Just Stop.

I keep getting tagged by various people on different sides of the raging dumpster fire that is the most recent J.K. Rowling controversy. I had hoped to avoid friendly fire by keeping my head down, but it looks like I'm going to get fragged regardless, so as Capt. Harris in Platoon said as he called an airstrike on his position, “It's a lovely fucking war.” So buckle up, buttercups, it's Danger Close time. 

Here's the TL;DR version: both sides are being asses and you should really stop hurting the people you say are your friends. The end. 

Much, much longer version: while a lot of you see this as “Free Speech vs. Censorship” and another lot of you see this as “Supporting Transwomen vs. Transphobia”, from my perspective this is all a case of everyone saying “My preferred method of harassing people with whom I disagree is the only morally correct method.”

This is about the point where I expect people to stop reading, because attention spans and reading comprehension in this era have cratered, which is part of the reason why we're in this omnishambles to begin with. So let's tackle this and find out who reads to the end, shall we?

I believe very strongly in free speech, as it's one of the cornerstones of my culture and one of the first Rights listed in the U.S. Constitution. I believe that speech should only be restricted in very narrow and well-defined circumstances which provably harm others (slander/libel, acts of treason, breaking legally-binding contracts, pornography without the consent of the depicted, etc.). This restriction is critical, because the more the government interferes with our rights, the more we lose. See also: the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, and so forth. 

I also believe that deliberately misgendering and deadnaming transgender and nonbinary people is incredibly rude, right up there with calling them a racial, sexual, or religious epithet. It shouldn't be tolerated in polite society, and the offender should suffer the full effects of social pressure and censure. As the saying goes, “Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence.”

However, please note that I didn't call for governmental pressure, be it penalties, censorship, or prosecution. The last time I checked, hate speech is still free speech protected by the First Amendment, and while I find hate speech abhorrent, I would rather it be out in the open so that I know who my enemies are rather than have it be hidden and spoken behind my back. I further believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that instead of censoring and deplatforming the people who say and do things I don't like, I practice my freedom of association by choosing to stop associating with them. I unfriend them, block them, stop frequenting their sites, etc. and I try to get on with my life. I am not perfect at this, for I am human and therefore flawed, but this is the principle which guides me. 

Now just because I support Rowling’s right (inasmuch as she is a British subject and not an American citizen, and the UK doesn’t recognize the right to free expression the way we do) to speak her mind and don’t wish her to be jailed for that, please do not for one moment think that I endorse what she says. Regardless of how it started and however she arrived at her current position, it remains that she is using her fame to spread her belief that all transwomen are abusers who seek to invade, to violate, to assault and destroy other women, and when you amplify her words and support her position you are sending a very strong message to the transgender and nonbinary people in your life. Unfortunately, that message is “I see you as Rowling sees you.” I and many others feel betrayed by that. How can you look at me and tell me you agree that I am only doing this in order to abuse and harm women? That is just as hurtful, and just as honest, as saying “Anyone with a penis is either a rapist or someone waiting to rape” or “Anyone who owns a gun is either a murderer or someone who wants to murder.”

So if you are pro-free speech, please consider the effect your words and actions will have on me, and your friends and family like me, before you voice your support of Rowling, because you are likely hurting us when you do that. 

And if you are pro-censorship, please consider that hate is like mold: it thrives in dark places but cannot flourish in the light. Suppressing an idea only sends the message that you fear it, so let your enemies reveal themselves and mock them instead of silencing them. And please, for the love of all you hold dear, don't ask the government to tread even more on free speech. 

If you have read this far, thank you. I hope I have explained my position clearly, because I have no desire to revisit this topic. If you have any respect for me, please don’t turn this into a fight, and by the same token please don’t tag me in future arguments on other peoples’ walls or pages because after a year of this crap I’m just exhausted. I just want to live my life while advocating for everyone to have the same rights as everyone else. Thank you.

What Fresh Hell is This?

I don't want to be told that my concerns about the Government making it illegal to be transgender are hyperbole ever again.

 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Erin Reed (@erininthemorning)

Here is the full article, and here is the full audio recording.

If you think I'm overreacting by being concerned that elements of Big Government are actively scheming to prevent adults from exercising their body autonomy, then let me remind you of all the problems we still have today as a result of a similar moral panic which occurred over 100 years ago. Prohibition, aka "How dare adults have the ability to decide whether or not they can get drunk," gave us the following:

• The creation and subsequent militarization of the ATF, aka "the Revenuers";
• Organized crime, which was created to smuggle and distribute prohibited alcohol;
• The War on Drugs, aka Prohibition 2.0, because when the Volstead Act was repealed organized crime pivoted to the next profitable thing;
• Gang culture and violence, an outgrowth of both organized crime and the war on drugs;
• the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was the result of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre of 1929, and which was not only the first attempt at national Firearm Prohibition but also led to further infringements upon the Second Amendment like the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of 1986, and so forth. 

So no, do not attempt to tell me that another government attempt to control grown-ass adults who aren't harming anyone (except, arguably, themselves) won't end up the same way. 

I say "arguably" above because while I don't believe that transition harms anyone, even if it did, what business is it of yours? Grown-ass adults have the right to do unhealthy things to their bodies. It's why we allow them to smoke and to drink alcohol. So long as you aren't hurting another person through your actions, such as driving while impaired, what you do to your own body in the privacy if your home is your business and not mine and definitely not the Government's. If you believe otherwise, then understand that you are saying it's the right of the Government to declare what actions are unhealthy for you to take and forbid you from taking them, and by the same token that Government can compel you to take actions which they deem as healthy. Do you want compulsory Covid-19 jabs? Because that line of reasoning is how you get compulsory Covid-19 jabs. So if you want to get drunk, eat junk food, get high, get a tattoo, get cosmetic surgery... hell, if you want to amputate a limb... it's your right as an adult to choose to have that done. It's also your right (and duty) as an adult to deal with the consequences of that choice. That's what freedom is: the right to make choices, even bad ones. If you want to be protected from the results of your choices, then you don't want freedom, you want a parent. 

Finally, I'm going to address the elephant in the room of "people who are mentally ill cannot give consent to gender transition": if an adult is so mentally ill that they cannot give consent to what happens to their bodies, then that adult cannot give any other kind of consent (financial, sexual, legal, etc.) and should be declared non compos mentis via due process and either assigned a legal guardian or institutionalized. Without this due process, depriving an adult of access to transition resources is the medical version of issuing an Extreme Risk Protection Order (aka a "Red Flag"). An ERPO is what is issued when someone thinks another person is a threat to themselves or others and alerts the authorities who, instead of getting that other person the help they need, just seize that person's firearms -- in other words, arresting the tools they use because they might do something wrong with them, while still leaving them free to harm themselves or others via different means. Put bluntly, that's either magical thinking or virtue signaling, because it doesn't at all address the problem which this law is purported to prevent. 

Having said that, I would not be surprised in the slightest if the next tactic chosen in Transgender Prohibition is having us declared mentally unfit. If that happens, keep in mind that "not obeying the government" can be diagnosed as Oppositional Defiance Disorder, which means that after the Prohibitionists are done with declaring transgender people mentally ill, they can come after anyone who speaks out against the government. The Soviet Union weaponized psychology by declaring their dissidents mentally ill, and if you don't think that can happen here, then just watch during this election season as both sides trot out the predictable "studies" claiming that conservatives/liberals have a lower IQ and a higher incidence of pathology than their opponents. 

To summarize:

1. Prohibition always makes things worse.
2. Always look for second and third-order effects. 
3. Don't allow the government to exercise against others any powers which you wouldn't want your opponents to use against you, because your side won't always be in control. 
4. Let grown-ass adults do what they like to themselves so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. 
5. Mind your own freaking business. 

Addendum

Speaking of moral panics, I've lived through a lot of them. Here are the ones I know about, off the top of my head:

• the Salem Witch Trials
• Prohibition/the Temperance Movement
• Reefer Madness/War on Drugs
• True Crime & Horror Comics corrupting our children
• Rock & Roll is corrupting our children
• the Dungeons & Dragons Satanic Panic
• Subliminal Messages/Satanic Backwards Lyrics
• Explicit Lyrics aka Tipper Gore's crusade
• "If it saves just one life" Gun Control
• "The Gothic Movement"
• Transgender Prohibition

I'm certain I've missed some.

What do they all have in common? Well, if it's not already obvious, then Jon Hamm has a handy presentation for you.

 

Canaries in the Gun Rights Coal Mine

Queer people are the canaries in the Gun Rights coal mine, and those alleged conservatives who are pushing to deprive us of our Second Amendment rights without due process are sawing off the branch upon which they sit.

You see, it follows a simple formula:

1. 1. Gender dysphoria is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition, aka the DSM-V, a reference book on mental health and brain-related conditions and disorders.  [1]
   2. The general public believes that if you suffer from any of the conditions listed in the DSM-V, you are mentally ill in the "unstable, likely crazy" sense.
   3. "The mentally ill shouldn't have guns" is a common rallying cry on both sides of the political spectrum.  [2]
   4. Therefore, since transgender people "are crazy", they shouldn't have guns and that means stripping them of their Second Amendment rights without due process "for the greater good."  [3]
   5. However, once that precedent is established, things only get worse. The next people to be stripped of their 2A rights are veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, because that's in the DSM-V as well. After that is likely to be people with depression because "they're a suicide risk", after that is likely people with anxiety or perhaps ADHD, and so on.
   6. The coup de grace against the Second Amendment comes as an emboldened federal government, with the weight of precedent behind it, declares that anyone who distrusts and defies the authority of the government clearly has Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), which is listed in the DSM-V, just like Gender Dysphoria. ODD manifests as anger and defiance toward authority figures, and after the past three years there are an awful lot of folks who fit that bill. Since ODD is in the DSM-V, that means anyone who mistrusts and opposes the government is mentally ill, and therefore "should be denied their Second Amendment rights for the good of all."
   7. I expect some people are thinking "Weaponized psychiatry can't be used against people like that." Well, it's what some folks are calling for right now, even some people in government, so don't be so sure.  [4]

The Second Amendment applies to everyone, not just those on your political side. If you enable the government to strip rights from people you don't like, then that tactic will eventually be used against you when the party in power switches; but as long as the weird outsiders have Second Amendment rights, the mainstream is safe.

Keep your canaries safe, folks.

[1] Gender dysphoria is listed in the DSM-V for the same reason PTSD, depression, anxiety, impotence and others are: so that insurance will cover their treatment such as counseling, hormone therapy, and surgery.

[2] This is wholly separate from the unfortunately common belief among hoplophobes and firearm prohibitionists that merely wanting to own a gun is a sign of mental illness ("because why else would you want to own a murder weapon?") and is therefore a disqualification. 

[3] The combined diagnoses of the DSM-V apply to millions of Americans. Before the age of 75, 31% of Americans are estimated to suffer from an anxiety disorder and 21.4% from any mood disorder. That's 103 million and 71 million Americans, respectively. 

[4] There is a long, sad history of weaponized psychiatry against queer people. Homosexuality was listed as a disorder in the DSM-I (1951), and was only removed in the DSM-II (1973).

Beware the Curbstomps of March

This has been a rough month for me. March has stabbed me in the back, knocked me down, and kicked me such that the only thing I've been able to do is cover my head and try to survive. I'm honestly surprised I've made it this far, but that's mainly because I have skipped out on a lot of my duties, avoiding social media when possible, and practicing as much self care as I can. 

So because writing makes me feel better, and because I want to feel like I've accomplished something today, let's take a look at the highlight reel from March Maliciousness. 

It started with the 2023 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), March 1-4. I covered the very worst parts of it in my post titled A Little Knowles is a Dangerous Thing, but just to be clear I want to point out that most of CPAC 2023's theme was villainizing transgender people. Now, I've said before (and will say again) that we can have productive and necessary conversations about topics like "At what age do children have bodily autonomy?" and "Should transgender athletes compete in sports?" because these are topics without easy answers that will require difficult solutions. (Sadly, most people want cookie-cutter solutions that can be implemented without having to think about them, which is a problem because people aren't uniform dough, we are complex and unique entities and what works for one person won't work for another.) However, CPAC went far beyond that and dove headfirst into "Let's make it illegal for grown adults, who aren't hurting anyone, to find comfort in their own skin and within society."

The next week there was the Jeremy's Chocolates debacle, wherein Jeremy Boreing took exception to Hershey for having a trans woman featured in one of their commercials for their International Women's Day Her/She (get it? Hershey, Her/She?) and threw a big ol' fit about it and decided to sell his own overpriced chocolates to compete against Hershey. Now, this is important for two reasons:

1. A lot of my conservative friends thought this was the Best Thing Ever and were laughing about how Jeremy was "owning the libs" by saying things which mocked and denigrated trans women. The fact that they didn't realize they were mocking and denigrating me, and therefore hurting me, didn't seem to register with them. 
2. Jeremy Boreing owns The Daily Wire, which airs Michael Knowles' show, as well as the shows of other anti-trans pundits like Adam Walsh. So by spreading the message of this commercial, and by buying these chocolates, these friends were directly funding people who hate me and want me back in the closet or in prison. 

I asked people not to do this. I pleaded with them to please consider Rule 4 ("Be aware of your target and what is behind it") as it pertains to online virtue signaling. I cried as I received friendly fire from people who I thought liked me, respected me, even loved me. I wept as they treated me like I was acceptable collateral damage in this bullshit culture war that has now politicized chocolate, of all things. 

Either they didn't hear me or they didn't care, for they kept doing it. So I started unfriending them, because people who hurt me for laughs or for political points or who just don't care aren't my friends. At this point I've jettisoned close to a hundred people, and it seems like every few days another one says something hurtful. The very worst of them was when a friend of over a decade, with whom I have been very close, posted a link to a Not The Bee article about how transwomen are a threat to women by invading their private spaces and generally painted us all as vile sexual predators. 

About the only good thing to come out of all this, and it's a tiny silver thread in this otherwise very dark cloud, is that some friends have reached out to me and let me know that they love me and they will support, protect, and defend me if things in this country become as bad as it looks like they will. That kindness resulted in my ...By Other Means post and this accompanying graphic:

If you have transgender people you care about, they're probably scared and hurting from the events of the past month. Reach out to them with this sentiment to let them know that they can rely on you. pic.twitter.com/8dYPCvAf5X

— Pink Pistols National (@PinkPistols) March 25, 2023

... and then Some Asshole, who was transgender, shot up a school. 

http://nonadventures.com/2015/06/20/the-some-of-all-fears/

I think I've established my bona fides over 16 years of blogging that I loathe mass-murdering fuckheads and would have gladly given my life to stop this fuckhead if I'd been there. I also like to think that my readers know me well enough that I'm not going to defend said fuckhead just because said fuckhead is transgender. Trans people are still people, and people can be awful regardless of other characteristics (except maybe people with Down's Syndrome. I've never met one who wasn't sweet and kind). 

Unfortunately not everyone in the world reads this blog and therefore doesn't know me, so the picture which was made for the above post and which was spread across social media on March 26th made it look like I, the Pink Pistols, and Operation Blazing Sword were defending the mass murdering fuckhead on March 27th. I guess I'm lucky that I didn't post it to the OBS website because that would have been worse. 

For the record, I didn't delete the social media posts, because that would look like we were ashamed of the sentiment and I'm not. It's still true. But we have had to clarify things. I made this post on the 28th which seems to have been sufficient for all but the most obtuse:

Erin Palette here, speaking in official capacity as President of Operation Blazing Sword and National Coordinator of the Pink Pistols.

I emphasize, in the strongest terms possible, that our organizations are defensive and only defensive.

— Pink Pistols National (@PinkPistols) March 28, 2023

Part 2
I denounce, in the strongest terms possible, any offensive actions taken in our name

We are not vigilantes. We are not a militia. We are not a mob howling for blood.

We do NOT act out of vengeance. We act only in defense.

— Pink Pistols National (@PinkPistols) March 28, 2023

So all of this week I've been getting it from both sides. The anti-transgender right is making damned good use of this anti-trans sentiment by declaring us all mentally ill and therefore we shouldn't be allowed to own firearms because we're all sick deviant perverts, while the anti-gun left is doing their usual song and dance about how anyone who owns a gun has blood on their hands and we're all facilitating a cycle of violence and so forth. 

Agitating for the removal of a Constitutionally-guaranteed right without any due process is certainly a spicy take, but it's definitely not a Conservative one. In their haste to infringe upon the rights of a demographic they find icky they haven't realized that this same tactic can be used against them when the Left controls Congress and, just as an example, decides that since Oppositional Defiant Disorder is in the DSM, anyone who distrusts and defies the authority of the government clearly has ODD and is therefore mentally ill, meaning they should be denied their Second Amendment rights for "the good of all."

Meanwhile, the Liberal gun prohibitionists don't seem to realize that the ugly, hateful statements they make about gun owners are exactly the same kind of ugly, hateful declarations being made about transgender people, and that they think one is good and they other is bad when in fact they're both awful vitriol that accomplishes nothing except starting a fight and moving us all further away from finding common ground, which is "Murder is bad regardless of who does it, and we should find ways to save lives without punishing the innocent."

You've heard of "The Man Without a Country"? Well, I'm a woman without a political party:

• The left wants my body dead because I own guns. 
• The right wants my soul dead because I'm trans. 
• The libertarians, god bless them, are incapable of being elected dogcatcher. 

This results in me having no competent representation to defend my rights against the federal leviathan.

It feels like I'm stuck in a Michael Moorcock novel, witnessing the stereotypical struggle between Law and Chaos, and Chaos is currently winning. And I don't mean the bright, fun chaos of spontaneous creation and whimsy; I mean the brutal, destructive, churning chaos where nothing can live because there's no stability that is conducive to life. 

This is already really long and I'm not even up to this past week, so I'm going to end this for now and continue it in part 2 where I talk about our house's mold problem. Sigh. 

...By Other Means

"Have you seen [the latest anti-trans awful thing] by [media pundit], Erin?" 

No I have not, and at this point I will actively resist doing so. This entire month has been brutal for transgender folk, and I have been the recipient of several stabs in the back. Therefore, in order to practice self-care, I'm not going to read/watch/listen to whatever dehumanizing garbage comes out of DC or the media. The only thing I plan to do is add the speakers to my growing list of people to keep an eye on, because I pay attention when people tell me that they mean to do me harm. 

If you have transgender loved ones, they're probably scared and hurting from the events of the past month. I encourage you to contact them and tell them what a dear friend of mine told me last week, which I have turned into an image for easy sharing across social media, to let them know that they can rely on you:

A friend of mine responded thus on Facebook:

Every time I hear some social conservative bring up the "pedophile" argument.... I'm reminded of institutions like the Catholic Church, and Boy Scouts of America, or the Duggar boy now in prison for possession of child pornography (after years of red flags his family glossed over) which espoused for years heavily socially conservative values, which had their own sex abuse of children scandals....

It's almost as if we need to remind people that trusting people based solely on group affiliation is a bad idea. The whole "in grouping" and "out grouping" is not rational thinking, but fear based emotions, mainly because Heinlein observed, people aren't rational animals, but animals that rationalize.

I see you, I support you, and I hope and pray that you remember that the people sending hate your way simply can't be reasoned with, because they didn't reason themselves into their stance.

That last sentence is an echo of a quote attributed to Jonathan Swift: “You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.” In other words, if someone arrived at a belief out of emotion, then you can't change their minds through persuasive argument. 

I believe Clausewitz had something to say on that topic. 

A Little Knowles is a Dangerous Thing

Michael J. Knowles, speaking at CPAC 2023, stated that "Transgenderism must be eradicated." It's on the video embedded below, and that statement has been quoted by both conservative and liberal websites. Knowles later weasel-worded his statement by saying that he's not calling for genocide, because "genocide refers to genes."

If you know me, you know that I have strong feelings about this position. I'm going to leave the "Being transgender is not an ism" rant for another day so that I can concentrate on the larger picture here. 

First, Knowles is calling for the eradication of everything that allows transgender people to become whole, which is a murder of soul if not of body. We will kindly be allowed to live... so long as we crawl back into the closet and stay there for his comfort, and to hell with what that does to the quality of our lives. 

Second, what he's calling for can be rounded up to genocide -- or democide, if you're feeling pedantic -- because once being transgender is made illegal, the two choices a trans person has are:

1. Comply and only dress and present as the sex assigned on your birth certificate, which effectively eliminates all trans people from society, or
2. Refuse to comply and face potentially lethal response, because all laws are ultimately enforced at the barrel of a law enforcement officer's firearm. 

Third, can you imagine the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth if a liberal pundit had declared that "conservatism must be eradicated"? The Republicans would condemn it as hate speech and an existential threat to them. 

I never thought I would see the day when someone would call for an end to my way of life at a political convention, nor did I think they'd be cheered for it, yet here we are. This feels very much like a testing of the waters; by having a media pundit say it instead of a politician, CPAC could have disavowed Knowles' statements as "not representative of our positions" if the crowd reacted poorly. But the audience cheered and clapped, which many if not most conservatives will interpret as broad support for such actions. 

By the way, just in case you think this might have been a one-off situation, here's Michael Knowles saying similar things. 

"Be normal."  How privileged can you get? And I hate how the term privilege has been distorted and over-used, so when I use it that's saying something. 

It's simply shocking to me to see someone, but especially a media pundit, who is so expressly against the First Amendment that he wants to bring back laws forbidding self-expression that harms no one. 

He's not even talking about transgender children; he's talking about forbidding adults of legal age from dressing and acting as they want. What happened to GOP being the party of the Constitution? 

"We have a duty to express our sex in the correct way." This is not a political argument; this is a religious argument. Well, so much for separation of Church and State. And nothing bad has ever happened when the government legislates religious purity, has it?

Do you remember the origin of the pink triangle, Mr. Knowles? Because we do. And we won't ever let that happen again. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badge

Armed transgender people don't get bashed, Mr. Knowles. We will NOT go back into the closet for your benefit, nor will we allow you to take away our liberties without a fight. 

To anyone who plans to enforce this: stack up and send expendable goons, because they aren't coming back. Give me liberty, or I will give you death.

Odds and Sods

 I'm trying to get back into the habit of posting here, I promise. 

I have a Linktree! For those who don't know, a Linktree is a page of links to other pages so that it's easier to follow someone who is active across different platforms. Mine has links to Operation Blazing Sword, Pink Pistols, the Assorted Calibers Podcast, Blue Collar Prepping and of course this blog and my Facebook page. Please tell me what you think of it; I went for a design that could be described as "whimsical", mainly because all the allegedly "professional" designs were deadly dull and I wanted a bit of color. 

I've been interviewed again! From the interviewer's Facebook page:

I am looking to interview trans people who are liberty focused, conservative, religious, rural, egalitarian, apolitical, skeptical, individualist, independent, contrarian, objectivist, classic liberal, anarchist, capitalist, mutualist, voluntaryist, moderate, centrist or have a mix of right/left views. Interviews are for a video series that I'm currently posting to YouTube. 

[...] 

I love talking to people about politics and their identity. I'd really like to have some thoughtful conversations about political, religious, and cultural issues from a various perspectives. The purpose of my independent project is to highlight the diversity of thought, political affiliations and opinions among trans people. 

From my perspective the series seems to be "Let's talk to transgender people who have opinions that are very different from the views most transgender people have." As you'd expect, I spoke about the importance of armed self defense and the Second Amendment. 

If you're a fan of my interviews and appearances then there really isn't anything new here for you to see. However, as my biggest fan Weerd Beard says, "I love going to concerts where my favorite bands play songs I've heard hundreds of times before!", so here you go. 

There was going to be a third point here about Pride Month but honestly I'm just DONE with everything about it and we aren't even halfway through it yet. 

Finally, I hope to be at LibertyCon this weekend. If you see me there, come say hi!

Stop. You're Hurting Me.

I hate that I have to say this, but apparently I do:

• Every time you point at a transwoman and say "That's a man!", you do it to me. 
• Every time you mock a transperson for not being attractive enough, you mock me. 
• Every time you body-shame a transperson who is trying to find peace inside their own skin, you body-shame me. 

We can have all sorts of productive and necessary discussions on such subjects as How young is too young to start hormone replacement therapy? or How do we solve the dilemma of biological males dominating girls' sports?, and I welcome those discussions. 

But if your first impulse is to quote Austin Powers, STOP. You are hurting people. You are hurting me.

Now I realize some of you are wondering Why do you care what other people think? or They want to hurt you, why are you letting them know they're succeeding? and I need to tell you that I'm not doing this for me. I'm doing this because I have people who are (or at least claim to be) my friends who are nevertheless making cruel anti-trans comments on social media. My judgement is that if I say "You shouldn't do this, it's not right" then they aren't likely to listen to me, because no one likes to be lectured on morality. 

However, if I say "You say you are my friend. Every time you do this, you hurt me. Please stop hurting me," then hopefully, they will see the consequences of their actions as it affects someone they know and will stop doing it. If they still won't stop, then they've just proven they aren't really my friends anyway, and I can remove them from my life with the fist of an angry god. 

In conclusion, because most of the hardest-core anti-transgender people are Christian, I leave you with the words of Jesus Christ Himself:

Matthew 25:31-46: The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Why I Prefer 'Queer' to 'LGBTQ'

I like the word queer and I give you all permission to say it. Yes, even the straight folks.

I want you all to say queer because saying LGBTQ is awkward. I can do it smoothly because I've practiced, but a lot of people have trouble with it because it's literally a mouthful of consonants. It's difficult to work into a sentence, especially if you trip over it when speaking. 

I also like queer because the current hotness dictates that LGBTQ is not inclusive enough and that we must add more letters. The last time I checked, and this could have changed, is LGBTTQQIIAP2S+: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Ally, Asexual, Pansexual, Two Spirit, and the plus is for "everything else we might have missed." As you can expect, this just rolls off the tongue in casual conversation. [/sarcasm]

I don't like this term. I don't like it because it's unpronounceable, I don't like it because it's awkward, and I don't like it because people won't use it. We are a culture who has literally said "It's too much effort to say I am so we're going to say I'm instead," so what makes you think anyone is going to take the time to spell out an acronym of 12 or more letters?

In order to be welcomed and accepted and included and listened to, we need to make it easier, not harder to talk about us. I want people to be able to talk about me and people like me, because the moment they stop talking about us is the moment our voices are no longer heard, and silence = death. 

And so I want to encourage you and everyone else to use the word queer for the following reasons:

• It's an actual word. We already know what it means and we already know how to say it. 
• It's a single syllable, making it very easy to say. 
• It's a nice umbrella term. Q already exists in LGBTQ, and it already means "an umbrella term to be more inclusive of the many identities and variations that make up the LGBTQ+ community." Why do we need anything more?

My problem with using all of those letters instead of the collective "queer" is that in an attempt to be inclusionary, we further exclude people. LGBTTQQIAAP2S+ has 14 characters, but I can already see some gaps. 

• What about people who feel like they have no gender? We should add another A to that list for Agender. 
• What about those whose gender identities change on a regular basis? We need another G for Genderfluid. 
• What about Demisexuals and Demiromantics? We should add two more Ds to the list. 

Just off the top of my head, we're up to LGGBTTQQIAAAP2SDD+, and I can guarantee you that's not the end of it. I call this inclusionary exclusion because the more letters that get added, the more people will say "Everyone else has their own letter, I need one too!" and we end up fighting over labels and who goes into which labeled box. We end up divided, with each faction willing to tear down the others instead of working as a group to uplift us all. 

No. I say We Are All Queer, because unity is more important than labels. 

Now, I understand the people of a certain generation have a problem saying queer because in their time it was an insult, a word of hate. I sympathize with that, and I'm not going to force people to use it. But I also feel quite strongly that it's the duty of certain minorities to reclaim hurtful words and make them words of power. 

As an example, I am a transwoman and I adore the word tranny. It's hilarious to me, although I couldn't tell you why; it just is. More importantly, though, that word has no power over me because I think it's funny. It's as powerless as a child taunting a straight man by saying "You like kissing girls!"  Well yes, little boy, he certainly does and there's nothing wrong with that, and perhaps one day you'll like kissing girls too. 

I acknowledge that just because the word isn't hurtful to me doesn't mean it's not hurtful to others, so I am certainly not going to call another transgender person tranny because it might hurt them and I don't want that. When I use it to describe myself, however, I rob it of its hurtful power over me and perhaps over over people as well, because those who would use it to harm may hear me say it about myself and think, "If she's using that term, then it must not be an insult anymore" and they lose that arrow from their quiver.

That's why I use queer, and I encourage everyone to use it. I say that you can say it. If anyone gives you problems, send them to me and I'll set them straight... or set them queer, as the case may be. 

My Rally for Your 2A Rights speech

In case you weren't able to watch our Virtual Rally last Saturday, here's the video! It's cued up to where I speak, and there is a transcript of my speech below. 

 

Hello! My name is Erin Palette, the National Coordinator of the Pink Pistols and the founder of Operation Blazing Sword. The Pink Pistols were founded in July 2000, and its philosophy is “Armed Queers Don’t Get Bashed.” I founded Operation Blazing Sword the day after the 2016 Pulse Massacre to facilitate firearms education for gun-curious queer people who wanted a gun for self-defense but didn’t feel comfortable going to gun stores or shooting ranges. Both organizations merged in 2018, which makes us the largest pro-gun queer group in the United States, if not the world.

It may come as a surprise to some people that I am queer and support the Second Amendment. But how can I not? According to a study by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, as many as 25% of all queer people are victims of hate-based violence. In fact, 60% of all hate violence in 2017 was against queer people! If the Pulse Massacre taught us anything, it’s that we are no longer hated as individuals by those who wish to do us harm -- we’re hated as an entire demographic. We can no longer make excuses that a victim of hate violence was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or made a pass at a homophobe; instead, it is obvious that who want us dead are willing to seek us out to make that happen. 

In any emergency which affects us, we are our own first responders. I don’t carry a tourniquet because I think I’m a paramedic; I carry one because if a loved one is bleeding out, without immediate medical attention they could die in the time it takes for an ambulance to reach me. I don’t have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen because I think I’m a firefighter; I have one because it gives me the ability to respond immediately to a small fire instead of waiting helplessly while my house burns down. And I carry a gun not because I think I’m a police officer, but because if my life is threatened by someone intent upon causing me harm, I can drive them off or hold them at gunpoint, instead of being at their mercy until the police arrive… which, in the case of the Pulse Massacre, was over an hour.

In The Rights of the Colonists, Samuel Adams wrote that we have a right to life, to liberty, and to property; as well as the right to support and defend those other rights as best we can. I am here to tell you today that our right to life is meaningless if we lack the ability to defend it from those who mean to take it from us, and that’s why I support the Second Amendment. Firearms are the great equalizer which allow the weak, the disabled, the elderly, and the ill to defend themselves with an equal or greater chance of success against those predators who are larger than us, stronger than us, have a position of power over us, or who outnumber us. Guns, like fire extinguishers and tourniquets, give me the tools I need to defend my life, my home and my loved ones while waiting for the professionals to arrive. 

It is because of that I believe gun rights are human rights, just as queer rights are human rights. In fact, I believe that gun rights ARE queer rights, and the logic behind that is quite simple:

· I have the right to live.

· There are people who wish to end my life because I am queer.

· Guns allow me to defend my queer life.

∴ Therefore, guns preserve queer lives.

· Guns cannot preserve queer lives if queer people cannot carry them.

· Gun rights means that all law-abiding citizens can carry guns for self-defense.

· By carrying a gun, I can defend my queer life.

∴ Therefore, gun rights are pro-queer.

· The right to self-defense -- gun rights --  are human rights.

· Loving whomever I want -- my sexuality -- is a human right.

· Living as I wish -- my gender identity -- is a human right.

∴ Therefore, gun rights are queer rights and both are human rights.

Ultimately, I want everyone to understand that the gun community and the queer community have more in common with each other than they realize, and instead of rejecting each other over our differences ,we need to focus upon our similarities:

Both groups believe in rights, especially the right to love whomever we want, and the right to defend our lives effectively. We may disagree on which rights are more important, and we may disagree on how best to implement these rights and their associated responsibilities, but we ultimately agree that rights are paramount. 

Both groups believe that life is precious and worth protecting. Ultimately, we both want to prevent the murder of innocent people, and that is inherently noble.

And both groups believe that silence equals death. If our voices cannot be heard then we might as well not exist in the mind of the public, and that is how we become marginalized and stepped upon.

We are more alike than different! Let us unite in our belief that life is precious and worth defending, that our rights are sacred, and that we refuse to give them up no matter what the politicians say. Let us defy those who seek to divide us by welcoming those who are different and showing them that their lives matter and have value to us. And let us embody the principle that the Second Amendment Is For Everyone -- liberal and conservative, queer and straight -- by making firearms ownership as diverse as the rest of our great country. 

Thank you!

Claiming “Sexual Preference is Offensive” is Biphobic

As of October 14, 2020, the phrase “sexual preference” is now considered offensive by certain people and already efforts are being made to scrub it from our lexicon. It looks like it falls upon me, your friendly neighborhood lesbian transwoman, to explain why this is nonsense.

First, let me explain why some (not all, some) people would take offense. Using the word “preference” over “orientation”, it is argued, presents sexuality as a matter of taste which can be overridden if necessary: “I prefer apples, but I will eat pears” is equated to “I, a gay man, prefer men but will date women if I must.” It presents sexual attraction as a choice, and that presentation is offensive to gay men, lesbians, and presumably straight people who don’t have better things to be upset about.

Dear offended people: Do you not know any bisexuals?

No, I’m not being sarcastic; I am legitimately asking if you know any, because I don’t think you do. I know several of them, and they are not all split down the middle when it comes to sexual attraction. Here’s how my unofficial poll worked out:

• Bisexual man. Prefers women 70% of the time (numbers approximate; he rated himself a 2 on the Kinsey Scale).
• Bisexual woman. Specifically identifies as “hetero-flexible”:  100% heterosexual one-on-one, but in a setting of three or more people “60-40 to 75-25 straight depending on group dynamic and my mood”.
• Bisexual man. “Emotionally speaking, I prefer males to females 70:30; physically, it varies varies wildly person to person but usually males 30%  to females 70%; romantically 50/50.”
• Bisexual woman. “I lean a bit more toward men, but it varies. 65-75% hetero, depending on how recently I saw a really cute girl and/or was at a con.”
• Bisexual man. “Pretty close to 50/50. I get different things from different genders, so it's kinda like asking if you prefer Pepsi or Ford, you know?”
• Bisexual woman. Attraction is 60% men, 40% women.
• Bisexual man. “Its more a case of ‘does this person interest me?’ so 50-50 I guess?”
• Bisexual woman. “My orientation is bisexual, but I greatly prefer women. Probably 90-95% women, 5-10% men.”
• Bisexual man. Basically 50-50, but only comfortable expressing or receiving homosexual intimacy when in the presence of a woman.
• Bisexual man. “Pretty much 50/50.  I'm much more inclined towards genderfluid to be honest.  physical plumbing, gender expression, and the various shades of each aren't really part of the determining factors of whether I'm attracted to someone or not.”

See all those numbers which aren’t 50-50? That’s a preference. The orientation of these people is bisexual, but they each have preferences within that bisexuality: #1 prefers women; #2 prefers men; #3 has preferences which vary according to conditions and characteristics. None of them are wrong, because it’s impossible to be wrong when talking about what kind of adult human being attracts you. Telling them that “the phrase ‘sexual preference’ is offensive” is erasing what it means to be bisexual.

Finally, the term “preference” can be a powerful social tool when properly used, a tool which I and other queer people would be much poorer for losing. It can be used to shield the feelings of others and soften the blow of rejection to a friend; “I’m sorry, I just prefer other women” suggests that despite the fact there is no chemistry, you still want them around as a friend, whereas the sharper “I’m a lesbian” too often sounds brusque and dismissive, a “how dare you!” shutdown.

In less amiable situations, such as when approached by a stranger at the bar or other social event, such rejection can lead to harsh words and even violence. For their own safety, many gay women have used the phrase “I prefer women” to give themselves breathing room to look for an opportunity to get away, as many men will see that as a challenge to be overcome with guile rather than a shutdown which could elicit anger or worse.  I have used this phrase in both situations, and it has served me well. I will not give it up without a fight.

You are free not to like the phrase “sexual preference”. You are free to be offended by it. However, demanding that it no longer be used demeans bisexual people and their choices, and it robs queer people of a powerful tool to protect friendships and ensure safety. 

You mean well, but you are hurting people by contributing to bisexual erasure and a culture of biphobia. Sexual preferences do exist, and there’s nothing wrong with them. 

My Thoughts on Sarah McBride

I have been asked what I think of Sarah McBride winning the primary for a Delaware state Senate seat. People want my opinion on this because on the one hand she's transgender, and on the other hand she's a firearm prohibitionist.

My honest answer is that I'm simultaneously thrilled and disappointed. Like most things in life, the situation is complex.

Gun rights are necessary, both for Americans in general and for queer people in specific. We are disproportionately affected by violent crime (1 in 4 of us will be victims), and like the motto of the Pink Pistols says, "Armed queers don't get bashed."

However, queer rights are also important to me. In this specific regard, it is a cause for celebration when someone who is obviously queer is able to represent us in government. Just as gun owners rightly deride people who try to pass gun control laws without knowing anything about guns (see Carolyn McCarthy's statement of "I don't actually know what a barrel shroud is. I believe it's a shoulder thing that goes up."), and women rightly deride men who try to pass reproductive laws without knowing anything about gynecology, so too do queer people resent and deride people passing laws that affect us (marriage rights, transitioning, employment protection, etc.) without knowing anything about us.

Ideally, I would prefer that Ms. McBride be pro-gun. However, Second Amendment rights are usually a plank of the Republican party, and queer people tend to avoid the Republican party like the plague (for reasons which are another explanation entirely). Furthermore, let's be blunt: openly queer candidates are less likely to be elected by the typical Republican voter. This is changing, of course; 20 years ago it would have been unthinkable to be openly gay and Republican, and now we have openly queer people supporting Republican values in the media, so perhaps in another 10-20 years there won't be this huge disconnect. Unfortunately, right now if you're queer and running for office, your best chance at election is running as a Democrat... and again unfortunately, the Democrat platform is one of firearm prohibition rather than one of firearm rights.

So who do queer people vote for? Too often, we have to choose between "pro-gun and anti-queer" or "pro-queer and anti-gun". That's an intensely personal choice, and I don't have the right to tell people how to choose in situations like this. I just wish that both my right to live as I wish (queer rights) and my right keep and bear arms (Second Amendment rights) weren't treated as a resource to be exploited on election day.

The Second Amendment is for all Americans. Queer rights are human rights, and human rights are for all Americans.

Politicians, please stop being partisan with our lives.

Pulse: Four Years Later

Pulse: Four Years Later

On this Fourth Anniversary of the Pulse Terror Attack, Operation Blazing Sword founder and president and Pink Pistols national coordinator Erin Palette is away at a convention spreading the word about our mission and the necessity of  firearms education. Because she is not available, she has asked other people who have been affected by Operation Blazing Sword to share what the last four years has meant to them.

John Doughty, one of the first OBS students:
I'm really not a gun guy. My friends think I'm a gun guy, but they're wrong. What I am is a queer guy whose comfortable assumptions about safety got eviscerated by the Pulse massacre, a queer guy who is willing to stand up and say "Never again. Not if I can help it. Not on my watch."

No, I wasn't there myself. I'd already moved out of Orlando and I'd only been to the space a couple of times when I did live there. I'm not much of a party-goer, but where my community is, I am, so any one of the 49 could have been me. Remember their names, because they are all of us. They could have been any of us.

I had angry, helpless nightmares for a long time after Pulse. I read texts describing how people died on their knees on a bathroom floor, some hiding under the corpses of their friends for hours, waiting for a rescue that never came for them. I decided right then that I was not going to be a helpless victim, no matter what it cost me.

In the first few raw weeks, I listened to others in my community who were talking about how to keep us safer. When the conversation turned to how they could take guns away from criminals by passing more laws, I had to point out that there were already laws about shooting people and that criminals were already breaking them. I noticed that “common sense” gun control laws always disproportionately affected poor people, brown people and transgender people. I wasn't okay with any of that. Gun control doesn't actually work very well in this country to keep people safe, especially marginalized people. More accurately, it makes marginalized people a lot less safe, which is generally what it is intended to do. Look up the history if you weren't aware; it's a painful but enlightening lesson.

I also noticed that the places with anti-gun rules were more often the ones targeted by shooters. I'm sure that nice, polite, law-abiding criminals will always turn right around and take their illegal guns elsewhere when they see your “No Guns Allowed” signs, but the rest of them will laugh and thank you for letting them know they have an open shooting gallery for at least ten or fifteen minutes before anyone else with a gun will be there to oppose them. I'm also pretty sure that the percentage of nice, polite, law-abiding criminals is, by definition, awfully low.

After Pulse, I started feeling genuinely unsafe anywhere I saw those signs. They don't deter violent criminals, they attract them by advertising to criminals, terrorists and bigots that everyone inside is an easy target. Feeling deeply uncomfortable, I started looking for a better way to be safe, a way that would give me a real chance to survive those long minutes (or even hours) before the police could get there. When seconds count, the police will at best always be minutes away... assuming they are even going to help you at all when they get there, which is not always a good assumption. Our lives and our safety are ultimately in our own hands, and thinking it's a good idea to subcontract that particular job is not likely to end well in those moments when we need it most.

I went gun shopping, which was an uphill struggle for me. I'd never shot a handgun before; they just weren't part of the culture I grew up in. Gun stores did not seem like a safe or welcoming place to me, because I assumed that most “gun people” would be more interested in shooting at me than with me. What got me over that hurdle was finding Operation Blazing Sword and its offer of free, queer-friendly and accessible firearms safety training.

After getting that introduction, I felt a lot more confident navigating 'gun culture'. I went on to take quite a few more classes so that I could feel safe and confident being a responsible, effective concealed carrier. A few years later, I decided to pay it forward and started a local chapter in the Triangle area.

I have zero illusions that I'm the next John Rambo. I'm old and small, and I have too many body parts that don't work right any more. I'm not here to play Queer Avenger, pick fights, or even defend property. I am not a cop or a vigilante, and not trying to be one. I believe in avoiding the use of force whenever reason, or just getting the hell out of Dodge, will suffice. If that's possible, that is; it isn't always, and if you back me and mine into a corner and threaten our lives, I will fight. Because of Operation Blazing Sword and the Second Amendment, I can fight effectively even if the aggressor is a lot bigger, younger, and stronger than me. That chance means everything to me. I will not be a helpless victim; I will not die on my knees, and if I can help it., neither will you.

It is love, not anger, that makes me willing to stand up and fight. I know that makes me the first target; I know that I will probably not make it out alive if I am opposing a long gun or multiple long guns with my concealed weapon... but that improves the chances that you will make it out alive, and that's what matters to me.

Let the bigots know that we are not a soft target. Let them know that some of us can and will shoot back if we need to. Let there never again be another Pulse.

Brena Bock, OBS volunteer:
I remember sitting in shock and horror when the attack on the Pulse Nightclub occurred: "How could this happen?" I saw many of my friends in the queer community blaming guns and peaceable gun owners; in contrast, my friends in the Pink Pistols seemed as shocked and horrified as I was. No one had any good suggestions until I saw a post from a Pink Pistols member who wanted to help her friends on both sides of the 'gun closet' door. That post was by Erin Palette, and she called her plan Operation Blazing Sword.

Over the past decade-plus I’d taught a number of my friends to shoot, safely and competently. Why hadn’t I thought of this? I jumped on board and offered my knowledge and support. Not many months later I was contacted by a member of the queer community who was uncertain about guns but eager to learn. We met at the range twice: the first time for basic orientation, and the second to help them set up the rifle they’d bought.

While I haven’t had any more Operation Blazing Sword students since then, that first one has expanded their collection and is applying for a handgun carry license. We still communicate occasionally and I offer what advice I can.

Looking back, that one step of offering my services enabled me to make a difference in the community and build a collection of new friends.

Xander Opal, OBS student:  
My experience with OBS was very positive. I was quite clueless around pistols, and quite intimidated by my lack of knowledge. I asked Operation Blazing Sword's founder, Erin, for a recommendation for someone in my area. She introduced me to Tim, who generously gave both his time and ammunition to help me out. He put me at ease and was very non-judgmental, and so I felt absolutely no shame in turning to him and saying, "I have no idea what to do," when a jam happened. He also ensured that I was safely attired as well as properly instructed in firearm safety and shooting range-specific rules. I was not pressured to go with any particular choice; the decision of what to be armed with, should I choose to be armed, was left to me. I was given the information I needed to choose wisely, and the freedom to make the choice.

His quiet acceptance of a queer person will make it easier for me to eventually find my way out of this closet I'm in the back of. Operation Blazing Sword continues the goal of queer rights, where each person is treated as an individual and not stuffed into a narrow box with narrow choices in life.

Chris Olsen, OBS volunteer:
Post-Pulse I, like a lot of firearms instructors, sat helplessly by while we were ridiculed and made to feel like the shooting was our fault. What came after was something that I and a lot my fellow instructors had wanted to see happen but could never quite get off the ground: a bridge to help train those people who were vulnerable and often at risk in a way to defend themselves and loved ones. I immediately volunteered my time.

Through that I have made some very great friends, what I didn’t expect from the last four years is how much it would change me as a person. I am more aware of the issues the queer community faces. I have become much more open to a lot of things, and much more of an ally. Since Operation Blazing Sword started I have taken about 20 new shooters to the range and worked them through those first timid shots until they were rocking full mag dumps. I have probably helped new gun owners buy well over a dozen firearms, and have become the 'question and answer guy' for many of their friends.

Allison G., OBS student and volunteer
"It couldn't happen to me. I don't go to those places. I don't take those drugs. I don't hang with that crowd. I don't anger those people. I mean, I get sad when I hear about something that happened. Someone got stabbed, violated, kidnapped, murdered. I don't blame the victim, right? It's not their fault....but they should have played it safe like I did."

... those illusions have been cracked. So many of us are trying to hold on to those falsehoods, but almost as many of us just can't do it anymore. The lie is shattered, and the truth undeniable: there are people out there who want to hurt us, to kill us, and there are no actions we can take to avoid being targeted.

It can happen to me, too. There are people who won't ever harm me, but they will blaze a road. They will look the other way. They will write the laws, or fail to write others. They will unlock the door to our safe places, for those predators to do it for them. They are as dangerous as those who mean me harm.

There's nothing I can say, no amount I can beg, plead, even demand that my life be spared, valued, preserved. That which can be destroyed by the truth should be destroyed by the truth. I'm glad the illusion is broken. It was hurting us. It was failing to keep us safe in a dangerous world.

It's long past time to stop pretending that we're safe if we believe hard enough, or beg those above to keep us so. It's time to secure safety, with or without the consent of predators.

OBS is how we do that.

A Little Dream Analysis

Most of the time I don't remember my dreams, but when I do they're usually remarkable; for them to be ordinary is in fact quire extraordinary.

Last night my brain gave me a neat name for a character. There was no context to it whatsoever, just the name "Titch Gamalol" which was then modified to a more ethnic "Tich Gamaliel". I know that Gamaliel is a Hebrew name and I was hoping that Tich (which in my head was pronounced with a long E sound and the ch of chutzpah) was a name or nickname in Hebrew or Yiddish or German, but so far my research hasn't turned up anything. I hope it does, because I'm always delighted when my brain absorbs something subliminally and then releases the info to me late at night in a dream. That's how I learned that the word for cowboy protective leg gear is called "chaps". No lie.

However, I promised you dream analysis and there's nothing to analyze in a name like that. Instead, let me tell you about a dream I had last week and the analysis thereof.

In my dream I was a competitive ice skater. I don't know if I was at the Olympic or another event, but I knew it some kind of contest or championship. Everyone knew I was transgender but they didn't seem to care that I was in the women's division. Security was on high alert because there was some alleged threat about Russians -- the dream never said, but in context it was clear they meant spies or saboteurs or some other kind of bad actor, not just "people from Russia" -- and it was believed they had infiltrated the event to disrupt it in some way. I learned this from a lesbian political analyst who is my RL friend and might (or might not) have been my lover in this dream.

I know that I went onto the ice to do my routine, bu I don't remember what it was. All I can tell you is that I was wearing something cute with a fluttery skirt and it was sparkly -- I can't even tell you what color it was -- and that at some point during my routine I twisted my ankle badly. Maybe I fell and knocked myself out, because the next thing I remember is waking up in a synagogue(!) full of old Jewish people, who gently fussed over me and my injury.

Then they told me it was time to leave. I tried to go out the front door, but that was a door to a mall (and indoor mall, not a strip mall) and there were people out there and an old lady told me that we needed to go out the back door like the employees and service personnel. I was still having trouble walking, so she gave her cane to help me, and her cane was made of bones suspended in clear Lucite.

As we got ready to leave, all the men went out first. Then I was told to go next, then the women went out. I don't remember what happened after walking through the door.

So, let's analyze this.

Me being an ice skater is very unusual, as I don't know much about the sport at all. My mother LOVES it, though, and it's on a lot during the winter months so I'll see bits and pieces as I walk through the living room. I'll occasionally stop to admire a pretty girl or a cute outfit, but that's about it.

I'm pretty sure this represents my hopes and dreams -- I'm pretty, wearing a pretty outfit, considered a woman despite being trans, performing in a heavily gendered sport which my mother enjoys -- all of this is about being accepted as a "legitimate" female by society in general and hopefully by my mother in particular.

Given that I never saw any Russian agents in my dream, I think my subconscious took a leaf from the recent impeachment hearings and used them to represent a vague boogeyman who might not even exist. Given the nonstop media coverage of COVID-19 and my own conflict over what the media tells me vs. what I'm seeing in real life, I think this was my brain trying to reconcile my own pragmatic rationalism with ambient beer flu hysteria.

Speaking of pragmatic rationalism, that was personified by the conservative political analyst as she's the one who told me about the agents. I think the fact that I didn't know if she was my lover or not is important; I'm trying to be rational in these times of panic, but like the "maybe she is, maybe she isn't" love interest I often doubt yourself. So this whole thing is about whether or not I trust myself to make the right decision when confronted with rationality vs. hysteria.

The fact that I don't remember doing an ice routine just reinforces the notion that the dream wasn't about ice skating at all.

The synagogue full of old people like has to do with the fact that my dad's side of the family are old Jews who either fled the Nazis or died at their hands. The mall represents society as a whole, and the service entrances are routes of escape that aren't noticed (or known) by most people. The cane of bones makes this blatant symbolism for "Lean on who we are, and what lessons you learned from us, to get you through this". That I was allowed to go after the men, but before the women, is another "Hey, you're transgender, this is important for the dream" nod because I occupied that in-between position.

So why is the second half of my dream telling me to flee, like the Jews fled the Nazis, when the first half is about me trying to overcome fear with rationality? That's likely because the recurring theme of the whole dream is self-doubt: I want her to love me, but does she? I want to be accepted, but why do I still feel separate? How can I flee if I have a hurt ankle?

I really feel that the underlying issue which my brain is trying to process is "In the face of a global pandemic which may change your life forever, how do I survive and still remain a woman?" Because if I need to evacuate for whatever reason, I will likely need to leave behind not just my feminine clothes and makeup and jewelry, but also my identity as a woman because I'm not yet at the stage where I can pass for female without all that stuff. So maybe my brain was trying to figure out a way where I could be femme without baggage; or maybe it was trying to come to terms with what I might have to leave behind as a way to get over the shock now instead of later.

My point is this: there's a lot of scary imagery being tossed about. It's natural to feel doubts. It's natural to be worried, to feel overwhelmed. It's natural to wonder about what kind of world we're going to be entering -- I couldn't even conceive of it in my dream -- and what we'll leave behind.

We can't all be strong all the time. If you feel yourself weakening, that's okay. Take a rest in a synagogue, let some kindly old Jews fuss over you, and follow their lead -- or, put another way, rest where you feel it's safe, surround yourself with love and self-care, and listen to the advice of people you trust.

We can get through this.