Dude, her lifetime. She was a transwoman, not just a drag queen.
Don't worry, I've lived here most of my life, and I never got the fascination with Holmes either. Nearly all of the causes he espoused - and I include Eve Van Grafhorst in this - had an air of the dogwhistle about them (in that instance, while he was probably genuinely shocked at Eve's treatment, there was a big helping of "We're better than those Aussies" about it).
Thanks for the balanced obit, Russell, and here's hoping that will be the end of all the slavering from the rest of the media. This past couple of weeks of pre-obits has been incredibly irritating. I think the only day when there wasn't a story was the day before he actually passed away.
I'd also be interested if Damian can crank something out, because I'd like to understand what the fascination was with this so-called champion of the "underdog" was (John Banks? Don't make me larf).
I just missed the KG club, which met its demise just before I became part of the queer community.
But thanks for the reflection on where we were and how much things have really changed (while a few things remain the same).
I would like to mention the fact that lesbians weren't just playing in softball/soccer teams or creating newsletters (although those were important cultural icons). In the 80s and 90s, we were also dancing away at clubs like Juliana's, Tongue n Groove, whatever that bar was upstairs in Albert St with the iconic pool night, and Lasso upstairs in Staircase in its latter incarnation on K Rd.
Also, I'd like to acknowledge the important role Rainbow Youth (formed out of ALGY) has played for many GenX and Y youths (and young people like my nephew now) in supporting their coming out process and other advocacy. I never directly participated in their groups, but many many of my friends did, from the gay, lesbian, bi and trans subgroups. A fantastic support organisation.
Frankly, if I WERE a child pornographer, I would sure as hell be encrypting everything up the wazoo already, and have been doing so for years. Not to mention PGPing emails and suchlike.
I think there have been papers written about how internet crime/dodginess enables certain technologies to develop faster, like engineering and the military. While porn isn't crime as such, the amount of huge web farms and sophisicated content-delivery methods they use has certainly enhanced those technologies - they have the money to throw at it.
So too with crims and certain types of viruses, bot, and encryption/"hiding stuff" technology.
I totally agree that "polygamy" smacks of horrible patriarchal institutions - despite the fact it's supposed to technically mean "multiple marriage" these days, there is the etymology and associated baggage.
That's why a bunch of hippie Westerners invented terms like "polyamory", which still gives me the shits with its wankiness, but is the best way to describe my relationship style.
Sure, there are a bunch of unreformed Mormons who call themselves "polygamists" in the US, and traditional Middle Eastern/African immigrants (not just Muslims) in many places, but I would guess there is a good proportion of us liberal polyamorous types in Western societies, in comparison. That is, engaged in multiple and more-or-less egalitarian relationships (no less so than the majority of marriages/relationships in broader society - in fact, I would go so far as to say they are often more egalitarian).
Since it is the laws in countries like ours that we are considering, I don't see why it should be too problematic to support multiple marriage laws. If you are concerned about the effects on communities that endorse "harem-style" setups, our marriage laws now make no difference to those situations , evidently, oppressive or not.
I disagree it has to be done at "much greater expense" after the initial transition if standard-form contracts are developed for these kinds of transactions rather than the custom ones we have to do these days. (Unless of course we're entering into a heterosexual marriage.)
But regarding toy-throwing, one can have an ideal and still grit one's teeth and endorse the marriage equality bill. Which I did (petition, email to MP, yadda yadda).
In terms of my ideals, it feels like a backwards step, not even incrementalist. But in terms of practicalities in achieving rights equivalent to everyone else in this society, what else can you do?
If someone..., and one also .., then it is perfectly logical ....
Good old modus ponens - if a infers b, and a is true...
Of course, propositional logic has nothing much to say if the premises are ridiculous. Sure, you can make a logical proof, but whether or not the actual argument has merit in a legal or moral/ethical sense is something else entirely.
As for the remark about "what is marriage equality", come on, disingenuous much?
Also, waffle makers, the four-way ones. Toaster ovens are so mono.
Anyways, as I have said before, being a queer poly person who is pretty fervent about the whole thing ("activist", meh), this is why I don't actually support marriage as a legal concept, full stop.
If you want to share finances/property/kids guardianship/power of attorney yadda yadda yadda, then make contracts for each of those things. Maybe it'd make monogamous hets think a bit more what they're getting themselves into as well - I am continually amazed at how ignorant people are about what marriage contracts actually entail.