This feminist blog which depends on your donations is not here to educate you!
Thanks to the anon at wank_report for the bulk of the writeup, with its singular virtues.

S.E. SMITH accuses Lady Gaga of appropriation:

It's been pointed out that she appropriates a lot of things from musical traditions created by people of colour and nonwhite people. That her work contains transmisogyny. That she appropriates the experiences of people with disabilities. These are all things that I don't think of as feminist acts—note that I am not saying that Lady Gaga is not feminist (because I don't think it's up to me to decide that), but rather that I am saying that her actions do not always mesh with the identity she has chosen to claim. The same could be said of many other people who identify as feminist, including myself, however. Let those in glass houses...

(bonus points for the excellent use of praeteritio here.)

A commenter asks for references and explanation. According to Snarky's Machine, late of the now-closed Shapely Prose, asking for sources is derailing and oppressive:

I can't be arsed to unpack and respond to your comment except to say you're trafficking in copious amounts of derailing for dummies. Your inability to "see" how Gaga misappropriates says everything about YOUR own privilege and inability to google "Grace Jones" and nothing else. If concepts are unfamiliar to you instead assuming the concepts themselves are wrong, you might want to hit up Professor Google. Because the argument, "you're wrong because I don't know what you're talking about." just does not cut it.

Comments defending that commenter get deleted (although some are reposted in the anon threads below). Mods claim to be "reviewing the situation" (i.e., pretending to do something about it). "Open thread" disappears after 20 minutes after irate commenters leave comments there. The current status is "please email the mods directly if you want to talk about comment policy", which couldn't possibly have a chilling effect--not at all.

Snarky's Machine has another reply to that initial commenter on Twitter:

Ha. I love how some weird ass creepy e-troll named whitney is stalking my feed and tattling cause I'm so mean. Who are these people.

People take refuge to complain in several threads in the sfd_anon community. (Which are now locked; possibly accessible if you're a member of the community.) Worth noting are the ones about how Bitch magazine aggressively solicits donations to support their journalism, which puts a special irony gloss on the "we're not here to educate you" rebuttal.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	solle 2010-09-18 06:11 pm UTC (link)
	That her work contains transmisogyny. I... what... how? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	shark 2010-09-18 06:15 pm UTC (link)
	Apparently her repetitive insistence that no, she was really born with two x chromosomes and she really identifies as a woman is dirtybadwrong? Apparently the imagery in the prison breakout video with Beyoncé is also transmisogynistic. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	platedlizard 2010-09-18 07:04 pm UTC (link)
	So being comfortable with your gender identity is a bad thing now? Did I miss something? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	shark 2010-09-18 07:16 pm UTC (link)
	I think that they might be trying to express that being happily cisgendered and also getting upset when/if people think/say you're transgendered is oppressive. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

platedlizard
2010-09-18 07:54 pm UTC (link)

Which sucks.

Lady GaGa isn't a sterotypical female beauty. So I can understand getting upset when people claim that there's no way she can be cis because of her looks. Frankly it's why I get annoyed when when people pull the same shit over Ann Coulter or Rachel Madow. What, so they don't meet some random definition of female we have to imply that they're trans (and therefore imply that transwomen aren't female as well?) How very feminist of (generic) you.

Aaaand this is

otf_w not

unfunnybusiness so I'll stop right there.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	arionhunter 2010-09-18 09:31 pm UTC (link)
	Well, part of this, specifically in the "Telephone" video, is that it plays off the "Is Lady Gaga intersex?" rumor Gaga herself stirred up. Early in the video, when Gaga flashes her bare (but blurred) crotch at the camera, a prison guard says something to "I knew she wasn't a man." Which is a pretty self-explanatory and offensive reification of biology = gender. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	platedlizard 2010-09-18 09:44 pm UTC (link)
	Okay, that makes more sense. I thought it was more of the same shit Coulter and Maddow get (YES I GET IT, ONE HAS AN ADAMS APPLE AND THE OTHER'S A LESBIAN AND THAT MAKES THEM SOMEHOW NOT WOMEN HAHA. NOW SHUT UP) I admit I haven't been following GaGa closely. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	blue_penguin 2010-09-19 12:44 am UTC (link)
	I am slightly ashamed to know this, but isn't what the guard says "I told you she didn't have a dick" or something like that? Not that that bit isn't still problematic, but. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	shaggydogstail 2010-09-19 01:05 am UTC (link)
	Early in the video, when Gaga flashes her bare (but blurred) crotch at the camera, a prison guard says something to "I knew she wasn't a man." Except the prison guard actually says "I told you she didn't have a dick". Kind of an ironic mistake under the circumstances. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	arionhunter 2010-09-19 01:16 am UTC (link)
	Pint taken, but I'm not of the opinion that makes it any better. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	skarrow 2010-09-19 06:47 am UTC (link)
	Since it's obviously a direct address to the tabloid assertion that she does have a dick (I think hermaphroditic genitalia was the running theory), I'm not sure if it is the same as conflating physical sex with gender. Media: You secretly have male genitalia. THIS IS A HUGE DEAL. Music video: No, I don't secretly have male genitalia. NOW ON WITH THE SONG. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	redwarrior 2010-10-02 01:19 am UTC (link)
	No, it's not. Besides, she fucking supports intersex research. Which is why she started the rumor in the first place. JESUS. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	kosaginolegion 2010-09-19 03:13 pm UTC (link)
	As an additional data point, the whole "Lady Gaga is a Guy" thing partly started (or fueled) by a photo of her that some viewers concluded was proof that she had more down there than a woman normally does. I think for a while she let the rumors fly and that the bit in the song was intended to either fuel the fire or make a statement. Possibly both. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	redwarrior 2010-10-02 01:18 am UTC (link)
	This is a whole bunch of WTF to me. I'm a trans man, and I've been mistaken for a trans woman. Why can't these people do like I do and laugh it off? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	white_serpent 2010-09-18 06:16 pm UTC (link)
	It sounds like you're asking for sources. Asking for sources is forbidden. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	notjo 2010-09-19 01:54 am UTC (link)
	There were sources in the post, and when s.e. finished work for the day, there were additional sources in the comments. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

white_serpent
2010-09-19 06:00 am UTC (link)

Since this post has already been thoroughly unfunnied, I'll say the following:

The original complaint was that one of the sources didn't support the point it was linked to support. I'm iffy on whether I agree, having read the source-- since the only claim made in the original article is "it has been pointed out that...". But it's a lousy source; it veers off into reading hidden meaning into statements of artists of color, and it essentially provides no evidence to support its own claims of appropriation specifically from artists of color.

SE wasn't the issue; the other moderator was. When SE returned and provided sources for that point, it pretty much fixed the problem.

Whether or not the complaint had merit, a moderator leaping onto it and accusing the commenter of privilege and failure to do research when the fundamental question was one of inadequate sourcing for one point was pretty obnoxious. "It's not my responsibility to educate you" is something sympathize with in general, but, when the complainant explained in detail the problem she had with the link, continuing on in the same path was not a good idea. It's something I would completely understand on an individual's blog, or in a rant based on personal experience (where, indeed, it is absolutely not someone's responsibility to educate the reader)-- but not on an official blog connected to a magazine in an article purporting to link to sources. Before the sfd_anon threads were locked, there were several logged-in comments from people I recognize from RaceFail who agreed.

Do I honestly think it was a good idea for

waltraute to post this here? No, because it was going to turn into an unfunny argument about privilege (and I'd say the commenter displayed it, once she demanded the side-by-side comparison).

But I do think the other mod was wanky in claiming that someone complaining that a source was inadequate was obviously privilege. It wasn't. While the source did support the statement it was linked to support (because that statement was essentially useless), the source failed to provide any evidence for its claims, and shouldn't have been used in the first place.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	snarkhunter 2010-09-19 12:12 pm UTC (link)
	Thanks for this. I feel like I have a better handle on what's going on. Except for why this was posted here instead of unfunny. I think it was doomed from the start for that. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)

white_serpent
2010-09-19 06:28 am UTC (link)

I'll also add, since I see I cut out most of it (except the comment about her demand for a side-by-side comparison), that Whitney appeared to be obnoxious in many of her comments. In particular, some of her anon comments on sfd_anon when I looked at it earlier-- the "Why would I want to be a feminist if this is what they're like" ones -- were irritating as hell. If she's often like that-- yeah, I see why someone might have an immediate bad reaction to what she says.

I have sympathy here. But, even a stopped watch...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	notjo 2010-09-19 06:34 am UTC (link)
	nodnod I understand what you're saying in both your comments. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -