I am sorry you experienced such personal attacks, and am sure you are not transphobic or a bigot.
You've known me for how many years now? (I lose track) Were I a bigot, I would think you would have noticed by now! :-D
I think it would have been a mistake to re-use a slogan that clearly had made some people feel erased/excluded, however horribly they may have behaved about said feelings.
You and I may have to agree to disagree on this one, hon. The way I see it is that changing as a result of bullying and intimidation just encourages the use of those tactics. If harassment gets results, bullies will keep on doing it. Thus, looking at the issues morally, I found it a much worse offense for me to help legitimize harassment than to explicitly refer to "men" and "women" in a flier for a bisexual event.
I understand the exclusionary issue with requiring a man to be accompanied by a partner to attend a poly event, but how is that heteronormative?
Yes, the exclusionary and discriminatory part is pretty hard to miss, isn't it? ;-D
As for the other half, let me try to answer your question: Because the stated goal was to bar unaccompanied men in the interest of "gender balance" at this poly event, it struck me as leaning hetero. After all, if a poly family of twenty male partners signed up, that would definitely not help the stated goal!
no subject
You've known me for how many years now? (I lose track) Were I a bigot, I would think you would have noticed by now! :-D
I think it would have been a mistake to re-use a slogan that clearly had made some people feel erased/excluded, however horribly they may have behaved about said feelings.
You and I may have to agree to disagree on this one, hon. The way I see it is that changing as a result of bullying and intimidation just encourages the use of those tactics. If harassment gets results, bullies will keep on doing it. Thus, looking at the issues morally, I found it a much worse offense for me to help legitimize harassment than to explicitly refer to "men" and "women" in a flier for a bisexual event.
I understand the exclusionary issue with requiring a man to be accompanied by a partner to attend a poly event, but how is that heteronormative?
Yes, the exclusionary and discriminatory part is pretty hard to miss, isn't it? ;-D
As for the other half, let me try to answer your question: Because the stated goal was to bar unaccompanied men in the interest of "gender balance" at this poly event, it struck me as leaning hetero. After all, if a poly family of twenty male partners signed up, that would definitely not help the stated goal!