Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 26
June 16, 2011
Videos of the 2011 Netroots Nation LGBT Netroots Connect pre-con
"Immigration Reform Through a Queer Lens":
Comments by the staff of Netroots Connect: Michael Rogers, director; Michael Crawford, Heather Cronk and Barbara McCullough-Jones.
Join us virtually at Netroots Nation
Today's agenda below the fold.STREAMING & VIDEO
We'll be streaming all of our keynote sessions and four of our panel rooms live each day of the convention. You can find these streams - in addition to behind-the-scenes interviews from Free Speech TV - on the Netroots Nation and Free Speech TV websites, at Daily Kos and on the websites of many of our progressive media partners, as well as DIRECTTV channel 348, and DISH Network channel 9415. In addition, C-SPAN will show many of our keynotes on their stations.
To follow the action on Twitter, follow @Netroots_Nation and search the #nn11 hashtag.
Click here to view the schedules of sessions that will be streamed and to watch online.
FOLLOW AT HOME GUIDE FOR THURSDAY, 6/16The following keynotes and panels will be streaming live. All times are central time. Full descriptions of each session are available here.
9:00am - 10:15am
Numbers and Sense: Communicating about the EconomyNetroots Inter(nation)al: Working Together Across the Pond for Progressive ChangeMicrotargeting to Win: Lessons from CaliforniaLife Since Vegas: How the Netroots Forced Action on DADT and DREAM10:30am - 11:45am
Where Crazy Comes From: Reckless Republicans in State LegislaturesInside Baseball: Why Outside Groups Must Pay Attention to the Inside GameThe Arab Spring: A Case Study for New Media as a Catalyst for ChangeWhy Organizing around Community Colleges Matters3pm - 4:15pm
What to Do When the President is Just Not that Into YouProtecting Reproductive Rights in Your StateObliterating the False Divide Between Online and Offline OrganizingBeyond Environmental Justice: Making Conservation Inclusive and Representative4:30pm - 5:45pm
Bloggers Unite! How the Netroots Rallied in WisconsinThe War on ContraceptionStructural Barriers to Progressive SuccessBottoms-Up! Affecting National Policy on a Local Level7:00pm - 8:30pm
TMZ embarrasses NOM and David Tyree
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
On its blog, NOM is trumpeting the interview it conducted with Superbowl hero and former New York Giant David Tyree regarding his disagreement with marriage equality
NOM makes it a point to brag that the interview had been picked up by other media outlets including Politico and TMZ.
The only thing is that TMZ burns Tyree hard, by just letting him talk and demonstrating that the brother is simply clueless:
Ex-NY Giants receiver David Tyree -- who made the LEGENDARY helmet catch in Super Bowl XLII -- is coming out against gay marriage HARD ... claiming it's the first step on the road to "ANARCHY."
. . . During the interview, Tyree is asked about the push to legalize gay marriage in the United States -- and says if it happens, "This will be the beginning of our country sliding toward ... it's a strong word, but anarchy."
To reinforce his point, Tyree says, "You can't teach something that you don't have ... so two men will never be able to show a woman how to be a woman."
And the kicker, Tyree -- who's black -- says, "How can marriage be marriage for thousands of years and now all the sudden because a minority, an influential minority, has a push or agenda ... and totally reshapes something that was not founded in our country."
FYI -- Tyree's statement comes almost 44 years to the day after interracial marriage was legalized in the United States ... thanks, in part, to the agenda of an influential minority.
I love TMZ.
Dear David, an old saying goes like "it's better to be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Take the hint.
June 15, 2011
NY marriage bill passes the Assembly 80-63
While State Senate Republicans on June 15 dragged their heels on moving a marriage equality bill to debate and a vote, the Assembly, having waived the three-day hold on newly introduced legislation, rushed Governor Andrew Cuomo's measure through committee and to the floor, where it passed by an 80-63 vote Wednesday evening.Here is O'Donnell's statement:This was the Assembly's fourth vote on marriage equality, each one of them successful, since 2007. Upper West Side Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell, an out gay Democrat, is the lead sponsor.
...The public count of Senate supporters stands at 31, one vote shy of a majority.
"This is an immense step toward achieving true equality for all here in New York. I am very proud that under Speaker Silver's strong leadership and with his unwavering support, we in the Assembly have powerfully voiced our deep-seated belief in equality and rejected legalized discrimination yet again. Since we first passed Marriage Equality four years ago, the need for this law has only grown, with same-sex couples in New York facing daily discrimination from our state. This must end.More from GCN on the batsh*ttery during debate:This issue remains profoundly important to me; it is not just a professional goal, but a personal mission. My partner John and I have been together for over 30 years, and we have awaited the ability to marry in our home state for many of them. Today, for the fourth time, the Assembly declared that now is the time."
[T]he loudest example of religious opposition came from Brooklyn's Dov Hikind, an Orthodox Jewish assemblyman. Hikind lashed out at what he termed the "unfair" criticism that those opposed to marriage equality are lacking in compassion. Redefining marriage is "unbelievable," he argued, and an affront to God.Reactions to the vote are below the fold.But for all Hikind's hysterics, which included holding aloft a picture of pop star Lady Gaga as an example of same-sex marriage supporters, several other Jewish Assembly members countered his position.
New Yorkers United for Marriage:
"New Yorkers United for Marriage applauds Speaker Silver, Assemblymember O'Donnell and their colleagues for once again affirming that all New Yorkers should be able to marry the person they love. We are heartened and gratified by the Assembly's unwavering commitment to marriage equality and will never forget their leadership on this important issue. We call on the Senate to allow a vote on marriage so that we can make history in the Empire State."###
New Yorkers United for Marriage is a coalition of leading New York LGBT rights organizations fighting so that all couples in New York State have the freedom to marry the person they love.
The Empire State Pride Agenda is the statewide civil rights and advocacy group committed to achieving full equality and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) New Yorkers and our families. For twenty years we have been educating policymakers, elected officials and the public, building coalitions and mobilizing allies, lobbying government officials, administering a Political Action Committee, and organizing and empowering the LGBT community.
Freedom to Marry is the campaign to win marriage nationwide. We are pursuing our Roadmap to Victory by working to win the freedom to marry in more states, grow the national majority for marriage, and end federal marriage discrimination. We partner with individuals and organizations across the country to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and the protections, responsibilities, and commitment that marriage brings.
The Human Rights Campaign is America's largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.
Marriage Equality New York (MENY) is a grassroots, volunteer based, single-issue organization dedicated to securing the right for all New Yorkers to enter into legally recognized civil marriages. With local chapters throughout New York State, MENY is leading the fight for equality, helping educate local and state politicians and candidates to support equal marriage rights legislation.
Log Cabin Republicans is the nation's only organization of Republicans who support fairness, freedom and equality for gay and lesbian Americans. Log Cabin has state and local chapters nationwide, a full-time office in Washington, D.C., a federal political action committee and state political action committees.
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:
New York on brink of marriage equality as Assembly passes historic legislation granting same-sex couples the freedom to marry
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force urges Senate to 'take us over the finish line'
NEW YORK, June 15 - The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force applauds the New York Assembly's passage today of legislation granting same-sex couples the freedom to marry in the Empire State. Marriage equality advocates now await a Senate vote, which is expected to be extremely close. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has been working with the New Yorkers United for Marriage coalition to secure marriage equality, including assisting with phone banks over the past several weeks.
Statement by Rea Carey, Executive Director,
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force"This is a tremendously exciting moment as New York finds itself on the brink of marriage equality. We eagerly look forward to the Empire State becoming the sixth and largest state to grant this fundamental freedom to loving, committed same-sex couples. It will mean same-sex couples who live in New York will no longer have to cross state lines to marry. That day will be a great and historic one for New York - already a leader in so many ways. We thank the state Assembly for passing this vitally important legislation and applaud Gov. Andrew Cuomo for making this a key priority. We are proud to be a supporter of New Yorkers United for Marriage, which has been doggedly organizing on this issue that is so critical to the lives of families throughout New York and the country. We urge the Senate to swiftly take us over the finish line. Let's get this done."
North Carolina Democratic Party Supports Pride Month
A strong message from party chair David Parker. I hope individual elected officials consider strong public statement opposing the marriage discrimination amendment being foisted upon our state by the GOP-led General Assembly as the Democratic Party will have its 2012 convention in Charlotte.We have seen progress in our lifetime.When we have been honest and compassionate, we have participated in the difficult work of that progress. It is only when we have been afraid, when we have stood aside or turned away that we have found ourselves on the wrong side of the great battles for human rights in America.
Total equality is the ultimate goal. Through many thousand acts of personal and collective courage in the struggle for LGBT rights, be it a single teenager coming out to his family or a City Council passing a non-discrimination hiring clause, we move ever closer to that goal.
The Democratic Party acts upon the belief that history moves toward inclusion and understanding. While politics is an exercise in patience and persuasion, we will do everything in our power to remember that equality isn't an abstract concept; it is a daily battle for dignity and access. When that daily battle is your life, patience with the process is not always easy.
But while progress may be slow, it isn't silent. That LGBT Pride Month is being celebrated so widely is an indication that fear is subsiding across the community. The North Carolina Democratic Party joins President Obama and Democrats across America in celebrating unity, equality, and the lives of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people everywhere.
The contributions of LGBT citizens to this state are unquestionable. Likewise, no one should have any doubts about the North Carolina Democratic Party's unwavering support for equality.
David Parker
Chairman, North Carolina Democratic Party
Marriage Equality Recognized in Bankruptcy Court
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, 20 California bankruptcy judges have signed an opinion that DOMA is unconstitutional.
A gay couple, Gene Balas and Carlo Morales, legally married in California in 2008 and this spring filed a joint petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection, as permitted by law. The Justice Department's bankruptcy trustee sought to have the case dismissed because DOMA disallowed official recognition of their legal marriage.
The court disagreed, however, saying the couple demonstrated that there is no valid governmental basis for DOMA. In the end, the court finds that DOMA violates the equal protection rights of the debtors as recognized under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
In a 24-page decision, Judge Thomas Donovan's ruling declared:
Although individual members of Congress have every right to express their views and the views of their constituents with respect to their religious beliefs and principles and their personal standards of who may marry whom," the decision said, this court cannot conclude that Congress is entitled to solemnize such views in the laws of this nation in disregard of the views, legal status and living arrangements of a significant segment of our citzenry that includes the debtors in this case."
An update to the article noted that the fact of 19 other judges signing on to the decision may change the dynamic of the discussion significantly.
And in another piece of good news from the Sunshine State (oh, wait, is that Florida? not much political sunshine there) yesterday's NYTimes and Huffington Post, among other sources, reported that the chief US District Court Judge ruled against the Prop H8ers in validating Judge Vaughn Walker's refusal to recuse himself from the trial on the marriage ban's legitimacy.
"The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision, is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief," [Chief U.S. District Court Judge James Ware] wrote.
California's ProtectMarriage.com will appeal.
Judge Walker retired in February and only then revealed his ongoing relationship of 10 years with a man (although there had been rumors).
The president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights characterized the challenge based on Judge Walker's sexual orientation as "bigoted and homophobic" and "a real low point in the struggle for full civil rights for gay and lesbian people."
California actually enacted a law including sexual orientation among the characteristics that cannot be used to disqualify a judge.
We do live in interesting times.
First PHB dispatch from Minneapolis: Netroots Connect 2011
Hello from the rainy city of Minneapolis, where many of our blogger peers are gathered for the pre-con, day-long LGBT Netroots Connect. It is a meetup for activists and organizations. The pre-con has events that include training, support and education. We sometimes butt heads, but we are all here to advance the equality movement and and work on building productive strategic alliances without compromising our respective roles in the debate.And for those of us not based in NY or DC, it's one of the few times a year where there is an opportunity to work with one another in person. One of the other benefits of the program, the brain child and vision of Mike Rogers, is that the scholarships awarded here go to independent bloggers who might not otherwise be able to travel to this pre-con and Netroots Nation proper.
Today's events begin at 8AM CT, so please "tune in" by watching the PHB "At Netroots Nation 2011" widget in the sidebar for Twitter coverage. Full-blown posts or roundups will go up later in the day, since we'll be participating in sessions.
Photos and video will also be shared. Below is a slideshow of photos taken last night at the Minneapolis Hilton, where a good number of us are staying. I hadn't met Scott (clarknt67) before, and it was great to see many friends again. As I upload photos today at the Pre-Con they will show up in the slideshow. The direct link to the album is here.
***
A couple of things to note: I've also added a widget to the site, my Facebook Fan Page feed. I receive a lot of breaking news and press releases each day, and I've been posting a selection of them, usually without comment, if I think they are newsworthy in order to get timely information out to people without having to compose a blog post. Some don't lend themselves to a write up anyway, but may be of interest to the PHB readership. The widget is in the left sidebar, but I may put it front and center because some breaking events will go there.
***
A Big Announcement is on the way!
Blenders are going to receive some exciting news soon, announced during Netroots and posted here and on social networks. Of course this is a tease without any hints, since I don't want to blow it. It's safe to say the news will provide a lot to talk about.
June 14, 2011
Why the "Transsexual" vs. "Transgender" Debate is Irrelevant to the Fight for Equal Rights
I certainly have my own opinion on the “transsexual” vs. “transgender” debate that has ignited many a flame war on the internet over the last few months between those who want to separate our community based on those who have had or, at least, want to have, SRS, from everyone else, but I'm not going to express that here. Instead, I'm going to take a position that I’ve never seen expressed by anyone else, although some have come close. My position comes from my background as an attorney and my understanding of how anti-discrimination laws are written and are intended to operate.
Here's what I know to be true: the dispute about who is transsexual and who isn't is irrelevant to the fight for protections for transsexual, transgender, genderqueer and every other gender variant or gender nonconforming person in this country. Why? Because of how anti-discrimination laws are written for both practical and constitutional reasons.
Why anti-discrimination statutes don’t use terms like “transsexual” or “transgender”
If you look at federal or state anti-discrimination laws, you'll see something very interesting. Although the primary purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (including, Title VII, the federal ban on sex, race and other discrimination in employment) was to end discrimination against African-Americans, if you read it, you will see that nowhere does it say that it is illegal to discriminate against African-Americans. Instead, it says that it's illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race. There are two reasons for this approach.
First, using terms like African-American, Hispanic, Asian-Pacific Islander or Native American would lead to difficult, if not impossible, problems of determining in any given situation who fits into the relevant category. For example, I have a friend who identifies as both African-American and Native American. However, upon seeing her, many people may doubt that she is anything but "white." So, where should the cut-off be? Should it 1/8 or 1/64 native or African-American blood, which is the cut-off used by some Native American tribes for tribal membership? Should it be how the person self-identifies? Or should it be whatever a court or jury, employer or shelter operator decides a particular person is? Our courts are already bogged down enough; we don’t need to compound that problem by introducing such difficult, and, ultimately, unnecessary, issues.
Using such vague categories leads us to the second reason why such categories aren’t used in anti-discrimination laws: statutes that are so ambiguous that they allow for arbitrary distinctions and enforcement are "void for vagueness" under the Due Process Clauses of state and federal constitutions. In other words, if whether one person is or isn’t protected depends on distinctions that can’t be made on any sort of objective basis, so that different people may reasonably interpret and apply the law in different ways, the statute is void and unenforceable.
In addition, there is another constitutional problem with using terms like African-American in anti-discrimination laws. If a statute protects only people who fall into one racial category, but not another, what you have done is enshrine in the law the very racial discrimination that you are trying to eliminate. That, in turn, makes the statute unconstitutional as a violation of equal protection under both state and federal constitutions. Therefore, for a statute meant to eliminate racial discrimination to be constitutional, you have to ban all racial discrimination, not just discrimination against the particular minority group or groups you are most concerned about protecting. That’s why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal, state and local anti-discrimination laws make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of “race,” not particular racial categories. In other words, by protecting everyone against such discrimination, you avoid claims that the statue violates equal protection. The other benefit of that approach relates to the first problem discussed above. By using broad categories like “race,” you eliminate the need to decide what race someone belongs to.
For the same constitutional and practical reasons, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other anti-discrimination laws don’t ban discrimination against women; instead, they ban discrimination against anyone, male or female, man or woman, based on “sex.”
Lastly, and, perhaps, most importantly, this approach fulfills one of the most important founding principles of our county: the belief in “equal justice for all,” not just the rich, not just whites, and not just men, and not just those who are poor, black or female.
How does this apply to protections for trans people?
What does all this mean when we start talking about protecting members of the trans community (however broadly or narrowly you want to define that community) from discrimination because of who we are? If anti-discrimination statutes intended to protect our community used terminology like “transsexual” or “transgender,” whenever any of us tried to invoke those protections, we would find ourselves in the same endless discussions about what those terms mean and who belongs in which category that have been taking place over the last several months, and which I believe are highly damaging to the goal of ensuring that we can all live our lives as who we are. Any such statute would, thus, be unconstitutional as both “void for vagueness” and a violation of equal protection. Why equal protection? Because everyone has a gender, gender identity and gender expression. Therefore, everyone should be protected against discrimination on that basis, since none of those characteristics are relevant to whether a particular person can do a particular job or should be allowed to buy a house or rent an apartment, regardless of how they identify. (As for the problem of bathrooms and other sex-segregated facilities, see below.)
Consequently, when you look at the proposed Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) or any of the state or local statutes protecting our community from discrimination, you’ll see that most of them ban discrimination based on “gender identity” or “gender identity and expression,” not based on whether someone is “transsexual” or “transgender.” (A few subsume those categories under the definition of “sexual orientation” and then prohibit discrimination based on that term.) Under this approach, everyone is protected against discrimination based on their gender identity (i.e., the gender they identify as internally), regardless of whether or how that identity is expressed outwardly, and against discrimination based on their appearance, mannerisms and other behavior that are interpreted by others as an expression of gender, regardless of the person’s gender identity. In other words, everyone has a gender identity and a gender expression; therefore, everyone is protected against discrimination on that basis. Thus, the housewife who is too harried with housework and delivering kids to and from school to put on makeup or a dress can’t be kicked out of the grocery store for wearing her husband’s flannel shirt and buzz cutting her hair because she doesn’t have time to care for it (or simply likes it that way.) Similarly, the straight man who, for whatever reason, talks with a lisp or has what others see as effeminate gestures, and the straight woman who has a square jaw, large hands and feet and facial hair, are protected from discrimination simply because someone decides they’re not masculine or feminine enough to qualify as a man or a woman. Those people, too, suffer the effects of prejudice deriving from our society’s gender norms and deserve protection against discrimination just as much as trans people.
(One of the most famous cases relevant to protecting trans people against discrimination involved a cisgender woman, not a trans woman. In that case – Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, Ann Hopkins was a CPA working for the accounting firm who was eligible to become a partner. She was denied partnership, however, because some of the existing partners thought she was too aggressive for a woman, and needed to dress and act more femininely. When she got to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court held that Price Waterhouse had violated the ban on sex discrimination under Title VII by discriminating against her because she failed to comply with the “sex stereotypes” held by the existing partners for how women should look and act. This is the legal theory that has since been applied to protect trans people against discrimination under state and federal statutes that ban sex discrimination, even though they don’t explicitly bar discrimination based on gender identity or expression. The best and most recent example of this is Diane Schroer’s decisive victory over the Library of Congress.)
But what about bathrooms?
But what about sex-segregated facilities like bathrooms, locker rooms and showers? Personally, I wish we could do away with such segregation and people could just get over their discomfort and fear concerning their own and other people’s bodies and bodily functions. That’s not likely to happen in my lifetime, however, and sex-segregated facilities are going to continue to exist. So what do we do?
When we are challenged for entering a restroom, it’s because someone doesn’t think we look feminine or masculine enough, or, if you wish, because we look too masculine or feminine, for the sex that restroom is designated for. When those who oppose trans women’s use of women’s restrooms are asked why, they invariably respond with fears about men in the women’s room and the risk of rape or other sexual predation. When pressed, they will usually expand that by explaining that they don’t want anyone with a penis in the women’s room. But, of course, no one knows what genitalia any of us, cis or trans, carries when we use such spaces (at least, not in the absence of criminal activity or a close, personal relationship). Instead, people decide who is a man or a woman based on their perception of the other’s gender expression (clothes, makeup, mannerisms, etc.) and visible portions of the person’s body (face, hands, feet, etc.), and then make the assumption that this person must have a penis or a vagina and, therefore, is a man or a woman. It is this process that leads to masculine women and effeminate men, whether gay or straight, being confronted, ejected and even arrested for using a restroom for which, if anatomy is the determining factor, they are certainly qualified to use. It is also this process that results in post-op trans women, and, less frequently, trans men, being subjected to the same treatment even though a “panty check” would reveal the same genitalia as the intended users of that space. Finally, it is because this process results in even post-op trans people being excluded from sex-segregated facilities to which their genitalia should give them access that limiting trans people’s access to such facilities based on whether they have had genital surgery, or plan to do so at some point in the future, is unworkable. (It also grants doctors, psychiatrists, therapists and/or the government the power to determine who is and is not “woman” or “man” enough to use such facilities, a power I am not willing to cede to anyone.)
So, again, what do we do about sex-segregated facilities? Here’s my proposal: If the statutes we pass bar discrimination based on gender identity and/or expression, then it is unlawful to deny someone access to a bathroom, for example, simply because someone thinks that person’s gender expression isn’t masculine or feminine enough for that space. In other words, if someone is presenting as a woman, she has the right to use the women’s room, and vice versa for men’s rooms, regardless of whether zie is post-op, pre-op or non-op, and regardless of whether zie identifies as transsexual, transgender, genderqueer, crossdresser, drag queen or whatever other gender category zie cares to claim. Since, barring illegal activity or a close, personal relationship, no one knows what’s in another person’s pants, if it’s wrong to exclude a butch, cisgender woman from a women’s room, then it’s equally wrong to exclude anyone expressing hir gender as a woman from that same space. In either case, the exclusion would be based not on the person’s actual anatomy, but on someone else’s assumptions and prejudice about who is “really” a woman. Our country has always opposed unequal treatment based on personal assumptions or prejudices about who is and isn’t entitled to the benefits of our society, and I see no reason that we should deviate from that principle when it comes to sex-segregated facilities. (Of course, the same arguments apply to men’s rooms and people who present as men.)
Okay, you say, that takes care of bathrooms. What about showers and locker rooms where nudity sometimes takes place? Here, I believe the best solution is that proposed in ENDA, since it gives proper respect both to concerns about personal privacy and to each individual’s gender identity. As introduced, ENDA contains a specific exclusion that provides that an employer’s “denial of access to shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen unclothed is unavoidable” would not violate that statute, “provided that the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee’s gender identity” at the time the person was hired or as established by a later notice to the employer “that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition.” (ENDA, Sec.8(a)(3); my italics.) In other words, employers could continue to maintain sex-segregated locker rooms and showers. However, in determining who is allowed access to the men’s or women’s facilities, the employer must recognize the employee’s announced gender identity with the sole exception that, where nudity is “unavoidable,” the employer may require someone whose presence may make other employees uncomfortable to use separate facilities, but only if those separate facilities conform to the person’s gender identity. (In other words, an employer couldn’t make a trans woman use the men’s locker room, or vice versa. Note also, that this could be applied to cisgender, not just trans, men and women. When butch women and effeminate men start getting excluded from the men’s and women’s locker rooms, I suspect that we’ll win over quite a few allies to the idea that segregation based on someone else’s perception of our gender expression is patently ridiculous.)
(Some people reading this may wonder how this principle applies with respect to things like dress codes. Basically, if an employee is hired as a man, ENDA allows the employer to require him to conform to the dress code for men until such time as the employee informs the employer that zie is transitioning to female, or vice versa. (Sec. 8(a)(5).) After the employee transitions to living full time in hir affirmed gender, zie must then conform to the dress code for that gender. This scheme is actually quite elegant and workable in practice. In addition, it has the advantage of not requiring the transitioning employee to prove to the employer that zie is “really” a woman or vice versa by providing a letter from a doctor or therapist, or proving zie has undergone SRS, hormone therapy or any other medical treatment. Instead, it allows the employee complete freedom to work as the person zie knows hirself to be, without interference or second-guessing by anyone else.)
So, there it is. It isn’t necessary to determine whether someone is transsexual, transgender or anything else to provide legal protections for everyone, cis or trans, against arbitrary discrimination because zie doesn’t fit someone else’s concepts of who is “really” a woman or a man, or to determine who can use sex-segregated bathrooms and other facilities. Therefore, I, for one, intend to ignore that debate and get on with the business of enacting fair and just legal protections that allow all of us to simply be who we are.
[Crossposted on my blog, Living My Life.]
Abigail Jensen is a trans woman and attorney in Prescott, Arizona, and a general rabble rouser on trans, as well as LGB, issues. She also serves on the Board of the local women's shelter and the Board of TransMentors International, which, among other things, is currently working on its TransForm Arizona conference scheduled for Phoenix, Arizona, on October 20-23.
What's on the agenda for your blogmistress during Netroots Nation 2011
I'm off to Netroots Nation (hashtags: #NN11 and #NNlgbt). This year I only managed to get roped into two panels (plus a stint on a morning chat show). No partying hard for your blogmistress; I'm lucky that the worst of my health issues cleared up in time, but I'm not 100%, so I'm going have to spend a fair amount of time with my feet up and getting sufficient rest so I don't pass out during a panel.I will also have the great fortune of meeting two baristas for the first time - Scott Wooledge (clarknt67) and Alvin McEwen.
Be sure to follow our tweets using the above hash tags, as we'll be posting photos and video as things heat up.
Prior to NN, there is a terrific outgrowth from the past pre-con LGBT sessions. The creation of friend of the Blend Mike Rogers, LGBT Netroots Connect is a meetup for LGBT bloggers, citizen journalists, activists and organizations. The pre-con has events that include training, support and education geared toward expanding participation in the LGBT and larger blogosphere, strategic meetings with online change agents and organizations and networking. That will take place on Wednesday.
As far as the traditional program for NN goes, here's where you can catch me if you are attending or following on Twitter:
Morning News Dump with Lizz Winstead and FriendsFor fun and giggles -- you can see my photo albums from last year's NN, here and here - the latter is titled "Netroots Nation 2010 - The Homosexual Agenda."
THU, 06/16/2011 - 8:00AM, Registration Area
Grab your coffee before the NN action begins each morning while getting an update of the days news with "The Morning News Dump" with Daily Show co-creator and comedian Lizz Winstead and friends.
The Morning News Dump is sorta like "Morning Joe" except we won't have guests who have actually gotten everything wrong for the past ten years. There will be a healthy dose of progressive opinion, analysis, and mockery of conservatism--coming from the panel made up of Daily Show co-creator Lizz Winstead, popular comedian Elon James White and pundit & author Cliff Schecter.
Guests will include Pam Spaulding, Sam Seder, Shannyn Moore and a variety of others yet to be announced.
It's nice to get a dose of the world before you launch into your Netroots Day.
***
To Post or Not to Post? How to React when Your Personal Life Goes Public
SATURDAY, JUNE 18TH 10:30 AM - 11:45 AM
PANEL, L100 FGPanelists: Your blogmistress; Siobhan "Sam" Bennett, President and CEO of the Women's Campaign Fund (WCF); Krystal Ball, former congressional candidate and regular cable news commentator; Robin Marty, freelance writer and editor who focuses on women's rights, reproductive rights and politics; Amanda Terkel, Senior Political Reporter at The Huffington Post.
Social media has dramatically altered our access to the world--and the world's access to us. We document our lives on Facebook, Twitter and blogs, but what does it mean to have an archived version of ourselves so accessible and exposed to the public eye? Bloggers and potential candidates alike struggle to determine what personal information they should post online, fearing their online profiles will later haunt their professional lives. Former Congressional candidate Krystal Ball gained firsthand experience about the challenges of having an online presence when private photos of her were plastered throughout the national press and blogosphere. Join us to learn about groundbreaking research that offers a unique and effective approach to confronting personal online attacks. We will discuss how leaders in the online community can best promote candidates in the midst of public vulnerability, and tactics candidates can use to maintain their personal space in an ever-increasing wired world.
***
The Plan to Advance Marriage Equality, Inside and Outside of the 112th Congress
SATURDAY, JUNE 18TH 1:30 PM - 2:45 PM
PANEL, M100 FGPanelists: Joe Sudbay, Deputy Editor of AMERICAblog.com and AMERICAblog Gay; Congressman Jerrold "Jerry" Nadler (D-NY8); Rick Jacobs of The Courage Campaign; Camilla Taylor,Marriage Project Director of Lambda Legal.
This panel will gather experts from the various fronts of the marriage equality struggle--the courts, Congress, state campaigns and online media--to answer the question: how do we work together to advance marriage equality in a challenging political environment? Too often activists, lawmakers and litigators work independently and don't communicate effectively with each other. Congressman Jerry Nadler, author of the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), will join other leaders in the fight for marriage equality to build awareness and solidify alliances and strategies for moving forward.
June 13, 2011
Paula Brooks, editor of Lez Get Real, is also a straight cisgendered man
Just one day after the author behind a popular Syrian lesbian blog admitted to being a married, American man named Tom MacMaster, the editor of the lesbian news site Lez Get Real, with the tag?line "A Gay Girl's View on the World," acknowledged that he is also a man."Paula Brooks," editor of Lez Get Real since its founding in 2008, is actually Bill Graber, 58, a retired Ohio military man and construction worker who said he had adopted his wife's identity online. Graber said she was unaware he had been using her name on his site.
Brooks's identity came under suspicion after news broke that a woman called Amina Arraf on the blog "A Gay Girl in Damascus" might not really be a Syrian lesbian.
This is starting to look like a trend. Pam, is there something you should be telling us? :-b
Pam Spaulding's Blog
- Pam Spaulding's profile
- 1 follower
