archival links post: Trans at Women’s Colleges

Archiving the latest volley of stories about transgender folk at women’s colleges, specifically paying attention to the welcoming of transmasculine students in light of continued exclusion of transfeminine students.


“When Women Become Men at Wellesley”

By Ruth Padawer
October 15, 2014

Posted to Facebook 2014-10-19 11:27:

The title itself is awful. More importantly, though, it can be more properly rewritten: When Male/Masculine Privilege Asserts Itself at Women’s Colleges. […]

Bonus points: watch for the overt transmisogyny by one dude.

Reply 2014-10-19 13:40:

Yeah, I agree, […], the idea of women’s colleges being perceived as safe(r) spaces for general queerness is probably accurate and that’s why they remain an attractive choice for some transmasculine/men folk. I mean, masculinity is a relatively hostile, hypercompetitive, and frequently toxic sphere. I totally understand any reticence trans men may feel about entering that world… but… trans women have had no choice but to navigate that realm the best they could in order to survive. And when we are unwelcome in, or barred from, these safe(r) women’s spaces, as we simultaneously see men welcomed, embraced, and celebrated in them, it becomes a really sore point to say the least.

Personally, it’s a fuzzy line [boundary] but my feeling is that gender non-conforming and genderqueer assigned-female (AFAB) folk at women’s colleges is generally [completely] fine (provided it is not overpowered by white gnc/gq as it frequently, sadly is). The caveat about AFAB gnc/genderqueerness/non-binariness _in queer spaces_, though, one that is just about *never* spoken about (except by those left out, of course), is that it is often the default genderqueerness. Note I said _in queer spaces_ because, yeah, in general, it’s looked upon askance; however in queer spaces (touching back to your original point) you will find very few transfeminine and gnc/gq/nb AMAB folk.

In all my years of visible transfeminine-ness before coming out, I had literally nowhere to go, no refuge or safe(r) space. I’m sure my experience is far from unique. Thankfully, I had enough intersecting privilege to make it. But there are others who are quite fine with being transfeminine–who will face nastiness throughout their lives. Also, turning trans women and transfeminine folk out of (gender)queer spaces brings with it fatal consequences, especially when intersected with racism, classism, etc.

But once somebody steers towards a transmasculine identity, and certainly towards a trans man identity, then it becomes kind of shabby, appropriative, and privileged to stay, especially given the current state of colleges not accepting trans women. I mean, I happily and wholeheartedly support trans men navigating masculine spheres; it’s a rough fight. But that’s where their struggle lies–building better masculinities. It does not lie in taking space in women’s colleges.

Reply 2014-10-19 13:54:

Comment elicited by my increasing feelings of isolation as a trans woman grad student on campus:

[Our campus Q Center had (has?)] many more genderqueer assigned-female people, more then they had mentors for. Meanwhile there were relatively very few trans women or transfeminine folk actively seeking services from the center. Then I spoke with another trans woman [tangentially affiliated with campus… who] mentioned that she knew at least half a dozen trans women on campus who did not feel welcomed or comfortable in the center.

I mean, that breaks my heart, considering our Q Center, and campus, is pretty damned aware. And, like, our campus is coed and non-exclusionary to begin with. And, for as much as I see things for trans folk improving in general, it still makes me sad that some things have remained the same. I was not terribly surprised [to hear of the relative absence of trans women].

This does seem to point to something going on that keeps more trans women and transfeminine folk from either being out and/or engaging. Personally, I suspect internalized transmisogyny plays somewhat into this. Added to the high social cost of coming out toward a transfeminine direction along with the valorization of (trans)masculinity of (trans)femininity, this begins to explain trans women’s invisibility.

Earlier in that week, Janet Mock came to campus for a moderated discussion and interview. Among many other insights, two things in particular stood out for me, namely

  1. she said a number of times that she sees very few trans women of color, on campuses and at events like this.
  2. paraphrasing, but at one moment she said something along the lines, “I see mostly white trans men on campus”

Reply 2014-10-19 19:20 re: transmisogynistic student quoted in the article:

Given the scope of the article, I cannot honestly make any assumptions on what the interviewees felt toward trans women’s inclusion. But that guy, yeah, played his overtly transmisogynistic hand. It reads like standard transmisogyny.txt

I mean, it’s overtly gross that a trans person would be enforcing some surgical/medical requirement on another trans person. Like, asserting “male bodied” against trans women at a place where a lot of trans men have yet to assuage their alleged “female bodied-ness” is pretty damn hypocritical.

The hypothetical “what if she goes back to identifying as male” is garbage, precisely cuz with a defined policy in place, one stipulating any men are not admitted/allowed, the person could rightfully be asked to leave. It also jibes similar to the hypothetical argument of keeping trans women out of women’s restrooms because a man claiming to be trans *could possibly* sneak in.

Finally the trans men raised as female canard gets trotted out again as some technicality. I mean, it isn’t entirely untrue, depending on the individual. However, it entirely discounts the other ways that women come into womanhood. Hidden behind the “socialized as female” dodge is the sly implication that all trans women were raised, and enjoyed life, as cis boys in the absence of “female socialization.” [adding: these twin “socialized as” pieces of double-bind logic are used to rationalize trans men’s inclusion in women’s spaces while simultaneously excluding trans women.]

The particularly galling thing about this line is that nobody but nobody, except other trans women, realize that not only were many of our upbringings and socializations traumatic and harmful… but nobody mourns or gives a damn about our lost girlhoods. [which segues into our paths to womanhood]

And like, dude, for somebody raised as female you are being really shitty to a marginalized class of women.

Op-ed: Trans Men, Trans Women, and Surrendering the Sisterhood at Women’s Colleges

By Adrian Scott Duane
October 27, 2014

Response by a trans man in The Advocate Online.

Sisterhood should still have a place in academia as long as there are women — cisgender and transgender — who desire it.

Who Belongs in Women’s Spaces, Again? Women’s College Edition

A thorough response by Dr. Cary Gabriel Costello.

Guest Post: Fear of a trans college

A righteous post by Emma Caterine. I am still chuckling at this line.

Somewhere in hell Andrew Carnegie is thinking to himself, “Wow what a scam! I wish I had know you could do that. I could’ve gotten into the soup kitchen by saying I understand what it’s like to be a poor person, since I used to be one.”

“Op-ed: Dear ‘Anonymous’ Wellesley Trans Man, Excluding Trans Women Isn’t Really About ‘Safety'”

by Tim Chevalier

Disgust is political. In this case, the political work it does is upholding male supremacy. How? Well, the assignment of sex to infants at birth is an offer they can’t refuse. Masculinity, as we know it, is so fragile that it cannot survive the slightest bit of doubt in its superiority over all other forms of gendered embodiment. By exercising their autonomy to say “no” to that offer, which they never wanted, trans women jeopardize the precarious prestige of masculinity. The punishment they receive is disgust.

Posted in Space, Trans | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Ann Coulter is not a man. But you may be a transmisogynist.

Attention liberals and/or progressives. We gotta talk. We gotta talk about Ann Coulter. If you know and/or love trans women, first read this very carefully but then actively fight this in your social circles when it happens.

Whenever Ann Coulter spews nonsense, an extremely short fuse leads to some allegedly liberal/progressive person making a comment about her Adam’s apple, or referring to her as “he.” Sometimes they just short-circuit the entire process and call her a man. It’s all the same insult, though: cheap humor at the expense of trans women, who end up being collateral damage.

Most liberals/progressives do not see this connection. Therefore, let me break this down for you.

First, this is plain old misogyny. In point of scientific fact, all women have Adam’s apples. Look it up. Though they are generally less prominent than men’s, some women have larger or noticeable ones. (You’ll note also the extreme variation in men’s Adam’s apples.) Criticizing a (cis or trans) woman’s ideology by insulting her physical features is straight up misogynist bullshit.

Secondly, trans women are body-policed in this manner all the time. We are called men in order to shame us, mock us, and shut us up. Being called men dehumanizes us and invalidates us because that is not what we are. It is transphobia aimed specifically at trans women. It is misogyny specifically aimed at trans women, otherwise known as transmisogyny. This word violence has life-and-death consequences because it is directly linked to physical violence.

Trying to invalidate Ann Coulter by implying that she’s a man is this same transmisogynistic tactic. Using transmisogynistic tactics against any woman, cis or trans, is transmisogyny. It uses the idea of trans women as the insult itself. In fact, some commenters just flat out call her a tranny, using that word and trans womanhood as the insult.

So, following this, calling her a man as an insult is the same as calling her a trans woman as an insult. There is nothing wrong, negative, or insulting about being a trans woman; however, this tactic weaponises trans womanhood against us.

Ann Coulter doesn’t care what you call her; in fact she thrives on it. What is really happening then is that trans women are receiving the brunt of this because, first, the stigma of women being called men is acutely felt *EVERY DAY* by trans women. Not a day goes by that a trans woman’s womanhood and humanity are not questioned and mocked. This not only adds to that stigma but also normalizes it. It makes it seemingly legitimate in supposedly “liberal” and “progressive” discourse.

The problems should now be abundantly clear:

1) Calling out any woman’s ideology by attacking her appearance is an ad hominem, thus wrong. It is at the very minimum misogynist.

2) Calling any woman a man shows either a lack of understanding about trans women’s issues or a callous disregard for them. It is ignorant.

3) It is exactly the same tactic transphobes use against trans women. It is just as bad, then. It is transphobic… and specifically transmisogynistic… and, because trans women are women, it is misogynistic on top of all of that.

4) It is most likely even racist because trans women of color are especially affected by this type of attack. And plenty of cisgender women of color, who also do not fall into white supremacist and Eurocentric standards of feminine beauty and womanhood, are attacked this way as well. See and follow the links.

5) Even if unintentionally and unwittingly, it is a virus spreading misunderstanding and hatred of trans women. It is enabling violence against trans women.

6) It is taking a topic, Ann Coulter, that has absolutely nothing to do with transgender and needlessly injecting transmisogyny.

7) Even if it turned out that she was trans, absolutely none of this would be negated. It would still be 210% wrong to do.

So cut this bullshit the fuck out. This hurts me and all my sisters. If you see others do this, tell them to cut it the fuck out.

Posted in Commentary, Trans | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

It’s “”funny””,…

It’s “”funny””, by which I mean totally shitty, how people will presumptuously point to some sort of universalized “male socialization” and “lack of shared girlhood” based on their own baseless conjecture of trans women’s early lives in order to put us down. At the same time, they will utterly ignore our lived experiences and realities of being severely beaten down by masculine gender policing as well as the near-total loss of our personal girlhoods.

Quote | Posted on by | Leave a comment

AAG 2014: presenting trans geographies

images of paper title on screen, panel session schedule, and my name tag

A few weeks ago, I presented my paper at the annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers (which is a misnomer as all geographers are British… and they work in Canada… so it seems.) My paper was titled Becoming transgressive: Transgender marginalization, agency, and action at and beyond the margins. Seriously, that trans- pun never gets old. As part of a panel series on assemblage thinking and urban marginality, I wanted to, first, draw several discrete categories of trans-antagonistic marginalization, which was fairly Trans 101 stuff repackaged and reconceptualized as particular assemblages (in the Deleuzian sense). Secondly, since I did not want to be a all-doom-and-gloom geographer, I wanted to identify and speculate upon several positive moves from those margins that trans people (specifically trans women) can and do make.

This was my first presentation at AAG, which is becoming my de facto “home conference” and professional organization. I’m increasingly identifying myself, professionally & academically, as a geographer–a humanistic, critical, political, philosophical, social sciencey, whatever geographer. I have my quibbles with geography; however, when I need to fly a flag of academic convenience, I use geography currently because it best addresses my varied interdisciplinary interests as coupled with my spatial interests. I’m also claiming the very specific trans-feminist geographer mantle because, well, somebody needs to do so. There are so few transfeminine perspectives in geography as well as most other humanities & social science disciplines. Moreover, the academy prepends an invisible cis to gender… as well as appending an invisible, though highly obvious, masculine to trans. This latter point was brought into stark relief at the Trans* Geographies panel, despite my overall happiness that there finally was a trans geographies panel.1 I will post more thoughts on this separately, something that will speak more to the content of my paper.

For now, however, I wanted to make a meta reflection on my presentation. Another first was that this was the first time I had actually read a paper at a conference or presentation anywhere. Since I’m a theatrical Energizer Bunny, I usually scribble down some keyword notes and stand up, walk around, and talk semi-extemporaneously. I also throw some images into a folder, rename them so they come up in presentation order, and use them to guide and underline my talk. I don’t really do Powerpoint, either. Overall, my presentations are usually free-wheeling and theatrical, though I do prepare fairly extensively.

So, this time I figured I might as well try something completely new to me at the annual meeting of the biggest organization in the discipline. I have sat through far too many incredibly dry and boring readings of papers at numerous conferences, so much so that I was starting to develop a profound distaste for the style. Thus, I wanted to see how well I could deliver carefully developed lines of written thought, in the form of reading, while still maintaining my usual lively gesticulations and engaging presentation style. Yes, guilty, I knew I could do far better at this format than others and I wanted to prove that for myself. I also wanted the practice so as to confidently add this to my arsenal2 of conference styles.

As to dry mechanics, I had no idea what preparations others take to read their papers and I didn’t really bother asking. So I printed up my final reading draft in larger point size; I wanted to make sure I could easily return to the page after looking up and/or making an off-the-cuff comment. The biggest challenge was to figure out my reading speed by timing it and subsequently editing the reading draft to the allotted time, while still retaining solid reasoning. In that sense it’s not much different from editing to a written length limit.

I also figured, since I was doing new things, to create a minimal Powerpoint. I generally dislike Powerpoint because it is done so ineffectually so often: word-heavy, distracting slides that offer contextless (afterwards) keywords enumerated as bullet points. These don’t help in the presentation and, afterwards when people send around their ppt around, I look at the slides and they look like a meaningless jumbles of words. (Note to self: I’ve never seen guidelines for trying to make presentations better for those with hearing impairments. I should look into this.)

presentation slide, labelled "Third Assemblage: Intraqueer Marginality GLb(t)" presentation slide, labelled "Third Assemblage: Internal Transmisogynistic Marginality" presentation slide, labelled "Mobilizing Online Counterpublics"

Anyway, adhering to my guideline of having less than about 6 words on a slide, I made a slide for each of my main section headers. I would display that slide while reading that section–nothing more. The only exceptions were a few sections that had an explanatory graphic. Another section had some keywords–what troublemaking trans person wouldn’t relish the chance to project #fuckcispeople and #cognitivecissonance at a conference?? Also what pretentious sot wouldn’t relish to project an Intermezzo slide while transitioning through the paper’s two major movements?? Finally, I obviously noted where to advance slides in my paper, just so that I wouldn’t forget.

One final, timed read-through and I was off to the Trans* Geographies panel, which I had just discovered that morning, occurring right before my panel. One would think that I would have researched the schedule ahead of time to see whether or not I was the only trans-related presentation.

In the end, my paper came off without a hitch. Although I timed my run-through within time, I did skip the conclusion as my moderator indicated time out; as a proper conclusion, though, it succinctly reiterated the important points of the paper. As a result, I did not feel that the presentation lost anything with its omission. And I ended on a highly poignant piece of information. Also I did my part to actually keep the panel on time.

It could just be that I’m gaining more and more confidence in general; however I had actually never felt calmer before a presentation than this one. Maybe it was the knowledge everything I wanted to say, within time limit, was on paper in front of me. But there was another level of control. I had my iPhone and was running my own timer as well, so I had a rough idea of how ahead or behind I was at a glance. Knowing this, I had marked out a few passages as “optional”. These were added examples or an extra point to make, had I the time, or things I could easily omit we’re I behind.

It was nice that the set-up involved standing at a podium rather than reading seated from the panelist’s table. Standing allowed me to move slightly around the podium area, to gesticulate, and to make unfettered eye contact to all parts of the room. Enlarging the type was a good idea, though I did briefly lose my place once I did not feel any strain in moving focus between text and the room. My notes on slide advancement were handy… on a subconscious level, I think. I knew how my paper was organized by section, so I had an innate sense of when to advance slides. Not bad for throwing it together that morning. But I’m glad the notes were there.

All in all, I am pleased with the outcome. I am pleased to know that I got this. I am pleased to know that I can read a paper and still be lively and engaging; that it feels almost as good to deliver as a more ad-libbed presentation. One point to improve upon would probably be to look up, step back from the podium slightly, and speak a little more extemporaneously about something: perhaps next time, I will do that with some of my examples, rather than reading them. I did feel I was a little less lively in my delivery than I am in other modes but not unacceptably so for me. The trade-off of having absolute confidence in my exact words was worth it when making a careful, sustained argument.

Most of all, I am pleased that I can speak comfortably about trans issues–the subject of my eventual dissertation research, after all–to an academic, professional, and cisgender audience. It feels righteous to be a trans woman speaking in public and professionally. When needed to label myself, I am confidently a transfeminine, trans-feminist geographer.


1. I was not part of this panel. I am contemplating organizing a Transfeminine Geographies panel for next year. It’s in Chicago!! …which means I will be inviting trans advocates, activists, and generally rad trans women as guests.

2. As a woman, I’m neither supposed to admit nor pursue this confident style. Secondly, and relatedly, I’m certainly not supposed to project this as a trans woman. On the one hand, I will be accused of exercising some nonsensical residual male privilege or socialization, since, when women are allowed such latitude, only cisgender women are allowed to be brash, bad-ass, and punk rock, whereas trans women doing so are just being men. On the other hand, were I to be demure and deferential and timid, I would be accused of reinforcing harmful feminine stereotypes. Thus unable to win either way, I choose my arsenal (cue taunts of male socialization!!) of intellectual Molotov cocktails, Strawman, intellectual Molotov cocktails.

One does not have to be like the boys and be arrogantly confident, and kind of an agro-alpha-masculine jerk about it (we’ve all seen it, intellectual white men, we’ve all smelled it) in presentation. At the same time, I am really tired of seeing knowledgeable women being super apologetic and overly self-deprecating about something or another while presenting (we’ve all seen this too; it makes me squirm. Please stop it.). There definitely is a middle ground of confidence, owning your expert knowledge and still being a decent person about it that women–and more men with respect to that last point–need to embody at conferences.

Posted in Metascholarship, News & Information, Presentations, Trans | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Cultural Fascism and Google Street View; BE Colloquium, 2014.02.20

"September 04, 1998: Entanglement and experimentation: or, Cultural fascism and Google Street View." by Cheryl Gilge. Colloquium in the Built Environment; February 20th, 2014

“September 04, 1998: Entanglement and experimentation: or, Cultural fascism and Google Street View.” by Cheryl Gilge. Colloquium in the Built Environment; February 20th, 2014


1. How can a company develop so much resources to develop this free tool? “How is it.”
2. Why do so many people use it for so many different purposes? “Why is it?”

Some things Cheryl looked at:

A) Knowledge production
– street audits
– Place Pulse (MIT)
– CMU identifies cities’ distinctive details (via image data mining and analysis)
– OpenPlan: Planning Press, Beautiful Streets

Used as a visual objective index. Photo assumed to by authoritative.

B) Creative production
– artists mine visual archives
– painters use it. Bill Guffey, monthly Virtual Paint Out (blog)
– performance artists insert themselves into the view as the camera car drives by
– Music: Arcade Fire, A Wilderness Downtown
– Video: The Theory, Address is Approximate

– phenomenology: thick description
– hermeneutics: horizon of meaning, historical conditions change over time
– critical theory
– DG
– assemblage (bloc of space-time)
– de/reterritorialization
– molar/molecular, line of flight. ((loose space))
(useful for seeing how people use it at different scales and how the company developed the tool)

– photo as empirical evidence
– neoliberal failure of govts abdicating their mapping duties; company rises up to fill the void
– tension: top down neoliberal nonsense // bottom up nature of open source movement
– “citizen cartographer” nonsense

– acquiescence of personal agency to another
– giving in, even craving discipline, for sake of convenience
– somewhat like bargaining with the devil because it’s easier

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Transcending disciplinary power; BE Colloquium, 2014.02.13

2014.02.13 — Transcending disciplinary power: seeking cross-cutting terms of agreement on Duwamish Valley wellbeing

Jonathan Childers MURP
Bill Daniels MD, MPH

Health Impact Assessment

RAO – Remedial Action Objectives

Cancer risks for Duwamish fish consumers, esp Tribal, still reaches 1/10000
Tribal children have 8 times non-cancer risk from fish consumption. (“Hazard Quotient”)

4 main groups identified:
Tribes (3 tribes have historic claims to river)
Subsistence fishers
Local resident (Gtown, South Park)
Workers in local industry

Local residents concerned that improvements could accelerate gentrification, despite revitalizing communities.

Workers generally uninformed about hazards, but industry has concerns.

Subst fishers and Tribal groups face disproportionally largest potential harms.

“When I look at this report, I feel like we’re on this rational path to failing these communities.” 
–City Councilmember O’Brien

“Green-Blue” connections. Green industry as well as concerns toward improving workers conditions.


Mental health impact? If not, are there any avenues for such studies? Or is there desire to do so?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

“Trans rights: Poland’s last iron curtain”; Wiktor Dynarski

Wiktor Dynarski writes, as part of a series about Poland’s Left, on the context of trans rights in Poland. This is a timely piece, considering Poland has an out and public trans woman, Anna Grodzka, seated in its parliament. Even before MP Grodzka’s election, I had been interested in the situation(s) in Poland for the lewica (Left) not only on an institutional level but also, and far more importantly, the situation for queer, trans, and other marginalized subcultures on social and cultural levels.

Poland has a history for the last 200+ years of being subjugated, so the last several generations of Poles have always resisted something in some form no matter what their ideology. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, though, the country was taken by a new hegemony, this time with the oppressed coming to power. The resultant conservative state became dominated by neoliberal economics and Catholic theocratic morality–with formerly oppressed individuals now the institutional oppressors.

It is this broad milieu, ranging from the street-level personal to the state-level, that Dynarski addresses in his article. Perhaps the most compelling section is entitled “Not a minority“, which I quote in its entirety because it’s that incisive (emphasis my own):

Vulnerable groups (a phrasing which, unlike the word minority, concentrates on issues faced by a number of people sharing a similar feature rather than their numbers) are very often misunderstood by a society prone to judge them using simplified ideas and attitudes. When one defines themselves outside of a vulnerable group and lacks a need to engage in a dialogue with the group’s representatives, a line is drawn between the group and what can be identified as “society in general”. A line separating the two, often blocking any type of information exchange, including communication surrounding the needs of those seen as vulnerable (or even the recognition of such needs). This is where the idea of the Iron Curtain serves its metaphorical, rather than historical, purpose. Much as there was (officially) little talk about and need for democracy behind the actual Iron Curtain, today, even less is being said about trans* rights and the needs of trans* people.

What’s striking in this passage is Dynarski’s unequivocal and emphatic indictment of privilege. Privilege is often rightfully defined as something akin to invisible rights and advantages afforded a member of some dominant in-group simply due to their hereditary fortune of being born into the given in-group. While correct, this paints the privileged individuals too passively: as merely ignorant users, participants, and upholders of an oppressive system.

On the other hand, in my emphasized portion, Dynarski indicts the privileged as active participants in the oppression of minority, vulnerable people. In this case, the dominant individual is no longer just an unwitting participant in systemic domination and oppression. Rather, they actively define themselves as not-minority, actively reject the need for engagement and dialog with Others, and actively repel the needs of the vulnerable. Dynarski brings these aspects of privilege into the arena of conscious actions, where they are all exposed as deliberate moral failings of the privileged. Here we also see how personal decisions collectively build and reproduce the larger, oppressive system.

This is the sharp theoretical-practical lens that Dynarski brings with his piece. But, truthfully, it is not just Dynarski saying this. The social justice spheres on Twitter routinely employ this sharp lens via hash tags like #solidarityisforwhitewomen and #cognitivecissonance. This is a good lens to keep in one’s bag of intellectual tools. Its value lies in illuminating individual power and privilege not only in order to expose the concrete operation of oppression but also as a way of providing opportunities for the privileged to actively remedy and ameliorate their exploitive advantages. In these respects, this lens is both an ethical ontology as well as a practical methodology with perhaps an eye toward reparative justice. Mia McKenzie at Black Girl Dangerous writes more practically about how to apply this by “4 Ways to Push Back Against Your Privilege.”

Circumscribing it in the historically-powerful and geographically-appropriate Iron Curtain metaphor is just delicious poetic-justice icing on the very Polish dark humor cake. Yet, widening this metaphor out to “cracks in the wall” is equally powerful and hopeful. As Dynarski illustrates, it can be incredibly disheartening to read of the situation of queer and trans rights in Poland, for there is a wall undoubtedly. However, this wall has serious cracks. Evidence can be seen in the electoral gains of Ruch Palikota (Palikot’s Movement), the voices of leftist media, the organizational operations of Trans-Fuzja, the election of gay MP Robert Biedroń, and of course the election of trans woman MP Anna Grodzka.

A wall with cracks is weak. We find the cracks, we lodge ourselves in them, and we widen them. We also make more cracks. Eventually, people can walk through the cracks. Eventually, we can knock the wall down.

Posted in Commentary, Linky, Trans | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment