the truth of the matter is that i'm objectively rather attractive for a transgendered person with no surgery, relative to my ethnic background. i know the stereotypes, and that people expect them, but the reality is that they only apply to a small subset of transgendered people coming out of different types of entertainment-based employment. they get disproportionate levels of attention due to their higher levels of visibility, but they don't represent the average transgendered person very well. the average transgendered person is really a girl-next-door type that would prefer to fit in. the literature has even historically attempted to fix the stereotype to cisgendered gay men, but i agree with some of the pushback on that being a little dismissive...
i'm of mediterranean background, so i have a substantial nose. but it really isn't going to be perceived as jumping out of my face unless you're grasping at straws in order to criticize my appearance. relative to a lot of jewish, arab or italian women, it's not particularly huge. it doesn't have that triangular arch, or that bloated trying-to-escape-your-face look. it's even fairly symmetric. really, by mediterranean standards, it's on the smaller end - and pretty unobtrusive, in the sense of not jutting out anywhere.
like many irish people, i have a long, dolichocephalic skull shape.
i'm of finnish background as well, so i have high cheekbones and somewhat distinctive eyes. but these are considered attractive in virtually all cultures.
what i'm getting at with this write-up is that i don't want to hear it. i've heard it enough, and it's tiring - because it's not grounded. if you're going to comment negatively on the way i look, i'm going to remove your comment and block your profile. so don't waste your time.
had a bit of a last night drinking for a while, because it's a last night smoking. i wanted to get it out of the system. once i've quit smoking for a few months, i'll go back to normal.
i picked a noise punk show to work it out. seven drinks in four hours is not much, but it underwhelmed and then hit me near the end due to taking the first three as baileys in coffee. that phog. they tell you doors at 8, then don't start the show until 10:30. i'm learning...
the walk back was unfortunate. well, here's my story...
slates was coming through windsor fresh from recording an album with steve albini, which is certainly an impressive career move. they hit a few solid points in poppy not poppy hardcore, but they were, overall, sort of generic. a particular point that needs some work would be the drumming, which tends to just plod through simple beats that are unrelated to the rest of the song. you get this when a band lacks chemistry - the drummer ends up playing by himself, while the rest of the band does it's thing. it clicked at points, but they simply weren't tight.
i went out tonight to see life in vacuum, who were definitely a lot tighter. you're not really looking for originality out of this sound nowadays, what you're looking for is that right mix of carefully calculated chaos and cathartic release. they hit that sweet spot pretty well, actually. worth checking out.
here is a full set from about a year later:
i made a split decision to stay to see the headliner, but it required a quick trip to the bank machine; on the journey from a to b, i met some random hippies, who sent me on my way with a bit of that feeling that hippies are all about. but, that's also when the fact that i'd had six drinks already sunk in.
i had to sit down, so i found a spot to the side and remained there through the first song or two. it was actually fairly pleasant post-rock - i'm glad i bumped into those hippies. but, as the set unraveled it became clear that the band was mixing up tired indie rock cliches with tired post-rock ones. they've got the form nailed, but then they use it in every song.
i was in and out of the set, connecting with it at the crescendos and nodding off during the verses. they're worth not skipping...
then...
well, i had some fun tonight until some kids stopped and threw something at me.
it seems to have missed on purpose, indicating somebody was put up to something they didn't want to do, and accidentally messed up on purpose. see, when that happens, it's a group decision to accidentally mess up on purpose - a specific individual was assigned that responsibility, to accidentally miss on purpose. it's posteuring.
i'm still processing this. i understand i need to take it seriously,...
i was too drunk to process this. reality is difficult sometimes - and that's it.
i do not have the raw information necessary to properly understand what happened.
so, do i react over-cautiously or haphazardly? there's no middle point to anchor one's self in, it's necessary to choose one extreme or the other.
exact recollection of events, while i can...
1) i'm walking home up wyandotte, a little drunk. i can walk straight. i can talk. i can get home - no worries. but complicated events aren't a good idea for me, right now.
2) a minivan - grey, i didn't get plates, that's the best i can do in descriptive terns - slows down a little and asks me to come near it.
3) i decline. something like "no, but i can answer your questions from a distance".
4) he asks me where drouillard is. there were two passengers in the front and at least one in the back. i would describe the driver as asian-indian (or pakistani) descent, male, under 30. that's all i can provide, as it's blurry.
5) i hear a smash beyond me - possibly a rock going through a window.
6) i say "that's not cool, guys."
7) the driver repeats back "that's not cool, guys?"
8) i hear a second smash behind me.
9) the van speeds off.
10) i walk home.
it seems violent, but i don't otherwise understand. at all.
is it a transgender hate attack? was i mistaken for a prostitute? did i even connect unrelated sounds? i can't make sense of this.
i was simply too drunk to process what happened. so, now i don't know how to react.
maybe it will be more clear in the morning.
i'm leaning towards it being kids with a warped perception of "cool", which is why i think what i said worked in scaring them off. which puts me in a trap, because i'm a bleeding heart liberal with kids.
this kind of shit comes from such weird places, and is carried out by people that are so badly manipulated...the system catches the fall idiot, while the structure remains intact. you're not getting anywhere hardening the idiot into a repeat offender. it's to the point where you want to just fucking boycott the legal system altogether.
maybe i'm naive, but i want to think that "that's not cool" was the most effective corrective procedure possible.
and hence the situation is dealt with.
but, i have my safety to be concerned with.
and, in truth, i have the safety of others to be concerned with, as well.
i'm not anti-incarceration. in fact, i'm pretty strict with it. i just demand a stricter set of reasons for it - specifically, the safety of the community and only that reason. incarceration should be used when the community is convinced that the individual is a permanent or imminent threat to others. at that point, it's self defense. not punishment. not deterrence. containment. banishment is not realistic in today's world.
so, my own legal leanings suggest to me the necessity of some reaction...
it's the *one* situation where i feel a legal response is justified and necessary.
but i know how this works.
and i don't think creating enemies behind the fall idiot is that smart.
you want to say "if it happens again...."
but you know you might not be around to tell that story.
i don't think anybody followed me home.
i don't have any useful information. a south asian dude in a minivan. it's useless. i can do nothing.
so, there's no use in agonizing over the right thing to do.
in truth, nothing can be done at all.
i'll just have to keep an eye out for grey minivans.
