-
BlogHer Ad Network More from BlogHer Advertise here BlogHer Privacy Policy -
"In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she's a feminist or a masochist." --Gloria Steinem
-
Apr
4
“News” Organization Files Offensive “Report” on Trans Issues
Filed Under LGBTQ issues, assholes, bigotry, gender, homophobia and transphobia, media, parenthood, pregnancy, reproductive justice | 8 Comments
By now, you’ve probably heard of Thomas Beatie, the transgender man who is pregnant with his first child. With the exception of the original Advocate story, written by Beatie himself, pretty much all coverage I’ve seen has been extremely obnoxious and sensationalized. Thomas and his wife Nancy say that they came out with the news on their own so that they could have some say on the framing of the media coverage — and one would assume they also have at least some interest in trans rights — but they seem to have underestimated the media.
Yesterday, Beatie was on Oprah (did anyone see it? how did it go?), and so coverage is now even more intensified. Though I’m sure that there are less credible news sources reporting much more offensively, this shit from MSNBC pissed me the fuck off:
Pregnant “man” tells Oprah: “It’s a miracle”
That’s right, according to MSNBC, Beatie who has lived as a man for many years, is legally recognized as a man and is legally married to a woman is now a “man.” You know, can’t let those trans folk get to uppity by acknowledging their legal rights or showing them any basic respect.
Maybe if MSNBC wanted to somehow clarify how a man could be pregnant in their title, if that was so very important to them, they could have used the phrase transman or transgender man, rather than trying to illegitimatize his entire identity with the scare quotes? Ah, but then fewer people would be drawn to click on the link, wouldn’t they?
Then there’s this lede for a related video report: “Is it true? Is it possible? Thomas Beatie of Bend, Ore., says “yes” to both questions, claiming he’s five months pregnant. But is his claim real, or a hoax? KTVZ reports.”
Nothing like getting people to make you some money off of ad viewings by using a teaser that suggests a person’s major life event might be a “hoax.” Also, if you watch the video, you’ll see a reporter harassing Beatie’s neighbors and then feigning surprise when they won’t talk to her or express their support. Also, while intruding on their lives, uninvited with a microphone and camera, they decide to wag a finger at the paparazzi camped outside of Beatie’s home for their completely inexcusable crime of . . . intruding on the neighborhood uninvited with microphones and cameras.
Hey MSNBC, are you getting a good view of my middle finger?
You can contact MSNBC at letters@msnbc.com. They ask that you include the URL of the story you’re responding to in the body of your email.
Popularity: 14% [?]
Mar
6
Mainstream Media Says Wham, Bam, Thank You M’am
Filed Under gender, homophobia and transphobia, media, patriarchy, sex and sexuality, sexism, stereotypes | 26 Comments
Here’s something that will probably not surprise and yet still manage to annoy the crap out of you. There is a new study on the desired length of sex for heterosexual couples, as determined by American sex experts. Check this out:
The US study is the first to review what experts believe is the ideal length of time to have penetrative sex, with the random sample of Americans and Canadians labelling seven to 13 minutes most “desirable”.
Intercourse lasting between three and seven minutes was deemed “adequate”, but anything less was considered “too short” and beyond 13 minutes was “too long”.
The study, published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, aims to calm unrealistic beliefs that healthy sex should last a long time.
Dr Jane Howard, a Brisbane medical sex therapist, said there was little data on Australians’ expectation of sex. Anecdotal evidence suggested most women were happy with three to seven minutes, while men were not.
Now, as someone who enjoys sex and generally assumes that large portions of the rest of the population also enjoy sex, a question instantly sprung to mind: in what universe? No, seriously, this America? Three minutes? And wait, men are the ones who want sex to be longer, and women don’t? This is, in fact, contrary to every generalized remark I’ve ever heard about heterosexual practice. Don’t tons of straight women complain about how too many men rush during sex? Are the bulk of American men who sleep with women just really bad in bed, and I’ve somehow gotten through life without realizing it? (I am, after all, married to an Australian.)
It almost seems like they’re leaving something out. Of course, no one openly explains or discusses that the study is only about heterosexual couples — I presume that you were supposed to infer this from all the talk of penis in vaginas and the fact that only men and women are described as potential sexual partners. But, you see, this has nothing to do with prejudice or heteronormativity — this is about facts, people. As it turns out, any two people who do not have one penis and one vagina between them cannot have sex. That’s not even a joke — I’m going off of media characterizations.
Popularity: 35% [?]
Feb
13
On the murder of Sanesha Stewart
Filed Under LGBTQ issues, WOC issues, bigotry, class and economics, discrimination, gender, homophobia and transphobia, media, misogyny, patriarchy, race and racism, sex work, violence against women and girls | 16 Comments
You may have already heard about the senseless murder of Sanesha Stewart. Stewart was a trans woman of color who was stabbed to death, apparently by a male sex partner.
In the wake of this tragedy, the media has not only failed to show respect for a fellow human being whose life was cut short, they’ve been downright, outlandishly offensive. Stewart has been called a “hooker,” despite any actual evidence that she was a sex worker and claims from her neighbors that she was not. Her appearance has been commented on repeatedly. She has been referred to by masculine pronouns and her masculine birth name, with her legal feminine name referred to as a “nickname.” Here is one infamous article from the NY Daily News. It was originally called “Fooled john stabbed Bronx tranny,” though after GLAAD made some noise, they changed it to the oh-so-improved “Cops: Ex-con slays Bronx transsexual ‘hooker’.” A warning: the language below is extremely disrespectful and upsetting.
A transgendered prostitute was stabbed to death in the Bronx Saturday by a customer who was apparently surprised by the hooker’s true sex, police sources said Saturday.
The victim - a 25-year-old man who dressed like a woman - was identified by sources as Talib Stewart, who often went by the feminine nicknames of Nesha or Sanesha.
Stewart was stabbed multiple times inside a Belmont apartment building about 6 a.m. Saturday, police said.
A 37-year-old man was later arrested inside the second-floor apartment, police said.
Though the suspect’s identity was not immediately released, the sources said he was the prostitute’s john who became enraged when he learned his partner was not a woman.
Stewart, more than 6 feet tall, was known to wear stylish, provocative outfits with towering high heels, neighbors said.
Stewart also apparently had undergone surgery to give him larger breasts and other female characteristics, neighbors said.
“She looked like a girl but when she turned around, you knew it was a man,” a 17-year-old neighbor said. “She had a big jaw and an Adam’s apple.”
Neighbors said Stewart was a friendly and flirty presence on the block and was rarely hassled for his appearance.
“She’s always been Nesha to me,” said a friend who just gave her first name, Janelle. “She’s funny and outgoing.”
“It’s a shock - nobody should do something like that,” said another neighbor who asked not to be identified. “She never had any problems here.”
Stewart’s relatives visited the crime scene Saturday afternoon and angrily declined comment. Neighbors said they didn’t know if Stewart was turning tricks but they had noticed frequent male visitors to her home.
The suspect remained in police custody last night as the Bronx district attorney was determining which charges to file, officials said.
Must we list off the problems here? I hope not, but here goes, anyway.
Popularity: 24% [?]
Feb
2
New York Must Recognize Legal Same-Sex Marriages
Filed Under LGBTQ issues, discrimination, homophobia and transphobia | 3 Comments
When you’re from Rochester, NY, how often do you really get the chance to show a little hometown pride (be honest now, Rochestarians)? I grew up in Rochester and I work there now, and I’ve got to say that the city gets a pretty bad rap, and not entirely an undeserved one. But today we have a reason to rejoice and claim the city as truly bad ass: a New York appellate court in Monroe County ruled that New York must recognize legal same-sex marriages from outside the state.
Even though gay couples may not legally marry in New York, the appellate court in Rochester held that a gay couple’s 2004 marriage in Canada must be respected under the state’s longstanding “marriage recognition rule,” and that an employer’s denial of health benefits had discriminated against the couple on the basis of their sexual orientation.
“The Legislature may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad,” a five-judge panel of the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court ruled unanimously in rejecting a 2006 lower court decision. “Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York.”
[. . .]
As a practical matter, the marriages of thousands of gay couples entered into outside the state have been recognized in recent years by many state and local agencies and by private employers for purposes of allowing health and life insurance coverage, child care and other benefits. But others have resisted doing so voluntarily, pending the outcome of numerous cases in the courts.
Friday’s ruling, legal experts said, was the first by an appellate division court, and would make the recognition of valid out-of-state gay marriages mandatory across New York. It was not clear whether Monroe County and Monroe Community College in Rochester, the employer in the case, would appeal.
Daniel DeLaus Jr., the county attorney for Rochester, said his office was reviewing the decision and would decide whether to seek an appeal.
Jeffrey Wicks, a lawyer who represents the plaintiff, Patricia Martinez, said that New York had recognized common-law marriages, even marriages of closely related people that might not be allowed in the state. “There’s a long tradition in New York of recognizing marriages that couldn’t be performed in New York,” he said.
The New York Civil Liberties Union, which represented Ms. Martinez, a word-processing supervisor at the college, hailed the ruling. The union called it “the first known decision in the country to hold that a valid same-sex marriage must be recognized.”
Well, okay, so maybe “the city” itself isn’t bad ass, since they were the ones fighting the recognition of same-sex marriages in the first place (though thanks, jackasses, for the legal opportunity). But right now, I consider that a minor detail; don’t burst my bubble, people.
And for those same-sex couples in the Greater Rochester Area, there’s an extra bonus beyond the bragging rights; Niagara Falls is only about 90 minutes away. Day trip!
Popularity: 17% [?]
Jan
18
Because if you don’t teach kids about sex, they’ll never figure it out on their own
Filed Under LGBTQ issues, bigotry, courts gone crazy, discrimination, education and schools, homophobia and transphobia, human rights, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, sex and sexuality, social conservatives, women’s health | 6 Comments
A Maryland court has just heard arguments in a case over sex education brought against a school board by parents. The main issue with the law is its teachings on homosexuality:
Until now, opposition has focused on the constitutional rights of Montgomery families whose religious beliefs do not abide homosexuality. But with yesterday’s hearing before Circuit Court Judge William Rowan III, an attorney for the plaintiffs narrowed his focus to a few words in the disputed lessons.
Brandon Bolling, a lawyer from the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., challenged a passage in the 90-minute lessons that describes homosexuality as innate. That assertion, he said, violates a provision of a state law that says school curricula must be factual.
That sexual orientation is innate is a theory that has been rejected by courts in several states, Bolling said. “The Maryland law says you have to teach something that is factually accurate,” he said. “They are not doing that. That is illegal.”
School officials say the legal challenge intrudes on their right to do their job: writing curricula and teaching children. The new lessons survived an appeal last year to the Maryland State Board of Education, which determined it had no place to “second-guess the appropriateness” of the lessons.
“The purpose of the law in Maryland is to leave educational decisions to educators,” said Judith Bresler, attorney for the county school board. She said critics were effectively asking the court to edit the curriculum “word by word.”
To address the first point about “factual” teachings, I have to say it’s a pretty ridiculous argument. Not because sex ed shouldn’t be factual, but because schools are currently teaching teenagers all across this country that birth control pills don’t work, condoms don’t work, abortions make you sterile, and having sex before marriage will cause you to have later trouble bonding with a spouse, if you ever get one (you filthy slut) because no one will ever love you. But we shouldn’t be surprised that the teaching challenged by those who care so much about “accuracy” has to do with describing the very existence of homosexuality.
Popularity: 20% [?]
Jan
16
Wait, sexual orientation ISN’T a binary?
Filed Under LGBTQ issues, gender, homophobia and transphobia, media, objectification, sexism, stereotypes | 11 Comments
Crazy but true, folks. Bisexual women actually exist. Their sexual preferences are not a phase! You hear that, bisexual ladies? You are now officially validated. You may go about your lives from this point forward knowing that a scientific study has confirmed that you’re not lying about your sexual desires. Doesn’t it feel great to know that you can believe yourself?
Popularity: 17% [?]
Jan
1
A happy beginning
Filed Under LGBTQ issues, homophobia and transphobia, human rights, legislation | 5 Comments
This morning the New Hampshire law legalizing civil unions for same-sex couples went into effect. Thirty-seven couples were married in a group ceremony at the New Hampshire Statehouse, where the law was enacted, right as the new year began. Most amazing of all: there weren’t any protesters.
As ceremonies go, the outdoors event that began at 11 p.m. Monday was equal parts political rally, party and personal triumph.
”We really didn’t believe that we’d be able to see this accomplished within one year but it has happened,” state Rep. Jim Splaine, a sponsor of the civil unions bill, told the cheering crowd of about 200. ”One thing we have to keep in mind is that there is much more to do. We have to continue the journey to make sure that we have marriage equality, full marriage equality — with the word marriage — soon.”
New Hampshire’s civil unions law — enacted by the Democrat-dominated Legislature early last year and signed by Democratic Gov. John Lynch in May, gives same sex couples the same rights, responsibilities and obligations of marriage without calling the union a marriage. New Hampshire is the fourth state in the nation to allow civil unions.
”We are a citizen legislature and we legislated this into being,” said state Rep. Gail Morrison, a Democrat and co-organizer of the event who entered into a civil union with her longtime partner.
New Hampshire is now one of only five states that legally recognizes same-sex couples, four with civil unions and only one with marriage. Baby steps. Allowing same-sex unions to hold the same legal title as opposite-sex unions is a very important symbolic and political step. And it’s sad to be so close and yet so far away. But I think that what most of us can agree on is that in the end, this battle isn’t nearly as much about the message as it is about the rights. Being able to make medical decisions on the other’s behalf when necessary, easier adoption processes, health care benefits, pension and inheritance access, etc. This is about people’s lives. Hopefully, we can trust Rep. Jim Splaine on his promise to keep up the pressure, and we can fight for the necessary symbolic step another day. In the meantime, let’s celebrate the victory. Good job, New Hampshire.
Popularity: 11% [?]
Dec
7
This Week in Dem-ocracy
Filed Under Democrats, LGBTQ issues, Republicans, class and economics, gender, homophobia and transphobia, legislation, politics | 1 Comment
So, the Dems are apparently dropping the new hate crime legislation that would protect against crimes based on gender, sexual orientation or disability. They’re afraid that it will block the Pentagon policy bill that it’s attached to — and the hate crime bill is only attached because it apparently couldn’t get anywhere on its own. So much for that. [I'm still pissed at HRC, too, but this is the best explanation I've found about what happened since the bill passed the Senate a few months ago.] I have to say, I’m kind of surprised that they didn’t just cut out the “gender” provision — it worked so well for ENDA, didn’t it? And in any case, what the hell happened to forcing the assholes to publicly pick a side and leave a mark on their voting records?
In other news, the stupid 60-vote majority rule in the Senate is stopping a new environmental protection bill. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, since the bill was, you know, good. It would have increased fuel economy standards by 40% and put new taxes on the oil industry — and god knows that we can’t take any of this silly global warming stuff out on the oil or auto giants, what with their penchant for temper tantrums.
Oh, the Dems also backed down from their promise to not cut taxes without finding a way to pay for it. In all honesty, this bill did have to be passed, or everyone would be late getting their tax returns and that would piss us off a lot more than a broken promise. But it is pretty shattering to see a good, noble and necessary pledge get flushed down the toilet.
But hey, don’t worry — if a bill giving more money to abstinence-only programs comes up, you can count on them to pass that shit so fast it’ll make your head spin.
Someone want to take a guess as to why Congressional approval ratings are so low? For fuck’s sake, people, I know that you’re Democrats, and that pretty much means by definition that you have to shoot yourselves in the foot and back down faster than you can say “uncle,” but get it together.
Popularity: 13% [?]
Dec
7
Transgender People and the Prison System
Filed Under LGBTQ issues, WOC issues, bigotry, courts gone crazy, discrimination, gender, homophobia and transphobia, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sexual exploitation and harassment, violence against women and girls, women’s health | 4 Comments
Today, AlterNet has a story written by transwoman and transgender activist Kalani Key, describing the time that she spent incarcerated in all male prisons.
It’s definitely worth a read. Key, a former heroin addict, describes the first time that she was sent to jail, when there were special prisons set up for “Category B” prisoners — transwomen and “effeminate” and gay men. But in the early 90s they abolished this system and started sending most transwomen who had not undergone genital surgery and men of all sexual orientations to male prisons, but of course without changing a damn thing about their policies to accommodate sexual and gender minorities and make sure that they were safe.
Popularity: 18% [?]
Nov
30
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell a Republican About Gay Rights
Filed Under 2008 election, Democrats, LGBTQ issues, Republicans, assholes, bigotry, discrimination, homophobia and transphobia, patriarchy, politics | 6 Comments
For those of us liberals who watched the Republican YouTube debate on Wednesday — which, for the record, was probably hands down the most watchable Republican debate to date — there were a few standout moments. There was Romney and Giuliani looking like they were going to punch each other out over immigration. There was Anderson Cooper turning to Fred Thompson after airing his “YouTube” campaign video that was just an attack on the other candidates and asking “What’s up with that?” (for the record, the Giuliani campaign seemed to be the only one that “got” the nature of YouTube).
And then there was the man above, Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr, who asked a question about gays and military service. Kerr explained that he is a gay man, and said “I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.” The candidates who got to answer danced around the question, except for Duncan Hunter who seemed to say “because our military men and women are bigoted.” I’m sure that they expected that to be the end, except that Kerr was in the audience and Anderson Cooper asked him if his question had been answered. Kerr said that it had been not, and proceeded to go into a speech about why they were wrong, leaving the Republicans absolutely dumbfounded. Which they should have been. It’s much easier to throw around hate speech when the oppressed isn’t standing in front of you demanding his rights. You can watch a partial and edited video of the exchange here.
But there has been a complication. It turns out that Kerr has been on advisory committees for Hillary Clinton. Of course, the conservatives have seized the moment to claim that Sen. Clinton’s campaign planted the question. Both they and Kerr deny it, and their claim only makes sense — though Senator Clinton wants to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, she supports her husband’s decision to implement the ridiculous, prejudiced policy in the first place. But that hasn’t stopped CNN from begging for forgiveness and removing the segment from rebroadcasts of the debate without disclosure.
Popularity: 16% [?]
Nov
20
Transgender Day of Remembrance
Filed Under LGBTQ issues, activism, bigotry, gender, homophobia and transphobia, human rights | 3 Comments
Today is the 9th Annual Transgender Day of Remembrance. This day memorializes those who have been killed due to anti-transgender hatred, whether the victims were transgender themselves or perceived to be.
Julie Serano has an amazing post on the subject up at Feministing, which I encourage you to read. According to the most recent statistics (both pdf) that I could find, there is more than one murder motivated by trans hatred each month. This is most likely a conservative estimate, because many of these crimes are not reported or listed as hate crimes. And it was just reported yesterday that U.S. hate crimes rates went up in 2006, but not every all counties report these numbers, and hate crimes based on gender identity may or may not be included in the statistics for hate crimes based on sexual orientation. Gender identity and sexual orientation should be two separate categories of hate crime, but the two are often conflated and sometimes gender identity is not considered at all. Only seven state and the District of Columbia have hate crime legislation that includes gender identity or expression.
A partial list of victims through 2006 can be viewed here, along with the causes of death. A partial 2007 list is here.
Here is a list of 2007 Transgender Day of Remembrance events, from all over the world. Consider attending one if you can.
UPDATE: This is an absolutely great post and you should go read it now.
Popularity: 13% [?]
Oct
30
Man Makeup
Filed Under beauty myths, gender, homophobia and transphobia, marketing, objectification, pop culture, products,