the brittle reaction to feminine guy cheerleaders is proof enough to me that we don’t know what tf we’re doing by trans’ing kids. holy crap, what ever happened to radical acceptance? we’re demanding that kids’ gender expression match their sex. that’s reactionary, not progressive and it’s a cultural devolution from my 70s childhood when i could wrestle the boys down the street and then pop over to dance and baton lessons.
i hate what we’ve become and i feel so sad for the kids who just need to be left alone.
Whoooo-eeeey. This is more fun than a Texas redistricting fight or a monster truck demolition derby. Pop some Jiffy and get a seat down front. Since cheerleaders are currently constructed as supportive, decorative and sexually available (i.e. female), it stands to reason toxic bros will be triggered by seeing men in this role; however, as long as they never claim to actually BE women, then they are doing the work (whether intentionally or not) of deconstructing gender. How can this be bad? Are men in teaching "taking jobs" from women? Only if you believe in gender stereotypes. The unfortunate truth is, any job grows in clout and value when men choose it. Bring 'em on, I say.
I don’t care if they wave Pom poms and prance but they are not women and should not be given access to women only spaces. Interpretations “male/man” any way you want but keep it real.
I admit... I clicked on the video prepared to hate and judge, expecting something grotesque but it looks totally ok. It's young men and women doing impressive acrobatics, basically. As long as these young men don't pretend to be women and change in their own locker room, what's the big deal?
Yes, I find the whole concept of gender (not sex!) to be one inextricably tied to stereotypes & domination regimes: for reproductive control, for labour exploitation, for hierarchy maintenance, for enforcing a dogma (religious or otherwise), etc.
Any way you look at it, the idea that people of either sex should be subject to others’ *gendered* expectations is about dictating what others can and can’t do within a particular sociocultural context — invariably, AFAICT, dictated by many of my fellow men who claim some revealed truth:
- God says women should submit the male head of their household/dress modestly/keep their legs closed
- Real men are heterosexual, don’t dress fancy, don’t lick ice cream cones, etc.
-Dolls are for girls/trucks for boys
-Nursing & teaching are professions for women; firefighting & trades for men
-Etc.
By contrast, sex as a biological & material reality actually matters in many contexts: reproductive autonomy for women; the physical & hormonal differences of our dimorphic species in terms of sports, propensity for violence, and relative risk from the other sex in vulnerable situations & enclosed spaces; etc.
Shit. I never even knew about that I shouldn't be licking my ice cream cone. I've actually always done it that way because I am inherently thrifty, well frugal. Fine, im and Skinflint. And it makes the cone lasting so much longer than taking big gobbing mouthfuls. Plus it minimizes the ice-cream headache chances. But it's... Feminine? Like reminiscent of licking a phallus I guess? How have I never heard of this. I wonder why I don't recall being called names/slurs for this as a kid? Practically any behaviour whatsoever would illicit F*g from the reptiled brain bullies I grew up around. Some how maybe they didn't get the gay/girly icecream memo either.
He has a problem with men eating soup, too. The blowing 🤷♂️
But I the Daily Beast (paywalled) seems to have evidence that “Mister” Waters is a closet ice cream eater too … so altogether I’m sensing some deep chunkyphobic & dairyphobic projection 🤣
To be fair, why are the male cheerleaders wearing relatively modest tank tops & board shorts while their female counterparts wear crop tops and tight booty shorts? Why are the fans deprived of beefcake?
How about we stop using the term 'gender'? After all, it's a religious term that requires belief that it describes something real because there is literally zero evidence from reality/biology to support it as if a descriptive noun of anything other than a believed-in sexualized yet socially stereotypical category. As such, the term is a weaponized one to the assumed conclusion that it's real, that it refers to the nebulous yet esoteric 'sense' that excuses/justifies/empowers belief it, and accepting it as if useful for a biological/psychological condition by non believers undermines/dismisses-as-bigotry legitimate criticism about what it actually means. We're shooting ourselves by using it.
I think belief in gender is homophobic. And the numbers of young same-sex attracted people feeling discomfort and dysfunction with their natal sex especially in early puberty are a great number of gays and lesbians. They are the ones as data demonstrates to be most willing to undergo sterility and chemical/surgical and physical mutilation accompanied by ongoing medical interventions for life that lends this homophobic label credit.
When we go along with the term 'gender' and use it as if descriptive of something real, we are borrowing the same framing as the Iranian government uses to justify implementing sex-change operations (or death) on gays and lesbians, as if sex/gender attraction is malleable (hence the introduction of transitioning between and therefore choosing). Is same-sex attraction malleable? Are we going from the 90s gay rights movement based on 'Born This Way' to its polar opposite with 'Born In The Wrong Body' and continue to assume that T belongs in the LGB community? How self destructive is that?
We should stop using this deplorable term 'gender' entirely so that those who use it can be seen as the True Believers they are while the rest of replace it with whatever it is we're actually describing in real world rather than by this activist/believer term.
You articulated so well something I've felt in my bones for years now. Ever since we turned "sex" into "gender" and "biological sex" as though 99% of the time the two are the same. I realize some people are actually born with some combination of male/female genitalia. But this is extremely rare and seems like naturally like a condition that should be corrected if possible and as soon as possible for the person's mental and physical well being. Now with the Gender Identitarian Crowd the gender part seems like the only part of "sex and gender" that is even relevant. And I'm sure many of these people are deeply sensitive and well meaning but surely they must see how egotistical and selfish and absurd this all seems to every one else to have it crammed down our throats ? I would say the people I know that hold the most honest sounding, rational ,(and therefore reduced to bigoted) views on all this are immigrants and refugees who are not white. Which of course is ironic. Because the GenderQueerFolx™ claim to wish so badly to have intersectionality and solidarity with those that are actually often reviled, oppressed, and face real discrimination based on something they have no control over (where they or their parents were born and what they look like). And then the cosplayers come in and dare people to look away from their deeply narcissistic seeming fantasy bs
Like our host, many people use the term 'gender' I think without realizing just how significantly they undermine their insightful criticisms of its expression... by granting some level of respectability and legitimacy to an ideology that 1) deserves none, and 2) is contrary to reality. Why do this, except in the name of something other than respecting what's true (perhaps a misguided and misplaced sense of 'kindness' or 'politeness'). When what's true (what can "I feel like the opposite sex" possibly mean?) is of some lesser or secondary concern (even for 'nice' reasons), then one has surrendered that essential common ground. I don't think we should just give this away because that's the only firm ground in the face of a reality-denying ideology on which to stand.
As a football fan myself, I can see how the average NFL viewer is going to roll their eyes at this Vikings cheer squad. But from what I can tell, and from having watched the entire documentary for the Dallas Cowboys cheerleading squad, the squads operate pretty independently from the football organization. They pay almost nothing, and they’re usually choreographed by expert cheer alums who have aged out. These same cheer alums are the ones who select squad members at the try outs. They come from dance backgrounds, and it seems to me that the women on the squad are just really used to working with gay men in that world, and they don’t care about what the football fans prefer. Corporate at Vikings, if they are even paying attention, probably just wants to check off diversity boxes for their image in a woke city, so they are like, is our cheer squad diverse enough? Effeminate gay men check the boxes. Football is a family event for a lot of American families. The cheer squads are a big draw for mostly little girls. This is all obviously some speculation on my part, but I think this is how the Vikings cheer squad came together, with a couple effeminate obviously gay dudes on the squad. The choreographers have chosen to make them less like traditional male cheerleaders who throw and lift the girls, and instead made them dance the same way as the women. It could be possible that these two guys can’t do powerful lifts anyways, they don’t have the strength/ skills. The choreographers are not thinking about what the football fans prefer to see, they are only thinking about how they want it choreographed in their own style, and these women are very accepting of effeminate gay men. They are not thinking about the football fans. If anything, they are only thinking about the girls who want to watch the cheerleading. The cheerleading is a break from the hypermasculine activity on the field. And girls feel comfortable with effeminate gay men. The football fans there for the game action need to understand that the cheerleading isn’t necessarily for them. Especially when the squad is being paid next to nothing.
Yeah, like, when did it stop being okay to be a weirdo. The weirdo who wore black everything, listened to weird music, had stiff spiked hair like peacocks-- those guys were both reviled and celebrated in the 80s and 90s. This forced categorisation of so-called "gender" into stereotypes is what we've been fighting to avoid since the 60s. I was a tomboy. I loved being a tomboy and I loved my Barbie.
Wow Lisa- this is so thought-provoking. My son and I are discussing it on our ride to college and we both came to a similar conclusion as you - it would be nice to not have it be so on, let them go for it, but two other thoughts came up:
- Will this deter girls/women from participating because it inadvertently ’invades’ a women’s team. Similar to when a girl joins the boys football team; it changes the entire dynamic.
- we both feel like it’s totally fine until the ‘sexy’ dance moves. Which prompts the question ‘why the heck are women cheerleaders doing sexy dances?’ We have been desensitized to this over time, and it has the obvious result of increased viewership, but if they stuck with the athletic cheer moves, this would be much easier to accept.
Happy guys shaking pom poms is fine with me as long as they stay out of girls locker rooms and don't take cheer squad spots away from females. If dancing keeps these kids away from hormones and surgeries, and their female teammates feel respected and safe, I'm all for it!
I'd be curious to see the mission statement of the owners who decided on this. I had a good friend who was a cheerleader at Notre Dame way back in the day. There have always been male cheerleaders. Such a fuss.
[Just reread before posting this and want to make sure Lisa or anyone knows I am *not* saying that she is suggesting anyone is required to have a specific moral reaction to Cheergate. These are my musings in reaction to her piece and the story, which I hadn't heard about until just now.]
I do think it’s worth adding for consideration from another angle that this cheerleader is performing a job in an entirely commercial sense. It is obviously up to the owners of these teams to decide whether the investment in a man for this job is a worthwhile one. I see no moral question here, and I think anyone’s individual reaction is entirely reasonable, whether it be positive or negative.
I understand how someone could argue that they get real joy out of watching a man perform in this duty, but an NFL female cheerleader’s job success has historically included a significant component that is rooted in their sexual attractiveness as females. They’re super agile, fit, pretty, etc. Not everyone’s cup of tea, but again, that’s a lot of the exchange of value with the consumer, and the basis of their sexual attractiveness is rooted in their being female. A male performing that job is then definitionally not a fit for a lot of people, particularly many of us prostate-havers, in the same way that a man is definitionally not a lesbian.
I think it's fair to say that this should absolutely be allowed but also totally fair for the market to reject it.
To my thinking, there is no such thing as gender. There’s males and females and either can wear whatever clothes, play whatever games or sports, take whatever school courses or jobs. Activities where either sex creates a physical advantage should be separated by sex. Stores should separate toys by age or activity( ie. Action, science, home life, video and board games , indoor/outdoor etc ) use real life colors not pink and blue etc. Regarding clothes Give everyone POCKETS ! I don’t care if some guys, effeminate or not are on the cheerleading squad as long as they don’t outnumber the women and I would prefer more athletic cheering than sexy, but that’s just my preference.
Im a hetero cis white male™ (boo! Hiss!) who couldn't give a good shit about football. Or conventionally sexy cheerleaders. Or their male equivalents. I wanna see punk and goth girls out there just standing around smoking cigarettes and giving the finger to the players and fans. THAT'S something I'd pay to see .Im sure I can't be the only one. Fuck all these fucking squares gay, straight, or whatever
I wholeheartedly agree with you and with Colin Wright, who had a similar take on this. Effeminate males as cheerleaders don't bother me one bit. They aren't pretending to be female, there are no safety or fairness issues, and, as long as they don't undress in the same locker room, there are no privacy issues. This gives effeminate males a place to shine. It bucks tradition, but in a good way, to expand our notions of what is acceptable behavior from males and females.
I do want to say a very picayune thing, and I don't want to offend or be combative, but I feel like we have to be precise when having these discussions so here goes. When you said "we feared the backlash—not just potentially curtailing youth gender medicine," I am hoping you meant that we feared actual backlash, such as the examples you gave after that, including revoking gay marriage, but that you also meant that curtailing youth gender medicine is a welcome event, not to be feared and not to be characterized as backlash. Rather, it is a rational response to a horrific intervention that should not exist.
Thus, I'm thinking that you meant to say "we feared backlash--we feared that, in addition to rational responses to these policies, including the necessary curtailment of youth gender medicine, we feared things like revoking gay marriage..."
If you actually meant that "just potentially curtailing youth gender medicine" is a form of backlash to fear, I would have to strongly disagree, but I'm guessing I am being way too picky in my reading here.
Actually, the reason thats' in there is because, as usual, I sent this out to newspapers, hoping that I could moderate-language my way in. So "we" is a broad contingent here. And yet, at the same time, I'm not a fan of bans. I think government overreach is scary, whether in the form of forcing gender identity onto people or banning something that the medical community should (SHOULD) have taken care of. But obviously they didn't so...
Anyone who is making the point that people can have any personality characteristics they have, and do any activity they like, and present themselves however they want, and they are still the sex that they are because sex doesn’t depend on those things, is doing good work in my opinion. Dance on, boys!
the brittle reaction to feminine guy cheerleaders is proof enough to me that we don’t know what tf we’re doing by trans’ing kids. holy crap, what ever happened to radical acceptance? we’re demanding that kids’ gender expression match their sex. that’s reactionary, not progressive and it’s a cultural devolution from my 70s childhood when i could wrestle the boys down the street and then pop over to dance and baton lessons.
i hate what we’ve become and i feel so sad for the kids who just need to be left alone.
Thankyou I couldn´t have expressed it better so I won´t.
Whoooo-eeeey. This is more fun than a Texas redistricting fight or a monster truck demolition derby. Pop some Jiffy and get a seat down front. Since cheerleaders are currently constructed as supportive, decorative and sexually available (i.e. female), it stands to reason toxic bros will be triggered by seeing men in this role; however, as long as they never claim to actually BE women, then they are doing the work (whether intentionally or not) of deconstructing gender. How can this be bad? Are men in teaching "taking jobs" from women? Only if you believe in gender stereotypes. The unfortunate truth is, any job grows in clout and value when men choose it. Bring 'em on, I say.
Maybe cheerleaders will get paid more now?
!!
I don’t care if they wave Pom poms and prance but they are not women and should not be given access to women only spaces. Interpretations “male/man” any way you want but keep it real.
I admit... I clicked on the video prepared to hate and judge, expecting something grotesque but it looks totally ok. It's young men and women doing impressive acrobatics, basically. As long as these young men don't pretend to be women and change in their own locker room, what's the big deal?
Pitch perfect for those of us who are *actually* GC 🙏
Well that's a good point. To be critical of gender is to be critical of gender stereotypes, and holding people to them based on sex, right? I think?
Yes, I find the whole concept of gender (not sex!) to be one inextricably tied to stereotypes & domination regimes: for reproductive control, for labour exploitation, for hierarchy maintenance, for enforcing a dogma (religious or otherwise), etc.
Any way you look at it, the idea that people of either sex should be subject to others’ *gendered* expectations is about dictating what others can and can’t do within a particular sociocultural context — invariably, AFAICT, dictated by many of my fellow men who claim some revealed truth:
- God says women should submit the male head of their household/dress modestly/keep their legs closed
- Real men are heterosexual, don’t dress fancy, don’t lick ice cream cones, etc.
-Dolls are for girls/trucks for boys
-Nursing & teaching are professions for women; firefighting & trades for men
-Etc.
By contrast, sex as a biological & material reality actually matters in many contexts: reproductive autonomy for women; the physical & hormonal differences of our dimorphic species in terms of sports, propensity for violence, and relative risk from the other sex in vulnerable situations & enclosed spaces; etc.
#SexMatters
#GenderIsBS
🙏
Shit. I never even knew about that I shouldn't be licking my ice cream cone. I've actually always done it that way because I am inherently thrifty, well frugal. Fine, im and Skinflint. And it makes the cone lasting so much longer than taking big gobbing mouthfuls. Plus it minimizes the ice-cream headache chances. But it's... Feminine? Like reminiscent of licking a phallus I guess? How have I never heard of this. I wonder why I don't recall being called names/slurs for this as a kid? Practically any behaviour whatsoever would illicit F*g from the reptiled brain bullies I grew up around. Some how maybe they didn't get the gay/girly icecream memo either.
Right, a Faux News host.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/fox-news-jesse-watters-biden-ice-cream-b2503669.html#
He has a problem with men eating soup, too. The blowing 🤷♂️
But I the Daily Beast (paywalled) seems to have evidence that “Mister” Waters is a closet ice cream eater too … so altogether I’m sensing some deep chunkyphobic & dairyphobic projection 🤣
Seriously, gender is such a stupid idea.
Lemme see if I can dig up the American weirdo who’s been on about this (my wife shared it with me for a good WTAF a few weeks back).
BRB …
Yes!
Yep
https://shannonthrace.substack.com/p/what-has-happened-to-the-gender-critical
To be fair, why are the male cheerleaders wearing relatively modest tank tops & board shorts while their female counterparts wear crop tops and tight booty shorts? Why are the fans deprived of beefcake?
Thanks. I didn't want to be the only person here whose main comment was that their outfits are bad.
LOL
Bmwahahaha because racism
Sexism, more like. NFL doesn't appreciate that straight women AND gay men watch football! 😆
I've gotta ask, is there a constituency of gay NFL fans to whom they are catering with this squad casting choice?
How about we stop using the term 'gender'? After all, it's a religious term that requires belief that it describes something real because there is literally zero evidence from reality/biology to support it as if a descriptive noun of anything other than a believed-in sexualized yet socially stereotypical category. As such, the term is a weaponized one to the assumed conclusion that it's real, that it refers to the nebulous yet esoteric 'sense' that excuses/justifies/empowers belief it, and accepting it as if useful for a biological/psychological condition by non believers undermines/dismisses-as-bigotry legitimate criticism about what it actually means. We're shooting ourselves by using it.
I think belief in gender is homophobic. And the numbers of young same-sex attracted people feeling discomfort and dysfunction with their natal sex especially in early puberty are a great number of gays and lesbians. They are the ones as data demonstrates to be most willing to undergo sterility and chemical/surgical and physical mutilation accompanied by ongoing medical interventions for life that lends this homophobic label credit.
When we go along with the term 'gender' and use it as if descriptive of something real, we are borrowing the same framing as the Iranian government uses to justify implementing sex-change operations (or death) on gays and lesbians, as if sex/gender attraction is malleable (hence the introduction of transitioning between and therefore choosing). Is same-sex attraction malleable? Are we going from the 90s gay rights movement based on 'Born This Way' to its polar opposite with 'Born In The Wrong Body' and continue to assume that T belongs in the LGB community? How self destructive is that?
We should stop using this deplorable term 'gender' entirely so that those who use it can be seen as the True Believers they are while the rest of replace it with whatever it is we're actually describing in real world rather than by this activist/believer term.
You articulated so well something I've felt in my bones for years now. Ever since we turned "sex" into "gender" and "biological sex" as though 99% of the time the two are the same. I realize some people are actually born with some combination of male/female genitalia. But this is extremely rare and seems like naturally like a condition that should be corrected if possible and as soon as possible for the person's mental and physical well being. Now with the Gender Identitarian Crowd the gender part seems like the only part of "sex and gender" that is even relevant. And I'm sure many of these people are deeply sensitive and well meaning but surely they must see how egotistical and selfish and absurd this all seems to every one else to have it crammed down our throats ? I would say the people I know that hold the most honest sounding, rational ,(and therefore reduced to bigoted) views on all this are immigrants and refugees who are not white. Which of course is ironic. Because the GenderQueerFolx™ claim to wish so badly to have intersectionality and solidarity with those that are actually often reviled, oppressed, and face real discrimination based on something they have no control over (where they or their parents were born and what they look like). And then the cosplayers come in and dare people to look away from their deeply narcissistic seeming fantasy bs
Like our host, many people use the term 'gender' I think without realizing just how significantly they undermine their insightful criticisms of its expression... by granting some level of respectability and legitimacy to an ideology that 1) deserves none, and 2) is contrary to reality. Why do this, except in the name of something other than respecting what's true (perhaps a misguided and misplaced sense of 'kindness' or 'politeness'). When what's true (what can "I feel like the opposite sex" possibly mean?) is of some lesser or secondary concern (even for 'nice' reasons), then one has surrendered that essential common ground. I don't think we should just give this away because that's the only firm ground in the face of a reality-denying ideology on which to stand.
As a football fan myself, I can see how the average NFL viewer is going to roll their eyes at this Vikings cheer squad. But from what I can tell, and from having watched the entire documentary for the Dallas Cowboys cheerleading squad, the squads operate pretty independently from the football organization. They pay almost nothing, and they’re usually choreographed by expert cheer alums who have aged out. These same cheer alums are the ones who select squad members at the try outs. They come from dance backgrounds, and it seems to me that the women on the squad are just really used to working with gay men in that world, and they don’t care about what the football fans prefer. Corporate at Vikings, if they are even paying attention, probably just wants to check off diversity boxes for their image in a woke city, so they are like, is our cheer squad diverse enough? Effeminate gay men check the boxes. Football is a family event for a lot of American families. The cheer squads are a big draw for mostly little girls. This is all obviously some speculation on my part, but I think this is how the Vikings cheer squad came together, with a couple effeminate obviously gay dudes on the squad. The choreographers have chosen to make them less like traditional male cheerleaders who throw and lift the girls, and instead made them dance the same way as the women. It could be possible that these two guys can’t do powerful lifts anyways, they don’t have the strength/ skills. The choreographers are not thinking about what the football fans prefer to see, they are only thinking about how they want it choreographed in their own style, and these women are very accepting of effeminate gay men. They are not thinking about the football fans. If anything, they are only thinking about the girls who want to watch the cheerleading. The cheerleading is a break from the hypermasculine activity on the field. And girls feel comfortable with effeminate gay men. The football fans there for the game action need to understand that the cheerleading isn’t necessarily for them. Especially when the squad is being paid next to nothing.
Yeah, like, when did it stop being okay to be a weirdo. The weirdo who wore black everything, listened to weird music, had stiff spiked hair like peacocks-- those guys were both reviled and celebrated in the 80s and 90s. This forced categorisation of so-called "gender" into stereotypes is what we've been fighting to avoid since the 60s. I was a tomboy. I loved being a tomboy and I loved my Barbie.
Wow Lisa- this is so thought-provoking. My son and I are discussing it on our ride to college and we both came to a similar conclusion as you - it would be nice to not have it be so on, let them go for it, but two other thoughts came up:
- Will this deter girls/women from participating because it inadvertently ’invades’ a women’s team. Similar to when a girl joins the boys football team; it changes the entire dynamic.
- we both feel like it’s totally fine until the ‘sexy’ dance moves. Which prompts the question ‘why the heck are women cheerleaders doing sexy dances?’ We have been desensitized to this over time, and it has the obvious result of increased viewership, but if they stuck with the athletic cheer moves, this would be much easier to accept.
As always, thank you for your work.
Well, yes, that's another issue. The whole thing is porn-ish, but as long as it's just women, no uproar.
Happy guys shaking pom poms is fine with me as long as they stay out of girls locker rooms and don't take cheer squad spots away from females. If dancing keeps these kids away from hormones and surgeries, and their female teammates feel respected and safe, I'm all for it!
I'd be curious to see the mission statement of the owners who decided on this. I had a good friend who was a cheerleader at Notre Dame way back in the day. There have always been male cheerleaders. Such a fuss.
No one’s fussing
[Just reread before posting this and want to make sure Lisa or anyone knows I am *not* saying that she is suggesting anyone is required to have a specific moral reaction to Cheergate. These are my musings in reaction to her piece and the story, which I hadn't heard about until just now.]
I do think it’s worth adding for consideration from another angle that this cheerleader is performing a job in an entirely commercial sense. It is obviously up to the owners of these teams to decide whether the investment in a man for this job is a worthwhile one. I see no moral question here, and I think anyone’s individual reaction is entirely reasonable, whether it be positive or negative.
I understand how someone could argue that they get real joy out of watching a man perform in this duty, but an NFL female cheerleader’s job success has historically included a significant component that is rooted in their sexual attractiveness as females. They’re super agile, fit, pretty, etc. Not everyone’s cup of tea, but again, that’s a lot of the exchange of value with the consumer, and the basis of their sexual attractiveness is rooted in their being female. A male performing that job is then definitionally not a fit for a lot of people, particularly many of us prostate-havers, in the same way that a man is definitionally not a lesbian.
I think it's fair to say that this should absolutely be allowed but also totally fair for the market to reject it.
Makes a lot of sense. But also: very strange commercial decision! Unless they did some market polling we don't know about...
To my thinking, there is no such thing as gender. There’s males and females and either can wear whatever clothes, play whatever games or sports, take whatever school courses or jobs. Activities where either sex creates a physical advantage should be separated by sex. Stores should separate toys by age or activity( ie. Action, science, home life, video and board games , indoor/outdoor etc ) use real life colors not pink and blue etc. Regarding clothes Give everyone POCKETS ! I don’t care if some guys, effeminate or not are on the cheerleading squad as long as they don’t outnumber the women and I would prefer more athletic cheering than sexy, but that’s just my preference.
💯
Especially the pockets!!!
Im a hetero cis white male™ (boo! Hiss!) who couldn't give a good shit about football. Or conventionally sexy cheerleaders. Or their male equivalents. I wanna see punk and goth girls out there just standing around smoking cigarettes and giving the finger to the players and fans. THAT'S something I'd pay to see .Im sure I can't be the only one. Fuck all these fucking squares gay, straight, or whatever
I wholeheartedly agree with you and with Colin Wright, who had a similar take on this. Effeminate males as cheerleaders don't bother me one bit. They aren't pretending to be female, there are no safety or fairness issues, and, as long as they don't undress in the same locker room, there are no privacy issues. This gives effeminate males a place to shine. It bucks tradition, but in a good way, to expand our notions of what is acceptable behavior from males and females.
I do want to say a very picayune thing, and I don't want to offend or be combative, but I feel like we have to be precise when having these discussions so here goes. When you said "we feared the backlash—not just potentially curtailing youth gender medicine," I am hoping you meant that we feared actual backlash, such as the examples you gave after that, including revoking gay marriage, but that you also meant that curtailing youth gender medicine is a welcome event, not to be feared and not to be characterized as backlash. Rather, it is a rational response to a horrific intervention that should not exist.
Thus, I'm thinking that you meant to say "we feared backlash--we feared that, in addition to rational responses to these policies, including the necessary curtailment of youth gender medicine, we feared things like revoking gay marriage..."
If you actually meant that "just potentially curtailing youth gender medicine" is a form of backlash to fear, I would have to strongly disagree, but I'm guessing I am being way too picky in my reading here.
Actually, the reason thats' in there is because, as usual, I sent this out to newspapers, hoping that I could moderate-language my way in. So "we" is a broad contingent here. And yet, at the same time, I'm not a fan of bans. I think government overreach is scary, whether in the form of forcing gender identity onto people or banning something that the medical community should (SHOULD) have taken care of. But obviously they didn't so...
Yeah. I understand that.
Anyone who is making the point that people can have any personality characteristics they have, and do any activity they like, and present themselves however they want, and they are still the sex that they are because sex doesn’t depend on those things, is doing good work in my opinion. Dance on, boys!