Your destination for snarky commentary from a vegan, liberal, queer lady on questionable statements and posts by political and social media outlets.

Text

mrviolette:

image

So last week I got an email from my mother in law about a marriage equality vigil happening tonight at one of her co-workers’ church. The co-worker was asking people if they would be able to write something to be read there. I immediately said I was interested, but like the lazy, anxious asshole I am, I never followed up, and am not there right now. But I thought a lot about what I wanted to say. This is a really important issue to me, as a quasi-married gay woman. So I finally wrote down what I think. This is the tumblr (ie, cursing, slang, and sass included) version of what I would have said. 

Read More

Dear Violette, 

PREACH!

Cheers,
Bee 

Source: bossbetsyross

SHAMELESS SELF PROMOTION

Dear Followers, 

 I was going to use this post to write a sassy letter to the group of flesh-beings (people who really don’t necessarily deserve to be called people, for those of you who don’t speak Bee-otch) who were formerly my “family.” However, I realized I would need WAAAAYYYY more than just one post to do that. I also decided that the style of that should (gasp!) be more serious since the subject matter takes on a slightly different tone of seriousness than the subject matter of this blog. You’ll see if you start from the very fist post on my new blog (honeybeereasonable.tumblr.com) that I have decided to start with the beginning of my journey into “adulthood?” (Am I there yet? Not sure. Most people would say I am, but I am not used to giving more than half a fuck about what other people think.) Anyway, if you want to know what makes me the bitter bitch that I need to be in order to run THIS blog, you should check out my NEW blog, “Honey, Bee Reasonable!” (honeybeereasonable.tumblr.com). 

FOLLOW ME, BITCHES! 

Cheers,
Bee 

Text

This is a bee sting written to a man that I don’t even know. He was an elderly man today in a grocery store who told me, completely out of any context, other than me standing in front of him at the Checkout counter, “Merry Christmas. And if you don’t get everything you wanted for Christmas, just remember: it’s not your birthday.” (Yes, that was a direct quote.) I thought about replying with a little white lie and telling him I’m Jewish just to see his face. Then I simply said thank you and merry christmas to him to. But what I really wanted to say was this:

Dear Sir,

Thank you so much for your wonderful reminder that my birthday is, in fact, not on December 25th. However, I’m not really sure that your point has any merit whatsoever. I grant you, I am a complete cynic when it comes to - well, everything I suppose, but in particular - Christmas.


Today you told me - completely randomly with literally no context - not to be upset when I don’t get everything I want for Christmas because it’s not my birthday. I know what you were getting at. You were getting at the fact that Christmas is supposed to be about Jesus’ birth. Well, sir, I shall make my pillaging of your point as concise as I can.

1) There is sufficient evidence (Biblical and otherwise) that points to the fact that Jesus was not born anywhere near December 25th, but actually was born in September.
2) Even if he were born “on December 25th” the Gregorian (modern day) calendar was not created until the late 16th century. Not only would Jesus’ “birthday” not have been marked, but it also would not have even existed, because birthdays didn’t exist as a concept at that time.
3) You’re clearly very invested in your “Christian” celebration of Christmas. Well, then I hope that you’re planning to spend the entire day in a church and pondering the Bible, or else you’ll actually be celebrating pagan traditions completely unrelated to Jesus. Hope you’re not planning to exchange gifts. That’s a tradition dating back to before Jesus was even born to create a system in which people feel obligated to give gifts to others such as people who have a different socio-economic status (bosses/employees), family members (still sound familiar?), and people of the same social standing whom you somehow feel morally obligated to please (co-workers). And don’t even think about getting a Christmas tree and calling it a Christian iconographic symbol just because you’ve put an angel on top of it - the Icelandic tribes that created the first ones certainly didn’t subscribe to your standardized Christian practices, seeing as they used it as a symbol of giving thanks to their many gods for their bountiful harvests. And while you’re reading your Bible, I should hope you’re not using the light of a Yule log, seeing as it was originally created as a sacrifice to the Norse god Odin.
4) You’re convinced that you’re totally right about your religious values and that they are the “right” ones because that’s what your parents brainwa— um, I mean…. raised…. you to believe. But nevermind that all the Islamic, Jewish, other denominations of Christian, pagan, atheist, polytheist, agnostic, etc, etc, etc, people in the world also are convinced that they’re right. How about you take a chance to figure out for yourself that you truly do believe something rather than just repeating old sayings you learned from a book written as propaganda for the Roman empire???
5) That Santa hat you were wearing was a direct contradiction to what you told me.

So, sir, don’t be offended - or do - but I think that your point was bull shit. Christmas is not about celebrating some old Roman’s birthday. It’s not about that for me anyway. It’s about being with friends and people who love me. It’s about taking a break from the world to be thankful for what I have. It’s about re-evaluating my life and reflecting on the past to help prepare and plan for the future. No, it’s not my birthday. And no, I won’t be upset if I don’t get everything I want because I don’t expect anything. I don’t expect anything other than to maybe get to eat a nice meal and have some great conversation with some great friends and not have to worry about my thesis for a day. That’s what Christmas is for me, and you can take your stuffy old religious “cleverness” somewhere else.

Merry Christmas, you tired old goat.

Sincerely,
Bee

A Respons to Iowa's Supreme Court for their ruling on "irresistible employees"

Dear Iowa Supreme Court,

First of all, I am appalled (although not surprised, given that you’re in fucking Iowa) at the gender imbalance on your court. I’m also appalled (although, again, not surprised) at the lack of racial diversity that you have on your court. I mean, this is literally just the waspiest court I’ve ever seen. BUT that’s not what I’m writing to you about at this point and time. Right now I’m writing about your recent ruling on “irresistible workers.” 

So, you’ve recently decided that it’s totally fine for an employer to fire an employee they find “irresistible,” even if the employee does nothing whatsoever to indicate that they are interested in the same romantic or lustful sense. Can’t we just get a “Good luck on your sexual harassing” section in the card aisle at CVS and call it a day? I mean, really that’s what you’re doing, isn’t it? I’ve never seen more potential for victim blaming than I have here. Knight - a “moral” and “religious” man - even said really inappropriate things to Nelson, by both of their accounts! But, clearly, the creepy old man who can’t control his raging boner for (or apparently his loud mouthed disgusting comments toward) a woman young enough to view him as a father figure is the victim here. Please take your victim blaming legislation somewhere else. I’m sure it can join the “legitimate rape” ideologies in hell. 

I’d also like to point out that even though this isn’t technically gendered discrimination that this does at some point become a disgusting loophole for racial and gender discrimination. Example A: I am a male electrical engineering plant manager. I have six employees, one of which is female. I don’t actually want a woman working on the plant because she isn’t quite as fast as some of the other workers due to her added obstacle of the original technology that was built specifically for men due to the fact that women were actually at one time banned from working this field. It’s not her fault that we haven’t updated our plant yet, and she works extra hours without extra pay to make sure she gets the same amount of work done as the men. She does her job and she does it well - just a little slower. Now, in that extra 30 minutes she stays there every day I could be grabbing myself a beer with my friends, watching some television, or just chatting with my wife and kids. Granted, so could she, but that’s not who I’m worried about at this point - she’s my employee, and she’s causing me an inconvenience. But, hey! We live and work in Iowa. Guess who I suddenly find “irresistible?” Boom! She’s fired. And there is LITERALLY nothing she can do about it. 

Okay, so that’s too iffy of an example? Fine! Example B: For this example gender doesn’t matter at all. Let’s pretend I am small town restaurant owner, and I’m super racist. I have one black employee who has been employee of the month six times in the past year, has never once been complained about, and in general just does an amazing job. But they’re black. Welp! Looks like they’re “irresistible” now. And in the blink of an eye they’re gone. 

I am absolutely disgusted by this law. I really hope it gets overturned soon. But really, congratulations on sending work place equality back to the 19th century! There’s a trophy for the case, for sure! Just make sure you stay in Iowa and far, far, far away from PA. We don’t want you here. 

Irresistibly yours,
Bee Reed 

10 Responses to Romney in Three Sentences or Less

sincerelybeestings:

It’s been quite some time since I’ve written a Beesting. For that I apologize. Part of that was a new-found, short-lived effort to stop being a sassy bitch all the time. However, I’m over that dark period of my life, and I’m BACK! So, to open it up, I figured I’d write a more light-hearted, very…

Source: sincerelybeestings

A Response to Todd Akin and His Like-Minded Public Figures

Dear Mr. Akin,

What year is it where you’re living? Where I’m living right now, it’s the year 2012. Where I’m living, the United States of America is one of the leading nations in the politic sphere - a nation other countries look to as a model on which to base their own public policy. Where I’m living right now we clearly have different standards than where you’re living. The only thing that I can really conclude from your statements in regards to rape is that you must have gone into a coma in the 60’s and just now woken up, because you’re clearly living in a world where rape is a vague concept that is open to your own misogynistic interpretation on a case-by-case basis. I’ve got news for you, sir - that’s not how we play anymore.

There are so many things wrong with your statement. First of all, it’s not at all true that women’s bodies have ways of shutting pregnancy down in the case of rape. (Not even a little bit!) Clearly you actually don’t understand what those doctors are saying, because you’re just plain wrong. Check your facts! Second of all, I can’t believe that you actually dared to use the phrase “legitimate rape.” Wake up! We’re living in the 21st century. Rape does not need to be a violent act. Rape does not need to be an act by a male on a female. Rape doesn’t even have to be an non-consensual act based on statutory rape laws. I think you might want to visit a law library sometime very soon.

I’m sure that you’ve heard many negative remarks in regard to your statement. Mine is not going to be any less negative than the others. However, it might be different. Many people have said they find your remarks (and your entire person and personality) to be disgusting, sad, abominable, horrendous, etc. I, on the other hand, do not find your comments to be accurately encompassed by any of these colorful descriptors. I find your comments to be just plain frightening. America is a country that is founded on the principle of individual human rights. It’s founded on a principle of equality. It’s founded on principles of freedom to choose how to live your life - religiously, fiscally, politically, spiritually, etc. Body autonomy should be part of those rights. Body autonomy includes things like how to dress, whether or not to get tattoos and piercings, with whom to have sex (ahem…. rape victims are classified as such because this right of body autonomy was stolen from them), etc. I find it terrifying that our country that is supposedly so forward thinking and whatnot has actually elected and supported candidates like yourself who support victim blaming as a legitimate form of dealing with rape cases. How am I, as a young woman living on my own, supposed to feel safe if you and other like-minded political leaders are going to say that it wasn’t “legitimate” rape if I were to be drugged to the point of having no physical control over my own body while I’m out on the town with friends?

You have dug your own political grave in my opinion, Mr. Akin. I really, truly hope that the rest of America listened when you opened your fat mouth to make that comment. And, further, I hope that they think about their daughters and sons when they consider your comment. I would love to see you explain to the parents of a 17 year old mother-to-be that their daughter is pregnant because her rape wasn’t legitimate or violent enough, and that the traumatic sexual assault that will torment all of them for the rest of their lives is really something that they should celebrate. Try saying that to one of the members of the Tea Party that so proudly supports you. Most of them are NRA card-holders and would probably have no problem with vigilante justice. Mr. Akin, you disgust me, you frighten me, and you need to withdraw your candidacy from both the political race as well as the human race.

Sincerely,
Bee

Dear Independent Fundamental Baptists,

I first must preface this post with a disclaimer that I was raised in one of your churches. I am not some random person who was raised as a “hippie-liberal-outsider,” who just stumbled across this video and decided to respond to it. I lived in your community under your rules for 18 years (18 years too long in my opinion) until I managed to get out of your oppressive community. While I could probably write an entire book on the IFB and their absurd teachings (I could spend chapters alone on your teaching of Proverbs 13:24), I will stick only to this particular sermon on sodomy. I’ll try to time-stamp exact quotes on which I’m commenting.

Pastor Anderson starts off by introducing the topic of this clip by pointing out that there are only three passages that actually deal with “sodomites - homosexuals; queers; faggots!” (0:23) This is just the first of his many technical errors made in this discussion. The definition of sodomite is: one who engages in sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation. Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe there are a lot of heterosexual couples out there who engage in anal and oral sex. In fact, I’d venture a guess that simply based on population percentages that there are more men have received blow jobs from women than from other men. So, really, your entire sermon just went out the window considering that you synonymously use homosexual and sodomite throughout the rest of your fundamentalist ideological rant. But, I’ll humor you. Let’s continue and see what else you have to say, shall we?

You go on to point out that “every homosexual in the Bible is a rapist or a molester - child molester - whatever you want to call it!” Well, gee! I guess you just about covered every case of queer sexual interaction that happened over the span of several hundred years in which the Bible was written with those three stories (which is actually what they are - stories - not proven facts with substantial evidence to support them; they wouldn’t call it believing if the Bible were able to be proven to be true, after all). So, you’ve got us there: we are, indeed, all rapists and child molesters. Might as well start arresting all of us! Or, maybe you should just look around that room of “God’s followers” you’re preaching to - I’m sure a lot of them would know a thing or two about what those kinds of perverts think and do. You go on to say that “every single homosexual in the Bible was bisexual.” (1:00) I suggest that you look up the definitions of “homosexual” and “bisexual,” because you clearly don’t know the meaning of either word.

Anderson’s discussion on “sin nature” (about 1:30-3:30) is actually one of the most ridiculous pieces of preaching I’ve heard in a while. He tells his followers that it’s their sinful nature to lust after the opposite gender, and that’s actually okay since it’s a “natural” sin.  It’s actually pretty acceptable, expected even, that men will drive by a billboard of a scantily clad female model (or, as Anderson puts it at 2:13, “that porno”) and be tempted to look at it with lustful eyes. I know that within your churches this is considered acceptable due to the ability to pray for forgiveness upon recognizing that you’ve done wrong, but I’d be willing to put money behind my confidence that your followers are guilty of checking out attractive people of the opposite sex far more often than they acknowledge in their prayers.

Twice later in this sermon Anderson refers to the Biblical text-evidence “proving” that homosexuals are stupid (4:35 and 9:30). Well, I find this particularly ironic since he himself has already equated the three words “sodomite,” “homosexual,” and “bisexual,” and also since he will go on to feel the need to define words such as “vile” and “reprobate.” But you know, clearly you’re just on a whole different level of intelligence from myself and the rest of the queers in the Ivy League. I mean, I certainly won’t try to offend you by putting you up on our level. I wouldn’t want to insult myself by doing that either, to be totally honest.

One question that I have for you, though, concerns the argument that you made about homosexuality being an “unnatural” sin. You argued that homosexuality actually is not part of the sin committed in the stories about sodomy (probably because sodomy is a different thing completely, but you’re really not aware of that, I suppose). You argued that it is because it’s not something that any person would naturally feel unless they were being punished by God (6:20). So, my question to you is, if it’s only a sin that people who are so far from God commit, and if you and your followers are that close to God, then why do you even care about it? It’s not something you should worry about if you truly believe that you’re a “good Christian” by IFB standards, and you also believe that you’re right about how God creates homosexuals by darkening the hearts of non-believers. Yet you continue to point out how “disgusting” homosexuality is (5:50). In my own life experience I’ve found that generally you don’t call something disgusting unless you’ve got a reason to fear it. And you don’t fear things that can’t affect or touch you.

I now want to take a moment to highlight the mention you made of your grandmother’s margin-notes in her Bible. I love that you read your grandmother’s Bible almost as much as I love the fact that she has taken it upon herself to decide that AIDS - a disease that did not actually exist in the human race until long after the Bible was written - is God’s magical solution to homosexuality (6:35).  Clearly you did your homework on that one. Obviously God created HIV and AIDS exclusively to punish homosexuals. That’s why it’s also able to be transmitted through shared needles, giving First Aid without gloves to a carrier with open wounds, and (What’s that other way I was thinking of? Oh, right!) childbirth. Gotta stop those damn newborn sodomites - who, by the way, according to you, are not born gay…. But - if they’re not born queer, then why are they being burdened with God’s perfect punishment for queers? You know, you might want to reconsider this whole stance.

I found your commentary from about 8:00 onward to be both incredibly ironic and really quite upsetting. I found it to be upsetting because your hate speeches had me convinced that I was nothing but trash for years. I spent the better part of my adolescent and young adult life loathing myself for being who I am. However, I also find it really, really ironic (in the driest possible way). You go around preaching about how Godly and Christ-like you are. You consider your followers to be the only ones doing religion right. And yet I happen to know that if your followers’ lives behind closed doors were exposed to a public eye, a lot of them would end up arrested and doing hard time, if not worse. I know some “animals who would violate innocent people” (8:10) that sit in your pews several times a week. So, tell me: who are the “stupid animals who need to be taken and destroyed” (9:30), when you really think about it? Because you might want to look in a mirror before answering that question.

Sincerely,

Bee

A Response To American Media's Coverage of the Tragedies in Aurora, Colorado and Oak Creek, Wisconsin

Dear American Reporters,

I recently read an article from The New Yorker about the tragedies in Aurora, Colorado and Oak Creek, Wisconsin - the two massacres that occurred within weeks of each other - entitled “An American Tragedy.” I find it to be both very interesting and very telling that the author chose to use the singular in the title rather than plural. After all, it was two tragedies of equal caliber, right? So, why not mention both of them?

I begrudgingly think the real reason only one is referenced in the title of this article, which points out a lot of the flaws I will be pointing out here, is that most of us in America don’t actually see them as two equally significant events. In fact, I’d be willing to be that a lot of people don’t even know what happened in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. (If you didn’t catch the news within a couple days of the tragedy happening, you probably didn’t hear about it.) In both of these cities there were several people shot and killed out of pure, cold-blooded hate. As the author of this article points out, though, there were a few key differences to the two shootings. Those differences pretty much boil down to three things: race, religion, and location. The Aurora shooter - a mentally unstable, skinny, white male - came into a crowded, dark movie theater at the premier of a blockbuster film dressed as a super villain. On the other hand, the Oak Creek shooter - a walking stereotype of a testosterone-pumped white supremacist - walked up to a Sikh temple and opened fire on the worshipers, most (if not all) of whom are of South Asian descent.  The Aurora shooting was a spectacle that made seemingly little sense, whereas the Oak Creek massacre was all too quickly dismissed as every-day run of the mill racism and religious intolerance, and was soon forgotten. But, why?

What I see when I look at these two incidents is not the differences between the crime scenes, but the similarities. What I see is Americans in vulnerable situations (darkened movie theaters and houses of worship are, after all, generally safe locations for people to go and let down their guard). I see a sense of security shattering to bits. I see people mourning the loss of their children, parents, siblings, cousins, best friends, teachers, next door neighbors, favorite baristas, that-guy-who-lives-in-my-building, their community members. I see agonizing pain and suffering (both physical and emotional). And most of all, I see an act of heinous violence committed by someone who had every intent of hurting innocent people because they were somehow different from them. Whether that difference was one of class, race, happiness, mental-stability, religion…. it really doesn’t matter - you only lash out at people like that because of differences. After all, wars aren’t started because two countries agree on everything. These attackers were at war with their communities on an emotional level long before they pulled the triggers.

Now I begin to wonder: am I the only one who thinks this way? Why is it that I heard about the Colorado shooting for weeks after it was over, but had to ask several different people for clarification on what exactly happened at Oak Creek before I gave up and went to the internet? And, speaking of the internet, why is it that when you type the word “aurora” into the Google search bar, it comes up with options such as “aurora shooting” and “aurora tragedy,” but typing “oak creek” into the same search bar only gets you advertisements for booking a cabin at camping grounds? Further, why is it that when you type “victims of” into Google, it comes up with two different suggestions for the Colorado shooting, but none for Wisconsin’s recent tragedy? Surely Aurora, Colorado was not a place that was bustling with business worthy of global recognition before this shooting occurred, so why is it on the map now? And, more importantly, why isn’t Oak Creek?

Honestly, I feel that a big part of the problem is that the media has kind of failed us. American news reporters are far too invested in finding a sensational story that will sell papers and headliner segments. (This is only my opinion, of course; it is certainly not something with which I expect everyone to agree.) America is very much a culture that prides itself on creating opportunity for everyone - but many times that comes with the side-effect of creating a space where it’s all too easy to have heightened expectations and feelings of entitlement. Simply put, Americans can be really self-centered and spoiled. We like to understand everything that goes on around us, and because of this we generally surround ourselves with things to which we can relate. Most of us don’t go out searching for things that will really shake our core beliefs, for instance. We don’t step outside our comfort zones too often. And for many Americans it was far easier to relate to the (exclusively white) victims sitting inside a movie theater than it was to relate to those in a Sikh temple - a foreign religion of which many Americans have probably never heard.

By catering to the spoiled “typical” (white, upper-middle class) American ego, and running with the sensational news story about Aurora, while almost casually brushing the Oak Creek tragedy aside in an out-of-sight-out-of-mind fashion, the media in America has failed us. They’ve failed us as a nation, they’ve failed us as a community, and they’ve certainly failed all the victims of the Oak Creek tragedy who have not gotten the attention they deserve for their brave, horrific, final moments. By failing to shed equal light on such similar events, American reporters have once again fallen into the trap of telling people what they want to hear, instead of what they should be hearing. What Americans want to hear is “we’re a forward-thinking nation that needs to band together to stop crazy murders.” But what we need to hear is, “we’re a more-forward-thinking nation than many that needs to band together to stop the hate that is fueling these crazy murderers.”

In closing, all I would ask is that American news reporters wake up and realize that they’re the ones we’re looking to for our source of what needs changed in America. If we don’t know that there’s a problem, how can we begin making a plan to fix it? Please stop covering up America’s flaws simply because you want your ratings to stay higher than your competitors’. Instead of worrying about selling papers, why don’t you try selling positive change instead?

Sincerely,

Bee

A Response to Cynical Commenters on "Leland Bobbé's Half-Drag Photos Show New York's Drag Queens In And Out Of Makeup"

Dear Cyber Cynics,

Before I delve into this letter, please let me first make a clear distinction between the type of cyber cynic to which I am writing, and those with whom I actually have no problem (and, in many cases, even commend).  I am not writing this letter to cyber cynics who use calm, sophisticated language in their posts. I am not writing this to cyber cynics who make logical, well thought-out arguments against that on which they’re commenting. I am not writing this to cynics who actually start and engage in (civilized) discussions and debates about the post. I am writing this to cyber cynics who simply write mean, purposefully offensive, degrading comments online with no purpose other than to upset people who support the article/video/post. There is actually a phrase that our modern, plugged-in society has come up with for the type of cyber cynic to which I’m writing: cyber bully. Now that I’ve made that distinction, on with the rest of the post! 

I recently came across a post on my Facebook feed that was posted on the fan-page of Raja Gemini, one of my personal favorite artists, fashion icons, and performers. The post was a link to an article about a photography spread by Leland Bobbé, in which he captured images of queens with half their faces made up in drag, and the other half out of drag. The photos are absolutely breathtaking. Seeing the two sides of the queens captured in one photo was really spectacular. For me personally, a large part of the draw to drag as an art-form is seeing the incredible transformation through which the artists go, and these photos really emphasize that aspect. 

However, it seems that not everyone who read this article would agree with me. When I went to look in the comments section to see what other peoples’ reactions to the article were, I was surprised at how many homophobes took the time to not only read the article and look at the photos, but also to sign in and comment on the article. Many of the comments were very positive, but there were a few that were at the polar opposite end of the spectrum. I’m all for freedom of speech and press, and with the internet now as big of a player in our globalized society, I would absolutely extend those rights to online interactions. That being said, though, there are limits on what people can say and write in the “offline world,” and those limitations need to apply to the internet as well. There are, for instance, laws against verbal harassment and abuse. If you were to walk up to someone in school or your workplace repeatedly and tell them that they’re “disgusting” and “freak” (in derogatory, serious, non-joking ways), they would probably be able to get you either fired or expelled, and in some cases they’d even be able to file harassment charges against you. Why, then, should your actions online in these cases be any different than they would be in person? Just because you’re sitting safely behind your computer and using an anonymous username to post these potentially very hurtful comments doesn’t make it okay. And, if you’re any kind of a decent person, it probably doesn’t make your conscience any quieter when you’re laying in bed at night. While there were a lot of really generally negative comments to the effect of “freakshow,” or “men should be men - this is disgusting,” I’d like to just point out a few personal favorites.

First up is a comment from Username Shakirah Miles, who says “In this society men are just way too feminine and not manly enough to be good heads of the household.” First of all, who says that a man needs to be the head of a household? Honestly, I know a lot of “manly men” who were (and still are) absolutely terrible heads of their households. Your machismo-driven nuclear family ideals are outdated, my friend, so you need to get with the times! Besides, that’s why we have lesbians like me: to keep the world’s balance in check with all those “effeminate men” running around draining it dry of testosterone. (Little known fact: lesbians are actually just human storage containers for the testosterone leached from fabulous gay men in their weekly cleansing ritual. When a gay man wants to become a macho-man again, he and his dyke best friend ride a unicorn - fed on a diet comprising exclusively of glitter and rainbows - through a deep dark wood filled with bears, and when they come out on the other side he will have regained his machismo.)

Next up we have a comment from tcam053 who writes that “It’s sickening and dispicable to the female species…” Well, ladies, we’ve finally done it. We have apparently learned to reproduce on our own without the help of those silly boys and, therefore, become our own separate species. Quick, somebody alert FOX News! I’d like to add that as one of the newly evolved species, “female,” I actually find drag to be fascinating, inspiring, and generally marvelous, and would really love to see more of it in the world. Although, I do agree with you on one point tcam053: these are some sickening bitches in these photos! (Werk it, ladies!) 

Username Gumby commented with “These guys got issues.” Clearly your grammar has more issues, my friend! Next, please!

Here’s a fun comment from Username sweetmomma8101 reading “Who remembers the good old days when men actually wanted to look and act like men? Wasn’t that nice? Miss that.” Well, unless we’re going to go further back than the ancient civilizations of Rome and Greece, I’m pretty sure you actually won’t find any culture or society in which cross-dressing and drag had no role. As long as there has been performance art, there have been men dressing up in women’s clothing and wearing make-up to portray a specific idea of femininity (as was often required of theater in ancient times since women were not usually allowed to act). I’d also like to ask you: do you have a problem with women wearing jeans? Or sneakers? Or baseball caps? What about t-shirts? All of these clothing items, after all, are staples in pretty much every woman’s wardrobe in America despite their traditionally male origins. It’s socially acceptable in our culture for women to wear skinny jeans, converse and a t-shirt with her favorite band’s logo on it as a form of self-expression. Why can’t a man wear funky heels, a hot dress that shows off his fantastic legs, and some sassy make-up as his form of self-expression? 

People really need to chill out when they’re sitting alone at home behind their computers. Think about your actions, for goodness sake! I think it’s been pretty clearly established that even if you post something without the intention of hurting anyone, degrading, vicious, abusive interactions that happen on the internet actually can deeply affect people. Case and point: Tyler Clementi killed himself because of cyber bullying. He was a successful college student. Besides - you’d better be prepared to deal with quick, witty comebacks if you’re going to try to knock the LGBT community on an article about drag, because, honey, we will eat you alive! 

Cheers,

Bee

A Response to Transphobic and Homophobic Medical Professionals

Dear Homophobic and Transphobic Healthcare Providers,

When I first read this article, I was (to say the very least) appalled. Although, now that I reconsider it, I think that before the “appalled” and “disgusted” reactions came about, my initial reaction was one more of confusion than anything else. I mean, this couldn’t possibly be a real article that was written about something that happened in our society, right? We’re making so much progress with this whole ‘accepting different people’ thing, and our doctors and nurses are way ahead of the rest of us, aren’t they? I recall thinking that this must have been an outdated article that I was just now seeing, and checking the date only to find that it was posted a few days ago. The very concept that a person would be denied healthcare simply because his “biological body did not match his identification on the form” was just nauseating; it was upsetting not only for the “equality when?” side of things, but also because the fact that such an egregious error was able to occur in our medical facilities is just plain terrifying.

The first thing that I noticed about this was that the supposedly “professional” physician who initially found the tumor in Kallio claims that the reasoning behind his profound lack of professionalism was, as noted above, that he was flustered by the difference between the physical body and the identification on Kallio’s form. I have to just call bullshit on that. Why am I jumping so readily to this judgment? I’ll tell you: 1) Paperwork errors happen a lot. The first thing that the physician should have done was consult Kallio about his chosen identification and made sure that he indeed did mark the correct box (which is a stupid concept in and of itself, in my opinion, but that’s for a different post). 2) As a physician in the 2010s, you should certainly be prepared to come across transgendered individuals. It’s something in which the medical profession should be, and in many other cases is, well-versed. 3) The diagnosis was for breast cancer, which (Hello!) can be found in biological men. It’s not as if the physician found ovarian cancer in Kallio. If you’re going to be shocked by finding breast cancer in a man, you really need to hand in your prescription pad, right now!

The second thing that I notice is that this article was not written about just one solitary case. As it reports, this kind of malpractice (Let’s call it what it is, people!) is quite prominent. The chilling example they gave of Tyra Hunter’s experience was particularly unsettling; yet, I know that she was just one of many transgendered individuals who has faced such discrimination in our medical facilities today.

The article closes by pointing out that “the [Affordable Care Act] law stops short of requiring insurance coverage, but does require basic respect.” Words cannot express how disappointed I am that this sentence is valid enough to be written in a published article. The fact that our society is still able to deny people health insurance because they are transgendered is heartbreaking. Perhaps even more heartbreaking is the fact that we needed to write a law to gain basic respect for a group of people. Respect is not something that should need to be written down in legal terms. It’s not something that the judicial system should have to enforce. It’s not a legal right, it’s a human right. And, furthermore, it’s some thing that humans should give willingly; particularly in hospitals and clinics, in situations where the patient is quite literally putting their life in the hands of the medical professionals that work there.

So, to you doctors and nurses out there who think it’s totally okay to play the “they checked the wrong box” card when you screw up, please know that it’s really, really not. It’s not okay to deny health care to people because they confuse you. I know that they’re far deeper people than you are, and that they probably have a much better awareness of themselves and the world, but really they’re just people like you; it’s not that confusing. Trust me, you’ll figure it out! A good carpenter never blames their tools, a good physician never blames their paper-work, and a good person never blames their differences. If you’re going to deny someone healthcare just because you don’t think they identified themselves as the correct gender, then you really should lose yours license and be locked up far, far away from the rest of the world, because quite frankly we’re better off without you. Your behavior in cases like Kallio’s and Hunter’s makes me sick - but if it’s all the same to you, I’d rather get care from a doctor who understands what it is to be human, and not just what it means to be a biological man or woman.

Sincerely,

Bee