A closer look at studies by GLAAD, HRC, and APA . . . and how they’re reflected in mainstream media.
*The following is a three part essay, published in full.
Part I
Amid “erosion in acceptance,” GLAAD is using video games to target youth, and The L Word is being rebooted as a “response” intended to dehumanize actual lesbians.
Have they all lost the plot?
In looking at three recent studies—GLAAD, HRC and APA—and in looking at what’s happening in mainstream media, a clear picture emerges. For anyone paying attention, it quickly becomes obvious that there are reasons behind the “erosion.”
First we’ll have a look at the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) study.
The study, conducted by GLAAD, shows a deep “erosion” that’s taken place over the last three years, around “acceptance” and “comfort” with “LGBTQ people.” This “erosion” is particularly troubling, because it’s among the youngest demographic in the study, 18–34 year-olds.
“. . . GLAAD knows the playbook. Closing the gap to full acceptance of LGBTQ people will not come from legislation on judicial decisions alone . . .”
—Sarah Ellis, GLAAD CEO
You might think the “LGBTQ” would reconsider their “playbook.” NOPE— Instead they’re “doubling down” on young people.
In one 2019 report, GLAAD points to the significant “erosion” as “being driven by females.”
“This year, the significant erosion is being driven by females ages 18-34, where comfort levels fell . . .”
—Spencer Harvey, GLAAD Communications Coordinator
In another 2019 report, GLAAD says that “erosion in acceptance was primarily happening among younger males.”
“With the knowledge that erosion in acceptance was primarily happening among younger males, GLAAD launched a program dedicated to working with the video game industry on LGBTQ inclusion, to bring LGBTQ characters and stories to a world where male audiences were consuming content.”
—Sarah Ellis, CEO, GLAAD
No matter who’s to ‘blame’ for the erosion, the bigger question is: Why are young people suddenly growing so uncomfortable?
While it’s easy for “LGBTQ” institutions to chalk it up to a sudden surge in bigotry, a closer look at what’s been happening behind the scenes, tells a very different story.
It isn’t hate or bigotry. And lesbians understand this better than anyone else. It’s the “playbook.” The endless manipulation tactics. The obsessive efforts to weaponize young people, and force-feed them propaganda through a never-ending stream of “content”—Media, internet and video games alike.
“LGBTQ” is a hijacked movement. It’s become its own government with no specific country. A dictatorship. We can’t vote people in or out. It’s become a religion that asks you to simply have faith. A cult, as it allows for no questions. How does a cult thrive? It indoctrinates the young. That’s the “playbook.”
Young people were bound to wake up and realize they were playbook-ed… and duping the youth demographic was bound to cause serious erosion.
The studies commissioned by GLAAD, show a nearly 20 percent drop in acceptance of “LGBTQ people” over the last three years, among 18–34 year-olds.
This year, in the 2019 survey, GLAAD writes, “There has been a decline in overall comfort and acceptance of LGBTQ people from respondents ages 18-34, with allies steadily declining among this audience since 2016.”
This decline, happening since 2016, includes things like feeling “comfortable” when it comes to their child getting an “LGBTQ” history lesson at school, where there’s been a 12 percent drop. But before jumping to bigotry, GLAAD might want to check if lesbians would be comfortable with their child getting an “LGBTQ” his-story lesson at school—Especially seeing as how, in recent years, lesbian history is often erased, or pissed on, with a revisionist agenda. In fact, lesbians have been quite vocal about how sexist, homophobic “LGBTQ” revisionists, have been expunging lesbians from the category of lesbian.
In 2016, the GLAAD study showed that 62 percent of young men (ages 18–34) were comfortable in all seven “LGBTQ situations,” but by 2018, that number dropped drastically, to just 35 percent.
GLAAD has been working with the video game industry to target young males, where they’re often “consuming content”—Through the games they play.
In a 2019 press release, GLAAD CEO, Ellis, explained that GLAAD has “doubled down.”
To understand why young people have grown so uncomfortable, the “LGBTQ” need look no further than their own backyard. Why the drop? Where to even begin?
Over the last few years, even with some women—willing to play the role of puppet—strategically placed in roles of authority, the male-dominated “LGBTQ” has increasingly developed into a dangerous dictatorship in the form of a king-kong-sized, my-way-or-the-highway drag queen, willing to stomp razor-sharp stiletto holes into the chests of anyone who dares question their dogma. To add to the discomfort, there’s the angry mob of extremist disciples—know-it-all narcissists, who demand complete compliance, and scream “Nazi” at anyone who doesn’t abide by the bible of gender ideology. To further add to the discomfort, that ideology claims that innate exclusive same-sex attraction does not exist . . . and that those who experience it, are bigots.
And nobody has been targeted by that ideology the way lesbians have. In recent years, lesbians have been told we’re no longer invited—We’ve been excluded, in the name of “inclusion,” from Pride parades, as well as the community, its institutions, even ‘our’ own publications and parades.
So, lesbians would also show a decline in comfort (if such a study were to be done). But that would require the “LGBTQ” to be willing to define ‘lesbian’ as a specific group. Now that the “LGBTQ” defines lesbian as absolutely anyone who says they are, it’s no longer possible to study how we feel about anything.
Moving on from GLAAD, let’s have a look at a recent APA Study.
A study, published in 2018—in Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, the official publication of the American Psychological Association (APA) Division 44—carried over two years and involved more than 15,000 men and women. The study emphasized sleep issues as an indication of stress, in looking at why gay, lesbian, and bisexual people have a heightened risk of developing health issues.
Previous studies have already found that gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents and adults, are at an increased risk of developing mental health issues, including higher rates of depression and suicide—As well as being at an increased risk of developing physical health issues, such as a higher risk of developing cancer, cardiovascular disease, and a number of other health problems.
The link to stress wasn’t unique to the APA study, but measuring it through sleep was. Researchers found that compared to heterosexuals in the study, LGB adults reported more problems with sleep. Justin Lehmiller explains,“…what researchers found is that people who identified as LGB reported having more strained relationships with their family (specifically, their parents)…”
“The key analysis in this study involved testing an elaborate statistical model, which found that identifying as LGB predicted having lower quality relationships with one’s parents. This, in turn, predicted experiencing more stress—and this stress ultimately predicted more sleep difficulties.”
—Justin Lehmiller, PhD
There’s no denying that this kind of strain can take a major toll. However, these days, lesbians in particular, are dealing with a new level of stress—A ceaseless stream of attacks on the lesbian community. Those attacks, on our dignity and on our basic human rights, come from the very institutions that are supposed to protect us.
Suddenly, even straight people think they are experts, often claiming to know more about our world—a world we’ve been living in—than we do. They feel empowered. There’s now a “progressive” excuse to call lesbians “men,” or imply we might be men . . . Something they may have thought this whole time, but never had an excuse to say. For many lesbians, this has impacted the level of acceptance we had among some of our family or friends—causing new undertones, if not blatant forms of aggression to emerge.
It’s not easy to face the fact that the unconditional love you wanted to believe you had among family and friends, does often come with conditions—allowing them to be the expert, pretending you didn’t hear the jab, and keeping quiet about the pain you and your community are going through. Prioritizing other people’s comfort was always one of the conditions . . . We just didn’t feel it quite the way we do now.
Part II
While lesbians still struggle for safety and protection, The L Word is being rebooted to stir up hatred towards the lesbian community.
“We have had long conversations about TERF lesbians . . . We are very plugged in to that, the world and the conversations that are coming out of the divide . . . . We do not explicitly reference TERF lesbians, but my point is to say that the act of making the show is my response to TERF lesbians.”
—Marja Lewis Ryan, showrunner, L Word reboot
It’s some next level extreme homophobia to revive a show about lesbians, as a “response” to “TERF lesbians” (a violent slur meaning actual lesbians), for the crime of being innately same-sex attracted. But that’s exactly what’s going down. This act of hatred towards the lesbian community is for what? To get more people to beat and murder lesbians? To push more lesbians to the brink?
Ilene Chaiken, co-creator of the original L Word, is once again an executive producer with the reboot, but told NBC News, “…it’s Marja’s world and her show to do with as she wishes.” The direction Marja-Lewis Ryan is taking (appealing to non-lesbians) is the same direction Chaiken’s co-creators talk about when they discuss why they were booted off the set of the original L Word.
In a 2009 interview with AfterEllen, Chaiken’s L Word co-creators, Michelle Abbott and Kathy Greenberg, were reluctant to explain why, after the pilot and second episode, their involvement with the show ended. Abbott says “[the decision] was made by Showtime and the show runner, who was Ilene. So, we can’t really answer that.” And later says, “There was an intentional awareness at Showtime to make it . . . appealing to straight people.”
Fast forward to 2019, with Marja-Lewis Ryan spearheading The L Word reboot. Showrunner, Ryan, is listed as executive producer, along with Chaiken, Jennifer Beals, Katherine Moennig and Leisha Hailey. In an interview with Joshua Fardon, Ryan says, “I just want to write dark comedies for women that don’t ostracize a male audience.” Those words perfectly encompass why she was chosen as the showrunner for The L Word reboot, a show that will, once again, prioritize the male fantasy, and be catered to a non-lesbian audience.
Lesbians have a unique ability to see things clearly, without feeling we owe anything to the male ego—We’re the only group that doesn’t give AF if we make your penis feel sad. Actual lesbians don’t cater to men. Lesbians see the ripple effect. We’re grounded in reality.
Globally, lesbians are beaten, subjected to “corrective rape,” and murdered. The people behind The L Word reboot don’t seem to care about the global impact of the message they’re sending. The shorthand “TERF,” or “TERF lesbian,” no longer even refers to women that are “radical feminists.” It’s now simply used as a slur to shame lesbians for “excluding” people with penises from our sexuality—Claiming we can “think” our way out of innate same-sex attraction, that we can change if we wanted to. Somebody please let Macklemore know.
In a recent interview, Ryan says she’s “desperate” to speak from “the queer experience.” So why is the show not called something else?
“We do have trans actors playing cis parts . . . So we are exploring trans lesbians on the show in a way that does not identify necessarily trans lesbians on the show. I’m interested in the exploration of trans actors as cis characters.”
—Marja Lewis Ryan, showrunner, The L Word reboot.
I’m not sure where to even begin with this. Should I start with the lack of representation of lesbians on TV? Deception? Gay conversion therapy?
I’ll start with Ryan’s use of “cis”—another term often used as a slur—and circle back to the rest.
Often used to denote privilege (“cis privilege”) and contempt (“die cis scum”), the term ‘cis’ is regularly used to demean and threaten the lesbian community, and women in general.
It’s also incredibly misogynistic. It implies that we identify with the sexist stereotypes and roles that are pushed upon us from birth. It puts us on the outskirts of womanhood, because we don’t align with sexist ‘norms’ . . . and yet it’s also used to chide us for the perceived “privilege” we experience (from our perceived position on the in-skirts).
The use of “cis” dangerously implies that females hold “privilege,” and are therefore no longer in need of sex-based protections. What about the global epidemic of femicide, defined as “the killing of females because they are female”?
In an article for Haaretz, Dafna Maor writes about how femicide has been happening globally over the last two decades and has “eradicated close to 120 million female human beings and fetuses from the face of the earth – and yet it is a problem rarely discussed or reported.”
The plethora of changes to language, being pushed by the “LGBTQ,” makes it harder to communicate. It manipulates the way our brains process vital information. We need coherent language to address horrific realities females face in places like India, China, and Iran . . . Even in the U.S., where, along with over a hundred other countries, men are still legally allowed to marry “child brides.”
In using slurs that incite violence against lesbians, and women in general, The L Word reboot promotes misogyny and homophobia. In reframing exclusive same-sex attraction as bigotry (as something we can change), the L Word reboot, puts lesbians at risk of harm, worldwide. TV shows have one of the widest reaches into the mainstream, and this reboot threatens to make things a whole lot worse, for actual lesbians, than they already are.
I’ll circle back to The L Word a little further down, because the reboot will also be promoting pro child abuse culture. It’ll be promoting the human rights violation of gay and lesbian kids . . . Something actual lesbians are losing a great deal of sleep over . . . Something that has caused a great deal of “erosion” in “comfort” around “LGBTQ people.”
Wanna talk about f*cking up your circadian rhythm? We’re watching in despair as the APA pushes dangerous guidelines for the parents of tiny humans. Guidelines that cram “TGNC” (transgender gender non conforming) into a single category. The APA study says we’re losing sleep, but neglects to mention how they’ve contributed to that stress.
We’re watching in despair, as toddlers, as young as 1, are labeled, and children, as young as 8, are medicalized . . . As surgeries are performed on kids who haven’t even had a chance to grow up and reach full cognitive brain development (around age 25).
The same medical field that thought they could scoop the ‘gay’ out, by way of the prefrontal cortex, not so long ago, is now performing double mastectomies on kids as young as 12 and 13, way before the prefrontal cortex even has a chance to fully develop.
We’re watching in horror, as an alarming number of these kids, particularly girls, are growing up and coming forward, detailing the scars, telling us about the internet rabbit hole they fell into. Lesbians are feeling a deep sense of panic, as the left mainstream media continues to censor and vilify them, and anyone else who has been trying to speak up.
The “LGBTQ” is pushing a no-questions-asked format, leading to the medicalization of young “gender non conforming” people, long before their prefrontal cortex has fully developed—The part of the brain that’s vitally involved in things like decision-making, reasoning, personality expression, and understanding consequence. They’ve pushed for legislation that makes it illegal, in many places, like NY, for medical professionals to do anything but immediately “affirm” a young person and proceed as such.
Lesbians start rebelling against ‘gender’ stereotypes and roles long before we understand what it is we’re rebelling against, or why we don’t feel comfortable conforming to so-called ‘norms’—A known fact that is of little concern to the “LGBTQ” organizations that are pushing a new form of “gay conversion therapy.” The laws they’re pushing that proclaim to protect “LGBTQ kids” from “conversion therapy,” are actually legalizing a ‘progressive’ version of gay conversion therapy.
While same-sex attracted kids are trying to process things like misogyny, internalized misogyny, same-sex attraction, homophobia, and internalized homophobia, the “LGBTQ” is doling out battle wounds, and then covering them up with Band-Aids. The infection that comes later? Not their problem.
Comfort? Stress? Issues with sleep? With major organizations and mainstream media behind the harm being done to lesbians, imagine what we’re up against.
There’s no longer a mainstream organization to push for lesbian-centered studies. There’s no longer a mainstream way to advocate for the health and safety of lesbian youth. And now that ‘lesbian’ institutions and publications have been hijacked, it takes us that much longer to effectively advocate for these kids—the majority of which would statistically grow up to be LGB (if allowed to grow up). A number that eerily drops to about 0 percent with “early childhood intervention.”
We’re up against big money, big pharma, and feel-good homophobia. We’re up against child abuse wrapped in a propaganda rainbow. But that hasn’t stopped the mainstream from promoting the massive human rights violation of gay and lesbian youth, and even going so far as to call this “the right side of history.”
Time to circle back to The L Word.
The L Word isn’t just rebooting the show to taunt the lesbian community, or to further promote the male fantasy version of a lesbian (one that includes penises) . . . they’re also using the money and power of mainstream TV, to promote pro child abuse culture.
As an adopted nonconforming child, who was same-sex attracted, Leo Sheng didn’t see butch lesbians reflected anywhere… not even on The L Word, a show about lesbians. Instead, Sheng found Max. Or more specifically Moira, the only butch character on The L word (who the show decided to turn into Max.) After finding “some clips of Max from ‘The L Word,'” on YouTube, Sheng, a 7th grader at the time, “came out” as transgender.
Like so many other same-sex attracted young people, Sheng was influenced by the original L Word; and now it all comes full circle, as Sheng has been cast as one of the main characters on The L Word reboot.
In an interview with HuffPost, Leo Sheng says, “Max from ‘The L Word’ was my first exposition to transmen and the concept of transitioning.”
Sheng was adopted from China—A place where female babies are often considered a burden, murdered, or put up for adoption (as mentioned earlier when we touched on femicide). There was some dispute among Sheng’s adoptive parents, in the U.S., about how ‘feminine’ Sheng should be.
“I always knew that I was attracted to women; my earliest memory is in first grade . . . . I was in the 7th grade when I first came out as transgender. I’d seen some clips of Max from ‘The L Word’ on YouTube (I know it’s not exactly a kids’ show) and it sort of just made sense . . . . I socially transitioned when I was 13 years-old . . .”
—Leo Sheng, L Word reboot cast member
After seeing The L Word‘s Moira become Max, Sheng, socially transitioned at 13 years-old, and later underwent surgery, as a teen, many years before reaching full cognitive brain development.
Back when I first started writing about the issue of cognitive brain development (and yelling about it online), I couldn’t understand why no one was picking up on this important detail. I even checked with a psychiatrist here in NY . . . (paraphrasing)—Am I not saying this right? . . . I keep saying ‘these kids haven’t even come close to reaching full cognitive brain development’ and it feels like people, even in your field, aren’t getting it. He said—You’re saying it absolutely right and you’re absolutely correct. As an ex-PSY major, I found it perplexing. Then I began to look even deeper into the frightening depths to which the medical field had been silenced. I was relieved when I finally read a 2019 article by a doctor—one of my Twitter pals, Dr. Alicia Hendley—that echoed my concerns on this particular issue. It was a weight lifted . . . or shared anyway . . . that’s been heavy on my soul.
And I was also relieved to see young detrans women, the post-Jenner generation, finally having grown up, coming forward to speak. It’s been interesting to see a couple of them echo my words on brain development in youth (such as in this Sept 2019 speech put out by Charlie Evans).
Another child that was medicalized long before having a chance to grow up and reach full cognitive brain development, will also be playing a character on the L Word reboot—15 year-old Sophie Giannamore. Giannamore is best known as a child “YouTube star” who identified as trans at 11, and subsequently documented estrogen use (via YouTube). Yes, YouTube again… the internet rabbit hole (along with several other rabbit hole forums).
At just 11 years old, Giannamore was cast on the show Transparent—A show which is also referenced by now detransitioned young people, as having played a role in sudden childhood “trans identity,” and the subsequent obsessive thoughts around becoming trans.
The idea here is to use young people who were “transitioned” as kids, and therefore “pass,” to normalize the medicalization of “gender nonconforming” kids, and promote this as something that should be viewed as “progressive” and even glamorous. The idea is to use these kids to create acceptance of trans-identified adults, while glazing over the fact that these kids (the majority of which are LGB), are being medicalized long before they have a chance to grow up and reach full brain development.
The “erosion” in comfort we’re now seeing among young people, is, in no small part, a result of the harm that’s being done to young people.
Executive producers on The L Word reboot, have ignored messages from the lesbian community, including messages from young LGB detransitioners. The L Word is using the word lesbian, while promoting hatred towards the lesbian community for being one of the few communities willing to spell out reality. The “erosion” in comfort we’re now seeing among young people, is, in no small part, a result of the harm that’s being done to young people.
Lesbians are up against mainstream media and major organizations. And, as if that wasn’t enough, we’re now up against a reboot of The L Word being done as a big FU “response”. . . to lesbians.
Historically, lesbians have been at the forefront of nonconformity, and at the forefront of critical thinking. We’re used to being demeaned for refusing to conform, and therefore have developed a unique level of strength when it comes to going up against groupthink . . . And we’ve lost a lot more than sleep going up against all of this.
While lesbians face major repercussions for simply speaking up, there have been no repercussions for those who dehumanize lesbians. Nothing better illustrates this than Rachel McKinnon’s recent comments online celebrating the fact that lesbian feminist, Magdalen Berns, has incurable brain cancer.
McKinnon, trans-identified athlete and 2018 World Champion in Women’s Cycling, has repeatedly attacked lesbians online, without repercussion, including tennis legend Martina Navratilova (who was subsequently attacked by “LGBTQ” media). Yet even after a recent slew of hateful posts about Magdalen Berns, McKinnon, a professor at College of Charleston, predictably faced no repercussions.
Nothing more clearly illustrates the privilege, the free pass that’s given time and time again, when it comes to the ongoing attempts to both demean and demonize lesbians, than this.
Part III
In a recent work environment study, HRC looked at “LGBTQ people” as though we’re a single entity. But what about the myriad of issues that are specific to lesbians? What about the serious threat of repercussions lesbians face?
A recent study, conducted by HRC in 2018, looked at “LGBTQ people” and found that 46 percent of “LGBTQ people” stay in the closet at work, and that 1-in-5 are told to dress in a more “feminine” or “masculine” manner. But what they didn’t look at is the threats specific to lesbians. The threats we already faced, and the new threats that are coming from within the “LGBTQ.”
HRC looked at “LGBTQ people” as though we are a single entity. We’re not. In reality, what lesbians experience (and are now experiencing, in addition to that), is beyond compare.
Lesbians already had enough to contend with. While women statistically earn less, and are passed over for jobs more often, lesbians face additional hurdles. Even in so-called progressive states like NY and CA, I’ve faced discrimination for being a woman, and lost jobs for being out, or being outed, at work.
In WEHO, the gay area of LA, at more than one location, I was always the only lesbian on staff (with one exception, where I was one of two). In one location, a male manager told me to “quit it with the lesbian crap” and give him a chance, and another male manager propositioned me for sex. To lose that job, all it took was for my male coworkers to get teased, taunted regularly, with the worst possible insult—they were being outdone “by a girl.”
In NY, a manager gave a male employee a job I was promised while I was temping. He was concerned about me closing shop alone in lower Manhattan . . . Not because of my “gender presentation,” or my “identity,” but because of my sex.
None of these scenarios are unusual. And studies like the one conducted by HRC, don’t account for these differences.
The hurdles lesbians face are often compounded further still if you’re a ‘butch’ lesbian. For this reason, there’s been a history of ‘femme’ lesbians supporting butch counterparts. Historically, butch lesbians had very few options as far as jobs were concerned. Even today, the chances of a categorically butch lesbian getting a foot in the door, can be significantly lower.
At the one location in WEHO where another lesbian was employed (a woman who was incredible at her job, and just ‘feminine’ enough to get a foot in), she was eventually told to dress more feminine. She didn’t comply, and was ultimately pushed out.
At another WEHO location, where only “feminine” non-lesbian women were given jobs, my wife was immediately banned from so much as visiting me at work, while other employees had no similar restrictions.
In NY, in gay areas, I’ve seen categorically butch coworkers experience disturbing levels of sexual harassment (from gay men). #notallgaymen . . . And the jobs they’re given are often bottom of the barrel.
The hurdles lesbians face are often compounded further still, if you’re a woman of color. In one WEHO location, music by Black artists was banned by management, in an attempt to change the customer demographic, and dissuade lesbians of color from coming in. Management regularly confronted me with a set of racist microaggressions. Among other things: Why did my hair have to be so black? And as for my traditional Arabic eye makeup (something historically gender neutral, rooted in Arab culture and beliefs): Couldn’t I try to blend in? Regardless of issues in both NY and LA, I’ve never dyed my hair, and in recent years I’ve toned-UP my cultural -isms.
The same people who once fell quiet when I was yanked off a plane, might defend me today, but when it comes to discrimination in the workplace, they’re more likely to stay quiet. At all locations mentioned, with one exception, women of color were a vast minority among staff, especially Black women, and willingness/ability to blend, played a key role in position placement.
UK-based Black radical feminist and award-winning blogger, Claire Heuchan, tells me that the managers she’s worked for in retail, have all been white, male, and heterosexual. As a result she says, “there wasn’t really much I could do about discrimination.” She recalls a co-worker who “ridiculed gay couples, men who wore clothing he saw as feminine, and women who wore clothing he saw as masculine.”
The HRC study doesn’t look at the discrimination lesbians specifically face at work, nor the additional threats to jobs, coming from within the “LGBTQ.”
While a free pass is given to people who demean lesbians, lesbians can’t even speak of our own realities (not even among ourselves) without the looming threat of job loss. This is all part of the aforementioned “playbook.”
How can you fight discrimination that’s specific to lesbians, or even study how lesbians are doing, if you can no longer define lesbian? That’s part of the “playbook” too.
It’s not a coincidence that the superpower we call the “LGBTQ,” has worked so hard to take away the one word we had, in the entire dictionary, to describe our reality. It’s not a coincidence that the L is statistically the most underfunded letter in the acronym. And it’s not a coincidence that even the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) has a new mission statement that no longer centers lesbians. The highest percentage of posts made by NCLR on social media, are not about lesbians. NCLR has no qualms promoting a false narrative and burying lesbian history—Stealing spotlight and credit from historical figures, like Black butch lesbian, Stormé DeLarverie.
The stresses lesbians deal with are very specific to lesbians, and much of that stress is rooted in the ongoing dehumanization that lesbians face for refusing to ‘conform’ to so-called norms.
The ongoing dehumanization (and lack of representation) of ‘butch’ lesbians in male-dominated mainstream media, has been sanctioned, even encouraged, over the years by the male-dominated “LGBTQ.”
The ongoing misinterpretation of lesbians, even among many bisexuals, gay men and so-called feminists—this idea that butch lesbians are ‘trying to be men,’ and that ‘butch/femme’ couples are ‘imitating heterosexuality’—has caused immeasurable physical and emotional distress among young lesbians. Yet rather than extend the same consideration given to everyone else on the planet—the universally understood notion of “opposites attract”—we’re programmed to understand “opposites attract” as something exclusive to heterosexuality (in the same way we’re programmed to read short hair, no make up, and blue as “boy,” and long hair, lipstick, and pink as “girl”).
It’s precisely this type of non-lesbian interpretive dance—this view of the lesbian community and couples through a sexist, lesbophobic lens—that, now more than ever, is leaving young lesbians with permanent scars. It’s precisely this type of continued misinterpretation that exacerbates issues of mental and physical illness among lesbians.
Let’s flip it back to the APA study, for a quick look at how lesbian health is further impacted, in a way that’s specific to the lesbian community.
Statistics already show that gay and lesbian people (especially those who are more visibly nonconforming) are more likely to face discrimination in health care, and less likely to make health care appointments as a result. Now we have a lot of lesbians who won’t make an appointment to see doctors at medical offices that boast web pages instructing people (per APA guidelines) to ask the pronouns of those who don’t conform to ‘norms.’ This can mean a later diagnosis, if at all, for serious health issues, and a subsequent lower rate of recovery.
The lesbian community has been vocal about how the asking of pronouns loosely translates to: ‘You are incorrectly female.’ And how damaging this is—particularly to young lesbians.
The lesbian community has been vocal about how the asking of pronouns loosely translates to: ‘You are incorrectly female.’ And how damaging this is—particularly to young lesbians. “LGBTQ” incorporated, has ignored those concerns completely.
Asking a nonconforming child/woman her pronouns, is sexist. It represents an ongoing issue of homophobia, and pathologizes nonconformity. No one is asking women who look like me for their pronouns. They’re not asking women who look like Elizabeth Warren either. But in case you weren’t sure, Warren, who “identifies” as “Native American,” has also announced that she identifies as “she/her/hers” via Twitter.
Warren didn’t consider lesbians when she hopped on the bandwagon, or why being asked our pronouns might put us in a bad place. Nor did she consider lesbians when she ‘liked’ an online comment with a violent anti lesbian slur. Even after lesbians in media reached out with concerns, Warren didn’t respond. Kamala Harris, who also gave the same comment a ‘like,’ didn’t respond when lesbians reached out either.
What does that mean when considering the APA sleep/stress/health study?
This kind of virtue signaling, doesn’t signal ‘virtue’ to lesbians. It sends us a different signal . . . It’s code for yet another public figure who’s going along with the “LGBTQ” narrative—A narrative promoting the human rights violation of gay and lesbian youth as something “progressive” to be celebrated.
So, to add to the mound of stress, many of us are now politically homeless. Because how can we be expected to vote for a party that’s been sleepwalking and signing off on all of this?
How can we be expected to vote for a party that’s pushing compulsory adherence to an ideology that makes exclusive same-sex attraction no more than a bigoted state of mind?
How can we be expected to vote for a party that’s pushing compulsory adherence to an ideology that makes exclusive same-sex attraction no more than a bigoted state of mind? A party pushing for the legal enforcement of compulsory language, and dismantling all sex-based protections, by hiding details in the fine print.
How are these three studies—GLAAD, APA and HRC—connected?
People are growing increasingly uncomfortable with “LGBTQ people,” and lesbians are feeling the brunt of that wrath. That wrath causes stress. That stress keeps us up at night, impacting both our physical and emotional health. And we’re receiving that wrath from both inside and outside of the “LGBTQ” community. Generally speaking, lesbians have long been the most visibly and unapologetically nonconforming group, so we’re easy to spot as targets for harassment. Threats to our jobs were always there. Now, threats also come from within.
Lesbians are pushing for autonomy with good reason. “LGBTQ” has morphed into a movement where we are the minority. A movement that cares nothing about the damage they’ve done to our community, or to our overall physical and mental health. A movement that will gladly threaten the livelihood of those who don’t comply, and hand out free passes to those who demean lesbians.
How are lesbians doing?
If GLAAD cared enough to ask us, they’d find lesbians have also had an erosion in our level of “comfort” with all things “LGBTQ.” We’ve seen the casualties. Many of us are the casualties . . . The youth who were “consuming content,” the friends and families who were tornado-ed by their “playbook.”
As for the HRC, the ironically named Human Rights Campaign—We’ve watched as they’ve sat back, collecting paper smeared with our blood. As they’ve continued to spin the massive human rights violation of gay and lesbian kids into feel-good propaganda. As they’ve ignored us lesbians (or as they’d say: people with front holes), time and time again.
And the APA . . . the American Psychological Association . . . How are we sleeping, you ask? We’re once again trapped in the nightmarish corridors of your lobotomy ward, watching as the coattails of blood-spattered white coats rush down our hall. How the f*ck are we sleeping? You try screaming with a rainbow colored sock stuffed in your mouth, and let me know how well you sleep.
Amid “erosion of acceptance,” the organizations that were supposed to protect us, have campaigned to silence us, using threats and slurs to invoke fear and shame. The L Word has lost all sense of the plot . . . Yet although mainstream media and “LGBTQ” organizations have pulled out every trick in their “playbook,” the one thing they’ve deeply underestimated, is the power of dyke rage.
جوليا ديانا — Julia Diana Robertson, is an award-winning author, and a contributor for Huffington Post and AfterEllen—A first generation Arab-American, who grew up between worlds, and currently resides somewhere in the middle with a bird’s eye view.
