Turns out Paul Scott, Michigan State Representative who has just announced his candidacy for nomination for Secretary of State, is a little bit hung up on bathroom politics. My fellow queer activists might say "Aren't we all?" But, who'da thunk it, he's not on our side.

Scott stated in his top four policy priorities:

I will make it a priority to ensure transgender individuals will not be allowed to change the sex on their driver’s license in any circumstance.

When asked why this was such a priority for him, Scott said it was to "[prevent] people who are males genetically from dressing as a woman and going into female bathrooms."

With just this simple statement, Scott has taken power over the fear and emotions of women, and fed into stereotypes and negative imagery of the trans community. By presenting the trans community as predators, it perpetuates the myth of victimization of cisgendered people under the power of transgender individuals, as well as the mentality that the only thing keeping individuals with malicious intent from entering a particular bathroom is the sign on the door.

For more information about bathroom politics, check out the Transgender Law Center's toolkit "Peeing in Peace: A Resource Guide for Transgender Activists and Allies" here: http://www.transgenderlawcenter.org/pdf/PIP%20Resource%20Guide.pdf

Oh, and don't vote Paul Scott. Thanks.

Focus on the Family's Citizenlink blog says:

At issue this time is a GLSEN fundraiser featuring a theatrical play called Santa Claus is Coming Out!

It's sad that GLSEN, which claims that it wants to protect kids, has chosen to use a fundraising tool that perverts the innocence of Christmas and sexualizes the longtime, child-revered icon of Santa Claus.

...Clearly homosexual activists like [the play's writer and performer, Jeffrey] Solomon have no qualms about using shock tactics to expose children to homosexuality.  And it's sad that GLSEN promotes these tactics.

GLSEN's fundraiser invitation says the play depicts "Santa in his heartfelt struggle to reconcile his romantic relationship with Italian toy maker Giovanni Geppetto." Pictures on a Web site promoting the production depict Santa in not-so-subtle sexually suggestive situations. The play also mocks those who support traditional values.

pam's house blend is among my favorite queer blogs, and you should check out the phb perspective on the whole thing here:
http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/14356/fotfs-citizenlink-blog-glsen-is-sexualizing-santa

i do like what one persyn commented on the blog saying that indeed the queer-focused children's tales tend to focus less on sex than heteronormative fairy tales.

also... do they really think that children are going to be going to a fundraiser show? glsen receives millions of dollars from donors, and i know very few children with income disposable enough to give to queer rights non-profits. (although i do remember donating some money to outfront mn at my first kato pride when i was 12 or something, but i'm a badass.) it explicitly states that the show is not intended for children. santa is smoking a joint for crying out loud!

the only negative thing i really have to say about the phb take on fotf's article is the marginalization of christians, as the queer community stereotypically and generally does a good job of doing. the commenters on this blog do not say "most christians" or "some christians" when referring to the christian community, but rather just say "christians", and attempt to speak for every persyn who identifies as christian. even further, they create derogatory terms for christian-identified people. c'mon queers, that's not progression!

reflect and speak, please!

Today is Trans Day of Remembrance. Take a moment out of your day to remember those lost to oppression and hatred in the past. But don't forget to acknowledge and thank the transfolk, gender non-conformers, and/or gender radicals existing and working in your present.

Spend some time today reflecting on your own gender identity. Question yourself, question the system, question the cause for the deaths of the strong transfolk we've lost, question the discrimination we live to see every day. Consider the experiences of the identities you don't embrace as your own.

R.I.P.

 Last week, a cross-dressing Houston senior was sent home because his wig violated the school's dress code rule that a boy's hair may not be "longer than the bottom of a regular shirt collar." In October, officials at a high school in Cobb County, Ga., sent home a boy who favored wigs, makeup and skinny jeans. In August, a Mississippi student's senior portrait was barred from her yearbook because she had posed in a tuxedo.

Dress code conflicts often reflect a generational divide, with students coming of age in a culture that is more accepting of ambiguity and difference than that of the adults who make the rules.

Other schools are more accepting of unconventional gender expression. In September, a freshman girl at Rincon High School in Tucson who identifies as male was nominated for homecoming prince. Last May, a gay male student at a Los Angeles high school was crowned prom queen. 

It is obviously ridiculous to compare the experiences of the trans community, as well as their need to present, with this week's new fad. Of course, I would present the administration with the age old argument "Do you really think these students would withstand the pain, abuse, and torture they receive in regards to their gender expression if it were just a fad?"

In addition, this school's dress code policies (which are incredibly rigid anyway) are so ridiculously gendered that just the wording is discriminatory. When you only allow male students to have hair to the bottom of their collar, with no limitations on female hair (whatever "male" and "female" means), you've created a privilege division between the students. Where is this line drawn? How do students who don't identify with one of these two options get put into a group for these restrictions? Simply based on their biology? Well, that's gender discrimination too, now isn't it?

But in reality, being trans does have quite a bit to do with fashion. (Don't turn red in the face just yet... let me finish.) Gender in all is about fashion. Whether we identify how we were assigned, outside of the binary, or whatever, our views and positions on gender are shown through our appearance. For example, I was assigned female, identify as female, and tend to dress in traditionally masculine ways. I continue to identify with my female identity because I believe that I can be a woman and be whatever I want to be. But when people see me, they understand my views on gender based on how I look. (It's a bit irrelevant to the actual issue, but it's something to chew on.)

To get straight to the point, censorship is a super pain. As we write letters to editors, articles to be posted, and even essays for class, we find ourselves editting ourselves not for grammar or structure or to strengthen or voice, but because the tone comes out in a way that we know will make the audience uncomfortable. I believe liberation is radical goal, and I believe it requires radical means. While professional, academic articles and essays certainly hold their place, there really is nothing better than the raw power of the 'zine scene.

For those of you who may be unfamiliar, 'zines (short of magazines, of course) are DIY collections of art, stories, poetry, rantings, etc. that reflect on a certain issues, or many issues all compiled into one place.

Here's an example of a 'zine I created with my best friend on alternative menstural product options:

More...

The two year anniversary of the 2007 try at ENDA has just recently passed, which means that for two years everyone's hated the HRC. (Well, some of us hated the direction it was going to some time before that, too...)

By "everyone hates the HRC", I mean more specifically that most queer and/or trans advocates have been unhappy with the HRC's position on discluding gender identity in the 2007 draft of ENDA (a decision made by Barney Frank, and supported by HRC), and separating and dividing our community even wider than it already was.

HRC defended themselves as saying:

“Our community can work with the people who want to help us, or we can walk out on them. In a community facing such fierce opposition from the outside, it is disheartening to see blame and anger hurled at the people on our own side. It’s the policy of HRC that the organization will only support an inclusive ENDA. In 2007 House leadership informed us that there were insufficient votes to pass an inclusive bill, so they decided to vote on a sexual orientation only bill. We made a one time exception to our policy in 2007 because we strongly believed that supporting this vote would do more to advance inclusive legislation. We will not support such a strategy again. We look forward to Congress sending President Obama a fully inclusive ENDA for his signature."

More...

Dear Editor,

I am writing in regards to your article in the November 2009 issue entitled “My Boyfriend Turned Out to Be a GIRL!”. Upon reading this article, I was appalled by the inaccurate portrayal of the trans community being presented. We are fortunate in this generation to have media outlets working directly to expose the issues affecting our youth. However, when these media outlets are marginalizing various communities within the youth demographic, they are not properly doing their job.

In this situation, we are presented with a mainstream magazine profiling an incident in such a way that the trans community at large is seen in a negative light. While the author of the article, as well as the ex-girlfriend and main subject of the article, did use proper pronouns when referring to the transperson in question, he was still presented as a terrible criminal (or rather this feels to be the intention with the picture with the blurred out face) and liar. While the latter may be true, it is the implication and assumption behind it causing a negative reaction from myself and my peers.

I have called myself significant other to an FTM transman for nearly a year. While unlike the relationship in this article I was already aware of my boyfriend’s identity when entering the relationship, I still maintain a first-hand experience of life with a transgender significant other. We certainly have our issues, and identity can frequently be a cause for argument. But our relationship is focused on our care for one another, not on the genders we identify with. Granted, keeping your identity a secret from your significant other is never a good idea. However, this doesn’t mean this is a frequent circumstance in a relationship with a trans person, as so suggested here.

Media coverage of trans issues is scarce. When trans issues are presented in the media, it is even more infrequent that it is done so in a positive manner. We are never told about transgender heroes and heroines, and we rarely hear about stories of transfolk overcoming their oppressions. When we hear these stories of deceit and lying in regards to trans people, readers get the wrong impression about the trans community at large. Seventeen Magazine, with the demographic it caters to, holds the responsibility to its readers to provide information that continues to promote the acceptance of all people.

My request to you is to write another article. While this one certainly has its place, I believe many people would feel much more at ease reading a story of a positive experience of a relationship with a trans-identified person. Not only would this be great in response to this month’s article, but as a statement for the entire trans community.

Best regards,

Leah Matz

It is reported that over fifteen people stood as bystanders to the raping of a 15-year-old high school junior outside her school's homecoming dance. As of Monday, 2 men were in police custody, but as many as 5 men are presumed to be guilty of raping, beating, robbing, and dehumanizing her for over 2 hours.

Richmond, VA police officer Lt. Mark Gagan was reported by MSNBC as saying "What makes it even more disturbing is the presence of others. People came by, saw what was happening and failed to report it."

I'm never a fan of the idea of sitting on the sidelines and watching things happen. If we are not a part of the solution, we are a part of the problem. This is as true in this circumstance as any. These witnesses should all be brought into custody and charged with accessory to rape, battery, and robbery. A persyn who is able to sit and watch this happen without notifying law enforcement or searching for help a dangerous member of society.

Thoughts?

This Saturday, the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA held their annual homecoming game against James Madison University. As halftime rolled around, the homecoming court took the field for this year's crowning ceremony. This included William and Mary junior Jessee Vasold, a genderqueer-identified persyn. Vasold was elected homecoming queen.

While it strikes me as a tad strange that a binary-centered competition was an activity of interest to a genderqueer-identified persyn, I would never want to judge someone for doing something they want to do. Doesn't that just perpetuate the cycle of gender control, gender normativity, and oppression? I think so.

So, congratulations, Jessee Vasold. Way to bring some revolution right on down in the mainstream.

This week, The Washington Post profiled the findings of a survey performed by D.C.’s Young Sexual Health Project, saying students were not satisfied with the sex education being received in D.C. schools. Of the students that were surveyed, it seemed most students (predominantly female) were reporting their discomfort communicating their questions or problems to school nurses and health educators in the building, and were not pleased with the brand of condoms being distributed.

(While this is certainly a brief summary of the story, there is much to be said.)

In my analysis of this subject, per usual, the paradoxes are overwhelming my thought process.

On one hand…
My initial reaction is something along the lines of: “Wow, what spoiled brats!” When there are still youth all over the country falling victim to abstinence-only education, with no opportunities or resources revolving around contraception and protection once they, inevitably, begin having sex, it feels just a little snobby to be so picky about who’s giving out the information, or what brand of condoms we are so lucky to have provided in the first place.

Until something is totally and equally accessible by all people, those who have access to whatever this may be are in a privileged demographic. While it’s true that this thing (in this situation, comprehensive sex education) should be a right that is had by all, this is still not the case in our country, and many countries throughout the world. It is also true that many privileged groups tend to ignore, or forget, or remain oblivious to their privilege and the work that was done in order for them to receive it. This may be an example of a group of privileged individuals remaining oblivious, and not realizing just how lucky they are to have that comprehensive sex education in the first place.

On the other hand…
While the students in a sex education classroom are youth, the people in charge of sex education are not. Sex education curriculums, policy, and even condom purchasing are all done by adults, and let’s face it, adults have a tendency to get a little behind on the times. Shouldn’t students have a say in what information and resources they receive in their classroom? Shouldn’t their opinions be heard about something that is ultimately going to be affecting them the most strongly?

Comments from the students surveyed said that the condoms their school was providing were “lame”, and didn’t prove to be as reliable as other brands. Students had experienced these condoms breaking and popping more often than other brands they had used. Well, if several students are reporting similar experiences with this brand, shouldn’t this be acknowledged?

More...

More...

For those of you unfamiliar with this new original series on Starz, Party Down is the story of 6 former actors and aspiring actors, using a catering organization called Party Down to get by. Starring such cuntastic women as Lizzy Caplain (Mean Girls, True Blood) and Jane Lynch (Best in Show, A Mighty Wind, 40 Year Old Virgin), as well as a plethora of duuuudes, I've found this is one of few programs I get super excited to watch each week.

Beyond just being hilarious, Party Down has done a great job of negatively displaying a misogynistic husband, making the heterosexual characters into vocal queer allies, and keeping the gender roles to a bare minimum.

And then we've got the newest episode, "Sin Say Shun Awards After Party". Sin Shay Shun is a (fictional) pornography production company, and Party Down is catering their annual award after party.

Immediately, I am analyzing.

1. Right off the bat, we are faced with a conversation between one woman who was awarded "Best Blowjob of the Year", and another woman claiming her blowjob to be much better.
2. We see only female porn stars and only male producers, assistants, investors, all with adorned with female arm candy, profiled.
3. All conversation is revolving around heterosexual porn.
4. Roman, a wannabe sci-fi writer and straight-up nerd (played by Martin Starr) makes a blatant advance toward one of the women, and when denied refers to them as "stuck-up bitches" and says (paraphrased) "You'd think they'd be up for sex, they're porn stars!"

Many of these are left unresolved, which remains bothersome to me. Perhaps it serves to show that the mainstream pornography industry is so circulated that it's all that's noticed, with an uneven balance between men and women. We're gonna go with that one.

I am pro-pornography. I feel that anti-pornography comes dangerously close to anti-sex, and even anti-woman. Criminalizing pornography would severely limit the sexuality of women. I think this is a really good example of why pornography should not be criminalized, but rather strengthened and expanded to be more fully inclusive and egalitarian.

WARNING: The views and experiences shared and expressed in the following babble are those shared and expressed by a young, white, queer, lower-middle class, feminist, gender non-conforming, female-assigned female. No one else. All information that I have gathered has always been while living as myself, and living my experiences. However, I pray I am able to provide you with some insight, and that my experiences provide me with enough credibility to reflect on the subject at hand.

I‘ll kick this thing off with that second to last one-- “gender non-conforming“. Even though it’s a label I’ve pinned on myself, it’s a term I still have some discomfort with, as the definition seems to be different for everyone who has considered the idea. My definition of gender non-conformity is best explained through reflecting on how it is possible to label ourselves with gender identities, while still refusing to submit its control. This problem can only be answered with a question: How do we show our identities (gender or otherwise) to society without expressing it somehow externally? The answer here is, we can’t. From the perspective of gender, here’s why.

Gender is a social construct. While generally every child is born into the world with one set of genitalia or the other (or one is chosen for them), any notion that the parts located between the child’s legs will influence the direction of the child’s life is a notion created by society in an attempt to more closely mandate the people’s lives. From the time we are released into this society, the programming immediately begins, and we begin being conditioned for this institution. In fact, we are conditioned on such a mass-scale and at such a high level, that many people walk through the world completely unaware of how much the societal ideology of gender is influencing their lives. Without educating yourself on this reality, you could go through your entire life not realizing that everything from your clothes to your hair to your cell phone ring tone to the movies you own, is gendered in some way. This proves to us that gender, like everything, is taught. Roles have been created for men and women, masculinity and femininity, and we are expected to play out these roles throughout our lives, in everything that they entail. If you step outside of these roles, you are labeled as unnatural, maybe as humorous. So it’s at this point we must think that if a society that has created so many corrupt systems of control has created gender, and with the strict regulations that are emphasized within it, it seems it must be corrupt too. Yet, we continue to push the importance of finding and determining identity within this corrupt system.

More...

As I said in my last blog, the main concern for us at Advocates for Youth is the preservation of the health and lives of this generation‘s youth, and granting all people the right to know about their bodies, and learning how to experience sexuality safely, by means of comprehensive sex education. This is a huge issue, and (for some reason) incredibly controversial one. So with the current health care reform conversation and work circulating around the offices of our politicians, the AFY peer educators and community and campus organizers put on our fancy duds and made our way up Capitol Hill (which I came to discover is an actual, honest-to-blog hill that I was way not prepared to take on) to get some one-on-one with the representatives and senators from our districts about their knowledge involving the very closely linked issue of comprehensive sex education, their views in regards to it, and their position on the REAL Act.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the REAL Act (Real Education About Life), this is a bill sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey, and Representative Barbara Lee from California (and co-sponsored by over 60 senators and representatives) revolving around designating federal funds specifically towards the support and development of comprehensive sex education curriculum in American schools. Currently, there is no federal funding allocated for comprehensive sex ed. (However, President Obama did not make note of any funds that would be allocated for abstinence-only sex ed in his 2010 budget plan, which is a definite step in the right direction.) While the contents of the bill hold some similarities to that of the Prevention First Act and Obama’s Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act, the REAL Act goes much farther into specifics, and on a much broader level. Through the REAL Act, students would be given the opportunity to receive age-appropriate (using the rhetoric that this demographic is familiar with, while avoiding an overall condescending tone), as well as medically accurate information. While these programs do talk about abstinence, and its place as the one sure method of birth control and a clean bill of sexual health, it also avoids the marginalization of  sexually experienced students by providing accurate information about the pros and cons of each individual contraceptive and/or barrier method. This also means that, unlike Prevention First and the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act, it covers the issues revolving around HIV/AIDS and STI prevention, as well as going so far as to develop skills about making healthy and responsible decisions regarding sexuality, identifying and preventing dating and sexual violence, teaching about the effects of drugs and alcohol on responsible judgment, all while steering clear of religious connotations and language. The REAL Act also prides itself on containing only all-inclusive language. This means that the REAL Act overtly and intentionally does not discriminate against any students, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, religion, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity. Last, and I believe the most important thing the REAL Act offers our nation’s youth, is the encouragement of family communication between parent(s) and child about sexuality.

A key argument that is going to be given from the ab-only advocates is the notion that sexual education is the job of the parents, and should be kept out of schools entirely. However, this severely discriminates and marginalizes a wide variety of students on several different levels. It leaves out the possibility of orphaned youth, homeless youth, and/or youth in foster care. It forgets about immigrant families where the child may be the only English speaker in the home, making the parent(s) unfamiliar with American views on sexuality. It disregards students who are queer-identified, and are not get ready or feeling safe to come out to their families. It ignores youth whose parent(s) are vehemently abstinence-only, and leaves them with the uninformative lesson of “just don’t do it”. Herein lies the most beautiful, beauteous beauty of the REAL Act; through take-home lessons, as well as lessons taught within class, students are taught how to initiate conversations about sexuality with their parent(s), guardians, or key adult leaders, and create a dialogue about sexuality from a comprehensive stand-point. This brings me to my main point: issues revolving around social justice require not just public policy, but even more so require the EDUCATION of the people, or change will not occur. In this situation, the public policy is indeed necessary in order to implement the curriculum in every school through out the nation. However, the act is nothing without follow-through. Developing communication between affected parties, and educating them in the process, is the most effective way to create real change. I find this to be the case in regards to all public policy. Take, for example, the safe schools movement. In D.C., the GLSEN (Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network) public policy office networks with legislators, and provides input and support on acts revolving around safety in schools for students, focusing on protection of students in regards to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. But without the education of the students that are harassing these youth in the first place, what good does the act do? In reality, it could only put these victims in greater danger through potential backlash coming from these oppressors after the discipline has been carried out. In order to truly protect victims of queer bullying and harassment, students must be educated revolving around the issues facing the queer community, and learn the effects of their actions through the persynal stories of queer harassment victims. Continuing to push authoritarian rules and regulations is not going to change behaviors the way intimate, egalitarian conversation and education will.

In short, grassroots grow on the sides of the streets. When that's where you're working, and marching, and teaching, it's much easier to watch them grow.

The Choir Preaching Introduction: As we at Advocates for Youth have made abundantly clear through the work that we do and the information we provide to youth and educators, abstinence-only “education” does not work. In addition, teaching abstinence-only ideologies is not limited to the blatant, but can also be done a touch more subtly, in a way that makes it quite simple to place it in what seems to be a very different layer of oppression than where our conventional abstinence-only education system resides. Basically, when one thinks of abstinence-only education, the sex ed. scene from the movie Mean Girls is a pretty accurate portrayal what we think of: some person at the front of the classroom attempting to scare their students out of having sex, of any kind, ever. Seeing this as our image, it’s hard to think anything else could be placed in the same category. But it’s not always so literal, and it can have just as severe of an impact, if not more, when it comes through other means. Herein lies my beef.

The Pissing-Off Experience Followed By What Pisses Me Off About It: The other day, I was on my school computer, about to get on the Advocates for Youth website to do some research and finish my final training packet before the AFY Urban Retreat next weekend (hurrah!). Ironically, it was in preparation to do this awesome thing that this not-so-awesome thing happened. It appeared as though the Advocates for Youth website had been blocked on the school’s internet server. When the block page came up, it gave the reason that the site could not be viewed as, get this, sex education. This was also the case with Planned Parenthood, Sex Etc., Scarleteen, SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States), and every other site that I attempted to view. In other words, if there was a student in the building with a crisis (a potential STI, unexpected pregnancy, identity crises, experienced sexual abuse, etc.), and if they were not able to seek out this information from their homes (since it’s straight-up classist to assume every persyn has immediate internet access, or that if they do they also have their own private computer with which to look up such information), they would be left completely paralyzed from getting the answers they need.

More...

It’s 2009. My dear grandfather, born to two German immigrants the day the Stock Market crashed, is far into his 70’s. With bills to be paid and college expenses weighing on my mind, I’m suddenly a part of a swarm of Americans searching for work, and placed in a situation shockingly similar to the one he experienced all those years ago. Unfortunately, and often without notice, many places with hiring signs in their windows are also cursed with a bad one over their name, particularly in this era of mass-marketing and unethical practice. Being in the age of information, and with more free-thinkers developing every day, there is a long list of places many refuse to give their money, let alone their services. So wandering through my local shopping mall, searching for any place that could spare me minimum wage, I wondered: How do the socially-aware and ethically-driven weigh out the heavy burden of their need for employment in this recession with the overwhelming weight of their conscience?

Naturally, there are various elements that could keep any variety of people on their toes while searching for employment. For myself in particular, I respect myself too much as a woman to work in an environment where women are oppressed, whether blatantly or subtly (i.e. a women’s clothing store where sizes are consistently getting smaller and smaller, and showing women that mainstream fashion means fitting into their definitions of beauty.) As a member of the queer community, I search on every application to ensure that the employment non-discrimination policy of the place in question includes sexual orientation, and because I'm conscious of the frequent division of this community, I check for gender identity, too. I’m a vegetarian, so it’s outside of my personal comfort zone to work with or cook meat. My morals prevent me from wanting to sell any product tested on animals, or outsourced to other countries in return for unfair wages. But in a time of economic crisis, do I have the right to be ‘picky‘? Should I be allowing my conscience to compensate for what my wallet is lacking? I feel the best way to answer my own question, and undoubtedly the question on the minds of many free-thinkers searching for employment, is through the experience of Gloria Steinem.

More...