All In One Feed

Late in December, Q-Notes announced their Person of the Year, and that person is North Carolinian Angela Brightfeather. I actually know Angela personally — we’ve met at a number of Southern Comfort Conventions, and we served for awhile together on the Transgender American Veterans Association (TAVA) board.

From Q-Notes:

From her humble home in North Carolina to the doorsteps of national organizations and the halls of Congress, there’s no doubt that Angela Brightfeather has done her part this year.

If there were issues to be discussed, if the transgender community needed an advocate or if the transgender community was being ignored, Brightfeather stepped up.

The 63-year-old transgender leader and activist is a legend — she’s been involved in advocacy work since she was in her 20s; and she’s certainly not afraid of ruffling feathers.

“Anybody who challenges the establishment is going against the flow,” she told Q-Notes. “When you do that, you become the ultimate activist. You become the one that pushes too hard, that wants everybody to take a lead, the one who wants to really change things.” …

One of TAVA’s big accomplishments this year, of which Angela played a significant part in making happen, was a survey done with the Palm Center — The survey was a first ever study at transgender people’s military and veteran experiences.

With regards to Angela’s Person Of The Year honor, TAVA president Monica Helms told me:

“Angela has been my friend for nearly as long as I’ve been an activist, and if anyone deserves this award, it would be her. For 40 years, she has helped our community through some of its toughest times. Her voice has never been silenced, and now, it has been praised.”

Basically, Angela makes a difference for trans people both locally and nationally, and she’s been doing it for quite awhile. Kudos to Angela on her recognition by Q-Notes.

~~~~~
For disclosure purposes, Autumn is a past-Secretary for TAVA.

~~~~~
Related:
* TAVA And The Palm Center: A Look At Transgender Military And Veteran Experiences
* The Transgender American Veterans Association

Original post by Autumn Sandeen

while there is progress being made in the jewish community with the acceptance of transgender jews, there is quite a gap between the reformed and orthodox flavors. it follows quite closely the way christian conservatives differ from christian progressives. according to this article, avi shafran, director of public affairs for agudath israel of america, holds the view that:

…under Jewish law, “and that’s all that should matter to an Orthodox Jew, if the physiology is clearly male or female, then they are considered that.

Certainly the surgery [for gender reassignment] is not permitted.

If post facto there was a change, to the best of my knowledge it doesn’t make a difference either.”

ouch. having been raised in the orthodox tradition, the congregation to which i used to belong wouldn’t recognize my current status. fortunately, i’ve long ago “drifted” from my religious roots. my parents have done the same. though my two sisters still both practice, i believe they currently follow a more conservative (in judaism, “conservative” is a tradition or sect somewhere between orthodox - very traditional - and reformed - progressive) or reformed tradition.

But ancient texts are more modern in some ways than may be widely known: said Congregation Sha’ar Zahav rabbinic intern Reuben Zellman, “Today in the Western world, we are very insistent about our binary gender system,” but the Reform synagogue intern added that that was not necessarily an outlook shared by ancient scholars.

“Our sages talked about gender diversity in a much different way than we talk about it in contemporary America,” Zellman, who himself is transgendered, said.

“They were, in some senses, much more open about what the range of human experience could really be.”

Among various genders aside from “male” and “female” that ancient texts refer to, said the article, are “androgynos” (literally, “man/woman”) and “tumtum,” which is a gender in-between male and female.

so if i were ever moved to start practicing judaism again, i could certainly find a place. in fact, i’ve run into a few local jewish groups here in phoenix that are quite lgbt focused, small as they may be.

Original post by nexy

No new Stephanae, bad as ever …

Original post by Stephanie Stevens

Belated congratulations to a couple of over-the-hill sexagenarians. We’ll see about that wish of yours, Barbra … but, I’m already getting the feeling we were  “fooled” again …

Original post by Stephanie Stevens

I get angry reading about the same tactics over and over again against LGBT civil rights legislation - You just can’t sell me that this isn’t about hate when were seeing these same, hateful “Christian” mistruths and fear tactics used over and over again. When do we develop some good answers to his and his “Christian” peers’ lies and fear tactics?

From Pride Source:

KALAMAZOO-Less than one month after the City of Kalamazoo Commission voted 7-0 to adopt an expanded human rights ordinance that makes it illegal to use sexual orientation to discriminate in housing, public accommodations and employment, petitions were filed Dec. 31 to repeal it.

City Clerk Scott Borling said that the circulators of the petition had filed over 1,600 signatures. If at least 1,273 of them are valid city registered voters, it will cause the new ordinance to be suspended immediately.

The city charter states that valid referendum petitions require the commissioners to take up the challenge at the next regular meeting which will be held on Jan. 26. They will either repeal the ordinance or place it on a ballot for city voters to decide. The certification process began Friday and the outcome should be known sometime this week.

The American Family Association of Michigan, led by Gary Glenn and Kalamazoo County Treasurer Mary Balkema, a former City Commissioner, submitted the petitions. Glenn has been quoted in local press claiming that the new ordinance would force some people to base decisions that run counter to their religious convictions, as well as possibly violate the privacy of women and children.

Glenn has led every challenge across the state in the past decade to defeat city ordinances that include sexual orientation and gender identity. A circulated flyer of talking points stated, “This ordinance violates the First Amendment rights of religion and free speech of those who oppose cross-dressing and homosexual behavior.”

Glenn has used scare tactics in other ballot initiatives. For example, the title of one of the petition circulator scripts reads, “IS THERE A MAN IN YOUR DAUGHTER’S BATHROOM?” …

First I rant about a lack of an effective counter argument to the same, tired arguments of the conservative “Christians,” and then I sigh. *Sigh.*

~~~~~
Related:
* A Further Update: Why A Commission Is Investigating The Suspension Of A Trans Student
* MA Haters Using Prop 8 Celebration to Fundraise Against Trans Rights
* The Ambiguous Feelings About Peeing In Public Restrooms
* White Male Privilege & Women’s Fear Of Crime Intersecting With Gender Expression & Public Restrooms
* When It Comes To Transgender People & Civil Rights, It Really Is Always About The Bathroom
* The Predator Argument Doesn’t Work With Transgender Fifth Graders
* Kevin Moore’s Take On Colorado’s “Bathroom Police”
* If Dr. Dobson Were King, We’d All Be Wearing Depends
* The Non-Trans Woman Thrown Out Of A NY Women’s Restroom Sues
* Outing #2: When You Endanger A Child For The Sensationalism Of It
* Latest Attacks Of Teh HomoSEXual Agenda’s Transgenderededs’s Bullet Points

Original post by Autumn Sandeen

Here in my hometown of San Diego, there’s been a long time effort to remove the Boy Scout Camp from Balboa Park. This is being spearheaded by the ACLU — the long running court case to eject the Boys Scouts from Balboa Park is regarding the Boy Scouts official policy of discriminating against atheist, non-theist, and LGBT leaders, parents, and children, and how these policies regarding religious creed violate state and federal law, as well as how these policies based on sexual orientation and gender identity violate state law. Essentially, the City of San Diego is, and has been subsidizing discrimination by the Boy Scouts on public parkland with below market lease rates. San Diego is no longer defending the below market leases in the ongoing court cases, so it’s only the Boy Scouts at this point that are arguing that they should be allowed to discriminate against leaders, parents, and children because of their religious creed, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity.

As ACLU volunteer attorney Matt Stephens described the situation back in 2004:

The Boy Scouts cannot have it both ways. Having gone to great lengths to establish that discrimination against gays and non-believers is essential to their mission, and therefore protected by the First Amendment, they cannot now turn around and ask the people of San Diego to foot the bill for that discrimination.

The 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals has mad a ruling regarding in the past week regarding Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune:

The state Supreme Court, after a nearly two-year delay, will be asked to determine whether city of San Diego leases of Balboa Park land violate the state constitution’s ban on government preference for religious groups.
The move Wednesday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is hearing a lawsuit challenging the leases, is the latest turn in the long-running case.

…The case focuses on a 2003 ruling by U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones in San Diego. Jones struck down two leases that the city had with the Scouts for 16 acres in Balboa Park and on Fiesta Island. Jones concluded the Boy Scouts, which bars openly gay leaders and requires members to take an oath to God, is a religious organization and the leases amounted to government assistance to religion.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by a lesbian couple and an agnostic couple. The Scouts appealed, and in December 2006, the federal appeals court said it wanted the state Supreme Court first to weigh in on three questions of state law: Do the leases amount to aid to religion; if so, does that aid support a sectarian purpose; and do the leases violate the state constitution’s “no preference” ban on government favoring a religious group.

Federal courts on occasion will ask state high courts to issue opinions on unique questions of state law that arise in cases before federal judges.

Back in December of 2006, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America, according to a December, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle article, that:

[Below the fold, some history of Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America.]

…the Boy Scouts convinced the U.S. Supreme Court [in 2000] that their deep-seated principles gave them a constitutional right to exclude gays and atheists. Now the California Supreme Court has been asked to look at the other side of that coin — whether the Scouts are a religious organization ineligible for certain types of government aid, including dollar-a-year leases of public land.

The request came this week from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which is reviewing a federal judge’s ruling striking down the city of San Diego’s lease of prized downtown parkland to the Boy Scouts.

The San Diego Union-Tribune clarified it a little more back in late 2006, adding:

[U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones Jr.] ruled that the Boy Scouts - which bar gays and require members to take an oath to God - are a religious organization and that the leases amounted to an unconstitutional government assistance to religion.

The Boy Scouts appealed, contending they are not a religious group and that there was no evidence their religious practices were a factor in getting the leases.

In an order issued Monday, the judges asked the state court to weigh in on three questions:

- Do the leases violate the state constitution’s “no preference” ban on government favoring of a religious group?

- Do the leases amount to aid for religion, and thereby violate a second clause in the state constitution banning government aid to religion?

- If the leases amount to aid, do they support a “sectarian purpose” or “creed”? In other words, can the Scouts be considered a religious group?

The judges wrote that California’s high court has never had to define what “aid”, “creed” or “sectarian purpose” mean in a way that can be applied to the circumstances raised by the Scouts’ lease case.

Last June, the 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals made a another ruling regarding Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America. From the ACLU:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today issued an order in Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America. The district court found that Boy Scouts of America is a religious organization with a religious purpose, because it requires leaders and members to swear a duty to God and it engages in religious instruction. As it did before, the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether the City of San Diego’s heavily subsidized leases to the Boy Scouts for prime city parkland violate the California Constitution’s prohibition on governmental preference for and aid to religious organizations.

The Ninth Circuit correctly held, as it did before, that the ACLU’s clients are entitled to pursue their claims in court. The case can now move forward on the merits. We remain confident the California Supreme Court will find that a religious organization such as the Boy Scouts, which openly discriminates on the basis of religion and sexual orientation, is not entitled to a special preference and heavy subsidy from the City of San Diego.

Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America case has been incredibly slow to resolve — it’s been winding it’s way through the federal courts since 2003. The Boy Scouts have been ruled against at every point, but they still are operating a camp where they’re allowed to discriminate against members of public on public parkland.

This week; however, the case has moved one step closer to a final resolution. This case can’t resolve soon enough for me.

~~~~~
Further Reading:
* Law.com (Dec. 31, 2008): Conservatives on 9th Circuit Can’t Rescue Boy Scouts From Establishment Clause Claim
* Boy Scouts Of America Media Release (Dec. 31, 2008): Ninth Circuit sends San Diego Boy Scout case to Cal Supreme Court with “unprecedented” standing ruling

~~~~~
Related:
* Boy Scout Discrimination Back In The News
* Supreme Court won’t review CA city’s move against Boy Scouts
* A Scout Is … Queer?
* LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley dies
* Pam’s House Blend tag: Boy Scouts
* Pam’s House Blend keyword search: Boy Scouts

Original post by Autumn Sandeen

according to this wall street journal article, russian academic igor panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. he believes that arizona and its neighboring states will fall under china’s influence. now granted, we couldn’t do much as individuals against fighter jets, tanks, or bombs, but arizona’s populace is pretty well armed. since there’s about 300 million firearms in possession by civilians in the u.s., divided by 50 results in 6 million guns in arizona. though based on the relative liberal gun laws here, i’d imagine that arizona is above average.

Original post by nexy

i worked today, being that i get a regular day’s pay whether or not i work as holiday pay, and time-and-a-half for every hour i worked. and besides, i only have one more day of work in that department, since i start a new position on monday. 6 weeks of training with no talking on the phone. yay! 2009 is starting on a high note. lets hope it continues.

Original post by nexy

…we’re gonna have us a show!

Yep, we’re back on the air tonight so be sure to tune in at 7pm eastern for the big return of the “Rebecca Juro Show” featuring:

All-around amazing transactivist and TransFM founder and host Ethan St. Pierre. We’ll have some big news to share tonight so be sure to be listening!

Diego Sanchez, newly-appointed to Barney Frank’s staff, our very first transgender Congressional staffer in Washington. We’ll talk with Diego about Barney Frank, where we stand now on ENDA, hate crimes, and other issues of importance to LGBT Americans, and what we can expect to see from our federal government on the issues that impact our lives in the coming legislative session.

And in our third hour, Mike and I will be offering our take on some of the biggest stories of 2008. Don’t miss it!

The Rebecca Juro Show
The LGBT Internet Radio Talk Show That Puts The “T” First!
Streaming Live Thursdays, 7-10pm Eastern, 4-7pm Pacific And Rebroadcast Throughout The Week
On The TransFM Radio Network
http://www.transfm.org
And On QMO
http://www.queermusiconline.com
Show Email: rjuroshow@gmail.com
Podcast Archive: Homepage: http://beckyjuro.podomatic.com
RSS Feed: http://beckyjuro.podOmatic.com/rss2.xml
Becky’s Blog and New Podcasts: http://transadvocate.com/beckygrrl

Original post by admin

The Los Angeles Times has a recent piece out (December 29, 2008) on how the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, entitled DSM psychiatry manual’s secrecy criticized. The subheader for the piece is The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is being revised under a cloak of confidentiality. Critics say the process needs to be open, and cite potential conflicts of interest. From the article:

An update is underway for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as the DSM, which defines the emotional problems for which doctors prescribe drugs and insurance companies pay the treatment bills. Psychiatrists working on the new edition were required to sign a strict confidentiality agreement.

Critics contend that the American Psychiatric Assn. should allow outside observers to review the scientific debate behind new and revised diagnoses.

Among the most prominent to speak out is the editor of the manual’s third edition, Dr. Robert Spitzer, hailed by peers as the most influential psychiatrist of his generation. If the DSM is often called the profession’s bible, then the DSM-III is the King James Version. Released in 1980, it set the standard by which others are measured.

Recently, Spitzer broke ranks by publishing an open letter to the profession protesting the confidentiality mandate.

A copy of Dr. Spitzer’s open letter is here. Here’s an excerpt from the letter:

[Below the fold, the Spitzer Letter and possible transgender/transsexual related issues behind the lack of transparency.]

The June 6 issue of Psychiatric News brought the good news that the DSM-V process will be “complex but open.” At the 2008 annual meeting, outgoing APA President Carolyn Robinowitz, M.D., stressed that with the development of DSM-V now under way, APA is demonstrating its commitment to “transparency” at a time of heightened public concern about pharmaceutical industry and other special-interest ties to medicine.

I found out how transparent and open the DSM-V process was when in a February e-mail to me from Darrel Regier, M.D., vice chair of the DSM-V Task Force, he informed me that he would not send me a copy of the minutes of DSM-V Task Force meetings as I had repeatedly requested over the past year. He explained that he and David Kupfer, M.D., chair of the DSM-V Task Force, had come to this decision because the Board of Trustees believed it was important to “maintain DSM-V confidentiality.” He noted that the Board had developed an “acceptance form” that all task force and work group members were required to sign that essentially requires work group and task force members to agree to not discuss with anybody anything having to do with DSM-V. The language is quite clear:

“I will not, during the term of this appointment or after, divulge, furnish, or make accessible to anyone or use in any way… any Confidential Information. I understand that ‘Confidential Information’ includes all Work Product, unpublished manuscripts and drafts and other pre-publication materials, group discussions, internal correspondence, information about the development process and any other written or unwritten information, in any form, that emanates from or relates to my work with the APA task force or work group.”

…It is hard to understand how the confidentiality agreements will benefit the process of developing DSM-V. Until they are no longer required, the DSM-V process can hardly be described as “transparent” and “open.”

Many trans people are already not pleased with who’s on the committee reviewing the updates for DSM-V. I know my gut-level guess with why the process of updating DSM-V is being secretive isn’t because the committee members are significantly concerned about possible financial links to pharmaceutical manufacturers, but instead because the committee doesn’t want to deal with angry, frustrated trans people who don’t like how the discussion is going on updating the Gender Identity Disorder (GID) diagnosis. And frankly, my gut feelings have been wrong more than once — but it’s just one could make the case that it appears they’re hiding their deliberative processes to minimize public flack from trans people that want medical stigma removed from their diagnosis (in the way LGB people had the stigma of homosexuality removed with the issuance of DSM-III)…the appearance of impropriety verses a known impropriety.

This reminds me of one of my favorite colorful sayings from when I was in the Navy:

It looks like sh**, it smells like sh** — it must be chocolate, right?

Whatever the reason for the confidentiality agreements, I’m with Dr. Spitzer — updating DSM-V should be a “transparent” and “open” process that doesn’t require confidentiality agreements.

~~~~~
Further reading:

* WSJ Health Blog: Confidentiality of Psychiatric Manual’s Update Draws Gripes
* Spitzer Blog: DSM-V: Open and Transparent?
* Website: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

~~~~~
Related:
* Gender-Variant Children And Transsexuals Will Likely Still Be Disordered In DSM-V
* Documenting The DSM-V And GID Controversy

Original post by Autumn Sandeen

From GolfMagic.com’s Long drive champ had a sex change:

TV golf-watchers in the US sat aghast over Christmas when it was revealed that the winner of the RE/MAX world long driving championship for women - shown on the ESPN network - was a former male policeman who used to play off a plus one handicap.

The new women’s world champion is 55-year-old bartender Lana Lawless from Palm Springs, California whose longest drive into a 40 mph headwind at the Mesquite event travelled 254 yards to beat reigning champion Phillis Meti (21) from New Zealand by four yards.

The rules governing transgender golf competition allow for those like Ms Lawless, who have received a ’sex-change’ operation to take part in such events as long as they provide mandatory doctor reports, lab results within normal female limits and onsite testing…

Let’s be clear: Lawless didn’t beat previous winner Phillis Meti by much at all.

Having lost a significant amount of upper body strength myself in the last six years, I know on a personal level that after a short period of time, having a male history provides one no athletic advantage. Most male-to-female transsexuals lose a significant amount of muscle mass as a result of blocking or removing the testosterone from their natal testicles, and actually over the period of just two years after genital reconstruction surgery, male-to-female transsexuals have no competitive advantage over natal women.

However, it’s always going to be said in any competition in which male-to-female transsexuals compete that they have a competitive advantage due to their male history — their male genetics. It doesn’t need to be true to be repeated over and over again.

Original post by Autumn Sandeen

San Francisco State University ’s Family Acceptance Project released a report which is highlighted in Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The article, entitled Family Rejection as a Predictor of Negative Health Outcomes in White and Latino Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Young Adults was posted today (December 29, 2008).

From the Prevention Researcher blog article Supporting the Families of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth on the study:

For this article, the researchers used a retrospective study design with 224 white and Latino LGB young adults ages 21 to 25 years. Participants were evenly distributed across gender and ethnicity, and all lived in California. The study measured how specific family behaviors that parents, caregivers, and guardians use to reject their adolescent’s LGB identity (between ages 13-19), relates to negative mental health, substance use and misuse, and risky sexual behavior in young adulthood.

Results of the study indicated that when compared to their peers from families with no or low levels of family rejection, the lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults who reported high levels of family rejection during adolescence were:

• 8.4 times more likely to report attempting suicide
• 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression
• 3.4 times more likely to report illegal drug use
• 3.4 times more likely to report having engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse

Additionally, when the sample was broken down by gender and ethnicity, young Latino gay and bisexual men reported higher levels of family rejection and higher rates of negative mental health and HIV risk outcomes than the other subgroups in the study.

The conclusion of this report is as follows (as taken from the Pediatrics article):

This study establishes a clear link between specific parental and caregiver rejecting behaviors and negative health problems in young lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Providers who serve this population should assess and help educate families about the impact of rejecting behaviors. Counseling families, providing anticipatory guidance, and referring families for counseling and support can help make a critical difference in helping decrease risk and increasing well-being for lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth.

As bad as the outcomes are for family rejection of LGBT youth are, there is hope. I spoke to the Family Acceptance Project (FAP) director Caitlin Ryan today, she said the organization has 8,000 pages of data on the families of LGBT youth, data that’s been collected in English, Chinese, and Spanish. Future papers based on the FAP data won’t just focus on “negative outcomes,” but will show specifically how families can achieve better outcomes for their LGBT children. FAP’s sees the following potentials in their work:

• Significantly improve the health, mental health and quality of life for ethnically diverse LGBT children and their families.

• Strengthen diverse families, decrease social stigma and help maintain many LGBT children and adolescents in their homes who would otherwise end up out-of-home and homeless.

• Substantially reduce the cost of care, personal suffering and loss to society by preventing major negative outcomes in at risk children and adolescents.

For example, the fast majority of parents love their children, and even measures like sending children to ex-gay camps to “cure” the youth of their gender variance or sexual orientation are most often done because the parents want the best outcome for their children. When parents see what the outcomes are for rejecting their children, many, many parents change their behavior — Parents don’t want their children to use drugs or engage in unsafe sexual intercourse, and when shown that there are diffent behaviors they can engage in that create better outcomes with their children, they very often embrace the new behaviors.

I’m excited to that specific papers addressing issues regarding transgender and gender variant youth are in process. Already, some of the findings from their data have been included in the book The Transgender Child: A Handbook for Families and Professionals (by Stephanie A. Brill and Rachel Pepper).

Keep your eye out for more from SFSU’s Family Acceptance Project — I know I’m excited about what the papers’ findings are going to be, and what their recommendations are going to be. I’ll be posting on their upcoming papers as these are released.

Original post by Autumn Sandeen

I have to admit, I’m confused by the sentiment and numbers of this Wall Street Journal article entitled Donor Disclosure Has Its Downsides; Supporters of California’s Prop. 8 have faced a backlash. The article begins with the line “How would you like elections without secret ballots? To most people, this would be absurd,” and then goes to make a case for keeping donations secret.

We have secret balloting for obvious reasons. Politics frequently generates hot tempers. People can put up yard signs or wear political buttons if they want. But not everyone feels comfortable making his or her positions public — many worry that their choice might offend or anger someone else. They fear losing their jobs or facing boycotts of their businesses.

And yet the mandatory public disclosure of financial donations to political campaigns in almost every state and at the federal level renders people’s fears and vulnerability all too real. Proposition 8 — California’s recently passed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage by ensuring that marriage in that state remains between a man and a woman — is a dramatic case in point. Its passage has generated retaliation against those who supported it, once their financial support was made public and put online.

For example, when it was discovered that Scott Eckern, director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater in Sacramento, had given $1,000 to Yes on 8, the theater was deluged with criticism from prominent artists. Mr. Eckern was forced to resign…

The writer then goes on to cite the cases of Richard Raddon (the director of the L.A. Film Festival who resigned under pressure), a Palo Alto dentist who lost patients as a result of his $1,000 donation, and restaurant manager Marjorie Christoffersen (the El Coyote restaurant manager who resigned due to loss of customers).

I don’t believe the losses of these four people match the possible future state dissolution of 18,000 married same gender couples married while it was lawful in California.

The authors of the WSJ op-ed conclude:

In the aftermath of Prop. 8 we can glimpse a very ugly future. As anyone who has had their political yard signs torn down can imagine, with today’s easy access to donor information on the Internet, any crank or unhinged individual can obtain information on his political opponents, including work and home addresses, all but instantaneously. When even donations as small as $100 trigger demonstrations, it is hard to know how one will feel safe in supporting causes one believes in.

Public disclosure laws aren’t meant to encourage violence, and there has been little to no violence against individual voters based on their political donations.

So apart from violence, I actually believe disclosure laws were created in part specifically so citizens could know who is financially supporting political causes, and respond with protests, boycotts, and buycotts based on who supported what candidate and/or initiative that they didn’t. I certainly don’t want to go back to the days before disclosure laws were passed, and moneyed interests could purchase the government they wanted without any public knowledge of who was “buying votes” at the expense of a significant portion of the public.

So, don’t count on this Californian supporting any initiatives or laws that repeal campaign public disclosure laws. Good government demands more transparency — especially in the election process — not less transparency.

Original post by Autumn Sandeen

Let’s get some shoes …

(Mike Luckovich)

Original post by Stephanie Stevens

How many acts of violence does it take for acts of violence against a class of people to be considered an epidemic of violence against this class of people? How many acts of violence against this class of people must occur without police solving these crimes to be considered a rash of unsolved crimes against this class of people?

I don’t know. I do know that three violent crimes against trans women of color in the same Tennessee city within the past six months where two of the victims died…when one of the victims was beaten by police while in police custody a few months earlier. I do know it leaves me wondering what the City of Memphis itself, and the people in the City of Memphis are doing to protect the lives of its trans citizens of color, and what the city is planning on doing in the future to stop the violence…to stop the killings.

From the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition (TTPC) press release, entitled Another Transgender Woman Shot in Memphis:

On Christmas Eve, a Memphis television station reported the shooting of Leeneshia Edwards in Memphis. She becomes the third transgender woman shot in Memphis in just six months. At last report, Leeneshia is in critical condition. We extend our hopes and prayers to Leenashia for a speedy recovery.

We also ask for anyone with any information about this latest crime to call Memphis Crimes Stoppers at (901)528-CASH.

The shooting of Leeneshia Edwards helps shed light on a disturbing trend in Memphis. Transgender women who work in the sex industry in order to survive are now being targeted by a pervasive culture of violence.

The indifferent attitude of law enforcement towards the February 16, 2006, murder of Tiffany Berry, and the February 12, 2008, beating of Duanna Johnson by Memphis Police Department officers, has sent a message that the lives of transgender people are not important. This has fed the culture of violence that has permeated the second half of 2008, and is exemplified by the July 1 murder of Ebony Whitaker, the July 28 murder of Dre-Ona Blake, a two year old girl who was killed by the man who had previously been charged with the murder of Tiffany Berry, but was allowed to walk free for two and a half years, the November 9 murder of Duanna Johnson, and now the shooting of Leeneshia Edwards.

This open season on transgender people in Memphis and elsewhere, regardless of whether or not they engage in sex work, must come to an end right now.

[The rest of the TTPC media release text is below the fold, where the TTPC spells out what actions need to be taken in Memphis.]

We call on business people who refuse to hire transgender people to open their doors immediately to transgender workers so there are alternatives to working on the streets.

We call on shelters that routinely turn away transgender people who are seeking help, to open their doors so that transgender people do not have to live on the streets.

We call on religious leaders who preach intolerance towards crossdressers and transsexuals from the pulpit to cease immediately and begin preaching messages of love and acceptance of diversity.

We call on political leaders of all parties to stop campaigning against transgender people and start supporting fully inclusive employment non-discrimination and hate crimes legislation to show that the lives of transgender people have value.

Marisa Richmond
President

The Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition (TTPC) is an organization designed to educate and advocate on behalf of transgender related legislation at the Federal, State and local levels. TTPC is dedicated to raising public awareness and building alliances with other organizations concerned with equal rights legislation.

For more information, or to make a donation, contact:

Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition (TTPC)
P.O. Box 92335
Nashville, TN 37209
http://ttgpac.com
TTGPAC@aol.com
(615)293-6199
(615)353-1834 fax

Original post by Autumn Sandeen

In the piece Commission to investigate suspension of transgender student, I made a reasonable assumption that a transgender student was harassed for using a female restroom based on operative status. Apparently, she was discriminated against relating to whether or not she had genital reconstruction surgery (GRS), but it apparently was for being post-operative, and not pre-operative. From the New York Daily Record:

Jamie Nicole Anderson says she just wants to be treated like everyone else. The York woman is a 42-year-old ex-Marine who takes her 11-year-old son to school and never misses his football, baseball or hockey games.

…In May, she got a sex change operation, from male to female, and, she says, that’s when the trouble started.

…Anderson said she was banned from using a women’s rest room and was repeatedly referred to as “he” and “his” by her [Harrisburg Area Community College (HAAC)] clinical instructors.

Further:

Anderson said she was suspended for three days Oct. 2 by HACC for “insubordination,” using the women’s rest room after being told not to because some operating room employees said they were “uncomfortable” with her being there.

Anderson said she was dismissed from her program Oct. 30 for her violation of a dress code that forbids more than two earrings in an ear.

“I forgot to take (one) out that day,” she said.

Anderson said she filed the complaint because she wants the situation corrected for her and other transgendered people like her.

If one is born with a penis, I tend to believe the arguments against fully inclusive anti-discrimination language will always revolve around the bathroom, whether or not a trans person/a person of trans history currently has a penis or not. Some transsexuals (and people of trans history) see a difference between pre-operative and post-operative folk where anti-discrimination rules should only be applied to the post-operative folk. In the real world where discrimination is often based on fear and/or hate, discrimination is often based on what the genitals looked like at birth, not what one’s genitals look like now, or not what gender one is between the ears. It’s based on societal gender norms associated with natal genitalia shape — just as it is for effeminate gay and straight men, and masculine lesbian and straight women.

Anti-discrimination laws that give legal recourse for sexual orientation and gender identity and expression based discrimination are what keeps businesses and government from behaving badly against those perceived to be gender variant people.

Jamie is never going to be perceived as a woman by those who discriminated against her. I’m with Jamie — to correct the situation for her and other transgender people like her, sometimes one has to fight against unacceptable behavior.

~~~~~
Related:
* MA Haters Using Prop 8 Celebration to Fundraise Against Trans Rights
* The Ambiguous Feelings About Peeing In Public Restrooms
* White Male Privilege & Women’s Fear Of Crime Intersecting With Gender Expression & Public Restrooms
* When It Comes To Transgender People & Civil Rights, It Really Is Always About The Bathroom
* The Predator Argument Doesn’t Work With Transgender Fifth Graders
* Kevin Moore’s Take On Colorado’s “Bathroom Police”
* I’m Going To Colorado In August With PHB; I’m Going To Make Use Of Public Accommodations
* If Dr. Dobson Were King, We’d All Be Wearing Depends
* The Non-Trans Woman Thrown Out Of A NY Women’s Restroom Sues
* Outing #2: When You Endanger A Child For The Sensationalism Of It
* Latest Attacks Of Teh HomoSEXual Agenda’s Transgenderededs’s Bullet Points

Original post by Autumn Sandeen

the phoenix light rail system is having it’s grand opening today. many special events are scheduled, and the rides are free until the new year. needless to say, it’s packed today, but we stopped by one of the stations to get some pictures of the historic event. oh, and pardon my artistic license with a bit of photoshop on the above image.

Original post by nexy

Original post by nexy

Pretty much right after I came out to my Mom as a transsexual — a transgender woman — my Mom entered an Orthodox Christian monastery as a novice nun. I was never quite sure if my coming out wasn’t the “last straw” event that led her to join the monastery; however, she left her particular order about a year-and-a-half after joining it.

For those who aren’t aware, the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church split in 1057 over the idea of a Pope being in charge of the church — the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are pretty similar in their approach to Christianity otherwise.

Within this past year, my Mom converted to Catholicism, so she has chosen to embrace a church where I believe the doctrine states that the Pope is infallible — at least, as a non-Catholic, that’s how I understand the doctrine to be. Does my Mom believe the Pope is infallible, or at a minimum speaks with tremendous spiritual authority? I have no idea — I never asked her what her thoughts are on the subject of her faith regarding the Pope.

But, with that thought of an infallible Pope in mind and my Mom’s recent conversion to Catholicism, perhaps I let things news like this get to me a bit too much: The Pope’s Christmas message included the message that the world needs to be protected against gays and transsexuals.

Time Magazine adds:

Without actually using the word, Benedict took a subtle swipe at those who might undergo sex-change operations or otherwise attempt to alter their God-given gender. Defend “the nature of man against its manipulation,” Benedict told the priests, bishops and cardinals gathered Monday in the ornate Clementine hall. “The Church speaks of the human being as man and woman, and asks that this order is respected.” The Pope again denounced the contemporary idea that gender is a malleable definition. That path, he said, leads to a “self-emancipation of man from creation and the Creator.”

This goes a bit beyond what the Catholic Church has said about transsexuals in the past (here, here, and here).

So, Merry Christmas, gays and transsexuals, from the Pope!

Original post by Autumn Sandeen

and yeah, i have a lot of airing of grievances.

Original post by nexy

As a society, we need to invest in children. Better schools means higher standards of living for future generations. Better prenatal care, and better preventative healthcare for children means less money spent on healthcare for these same children when they become adults.

…Most U.S. children live in secure environments and sail into young adulthood healthy, becoming productive members of society. But as the numbers in this report show, this happy ending eludes millions of children.

The data which follow focus on a few key issues: health, child abuse, imprisonment, school readiness, child care, afterschool, and poverty. These are big issues affecting millions of children and families. There are others, equally important, which we have not addressed. The disturbing trends in the data presented are understated. Although they are the most recent available, they lag by at least a year the sharp downturn in the economy and its impact on families.

We can all agree: families are the best place for children, but often families need a little help. The private sector is an essential ally—but it lacks the resources to match the needs of millions of children. State and local governments are critical players, but vast disparities in child well-being among states confirm the need for a national government which promotes a level playing field for all children…
–Michael R. Petit; President, Every Child Matters Education Fund

And, this of course is an argument for recognizing same-gender family relationships on the federal level. Blocking adoptions by same-gender couples; not recognizing the parental and guardianship relationships same-gender couples have with their children — not treating children of same-gender households in a manner similar to the children of opposite-gender couples — is a also a means of taking money that could be spent on caring for children and applying giving it to local, state, and federal governments in the form of increased taxes.

Children matter. Equality of hope and opportunity matters. These instersect within in the issue of providing for all families; caring for America’s children.

~~~~~
Related reading:
* Homeland Insecurity; Why new investments in children and youth must be a priority for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress

Original post by Autumn Sandeen

From MSNBC’s Hardball guest host Mike Barnacle regarding the debate over Pastor Rick Warren giving the invocation at the upcoming Presidential inauguration:

Quoting Mike Barnacle from the segment:

[I]f you take Cambridge, the upper west side of Manhattan, Georgetown, Santa Monica, and San Francisco our of this debate, there is no debate. Do you agree with that?

Well, No. Not only no, but Hell No. I care about Pastor Warren speaking at President-elect Obama’s inauguration; I live in San Diego — and Pam who’s been writing about this a lot at PHB is from North Carolina. So Hey! We don’t live in the gay-five-cities, and we’re talking about this issue! Nice sterotyping of where LGBT people and our progressive allies live, MSNBC, Hardball, and Barnacle!

And getting back to Pastor Warren, it bothers me a lot that we all know that Obama wouldn’t invite an anti-Semite to give the invocation; he wouldn’t invite a Aryan church racist to give the invocation; he wouldn’t invite someone who compared veterans, disabled people, pregnant women or any other minority group or protected class members to pedophiles — or adults who engage in incestuous relationships — to give the invocation. So why did President-elect Obama invite a pastor who believes gays and lesbians to pedophiles and adults who engage in incestuous relationships?

What this tells me is that even the incoming President’s administration team sees lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people as acceptably safe to berate as deviants within American society. President-elect Obama doesn’t berate LGBT people himself, but he finds it acceptable to give places of honor to those who do.

[Below the fold, what I asked in an email of MSNBC.]

I don’t mind if Obama dialogs with any individual or group — even leaders in the evangelical movement with whom I strongly disagree. But, elevating Pastor Warren to the honored place of giving the invocation at the inauguration is completely unacceptable due to his comparison of gays and lesbians to and adults who engage in incestuous relationships. Completely.

And, I don’t live in the upper west side of Manhattan, Georgetown, Santa Monica, or San Francisco. I live in San Diego.

I sent MSNBC’s Media Inquiries’ folk a note about how I’m a member of the LGBT community, I live in San Diego, and I care about Pastor Warren giving the invocation — do they have a comment about my peers and me being discounted for Pam’s House Blend?

Do you want to send the show a letter telling them the same thing about where you live, and how you feel? Write MSNBC here and ask their Media Inquiries’ folk if they have a comment on the discounting your’s an your peers’ from -insert name of your hometown here- concern about Pastor Warren giving the invocation at the Obama Inauguration.

Original post by Autumn Sandeen

via the bbc news:

Pope Benedict XVI has said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.
He explained that defending God’s creation is not limited to saving the environment, but also protecting man from self-destruction

read the whole article. it speaks for itself. apparently, the pope finds himself at odds with the united nations.

Original post by nexy

I have to admit, I almost burst into song (which would have felled a few trees) when I was reading this …

Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.

“(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed,” the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican’s central administration.

“The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less.”

The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality “a deviation, an irregularity, a wound.”

The pope said humanity needed to “listen to the language of creation” to understand the intended roles of man and woman. He compared behavior beyond traditional heterosexual relations as “a destruction of God’s work.”

He also defended the Church’s right to “speak of human nature as man and woman, and ask that this order of creation be respected.”

Pope likens “saving” gays to saving the rainforest

Original post by Stephanie Stevens

Original post by nexy