You may recall that my position on New York's marriage equality push was negative to say the least, and that position still stands until New York State gets its sh*t together. However, I am jumping for joy that marriage equality in Washington State is all but inevitable.

From Washington Governor Christine Gregoire's twitter:

Thank you to the Washington State House--a civil, respectful debate on marriage equality. And a 55-43 vote! Next stop, my desk!

This makes Washington state the first on the west coast to legalize gender neutral marriage through legislative (rather than judicial) action, but what also makes me even more happy is that Washington State marks a major first, the first time a legislature passed a marriage equality bill AFTER full sexual orientation-gender identity anti-discrimination was passed, having passed it in 2006, albeit with a higher number of legislators in the house supportive.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa got marriage equality through court decisions, the latter two having gender identity protections AT THE TIME of legalization (Connecticut would come later), while the only two states to legislate marriage equality into law until now, New Hampshire and New York, did not, and still do not, have gender identity protections, which is why I am hoping that until both states pass gender identity laws and cover trans health benefits (or do other things for the trans* and the less fortunate of the LGBTQ community), I will be cheering for the repeal of marriage equality in both states.

Furthermore, a perusal of the website of King County, where Seattle is located, indicates that there is a medical clinic, Pike Market, which services trans individuals and takes all health plans, including Medicaid, indicating that Washington state does not have the exclusion that New York state has. Furthermore, Washington state passed a comprehensive anti-bullying law last year and it appears that (at least) Seattle has taken into considerating the issue of homeless youth.

Therefore, I do give my full blessing for the marriage equality bill to become law; they have eaten their ravioli, now they can have some ice cream.

-Jordan Gwendolyn Davis

American society tends to run on retribution, and according to the New York Times, other nations dwarf the US in terms of prison population:

Criminologists and legal experts here and abroad point to a tangle of factors to explain America’s extraordinary incarceration rate: higher levels of violent crime, harsher sentencing laws, a legacy of racial turmoil, a special fervor in combating illegal drugs, the American temperament, and the lack of a social safety net. Even democracy plays a role, as judges — many of whom are elected, another American anomaly — yield to populist demands for tough justice.

This American obsession with retribution has often manifested in ugly and triggering ways, such as victim blaming in prison rape. Yes, prison in America is tough, but the average African American cisgender male who was never nurtured from the start and had everything stacked against him, does not have it as hard as prisoners who are trans (of any race) To give you an idea, almost all correctional systems in the United States use anatomy to determine whether an inmate belongs in the men's or women's prison; this shouldn't be as much of a problem for transmen, but if its a transwoman in a men's prison (and prison officials can be mercurial about determining whether a trans prisoner should be segregated), they become at high risk of being sexually assaulted.

The American mentality is against "perks" in jail, especially by people of a more conservative mindset. Which makes it surprising that just recently, a federal judge who was a Nixon appointee ruled that a transfeminine prisoner in Massachusetts was unconstitutionally denied laser hair treatment by correctional authorities:

Christine Alexander, a biological male who identifies as female, was diagnosed in 2003 with Gender Identity Disorder, a controversial clinical name approved by the American Psychiatric Association.

Since that time, Alexander has received hormone replacement therapy and psychological counseling while incarcerated at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Norfolk.

Because Alexander also "suffers from facial and body hair, and male pattern baldness," several doctors have prescribed laser hair removal and finasteride, the generic name for Rogaine or Propecia, to "enhance patient's progress towards feminization," according to a court summary.

Though Alexander claims that the hair treatments are medically necessary rather than cosmetic, the state corrections department has not offered them.

This has led to many transphobic screeds floating around the internet and e-pitchforks being raised by those who are easily susceptible to the average conservative plen-t-plaint. But if we can all use our brains for a few minutes, we can realize that a conservative "law and order" view can be reconciled with the idea that a person should not forfeit their gender identity at the jailhouse gates.

Furthermore, in the above article:

Alexander claimed violations of her Eighth and 14th Amendment rights in a complaint against three corrections department officials, Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Clinical Services Lawrence Weiner, Gender Identity Treatment Chairman Robert Diener and Norfolk's Associate Medical Director Rebecca Lubelczyk.

"Plaintiff asserts that the failure to provide her with the medical treatment will lead to serious bodily harm, untreated mental illness and continued depression," according to U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro's summary of the lawsuit.

The defendants each filed motions to dismiss, but Tauro upheld the claims last week, finding that Alexander's "allegations, taken as true, are sufficient to establish that the plaintiff has a serious medical need, which has not been adequately treated under the Eighth Amendment standard."

We have a love affair with our constitution, but sometimes, driven by our toxic culture of sensationalism, we sometimes forget that the 8th amendment, which is to protect against cruel and unusual punishment, is there for a reason.

Laser hair removal is, in most cases, an elective procedure, and I would concede that the average cisgender male inmate should not receive laser hair removal while incarcerated. However, it is a medical necessity for us transwomen (hell, these faceweeds are causing me some real emotional distress), and given the expense of the procedure, plus the continued marginalization of transwomen, it stands to reason that should be included in healthcare plans as treatment for gender dysphoria.

However, this news makes me mad; not that Ms. Alexander will be able to get laser hair removal, but because very few people can get this procedure covered. I cannot afford $250 a month for 6 months, which is what the Mazzoni Centre charges for its in house laser clinic (even though I can get my Rx of spironolactone and estradiol covered and charged a nominal fee). Perhaps maybe it is time to use this as a springboard for a push to cover it under Pennsylvania's medical assistance. While the Eighth amendment may not play here due to my not being incarcerated, there is a chance that a Medicaid statute against necessary treatment, which is ill-defined, could be used here.

And what is interesting about this case is that the judge, Joseph Tauro, was a Nixon appointee. This conservative-judge-is-unlikely-ally-of-trans-people phenomenon is nothing new, as you may recall, one of the three judges who ruled that Vandy Beth Glenn was right to sue her boss for sex discrimination for firing her for being transgender, was William H. Pryor, one of the federal courts' chief mastodons. So, it is becoming more likely that if someone filed a federal lawsuit demanding that transpeople be able to get the treatment/care/redress they deserved, they would get it (the law is the law, but remember that judges are people too, and they make judgment calls everyday, no pun intended).

But back to the subject of trans prisoners. As of recent, the country is headed in the right direction. Just last October, the US Bureau Of Prisons now allows for comprehensive trans health coverage for federal inmates. Although it may seem like the federal government is conferring an expensive perk to wrongdoers, remember that there is a reason behind almost everything, and that being able to transition would actually aid in their transition back to civilian life (due to improved mental health) and become productive members of society, which would, in turn, reduce recidivism.

Even in states as conservative as Virginia, trans inmates are getting at least a few concessions from prison authorities. However, in term of determining which gender unit a prisoner should go in, the outdated "all penis bearers belong in the men's prison" mentality is still the norm. Even in New Jersey, which has gender identity protections, a facebook friend of mine who is a pre-op trans woman has been struggling to pay child support due to her unemployment and the other parent's extravagant lifestyle, has been thrown in the Atlantic County men's prison; she feels she has little recourse due to her not being able to afford an attourney.

A good compromise solution for prisons across the nation in terms of placement would be to use a case study of Philadelphia's city homeless shelters, in which trans* residents are in separate sleeping quarters with an attached restroom, but are otherwise integrated into the life of the shelter (ie: they eat together and share a common space). Perhaps a similar system should be in place in the prison system, in which trans* prisoners who are pre-op/non-op are placed in a separate living space with a separate bathroom in the prison corresponding to the gender which they most identify as, but are integrated in every other aspect of life within the walls (ie: bound to every other rule within the institution)

in terms of placement, I believe it would be better if the Department of Corrections used whatever is on the inmate's identification rather than genitals (though as stated above, genital configuration may be appropriate in what unit within the appropriate gender prison the inmate should be placed in, as long as they are otherwise allowed to participate fully in life within the institution). For example, under this regime, a trans* woman who has switched her ID to read "F" would be placed in a women's prison regardless of her genitals, and although it may be appropriate to put the transwomen in a separate area for sleeping and showering, they would still get the same
uniforms/honorifics/opportunities as the cisgender women in the facility.

However, if an inmate's ID does not match their gender identity (something that can often happen if certain states make it tough to do so), then a protocol should be put in place similar to Washington, DC:

It all starts at intake. According to the new program statement written by the D.C. Department of Corrections–and dated today!–DOC will classify an inmate or can classify an inmate as transgendered after the inmate has been reviewed by the new Transgender Committee.

The committee is comprised of "a medical practitioner, a mental health clinician, a correctional supervisor, a Chief Case Manager and a DOC approved volunteer who is a member of the transgender community or an awknowledged expert in transgender affairs." This entity can determine the transgendered inmate's housing assignment after a review of their records and an interview with the inmate.

Here's where it kinda gets tricky: "During intake, if an inmate's gender-related expression, identity, appearance, or behavior differs from their sex, staff shall, when practical, place transgendered or intersex inmates in a holding cell by him/herself during intake." I wonder how a guard receives training on this?

If an inmate has been determined as transgendered, there are now procedures for how guards must address them. "Inmates shall be called by their last names without referenced to gender specific indentifiers such as Mr. or Mrs.," the DOC statement says.

I think this process would be more humane and would balance the needs of the trans* inmate with the overall safety of the facility.

In conclusion, this quotation from Jennifer L. Levi, Director of the Transgender Rights Project at the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, sums it up best:

''If we are successful in getting individual care and treatment for our client, unfortunately that doesn't change automatically the denial that other inmates receive. That will take a longer educational process. It needs to include training at the highest levels. The law is pretty clear in this area, as it happens. It's just that getting the prison staff and administrators to actually follow the law is a big challenge.''

Although a perusal of comments sections of articles related to trans prisoners rights (or any other types of prisoners rights) reek of victim blaming and misplaced outrage, enough for me to throw something at the computer, I am at least glad that trans* prisoners have won some important concessions, though there is still a long way to go. Most of all, I am glad that judges, even those more conservative, are paying attention to the basic needs of trans* people over the bloodlust and blind retribution politics of Joe Pitchfork the Anonymous Dot Commenter. Once again, I stress, NO PERSON, NO MATTER WHAT THEY HAVE DONE, SHOULD LEAVE THEIR GENDER IDENTITY AT THE JAILHOUSE GATES.

-Jordan Gwendolyn Davis

It is extremely hard to follow the lulzy and chaotic Republican primary (a serial adulterer, a google target in a sweater vest, and an indecisive hatchetman walk into a bar....) without noticing the long shot candidacy of Ron Paul, a cult hero among the Libertarian movement who is currently occupying the Republican primary. While it seems unlikely he will win said primary, he's in it to shake up the establishment.

So, what is libertarianism? The long and short of it is, it is a political philosophy that is supposed to be extremely fiscally conservative and extremely socially liberal, in other words, a belief that the government's only function is to pave the roads and lock up the bad guys (and free those who toke and hook). It is a political philosophy that looks good on paper, and I myself, have views on issues such as drugs, sex work, drinking age, and curfews that would make an Ayn Rand loving trust fund baby look like a real nanny-statist, however, in practice, it is a threat to vulnerable peoples, like myself, and assumes that everyone will treat each other equally, when in

Indeed, many on the left have even embraced Ron Paul for his anti-drug war, non-interventionist, and anti-managed trade agenda, including many in the Occupy movement, which of course, goes to show that many grassroots "fight the power" movements tend to be dominated by white, cisprivileged, heteronormative, able-bodied "manarchists" with enough subpoena envy to drive many people out of their movements, and could survive the otherwise 1% enabling of a Ron Paul regime.

For this post, I will attempt to break down many issues affecting the LGBTIQ community and how libertarianism, for the most part, would be counterproductive to those goals.

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:

On this issue, Ron Paul has a view that neither supports nor opposes marriage equality as we know it now. On one hand, he believes that marriage should be a voluntary contract between consenting individuals and should be gender blind. On the other hand, he believes in "leaving it to the church" for recognition. While there are congregations who bless same-gender marriage, leaving anything to religious organizations is a bad idea.

And while we are on the subject of the church's role in Society....

WELFARE ISSUES:

Ron Paul has blasted George W. Bush's attempts to outsource welfare from a neutral, publicly funded arbiter to faith based organizations.
 

In a 2003 statement, Paul derisively labeled Pres. Bush’s faith-based initiative “a neocon project” that “repackages and expands the liberal notion of welfare.” In 2001, he proposed legislation to “amend” the faith-based initiative by offering a tax credit for private donations to faith-based organizations that provide social services. “Churches should not become entangled with government subsidies and programs because truly independent religious institutions are critical to a free society,” he said

While at first glance, this may be a somewhat enlightened stance, the fact of the matter is, it would lead to a situation in which the poor and hungry would be at the mercy of faith based organizations who have less than enlightened views on LGBTIQ issues. Even in the city of Pittsburgh, which I had to flee due to homelessness, the shelter system is run by religious groups who may not be enlightened on trans* issues, and the religious nature of these organizations often exempt them from any anti-discrimination law. Also, even in Austin, one of the most progressive cities in the country, a transwoman died because the local shelter was run by the Salvation Army. Do we want more Jennifer Gales to happen. Libertarians believe in self-determination, however, the unintended consequence is that those who are trans/gender variant will lose our self-determination under a libertarian regime. On the other end, Philadelphia (a libertarian would view many major cities as having a very "statist" government, and Philly would be no exception) has a city run shelter system that RESPECTS people's gender identity, thus, one could say that the extensive shelter system is supposed to, and has done at times, respected the self-determination of transfolk.

NON-DISCRIMINATION:

Having a non-discrimination law that covers sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accomodations, and education is, I believe, a cornerstone in LGBTIQ rights. However, libertarianism, at its very core, would oppose the creation of the enforcement mechanism (ie: terms like "Civil Rights Commission" in New Jersey and "Human Relations Commission" in Pennsylvania). In an email exchange with Det Ansinn, president of Doylestown Borough council (the municipality has had a non-discrimination ordinance since August 2010), he stated that there have been no complaints, and that the local human relations commission is all volunteer (which seems to be standard for many smaller municipalities which have done these ordinances), thus ending up budget neutral for the borough (and even if there was a complaint, the costs would likely be negligible). However, that wouldn't matter, as it would be hard for a libertarian to reconcile their opposition to big government with a need to protect the liberty of people who have differing sexual orientations and gender identities.

HEALTHCARE:

This is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. Ron Paul has stated on the issue of Medicare and Medicaid:
 

In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector. 

I am not 100% against, say, pro bono clinics which deal with more cut and dry issues (they are often found in Philadelphia on a scattered basis), they are not solutions that we can bank on. I have exhaustively argued for single payer, and believe that it is the most efficient and cheapest way to take care of people's healthcare needs, and would also relieve burdens on business and volunteer organizations; the former being forced to be at the mercy of HMOs, and the latter becoming much more overextended under a theoretical libertarian regime.

Then again, we come back to religion. As one may notice, such religious organizations as the Catholic Church and the Salvation Army seem to love to take over where government should be involved. They are a well oiled machine which, if an indigent trans* person was left at their mercy, would not receive the care they deserve, either through refusal to acknowledge gender identity, refusing to prescribe 'mones on religious grounds, or even telling them to get out because "we don't serve crossdressers". Not to mention that there are people who believe that hormones are a luxury rather than a necessity (see George Pataki), and the expense of transition, plus the marginalization of transwomen, means that there is a need for transition related expenses to be covered under a national healthcare system.

ANTI-BULLYING/SAFE SCHOOLS/VOUCHERS:

Given the "let's bash government for the sake of bashing government" views of libertarians and Ron Paul, its safe to say that the average libertarian would OPPOSE anti-bullying laws (much like "New Jersey's Anti-Bullying Bill Of Rights") not only as an abridgement of "liberty", but because it is an "undue burden" on public schools. Since libertarianism at its very core, erroneously believes that people can pull themselves up by the bootstraps

Perusing Ron Paul's views on education, he claims that he is not 100% against the dismantling of public schools (surprisingly), but encourages homeschooling (which does not always produce consistently good results and shelters the child), and has voted to support vouchers to private and parochial schools, which drain money away from public schools. I do not believe that parochial schools, given their theologically conservative views on gender roles and sexuality, indoctrination towards an anti-choice position, and censoring out responsible sex ed, should receive any solace from the government at the expense of public schools, which, by their nature, are more neutral and students should never have to leave their liberties at the schoolhouse gate.

Basically, should I have to give up my pro-choice views or my gender transition just so I can get an education?

WOMEN'S ISSUES:

It is hard to decode Ron Paul's position on reproductive freedom. On one hand, he has said some extremely anti-abortion statements:
 

Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties, we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But it’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you’re going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well. I have a bill in Congress which I would certainly promote and push as President. But it’s been ignored by the right-to-life community. My bill is called the Sanctity of Life bill. What it would do is it would establish the principle that life begins at conception. That’s not a political statement, but a scientific statement that I’m making. We’re all interested in a better court system, and amending the Constitution to protect life--but sometimes that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker. My bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion. If a state law says “no abortion,” it doesn’t go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order.

He has also received a 0% from NARAL, however, he has also stated that laws should stay out of the abortion issue.

They may be, but the way this is taken care of in our country, it is not a national issue. This is a state issue. And there are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain day-after pills for somebody with rape. And, quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don't even know if a person is pregnant; if it's 24 hours after rape, I don't know how you're going to police it. We have too many laws already. Now, how are you going to police the day-after pill? Nobody can out-do me on respect for life. I've spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn't solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law.

Despite these convoluted stances, Ron Paul believes that it should be harder for those who are low income to be able to terminate their pregnancy, and, sticking with libertarian anti-government philosophies, he opposes the funding of Planned Parenthood, which provides many women's (and yes, even men's health services) outside of divisive social issues (think, HIV screenings, breast cancer, testicular cancer, ovarian cancer). Of course, each dollar spent on Planned Parenthood saves money in the long run, but try telling a libertarian that.

In terms of gender equity, Ron Paul leaves a lot to be desired:
 

Today the lack of understanding and respect for voluntary contracts has totally confused the issue that in a free society an individual can run his or her business as he or she chooses. The idea that a social do-gooder can legislate a system which forces industry to pay men and women by comparable worth standards boggles the mind and further destroys our competitiveness in a world economy.

The concept of equal pay for equal work is not only an impossible task, it can only be accomplished with the total rejection of the idea of the voluntary contract. The idea that a businessman must hire anyone and is prevented from firing anyone for any reason he chooses, and in the name of rights, is a clear indication that the basic concept of a free society has been lost.

In the name of equal rights, Montana has forced insurance companies to charge women additional premiums to make the fees equal to those charged men, regardless of the economic realities that allow for a lower premium.

But once again, if we had a single payer system, THERE WOULD BE NO PREMIUMS TO WORRY ABOUT.

BUT WHAT ABOUT LGBT LIBERTARIAN GROUPS:

The Outright Libertarians are a group dedicated to bringing LGBT people into the libertarian fold. Needless to say, a perusal of their issues page indicates a myopic, bare-bones approach to the LGBT issues of the day.
 

Marriage
Libertarians believe that the government has no role to play in the relationships of people, other than possibly as a record keeper. While there may be privately-provided benefits to registering a new relationship with the government (lower insurance rates, for example), there should be no law saying you must do so or who cannot register. There ought to be no government-provided benefits to such registration (such as Social Security survivor benefits), but if such government benefits do exist (and there are currently over 1100 of them), then it's vital that distribution of those benefits not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity (since LGBT folks aren't exempted from paying the taxes that fund these benefits). So, while Outright Libertarians supports the Libertarian Party's eventual goal of treating marriage and other personal relationships as private contracts, we are very glad that the Party's platform calls for the Transitional actions of repealing current laws and opposing future laws defining marriage or assigning special benefits on the basis of sexual orientation, both at the state and federal level.

Adoption
The government shouldn’t have any role in the adoption of children except as a record keeper; unless the government itself has custody of the child or children involved. Adoption, custody and legal guardianship are private issues to be dealt with between the custodial parent(s) or agency and the person or people who wish to enter into these types of commitments. Neither the government nor the police should become involved unless there is evidence of fraud, coercion or abuse.

Gays in the Military
If the government needs to keep a standing military to defend our shores, then there should be no greater difference made between gays and straights than is made between males and females (such as a stricter standard of what constitutes improper fraternization or sexual harrassment). And, in our opinion, no such differences should be made at all. Tasks should be assigned according to an unbiased assessment of the individual’s physical and mental abilities, not by some prejudice or preset formula that lumps people into groups.

In terms of adoption, it sounds like a reasonable plank; if a loving family with the financial and emotional stability wants to adopt a child, they should be able to, unless there is a compelling reason. However, a look at the phrase "Neither the government nor the police should become involved unless there is evidence of fraud, coercion or abuse" bears further examination. Consider the prevalence of Catholic charities, which had $30.6 million worth of contracts with the state of Illinois Department of Children and Family Services before the state wisely severed that relationship. One has to have a lot of buy-in power in order to contract with the state, and in a libertarian everyone-fends-for-themselves world, the Catholic charities would drown out others, and with the libertarian opposition to civil rights accountability mechanisms, it would sneak theocracy in adoption through the back door, as "coercion and abuse" could mean many different things.

As for "Gays in the Military", note how they did not include the transgender community as well. As for joining the military, Ron Paul's views as well as those of most libertarians call for a rightful draw down of the military and an end to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. This will mean that under a libertarian world, there would be less people in the one place where sexual orientation non-discrimination is guaranteed. Of course, I have opposed the repeal of DADT as a pro-war and trans-exclusive piece of legislation; the LGBTIQ community being served better by non-discrimination in civilian employment.

Of course, there is a reference to marriage equality, and do I have to explain the flaws here.

IN CONCLUSION:

Libertarianism, as it relates to the queer community, is something that would look good on paper, however, it assumes that everyone has the same abilities and same life experiences, and is on equal footing to succeed in the world, and frankly, I would not be too surprised if these Outright Libertarian groups end up being mostly cisgender white able-bodied gay males. Unfortunately, with healthcare disparities and ignorance bred by lack of education, among other ills, there needs to be a mechanism of accountability to act as a "great equalizer" or else, advocacy of LGBT rights will be an exercise in futility.

-Jordan Gwendolyn Davis


 

 

 

 

It's seems like the Volunteer State has been on a phobia kick lately. Between the "Don't Say Gay" bill, a potential Romer v. Evans violation, and trying to allow students to bully LGBTIQ students if they do it in the name of Jesus, the Tennessee legislature sure has time to go to the bottom of the cracker barrel; even in light of the fact that Tennessee is suffering from a major deficit and 9% unemployment, they sure have found something to focus their attention on:

A bill that would limit who could enter public restrooms has been filed in the Tennessee General Assembly. The proposed legislation would restrict access to public restrooms and public dressing rooms designated by sex, to members of that particular sex.

State Representative Richard Floyd drafted the legislation after an employee at a Texas Macy's store was fired in December for stopping a transgender teenager from trying on clothing in a women's dressing room.

"I cannot imagine firing anybody for something like that. I just cannot, I cannot grasp that, I can't get my mind around it," Representative Floyd explained.

What is disturbing about the bill is the definition of "sex":

“Sex” means and refers only to the designation of an
individual person as male or female as indicated on the individual’s birth
certificate;

This definition basically excludes practically every pre-op trans* person, as well as some post-op trans* people, for if you are unlucky enough to have been born in Idaho, Oklahoma, Ohio, or Tennessee, the sex marker on one's birth certificate can never be changed.

And here's the kicker:

A violation of subsection (b) is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by
a to a fine of fifty dollars ($50.00).

More...

So, Joe Paterno, who just a week ago, claimed he did not know what to do when one of his subordinates was caught sexually abusing children; the scandal just recently having ended his career, died from lung cancer on Sunday. I know I will sound like a mean old trollette who should just shut up and go under a bridge, but I am increasingly SICKENED by how many people have seem to have forgotten about the fact that he LET CHILDREN GET SEXUALLY ABUSED BY THAT MONSTER SANDUSKY.

Now, we are taught from an early age to not speak ill of the dead, and I've learned that lesson well. However, the peer pressure I am receiving concerning my postmortem criticism of Paterno is coming from a place of privilege. I was sexually abused several times in my life, one such time involved similar dynamics to the Penn State case, I was at a very corrupt boarding school, the Grove School in Madison, CT; and was sexually assaulted by a teacher. The boarding school staff, when I told them, just ignored me, saying things like "didn't happen" and "not my problem". And I was triggered in July of last year to learn that not only did a student sexually assault a girl on campus, but the school washed her clothes and wisked the boy back to Philadelphia before the police could be involved. This was all enumerated in the FEDERAL LAWSUIT this girl is filing against the Grove School. I've heard stories, which I will leave those directly affected to tell, but I wouldn't put it past them to pull some Penn State style malfeasance, oh wait, they already did!!!

I will always remember that warm August night where I was cold heartedly violated by a man who was put in a position of trust, and believe me, I cannot, as somebody who has survived abuse, feel any sympathy for his family, nor can I feel sorry that he is dead. He may be at peace now, but all those children he abused will be going through their own personal hell for the rest of their lives. I think this article on Daily Kos makes the case better than I can.

So, F*** Joe Paterno, he is a monster who should not be celebrated, and I think that statue of him should be taken down. That's right, I don't care if Joe Paterno ain't quite worm food yet, the powers that be should take a chisel and just destroy that statue, just like the cancer destroyed that enabler's lung and stopped his black heart pumping liquified coal through his withered veins. And perhaps in its place, we should put a memorial to the children who were sexually abused; I don't know what it would look like; even if it is just a Phoenix with the head of the Nittany Lion on it, I still would rather have a good faith effort at a memorial to the children erected than to keep the statue of A SEXUAL ABUSE ENABLING MONSTER up.

Oh yeah, and F*** YOU GOVERNOR CORBETT FOR HAVING FLAGS FLYING AT HALF MAST. YOU CLAIM TO BE SO TOUGH ON CRIME AND SUPPORT THE PRISON-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, YET YOU WOULD GIVE A PERSON WHO TURNED A BLIND EYE TO MULTIPLE CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE A HIGH POSTMORTEM HONOUR. You, sir, are the definition of hypocrite.

And I don't care if you don't like what I have to say; these line from an old Judas Priest song sum up how I am feeling right now "You don't know what it's like/you don't have a clue/If you did, you'd find yourself/Doing the same thing too"

-Jordan Gwendolyn Davis

Ya know, children are our future, and it is best that tolerance is taught early. I remember when I was at home for Christmas, my 11-year old cousin came to my parents house unexpectedly, and had not been previously briefed on my gender transition. She handled it just fine, which of course, gives me hope for the younger generation.

Of course, it makes me sad that some girl in California has decided to let bigotry stand in the way.

TRIGGER ALERT FOR FOLLOWING VIDEO:

Apparently, one girl scout, angry that the Girl Scouts decided to let in seven year old Bobby Montoya, a transgender child (note that we do not yet have a preferred name for Bobby, she is male assigned at birth who is transitioning to female), decides that she should go on a campaign to boycott girl scout cookies, simply because all girls are allowed.

Now, it is true that the Girl Scouts are a all-girls organization. However, Bobby Montoya and other transfeminine children ARE NOT BOYS!!! We are not talking about allowing boys in, indeed, if Bobby was a boy, identified as a boy, presented as a boy, and was proud to be a boy, Bobby would not have been allowed in, and rightfully so. But Bobby is a GIRL, and thus, she needs to be in the GIRL SCOUTS. Now, everyone thinks that allowing transfeminine children into the girl scouts will create problems, however, as stated before, children are an adaptable bunch, and my 11 and 13 year old cousins have been able to accept me as a girl.

Also, one of my biggest pet peeves is bullying. This hateful screed may not necessarily be overt bullying, harassment, or intimidation, but almost a third of all trans youth have attempted suicide at one point in their lives. This girl from California is just stoking the fires, and if Bobby or any other trans* child killed themselves just because one person cannot stand the concept of gender self-determination, she would have blood on her hands she could never wash off.

But of course, around the same time as this video, a website went up called "Honest Girl Scouts", which is basically trying to turn the Girl Scouts Into The Boy Scouts. Among other things, they:

-Rip people who are considered role models to the Girl Scouts, such as Houston mayor Annise Parker, singer Sara Bareilles, and TV anchor Katie Couric, all because they are pro-choice and pro-queer. But lets forget about their politics for a moment and remember, these are all powerful women who have made something of themselves. Hell, there are major cities in America that have never even had a female mayor (my home, Philadelphia, is one of them), and when the Today Show, which launched Katie Couric's career began, it was a total boy's club (including the monkey). In fact, I am mature enough to say that Susan B. Anthony, an anti-choice woman who gave us the right to vote, is an empowering woman, even if I'm not a fan of her views on reproductive health.
-In an image of a broken girl scout cookie, HGS claims that Girl Scouts "Support United Nations Anti-Population Goals". Because apparently, this group thinks that world overpopulation is a good thing, and that women should remain barefooted breeders.
-Repeatedly claiming throughout the site that Girl Scouts are connected with Planned Parenthood, a meme that has been circulating throughout the internet:

It was hard to find any article linking the two that was not from some pro-life, "pro-family", mouthpiece, but on page two of my search results, I find this article by Amanda Marcotte from Slate.com

The realities behind the Girl Scouts-U.N.-Planned Parenthood myth perfectly illustrate the moderately feminist approach the organization takes toward scouting. Almost the moment the myth began to spread last year, the Girl Scouts' national organization circulated a statement debunking it. According to this statement, in March 2010, the Girl Scouts held a meeting at the 54th Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations, gathering 30 to 35 teenage girls and encouraging them to "take action on global issues concerning women and girls." The International Planned Parenthood Federation brochure that the right-wing blogosphere accused the Girl Scouts of having passed around ("Healthy, Happy and Hot: A young person's guide to their rights, sexuality, and living with HIV") was not distributed at the meeting. None of the girls in attendance or their chaperones ever saw the brochure until after it started circulating on the Internet, according to a Girl Scouts of the USA press spokesperson.

The article also contrasts the Boy Scouts focus on traditionalist viewpoints, with no change for the times, with the Girl Scouts, who have addressed many current issues, from body image to bullying, and sexual health, in which sex before maturity is discouraged. This is just another example of the double standards that exist in society, where women (of all stripes) calling for their empowerment is looked upon as unholy and somehow something to be shamed.

And even if there is more of a connection between the two groups, please remember that Planned Parenthood does a lot more than just abortions. They deal with a lot of women's health issues, including breast cancer screenings (a special concern for women, and yes, that includes transwomen) and, *gasp*, even men's health too. Believe me, the male opponents of reproductive choice could benefit heavily from regular testicular cancer screenings.

Oh, and as a bonus, here's another interesting faux outrage concerning the Girl Scouts, which was picked up by religiously conservative media:

The incident involved Renise Rodriguez, a 21-year-old Girl Experience Associate for the Girl Scouts of Southern Arizona in Tuscon. She was wearing a “Pray to End Abortion” shirt when she went into the office during off-duty hours to prepare materials for a meeting. It was there that she was told twice by a supervisor to turn her shirt inside out if she planned to stay in the office or attend a troop meeting, according to Priests for Life

But then, they manage to cover this part of the story:

The leaders had decided that all employees, volunteers and troop members should be in professional business attire, Girl Scout attire or plain shirts without any social, political or commercial messages when present in the council offices.

So, if she was wearing a pro-choice t-shirt, she would have been told to change also, and I doubt that somebody who was in that position would be unreasonable enough to say "boo" over it, nor would Planned Parenthood be calling for an inquisition.

The moral of this story is, while the Girl Scouts, as well as the pro-choice, pro-queer movement handles their points of view in a mostly mature manner and back up their assertions with facts, the anti-choice movement continues to run with simple lies, straw person arguments, and scare tactics.

In conclusion, I would like to say to Bobby Montoya and all transfeminine children who wish to join the Girl Scouts: You go girl, don't ever let anyone get in the way of your dreams. You were always a girl, and nobody can ever take that away from you.

-Jordan Gwendolyn Davis

Well, the circus that is the Iowa caucuses is over and Mitt Romney is on top as the Republicans (which, with the exception of Fred Karger, are not known for their common sense on women's/queer/youth issues). However, he won by only 8 votes, and as a Pennsylvanian, I would be remiss if I did not bring up the second place winner, ex-Senator and conservatroll Rick Santorum, who managed to represent Pennsylvania in the US Senate from 1995-2006, even though he actually lived in Virginia.

He first won election in 1994, a year when an R next to one's name meant success. He also was able to squeeze through in 2000, and spent his first eight years being a low-key conservative voice in the Senate. Then of course, in April 2003, he decided to let his troll flag fly and made these stupid comments:

We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality

Now, this quote has been done to death (and we all know Dan Savage's little google prank, but its too disgusting to mention here). After that, he has managed to say so many hateful things about reproductive freedom and queer issues that in 2006, he lost his re-election time to Bob Casey, who, although he is anti-choice, has been a supporter of the important queer issues.

So, I present to you, the best Santorum quotes you never heard of (and some you might have):

From CNS News:

"The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person — human life is not a person, then — I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'We're going to decide who are people and who are not people.'"

More...

I am involved with a political action committee which is focused on LGBTIQ rights in Philadelphia, as well as on the state and national levels, and I was tapped to be on a committee within that PAC which deals with issues and advocacy. We had our first meeting on Thursday night, it was only sparsely attended, due to the head of that committee being in Washington DC for most of the week, focusing on an LGBTIQ senior housing issue. However, it was a great opportunity for myself, the head of the committee, and a young lawyer who was curious in our work to share ideas and brainstorm on policy issues, some of which were outside the box in terms of what are queer issues. We will be having a platform convention in a month to discuss our priorities, but I, as an individual, would like to present a ranked list of what any LGBT group's priorities should be on the federal level.

1 - SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE

I know it sounds like I have my priorities screwed up, but then against, some people think marriage is more important than anti-discrimination. The reality is, however, that "Obamacare" does not go far enough to address the healthcare disparities in the LGBTIQ community, whether it be a transperson not being able to afford appropriate care, a person with HIV/AIDS not able to procure meds, or even a middle-class same-gender couple who can't pass on their health benefits as they would a "straight couple". Given that health is a human need in which it is imperative that it is addressed in order to be able to participate in society, it needs to be number one on any LGBT group's list.

Now, we have single payer legislation on the federal level in the form of HR 676, however, it has been stalled. Much of the obstacles that single payer faces, besides opposition from the industry and the usual lies, is that not enough groups which focus on issues other than single payer have made it their issue. It's one thing if doctors and physicians are calling for it, but if everyone who has a stake in this issue joins forces, it could be a reality instead of simply a concept.

Then, there is the issue of categorical exclusion of transition related procedures. While it may not be necessary to specifically enumerate trans related procedures, given the courts have been ruling in our favour more often, there may be an attempt to categorically exclude transition related procedures, and the LGBTIQ (and especially the T) community needs a seat at the table, for even though the American Medical Association supports coverage for transition related procedures, it is easier for those who have not had to experience being trans to throw us under the bus. But, even if this doomsday scenario does not come to pass and we have a single payer act passed without said categorical exclusions, it will still be a fight, but we need to get there before we cross that bridge.

Therefore, LGBTIQ groups should support single payer, as long as none of the medical issues that are important to the community are categorically excluded.

2 - ANTI-DISCRIMINATION

th the simple addition of gender identity and sexual orientation to federal anti-discrimination laws covering employment, housing, public accomodations, federal programs, or education, rather than piecemeal legislation such an ENDA, there can be accountability for those who discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The American Equality Bill is a piece of concept legislation whose time has come; not only is it comprehensive, addressing the aforementioned forms of discrimination, but removes transsexualism as a category excluded under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It also addresses duties to accomodate, specifically enumerating what an employer should do surrounding dress codes and what all stakeholders should do surrounding gender segregated spaces. Then, if this bill ever passes, our work will still be cut out for us, when specific facets of society which systematically discriminate against the queer community, it will be a process to make sure these laws are actually ENFORCED.

The LGBTIQ community needs to press the federal government to pass full protections instead of piecemeal legislation. This has been successful on the local and state level, let's bring it national.

That being said, if something like what was pulled in Massachusetts and Maryland is tried on the federal level, LGBTIQ groups should pull their support.

3 - SAFE SCHOOLS

We have come some way for LGBTIQ youth and their rights within schools; Title IX was found to protect all students who go to schools with federal funding from discrimination based on gender identity, and all schools must allow LGBTIQ groups to form and to be subject to the same rules as any other group. However, in terms of anti-bullying, many states, including Pennsylvania, have a way to go.

However, Senator Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania) has introduced the Safe Schools Improvement Act, which would do the following:

The Safe Schools Improvement Act would require schools and districts receiving designated federal funds to adopt codes of conduct specifically prohibiting bullying and harassment, including conduct based on a student’s actual or perceived race, color, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or religion. The Act would ensure that schools and school districts implement effective prevention programs in order to better prevent and respond to incidences of bullying and harassment and would require that states report data on incidences of bullying and harassment to the Department of Education.

I applaud this move from Senator Casey, however, might it be time for a National Anti-Bullying Bill Of Rights. The pulse of the nation is, understandably, heading towards support of stricter anti-bullying rules and to be both prevention and accountability based, and I have no reason not to believe that this couldn't go national.

4 - TRANS RECOGNITION

On the federal level, the trans community recently had a victory in which the gender marker on passports may be changed with a physician's note that the person is transitioning, rather than having a surgical threshold, which means that surgery must be performed in order to be recognized as the new gender. Furthermore, just this year, the Social Security Administration stopped sending gender no-match letters. However, in terms of its internal database, Social Security still operates under the surgical threshold, which could be harmful if another agency does not have a clear policy for changing gender (ie: the Pennsylvania Department Of Welfare). Even though social security cards do not denote the gender of the person, there still could be unintending consequences.

This is why not only should Social Security relax its protocol to require only that a doctor sign off that a person is living as their true gender in order to change the marker. Then, in addition to that, and only in addition to that, all other agencies that collect such biometric information should be subject to the aforementioned standard.

Or perhaps, like the federal government did with the drinking age, they should tie federal highway funding to allowing gender changes based on self-identification (backed up by a clinician), rather than anatomy.

5 - PUSH BACK AGAINST SCHOOL VOUCHERS

Just recently, a lesbian student, Ceara Sturgis, won a battle against her Mississippi school district; even though Mississippi's anti-discrimination laws are woefully behind the times, she was able to get a positive result due to federal precedent.

However, if this school voucher craze gets its way, people like Ceara will not be able to have legal recourse:

Sen. Daylin Leach (D- Upper Merion) told the Delaware County Daily Times that under the voucher scheme, private schools can accept or reject any child they want.

The Senate voted down Leach’s amendment to ban discrimination by private schools on the basis of sexual orientation.

“Schools can cherry-pick the best or perhaps the most athletic kids and reject the rest,” he told the newspaper. “They are also free to discriminate against kids based on things like sexual orientation and willingness to participate in specific religious services.”

Added Leach, “Every dime of each voucher comes from the [public] school a child leaves. That means that after a number of children migrate to better schools with their vouchers, all the children remaining at the old, under-funded school will have to struggle along with even less money than they had before.”
 

Look, we all know that our public schools are struggling, hell, I've had to deal with a lot of crap from my old school district. However, the public school system can still do good, and there can be solutions that won't force people to choose between a good education and being able to be oneself.

While much of the advocacy is happening on the state level, it is happening on the national level as well. While Obama has been somewhat wobbly on this issue, House Speaker John Boehner has been an adamant proponent, not only supporting vouchers on the federal level, but actively pushing to force Washington, DC's school district to have a voucher program (this also begs the question of why some dude from Ohio wants to stick his nose in DC's business).

This is something we must push back against.

----

These are just five suggestions. Notice how I did not include gender neutral marriage here, supposedly, the sacred cow of the movement, due to the fact that marriage does not help empower a broad base of the population, and that some of these planks (especially healthcare) would render certain issues surrounding marriage inequality moot.

So, if you are part of a PAC which works on LGBTIQ issues, it is imperative that you take this list into consideration.

-Jordan Gwendolyn Davis

Early this week, I was riding on New Jersey Transit's River Line minding my own business when I notice some dude starts filming me and calling me a "tranny" and saying "Only In New Jersey", which is really strange. I then decide to whip out my Droid and photograph the man, as you can see in this photo, he is quite resistent, and even threatened to break my head if I filmed him.



Now, I posted this up to my personal Facebook and there was a debate about passability. Now, I wish I was a lot more passable, but we don't have it as easy as transmen, who can practically shoot 'mones for six months and have a permanent, somewhat passable appearance.

And just today, while taking the Broad Street Line up to the Temple Library, a bunch of young people come onto the car and start screaming "That's a n*gger" and "He's gonna rape you" and even started wiggling their butts at me while they were leaving the train. What was especially upsetting was that after a really loud fit from them, the operator stopped the train for about 10 minutes at the Fairmount stop. I do not know why the train stopped, but it made me nervous, thinking that it had to stop because they were laughing like hyenas and would draw even more attention to myself. Luckily, the train rolled again and they got off at Girard.

It was then I began to think about the concept of free will. These people do not HAVE to scream at me and mock me just because I am a trans person, but they do it anyway, and it seems like society, much like with sexual abuse, likes to victim blame. I remember as those kids were running through the subway laughing at me how none of the people on that train dared stand up to these kids; no wonder we are having issues with flash mobs.

The responsibility lies with the people who perpetrated the deed, and to a lesser extent, the bystanders who just let it happen. We all have a collective responsibility to stop things like these, whether it be harassment towards women and/or transpeople or anyone else, before it becomes tragic.

-Jordan Gwendolyn Davis

One of the major milestones of gender transition is the name change. Unless one was blessed to have parents give them a gender neutral first and middle name (and provided the person likes both names), we often are given names which do not match our gender identity (I, for one, had an ultramasculine first and middle name). To have that final order stating that you are now your new preferred name in your hands feels like a real blessing, knowing that that old name is history and your preferred name is also your legal name. That day for me came on August 16, 2011; but here in Pennsylvania, it is needlessly difficult, and there needs to be a change in the process, not just for the trans population, but for anyone who needs or wants to change their name.

THE STORY OF HOW I (LEGALLY) BECAME JORDAN:

It was a balmy summer day at a campground in West Virginia in July 2009 when I announced to my fellow campers (en homme) that I would be leaving, and that they would have a new camper coming named Jordan. I (wearing shorts and a t-shirt) set up the costume tent before dinner, and raided it for every piece of feminine clothing that would fit me (which was very few). Finally, around 7 o'clock, (my old name) was gone, and Jordan was born.

For the next 18 months, people knew me as Jordan while having to use my old name when necessary. Even as I left home for Pittsburgh, it would seem as if there would be a lot of barriers in being legally able to change my name (financial, procedural, etc.), and a lawyer who I talked to did not even know the many ways around the atrocious cost (north of $700). However, when I moved to Philadelphia, I finally figured out how to do it, and in early April, I began the process.

Mazzoni Legal Services is a legal aid organization which specializes in LGBT law. Included among their materials is a guide to changing one's name specifically geared towards the trans community, which can be accessed here. After studying over it for several days, I came to realize that many of these barriers could be negotiated and that I had nothing to lose.

Although a lawyer is not necessary, it ends up being useful in certain situations, as I would realize later on. The first part of the process is handing in a petition with one's driver's license, social security card, birth certificate (which involved me having to book a Zipcar out to my old county to get said document), and fingerprints to send to the state police to verify whether I have a criminal record. Mazzoni Legal Services gave me a sample fill-in-the-blank petition to fill out -- yet it was initially confusing. In retrospect, I do not know why I did not seek their services, which I was eligible for.

More...