans women in women's spaces, gender-critical feminism ultimately lets misogynistic men slide under the radar. If everyone is watching for deviant trans women or men claiming to be trans women, who is watching for the respected public figure perpetuating horrific sexual abuse against women and girls?

Online TERFism has infiltrated academia and often manifests into more harassment

While gender-critical feminism has long had roots in academia - extending back to Raymond and her cohorts in the 1970s - renewed public interest in trans discourse has created opportunities for academics to make a name for themselves. Recently, a small handful of gender-critical philosophers have managed to leverage media coverage to gain a mainstream platform from which to express their transphobic views.

"Historically speaking, issues around sexuality and gender have been of relatively marginal importance for philosophy departments, and relatively significant importance for humanities departments and the literary or cultural studies," Grace Lavery, a trans woman and professor of 19th-century British literature at Berkeley, told Vox. But "that distinction, or that institutional boundary, has begun to fray."

Gender-critical philosophy has become a sort of cottage industry where previously unheralded academics can achieve an online following by reciting the theory du jour in online radical feminist spaces. British philosopher Kathleen Stock, a self-identifying gender-critical feminist and one of the group's more authoritative figures, has written perhaps half a dozen different manifestos over the past few years on trans exclusion and the definition of womanhood.

"One of the things I find interesting to watch is the changing in their positions," said Lavery of gender-critical academics. "I think they imagined that the questions they were asking would have easier answers than they did. I think, for example, they imagined earlier on that it was going to be quite easy to use chromosomes as a basis for a kind of biological sex distinction, binary sex distinction. And they've now more or less entirely abandoned chromosomes as a singular determinant, as far as I can tell."

Graduate philosophy student Christa Peterson has spent quite a bit of time tracking the positions and social media activity of gender-critical philosophers, and she explained why these philosophers seem to change positions so frequently. "What's happening here is a popular movement that's coming into academia, rather than these people having philosophical projects on this stuff that gives them these conclusions," she told Vox. "They're getting what they're representing as philosophical conclusions from the gender-critical subreddit and other people on Twitter."

Earlier this year, Lavery decided to step into the debate because, as a tenured professor, she felt like she was one of the few trans academics in a position to push back on the growing anti-trans rhetoric she was seeing around her. After initially dipping her toe into the discourse, she wrote a piece that was critical of Stock. Two gender-critical journalists shared Stock's response, and that's when Lavery really started feeling the heat.

"It led to a massive explosion of online harassment, which I just didn't see coming at all," she said. "People in the seemingly hundreds started trying to find me and just write insulting things about me. And that escalated to the degree that it was totally out of control. At one point, people were posting the names and contact details and photographs - not only of me but also of my colleagues at UC Berkeley - online."

Generally, among academics, the work of their gender-critical peers is viewed as legitimate academic work, trusting the credentials of the philosophers who have jumped into the issue. However, when Stock was invited to speak on her views on gender and sexuality at the Aristotelian Society in early June, her speech drew protests online.

"In recent years and months, attacks on the trans community have been led by a number of prominent philosophers and are made to seem legitimate due to the unwillingness of the wider community to speak up and protect its most vulnerable members," read a joint statement by Minorities and Philosophy UK and Minorities and Philosophy International. "Not every item of personal and ideological obsession is worthy of philosophical debate. In particular, scepticism about the rights of marginalised groups and individuals, where issues of life and death are at stake, are not up for debate."

Yet this hasn't stopped Stock from being published. Her work is cited in several amici briefs to the Supreme Court in the Stephens case, showing how gender-critical academia is assisting to legitimize anti-trans policy positions. In effect, gender-critical academics are laundering the whims of online TERFs into official policy.

Groups like WoLF may have "liberation" in their name, but they have ultraconservative ties

This brings us back to how TERFism can wield great power in policy and politics - and who they will align with to push their ideology forward.

WoLF has made no bones about partnering with misogynistic and anti-LGBTQ organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) in order to oppose the livelihoods of trans people to the Supreme Court. In fact, the Stephens case isn't the first time the two groups have worked together on an anti-trans Supreme Court case. In early 2017, WoLF submitted an amicus brief opposing trans student Gavin Grimm's lawsuit to use the boys' bathroom at his school. That case was eventually remanded back to the lower court, which just recently ruled in Grimm's favor once again.

WoLF's relationship with ADF extends beyond just filing briefs in key cases. LGBTQNation reported that in fiscal year 2017, the most recent year for which the feminist group's financial records are available, WoLF applied for and accepted a $15,000 grant from the ultraconservative group. The LGBTQNation report additionally revealed in 2017 that WoLF contracted with Imperial Independent Media for help with fundraising, promising a 20 percent commission. At the time, IIM was run by Zachary Freeman, who made a name for himself over a lawsuit to leak abortion clinic employee names to the Center for Medical Progress, an anti-abortion group known for propagating heavily doctored videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood profiting off the sale of fetal tissue.

WoLF defended its deal with Freeman in its aforementioned statement to Vox. "WoLF has never hired anyone who endangered the lives of abortion clinic workers," it said. "WoLF did once enter into a contract with someone who had previously exercised his rights under the Freedom of Information Act, related to matters that had nothing to do with WoLF."

Also in its statement, WoLF defended a recent blog post that attacked Planned Parenthood's commitment to trans-inclusive care. In fact, nearly every blog post on WoLF's site is anti-trans (posts arguing against trans women in women's prisons, trans girls in girls sports, trans women in women's homeless shelters). There is little call to any "feminist" issue that isn't an attack on trans people at its core.

Though it's unknown who funds another prominent gender-critical group, Hands Across the Aisle, one of its co-founders is Kaeley Triller-Haver, an anti-abortion conservative who has reportedly admitted to committing statutory rape of a teenage boy when she was a youth counselor.

Anti-trans alliances with conservative groups are by no means new for gender-critical feminists. During the Irish referendum on abortion rights in 2018, some British gender-critical feminists withheld support for campaigners who supported abortion rights, citing the trans supportive attitudes of Irish feminism, going so far as to schedule an anti-trans meeting in Dublin at the height of the campaign season. Irish feminists responded with a scathing open letter denouncing the event and reaffirming their support for the womanhood of trans women.

In January, the conservative Heritage Foundation held an event in Washington, DC, featuring members of WoLF to discuss the Equality Act and their opposition to trans rights. Two days later, prominent British anti-trans feminists Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (also known as "Posie Parker") and Julia Long, who had been in town attending the panel, stormed a Capitol Hill office where Human Rights Campaign national press secretary Sarah McBride had just concluded a meeting between parents of trans children and legislators. (The Heritage Foundation told Vox it had "nothing to do with" Keen-Minshull and Long being in the US and had "no contact with them before or after our January 28 event, and have zero connection to anything they did afterward.")

They filmed themselves yelling and taunting McBride with their personal gripes with the trans movement, accusing her of not caring about "lesbian girls." McBride, to her credit, didn't take the bait, remaining stone-faced and focused on her computer screen while a coworker attempted to deescalate the situation.

Thread!
Kellie-Jay Keen Minshull (Posie Parker) and Julia Long have gone to a trans womans place of work to intimidate and bully her for her work at Human Rights Campaign.
In the US they have proposed an Equality Act, much like the one that supports and protects minorities.

1/? pic.twitter.com/QsY5GNnGTD
- Joss Prior (@joss_prior) January 30, 2019

Branstetter compares the deployment of so-called feminists to oppose trans rights to the white nationalist movement rebranding themselves as the "alt-right" to achieve a veneer of respectability. "When people call organizations like these TERFs, it's doing that same job for them," she said. "It's portraying it as this divide within the progressive movement or this divide within the LGBTQ community that only serves to benefit people who hate women and the LGBTQ community, including Heritage, the FRC [Family Research Council], and the ADF. Certainly, we should not be shocked that they're desperate to sort of put up decoys - I just can't imagine how you can walk through the doors of the Heritage Foundation as a heralded guest and continue to call yourself an advocate for women's equality."

In the US, Baltimore gender critical feminist Julia Beck has made a name for herself in conservative circles, appearing on Tucker Carlson's show on Fox News and testifying before the House against trans inclusions in the Violence Against Women Act and the Equality Act.

"I sat 10 feet from Julia Beck in the House Equality Act hearing and heard her say the violence faced by transgender women is a myth," said Branstetter, who noted that anti-trans feminists, like their conservative partners, have begun pushing a claim that trans people do not face much discrimination and violence, an assertion without evidence. "Not 24 hours before she said that, not two miles from where she said that, Ashanti Carmon was murdered on Eastern Avenue in DC. I think it's telling that they have to promote this trans violence trutherism in order to feel justified in their own hatred."

According to Greenesmith, Beck employed the diversionary tactic of spouting inaccuracies, forcing those engaged in debate to constantly refute them, rather than engage with the real issues. "Everything she was saying was a lie," said Greenesmith, referring to Beck's testimony. "We keep getting trapped in that cycle of proving what she says is wrong ... here you and I are saying, 'But in fact, 24 hours earlier, a trans woman was killed!' There will always be a trans person getting harmed because that is a reality, but instead of talking [about] why then we need the Equality Act, we're forced to instead do what happened at the hearing. All the House Democrats and the other witnesses had to contradict Julia Beck. It worked. Having her there worked perfectly."

Gender-critical feminism doesn't have the same traction in the US as it does in the UK, but groups still wield power

In fairness, several prominent gender-critical feminists have themselves denounced the movement's cooperation with archconservatives, such as Jean Hatchet, who cited WoLF's connection with the ADF in a blog post stating her opposition. But those appeals haven't appeared to slow down the merging of TERFism with the larger conservative political apparatus.

Just this month, gender-critical feminists who have been banned from Twitter for extensive transphobic harassment have recently organized under the alt-right message board Gab to form "Spinster," a social media platform for TERFs. It remains to be seen whether the British message board Mumsnet will remain the epicenter for gender-critical messaging, but the movement's growing connections with anti-abortion and violent misogynist movements should concern both cisgender and transgender women.

According to Branstetter, the recent gender-critical wave has largely failed to gain traction in the US outside of the very far-right spheres. "I don't think American women are buying it," she said, pointing out that nearly every major US feminist advocacy group is vocally pro-trans rights and inclusion. "It's because they understand what it means to be marginalized. They understand that any strict rules placed around gender are to the benefit of nobody."

Conservative groups, in turn, have made a conscious decision to use feminist language and framing to oppose trans rights, which is how we ended up with some of the most vehemently anti-woman politicians in the House voting against the Violence Against Women Act in the name of "protecting women and girls."

This unholy alliance - backed up with academic scholarship written by TERFs - could end up having devastating consequences to the standing of women and girls in the US and across the globe. In the Supreme Court case, WoLF is taking the side that claims employers have the right to mandate that women wear skirts by arguing that Aimee Stephens believes that only women can wear skirts. If WoLF truly believed in the abolition of gender, as it claims, it would be petitioning to allow Stephens to present at work in whatever gender she wishes without risk of being fired.

WoLF's argument reveals the big gender-critical lie: It's more important to TERFs to put cis women in a stricter box and enforce sex-based dress codes than it is to give trans women equal employment rights. And if TERFs prevail, then all women and nonbinary people lose.
Katelyn Burns is a freelance journalist based in Washington, DC. She was the first openly transgender Capitol Hill reporter in US history. Her other work can be seen in the Washington Post, Teen Vogue, Vice, and many others.
Correction: An earlier version of this story cited links that appeared on Hands Across the Aisle's website. The links to various groups do not reflect any known ties. This piece has also been updated to include a statement from the Heritage Foundation and to clarify that the protests against Kathleen Stock were online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The rise of anti-trans "radical" feminists, explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aimee Stephens had been working in funeral services for 20 years, nearly six of which were at Harris Funeral Homes, when she came out to her boss as transgender. She had known since she was 5 years old that she was a girl and had been living as a woman outside of work for some time.

# data[].attributes.body
Viele glauben es ist nur ein Fetisch, aber für viele Leute ist die Leder-Community ein "Safe-Place".
Auch im Laufe der Jahren haben LS-Mitglieder viel mit dem Kämpf gegen AIDS/HIV geholfen und der Diskriminierung von Trans Leute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On a recent Saturday, Gary Wasdin, the recently installed executive director of the Leather Archives & Museum, was tucked in away in the back corner of the Hyatt Regency lobby in Washington, D. C. To reach him, one had to squeeze through a few men wearing nothing but jockstraps, skirt around a group in leather harnesses paired with blue jeans, and step over a "pup" or a young, lanky guy dressed in a neoprene puppy suit groveling at someone's feet. This was high noon at Mid Atlantic Leather 2018 on Capitol Hill.

"Leather has become this large umbrella that has always had this connection to sex and sexuality although it's not even about sex for everybody," Wasdin told i-D at the event, referencing the fact that some get into the subculture for ideas around hypermasculinity as opposed to intercourse. "It's such a huge umbrella that sort of stands for family, safety, and being yourself." Under that banner, leather has become synonymous with the fetish and kink communities as a whole, encompassing everything from the pup community to bondage and rubber and more. But the effect of that community, and its legacy, is still being felt in the larger queer community today.

The leather community got its start in the 50s in the wake of World War II. In a story told in part in 2017's Tom of Finland film centered on the artist Touko Laaksonen, gay men returned to their home countries and cities having experienced things at war that changed them. As they went to assimilate back into society at large, they found themselves at odds with what was happening.

"It sounds weird to say that there was a 'gay culture' back then but [the leather community] sort of started as a reaction to the feminized style of gay culture at the time," Wasdin explained. An aesthetic that married the military with the biker club style of Marlon Brando in the 1969 film Easy Rider began to foster a look that began to come to maturation in the 70s. In bars like Chicago's Gold Coast, regarded by many as the first leather bar started in the 50s and New York's The Eagle, which has turned into one of the largest names in gay bars, that look turned into community, identified most notably by Laaksonen's work. In last year's film, jokes were made about "motorcycle clubs with no motorcycles." This was the beginning of the leather community. As time progressed into the 80s and 90s, what was once a "white gay male" space diversified, welcoming in not only people of color but women and a variety of sexual identities.

But this community quickly became about much more than just a place for the members to explore their kinkier sides. A circuit of titleholder competitions started up, the largest still running being International Mr Leather, begun in 1979 by Chuck Renslow and Dom Orejudos. Renslow also went on to start the Leather Archives, headquartered in Chicago. In addition, when the AIDS crisis began to crash through these chosen families, the community reacted, organizing fundraisers for various people they knew personally affected as well as for HIV and AIDS research at large.

"The drag and the leather community are the number one contributors to HIV and AIDS research," Martel Brown, Mr. Mid Atlantic Leather 2017 said in an interview. "We are partially the reason why Truvada and PReP exist." Truvada is a one-pill-a-day version of PrEP which can be used to prevent HIV transmission.

But the leather and fetish communities also did more than just raise funds and give their time.

"Through the AIDS crisis the leather community was both affected personally by that but they were also there in order to step up but in a way to also not stop having fun," Wasdin explained. "Everyone had a part to play - the drag community, the lesbian community - but the message from the leather community was to keep having sex. And to enjoy life." Laaksonen's work referenced this too, beginning to incorporate visible condom usage into his explicit pieces.

"One of the things I've read about quite often, particularly on the kink side of things, is that a lot of the things is that were fetishes and that were interesting in this community, you quite frankly couldn't get HIV from," Wasdin continued, referencing kinks like fisting, flogging and bondage. "The community really stepped up during that time saying 'Hey there's a whole lot of other things we could do or could be enjoying that don't involve physical intercourse.'"

That sex positivity lives on, hand in hand with the philanthropic. Last year, MAL weekend raised over $80,000 which they gave away in grants. This year, their goal was $100,000 and they are expected to surpass it. But it goes beyond money.

"I lived in Omaha Nebraska for a while and even in their smaller competitions for their Mr Nebraska Leather, the winner, there's an expectation that comes with that," Wasdin explained. "When they run for these competitions they have these causes they champion that require volunteer hours and financial resources and brings visibility. That long history is very much a part of what we do as a community to help and support others."

Case in point, when John-John Punki served as Mr Eagle NYC 2017, he hosted events and spoke out about body positivity as well as issues pertaining to the trans community, going so far as to even raise money for that community. Brendan Patrick, Mr Maryland Leather 2018, aims to bring attention and consideration to those in alcohol recovery while planning leather events and will raise proceeds for a local men's halfway house. Even Gerard Turner, who was crowned Mr MAL 2018 this weekend, has been the chair for Code RED, a fundraising event supporting the fight against HIV and AIDS and the stigma associated with it, for the past four years. During his title year he hopes to do some work related to cancer as he is a survivor himself.

These title holders are present in communities all over the world, continuing the work of the community that allowed them to be their truest selves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
what can we learn from the queer leather community in 2018?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On a recent Saturday, Gary Wasdin, the recently installed executive director of the Leather Archives & Museum, was tucked in away in the back corner of the Hyatt Regency lobby in Washington, D. C.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With America having enjoyed nationwide marriage equality for about two years now, it's easy to forget just how hard we fought to achieve it.

But fight queers did, for decade after exasperating decade. That struggle is captured in Awakening, out today from Harvard University Press. Written by historian and commentator Nathaniel Frank, it's a fascinating account of the modern battle for equality-particularly given how many LGBTQ people were against gay marriage while that fight raged.

The concern in decades past was that marriage was a clunky, obsolete institution, burdened irreparably by misogyny and racism and the myth of monogamy. Queers, many felt, could do better.

As Frank recounts, it took years of debate and infighting-and a plague-for that attitude to change. AIDS made clear that marriage equality was as much a moral imperative as an institutional one. As queer populations were decimated by the virus, it became commonplace for people with HIV to find themselves with few legal protections, and for their partners be left with nothing after their death. That led to a more unified campaign for marriage equality, particularly in the early 90s, via a steady growth in lawsuits-and a backlash of discriminatory laws.

But now, as that battle recedes into the background of history, we finally have the opportunity to dust ourselves off, take a deep breath, look around, and ask: What's next?

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

VICE: Why were so many activists resistant to marriage equality when the conversation started in the 1950s?
Nathaniel Frank: Back then, many who worked in gay politics and queer subcultures were enjoying levels of community they hadn't known before, which they found tremendously novel and exciting and utopian. They were creating networks of friendship and socializing and care-taking and sex that few had thought possible.

So the idea of joining marriage seemed anathema to that exciting project that so many people felt part of. They thought they could be the vanguard of a new way of organizing society and family that didn't focus on retreating into the private sphere in duos. And I think it was threatening and alienating to the vision that they shared together for many people.

Were they right? Now that we have marriage, could we lose those networks of queer support that built up over decades?
I think there's always loss in gains. This is a classic phenomenon for minorities of any kind. When you gain acceptance and greater measures of equality, you lose some aspects of your identity that were built around marginalization. You don't have to lose everything, but there is a loss.

Did the fight for marriage equality change how people think about marriage?
While I do think that the effort to win marriage equality questioned norms about marriage-for example, gender disparities-I don't think the LGBT activism around marriage changed the definition of marriage. It may have expanded people's expectations of what marriage was becoming.

Marriage has always been changing. Always, always, always. Once upon a time, it was exclusively for nobles and about tying kingdoms together and consolidating power. When it was finally extended to ordinary people, it was about sharing labor and divvying up chores on the farm. And then, within nation states in the modern era, marriage meant that women lost their legal identities. Often marriage was something that consolidated racial privilege. And then marriage became about none of those things. That was happening long before same-sex marriage gained traction in the 1990s.

How much credit can Republicans take for marriage equality?
Republicans were certainly instrumental in getting marriage passed in several states. I think progressives would be wise to recognize that. It's often critical to have broad support, including bipartisan support, when you're fighting for big social changes. Particularly so if you want them to be durable.

When you grow your coalition, you have more buy-in from different kind of people, and your changes are less likely to be vulnerable over time. That's something that many of us woke up to on November 9.

Republicans have a mixed record on marriage equality, and for the most part, it's a very bad record. As a party, Republicans were all too happy to sell gay people down the river in order to consolidate their own power. The Democratic Party wasn't too far ahead, but they can't be blamed in the same way that Republicans can for thinking up and ensuring the passage of DOMA as a wedge issue in the 1996 election.

Now that we're included, can queer people improve the institution of marriage?
I think that creating a national discussion about marriage equality has already, according to some evidence, made the institution of marriage stronger. You wouldn't have had President Obama and Justice Kennedy and all these people articulating the role and function of marriage if it hadn't been something that was contested.

You'll even find straight people quoting rulings on equality in their own wedding vows now. I had many conversations with my straight brothers about what marriage was for.

This is something that [marriage equality activist] Kate Kendell said a lot-she met [fellow activist] Evan Wolfson at one of those legal roundtable discussions and came in as a novice lesbian feminist queer type, saying "I think marriage is patriarchal." She said Evan almost jumped across the table.

Over time, she saw that you had to join the institution in order to reshape it. And she looks forward to the next generation being able to do that.

Matt Baume is the author of Defining Marriage: Voices from a Forty-Year Labor of Love, a personal and political history of marriage equality. Follow him on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can Queer People Change Marriage from the Inside?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With America having enjoyed nationwide marriage equality for about two years now, it's easy to forget just how hard we fought to achieve it. But fight queers did, for decade after exasperating decade. That struggle is captured in Awakening , out today from Harvard University Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Στιγμιότυπο οθόνης (57)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When you're a closeted gay boy, masculinity performance is one of the tools you use to survive. For those who are unwilling or unable to maintain a facade, straight boys seize upon your feminine mannerisms and call your gender into question, teasing you until the way you act without thinking becomes something to be ashamed of.

Illustration by Kurt McRobert

But what they don't tell you is that once you're out of the closet, you're out of the frying pan and into the fire, honey-because many gay men have the same hang-ups about masculinity as those spiteful boys from middle school. The performance of masculinity dictates how some gay men communicate on gay hookup and dating apps: those who identify as "masc," those who specifically seek out "MASC ONLY (no femme!!)" guys, and those who both identify as masculine as well as prefer it in their partners - the masc4masc.

"I was chatting with some guy on Grindr, late night (as these things go). He didn't live that far from me so I agreed to meet up with him near his place. As I was getting ready (basically changing out of sweats), I got a random call. It was this guy. He was like, 'Hey, how's it going? I just usually like to call guys on the phone before meeting up to make sure they're not too femme-y. Just like to see what they sound like.' I was like, really???? WTF. I asked him if I passed the test, and he seemed to begrudgingly say sure, you sound fine, and was like, 'We can still meet if you want...' I ended up meeting him, but we were not on the same page for a lot of reasons. I was like, bye!" - Alex, 32

To get to the-ahem- bottom of this, I browsed gay hookup apps looking for guys who identify as or are looking for "masculine" men and asked what masculinity means to them. Guys on Grindr and Scruff with "masc4masc ONLY" emblazoned on their profiles use "no femmes" as a way to weed out the unworthy. It seems like a shallow and almost egregious way to find a mate - Darwin (to say nothing of Freud!) would certainly find the concept interesting. When I come across men on these apps who seem so dead-set on finding someone who's "masc," I wonder - what is it, exactly, they're looking for? And what does it say about them? If we take traditional masculinity, heavily reliant on the social conventions of straight dudes, then they're looking for someone "straight acting" - and yet despite some adult films I've seen, I'm not sure that fucking other guys is something that hypermasculine straight guys do very much.

Many of the definitions of masculinity center on what straight guys "should" be like, and therefore how the ideal gay guy "should" act: "speaking in a deep voice," "playing and watching sports like football and basketball," and "beer drinking" were all mentioned. "It means you act and represent yourself in the way society expects a man should behave," said one guy who probably Googled the definition for me. "Straight acting and well built" implies that there are distinct masc and femme body types, most notably muscles - a definition many female athletes would scoff at.

"Guys expect me to be more rough or manly because of my 'masculine' signifiers such as facial and body hair. They also expect me to be dominant, which isn't to say that I can't be, but I do get a lot of messages from guys who assume I'm a total top, and that is so not the case. I've also met with guys who have been alarmed to find out my voice isn't deeper." - Ryan, 29

"Masculine in talking, body gestures, clothes," explained a 24-year-old dude before he retracted: "I actually don't mind feminine clothes, but talking feminine bothers me the most." Not just a high pitch, he clarified, but "the pronunciation of words, saying stuff in a more feminine way." How primal, that attraction in 2015 is so heavily influenced by the pitch of a sound emitted from a potential mate!

One guy, 32, told me that he had a "masculine upbringing" where you "had to be a man," and that influenced his attraction to other masculine men. Being raised in an environment where masculinity meant survival can certainly condition a man to value it more than others who were raised in a way that encouraged all types of behaviors from childhood.

From a young age, gay men who are more effeminate are conditioned to conform to masculinity as a means of survival. As a flamboyant sixth grader constantly harassed by the other boys, I got an early lesson that the quieter, less emotive, and more steely my disposition, the better off I would be. This behavior carries over into adulthood with a subconscious, performative masculinity. The other day, I was told by a co-worker that when I'm in meetings or giving presentations, my voice deepens. It wasn't something that I had registered (ha!), but I'm sure on some level, I've been programmed to think that I'll be taken more seriously if I sound more masculine. Meaning: more like I'm a heterosexual man. There can be a similar phenomenon in dating:

"When I show up for a hookup and a guy is masc, I sort of assume a masc posture-especially since I'm usually going to be topping, and the expectation of a top is normally that he is masculine. I'll modify my behavior, like consciously lowering my voice, because I assume that's what's sexy." - Colin, 27

The guy who told me about his "hypermasculine upbringing" described himself as a "man's man." He also asserted that he "loves a real man!," but stopped responding to me when I asked him what a fake man looks like. The intersectionality of race and masculinity can not be ignored, either. There's an inherent masculinity or aggression that is assumed in men of color.

"I've encountered an expectation that black men must be hypermasculine to be attractive on these apps. One guy went from wanting to fuck me to wanting to train me at the gym and bulk me up, saying how I look like I've never seen the gym and need to gain more. He started talking about how he wants to train me and started recommending protein I can take to get bigger. I could tell he was getting off on it!" - David, 26

Some guys didn't quite know how to define "masculine" outside of what isn't feminine. Masculinity as the absence of feminine traits points at an avoidance, rather than a preference. Do men act masculine because they feel more comfortable that way, or are they just trying to do whatever it takes to not be feminine? Their revulsion to effeminate partners may make them cringe because it holds up a mirror to their own perceived sense of manhood.

These guys may not be seeking masculinity, but instead avoiding femininity, which-as one 27-year-old man pointed out-reveals an insecurity with the femme. This insecurity stems from the masculine being the ideal, and anything outside of that ideal positioned as "less than." Men may look for masculine partners because they're uncomfortable with a guy who "acts like a girl"-which is telling of the way our society treats those who act feminine (including all women). Someone who calls masc guys "real men" assumes gay men should be in mutually masculine partnerships-attracted to the masculine. To love and have sex with men means to love and have sex with the masculine. To be attracted to the feminine is a straight man's preference. It's absurd, really, that masc4masc dudes often refer to themselves as "straight acting," considering that to act straight would be to pursue the feminine.

Do we subconsciously dress, act, date, and fuck in the way that we do because of how it may be perceived by others? Of course. But how much of it is for ourselves? In getting dressed in the morning, who do we do that for? Hell-the automatic reaction to, "I didn't even realize you're gay!" is, "Thank you!!" As if it's a contest we've won - yes, I passed! Masculinity can be a kind of disguise; it is perhaps brilliant that Grindr's logo is a mask in silhouette.

It seems, though, that "masc4masc" has recently been considered more tongue-in-cheek by some of the userbase. Some gay men are fighting back. Scruff has taken steps to create a more inclusive environment for all types of gay men to find partners with whom they click.

"Since Scruff added more femme-forward profile options [such as transgender, queer, and drag], I've had much fewer 'masc only' dudes contacting me. I see equal amounts of guys saying 'masc only' and guys making fun of the 'masc only' trend." - Jesse, 25

Being able to identify with femme-inclusive identities in these spaces is certainly a step in the right direction. Gay men are showing their disdain for "masc only" rhetoric through humor, putting lines like, "YES fats, YES femmes!" and, "thuper mathc guy looking for other thuper mathc guyth" in their profiles. I've seen Scruff guys explain the lack of preference on their profile with an, "I'm open to everything!" and guys proclaiming, "LOOKING FOR FEMME ONLY!"

Most gay men are hyper self-aware of their gendered behavior, and have a pretty good idea of how masculine or feminine they consider themselves to be. As for me? It was difficult enough coming to terms with the fact that I'm gay to begin with, and I just got over the fact that I've aged out of my prime twink years-no longer fitting neatly into any of the checkable categories on Grindr or Scruff. But, fine. I can exist outside the lines. What I can't do is allow myself to stress over any additional labels that hinge on heteronormative stereotypes. I'm not "straight acting" - I'm not straight!

Masculinity isn't in the eye of the beer-holder. The only requirement for being a man is believing that you are one. And if that's not man enough for the guy you're talking to on Grindr - block 'em.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When you're a closeted gay boy, masculinity performance is one of the tools you use to survive. For those who are unwilling or unable to maintain a facade, straight boys seize upon your feminine mannerisms and call your gender into question, teasing you until the way you act without thinking becomes something to be ashamed of.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Στιγμιότυπο οθόνης (3)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Στιγμιότυπο οθόνης (4)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Στιγμιότυπο οθόνης (5)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Στιγμιότυπο οθόνης (6)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Note: This blog contains language and terms that may have changed in meaning over time, as well as some now considered slurs; they are used in their historical context in this blog.
To fully serve the LGBTQ community and make America truly representative, we need to start by examining the prejudices within our community. Both political organizing and the LGBTQ community began with people who today may identify as transgender. However, trans women and men are often neglected by those who set political priorities of our community, if not treated with outright hostility and prejudice. This blog will focus on historical and ongoing prejudice towards transgender men and women by cisgender gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals.

Attitudes towards transgender folks from both queer and cishet ¹ people are reflected in the lack of transgender elected officials. According to the Out for America Report that Victory Institute published in June, an LGBTQ elected official in the US today is most likely to be a white gay male. Almost 80 percent of out officials are white, 57 percent are gay, and 59 percent are male. Transgender men and women are thus severely underrepresented, with one trans woman in a state legislature, Danica Roem, and eight more in local positions, totaling 1.6 percent of all LGBTQ elected officials. Additionally, Roem and others in this count, such as Minneapolis city councilmembers Andrea Jenkins and Phillipe Cunningham, were elected just last year.

In 1969, the year of the Stonewall Uprising, hardly anyone knew or identified with the term transgender. However, individuals who would come to identify as trans were already living their lives as their authentic selves, such as Christine Jorgensen, who became famous in the early 1950s for her reassignment surgery. Gay liberation activists such as Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera referred to themselves as gay, among a variety of other terms, indicating a fluidity and lack of focus on labels.

It is evident that the lines between the different identities today known as LGBTQ were blurred and not fixed. Pinpointing discrimination in the past between the groups would seem to be difficult, but in reality, Rivera and Johnson themselves remarked about how they felt they did not fit into the then-newly emerging gay rights movement. They felt that, as drag queens and transvestites, they were being ignored by a movement they helped get started. In 1973, Rivera was scorned, booed, and hissed at when she attempted to speak at that year's liberation march, as the lesbian women who had the stage at the time did not want to allow a drag queen to speak.

Another perspective, from Miss Major Griffin-Gracy, prominent transgender activist and Stonewall veteran, further describes the mainstream gay rights movement as one that shuts out transgender folks and people of color. She stated in an interview with Jessica Stern that, "I feel like we've been pushed to the outside and then prevented from looking in. It's the stares, the noninclusion over decision-making, exclusion from events that would build this movement. I think if they could eradicate us, they would."

Miss Major Griffin-Gracy, from the film about her life Major!

Transphobia directed at trans women sometimes originates from radical lesbian feminists. For example, author Janice Raymond published a book in 1979 titled "The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male" where she claims that trans women are men colonizing the female body and are reinforcing traditional, patriarchal gender roles. This work and others by similarly-minded authors are widely held as bigoted and transphobic.

A reader of this blog may respond to the preceding few paragraphs and ask, "What do the attitudes of people in the 70s have to do with how our community behaves today? What does it have to do with how we elect out officials?" While a few short decades separate us from these people and events, the past continues to influence how we organize, elect candidates, and decide what our goals are as a community. The same middle to upper class, white, gay, cisgender men that are criticized as being too dominant in the LGBTQ community today were tone-policing liberation activists in the 70s. This power dynamic maintains itself to this day, and challenging it is key to liberation of all oppressed people.

I reached out to Brianna Titone, a trans candidate for the Colorado State House of Representatives, asked her to give a statement about discrimination against transgender folks from cisgender queer folks. She had this to say:

"I feel that support for the T in LGBTQ is more talk and less action. Everyone that is LGBTQ always says they support the LGBTQ community, but it's still a struggle to get trans people front and center, and when they are, it seems somewhat disingenuous as they are asked to be there because they have to include everyone. As a trans candidate, I have heard all of the organizations and leaders say they support LGBTQ candidates, but few of the LGBTQ leaders have reached out to help my race. Being a true ally to the trans community means bringing more trans people to the table, and while this is happening more, it's still not happening enough.

The rare opportunity that a trans candidate is actually running should be a chance to highlight the support to the trans community they all tout about, but when it doesn't happen, it seems obvious that we are still looked at as unwinnable longshots not worth the effort. When a trans person is running for office, if you claim to be LGBTQ and say you truly support the community, you should be bringing them to the table and elevating their voices because that is being truly inclusive and striving to bring us closer to equality. If they fail to do that, I question the statements some make about claiming to be support. Put your money where your mouth is."

Brianna Titone, candidate for the Colorado House of Representatives, District 27

Titone really puts into perspective why the work that Victory Fund & Institute does is important and impactful, and why it is so important for us to show up for all members of our community, as it is our duty to make sure that nobody is left behind to experience oppression, especially from those who claim to be allies.

Thank you to Brianna Titone for her statement. She added her voice to this blog and I am very grateful.

LGBTQ Victory Institute's mission is to elect more out people to office and to equip them with tools to win in the voting booth. Our community includes many identities, and in the current political climate it is crucial to uplift all identities who are a part of our family.

¹ Cishet is a term for those who are both cisgender and heterosexual.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Look at Transphobia Within the LGBTQ community - LGBTQ Victory Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Note: This blog contains language and terms that may have changed in meaning over time, as well as some now considered slurs; they are used in their historical context in this blog. To fully serve the LGBTQ community and make America truly representative, we need to start by examining the prejudices within our community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tennisstar Martina Navratilova ist Feministin: Als eine der ersten offen lesbischen Spitzensportlerinnen überhaupt setzt sie sich seit Jahrzehnten für LGBTI-Rechte ein. Das hielt die inzwischen vor allem als TV-Kommentatorin tätige neunfache Wimbledon-Gewinnerin unlängst aber nicht davon ab, gegen trans Frauen zu polemisieren. Sie sprach sich lautstark dafür aus, trans Frauen vom Frauentennis auszuschließen - und bezeichnete diese dabei als Männer, die sich „entscheiden", eine Frau zu sein.

Navratilova ist kein Einzelfall. Beim Londoner Christopher Street Day traten im vergangenen Jahr acht lesbische Frauen an die Spitze der Parade: auf einem ihrer Transparente stand "Trans-Aktivismus löscht Lesben aus"; und in den Flyern, die sie verteilten, wurden trans Frauen als „heterosexuelle Männer, die vorgeben, eine Frau zu sein" beschrieben. Ähnlich äußerte sich auch die bekannte Autorin und Feministin Germaine Greer: Sie schließt trans Frauen aus ihrem Feminismus aus, „weil trans Frauen keine Frauen" seien.

Der Begriff TERF ist eine Zuschreibung, keine Selbstbezeichnung

Wenn es in den Kommentarspalten sozialer Medien zu Diskussionen über diese Themen kommt, tauchte zuletzt immer öfter ein Begriff auf: TERF. Martina Navratilova wurde als TERF bezeichnet, Germaine Greer ebenfalls und auch die acht lesbischen Frauen. TERF ist die Abkürzung für „Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism". Ins Deutsche übersetzt spricht man von einem „trans-ausschließenden radikalen Feminismus". Zum ersten Mal benutzt wurde der Begriff 2008 - damals noch überwiegend im englischsprachigen Raum. Seit einigen Jahren findet er zunehmend den Weg in deutschsprachige Diskurse.

Wörtlich genommen ist die Abkürzung klar und eindeutig: TERFs sind radikale Feminst*innen, die trans Menschen ausschließen. So leicht ist es dann aber doch nicht: Wann ist ein Feminismus „radikal"? Was bedeutet es genau, „trans Menschen auszuschließen"? Das Problem des Begriffs „TERF" liegt in seiner Verwendung: Dadurch, dass das Wort eine Zuschreibung von außen ist und keine Selbstzuschreibung, finden sich nur sehr wenige radikale Feminist*innen, die von sich selbst sagen, sie seien TERFs. Es ist viel mehr umgekehrt: Feminist*innen vertreten bestimmte Positionen und bekommen dann von außen das Etikett TERF aufgeklebt.

Trans Menschen werden wahlweise als Opfer oder als Täter gesehen

Dahinter steht ein Denken, das trans Menschen sprachlich unsichtbar macht, ihre Identität anzweifelt oder ihnen die Existenz abspricht: Statt Geschlecht als Spektrum und Geschlechtsidentität als fließend zu begreifen, gehen TERFs davon aus, dass Geschlecht biologisch festgelegt und damit unveränderbar sei, weil uns bestimmte männliche und weibliche Körperteile für immer und ewig zu Männern oder Frauen machen. Aus dieser Perspektive heraus werden trans Menschen wahlweise als Opfer oder als Täter gesehen.

Trans Männer sind für TERFs „biologische Frauen", die Opfer von Geschlechterstereotypen und Frauenfeindlichkeit werden: Um dem erdrückenden Patriarchat zu entkommen, werden sie körperliche Männer. Oft benutzen TERFs für trans Männer weiterhin das Pronomen „sie"; oder meinen mit einem Wort wie „Frauen" oder „Frauen*" alle Menschen, denen zur Geburt das weibliche Geschlecht zugewiesen wurde.

Während trans Männer von TERFs meist unter „Frau" einsortiert werden, gelten trans Frauen für sie als "Männer", die sich lediglich als Frauen ausgeben, um in Frauenschutzräume einzudringen. TERFs sehen Frauenhäuser, Frauengruppen und sogar Frauentoiletten durch trans Frauen bedroht.

Immer wieder geht es um Toiletten und Umkleiden

So sehen sich TERFs fast immer als Opfer, denen entweder etwas weggenommen oder etwas angetan wird - vom Patriarchat, oder von trans Menschen. Aus diesem Blickwinkel heraus ergeben sich dann auch fast schon automatisch die Themen, mit denen sich TERFs beschäftigen: Die Frage, welche Toiletten und öffentliche Umkleiden trans Frauen besuchen dürfen, ist eines der wichtigsten Anliegen von TERFs: Männer tarnen sich als Frau, um im Frauen-Schutzraum „Frauentoilette" Gewalt auszuüben oder Menschen mit dem Anblick ihres Penis' zu traumatisieren. Eine ähnliche Argumentation findet sich beim Thema Gefängnis. TERFs wehren sich dagegen, dass trans Frauen in Frauen-Gefängnissen untergebracht werden. Und TERFs glauben, dass trans Frauen in den Frauensport eindringen, um dort zu dominieren und anderen Frauen den Rang abzulaufen.

Wer durch die sozialen Netzwerke scrollt, kann dort ein interessantes Phänomen beobachten: bis dahin völlig unauffällige, aufgeklärte Feminist*innen schreiben plötzlich etwas wie: „Ich bin dagegen, dass Männer mit Penis auf die Frauentoilette dürfen!", „Es muss Schutzräume für Frauen geben!", „Unser Frauensport ist in Gefahr!" „Männer, die glauben Frauen zu sein, wollen uns dominieren!".

Diese bislang völlig unauffälligen Feminist*innen reagieren bei Widerspruch gereizt und fangen oft an, Artikel von Websites wie Feminist Current zu teilen, in denen singuläre Ereignisse skandalisiert werden: Eine trans Frau etwa soll sich im Frauen-Waxing-Studio empört haben, dass eine Kosmetikerin sich weigerte, die Haare auf ihrem Penis zu entfernen.

TERFs interessieren sich selten für Studien oder Fakten

Verbunden mit dem Teilen solcher Artikel ist häufig der Zusatz, dass man sich selbst gefährdet, sobald man sich traut, „unbequeme Wahrheiten" laut auszusprechen. Man könnte solche Menschen als besorgte Feminist*innen bezeichnen - analog zum Phänomen der „besorgten Bürger*innen" geht es nämlich auch hier nicht um Fakten, sondern um gefühlte Wahrheiten, Tabus und Bedrohungen.

Beispiel Toiletten: Dass Frauen dort tatsächlich nackte Geschlechtsteile zu sehen bekommen, dürfte nahezu ausgeschlossen sein - es gibt schließlich auf Frauenklos immer Kabinen mit abschließbare Türen.

Beispiel Sport: Trans Menschen dürfen seit 15 Jahren an den Olympischen Spielen teilnehmen. Doch in 15 Jahren hat sich keine einzige trans Frau für die olympischen Spiele qualifiziert. Damit gibt es bereits eine Langzeitstudie, die zeigt, dass trans Frauen nicht in der Lage sind, den Frauensport zu dominieren. Doch TERFs interessieren sich selten für Studien oder Fakten, sondern viel mehr für eine gefühlte Bedrohungslage.

TERFs teilen oft vermeintlich simple, logische und auf den ersten Blick konsensfähige Meinungen. Natürlich möchte niemand, dass Frauen auf der Frauentoilette Gewalt erleben! Selbstverständlich wäre es unfair, falls Frauen im Frauensport ungerechterweise benachteiligt werden! Doch all das sind argumentative Nebenschauplätze: Im Grunde geht es einzig und allein darum, darüber zu bestimmen, was andere Menschen sein dürfen, als was sie sich bezeichnen dürfen und ob sie dazu gehören oder nicht. Du wurdest männlich sozialisiert und hast einen Penis? „Dann kannst du niemals eine vollwertige Frau sein - und wenn du eine Vagina und einen Uterus hast, dann bist du kein Mann, sondern gehörst uns Frauen".

Sie wollen nicht "Mensch mit Uterus" sagen, obwohl es inklusiver ist

TERFs lehnen daher auch die Bezeichnung "Mensch mit Uterus" kategorisch ab. Darunter versteht man all diejenigen, die einen Uterus haben, aber keine Frauen sind: zum Beispiel trans Männer oder nicht-binäre Menschen. Wer über die Themen Schwangerschaft oder Menstruation spricht, formuliert also inklusiver, wenn eben nicht nur von Frauen die Rede ist, sondern auch von Menschen mit Uterus. Ein Begriff, der niemanden etwas wegnimmt - und dafür andere einschließt, die sonst unsichtbar gemacht werden.

41 Prozent der trans Frauen und Männer versuchen mindestens einmal, sich das Leben zu nehmen. Ist es wirklich „radikaler Feminismus", diesen Menschen ihre Existenz und Identität abzusprechen? Wäre es nicht viel radikaler, diese Menschen bedingungslos zu akzeptieren und gemeinsam für ihre Existenz, ihre Sicherheit und ihre Sichtbarkeit zu kämpfen? Das sind Fragen, die sich TERFs stellen sollten.

Die Publizistin Carolin Emcke sprach einmal davon, dass Menschenrechte kein Nullsummenspiel sind. So ist es übrigens auch bei den Begriffen „Frau" und „Mensch mit Uterus". Natürlich wird Feministinnen der Begriff „Frau" nicht weggenommen. Er wird nur durch einen weiteren Begriff ergänzt, damit noch mehr Menschen mitgedacht werden und sprachlich sichtbar gemacht werden können.
+ + + Der Queerspiegel-Newsletter des Tagesspiegel - hier geht es zur Anmeldung. + + +

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tennisstar Martina Navratilova ist Feministin: Als eine der ersten offen lesbischen Spitzensportlerinnen überhaupt setzt sie sich seit Jahrzehnten für LGBTI-Rechte ein. Das hielt die inzwischen vor allem als TV-Kommentatorin tätige neunfache Wimbledon-Gewinnerin unlängst aber nicht davon ab, gegen trans Frauen zu polemisieren.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 13: J.K Rowling attends the UK Premiere of 'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes ... [+]
WireImage

A tweet may be limited to only 280 characters, but it can convey so much more. In the case of celebrated author J.K. Rowling, who rose to fame with her best-selling Harry Potter series of wizardry and other fantastic tales, a single tweet she sent Thursday confirmed suspicions that she is a TERF.

"TERF" is an acronym for transgender exclusionary radical feminist, a term reportedly coined more than a decade ago by a cisgender heterosexual woman who works as a writer in Sydney, Australia. To some, TERF is a slur; to others, a descriptive. Viv Smythe wrote in The Guardian last year that the term she invented has "been weaponized at times by both those who advocate trans-inclusion in feminist/female spaces, and those who push for trans-exclusion from female-only spaces."

While Rowling did not go so far as to advocate for physical exclusion of trans women, her tweet - her first in a month - makes clear she supports those who argue against including trans women in the very idea of "female."

It may seem to some like a purely intellectual debate that is limited to the rants and memes of the Twitterverse, but this argument had real-life consequences for a researcher at a British think-tank this week.

The "Maya" in Rowling's hashtag, "IStandWithMaya, is Maya Forstater, 45, a tax expert who worked as a visiting fellow at the Centre for Global Development, an international non-profit that advocates for an end to poverty and inequality.

The Guardian reports that in March, Forstater's contract was not renewed because of tweets she posted on the topic of transgender identity, such as "men cannot change into women," and "it is unfair and unsafe for trans women to compete in women's sport."

Forstater was accused of using "offensive and exclusionary" language in her social media, which she tweeted to voice her opposition to British government proposals to reform laws impacting the transgender population. The U.K. is considering changes to the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 because, according to official documents, it's viewed as "too bureaucratic, too expensive and too intrusive."

Instead, trans advocates are pushing to allow trans citizens to self-identify as a sex they were not presumed to be when they were born.

Forstater filed a complaint with the Central London employment tribunal, which convened a preliminary hearing over the issue of whether her tweets should be protected under the 2010 Equality Act.

According to the award-winning journalist and TransAdvocate publisher Cristan Williams, Forstater claimed that she was being oppressed for her philosophical beliefs. But the court found that Forstater's bigotry was, "incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others."

"Having protected characteristics, including philosophical beliefs, does not prevent people from having to take care not to harass others...

"There is nothing to stop [Maya Forstater from] campaigning against the proposed revision to the Gender Recognition Act to be based more on self-identification. She is entitled to put forward her opinion that these should be some spaces that are limited to women assigned female at birth where it is appropriate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

"However, that does not mean that her absolutist view that sex is immutable is a protected belief for the purposes of the [Equality Act]. [Forstater] can legitimately put forward her arguments about the importance of some safe spaces that are only available to women identified female at birth, without insisting on calling trans women men."

Judge James Tayler

In response to the ruling, Forstater issued a statement to The Guardian:

"I struggle to express the shock and disbelief I feel at reading this judgment, which I think will be shared by the vast majority of people who are familiar with my case.

"My belief ... is that sex is a biological fact, and is immutable. There are two sexes, male and female. Men and boys are male. Women and girls are female. It is impossible to change sex. These were until very recently understood as basic facts of life by almost everyone.

"...This judgment removes women's rights and the right to freedom of belief and speech. It gives judicial licence for women and men who speak up for objective truth and clear debate to be subject to aggression, bullying, no-platforming and economic punishment.

"I will consider the judgment closely with my legal team to determine what can be done to challenge it."

Maya Forstater

Reaction to Rowling's support for Forstater was swift, and not so kind.

Among those who tried to educate the author was HRC's Director of Rapid Response Communications, Charlotte Clymer, a trans woman.

Williams concluded that Rowling, with her tweet, has revealed her allegiance to TERF ideology, and what she calls "sex essentialism."

"Trans women are men and trans men are women;

The notion that trans women should use male public hygiene facilities;

The notion that the equal existence of trans people oppress cis women;

and, TERFs should be given the special right of consequence-free speech."

In June, Rowling was criticized for liking a tweet that referred to trans women as "men in dresses." Rowling's rep later blamed a "middle-age moment," claiming it was merely a slip of a finger, caused by the author mishandling her phone.

But this time, there can be no mistaking her conclusion: "Sex is real," she tweeted.

Yes, sex is real. So are transgender people.

This video from Teen Vogue, first posted in March and shared today by the ACLU's Chase Strangio - a trans man - in response to Rowling's tweet, proves exactly that.

It's interesting to note that this video has received 17K "thumbs-down" and only 764 likes. Perhaps that will change when people believe what Alfred Korzybski once said:

"A difference that makes no difference is no difference."

... Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A tweet may be limited to only 280 characters, but it can convey so much more. In the case of celebrated author J.K. Rowling, who rose to fame with her best-selling Harry Potter series of wizardry and other fantastic tales, a single tweet she sent Thursday confirmed suspicions that she is a TERF.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After France's first same-sex marriage, and a vote in the UK Parliament which puts England and Wales on course for gay weddings next summer, two US Supreme Court rulings expected soon could hasten the advance of same-sex marriage across the Atlantic. But some gay people remain opposed. Why?

"It's demonstrably not the same as heterosexual marriage - the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn't the same."

Jonathan Soroff lives in liberal Massachusetts with his male partner, Sam. He doesn't fit the common stereotype of an opponent of gay marriage.

But like half of his friends, he does not believe that couples of the same gender should marry.

"We're not going to procreate as a couple and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions," says Soroff.

The two rulings...

Whether the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) which bans recognition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional

Whether voters in California were entitled to enact Proposition 8, which overturned a State Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriage

Q&A: Same-sex marriage in the US
Until the federal government recognises and codifies the same rights for same-sex couples as straight ones, equality is the goal so why get hung up on a word, he asks.

"I'm not going to walk down the aisle to Mendelssohn wearing white in a church and throw a bouquet and do the first dance," adds Soroff, columnist for the Improper Boston.

"I've been to some lovely gay weddings but aping the traditional heterosexual wedding is weird and I don't understand why anyone wants to do that.

...and how they affect benefits

Twelve states plus the District of Columbia recognise same-sex marriage, but the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 banned federal recognition of same-sex marriage

So same-sex married couples only get state benefits such as family medical leave and becoming executor in the absence of a will - but heterosexual married couples also get federal benefits covered by more than 1,000 statutes on tax, immigration and social security

Source: Emily Doskow, lawyer

"I'm not saying that people who want that shouldn't have it but for me, all that matters is the legal stuff."

The legal situation could be about to change within days, as the nine Supreme Court judges are considering whether a federal law that does not recognise same-sex marriage - and therefore denies them benefits - is unconstitutional. A second ruling will be made on the legality of California's gay marriage ban.

Arguments against gay marriage, used by some gay people

Rights are more important than a name

It's a heteronormative institution that has historically marginalised homosexuality

Marriage is "between man and woman" and that's the best environment for children

It's a patriarchal, flawed institution

In countries that have civil partnerships, some gay people say that's enough

But while favourable rulings will spark celebrations among pro-marriage supporters across the US, some gay men and women will instead see it as a victory for a patriarchal institution that bears no historical relevance to them.

Some lesbians are opposed to marriage on feminist grounds, says Claudia Card, a professor of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, because they see it as an institution that serves the interests of men more than women. It is also, in her view "heteronormative", embodying the view that heterosexuality is the preferred and normal sexuality.

"It's undeniable that marriage has historically also discriminated against same-sex couples," Card says.

As a result, she thinks the issue of marriage is a distraction.

"Gay activists should instead put their energies into environmental issues like climate change, because there's a chance to make a morally more defensible and more urgent difference."

Others in the "No" camp oppose marriage more broadly because, they say, it denies benefits to people who are unmarried, or because they say it simply doesn't work.

More pro-marriage voices

"A civil partnership lacks the cultural and social capital of marriage," writes Patrick Flanery in the Guardian

Three reasons why I'm voting for gay marriage, by Lord Browne in the Financial Times

David Blankenhorn writes in the New York Times how his position on gay marriage changed

Same-sex couples in New York tell of their wedding joy to Laura Trevelyan for BBC News

Legba Carrefour, who describes himself as "radical queer", calls it a "destructive way of life" that produces broken families.

"We are only one or two generations away from children coming from gay marriage that are also from broken homes," he says.

When we were slaves we couldn't marry, then we couldn't marry outside our race
Stampp Corbin, LGBT Weekly

He believes a more important priority for the gay community is the rise in violence against transgendered people.

"I'm not concerned about whether I can get married but whether I will die in the street at the hands of homophobes."

Support for gay marriage among Americans in general has risen above 50% according to Gallup, but what the figure is among gay people is harder to quantify. Neither Pew Research Center nor Gallup has conducted any such polling.

A community made up of millions of people is bound to hold a range of views on any subject, but it will surprise many that some of the people who on the face of it stand to gain the most from gay marriage should oppose it. And these contrary views are not often heard.

In the UK, Daily Mail columnist Andrew Pierce says that for speaking out against gay marriage in the past, he has been attacked as a homophobe and Uncle Tom, despite a long history of championing gay rights.

Previously on this website
The gay airman who took on the US military The straight couples that want civil partnerships Online activism and gay marriage You can follow the Magazine on Twitter and on Facebook
He strongly believes that civil partnerships - introduced in 2005 to give same-sex couples equal legal rights - are enough.

"We've got marriage, it's called a civil partnership and I rejoice in the fact that people like me who are different from straight people can do something they can't. I relish that."

He thinks there are more gay people in agreement with him than people may think - at a dinner party he hosted for 11 gay friends, only one was in favour of marriage, one was undecided and the rest were against, he says.

In France, gay men and women joined the protests that preceded and followed this year's introduction of same-sex marriage. A website called Homovox featured 12 gay men and women opposed to it, with some of them citing a belief that children benefit most from opposite-sex parents.

For many years, the conservative institution of marriage was never on the gay campaign agenda, says activist Yasmin Nair, who co-founded a group provocatively named Against Equality. But it became an objective in the early 1990s - regretfully, in her view - when the movement emerged from the seismic shock of the Aids epidemic, depleted of political energy.

But gay people who are in favour of same-sex marriage believe anything short of marriage is not equality.

You rarely hear arguments against it by gay people themselves, says Stampp Corbin, publisher of magazine LGBT Weekly, who sees strong parallels with the civil rights movement.

"I'm African American and there were many things society stopped us from doing. When we were slaves we couldn't marry, we couldn't marry outside our race and most notably, we couldn't share facilities with white people.

"So when I hear LGBT people saying the same thing: 'I don't think gay and lesbian people should get married', is it different from slaves saying: 'I don't think slaves should have the ability to get married'?

"It is internalised hatred, bred by oppression. Why would you want to deny someone of your own sexual orientation the ability to get married? No one [will be] forcing you to get married."

Civil partnerships do not provide equality, says Corbin, who was the National Co-Chair of the LGBT Leadership Council during the 2008 Obama presidential campaign. And in the US, the notion of "separate but equal" rekindles memories of segregation and the creation of second-class facilities.

With so many different points of view on a subject that has long divided America, perhaps the debate just underlines the obvious - gay people are like everyone else.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After France's first same-sex marriage, and a vote in the UK Parliament which puts England and Wales on course for gay weddings next summer, two US Supreme Court rulings expected soon could hasten the advance of same-sex marriage across the Atlantic. But some gay people remain opposed. Why?

# data[].attributes.body
Tom of Finland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We are told our whole lives that we can hate as many people as we want: whole nations, groups of people, ideologies and races, our bosses, our neighbors: we are allowed to hate freely and abundantly, but we only get to truly love one other person.

When my husband, Alex, and I met Jon, a handsome intellectual with blue eyes and the gait of an old man trapped in a young man's body: sexy and endearingly awkward all at the same time, it was just supposed to be a hook up in a long line of sexual adventures. But then Jon came back again, and again and again. And then we were making plans to watch movies and eat pizza. We invited Jon to spend the night.

I knew the first time Jon came over and the three of us didn't have sex that something important was happening: Jon was no longer a trick. We were falling in love. All three of us.

I had no idea what to do. I had no idea what was normal or not normal. I was like a crazy person: madly in love and jealous at the same time: watching Alex, my brilliant artist, my dark-eyed passionate soul mate, the love of my life, falling in love with Jon was torturous and beautiful, watching the two of them kiss and hold hands, sitting on the couch giggling over gifs was almost too much to bear, and yet I couldn't get enough.

We had terrible fights. Once, while on vacation in Vancouver, I threw myself out of bed, pretending I had fallen. I stormed throughout the one bedroom apartment we had rented , getting dressed, threatening to leave. I even made it to the elevator, where I hesitated for five minutes waiting for someone to come and get me. No one did. In Spokane Washington, on my birthday, we had an eight-hour fight that got so bad Jon ended up booking a separate hotel room. In Seattle a minor annoyance over Bahn Mi sandwiches (they were the only thing I wanted for breakfast every day) turned into relationship negotiations.

Everything was heightened and out of perspective. We were falling in love. We were sharing our new love, Jon, with each other. We were out of minds.

All the books I read said jealousy was wrong, the emotion of the monogamous unenlightened. Something we poly people should transcend.

And yet I wasn't transcending jealousy. I wasn't enlightened at all.

I hated the word poly and what it seemed to mean. I didn't identify with the new age philosophies attached to a poly lifestyle. I didn't think I was more enlightened than my monogamous friends. I am a jealous, insecure cave man.

There were moments of true beauty and wonder as well. I am still stunned by those times when I stumbled upon them, lying in bed together, holding hands, kissing, laughing at some passing comment, cuddled on the couch. Moments when the three of us all huddled together before we left the house. A night Alex drove Jon and me through Terminal Island, the industrial lights igniting fires in the sky around us, creating a matrix of magic and wonder and beauty. The three of us holding hands on a hilltop looking over downtown LA, Alex and I face timing with Jon from Berlin: Jon still in bed, his hair disheveled and beautiful. The three of us eating donuts at two am while watching Strangers With Candy. Exploring Granville Island in Vancouver, eating rosemary and salt bagels, taking the ferry back to the mainland, walking endlessly throughout Vancouver and Seattle, Madrid and Paris, Berlin and New York City, the three of us exploring the world together.

We are a family and like all families we have our struggles and our heartache, we strive and toil and trudge the road of life together, doing our best to take care of each other, sometimes failing, sometimes succeeding.

I learned that love is not limited: it is expansive, it grows, it is endless. I can love Alex completely, with everything I have, and still have more than enough to love Jon just as completely, just as fully.

The decision to introduce Jon to our friends and family at our wedding seemed like a pragmatic choice. Everyone would be in one place at the same time. East Coast and West Coast merging. Get married and introduce the world to our boyfriend.

I am lucky. My family are all left wing, about as liberal as you can get. They are tolerant. They try to understand. I'm sure this was not easy for them, but in the end my father said, "Well, as long as you are happy I guess that is all that matters."

"I am happy," I said. "It's not always easy, but I am happy."

"I imagine it isn't always easy. Being with one partner is hard enough. I can't imagine two. Just do your best to take care of each other."

My father is a wise man.

Our wedding was held at our small Craftsman house in Hollywood. My best friend Amy flew with her family from New York City to officiate. Over a 150 people showed up. Jon stood in the back of the room during the ceremony. When people would introduce themselves to him he would say, "Nice to meet you. I'm Jon, Alex and Jeff's boyfriend."

Later Jon told us how stressed out he was. We had all underestimated the timing. The emotions that would come up through out the day.

We seem to do that a lot. Underestimate what is happening until it is over, and we are left thinking: why would we have thought that was a good idea?

But we wanted everyone to see Jon. To know him. We were proud of him. We wanted to show him off.

In time this thing that seemed so far outside the norm, so far outside what was acceptable, began to feel normal. Life began to fill back in. Jobs and goals and the gym, paying the bills: all the ways that normalcy takes over even the most extreme situations.

No longer was there just two of us. We were three. I think that was the hardest part: trying to maintain Alex and me while allowing Jon to be a full third. Eventually I began to see this not just as one relationship but as four completely whole and separate relationships: Jeff and Alex, Jon and Jeff, Alex and Jon, and the three of us. Then there are our relationships to our selves. Carving out time to be alone. Finding a way to remain autonomous inside this thing that can easily consume you.

When I found myself falling in love with Conor, this beautiful little puppy of a guy bouncing around me full of energy and excitement, I remember thinking, "Is there no end to this?"

I met him at the bar where I was working at the time and took him into one of the back rooms. He was just supposed to be a hook up, some random hot dude, just another adventure.

And then we met the following week in the parking lot of my gym. We messed around in the bathroom at the bar. We had sex in a parking structure after getting bagels. It was sordid and sexy and fun.

Then Conor spent the night. I would get us hotel rooms. When we first said I love you it felt like something transgressive, something momentous and real.

I flew to Spokane Washington where Alex was living for six months while working on a TV show to tell him that I had met somebody. It wasn't an easy conversation. Our open relationship didn't take falling in love with someone new into account. What did it mean? How did we make this work?

It was especially hard on Alex. He was a thousand miles away. He already felt alienated from Jon and me. He was working long and treacherous hours.

I introduced Jon to Conor. The three of us would sit in our living room and watch Broad City and Difficult People and eat In and Out burgers and Thai food and the two of them would cuddle.

Alex met him for the first time at Precinct, a gay club in downtown LA. None of us knew how it would go. Alex is like me: stormy and volatile: but I had faith that he would see in my new friend what I saw. And I was right. He did. That night the three of us brought pizza home for Jon and watched TV and Alex and Conor cuddled on the couch together. And it seemed maybe things would be ok.

But life can be treacherous. There are pitfalls. Mistakes are made. People grow and they change, the things we need from each other change.

And we find ourselves growing apart. Growing into something new.

Movie style happy endings don't exist. People we love get sick. The circumstances of life make what had once seemed so easy, so perfect, suddenly impossible. We grow older. We fail almost as often as we succeed, sometimes more.

And yet, these men that I love, they are my family. Even as some of us drift apart. They are mine. And there is a beauty to that.

Even when none of it seems to be working out, I am reminded that I was once so madly in love with them that I thought everything was possible.

I am always asked what it means to be poly. What it means to live with so many men in my life. And it is like anything. It changes. How I view it changes. Sometimes I wonder if we opened too many doors, allowed too many people into our lives, and other times I think that I couldn't have done this any different.

For better or worse, maybe this is just who I am.

None of this is easy. But as my father likes to remind me, nothing is. It's just a matter of whether it was worth it or not.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How My Three-Way Polyamorous Relationship Works

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are told our whole lives that we can hate as many people as we want: whole nations, groups of people, ideologies and races, our bosses, our neighbors: we are allowed to hate freely and abundantly, but we only get to truly love one other person.