Divorcing equality

Let's say a newspaper writes a beat up story about a flat advert about a household asking for heterosexual people not to apply.  The article subtly ridicules all the ways the flatmates self-described themselves through the liberal use of quote marks:

It was for a four-bedroom house in the suburb of Newtown, which the existing flatmates described as a "queer, transgender, vegetarian household".
They described themselves as two "feminist/politically switched on adults"......

The Human Rights Commission gets the chance to respond.  It's not unreasonable to expect they might raise the persistent discrimination sexuality and gender diverse people experience in housing.  Like the facts around how vulnerable our young people are, when families reject our sexual or gender identity, and we have to find housing before we're actually ready to be independent.  Or the complete lack of safety for anyone who isn't a cis man in our homeless shelters - we have too few options for homeless women, queer or not, and no options for people who don't fit gender norms/are non-binary. 

Or what happens to us when we rock up to apply for a flat, and the person renting it realises we are not straight, or we are trans, and suddenly the room or house isn't available anymore.  Add being Maori or from any visible ethnic minority to that and you've got an even smaller pool to choose from.

Or what about when we find a flat, and it's ok, they even know we're queer - but then we get a similar gender lover, and suddenly people don't actually talk to us properly anymore? 

These are all overtish - rarely will we be told any of this is about being queer or trans or brown - but we know.  There's also all the covert stuff when you live with homophobic, biphobic or transphobic people.  The inability to have ordinary conversations about your experiences, because those people don't want to hear or don't understand or when you try talking, they are glazed over, bored, because it's not their experience and they don't really care.  The failure to acknowledge significant pain points, like the way your family treat you at Christmas or the hoops you have to jump through to get the hormones or medication you need to be recognised as who you are.

See, I EXPECT our Human Rights Commission to have heard those stories, because they monitor discrimination in this country.  They held a Transgender Inquiry in 2008 which said about housing:

"The Inquiry heard that finding a home was not always easy for trans people.  Those who transitioned as young adults were usually dependent on shared rental accomodation, particularly in flatting situations.  Social marginalisation and negative attitudes towards transpeople affects access to shared accomodation.  A trans woman told of being offered a room in a flat but was later turned away when the other tenants realised she was trans.  One trans man described the stress of boarding in a large house where flatmates continually harassed him by referring to him as "she"."

But instead the Human Rights Commission gave a weak waffling response about how we didn't want to live in a country with prejudice, whether that was saying "No straight people" or "No gay people".

The fact the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION doesn't understand structural discrimination is terrifying.  Because guess what - straight people can live everywhere else in the whole world almost - the fact that a couple of queer trans peeps in the lovely suburb of Newtown want to feel safe at home doesn't restrict straight people's housing options.

It kind of gets worse, with once again, our more mainstream Rainbow community organisations not knowing how to deal with talking about marginalisation, safety and discrimination.  There is no story here apart from the fact that queer and trans people must have the right, in an incredibly discriminatory housing context in Aotearoa New Zealand, to develop homes which feel safe for us.  And the Human Rights Commission and every single Rainbow organisation commenting on this should be saying that.

Because home is where we go to recover from the world.  It's where we most need to feel safe, to feel seen, to know how we are is just fine.  It's where, if we're talking psychologically, we need to be able to sleep without fear and rest from how we are treated on the streets, at work, in study, whenever we try to access anything we need.  All of those experiences can be more difficult for trans and queer people.

Marriage equality has dulled our senses, drugged our supposed protections, shifted the focus from most queer and trans people's experiences - particularly those of us who are poor, not white, disabled and/or less able or have less desire to fit in.  Expect no less than rage from those of us who never wanted to get married in the first place - it's time for the Rainbow community to divorce this unhealthy relationship with "equality" and start dating around.

Biphobia and Radio New Zealand

Dear Radio New Zealand,

Thank you for investigating the impact of marriage equality on sexuality and gender diverse communities (which I’m going to call “queer”) in your recent news article.  It’s most welcome to have ongoing attention to the ways in which discrimination and oppression are experienced by queer people in Aotearoa.

Many of the speakers were interesting, thoughtful and eloquent.  I particularly enjoyed hearing from Ngahuia Te Awekotuku and Elizabeth Kerekere as centring takatāpui experience should be part of any conversation of queer rights in Aotearoa.  And I loved the use of “queer” as an umbrella term by Radio NZ, though I know it's a contested term.

I missed any acknowledgment of issues for intersex people, particularly when Aotearoa is the home of one of the most internationally respect intersex human rights advocates in Mani Mitchell. Intersex people face unwanted and intrusive health practices throughout their lives as a result of binary understandings of sex. These things have been completely unaddressed by marriage equality.

I also missed any investigation of changes for queer Asian and Pacifica peoples, since in all those communities, queer activists raised issues and pushed MPs to vote in support of queer rights, with varying degrees of success. I wondered what, if anything, those conversations have opened up for queer people in those communities.

The concern I'm best placed to speak to though, as a Pākehā cis bisexual woman, relates to the biphobia and bi-erasure in the article. From the very first sentence in both the news story and the podcast, we were told queer rights were about “gay, lesbian and transgender individuals.” But bisexual people were not just absent, like intersex people and queer Asian and Pacifica peoples, we were completely erased. The “B” in LGBTIQ is too often silent, but this article took it to new levels.

You said:

"A study published by University of Auckland researchers last year found one in five same-sex attracted youth had attempted suicide in the past year - a rate five times higher than their straight counterparts.  Nearly half had thought about killing themselves, and just short of 60% had self harmed."

FALSE: That study is about same and both-sex attracted young people.  Bisexual people are explicitly included.

You mentioned in the podcast that international research shows homophobia is experienced by “gay and lesbian” sportspeople in Aotearoa.

FALSE: That study is about bisexual, lesbian and gay sportspeople.  Bisexual people are explicitly included.

The article referred to marriage equality repeatedly as same-sex marriage. This invisibilises both bisexual and trans people. There were gains for some trans people from this legislation, because for some it meant marriages that had been legal before transitioning but not after can now be legally recognized. And for bisexual people who have been able to marry different gender partners but not similar gender partners, this was a significant gain, and one which our submissions often explicitly discussed. "Marriage Equality" as a phrase in Aotearoa was about making sure this issue did not hide queer community people who do not identify as lesbian or gay. 

The word bisexual was not mentioned once. The word biphobia was not mentioned once. I understand both were used by at least one of the people you interviewed, but this was edited out.  Just like bisexual people.

You might not be sure why this matters, I guess.  So let me tell you.

Biphobia and bi-erasure mean bisexual people have the poorest mental health outcomes of all sexualities, and we hold onto those poor mental health outcomes for longer, because when lesbians and gay men get older and find community, that can be protective for mental health. That’s not always true for bisexual people.

Biphobia and bi-erasure also mean bisexual people have the highest rates of substance misuse of all sexualities. We use alcohol and drugs differently, and in more problematic ways.

Biphobia and bi-erasure mean bisexual people have the highest rates of sexual and partner violence of all sexualities.  This is true for bisexual women and bisexual men. We are targeted for violence because of our gender and sexuality identity, and biphobic attitudes often form part of partner violence for us.

Biphobia and bi-erasure often make queer spaces very uncomfortable for bisexual people, and this impacts on our health and wellbeing.

None of these vulnerabilities – unlikely to be impacted much if at all by marriage equality – have anything to do with what it means to acknowledge attractions and loves for more than one gender. They are to do with the ways bisexual lives are invisibilised and stereotyped in mainstream culture.

Please do this better next time. Bisexual people have been active in campaigning for and writing rights based legislation for queer people in Aotearoa for decades. We deserve to be included and have our distinct issues treated with respect.

Yours truly,
LJ


UPDATE: 11 August 2015.  The response received from Radio NZ said:

Thanks for your feedback.  I absolutely take your point and will pass on your message to my editor - as a broadcaster you'll understand we're constantly trying to get our scripts as tight as possible but I see the issue of erasure apparent here. I've taken it on board, and will ensure to be more inclusive and clearer in the future. Again, I do appreciate the feedback, as it really makes a huge difference in how I tell stories and explore issues going forward.

I asked if they could edit the online print story to include the word bisexual where it's appropriate (which they have done) and note the erasure and omission at the end as a problem (which they have not done).  The journalist concerned was gracious and has reiterated that they intend to approach queer stories differently in the future.  I hope that's what ends up happening. 

Dom Harvey is a coward.

There has been a lot of back and forth about the stupidity of Dom Harvey taking still frames of a woman dancing in order to get a photo of her knickers/three pairs of stockings/leotard.

First things first. Most performers don’t get to choose their costumes. If they do try to, they get labeled difficult. Any performer knows this. So slut shaming someone for an outfit they don’t chose is a pretty low hit.

Secondly, in order to see ANYTHING of a smutty level in a dance outfit there would have to be a serious malfunction. When I was dancing I wore a g string, then my skin tone tights, then my costume undies, then, then fishnets or costume tights, then my leotard or skirt. Sorry to ruin the day of the losers responsible for this being an actual thing on google search

But you aren’t gonna see anything, no matter how much time you waste re watching and freezing shots to take pics. Creep.

My next point has not been covered yet as far as I can see. There has been a lot of discussion about what is and isn’t funny and who is and isn’t public property, and what parts of a woman’s body are and aren't ok to view if it is already “out there”. But there has been no mention of the cowardice involved.

Cowardice? What? This was a quick joke. He picked the only obvious target right?

 She was the only appropriate target... the only woman wearing a dress short enough to catch a glimpse of her knickers as she executed a lift or jump. The only person who would be suitable for this “Joke”.
Well GOLLY. If only there was a woman there dancing incredibly with her legs in the air in a similar fashion on the same show, on that same night. A woman with media power, a woman with the power to change people’s careers because she is well connected. A woman who if she didn’t like the joke could really mess with Dom Harvey’s future. A woman with the Queen’s service medal.

  *cough*.

If only such a woman existed, Dom Harvey could have used her as his target and proved his claims of humor, punching up, and showing that he takes the mickey out of everyone, no matter how powerful. If only there were such a woman, the joke might work. It wouldn’t be a pathetic little perve taking the mickey out of a woman who has so little control out of her image that this may be the one thing she is remembered for.

If he had used Candy, the joke still wouldn’t be a good one, it would still be creepy as hell. But if she has the power to respond without the entirety of New Zealand media shitting on her, that would be a start right??

Pity there was no other woman he could have chosen… then people might have noticed what a coward he was.

Amanda Bailey is a legend, or victim-blaming, protector of the powerful

John Key needs a way to stop this story of creepy harassment, now.  It's become a big deal, with even the usually friendly reporters finding his behaviour unacceptable.  The National Council of Women and the Human Rights Commission agree this is plain sexism.  He's even become the source of a "weirdest moments" story in the Guardian.

But what to do?  There are other photos of him touching women and girl's hair.  Many National Party men, and friends of National Party men, also seem to have problems with sexual harassment.  Is this a big enough deal to seriously undermine John and the National Party?

But phew, rape culture.  It's easy.  You just blame the victim.

It's been working for years.  It will not only discredit this particular woman, but it will make sure any other women are less likely to come forward.  Makes the abusing of the power - in all kinds of ways - so much easier.

But how?  If he tells the media who the young woman is, says she's just trying to make a name for herself, makes her out to be exaggerating or lying, he might look even more like a bully.  Hell, he's already tried pretending it's not a big deal by calling it "horsing around" and no one seems to buy it.

But phew, he's got close friends to do it for him.  Time to give Herald reporter Rachel and David a call, and see what they can do. Luckily, he has their numbers on speed dial.  Rachel's been a good friend over the years, and a few discreet tips about the pesky waitress should sort this out.

David Farrar and Rachel Glucina.

Today, in the nick of time, Rachel Glucina has her story up.  Makes Amanda Bailey sound a little grasping, out to get John Key.  Names her, gives details, shows her picture, says where she works.  Opens it up nicely to the threat of more intrusion in her life if she doesn't go away.

But Ms Bailey doesn't go away.  She comes out swinging, dammit, and tells the world, again, her side of things.  She says Rachel Glucina lied to get the story.  Didn't give her name or her occupation.  That, interestingly, breaks the journalist code of ethics, which might just be sackable.  Is it just me, or does victim blaming get harder, the more we hear from victims?

Make no mistake, this little attempt to make John Key's creepy harassment go away is just as revolting as any kind of victim blaming, with a huge dose of power thrown in.  How many people have their own personal reporter set to do their bidding immediately a negative story about them comes out?

It's going to backfire, because those of us who don't think touching people when they don't want to be touched is a joke are going to keep saying so.  It's going to backfire, because the work of Nicky Hager has exposed the way this entitled, abusive National government operates, playing fast and loose with the media.

It's going to backfire, because Amanda Bailey is a legend. 

Michael Bublé teaches consent

Michael Bublé has been blasted for posting a Twitter picture of a woman's bum, with leery racialised commentary, without her consent.  She's a woman of colour.

He's since posted his take on the issue: 

"Anybody who knows me would never misinterpret the message of the photo my wife took in Miami that seems to have caused unexpected rage by some people. I do not court controversy. But I realize that a photo that was meant to be complimentary and lighthearted has turned into a questionable issue. For the record, It hurts me deeply that anyone would think that I would disrespect women or be insulting to any human being.. I was not brought up that way and it is not in my character. I regret that there are people out there who found the photo offensive. That was not and is not my intention. Women are to be celebrated, loved, respected, honored and revered. I’ve spent my life believing that and will continue to do so."

He could not have written a more revealing aide to critiquing rape culture and consent if he tried.  He was meaning to compliment her; he doesn't disrespect women, he loves them; he's hurt because his intention has been misunderstood.

Any of that sound familiar?

He doesn't get into the woman's short shorts "asking for it" - that element of rape culture is nicely taken up by others on Twitter.  It would be easy to criticise Mr Bublé for this - too easy, to be honest - I'm far more interested in exploring the things it shows us about consent culture.

A few weeks ago, I was talking about Friend B with Friend A.  Friend B has a history of not asking for what they want directly, and even when others around them are explicit in saying what is not ok, repeatedly testing that through indirect actions.  None of this is sexual, it's about living stuff, friendship stuff, activist organising stuff.

I said to Friend A, as we discussed a recent situation, that Friend B was "naughty." 

It's been bothering me ever since.  The minimisation, the flippancy of my comment.  Because were the content of these interactions different, we would be talking about sexual assault.  Friend B is repeatedly disrespecting other's boundaries in order to do what they want.  And because they are clever, and because life stuff is complex, they do not take responsibility for what they are doing, and they would be absolutely horrified to be called on it as an issue of consent.

So it's been bothering me because I've been excusing behaviours that undermine consent, albeit in a non-sexual context.  To create a consent culture we have to do so, so much better.

Back to Mr Bublé.  What if he'd asked the woman concerned if he could photograph her, post the picture on social media to millions, make comment on her arse?  That would have been better, obviously, than what he did.  But it still would be chock-a-block with the power dynamics that he, as a rich, white, famous man, benefits from.  Could he borrow the racialised "baby got back" about an anonymous Black woman in the context of North America, slavery and the ongoing objectification and violence towards women of colour?  It's hard to see how it could be a free agreement to enthusiastic participation.  Consent processes are complicated, and sometimes need revisiting to get them right.

A few years ago now, I was arranging a conference, and one of the people I wanted to speak - because they were the best person in Aotearoa on a particular subject - said they were busy that day.  I remember noticing something in their voice, and stopping, noticing that I would usually have suggested helping them with travel costs to ensure they could do both things, trying to work out a way that would work.  What stopped me was knowing the person was a survivor, and hearing in their "no" something uncertain.  They were not sure I was going to listen.

It was a horrifying moment, because I realised that many times in the past, I might not have.  I might have continued to seek what I wanted, because I wasn't reading their "no" as definitive.

A consent culture, I believe, is only something we can work towards imagining at the moment.  Because consent culture would make neo-liberal capitalism impossible - why would workers consent to the greedy CEOs having so much?  Consent culture would dismantle colonisation and the ongoing harms to indigenous peoples and use negotiation, justice and equity as a basis for sharing space on the earth. 

In addition to organising for consent structurally, in all the ways that happens, we can and should be interrogating the personal spaces where negotiation and power sharing live.  We can and should be honest with ourselves about when we are over-riding someone else's consent.  We can and should ask for help from people to listen to us, even when we are having trouble saying what is ok.

And Mr Bublé, in your case, a genuine apology would be most welcome, acknowledging that whatever was going on for you, in the moment of posting that picture you were not thinking about the woman pictured having any needs or wishes that didn't suit you.  And that, ultimately, coupled with power, is the abuse of consent.

Telling stories about rape

Former All Black Mils Muliaina was arrested last night in connection with a sexual assault in Wales in March.  It's very early days, with no information about the allegation having been made public yet.  When sexual violence is reported in the UK, their justice system does a better job than ours, with 63% of rape cases and 76% of other sexual assault cases resulting in conviction.  (Just to remind ourselves, in Aotearoa just 13% of sexual violation cases reported to Police result in conviction).
This post isn't about that though.  It's about how we tell stories about rape.

In 2013, research from the specialist sexual violence sector looking at how the media report on sexual violence in Aotearoa showed some disturbing stuff: journalists do not understand the law and they do not interview experts, with no articles featuring commentary from specialist academics or researchers and just 8% featuring commentary from community experts.

This means that our news is full of rape myths, because journalists are like everyone else - they grow up in our rape culture.  Despite the importance of the role of the mainstream media in educating the public about sexual violence, the only compulsory reading for student journalists in New Zealand features just three sentences about sexual violence in a 453 page book, and they are not helpful for unlearning rape myths (my emphasis):

“It is illegal to report the victims’ names in any sex crime; it can be unethical and untasteful to describe a sexual crime in graphic detail. It is particularly important to be cautious about taking sides in the reporting: with emotions running high, false complaints are often made regarding sexual offences. Both sides can be very believable in their differing accounts.”

For the record, Police estimate 8% of reports about sexual violence they receive are false.   It's far more common for people to choose not to report to the Police - just one in ten survivors report.  Both of these figures come from New Zealand Police, that bastion of feminist activism.

The media research identified six key areas where newspaper reporting could be more accurate.  As the most fulsome report is at Stuff, that's where I'm looking.

• Sexual violence is not “just sex”
• It is rare for a survivor to lie about being raped

Stuff doesn't call what has happened "sex".  Yet.  Watch this space.  It does, however, set the scene for the night in question like this:

 But rugby-mad Cardiff is a renowned party town, and the Welsh capital comes alive after a big match.

Come alive with the raping, Stuff?  Or is there already an inference that what happened may not be that serious?  Maybe the person calling this sexual assault - who we know nothing about, yet - confused partying with sexual assault?

• Violent stranger danger sexual violence is rare
• Unfortunately, rapists do not stand out 

There's nothing yet about the third point.  If this myth gets played up, it will reflect in later coverage describing all the ways Mr Muliaina is not a violent stranger - if the victim isn't physically hurt say, if there were no weapons involved - there will be implications that what happened probably wasn't sexual assault.  Despite the fact that perpetrators more typically use alcohol, coercion and isolation to rape - not physical force.  If the person alleging the sexual assault knew Mr Muliaina, of course this would make the sexual assault more typical - despite rape myths to the contrary - too.

This case has hit the headlines because Mr Muliaina is good at rugby.  So he stands out in that way, and we hear about what a popular All Black he was, that he's married with a son, that he has "silky" skills and a gold medal.  We know which teams he's played for and his solicitor and agent have both been quoted by Stuff.  

One of the ways news stories do a real disservice to communities around sexual assault is when they give a distorted view about people who rape.  Unfortunately, rapists can be good at sport, they can be fathers and husbands and medal winners.  They nearly always have other people in their lives who say good things about them.  Even though it would be handy, no rapists have it tattooed on their foreheads.  So while we will no doubt hear from many, many people how wonderful Mr Muliaina is over the next few weeks, none of this means he did not commit sexual assault. To decide that, we'll have to hear about his understanding of consent and his behaviour that night.

• Being raped is worse than being accused of rape
• Sexual violence has no excuses 

We know nothing about how the person alleging sexual assault is doing from the Stuff article, whether they are experiencing all of the symptoms associated with trauma that are common for survivors.  Panic attacks.  Depression.  Anxiety.  Insomnia.  Eating disruption.  Alcohol and substance misuse.  Fear.  

We do know:

The arrest could spell the end for the 34-year-old's 15-year career playing top-level rugby, just a week after he signed a fresh deal with Italian side Zebre. 

We also know that Mr Muliaina's agent was "shocked" and his coach "stunned".  We know he was "hauled away" by police "in the full glare of news cameras".  Police, apparently, "pounced without warning."  

So we already know this has been awful for Mr Muliaina.  

We also already have a handy excuse lined up.  Not only is Cardiff a party town, coming alive, but Mr Muliaina has a historic problem with alcohol.  

____________________________________________________________________________

The coverage of this case isn't gold star awful.  Yet.  But Stuff have made a valiant effort to shore up several of the myths New Zealand news coverage suffers from.  Let's hope the rest do better.  

My whole life I've been dressing up

I'm going to try something a little different, and review a TV series. 
Disclaimer: Transparent is about a white upper-class Jewish trans woman, Maura, coming out when her children are adults.  Since I'm atheist and cis, I'm sure my understanding of some things will miss the mark so please jump in for discussion/correction in comments.  Second disclaimer:  I don't watch a whole heap of tv or movies. Sometimes when my very clever friends talk about tv I don't understand them.  So this will be unsophisticated.

Transparent came out last year, winning awards and critical admiration, including from trans activists.  Early on in the show Maura comes out to her eldest daughter Sarah, who asks "Does this mean you're going to be dressing up like a woman?"

There's some reaching out to other trans* folks from Maura that speaks clearly to why we need support groups and retreats and safe places for all trans and gender diverse people.  One of the scenes I found most painful was a summer camp Maura attended years earlier for transfeminine people.  Camp members are describing someone being kicked out of the camp for using hormones.  "This is a camp for men," they heartily agree, "men who like to dress as women!"  Maura is visibly uncomfortable, and it feels like she's finding out that even that space - which she has been experiencing, until then, as joyful and full of wonder - may not be safe.

There are other painful slices of transphobia. Maura enters a women's bathroom with her daughters, who assure her it will be fine, despite her obvious discomfort.  They call her "Dad", which leads to other women in the toilet misgendering Maura and telling her she must leave.  Sarah's rage - which no doubt you'd feel - explodes and worsens the situation and Maura slinks away, finding an empty construction site portaloo she can safely use.  A good reminder to cis allies that the most important way to support someone is to make sure you respect what they want whether you understand why or not, because getting it wrong might well be dangerous.

The show is ostensibly about Maura, but actually we spend just as much time, if not more, watching her painfully self-involved children.  I'm assuming this is supposed to show the whole gamut of reactions to Maura transitioning, but it's hard to read her family's behaviour as having anything to do with her.  They are all complete train-wrecks, and while their indifference to Maura's feelings is horrific at times, it's how they treat everyone.  Sarah and Josh don't care when their mother's partner of many years, who seems to have dementia, disappears.  Josh scares his first girlfriend in the show so much she asks his boss to keep him away from her, though he thinks he's showing her love.  Ali's best friend tells her at one point that Ali's been making her feel awful for years.  I'm not sure the nuances of transphobia are well-served by this, though it's frequently good drama.

There's an argument over whether we should be interested or emotionally moved by what's going on in Maura's family anyway.  For many, shifting the focus from the person most vulnerable to structural oppression - Maura - might not be ok.  And it's a story we're more familiar with, right?  How cis people feel about trans* folks.

When I came out as bisexual I sent my mother books by and about queer women for every birthday and Christmas for a decade.  Good books, by Alice Walker and Lisa Alther and Jackie Kay and Sarah Schulman and Joan Barfoot and Marge Piercy....She read them, swapped them with friends.  I thought I was helping my mum see my life.  Years later, she thanked me for sending her books "about how other parents coped with having queer children."  I said I didn't think that's what they'd been about.  She was surprised.  I think, in a way, we were both right.

So while I'm much more interested in seeing Maura and her story being told than I am in another story about cis people, I feel disappointed that so far Transparent, in my opinion, has dodged telling the stories of her children's engagement with a transitioning parent with any depth, simply because they're all such self-involved jerks.

Maura's youngest daughter, Ali, changes her gender presentation quite dramatically during the show.  By the end, she's been wearing masculine clothes for a couple of episodes and has a much more androgenous haircut.  Some reviewers suggests this happens without commentary to juxtaposition how easy it is for women to play with presenting in a masculine way compared with the frequent and difficult reactions Maura gets to her transition.

I find this troubling.  While it's not helpful to play oppression olympics, the idea that there is no cost for women expressing masculinity is very different to my experience.  I've presented in a range of ways across my life, and spent lots of my early twenties looking pretty much like any stereotype of a sporty butch queer women you've ever seen.  During that period I was frequently asked to leave women's toilets, verbally and physically threatened by men, called "it" by men, asked if I was confused by men, told all I needed was a "good fuck" by men.  At one family gathering, the partner of one of my cousins drunkenly asked me "what are you?"  I think he was confused by my shaved head and breasts, they make bogans a little basic in Christchurch.  One of my friends, a beautiful butch, was recently so frightened about a road trip to the States and the violence she might experience there that we spent lots of time pre-planning safe stops, based on their LGBTIQ friendliness.

You get the point.  Maybe Ali's demographic cope much better with androgenous presentations.  But simply pretending there's no issue feels dishonest to me.
  
I'd be remiss, dear reader, if I didn't comment on The Biphobia.  Again.  Sarah's married life is turned upside down when she meets an ex-lover who's a woman.  So she does what every Bisexual should, and Cheats on her partner.  With the Other Gender.  Oh, and she tries to do it again later, after she's left her husband for the sexy ex, when she's hiding in the laundry with her husband.  Us Bisexuals, can't help with the Cheating.  We're just always wanting all of the genders, all of the time.  In case you're not sure this storyline is actually a thing, just cast your mind back to Orange is the New Black's central bi character, Piper, who um, does exactly the Same Cheating Bisexual Thing.

Actually maybe Sarah's not Bisexual.  It's not like that word is ever mentioned, for goodness sake. Towards Sarah or the other character who has relationships with more than one gender.  Because Biphobia.  Again.

There's been much commentary about the fact that a cis man, Jeffrey Tambor, is playing Maura.  He's wonderful in the role, and clearly an ally, plus I suspect an actor of his calibre may have significantly increased the chances of Transparent being made in the first place.  Some people have suggested it's marginally more acceptable to have a cis man playing a trans woman because Maura is beginning her transition.

This seems like slightly ridiculous transphobia to me.  Are we really saying a trans actress, assigned male at birth, wouldn't be able to pull off playing a trans woman pre-transition?  Whereas a cis man can pull off playing a woman?

We've seen similar arguments recently to justify non-disabled actors playing disabled characters.  As with white actors playing Black characters, all of these casting decisions reveal discrimination - an assumption that people (which people?) will identify more readily with able-bodied people, with white people, with cis people.

If cripping up and blacking up are unacceptable, so is transing up.  Cis people playing trans characters speaks to centring of cis experience even when a trans story is being told, and it needs to stop.  It's great to see a variety of other roles in Transparent are played by trans actors, and a trans woman is joining the writing staff for season two.  On the subject, it's no surprise to me that the central character here is white and middle-class.  I wonder if we'll see any intersectionality in season two, an exploration perhaps of the rates at which trans women, especially trans women of colour, are targetted for lethal violence?

These reservations aside, Transparent is a good watch.  The writing is tight, the acting superb.  Much as I might dislike Maura's children, watching them behave badly is a bit like watching an election result you're not happy about - it's hard to look away.  Gender and sexuality themes are everywhere.  Seeing a multiplicity of transfeminine and one transmasculine (to date) characters is a treat.  Maura may not be able to tell every transfeminine story - who could? - but she normalises a particular kind of trans experience for a mainstream audience.  We need more stories which do that, if we want to end transphobia.

markers of cultural identity

various things in my life have been keeping me busy these days, so that i'm finding little energy to write.  but i've had a bit of time to read about the whole patricia arquette oscar speech thing and intersectionality, which reminded me about another issue related to race.

i don't watch many TV programmes, but favourite ones tend to be legal dramas.  from "LA law" to "ally mcbeal" to "the practice" to "the good wife" (not so much "boston legal", unfortunately).  so i was definitely interested in the new series "how to get away with murder".  i've watched the 3 episodes that have aired, and i really like it.  i love the centering of black people, the strong character development of them, i the central character in both her toughness and vulnerability.  in much the same way as i love the character of kalinda sharma in "the good wife".

the only thing that bothers me with the show is, on the face of it, pretty trivial.  it's that the hair of the black women on the show is invariably straight.  i'd have to go back through the 3 episodes to confirm, but it seems to me that there wasn't any major black woman on the show with the tight curls that many african women have.  i've looked at images of viola davis, and it seems to me that is her natural hair style.

the thing is that it isn't just this one show.  it's a thing with most movies, tv shows, music videos, most of popular culture.  it's a thing that has been written about a lot in america, and here's just one article.  it's a thing that's rooted in american history, where blackness has historically been considered bad, unworthy and the expression of blackness disdained.  it's about a history where black women have had straightening products pushed on them for decades, with the notion that having straight hair makes them more acceptable (reminds me of the whitening cream marketed so strongly in many asian countries).

this is not about viola davis and her individual choice - she gets to present herself how she pleases, as does any black woman.  i certainly don't think of any one of them as sell-outs for choosing to have straight hair.  it's more about a show that is going past so many stereotypes but still adhering to this one.  it's about how a natural marker of identity (and yes, i know that not all african women have natural curly hair) is erased from popular culture - unless it's a period drama.

we have a parallel here in nz, with maori.  the way that moko are treated in every day kiwi life is quite similar.  they're considered unacceptable for employment; they are often viewed as something scary or suspicious; they are rarely seen on our tv screens or in our newspapers.  they seem to me to be an aspect of cultural identity that has been sidelined instead of celebrated.  i can't speak for maori in general, or any maori person specifically, so apologies if i have this wrong.  but could it be that a lot more of them would choose to have one if there wasn't this erasure and negativity surrounding the practice?

i guess these issues are of importance to me because i wear one of aspect of my identity so very visibly, and by choice.  i pay consequences for that choice, of course.  daring to have a marker of identity that is so different from the majority can be seen as an affront, a challenge to the status quo.  hence there can be pushback.  so be it, i find that's not enough to stop me.

but i do know that it shouldn't be so.  i shouldn't be getting push-back.  neither should anyone else, simply for making an overt display of who they are.  or for sporting a marker of cultural identity.  that's why i want this show to be braver, stronger, more challenging of stereotypes than it already is.

The Mainstream Media Paepae

It's Waitangi Day, Aotearoa.  Time for Pākehā to reflect on what it means to live on colonised land, where promises were made but not kept and the consequences are discrimination, disadvantage and disrespect for Māori.

Unless of course you're the Race Relations commissioner, who's bored with the political shenanigans and couldn't care less. 

There will be Opinion Pieces.  There will be White People Saying Stuff about those rude people at Waitangi and remember when they wouldn't let Helen Clark talk and do none of them have jobs, anyway?

The lack of knowledge of our colonial history will be on full display.  Many New Zealanders actually believe individual weaknesses of Māori explain any problems we have now, protestors are just divisive and that it would be lovely if we would just play rugby, drink and sing together.

It's this lack of knowledge which makes for some very strange public spokespeople emerging.  Leaving Ms Devoy aside, the person who's grabbed the most airtime this year hasn't been a kuia with lots of mana like Naida Glavish, or a lawyer who's been working on resolving Te Tiriti claims for decades like Annette Sykes, or even the chair of the United Nations working group on the rights of indigenous peoples, like Moana Jackson.  

Nope, it's a white dude who doesn't like cats. 

It's not the substance of Mr Morgan's comments on Te Tiriti I'm interested in here - other people have already done that well - it's the media constructed attention he's getting.   Like other rich white men his age (cough Bob Jones), Mr Morgan is enjoying a media platform amplifying his voice in ways he does not deserve. 

Check this out - Orewa, 2015, showdown between Old Rich White Men Talking About Race.  In the blue corner, we have Brash Man.  In the corner he bought for himself, we have Mr Morgan.  Nineteen people come to listen to them, all, it sounds like, from the same demographic.  Nineteen.  I can get that many people to come listen to me talk about who's going to win the cricket world cup if I offer to cook dinner.  And none of my friends like cricket.

But look at the fine print in this article.  It says there are "almost the same number of media representatives".

That's the shame.  When the media could be covering incredible orators with vast knowledge like Moana Jackson and Annette Sykes, when they could be asking young Māori what Te Tiriti means to them, when they could be approaching Pākehā historians like Anne Salmond or James Belich to educate us, to expand our views, to move us on, they are trailing around after a bloke who doesn't like cats.

No disrespect Mr Morgan, but check your privilege here.  I don't actually like the things you are saying - I think they are cloaked in dangerous, racist discourses like one law for all and Treaty industry - but as importantly, I don't like the fact you are taking advantage of your privilege to influence public debate on a topic you are ill-qualified to comment.  Perhaps you could use your influence to help ensure we hear the voices of people who have dedicated their lives to understanding Te Tiriti and colonisation?

That's who I would like to listen to and learn from today. Tino rangatiratanga peeps, hope Waitangi Day opens new learnings for you.