On the day you are likely reading this (31st March 2022, on the trans day of visibility), you will see a celebration from a variety of people and groups about the importance of visibility, using the pictures of famous or notable trans public figures. With that, the affirmation of how you, the trans individual, are enough. There are comments about how visibility is important, how we are all valid, with such comments often being adorned with blue and pink flags. This is all fine, but…

What do we mean by visibility?

As a question, it seems simple: to highlight and endorse the presence of trans people in society, and to advocate for the end of othering. These are aims all of us can respect and admire. Yet, those reading this perhaps understand this already: can this be achieved under capitalism? I would argue that it can’t be.

And from that, calls for visibility must also be made while acknowledging how being trans and/or non-binary intersects with class. For to be trans and non-binary, is a unique revelation of what being working class is.

Transgender Day of Visibility was created in 2009 by trans activists. The aim was to raise awareness of trans people and of the issues we face in society, aside from those murdered or lost each year because they were trans.

The piece that follows is a critique of capitalist visibility, which is exploitation and a warning against the reducing of this day into something equivalent to modern Pride: just a celebration. Trans culture must be celebrated and promoted, and it must never become a cultural reinforcement of the society we live in.

Trans visibility under capitalism doesn’t reflect the experiences of most trans people.

As a trans person living (in the closet) in the countryside, the only visibility I have experienced is ridicule and the implication of threat. When the only trans people cis people know about are the caricatures presented in the Daily Mail and BBC articles on their Facebook feed, and the last non-binary person in town is a teenager bullied out of their home, the importance of positive visibility is clear. The issue is visibility co-opted by capitalism is at best defanged, at worse objectified.

A lot is made of the transgender ‘tipping point’ of around 2014-5. This was what seemed to be the point of mainstream acceptance with positive trans role models in the media, like Caitlyn Jenner, Kellie Maloney and Laverne Cox. For what it’s worth, Laverne Cox (who made her name on the prison drama-comedy Orange Is the New Black) was the first trans person I saw on TV, aged 14. To an extent, as it felt fleeting, I did see a bit of myself in the character she played in OistNB. I mention this because I do want to make it clear that visibility is important and crucial before critiquing it. As Cox is the exception that proves the rule somewhat: a lot of this visibility was of white, rather rich people who don’t really reflect the trans experience.

The best summary of that point would be Caitlyn Jenner, who, when asked what the hardest struggle of being a trans woman, said it was picking dresses. While her experience may have been easier and not hindered by lack of access to healthcare, that is quite the point. The visibility of being transgender was decoupled from the lived experience of the vast majority of trans people. Socio-economic status and identity were reduced to an ‘identity’. Most tellingly of all, Jenner has endorsed transphobic narratives around sports in her courting of the fundamentalist and capitalist Republican Party. In this sense, we can see what visibility has faulted on: literal and metaphorical flag-waving without anything more radical than ‘we exist’.

Another area of visibility of dubious assistance to liberation has been pornography, or more widely the fetishisation of trans (usually femme) bodies. This is not a denouement of sex work, which is work and needs to be decriminalised to remove exploitation, and making money from the oppressor is laudable. This is rather a criticism of the male gaze; of how our bodies are reduced to genre categories (usually with a slur) on cis male-centred porn websites. Nor is this an exclusive experience for trans women or trans people as a whole: cis women, queer people (especially lesbian and bisexual cis women) and People of Colour (and those who are all of the above) have experienced this.

Related experiences for communities marginalised while objectified can be seen in the 1990s, with ‘Lesbian Chic’, or even with the wider reception of Blaxploitation films of the 1970s. While cultural milestones can be achieved, and absolutely must be celebrated, we must never stop there.

The visibility of individuals is simply not enough.

Visibility must be about the promotion and recognition of trans/non-binary people and bringing to the fore the material and political issues we face as a class. With that too comes the sharing of resources, understanding and care. With this, we can not just survive under capitalism, but also start and continue the building of a trans liberated world where socialism is achieved. By seeing where we can improve it, we can make visibility once more a queer act of defiance. While existing is political, that is not by our choice: our communities have been policed and brutalised in the modern era for well over 100 years. We are the working class, as are the intersecting communities in need of liberation. Visibility Day must go back to its roots: a day to recognise both activists and historical figures and the issues we face.

Trans Liberation requires visibility, and equally, visibility requires liberation from capitalism. Only then will we achieve the ‘enough’ we aim for. Only then will be liberated from systemic and non-systemic transphobia and class.

The post Trans day of visibility 2022: What do we mean by visibility? appeared first on LGBTIQA+ Greens.

A-spec history is a little tricky to pin down. It’s a pretty nebulous thing, by it’s nature. It’s not really possible to know someone is or was asexual or aromantic unless they tell us. And the language we use today is specific, complex and fairly new which make searching for its equivalent in a historical context very difficult. Still many have tried and succeeded. You just have to modify your methods and be prepared to do a lot of digging.

Successfully exploring a-spec history requires us narrowing our definitions and accepting some amount of ambiguity and ‘political incorrectness’ for lack of a better term.

We have to let go of the grey area. Not because those who inhabit it are any less valid or important, but because they will just be harder to spot. It’s not possible to know whether an amatanormative couple were romantically or sexually involved without further exploration, and we could be forgiven for assuming they were “ordinary” unless we had some evidence to the contrary.

It’s for these reasons too, that I’ve lumped asexuality and aromanticism together for the most part. Since the idea of them being separate is a realiazation in and of itself, and a fully aro-ace person (defined by a total lack of romantic and sexual relationships) will be easier to spot. Lumping the whole A spectrum in together makes it easier in general.

This is the only way we can possibly even find enough to build a sense of legacy.

When you let go of modern constraints you can find a great deal of allusions to asexuality and aromanticism. Our understanding of a-spec orientations today is broad and nuanced, informed by masses of research and digitally-aided conversations and the idea of defining asexuality as simple lack of interest in sex or considering a woman who never married as a potential aromantic feels reductive and odd. But that’s what we need to get over in the first instance.

If you set out to search for ‘aromantic history’ as I did, specifically, you will doubtless end up dissappointed. It’s a modern term, and therefore won’t be present in historical resources. You have to look at coded behaviours and then you can dig deeper into the people themselves, discover their motivations and learn a bit about the way they defined themselves.

I thought I’d start with some public figures from history I’ve identified as probably ace/aro.

Tesla is responsible for the discovery of electricity. He remained celibate his whole life and never married. He maintained that his lack of sexual interest was integral to his scientific abilities and achievements. He is quoted as saying he found all the stimulation necessary in his work.

Of course it’s not possible to know without a doubt whether Tesla was actually aro-ace. He may have been lying. He may have been, as many have claimed, a closeted gay man. And of course it’s true that celibacy and refusal to marry are not necessary to be asexual. But through his own comments and situational clues there’s a lot to suggest he might have called himself asexual if he had the vocabulary.

Bowles was an American writer who was married to Paul in 1938. The Bowles’ marriage was a non-sexual on, non-romantic one although they are understood to have had a deep platonic love for one another. They spent a lot of time together and were comfortable in each other’s company. They were both queer and throughout their marriage had many flings with other people.

It’s commonly believed that Jane was a lesbian, based on her apparent lack of interest in men and picking up on themes in her writings – many characters had relationships with men before realising they preferred women. Bisexual is the label most often used for Paul.

I find the Bowles’ relationship so appealing. They were best friends, they lived together, worked together, but also had their own lives. At one point Paul went to stay in Morocco without Jane and vice versa. The term ‘Queerplatonic’ could hesitantly be used to describe their partnership here.

While I’m wary of downplaying the history of these ‘sham marriages’ between queer people of both binary genders designed to safeguard themselves against overt homophobia, I believe that Jane at least was aromantic. I base this on the understanding that she had few – if any – genuine romantic connections and preferred purely sexual encounters outside of her marriage to Paul.

Lovecraft is a celebrated horror writer and much of his work features sexual themes and undertones. However in his personal life he was less than enthusiastic about the whole affair. His wife was known to complain of his lack of interest in her, and reported that while he did his duty (and well!) when prevailed upon, required much encouragement and never was the one to initiate.

Sonia Lovecraft theorised that this ambivalent attitude towards sex was brought on by her husbands strict puritan upbringing, but it’s also possible there was another, more innate reason. Other sources hint that Lovecraft wasn’t afraid of or even particularly averse to sex, simply…neutral. Crucially, he never displayed any interest in men, either.

This is a more ancient example. Around the late 8th Century. Rabi’a was a Sufi mystic, and the wife of Ahmad ibn Abi al-Hawari, they lived in Damascus in what is now Syria. Rabi’a’s sexuality is discussed in a Cornell University report on early Sufi women.

Rabi’a is seen as employing several methods to avoid sex. She would declare herself to be fasting and thus unable to engage in intercourse, she would plead with her husband to leave her be and pursue relations with other women instead. This is unlikely to have been a signifier of intense religious dedication, as celibacy was considered contrary to Islamic teachings.

The possibilities here are endless. It could be that Rabi’a is asexual, or just that she wishes to avoid the act of sex for some other reason. She could be experiencing a lack of romantic interest which is a possible interpretation of the above quote. She could be gay and this is her expression of being uninterested in Ahmad because he’s a man.

Rabi’a is a fascinating figure. And what’s clear if nothing else is that there was strong motivation on her part to avoid doing what was expected of her as a Muslim wife.

Now I’m going to go a bit more general. I was able to find an entire Wikipedia page with a timeline of ace history so I’ve collected some highlights from there. There was no such page for aromantic history and I’m trying hard not to be bitter about that. I’ve spent a while searching for aromantic communities, research and resources throughout history and I’m pleased to say I’ve actually unearthed a fair bit.

We begin in the 1200s. I’m sorry I can’t be any more specific than that. In medieval Flanders (France) communities of women began cropping up in the form of small gated cities known as beguinages. These were for single women who wanted to lead solo lives – usually for spurious religious reasons – these communes had their own amenities, businesses, farmlands, leisure activities…they represented freedom from the expectations of marriage and family.

Later in mid 17th century China, the Golden Orchid Society posited the same thing. The Society offered women an alternative to heterosexual marriage – which was often unpleasant and unwanted for the women involved. Women who joined this order would style their hair in the same way as a married woman, signifying their unavailability, they would support one another to become financially independent and live a life of their own design.

It’s likely that many women involved in the Golden Orchid Society had the same feelings toward love and romance as do modern day aromantics, but besides this the Society is undoubtedly an important piece of both feminist and queer history. It stood in opposition to patriarchal oppression, and many Society women would marry other women – a practice not exactly favoured but tolerated at the time in China.

Also in the 1600’s and also in France, Catherine Bernard was writing her tragedies. She cannot be confirmed as ace/aro, but her writings speak to an experience of asexuality and the way she lived her life leaves it as a possibility.

Bernard always spoke of love in quite disparaging terms, she is quoted, commenting on some of her work;

This would seem to designate her as an outsider looking in at romantic relationships. Indeed, an underlying theme in her work is that love never ends well.

Catherine never married. In, fact there is no credible evidence of her having had any significant other her whole life.

In the time of the industrial revolution there’s actually a fair bit to be found. It’s known that human sexuality has been a contentious issue from the time of the Middle Ages and onset of repressive religious rule. But LGBT+ activism has always existed.

Karl-Maria Kurtbeny was a Hungarian journalist and human rights campaigner. He is well known for first coining the terms ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’ Kertbeny wrote extensively about sexuality and he did so from a social justice perspective. He believed strongly that policing consensual sex acts should not be under the purview of the state. He was also of the belief that sexuality was innate and unchangeable and should therefore not be thought of as sin.

In a pamphlet protesting Prussian Sodomy Law that he authored in 1869 he made reference to people who eschew all sexual contact with others and choose only to masturbate. He called these people ‘monosexual’

The next major piece of work in the same vein came in 1896, it was Magnus Hirschfield’s book Sappho und Sokrates. This was a scientific manual curated to defend the rights of homosexuals and expand the public understanding of generla sexuality, it also mentioned people without sexual desire and used the term ‘anesthesia sexual’

In 1948 Alfred Kinsey introduced his “Kinsey Scale” a method of measuring sexual attractions and behaviours in adult men. This scale and the research it was based on was the first scientific suggestion that sexuality could be a spectrum. The table of the scale ranged from 0 = those who had only desire for the opposite sex to 6 = those who had only desire for the same sex. It also included an X rating for individuals who reported no sexual contact or reactions. A female version of this study was not undertaken until 1953, however.

It’s clear then that asexuality has been on the medical and scientific radar for a pretty long time and it’s true as well that we have evidence of it’s existence in social justice circles too.

And in 1972 Lisa Orlando (and Barbara Getz) wrote The Asexual Manifesto which was published by the New York Radical Feminists and circulated widely. It has been criticized by exclusionists as being evidence more about chosen celibacy than any innate orientation but contrary to that belief it reads;

Which I think speaks for itself.

This picture from 1973 is also criticized on the same grounds.

It features activists from Barnard College in Manhattan New York (an institution known for feminist action) advising event attendees to ‘choose your own label instead of having someone choose it for you’

It seems clear to me though, that the labels listed are simple suggestions and not intended to be part of any unified category. It’s just an indication that asexuality was considered a valid identity as opposed to however a heteronormative society might choose to otherwise define it.

The image was intended to be released alongside a previous article which described asexuality thus “an orientation that regards a partner as nonessential to sex, and sex as nonessential to a satisfying relationship.” Barnard College would go on to have a conference on sexuality in 1982.

In 1977 Myra Johnson wrote The Sexually Oppressed. This was one of the first academic papers about asexuality. She defined asexuality as a complete lack of sexual desire, and those who did experience sexual desire but had no desire to satisfy it with others she called ‘auto-erotic’ Johnson’s study had a feminist bent as she focused on the struggles of women who had been left behind by mainstream sexual liberation.

The year 1979 brought two major resources the first was Advances in the study of affect by Michael D Storms. Storms re-imagined the Kinsey Scale as a two dimensional thing with hetero/homo-eroticism on separate axes rather than two ends of the same sliding scale. This, he argued, would prevent asexual people being wrongfully categorised as bi, since previously they had only been distinguished by a lack of preference for either gender.

The next piece of work which made me very excited was called Love and limerence by Psychologist Dorothy Tennov. She described the phenomenon of ‘limerence’ collected from a diverse series of personal accounts as an intense and involuntary psychosocial state being separate to sexuality or ‘love actions’. This was the first scientific framework of the experience of being ‘in love’

Tennov’s work was expanded on by J.W Wells in 1989, he talked about ‘affectational orientation’ as the capacity of people to experience what Tennov had described.

1983, Paula Nurius led the first real study into asexuality, specifically targeting the relationship between sexual orientation and mental health. She based the research on a variant of the Kinsey scale. In 1994 another study was published in The Journal of Sex Research concluding that 1 in 100 persons were asexual.

Zoe O’Reilly wrote My life as an amoeba in 1997, a webzine that explored asexuality from a personal POV. It was extremely well received and talked about by those who identified for years to come.

That same year autism rights activist Jim Sinclair published Personal definitions of sexuality in response to a class assignment, in which he identifies himself as asexual. Sinclair had previously been tv interviewed under the alias Toby as “an androgynous and non-sexual person.”

The 2000’s is where it really took off. In ’01 David Jay founded AVEN which would become by far the most succesful and well known community for asexual information and networking.

The next year heralds the earliest recorded use of the word ‘aromantic’ in an AVEN poll thread.

The New York Sexual orientation non discrimination act of 2002 came too, and it is the only piece of legislature to this day that explicitly mentions asexuality.

Anthony Bogaert professor at Brock University, had published throughout his career a number of papers into the study of asexuality. And in 2002 he appeared in New Scientist magazine. Shortly following, asexuality was covered in the Sex Files series on the Discovery Channel.

2005 bought the split attraction model into the limelight, as well as the concept of the black ring, worn on the middle finger of the right hand as a symbol of asexuality.

The creator of Spongebob also announced the character was asexual, although this is commonly understood to have been a jab at SGA people rather than an expression of support for the ace community.

In 2009 the first ace group marched in San Francisco’s pride parade and the following year the ace flag was made public and the last week of October was designated as ace awareness week.

The first ever Asexual conference was held in London in 2012. And a year later the DSM 5 changed to define asexuality as an orientation rather than a mental disorder.

Dr Praghati Singh in 2014, founded Indian Aces, the first Asian support network for a-spec people. A year later she would also launch the first Asexual Dating Platform Platonicity, however it only lasted a few months due to technical problems.

Labour party candidate George Norman appealed to parliament in 2015 to ‘recognise his sexuality’ Norman was very open and forthcoming about his asexuality.

2016 brought the character of Todd Chavez in Netflix’s BoJack Horseman, an asexual man.

Nabil Allal and Alaa Yasin launched Asexuality in Arabic a social media platform celebrating and uplifting non-white asexual voices.

At the same time, the Podcast Sounds fake but okay read by Sarah Costello and Kayla Kaszyc – an aroace and het demisexual – became very popular.

In 2018 YouTuber Samantha Aimee gained notoriety when she came out as Asexual, and BBC3’s documentary Sex Map of Britain did an episode on asexuality.

In 2019 a Sky news documentary mentions Asexuality and the soap opera Emmerdale features it’s first ace character.

The same year Ela Pryzbylo an Illinois State University professor published her book Asexual Erotics building on the work of Audre Lorde and tackling misconceptions about asexuality, aromanticism and desire.

This year, the Netflix series Sex Education featured Florence, a teenage girl who learns she asexual. Her guidance counselor speaks these words;

It’s an extremely wordy pdf document but well worth a look. It was written by Ela Przbylo and Danielle Cooper and is called Asexual Resonances. These professors have traced the archives of gay and lesbian history for themes and evidences of asexuality.

Their presumption is that wherever there is queer history there is ace/aro history too. This is such a freeing, such a validating idea. That there is this “unexplored potential” for asexual history, that’s just been disregarded due to lack of interest from other groups. That we have been hidden, that we can be found.

We have always been here, in truth. I think any a-spec person whose queer in any other additional way must already know that. The idea that asexuality is brand new and therefore defunct is harmful and without basis.

The post Asexual & Aromantic History appeared first on LGBTIQA+ Greens.

Written by Luanne Thornton (she/her)

Pride month comes not only as a moment of celebration for the LGBTIQA+ community but also a moment of reflection.

We take this opportunity to question what do LGBTIQA+ individuals need to recognise, accept, and celebrate their most authentic selves? 

The LGBTIQA+ community need and deserve a knowledge of LGBTIQA+ history, a recognition of the political and sociocultural oppression which was responsible for many LGBTIQA+ individuals having been censored, devalued, reduced to anonymous entities or at worst completely erased from history entirely. 

It’s unfortunate to recognise that many of the struggles faced by the LGBTIQA+ community throughout history are not only remembered but still experienced by many individuals today. A way of combating this is through the close connection of an LGBTIQA+ community whether that be a personal group formed through friends or an organisational group. 

Significantly much of the progress in rights that the LGBTIQA+ community has had was born out of  the Stonewall Riots, also called the Stonewall Uprising, which occurred in the early hours of June 28, 1969 when New York City police raided the Stonewall Inn, a gay club located in Greenwich Village in New York City. The events of the evening united the LGBTIQA+ community and served as the catalyst for LGBTIQA+ liberation across America and much of the Global North.

LGBTIQA+ people been able to work together to achieve more progressive rights which has led to the decriminalisation of same-sex relationships, and the legalisation of gay marriage to name but a few. But despite this there is much still to achieve.

One thing that irritates me is when I hear people say that there is not a need for queer spaces or communities anymore whether that be organised spaces or personal spaces.  It is frustrating because there is still so much progress to be made.

Yes, the UK law allows gay marriage, and we have equality legislation protecting LGBT+ individuals and a wide public acceptance of gay people, but despite this I am frequently reminded that there are a lot of things we need to improve.

Transgender healthcare in the UK is poor with extremely long waiting times to access transition.  Hate crimes are still experienced as a result of people’s LGBTIQA+ identity. 

As a consequence of historical and current political oppression and society stigma, unfortunately LGBTIQA+ individuals remain at a higher risk for depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts compared to their heterosexual peers. 

This is because despite some progress within society and political institutions many LGBTIQA+ individuals still have to experience discrimination, homophobia, transphobia, social isolation, and rejection to name but a few.

On a more personal level I currently work in a role closely aligned with young people’s mental health and can personally attest to the detrimental impact these sorts of experiences have on LGBTIQA+ individuals. 

Ultimately, in present society LGBTIQA+ individuals require an inner strength and perseverance accompanied with a sense of hope for progress in a world still very much difficult to navigate for us. I think there is a strong need for LGBTIQA+ communities and believe this will remain the case for a long time into the future. Something about the relationships with fellow LGBTIQA+ individuals feels significantly different to those relationships we hold with others, whether that be our family, friends, colleagues and/or acquaintances. What drives this, perhaps, is the knowledge of shared experiences, culture and collective consciousness. 

Kae Tempest a non-binary writer says in their latest essay collection, On Connection,

“We are empathetic beings who feel for each other. Our very success as a species is rooted in our ability to be aware of each other’s needs, to notice each other’s pain and to experience deeply felt physiological and emotional empathy”. 

By sharing our struggles and accomplishments we are motivated by one another’s powerful narratives. LGBTIQA+ communities provide us with a sense of belonging and authenticity and a pace to truly be ourselves. 

As a subsection of the Green Party the liberation group LGBTIQA+ Greens provides a safe and friendly space, this is due to the immense work from committee and active members. The group actively campaigns to advance the rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Intersex, Queer, and Asexual/Aromantic people. With much Discrimination still occurring in housing, education, employment and health, the LGBTIQA+ Greens are a much-needed force and supportive community to campaign against discrimination and for an equal and accepting society. 

I am grateful to be part of a community which supports and fights for the rights of LGBTIQA+ to live and love freely, and I hope one day I may look back at what I did as part of a community to build an improved and inclusive future.

The post The Importance of Community appeared first on LGBTIQA+ Greens.

There are power structures present in our society. The world is designed to favour some people over others, based on facets of our identities that we neither chose, nor have any control over. The resulting system grants privileges to certain groups of people and contributes to oppression against others.

Most privileged identities are typic of the majority of people. They are seen as the ‘default’. People belonging to these dominant groups, then, are never really forced to examine their place in the world and so they grow up blind to the advantages they have over others.

Majority identities, like heterosexual cisgender people for example, hold the power in an unequal society by virtue of their privileged position. They serve as the measure of what is normal, real and correct. Their power is the ability to define reality in a way. This happens on every level.

First, individual beliefs and values align with this idea of reality, which is skewed in favour of the dominant identity.

These are reinforced on an interpersonal level through actions and language.

These behaviours are manifested on an institutional level next (politics shape society), they influence the structure of public policy, the legal and education system, the workplace and also the media – from which’s subliminal messaging goes on to inform collective ideas about what is ‘right’ what is ‘attractive’ what is ‘dangerous’.

These ideas are integrated into our individual belief systems as we grow. This is a self-perpetuating and self-propagating system. It builds and sustains itself from one generation to the next.

For the LGBT+ community it’s this system that causes us to marginalized and misunderstood. There are many facets at play beyond simple homophobia/transphobia that have served to create a society in which we do not fit.

Cisnormativity is the assumption that all person’s have a gender identity that coincides with that which they were assigned at birth.

It has strong links with gender essentialism – the belief that there are intrinsic skills and qualities pertaining to men and women and innate differences between the two.

On an interpersonal level it looks like refusing to acknowledge someone’s gender identity, or more seriously violence against trans people.

On an institutional level laws are passed making transition harder, or limiting legal recognition and rights such as discrimination protections.

In the media we might have cis men playing trans women, for instance, further perpetuating the idea that trans women are in fact men wearing dresses. This media messaging can incite disgust and confusion within individuals who absorb it.

Cisnormativity contributes to the erasure of trans and nonbinary identities. It is also the driving force behind violent transphobia and oppressive cissexism.

It’s important to challenge cisnormativity in order to promote acceptance of trans people. It will also help to free both men and women from oppressive, restrictive gender roles.

Heteronormativity is the assumption that all people are heterosexual, and/or that heterosexuality is the default sexuality.

It has strong links to cisnormativity, sexism, gender binarism (the belief that there are only two genders) and gender essentialism.

Heteronormativity can cause queer people to be perceived as deviant or unnatural. It can lead to the erasure of bi/pan people and contribute to the marginalization of a-spec and poly people. As if a person is not straight (and all people are meant to be straight) then something must be wrong with them, and they ought to be ‘fixed’.

On an institutional level, heteronormativity takes the form of denying marriage equality and same-sex adoption, and in some countries severe penalties for those engaging in same sex activity.

On an interpersonal level, it can take a form of unintentionally inaccurate assumptions- such as assuming that a woman is referring to a man when she mentions a spouse or fiance, or expecting one partner in a same-sex couple to be more feminine than the other, it can drive violent hate crimes also.

In the media harmful stereotypes and an over-focus on sad stories such as men dying of AIDS, committing suicide, being murdered…can cause the belief that being gay is bound to be an unhappy life and will cause people to mourn for the gay friends and relatives.

It’s important to challenge heteronormativity in order to normalize same sex relationships and prevent the subsequent suppression and violence against MOGAI people. When heterosexuality is no longer the default, people will be more able to experiment and to express themselves.

Amatanormativity is the assumption that everyone should be in a monogamous, romantic, long term coupling. That these relationships are more important than all other relationships and that everyone is equally concerned with finding this kind of love.

Amatanormativity has strong links to patriarchy (the supremacy of men and their control over women), heteronormativity, compulsory sexuality (the pressure to perform heterosexuality regardless of one’s own identity) and antisexualism.

It hurts a-spec people the most as it causes non-romantic relationships to be devalued while romantic ones are celebrated, and it erases those who choose to pursue other paths – i.e. remaining single, polygamous relationships. It can cause aromantic people particularly to feel like failures since they cannot/don’t want to succeed in romance.

Everyone is harmed by amatanormativity however, since it reinforces the capitalist construct of the nuclear family as the apex of fulfillment – which makes it harder to build storng communities and causes social isolation.

On an interpersonal level amatanormativity looks like pressuring people to date, asking when they’re going to get married, projecting romantic roles onto children.

On an institutional level the whole world is built with the assumption that everybody exists in a coupling. It’s harder for a single person to afford to live.

In the media there is a saturation of romantic content, and a portrayal of those who eschew romance as ‘damaged’ in some way. Individuals absorb this messaging and come to believe that romantic love is the whole purpose of life. They may begin to be suspicious of those who choose to remain single, or look down on them. They may be distressed at their lack of luck in the romance department.

It’s important to challenge amatanormativity in order to promote acceptance of a-spec people, challenge the building blocks of patriarchy and encourage new more genuine ways of partnership and human connection.

The powers that be like to keep us arguing over what is natural but it’s important to acknowledge that “natural” isn’t really a good benchmark of what constitutes healthy behaviour.

It doesn’t matter if homosexuality is naturally occurring. Or being trans, or asexual. Why must we conform to a narrow definition of normal – why should we accept ‘natural’ if that’s not what liberates us, fills our hearts and makes us happy?

I think it’s important to say that no amount of homophobia/transphobia/aphobia can be acceptable. Trying to establish a root cause of something that presents not threat to human life or happiness is a pointless endeavor and always comes with poor intentions.

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is ‘this is the way we have always done things’ we need to resist any assumption that there is one-true-way to do or be. Unless it can be demonstrated that something is harmful it will only lead to more oppression and hate.

The post What is ‘Normal’ anyway? appeared first on LGBTIQA+ Greens.

By Sanjana Idnani

…

After almost two decades following the repeal of section 28, education about the issues faced by LGBTIQA+ individuals has massively progressed.

The post LGBT+ Education in Schools appeared first on LGBTIQA+ Greens.

Written by Lou Gibney

Trigger Warning: mentions of transphobia, racism, homophobia

…

Bias. It’s something we all have – to varying degrees – based on our worldview. The BBC claims to be as objective as possible whilst producing TopGear, which, with Jeremy Clarkson behind the wheel, regularly causes controversies and problems of diplomacy. What else would you expect with three cishet white men driving cars around, really.

The policy unveiled in October 2020 essentially bans BBC newsroom staff from attending protests or marches that are considered contentious or sensitive where guidance to managers states that all protests and marches can be considered as such. BLM protests were explicitly mentioned by BBC managers when explaining the new policy to their staff. Glad to know racial equality is considered controversial in 2021.

Although the policy will have been in effect for a couple of months now, I feel that it’s important to highlight again in LGBT history month to show that our hard won rights aren’t as secure as we like to think they are and how far we have yet to go for our trans siblings.

The question that is going around my head is: controversial to whom? Who would find a BBC newsroom staff member attending a pride parade controversial? Well, in 2019, Northern Irish politicians raised concerns that the organisation was showing its bias towards Same-Sex marriage by allowing LGBTIQA+ staff to openly go to Belfast Pride.

Although the new guidelines don’t explicitly ban LGBTIQA+ pride and the director, Tim Daley, did later clarify BBC journalists could attend pride in a celebratory capacity. He did, however, fail to clarify what not attending politically controversial marches meant. Considering the government’s continuing attacks on Trans rights, we can assume that BBC journalists can no longer openly support Trans Liberation.

“…one of the world’s largest broadcasting corporations showing trans joy and trans excellence whilst highlighting the need for Trans Liberation NOW, would actually be pretty helpful.”

Trans people are coming under attack from virtually all fronts and what they need right now is allies. And one of the world’s largest broadcasting corporations showing trans joy and trans excellence whilst highlighting the need for Trans Liberation NOW, would actually be pretty helpful.

By treating trans issues – and by extension trans people – as inherently controversial, the most highly regarded News outlet in the country, and possibly the world, has shown that it is more concerned about upsetting people of a right-wing persuasion than being involved in the fight for equality. It has concluded that equality is controversial, and its staff can’t be seen to part-take in it.

Is that any surprise though? The BBC broadcasted minstrel shows until 1978. Rather than regarding racial justice as “controversial” when protests take place in the streets, the BBC should be making amends for this history. The Small Axe film series it broadcasted recently is a good start and it should continue along those lines. I can remember watching comedies as a child in the noughties with homophobic jokes being broadcasted on the BBC, and that wasn’t so long ago. The BBC has a lot of work still to do and a lot to make amends for.

The post Equality is Controversial, Apparently appeared first on LGBTIQA+ Greens.

Written by Lollie Melton

Trigger Warning: discussions of homophobia, transphobia, brief mentions of death

…

“But they showed a scene from Glee and one of my (yes cis, yes straight, yes white) friends was unimpressed.”

“…the problem with this was it didn’t allow for diversity within the LGBT+ community.”

The post LGBT+ Representation: It’s Not Forced Diversity, People Just Exist appeared first on LGBTIQA+ Greens.

Written by Pandora Hughes

…

“…I realised that it was time to start supporting the people taking decisive action for change.”

“In the face of this challenge, you can either stand for a future in which all people are welcome and equal, or for a past in which only certain voices were heard.”

The post Why Trans People are Joining the Greens appeared first on LGBTIQA+ Greens.

Written by Joe Lever (he/him)

Trigger Warning: homophobia

…

“Many unions were vocal LGBT+ allies at a time when much of society was still hostile”

“When the attacks on equality are many, it can be easy to isolate in your own fight, forgetting that strength can come from how broad an alliance is.”

The post LGBT+ Rights and the Trade Union Movement: Building on a Historic Allyship appeared first on LGBTIQA+ Greens.

By Josh Farrell

Trigger Warning – mentions of transphobia

…

Feminism has a long history, with the advent of Western Feminism being somewhere in the mid-1300s however it wasn’t until the 1960s that feminism as a topic was being analysed critically by feminists themselves. From this analysis came what we know as Radical Feminism which is just one of many perspectives under the broad umbrella of feminism.

The fundamental belief of Radical Feminism is that society should be reordered in such a way that male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts, while also recognising that the experiences of women are affected by other social divisions such as Race, Class and Sexual Orientations.

However, since its bold inception Radical Feminism has suffered from divisions on the subject of Gender Identity. It was only in the 1970s that the first trans-exclusionary feminists really began to make themselves known. Original TERFs operated in a manner that would be considered more “conventionally” bigoted today, threatening violence against trans women who dared to exist in radical feminists or lesbian spaces. Although, some of the modern recognisable TERF talking points existed, i.e. biological essentialism.

In 1979, what has become known as the hand book for TERFs was written. “Transsexual Empire: the making of the she-male” combines TERF theory with political action, arguing that “transsexualism…should be morally mandated out of existence” In essence, the book posited that while it would be impossible to ban transitioning or ‘stealth’ trans people, TERFs should be making transitioning as difficult as possible. Sound familiar? After this landmark text, conflicts between trans-exclusionary and trans inclusionary feminists stayed generally on a low simmer for the next 30 years.

In 2008 the word TERF was first coined by trans inclusionary feminist blogger Viv Smythe. Thereon, the term – along with the associated ideology – spread and became especially prolific on progressive blog sites like Tumblr, which is where I first heard the term. It further grew supported by Right-wing media outlets like those owned by the Murdoch empire, to the point where it has become (unfortunately) well-baked into the British definition of feminism.

Many gender theorists attribute this growth in the UK to a toxic combination of historic imperialism and the wider “sceptic” movement from the 2000s, that had an obsession with debating pseudo-science instead of debunking and ignoring it. This growing support from the right-wing media has unsurprisingly caused TERF ideology to become more serving of right-wing aims; not only attacking trans people but the wider LGBTIQA+ community as well, all the while undermining the progress feminists have fought long and hard for. Although they’re very quick to deny this and mask their attacks in (faux) concern, the façade of LGBTIQA+ support and feminism falls very quickly when these people are confronted.

So, what was the point of this brief trip though history?

“What’s significant here is that the majority is also part of an oppressed group.”

Firstly, transphobia did not come out of nowhere and by no means is it modern or progressive. Much like many other forms of bigotry it is the result of a majority holding power over a minority and attacking any attempt by the minority to seek a redistribution of power. What’s significant here is that the majority is also part of an oppressed group.

JK Rowling wrote in that essay “now is a dangerous time for women” and I completely agree. But the threat to women isn’t trans people, the threat to women is what it has always been: the patriarchy. Women and trans people are allies in this; both are threatened by rigid gender roles which suppress their expression. Transphobia is yet another tool the patriarchy uses to subjugate and divide like-minded people. If women and trans people are pitted against each other, chances to disrupt the real power structures from which they both suffer are missed.

Secondly, debate is not the way to eliminate transphobia. Debating a belief implies that it is valid, and transphobia is simply not valid, in any form. Debate provides a platform for transphobia to be repeated and spread. Evidence has shown that repetition of lies and fake beliefs only affirms that belief, no matter how strong the oppositions in the debate. QAnon is a very relevant example of this.

False debate fed the mess we’re in; we must choose instead to debunk and educate. As it’s only through education that we can foster acceptance and respect. If people have reached the point of not listening and they will not change their minds, then we must send the message that their beliefs are no longer conducive to a civilised society.

Finally, we as allies are failing trans people, especially in the way we engage with transphobic rhetoric. Recently the phrase “trans women are women” was trending on twitter and whilst this has been a great rallying cry, it creates a space for transphobic individuals to respond in bad faith. For example, questioning “What is a woman?” and zeroing in on ‘holes’ in people’s understanding of the complex issue of gender.

“An issue with many trans allies and transphobes is that they get so lost in theory, they forget the real people involved in the issues.”

I propose we answer that question in the only way it can be answered, by dismantling it. As befits the reality (and variety) of human experience, there’s no one way to define what it means to be a woman. Womanhood and femininity are entirely subjective, every person will have a different answer, if they have any answer at all. An issue with many trans allies and transphobes is that they get so lost in theory, they forget the real people involved in the issues.

We need to listen to trans people, and act in their best interest. We must not use euphemisms or dog whistles when describing actions and understand that labels and context matter. I’m particularly not fond of the term TERF, as it lends the legitimacy of radical feminism, when in reality the movement has devolved so far from the radical feminist movement which they originate from.

We need to adopt better phrasing and slogans, that don’t invite transphobic responses. For example “trans liberation now” is useful. If someone was to ask “liberation from what?”, we can have a real conversation about the ‘what’ rather than devolving into the minutiae of gender metaphysics, which just ends with frustration on both sides.

We must acknowledge that transphobia is systemic. Transphobia has never been just a few bad apples; it’s an entire system that perpetuates the oppression of trans people. By denying this we are complicit. There can be a general apathy towards trans liberation, with allies fighting or responding only when certain problematic individuals are being very vocal in their bigotry. Compare the reaction to JK Rowling’s transphobia to the issue of the high court ruling, that would make transitioning even more difficult. We must be proactive in the fight for trans liberation. To adopt a slogan from the Black Lives Matter movement, it is not enough for us to not be transphobic, we must be loudly anti-transphobic.

The post A Brief History of Transphobia appeared first on LGBTIQA+ Greens.