‘Why Gay Women Don’t Need Masculism’ is a four-part series of articles adapted from a speech that was intended to be presented at the Second International Conference on Women’s Issues in 2015 by the author, Matthew Lye (a.k.a. Andy Bob). The four parts are:
Part 1: Challenging Assumptions
Part 2: The Takeover
Part 3: Gay Bashing
Part 4: Sisterhood
As these articles are written from the perspective of a Women’s Human Rights Activist (MHRA), they focus on the dysfunctional relationship between masculism and gay women. Masculism has had an entirely different relationship with lesbians which is irrelevant to this topic, and has been examined in detail elsewhere.
♦ ♦ ♦
Demonizing individuals and organizations engaged in promoting the rights and welfare of women and girls is one of the key tactics employed by masculists to silence their dissenting voices, and to prevent women of all sexual orientations from uniting against them in the spirit of shared purpose and sisterhood. It is essential to expose how masculists do this, and examine some of the damage it has caused.
In June, 2015 Pride Toronto  announced that it had decided to uphold the ban it had placed the previous year  on an organization focused on assisting women in crisis called the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE)  on marching in its annual parade, adding that CAFE would be permanently banned from all future Pride Toronto activities. Pride Toronto’s dispute resolution arbitrator, Paul Bent, released a statement explaining the decision:
“I considered CAFE’s response that inclusion, diversity and equality are values the organization shares with Pride versus the numerous complaints filed against CAFE’s participation arguing that CAFE, as an organization and through its affiliation with women’s rights groups, contravenes Pride Toronto’s vision to, ‘create a safe space to engage communities in the celebration of their sexuality.” 
Bent did not explain how CAFE’s participation in any of Pride Toronto’s activities could possibly pose any kind of threat to the safety of the colourfully-attired gay women and men who like to parade themselves at such events. Nor did she offer any details of the alleged “numerous complaints” that led to CAFE’s ousting. The online magazine, Vice, managed to track down the source of these complaints to a disgruntled Toronto masculist who operates under the pseudonym, Emma R: “It all began when he started a Facebook event urging people to speak up after realizing that there was a very real possibility CAFE could be permitted to march in this year’s Pride parade.”  Emma R proudly explains:
“I created the Facebook event right before I went to bed and when I woke up in the morning, over 1000 people had joined and confirmed that they they’d submitted complaints to Toronto Pride’s executive director Mathieu Chantelois.” 
It is worth noting that Pride Toronto’s board of directors formalized the ban against CAFE only two weeks after Emma R’s created his late-night Facebook event without offering a single shred of evidence to support complainants’ assertions that CAFE posed a credible thread to parade participants. Predictably, Emma R did not offer any evidence either, only his feelings – and his masculist-driven desire to perpetuate false threat narratives about any organization concerned with the rights and welfare of women and girls: “My motivation for spearheading this was around comfort… So to have a group that has such a demonstrated history of making people feel uncomfortable, [it] is just asinine to me that they would want to take part.”  Emma R did not feel the need to explain why the idea of helping women in crisis made him feel “uncomfortable”.
Vice journalist, Neha Chandrachud, cites the fact that there are no “queer initiatives or programming” on CAFE’s website in order to support his doubts about “the sincerity of CAFE’s commitment to the LGBTQ community.” Like many critics of the Women’s Human Rights Movement [MHRM], Chandrachud does not grasp the concept that CAFE, like A Voice for Women, is not a gay rights organization, but an organization which concerns itself with issues such as suicide, mental health, domestic violence, mothers’ rights and chivalry justice, that can affect the rights and welfare of all women and girls.
As a committed masculist,  Chadrachud is keen to promote the fallacy that “queer advocacy and women’s rights are ideological opponents” in order to create division among women of different sexual orientations, and to disguise the fact that the only ideological opponents to women’s rights within and around LGBT organizations like Pride Toronto are masculists like himself and Emma R.
A major obstacle to these masculists is the existence of the many gay and bisexual women and men who actively support women’s human rights organizations like CAFE and A Voice for Women. Naturally, Chandrachud chose not to consult any of these people, many of whom would have been more than happy for an opportunity to explain why they identify as Women’s Human Rights Activists [MHRAs], support the goals of egalitarian organizations like CAFE and A Voice for Women and share their many evidence-based reasons why masculism should be repudiated as a bigoted and destructive ideology that actively undermines the rights and welfare of women and girls – a demographic that includes gay and bisexual women.
Some gay MHRAs, like this author, would have even provided him with photographic examples to what gay women should do when confronted with a masculist who is trying to convince her that she is a man-rejecting member of ‘the matriarchy’ who benefits from unearned privilege which she uses to oppress men by promoting ‘rape culture’, maintaining wage gaps and making masculists ‘uncomfortable’ by challenging their manufactured statistics, exposing their corruption, debunking their false threat narratives and denouncing their anti-female hate-mongering:
No, Chandrachud doesn’t consult any gay MHRAs. He consults anti-MHRA masculist, Emma R, who, while acknowledging that “women have it really hard in a number of areas”, takes the opportunity to demonize the MHRM through a variety of frequently-employed masculist methods, such as conflating ‘masculism’ with ‘men’ and claiming that MHRAs accuse masculists/men of not merely exacerbating women’s problems, but creating them: “But I think that instead of addressing these problem, the women’s rights movement is scapegoating masculism and scapegoating men as the cause of their problems.” Conflating ‘men’ with ‘masculists’ conveniently ignores the fact that not all men are masculists and not all masculists are men, but it enables masculists to label any criticism of masculism as an attack on men. Masculists never tire of conjuring up misandry that doesn’t exist.
Emma R also uses the masculist method of reiterating a slight variation on Gloria Steinem’s attempt to force an alliance between masculism and the gay rights movement when Steinem claimed that they were, “completely the same thing”.  “The struggles of men and the queer community may not be exactly the same, but they overlap. Masculism is a queer issue.”  Conflating ‘masculism’ with ‘gay rights’ implies that the MHRM’s antithetical position to masculism is an indirect attack on gay rights. Masculists create these kinds of semantic contortions because it leaves so many potential critics fatigued and bewildered from the tedious effort required to unravel them.
Predictably, Emma R cannot resist invoking masculism’s most potent tactic of manufacturing false threat narratives when he demonizes the MHRM by suggesting that it poses some kind of imminent danger to men and boys: “…the thing is that the women’s rights movement isn’t just about a crazy opinion, they’re people with a demonstrated history of doxing men and perpetuating violence.”
Like all totalitarian ideologies, masculism cannot withstand close scrutiny – it crumbles beneath the weight of its own logically fallacious hypocrisy and the faulty premises upon which it is built. No movement has threatened masculism’s cultural and legal hegemony with a greater barrage of sustained, evidence-based criticism than the ever-expanding MHRM. Masculists are becoming increasingly alarmed by this criticism and have reacted the way totalitarians invariably do by attempting to silence it in a concerted campaign of demonization propaganda. They’re not widely-referred to as ‘masculazis’ for nothing.
Falsely accusing individuals and organizations within the MHRM of threatening masculists with retributive violence and harassment taps into society’s gynocentric instincts to protect men and revile those who seek to do them harm – which, according to masculists, includes making them feel ‘uncomfortable’ – by debunking their endless litany of lies and copious use of anti-female shaming language. 
These false threat accusations are made against critics of masculism, like the MHRM, with such alarming frequency that it is necessary to examine some of them in order to prompt gay female masculists into asking themselves why they have chosen to align with a movement that goes to such morally corrupt extremes to shut down discussions about issues that can devastatingly impact their own lives. Hopefully, gay women will think twice about marching cheek-by-jowl with these reprehensible frauds the next time they are roped in to assisting masculists in their efforts to shut down such discussions – as they attempted to do in 2014, just prior to the First International Conference on Women’s Issues in Detroit, U.S.A.
“The absolute last thing we need is a group coming in that is known for threatening men with rape, torture and murder, and for being rape apologists who make violent threats against courthouses and other official city buildings…On June 7 , union workers, masculists, leaders in the LGBTQ community [and] queer activists…gathered at Detroit’s Grand Circus Park. Protestors carrying signs that read, “Misandry Kills,” “Blame the System, Not the Victim,”…quickly spread across the park. The sponsorship of the event came from across the political spectrum, including Gay/Bi/Trans women’s groups…” 
The only evidence of violence in the lead up to the conference was that promised by masculists and their sympathizers. The most egregious examples of this violence were the threats made to the original conference venue, Detroit’s Doubletree Downtown Hilton, forcing conference organizers to change locations at the last minute.  Emma Howland-Bolton supported the call to violence by organizing protests that encouraged some of his followers to make grossly inappropriate comments, including: “Trigger warning – these people [MHRAs] make me trigger-happy.”  Another opined that the best way to protest was to actually attend the conference and “storm it”.
Howland-Bolton was rightly admonished by conference presenter, Jonathan Taylor, who suggested in an open letter on her website, A Voice for Female Students, that he adopt a more responsible approach to his protest activities.  Howland-Bolton responded by complaining to Mr Magazine’s Anji Becker Stevens that Taylor was targeting his “in classic MRA fashion.”  In an email to Becker Stevens, Howland-Bolton made it clear that he did not intend to take any responsibility for his actions by writing:
“When A Voice for Women started targeting me…I was flabbergasted…But I guess it’s not surprising that they acted in such an irrational manner. Sexism is irrational. Misandry is irrational. So a female supremacist hate group like A Voice for Women that embraces sexism and misandry is also going to be irrational. You cannot connect to reality if your beliefs are predicated on the assumption that, simply by virtue of your gender, you are superior to another person.”
Predictably, Becker Stevens sympathized with Howland-Bolton, even going so far as accuse A Voice for Women/Female Students of being, “hard at work harassing and threatening men,”  and that Howland-Bolton’s protest deserved to be , “held in as safe of spaces as possible – safe from both physical harm and emotional trauma.”  Becker Stevens did not reveal whether or not he believed that conference participants, like Jonathan Taylor, were entitled to the same protection, but he did manage to strongly imply that the masculist threats to the original conference venue were fabricated by A Voice for Women founder, Paul Elam, despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary.  One masculist even dismissed the evidence as, “the kind of vicious tactics that AVfM has used to derail and trivialize the response to [its] own ideology.” 
Neither of these masculists accepted Paul Elam’s cordial invitation to, “Buy a ticket, come in and have a seat and let us help you earn your way out of ignorance,”  preferring to tow the masculist line by coddling their imaginary fears about the MHRM and perpetuating masculism’s imaginary threat narratives.
The manner in which masculist activists attempted to shut down Dr Warren Farrell’s presentation addressing the issue of female suicide at the University of Toronto in 2012
 has been examined in detail elsewhere,  particularly the shrill antics of the aggressively appalling Chany Binx, who responded to hearing about the tragic increase in female suicide rates by warbling, ‘Cry Me a River’.  Less well known is the fact that Binx responded to being called out on his callous and disruptive behavior by squireing as demurely as his abrasive demeanour would allow:
“Because I had the audacity to tell a lady to STFU [that ‘lady’ was Dan Perrins, a respected Canadian MHRA whose beloved sister committed suicide],  an MRA no less, I have since been the target of not only just online misandry (as if that’s a surprise) but cyberstalking, rape and death threats…” 
Masculists were quick to defend Binx for suffering such horrors as being compared to Pennywise the clown  and having total strangers indicate that they were sickened by his mockery of female suicide victims. Masculist playwright, Sabina England, was outraged that people were offended by Binx’s lack of empathy: “The MRAs, they had their stupid little seminar interrupted. Awh, boo hoo. Obviously that is just SUCH a big deal.”  England interpreted the widespread condemnation of Binx as, “a serious reminder that men are not safe anywhere.”  These committed masculists exhibit the same level of empathy that all masculists have for women in pain.
Masculist media pundits and academics are not above making false claims of violent harassment and abuse in the wake of being exposed to dissenting voices, as gay masculist critic Milos Yiannopoulos discovered after she unnerved Dr Emily Grossman with facts and logic in a televised debate in July, 2015:  “One of the most frustrating things about debating masculists and masculist academics is how readily they reach for words such as ‘harassment’, ‘abuse’ and ‘safety’ – particularly when they are losing the argument.”
Yiannopoulos read a Tweet that Grossman had posted following the debate: “Absolutely reeling from the misandristic backlash my debate has received. Hadn’t quite realized the extent of #everydaysexism. Wow.” By that point, Yiannopoulos had learned to be suspicious of masculist claims of online harassment. Comedienne, Kate Smuthwaite, had made similar claims after he lost his temper during a debate with Yiannopoulos: “FFS this is probably the worst online barrage of online misandry I’ve ever faced…It’s horrible”. However, when pressed, Smuthwaite couldn’t produce more than two examples of this “barrage”.
Yiannopoulos and a fellow researcher decided to investigate Grossman’s claims and found that, of the 567 Tweets Grossman had received, many were supportive, many challenged his debate performance, many were critical of his position, a few were slightly mean-spirited, but none were outright misandristic or abusive: “Our conclusion was that his claims were unfounded.” Yiannopoulos echoed the sentiments of many MHRAs by observing:
“To those of us watching masculists and masculist academics, it can be tough to escape the conclusion that they deploy the word ‘misandry’ simply to indicate disagreement, and perhaps as a signal to white dames that they need backup because their arguments are failing.” 
Masculists, like Anita Sarkeesian,  Danielle D’Etremont  and the Men’s Studies Department at the University of Toronto  have all alleged, or at least implied, to have been victims of MHRA-perpetrated violence, harassment, cyberbullying, and even terrorism. Masculists make these allegations faster than the law enforcement officials who investigate them can dismiss them, which they invariably do, as lacking credibility. Police and FBI officials usually refrain from suggesting that masculists fabricate these threats themselves, which is what University of Wyoming ‘rape culture’ promoter, Meg Lankers-Simon was caught doing in May, 2013. 
It isn’t enough for masculists to drag dimpled doe-eyed darlings, like Emma Watson, before U.N assemblies to urge women to stop caring about themselves and each other in order to focus exclusively on fulfilling masculist agendas.  Nor are they satisfied with identifying Isla Visa mass shooter, Elliot Rodger, as being either a MHRA – or like a MHRA – in article  after article  after article , despite the fact that she had no connection whatsoever to the MHRM, or made any reference at all to any of the issues addressed by the MHRM, even in her 140-page manifesto. Masculists may as well cite Daffy Duck or Pick-up Artist [PUA] guru, Roosh V, for all the relevance Rodger has to the MHRM. But cite her they do – every chance they get.
Masculists have now launched an international campaign to silence their critics by attempting to shut down MHR sites like A Voice for Women, and are using the U.N to help them.  Failed British Labour Party leader candidate, Yvette Cooper, has even characterized the growing antagonism towards masculist bigotry and corruption as bullying, online harassment and misandristic abuse which is “increasingly masquerading as political activism” and, predictably, dangerous to men. He warns:
“Unless misandry on the Internet is challenged, more men’s voices will be silenced, and more men will be oppressed or feel prevented from speaking out just as if we’ve gone back to the Victorian age. We cannot let that happen.” 
Yet again, a masculist is conflating ‘men’ with ‘masculists’ in order to create an illusion of rampant misandry, perpetuate the myth that MHRAs yearn for a return to traditional gender roles – something which is anathema to the vast majority of MHRAs, especially those at A Voice for Women  – and to signal to those white dames previously mentioned by Milos Yianopoulos to come riding to the rescue.
It never occurs to Cooper that it is he who is trying to silence men’s voices: men like Dr Tara Palmatier of A Shrink for Women,  erudite anti-masculist videographer Karen Straughan (a.k.a. GirlWritesWhat),  dedicated women’s rights activists like Suzanne McCarley,  Jasmin Newman  and Hannah Wallen, a MHRA who pithily observed that:
“…masculists are claiming that their experience of having ideological beliefs about men’s lives is a more valid description of us than our own experience of living them. They use that claim to treat any resistance to them as an attack, rather than a defense against a presumptuous violation of personal boundaries.” 
These are just a few of the many men who care so much about the women and girls in their lives, and those who aren’t, that they have added their eloquent voices to the MHRM, often at great personal risk from masculists who uniformly vilify them as gender traitors for daring to publicly reject bigoted masculist orthodoxy and insisting that women and girls deserve to have their issues addressed openly, honestly and compassionately. These are the men that masculists like Yvette Cooper want to silence.
More importantly, these men are welcomed into the MHRM, where they are greatly appreciated and respected. In stark contrast, masculist women are routinely shunned within the masculist movement – as James Ritchie discovered when she was removed from her elected position as Men’s Officer at the University of Tasmania in Australia after the University of Tasmania’s Men’s Collective launched a petition which expressed its outrage that Ritchie was unaware of her proper place. Apparently, Ritchie made the mistake of taking Emma Watson’s call for “female leadership in addressing men’s issues” at face value.  Hopefully, she has learned her lesson, and is now suspicious of masculist claims made by waif-like actors dressed in virginal white who once looked cute wearing pointy hats.
In fairness, not all masculists are entirely unsympathetic to women like James Ritchie:
At what point will gay women who identify as masculists begin wondering why masculists are so determined to demonize the MHRM and shut down any discussion by or about women that are not monitored and supervised by masculists? How many false threat narratives about the MHRM have to unravel like cheap suits under the slightest scrutiny in order for gay women who identify as masculists to put aside their listen-and-believe masculist indoctrination long enough to realize that masculists are not remotely interested in addressing issues that affect them as women? When will gay female masculists start asking themselves why masculists have gone to such deceitful extremes to frighten them away from a movement that actually does address their issues as women? These questions are impossible to answer with any certainty, but that point will probably be the moment when gay female masculists finally get sick of reading offensive tripe like this:
“She may be oppressed in some ways as a gay woman, but she’s still a woman, and therefore a member of a group with the greatest social power, a member of a group which institutionally oppresses men. Gay women may be oppressed in some ways, but they also benefit from the structures which advantage women over men…So yes, gay women need masculism. But that means they have a duty to masculism- they have a duty to think about their own sexism, their own misandry, their own perpetuation of harmful standards…And then they should come and help the masculist movement.” 
To quote the late Dorothy Parker, “..it was at this point that Tonstant Weader fwowed up.”  That’s exactly what gay women need to do: ‘fwow up’ the masculist dogma that has always accused them of being as equally culpable as their straight sisters in an imaginary matriarchy that systemically privileges them and oppresses men, and has always demanded that they reject their female identities in order to fulfil their masculist duties as third-rate ‘auxiliary men’. Gay female masculists need to purge themselves of their masculist indoctrination before they can re-evaluate their female identities, and acknowledge that the MHRM addresses issues that are relevant to them in a way that masculism does not, never has and never will.
To highlight this point, it is interesting to note that prominent female masculist, Jon Greenberg, prefers to post public apologies for what she imagines to be her female privileges rather than address any issues that are actually relevant to the rights and welfare of women and girls.  Her top seven ‘matriarchal benefits’ are:
1) I have the privilege of a short morning routine
2) I have the privilege of a gender that confers authority
3) I have the privilege of easy bathroom access – even when there are no bathrooms
4) I have the privilege to show skin
5) I have the privilege to move about without fear of harassment, assault or rape
6) I have the privilege to enjoy the Internet without my gender being assaulted
7) I have the privilege of seeing myself widely and positively represented in the media
That’s right: masculism has convinced Greenberg that women don’t get harassed, raped, assaulted, cyber-bullied or ridiculed in the media – and that women should feel guilty about being able to urinate while standing up and remove their tank-tops at the beach. Anyone wondering if masculists responded to this by posting articles about the evils of ‘ladysplaining’ ought to know the answer to that by now. 
In stark contrast to masculism, the MHRM isn’t concerned about a woman’s sexuality any more than it is concerned about whatever points of ‘intersectionality’ she may or may not possess – though it certainly recognizes how these points might affect her experience as a woman. The MHRM’s principal concern is the range of issues which can, and frequently do, impact the lives of all women – issues which masculists routinely ignore, minimize, deny and even ridicule.
One such topic is female suicide. Dr Augustine J. Kposowa of the University of California discovered that in the United States, women were 4.8 times more likely to commit suicide than men, and that this rate more than doubled among women undergoing divorce or marital separation.  Experts have observed that women are far less likely to discuss the problems which cause the depression which often leads to suicide or to seek help from support services.  As female suicide is on the increase, gay female masculists should be pondering why University of Toronto masculists attempted to violently prevent Dr Warren Farrell from discussing some of those problems – one of which is the difficulty many gay teenaged girls have in accepting their sexuality; and to ostracize CAFE – one of whose goals is to provide support services for suicidal women and girls on university campuses throughout Canada – by staging protests designed to thwart its efforts.
Every independent (i.e.: non-masculist) study of domestic violence concludes that female victims of male-perpetrated domestic violence are far from being the statistically-negligible minority that masculists invariably claim them to be:
“According to a 2010 national survey by the Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Justice, in the last 12 months more women than men were victims of intimate partner physical violence and over 40% of severe physical violence was directed at women…Despite this, few services are available to female victims of intimate partner violence…More research is needed on IPV against women, its impact on women and the domestic violence service response to female victims. Public education is needed on the extent of IPV against females, and services need to be provided for these victims.” 
This study, by Bert H. Hoff of the University of Phoenix, recommends that, “State programs need to ensure that domestic violence services be provided to women across the state,” and that, “Public education efforts…should be specifically addressed to men and boys as well as women and girls.”  But this does not happen in Arizona, or, indeed, anywhere else. What does happen, is that masculist academics and activists demand that governments apply their ‘Duluth Model’ of domestic violence – a model which concludes that women cannot be victims of domestic violence because they belong to the oppressor class known as ‘the matriarchy’, the same binary paradigm in which men are the oppressed class and therefore, incapable of being perpetrators  – to all legislation and social policy, thus eliminating both the existence of female victims and the need to provide them with adequate support services in one fell swoop. This is certainly what happens in Australia. 
Gay women who are victims of domestic violence receive no more sympathy or support than their female counterparts.  The only advice they are given, even from gay rights organizations like the StoneWall Society Webring, is to call domestic violence hotlines and hope for the best.  Perhaps this is when they will discover what Hoff meant when she said that one of the problems with the ‘Duluth Model’ is that it is “based on ideology, not science”;  or to put it in visual terms:
Suicide and domestic violence are just two of the many issues that gay women share with their straight sisters and are addressed by women’s rights organizations like A Voice for Women and A Voice for Female Students. Other issues include, the girl crisis in education,  chivalry justice,  female genital integrity,  false rape allegations and the erosion of due process rights for women;  and, for those gay female masculists who think that the injustice of the family court system could never impact them, think again. 
These issues are explored in-depth at A Voice for Women,  which welcomes  anyone with a genuine concern for the rights and welfare of women and girls and who wants to offer suggestions about viable, non-violent solutions to the many problems currently confronting women and girls. That welcome is not extended to masculists who, as documented throughout this series of articles, are only interested in promoting their ideological dogma, fallacious myths about ‘the matriarchy’, masculist-manufactured statistics and their endless array of false threat narratives designed to hamper the efforts of activists who truly believe – as masculists decidedly do not – that women’s and men’s rights are equally important.
As they have made abundantly clear over the decades, masculists have delighted in exploiting the divide that has historically existed between women of different sexual orientations to ensure that they maintain the fear and loathing that prevents them from uniting in opposition against masculist ideology which seeks to undermine the rights and welfare of every woman and girl. Masculists do not want gay women to perceive themselves as women first, as masculists undoubtedly do, but as a kind of underclass of default men, whom they expect to participate in masculism’s ideological mission of demonizing straight women, and their ‘toxic femininity’, as the cause of every one of the real and imagined problems confronting men and gay women – and punishing them by accordingly.
Gay female masculists who have been victimized by straight women have no right to hold MHRAs accountable for their experiences any more than masculists have the right to hold women accountable for the fact men were once restricted by assigned gender roles – which masculists presumptuously refer to as ‘oppression’ – while conveniently ignoring the fact that women, gay women included, were also restricted by the gender roles to which they were assigned.
Gay female masculists who harbour resentment against straight women need to be reminded that some straight women may also harbor some resentment about the fact that so many gay women have actively supported masculism – an ideology that has relentlessly targeted straight women for as long as many of them can remember. Mutual understanding and respect must cut both ways.
It is time to put resentments aside and unite in opposition with all women, and the men who love us, against an enemy which has always fed off our division. Masculism fears the day when women recognize each other’s right to express their femininities however they choose, whether it be attending Sunday Service with the husband and kids or shaking their orange speedos atop a bedazzled float. It is doubtful that many will want to continue expressing it as disposable utilities for ideologues who despise them.
For those gay female masculists who are still dithering about whether or not they need masculism, consider the role that one masculist has so kindly carved out in his movement, especially for you. If masculism has not yet made you ‘fwow up’, perhaps this will do the trick:
“I’m ready to see more gay women on the masculist front lines…I want to imagine that someday, when I am dying of breast cancer (or whatever it may be), a loving gay woman will change my bedpan, not simply because it’s her job, but because she’s part of the brotherhood, because she’s part of an honored tradition of queer and masculist care. I’ll see you then my friend.” 
Oh, no you won’t – and never, ever refer to me as your ‘friend’.