we have done the impossible

and that makes us mighty

10,408 notes

Every time you say "It's good that Dumbledore's sexuality wasn't mentioned in the books because it means he wasn't defined by it," you are saying something horrible about the queer people in your life. You are saying something horrible TO them. You're telling them that once you know they're gay--once you know a guy has a boyfriend or a woman has a wife or whatever--that's ALL they are to you. You're announcing that the knowledge of a sexual orientation other than what you expect as the default will completely dominate every aspect of a person's existence in your mind.





So keep saying it. We need to know who to avoid.

Oh yes, you read my mind. That’s exactly what I meant by my response to that post. It’s not that I meant exactly what I said. It’s not like gay characters I saw on TV as a kid were just gay without…

I feel like when people like this imagine gay people they imagine the “I’m here, I’m queer, get over it” people. They sound like jackass’

You’ve got it exactly backwards, actually.

It’s you and your friends upthread who apparently can’t imagine any possible way that Dumbledore’s sexuality could have been made canon except for him to lead a pride parade. 

Let me ask you a question: do we know that Molly and Arthur Weasley were married and had a sexual relationship that produced more than half a dozen children? Yes, yes we do.Did the book have to have them introduce themselves as “HI, WE’RE STRAIGHT?” No, no it didn’t.

Do we know that Hagrid liked women? Yes. We saw him liking women.

A straight person’s sexuality can make it into the story—or the conversation—in real life a hundred different ways and nobody will bat an eye at it. Pictures on desks, rings on fingers, offhand mentions of weekend plans and anniversaries and get-togethers, the existence of children and spouses.

All I wanted when I made this post was for the one supposedly gay character to be treated exactly the same way as everyone else.

The fact that everybody who disagrees can’t imagine I was asking for anything more than him to trumpet from the heavens “I AM GAY! I AM SO GAY! LOOK AT HOW GAY I AM!” proves my point.

If you ca’t wrap your idea around the idea of having one line where his apparent maybe ex-boyfriend Elphias Doge—who was crying his eyes out defending Dumbledore near the opening—mentioning that they’d been in love, or Dumbledore actually explaining his relationship to Grindelwald in the scene where he was talking around that entire subject as something that could have happened without changing the whole meaning of the character and turning him into a stereotype, then yes, the subject line of this post applies to you, full stop.

It’s a double standard.

It’s harmful.

It’s homophobic.

(Source: boo-author, via moniquill)

4,564 notes

It's official: Gay panic/trans panic defenses banned in California


This weekend, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation that prohibits “gay panic” and “trans panic” defenses from being used to escape murder charges. 

All over the country, murder charges can sometimes be downgraded to manslaughter when a person claims they acted out of panic after finding out a person was gay or trans. (It’s especially common around the murders of trans women.) It perpetuates the idea that LGBT people are “lying” about who they are if they aren’t out to everyone, it attempts to justify murder, and it says that LGBT lives aren’t as important as others. 

The American Bar Association has urged governments to end panic defenses, but with this legislation, California becomes the first state ever to outlaw them. 

Current state law allows murder charges to be reduced to manslaughter if the killings happened in a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.

But under the bill, approved by the Assembly last month, defendants would be barred from using their victims’ sexual orientation or gender identity to support such a defense.

Read that again: California is the first state ever to say that a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity is no excuse for murdering them. The first state ever. Wow, have we got a ton of work to do. 

(via mentalbellyflop)

241 notes

President Obama got a lot of flack during his 2012 campaign for re-election for saying that wealthy business owners “didn’t build that” all by themselves, but his point was indisputable. The president mentioned the internet, roads and bridges, firefighting, and other public works that make it possible for the market economy to function and thrive. He could have said far more. How about the culture of general law-abidingness that we call the rule of law? The Federal Reserve’s regulation of the money supply? An independent judiciary for the settlement of civil disputes? Law enforcement at local, state, and federal levels that fights violent crime, fraud, corruption, monopolistic business practices, and a host of other behaviors that would otherwise scuttle the working of markets? And on and on and on. The order we see at work in the United States and in other advanced democracies is anything but spontaneous.

Libertarianism’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad idea (via azspot)

This, this, and this.

(via liberalsarecool)

(via mentalbellyflop)