Oct

12

Boss Admits to Firing Woman Because of Her Gender Identity

Filed Under LGBTQ, bigotry, discrimination, gender, human rights, legislation, misogyny, politics, trans, transphobia and trans misogyny, work | 7 Comments

Vandy Beth Glenn was fired in 2007 when she informed her boss her boss that she was a trans woman with plans to begin her transition. With Lambada Legal, she has since launched a federal lawsuit against her former employer, the Georgia General Assembly. (Yes, you did in fact read that correctly — her employer was a government body.) In an interview, she said:

“Mr. Brumby told me that people would think I was immoral. He told me I would make other people uncomfortable, just by being myself. He told me that my transition was unacceptable. And over and over, he told me it was inappropriate.”

Then, Brumby fired Glenn.

“I’m not sure I was really thinking anything in that moment other than utter shock,” Glenn told ABCNews.com. “That he was so matter of fact about it blew my mind.”

Now, Sewell Brumby has actually confessed to firing Glenn on the basis of her gender identity, while still claiming to have done no wrong (warning: transmisogynistic/transphobic language contained in the quoted text):

During the deposition, Brumby describes Glenn, who is referred to in court documents by her pre-transition name of [redacted], as not being very good at her job and not particularly well-liked. Brumby said several times that Glenn’s transition would have been disruptive to his workplace.

“I think it would have been, I suppose, an unusual and notorious event. And I think when unusual and notorious events happen in the workplace it distracts the people in that workplace and takes away from the performance of their job duties,” he said.

Although the legislative cousel office has four one-stall gender-neutral bathrooms, Brumby was concerned about what would happen if Glenn were to use one of the public women’s bathrooms. He also expressed personal concerns about his reactions to Glenn’s transition.

“I think it would have made it very uncomfortable and emotionally upsetting for me to communicate with [Glenn's male name redacted] under those circumstances, and I imagined that some other number of our employees would feel likewise,” he said.

“It makes me think about things I don’t like to think about, particularly at work … I think it’s unsettling to think of someone dressed in women’s clothing with male sexual organs inside that clothing.”

Brumby couldn’t explain to Cole Thaler, the Lambda Legal attorney representing Glenn, why it was upsetting.

“It’s not something that I enjoy thinking about, and I think it would have been unsettling to have a constant reminder to think about something I don’t like to think about,” he said.

Brumby called her transition unnatural, but said he didn’t make moral judgments while acknowledging others would. He said that some in the legislature would view Glenn’s transition as “liberal or ultra-liberal” and could lose faith in the office’s required neutrality.

Shorter Brumby: In addition to generally being a transphobic bigot, I also can’t stop thinking about the genitalia of the women who work in my office, and see this as a reason why they should be fired instead of myself.

Read more

Oct

5

U.S. Fence Causes Increase in Border Crossing Deaths

Filed Under bigotry, human rights, immigration, legislation, politics, race and racism, violence against women and girls | 4 Comments

u.s./mexico border fence

A recently released study by the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties and Mexico’s National Commission on Human Rights (h/t abbyjean) shows that there has been an increase in migrant deaths at the U.S.-Mexico border in the past year:

Marking the 15th anniversary of the misguided border strategy known as Operation Gatekeeper, the report makes visible the following:

  1. In the past 15 years, as many as 5,600 people have died.
  2. These deaths were anticipated in the design of the U.S. border strategy, which deliberately pushes migrants away from inhabited areas into harsh desert and mountainous terrains.
  3. The rate of deaths has increased despite the economic decline and a drop in migration.
  4. The number of rescues has decreased despite a massive increase in Border Patrol agents.

And of course this study is only looking at deaths, and therefore leaves out injuries that don’t result in a fatality, as well as the extraordinarily high rate of sexual assault committed against women crossing the border.

Though it’s important to have the numbers, both to be able to quote them and to be able to attract media attention, none of this should come as a surprise. In fact, advocates for immigrants rights have long warned that exactly this would happen in the event of “border security” being increased, and particularly in the event of the border fence being expanded. It’s only logical: people do not attempt to cross the U.S. border in hopes of finding work without documentation unless they’re facing some sort of desperation, and fences don’t make desperation go away, make the legal route to U.S. entry any less expensive or any more accessible, or put food on family’s tables. Build a fence, and many people will find another, more dangerous way — and those who authorized and built the fence knew that damn well at the time they did so.

Read more

Aug

13

Man Destroys Rosa Parks Poster at Health Care Town Hall

Filed Under assholes, bigotry, misogyny, politics, race and racism | 4 Comments

It’s no big secret that the health care reform town halls are getting dramatically out of hand, and yet again displaying the erratic, borderline violent and frankly quite frightening behavior of extremist right-wingers. From the “Death to Obama” sign (h/t) and the man who brought a gun to an Obama town hall, there’s a lot of frightening, disgusting, and yes, racist, stuff going on.

From Tuesday, here’s yet another example:

At a Senator Claire McCaskill town hall, several black women brought a sign with them (and were apparently booed upon entering the room). They rolled the sign up, and set it aside. A photographer approached the woman sitting on the end of the aisle and asked to see the poster. As the woman unrolled the poster for the photographer, a white man got out of the bleachers, grabbed it from her, and attempted to destroy it. Audience members, who were overwhelmingly white, cheered. The woman got out of her seat to retrieve her poster. And something like four police officers grabbed her and escorted her out of the building. The audience cheered louder.

The hugely offensive sign that the man decided to rip up, by the way? It was of Rosa Parks.

It’s worth noting that the man who stole and vandalized the sign was arrested, and the woman who was the victim of this crime was let go. But we’ve still got police jumping to conclusions about who is to blame, and not instinctively choosing the white guy. And we’ve also got a mob mentality going on. Most of the audience members who cheered might not have even known what was on the sign. But if they did know what was on it, they cheered destruction of an image of a civil rights hero. And if they didn’t, they cheered the destruction of the sign simply based on who the woman holding it was. On what she looked like. Either way, I’m pretty damn sure that’s racism, and white entitlement. (I’m also willing to bet a whole lot that it was male entitlement, too — something tells me the guy would have been less likely to grab the same sign from another man.)

You see, fear-mongering never just stays fear-mongering for long. Call enough abortion providers murderers, and one’s going to end up getting shot. Say that the president is trying to instate “death panels” (on that subject, see here), and people are going to start publicly promoting violence against him. Convince white people that the tide is turning and not only will their undeserved privilege be revoked, but also that they’re the ones who are going to be racially oppressed now, and white people are going to start verbally and physically lashing out at people of color.

It’s not hard to add two and two together. And those who are hiding behind free speech and claiming there is no connection know it, too.

Jul

14

Women Who Would Have Medicaid-Funded Abortions Instead Often Give Birth

Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, class and economics, misogyny, patriarchy, politics, pregnancy, reproductive justice, women’s health | 3 Comments

A new study just released by the Guttmacher Institute (pdf; news release here) determined that “approximately one-fourth of women who would have Medicaid-funded abortions instead give birth when this funding is unavailable.”

Whatever the actual number of women who are essentially forced to give birth due to a lack of funding for abortion is, as a percentage it’s a gigantic and terrifying figure.

Of course, such news is likely to be cheered by advocates of the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal dollars from funding abortion, and similar state funding restrictions.  The results, after all, were incredibly easy to predict, and while they are indeed shocking they’re not hugely surprising.

What it goes to prove that restrictions on abortion funding aren’t really about ensuring that a woman’s reproductive choices aren’t funded by those who may disagree with them.  (After all, there are assholes out there who think that it’s “wrong” for women to give birth under “certain” circumstances, but we still fund prenatal and birth care.)  It’s about ensuring that women without their own funds don’t get to actually make a choice at all.  It’s about forcing women to give birth because they have no other option.

Since anti-choicers have been unable to institute an outright ban, they go the way of restrictions which, as all abortion-related restrictions do, only impact economically disadvantaged women.  They’re the only ones for whom a few hundred dollars in the way can make such a life-altering decision.  And since the class system is still structured rather strongly along racial lines, it’s also having a disproportionate impact on women of color.  Indeed, a North Carolina study cited in this same Guttmacher paper showed that when public funding for abortions was made available, there was a 10% increase in abortions among black women, compared to a 1% increase among white women.

Currently, only 17 states fund all or most medically necessary abortions.  The rest (with the exception of South Dakota, which is in breach of federal law), only cover abortions in the case of rape/incest or life endangerment.  So, as the ACLU blog astutely notes, the women mentioned above who would have had Medicaid funded abortions given the option but instead gave birth also includes women with health-threatening conditions (such as cancer or heart disease, to name only two of many) that pregnancy poses an increased risk to.

Last week, I posted about anti-choice efforts to exclude abortion funding from proposed health care reform legislation.  The good news is that some of those efforts just failed in committee — hopefully indicating a willingness of all but the most anti-choice Democrats to stand up for women’s rights and health.  The bad news is that anti-choice legislators will have plenty of opportunities left to try to reinsert such provisions.  And they likely will.  After all, as the information above proves, such efforts have served their goals quite well.

via Abby Jean

Jul

9

Americans Broadly Support Abortion Coverage in Health Reform

Filed Under Democrats, Republicans, abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, class and economics, misogyny, patriarchy, politics, reproductive justice, social conservatives, women’s health | 2 Comments

You my have heard — or you may not, as it seems to be getting little mainstream media coverage — that health care reform is in trouble. With Republicans and blue-dog Democrats sensing that some sort of of government coverage is likely to be successfully created this time around, they’re shifting tactics somewhat from attempting to defeat mounting legislative efforts to attempting to gut them. And a big area where they’re focusing that gutting is reproductive health care:

Imagine our dismay to see the proposed amendments submitted to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee this week by Republican Senators Michael Enzi, Orin Hatch and Tom Coburn:

  • Coverage for abortion would be banned;
  • Health providers and insurers would be protected against “discrimination” for refusing to provide health care requested by their patients including abortions, emergency contraception, aid-in-dying (such as in Oregon, Washington and Montana, where this is legal) or really just about any health service they find objectionable;
  • Federally-qualified health centers could not provide abortions and still get government grants;
  • Any independent medical board appointed to determine the benefits that would be included in national health reform coverage would have to include “professional ethicists…with specialty in rights of the life of the unborn.”

The really interesting thing is that while traditional wisdom suggests there is rather broad support for a ban on government subsidization of abortions, new research from the National Women’s Law Center suggests that it’s not actually true — not by a long shot:

  • Voters overwhelmingly support the broad outlines of reform and requiring coverage of women’s reproductive health services. Seven-in-ten (70%) favor a proposal that establishes a National Health Insurance Exchange with a public plan option. If the reform were adopted, voters overwhelmingly support requiring health plans to cover women’s reproductive health services (71% favor-21% oppose).
  • Absent coverage for women’s reproductive health services, majorities oppose reform. If reform eliminated current insurance coverage of reproductive health services such as birth control or abortion, nearly two-thirds (60%) would oppose the plan and nearly half (47%) would oppose it strongly.
  • Supporting coverage of comprehensive reproductive health services would benefit Members of Congress. A plurality (45%) would feel more favorably toward their Representative if they voted to cover reproductive services, while 24% would feel less favorably, and 32% said it would make no difference.
  • Voters would feel much less favorably about their Representative if they voted to cover services like Viagra for men, but excluded reproductive services for women. Voters overwhelmingly reported that they would feel less favorably toward their Member of Congress if they voted for reproductive services for men and not for women (71%), while only 9% would feel more favorably toward their Representative.

Read more

May

29

Reaction vs. Prevention

Filed Under Republicans, patriarchy, politics, violence against women and girls | 4 Comments

Sometime recently — and I receive so many action alerts in my inbox that it’s impossible to remember when — I apparently emailed my congressional representative about the issue of funding for programs that prevent intimate partner violence.  Of course, I asked him to support for an increase in such funding.  My representative’s name is Chris Lee, and he, or rather someone on his staff, just responded with the following:

Thank you for contacting me in support of increased funding for programs that help prevent domestic violence. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views.

There can be no excuse for domestic violence, and I strongly support the important programs that provide support and counseling for victims of domestic violence and families affected.

Now it’s worth nothing that Rep. Lee is a Republican, and I voted for his opponent.  And sad though it may be, this is probably the closest I’ve ever come to agreeing with the man and one of his patronizing, non-committal form letter responses.

But does anyone else see the old switcheroo he played?  I see it all the time, and Lee is hardly the only culprit.  In fact, I’m pretty positive that I’ve seen Obama do it.  But in all cases, it bothers me like nobody’s business, and I think it’s about time to talk about it.

I wrote my representative, as he said, about programs that help prevent domestic violence.  He responded by acknowledging that, and telling me how much he supports services for victims of domestic violence that has already been perpetrated.

Which tells me that while he’s purportedly willing to tell victims, who are overwhelmingly women, that the violence committed against them is not their fault, he’s not willing to hold men, who are the vast majority of perpetrators, to higher standards and to work towards the goal of actually stopping violence before it starts.

Probably because it would involve admitting that such violence is rooted in misogyny and creating a world where women are, I don’t know, respected and considered equals.  Moreover, probably because it would require actually acknowledging that someone with responsibility exists — that domestic violence doesn’t just happen, it’s committed.  And while it’s relatively easy in today’s world, in fact probably expected, to at least say you support funding for women’s shelters, it’s a whole lot harder to commit to what it takes to create a more just world.

Contrary to how frequently you’ll see this bait and switch method used, and as important and vital and underfunded as victims services are — please dear god, can we have some more funding for these services? — reaction to domestic violence is not the same as prevention of domestic violence.  And until we learn that difference — hell, until we admit that one even exists — we’re not going to get anywhere.

May

16

Canadian Provinces Deny Transgender Health Care

Filed Under International, LGBTQ, bigotry, discrimination, legislation, politics, trans, transphobia and trans misogyny, women’s health | 11 Comments

In the past few weeks, two Canadian provinces have denied transgender people funding for their basic health care needs in a country which touts a universal and public health care system.

First came Alberta, which previously covered sex reassignment surgery (SRS) (also known as GRS — gender reassignment surgery or gender reaffirmation surgery).  The province decided to delist (stop funding) SRS procedures, ostensibly as a part of their bid to address the current budget deficit.

Only problem is that cutting coverage for such surgeries amounts to only $700,000 in savings.  The overall heath care budget for Alberta is almost $13 billion; the deficit is approximately $4.7 billion.

Now comes Manitoba. The province currently only funds a couple of SRS-related surgeries and doesn’t even cover hormone treatments for trans people.  They have now just rejected a proposal (ads on site may be NSFW) to fully cover hormone therapies and SRS, citing “the economic downturn.”  This is despite the fact that the province has increased spending overall this year by 4.4% and still expects to have a $48 million surplus.

Both Alberta and Manitoba have claimed SRS and other specifically trans-related health services do not deserve coverage in this economic downturn while others still do based on the notion that such services are “cosmetic” and/or “unnecessary.”  Which means that they’ve clearly misunderstood the idea that just because not all trans people want or seek out the same medical procedures/care as a part of transition, or any procedures/care at all, it doesn’t mean that it’s not a necessity for a good bulk of those who do.   Either that, or they just don’t care — and don’t expect a vast majority of taxpayers to care, either.

What this is seemingly about in Alberta is pretending that they’re doing something about the damn budget by disparaging and harming an already oppressed and marginalized group.  They’re using that age old tactic of pretending that a certain group that society holds bigotry against is a drain on taxpayer money, while erasing the fact that trans people are taxpayers too, and that even if they weren’t, the point of the system is to guarantee health care for all.  And in Manitoba just doesn’t want to be bothered with extending full rights to all of its residents in the first place.

Of course, we have the same problem down here in the U.S., too.  First of all, we don’t have a public health care system to begin with, and so many trans people lack insurance, and those who do have it are often denied coverage for the care they need — again, because it’s seen as “a drain” and “unnecessary” and “too expensive.”  It’s seen as a “lifestyle choice” rather than a part of health care, and a very important part, and a necessary part, for many people.

In other words, it’s really just another way that cis-controlled society and power structures can illegitimize trans identities as less real.  It’s a means of valuing cis health and lives way high above trans health and lives, not to mention placing physical health above mental health.  It’s saying that those “15-20″ people in each province who would seek out SRS each year just don’t fucking matter.  And on top of all that, it’s also scapegoating.

It’s the height of transphobia, and it’s going to have a very real, extremely harmful impact on the lives of those affected.  And thanks to the fact that transphobia is inherently dehumanizing, the powers that be just don’t give a shit.

May

7

Equality and Justice for Whom?

Filed Under LGBTQ, activism, events and excursions, legislation, politics, trans, transphobia and trans misogyny | 16 Comments

Last Tuesday, I attended Equality & Justice Day in Albany.  It is the LGBT lobby day for New York, run by the Empire State Pride Agenda.  I generally had a good time, and was glad that I attended to show my support.

But I also noticed something throughout the day that, while I may not be in the best position to do so as a straight and cis person, seemed to me to deserve a strong critique.

I wrote earlier that the main bill I am concerned about seeing pass is GENDA. The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act would protect people from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression in the areas of employment, housing, credit, and more.  Right now, in New York, no such protections exist for trans or otherwise identifying gender variant people — despite the fact that such protections are in place (as they obviously should be) on the basis of sexual orientation.

Last year after Equality & Justice Day, I was surprised and pleased to see that GENDA, while it did not ever reach the Senate floor with Republicans in charge, was given seemingly equal attention to marriage equality and DASA (Dignity for All Students Act).  It could be that I’m simply more aware of trans issues and their marginalization within supposedly LGBT communities than I was last year — though I was already aware of this issue last year, and for that reason made a specific point to watch out for its presence.  But whatever the reason, I noticed a significant shift, and I feel obligated to mention it.

It started, or at least it became noticeable to me, when Governor Paterson came out to give his speech as the first official speaker.  It was a great speech, it really was, and I was happy to see him there.  Except.  Well, it was a great speech if we were only there to talk about marriage equality.  Because that’s all his speech was about.  And that’s not the only reason we were there.

Of course, it’s entirely possible that the Pride Agenda had no control over the content of the Governor’s speech.  When it’s the governor speaking, does an organization have any say in the topic of his remarks?  I really honestly do not know.  But it seemed to set a tone.

Read more

Mar

17

Call Your Senators to Stop Violence Against Native American Women

Filed Under action alert, legislation, patriarchy, politics, race and racism, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 3 Comments

According to reports by Amnesty International, Native American and Alaska Native women have a rate of rape and sexual assault 2.5 times higher than the U.S.  national average.  And seeing as how all of us here agree that the U.S. average rates of sexual violence are already much too high, this is clearly far from acceptable.  Further, non-native men who rape native women are even more likely than usual to be able to rape with impunity, due to confusion with federal, state and tribal jurisdictions.

But the Senate is considering the Tribal Law and Order Act.  And while the name of the legislation sounds a bit sketchy, the descriptions I have found of its contents are indeed quite promising, and the Pretty Bird Woman House is apparently a supporter.

Amnesty International is promoting this legislation, and last week hosted a call-in week for people to let their senators know that they support legislation which helps stop violence against women, including the Tribal Law and Order Act.  Though the official call-in week has passed, it is not too late for you to make your call now — so please do.

h/t matttbastard’s twitter

Mar

12

Thoughts on Castration for Sex Offenders

Filed Under Europe, International, courts, misogyny, patriarchy, politics, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 27 Comments

The NY Times has a story on debates raging in Europe over whether is ethical and/or smart to castrate sex offenders as a form of punishment or rehabilitation.

Whether castration can help rehabilitate violent sex offenders has come under new scrutiny after the Council of Europe’s anti-torture committee last month called surgical castration “invasive, irreversible and mutilating” and demanded that the Czech Republic stop offering the procedure to violent sex offenders. Other critics said that castration threatened to lead society down a dangerous road toward eugenics.

The Czech Republic has allowed at least 94 prisoners over the past decade to be surgically castrated. It is the only country in Europe that uses the procedure for sex offenders. Czech psychiatrists supervising the treatment — a one-hour operation that involves removal of the tissue that produces testosterone — insist that it is the most foolproof way to tame sexual urges in dangerous predators suffering from extreme sexual disorders.

[. . .]

Now, more countries in Europe are considering requiring or allowing chemical castration for violent sex offenders. There is intense debate over whose rights take precedence: those of sex offenders, who could be subjected to a punishment that many consider cruel, or those of society, which expects protection from sexual predators.

Poland is expected to become the first nation of the European Union to give judges the right to impose chemical castration on at least some convicted pedophiles, using hormonal drugs to curb sexual appetite; the impetus for the change was the arrest of a 45-year-old man in September who had fathered two children by his young daughter. Spain, after a convicted pedophile killed a child, is considering plans to offer chemical castration.

Last year, the governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, signed legislation requiring courts to order chemical castration for offenders convicted of certain sex crimes a second time.

The way that this article sets up the debate is between two sides.  The first side says that castration, whether chemical or surgical, will reduce sexual offenses — and anyway, sexual offenders don’t have any rights.  The second side says that castration is a violation of sex offenders rights, including the right to reproduce, and that even those offenders who “choose” castration aren’t really doing so of free will.

While on a theoretical level, the human rights of even the worst criminals mean something to me, on an emotional level, I will admit to saying “their sexual rights? Boo-fucking-hoo.”

Yet, I still think that castration as a form of punishment and/or rehabilitation for sex offender is a really bad idea.  And though I hardly think that the rights-related arguments are wholly invalid, the argument that I’m about to make against castration has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of rapists.

Read more

Next Page →