October 11th, 2007


National Coming Out Day: 2007

October is GLBT history month. Explanation from the website:
Thirty-one GLBT leaders were selected, one for each day of the month. Equality Forum solicited state, national and international leaders for nominations. The nominees comprised individuals, living or dead, who have distinguished themselves within their field of endeavor, as national heroes, or in the GLBT civil rights movement.

Not gonna lie, having made a really long post for National Coming Out Day last year, I didn't really know what to write this year. I mean, we're all pretty clear on the concept that I find lots of people with various different bodies attractive, right? And that my preferred self-identifier is "queer" but that I often use "bisexual" for a concision-and-clarity combo.

Merideth posted a YouTube vid: Students from Baker Hall West at The Ohio State University post a response to the call from HRC (Re: National Coming Out Day 2007). It reminded me of the power of knowing people who are out, which I sometimes forget since I have so much queer in my life. [I also like this Featured YouTube vid.]

The HRC article says:
National Coming Out Day, Oct. 11, 2007, falls on the 20th anniversary of the 1987 Gay and Lesbian March on Washington [...]

Today, nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of Americans say they personally know or work with someone who identifies as gay or lesbian, according to Peter D. Hart Research Associates Inc. In 1987, only 11 percent claimed that they associated with a "male homosexual" on a regular basis, according to ABC News and The Washington Post.
Yesterday I was being reminded of how despite the secularization of Christmas (and the fact that early Christians co-opted lots of pagan stuff), SecretSantas and even Yuletide are inherently not "non-denominational," and other issues of how contemporary Western society is structured in a Christian-centric way. And about the importance of being attentive rather than being thoughtlessly tokenizing or "inclusive." What I find really interesting is how many people are saying that what's important to them isn't so much that certain things actually get changed (like Yuletide going live on Christmas Eve) but just that people acknowledge that stuff isn't as inclusive as they like to think it is.

And today I learned that yesterday was World Mental Health Day. You know that joke about how one in four people has mental health problems, so look at three of your friends and if they seem okay well then maybe it's you? Leaving aside the obvious issue that not everyone who's "crazy" particularly "looks" crazy, once I was in college I found that what felt like the majority of the people I hung out with were or had been in therapy or were on medication for something. (In contrast to high school, where I don't think it ever came up.)

I don't have any profound summation, just: Categories of people are made up of individuals. When you talk about categories, keep that in mind.


A couple of weeks ago, Amy (fox1013) and I were talking. We didn't really have queer teenagerhoods, but we did do the queer (ya) lit binging.

What with Amy's kidlit program and worth_the_trip and all, I've been wanting to read queer ya lit again.

I have a list from c. 2002 (and a few I know I've read since then), but even with the blurbs I wrote down, I don't remember much about most of the books I read back when I binged, so I feel like I should reread some of those as well, though I worry that I'll return to books I remember fondly and dislike them this time around.

My other concern is that I'll positively review books, and people smarter and more well-read than I will think, "Actually, that book was crap and/or highly problematic" (what, like you don't judge people when they praise stuff you're unimpressed by?).

So tell me queer ya lit I should read -- problematic books you think it's important to be familiar with are also acceptable recommendations.

For fun, behind the cut is the list I have from my binge. (I've organized them by publication date -- and alphabetical by title within year.)

Collapse )


"Casting an all-female "Star Trek": Make it so." (from AfterEllen.com)

They suggest Helen Mirren as Picard and Allison Janney as Beverly Crusher. [Besides leaving Majel Barrett Roddenberry as the voice of the computer, they declared past Star Trek cast members ineligible.] Which means Helen Mirren/Allison Janney. I felt I needed to put that out there for Ari (and anyone else -- e.g. TLGN).

Also: Kaite (from whom I got this link) asks, "If Katie Heigl is Riker, who should play Troi?"


f+f picspam via friendsfriends:
* Hayden Panettiere and Kristen Bell
* Hayden Panettiere and Ali Larter