Queer View Mirror: Five Important News Topics We Talked About in 2013

There’s a post going around Tumblr right now that pretty accurately sums up how I feel about this year. It’s one of those unformatted, semi-snarky text posts clearly designed to get a lot of notes, but I can’t deny identifying with the sentiment: “2013 was my character development year which means 2014 is strictly action and story progression and i dont know about you but i’m excited.”

That’s also how I feel about much of the work that was done in various queer communities this year: There was a lot of development and organizing and education and campaigning and so, so much important vocalizing of needs. We may not have gotten everything accomplished that we wanted to, but in many spheres, from reproductive rights to same-sex marriage to conversion therapy to trans* visibility, we’ve set the stage for real, concrete change in 2014.

I thought it would be a good exercise for this first edition of my weekly news column, Queer View Mirror, to reflect on some of the biggest things that happened in 2013 — what we were talking about, good and bad, for the last 12 months, and what we can reasonably expect to hear a lot more about in 2014. After this, QVM will be a recap of a single topic that’s been in the news that week, including historical background and some more forward-thinking stuff. But for now, let’s talk character development!

1. DOMA Dies, Everyone Puts a Ring On It

When my home state of Illinois was considering legalizing same-sex marriage in May, it would have been the tenth state to do so. By the time it finally did in November, it was the fifteenth. Adding New Mexico and Utah, which both legalized marriage via court ruling this month, makes eight U.S. states where same-sex couples can get married today that couldn’t one year ago. Marriage is definitely not the be-all, end-all of equality for LGBTQ people, but for many, it is a legal status critical to protecting their families. For others, it’s simply something they want to do, and barring them from it is becoming increasingly legally indefensible. There’s also something to be said for how legalized discrimination — and the lack thereof — impacts public perception of said group.

The impetus behind legalization in many states has been the collapse of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal act prohibiting same-sex unions, which was defeated largely by this June’s Supreme Court ruling in the case of Windsor v. United States. We’ve written quite a bit about the story of Edie Windsor and her wife Thea Spyer, who upon her death left Windsor a large inheritance that was promptly taxed by the government, which did not recognize their legal marriage. Windsor’s subsequent challenge of discrimination made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which effectively gutted the law when it ruled that using DOMA to bar same-sex couples from federal benefits and protections is unconstitutional. Many state courts have taken the ruling as reason enough to invalidate their own laws barring same-sex marriage, and even where appeals are pending (as in Utah, where a judge has ruled marriages may continue while the state makes its case), marriage equality advocates are hopeful. Though all polls should be taken with a grain of salt, it is encouraging that a number of surveys this year found for the first time a majority of support for same-sex marriage among Americans, and it seems judges and politicians are finally beginning to follow suit.

2. LGBTQ Groups Demand Rights Worldwide

Marriage battles have broken out across the rest of the world, too, and they’ve often been just as erratic abroad as in the U.S. In July, Queen Elizabeth II approved a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in England and Wales, but not the rest of the United Kingdom. Costa Rica’s legislature accidentally passed a bill legalizing same-sex unions, but so far courts have declined to enforce it as such. In Australia, a High Court decision this month invalidated a piece of legislation from October that had legalized same-sex marriage in the Australian Capital Territory. Unlike in the U.S., where couples who marry during brief periods of legalization have been allowed to stay married after the laws are challenged, Australian couples who married during the last two months have been stripped of their licenses. Blargh. France legalized marriage equality after an outbreak of antigay attacks and expressions of homophobia, though many couples have found it still doesn’t protect their unions. But sure victories have been won in Brazil, New Zealand, Uruguay, Colombia and France.

But marriage isn’t the only right LGBTQ people have to fight for, and in many places the much more basic right to exist without fear of attack or harassment is still unsecured — and in most cases, these situations are direct results of current or former western and western colonialist influences. In Uganda, for example, a long-debated bill punishing homosexuality with life imprisonment has passed; a similarly draconian law in Nigeria was rubber-stamped this month and now awaits only a presidential signature. India’s Supreme Court overturned a 2009 law decriminalizing homosexuality, infuriating those in the country who had hoped the original legislation would be a stepping stone to greater security, recognition, and legal rights. In South Africa, where LGBTQ equality was written into the constitution but still struggles for societal support, the death of Nelson Mandela combined with mounting antigay stances among politicians has many activists worried that violence against queer people — particularly “corrective rape” of lesbians, a disturbing trend in the country — will soon increase.

In other ways, though, solid gains have been made. Ireland got an anti-bullying measure for its LGBTQ schoolkids, a French lesbian couple won the right to adopt children together and South and Southeast Asia saw queer visibility skyrocket. Trans* people are coming out and getting more acceptance in some areas, and countries like Germany and Australia allowing people avoid male or female labels on some official documents. A couple of places saw their first-ever pride celebrations, including Gujarat, India, and Podgorica, Montenegro. Serbia held its third annual pride parade despite an official ban on doing so.

3. Visibility Increases for Trans* People, But Doesn’t End Violence Against Trans* Women

Trans* people, and women especially, have made a mark on the public sphere this year, whether through representation on popular television shows or through horrifying cases of assault and mistreatment in the justice system. Though not everyone is doing it right (many are getting it really, really wrong) some media outlets are trying harder to properly address trans* people in their coverage of these events. Laverne Cox and CeCe McDonald both made my list of top queer women of 2013, and commenters on that story pointed out a handful of other trans* women who could have easily joined them, including Chelsea Manning, Janet Mock and Laura Jane Grace. Some young trans* people are demanding and winning legal protections in schools, and parents are creating more safe spaces for their gender nonconforming children. Even in countries where anti-trans* sentiment is strong, trans* communities are growing and speaking out against violence. Everywhere you look, trans* individuals are demanding recognition, and not as the demeaning caricatures they’ve long been associated with.

But these are baby steps — important baby steps, but baby steps. The pressure is on to guide those new to representing trans* folk — I’m looking at you, Two And A Half Men — are doing it in a respectful, informed way. But still, shows like Glee and movies like Dallas Buyer’s Club, which consider themselves allies to trans* folks and are lauded as such, are failing miserably to offer positive and constructive portraits of trans* life or to include trans* folks in the development or execution of their work. In this way, trans* media representation is presently not dissimilar to where gay and lesbian media representation was at in the ’80s.

I’ve seen people like Cox and Mock and our own Autostraddle writers who have made sure that at least some of the discussions going on about trans* people are done with care as well as a critical eye. Still, there is a lot of ground left to cover, particularly when it comes to stopping anti-trans violence and making the LGBTQ rights movement as inclusive as its acronym suggests.

Trans* women, especially trans* women of color, still face terrifying amounts of violence, and little chance of seeing justice for their attackers. The murders of women like Islan Nettles, Domonique Newburn, Brittany Stergis, Betty Skinner, Amari Hill, Eyricka Morgan, Kelly Young, Ashley Sinclair, Cemia Dove, Diamond Williams, and many more show us that in some ways, the most important takeaway when it comes to trans* issues in 2013 may be how far we still have to go. Charges against Nettles’ murderer were recently dropped, and many of these murders aren’t being classified as hate crimes; it’s clear that as a culture we have a lot more work to do in making sure trans women and trans women of color are safe, and for the legal system to hold someone accountable when they’re not. This was the year that saw increased outrage over trans* women’s mistreatment in prisons, but not a solution to their problems. And that should be the goal for next year — to take all this knowledge and anger and turn it into concrete change.

4. Sochi Olympics Could Be the Best or Worst Thing to Happen to Gays in Russia

The Olympics are headed to Sochi, Russia in 2014, and, given the country’s dangerous and repressive laws against gay “propaganda”, the world isn’t sure what to do about it. President Barack Obama is skipping the Olympics but sending LGBTQ Americans in his place. Gays are boycotting Russian vodka (although the impact of this move is up for debate). International celebrities are facing sanction to wave rainbow flags during trips to the country. Many are calling for a complete boycott, similar to the 1936 Berlin games. Athletes are coming out in droves and assuring the world they’ll compete in Sochi anyway. Still, Russia is cementing its stance as a homophobe’s heaven by passing laws.  In the meantime, Russia’s laws have spurred horrific attacks against gay teens (who, uhh, don’t deserve protecting, apparently). There has been some hope that the government is softening its anti-gay stance, but then everyone started second-guessing that as a political tactic to make the Olympics a success. Until we hear more discussion (and more solid commitments) from Russian leaders, it’s hard to say what the best tactic is going into the games.

5. Everybody Comes Out

Coming out is a double-edged sword for most of us; for celebrities or people otherwise in the larger spotlight, it is even more loaded. Regardless, the backlash to coming out has changed radically. 2013 was a big year of coming out for politicians, actors, journalists, athletes, musicians, television and comic book characters, scientists and many, many more. Elsewhere, debate erupted on why we come out, when we should do it, what we say when we do and what it means if we don’t. Regardless of why or how we come out, though, doing so is an important personal and political act. It asserts our right to exist, reminds those who oppose us that we aren’t going anywhere. And if 2013 felt like we found a new fellow queer a day, I can’t wait to see what 2014 brings.

And that’s it! Well, it’s not everything, of course, but we’ll dive into more after the new year. For now, go pick out your best sparkly outfit, buy some champagne, and get ready to party. We made it through 2013! See you next year.

---

Queer View Mirror is a weekly news recap focusing on one topic per week. (Except this first one, which covers the whole year.) I’ll take you through the history of the topic, the most current events and where to go to learn more. Use what you read here to write a research paper, be a better blogger or impress people at parties. Or as an excuse to never read the newspaper again. You do you. If there’s something in particular you want to hear about, email kaitlyn@autostraddle.com and let me know!

Canada’s Supreme Court Makes Landmark Ruling In Favor Of Sex Workers’ Rights

On Dec. 20, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the nation’s anti-prostitution laws. The court found that laws prohibiting brothels, street soliciting and living off the avails of prostitution were “disproportionate” and created a dangerous environment for those working in the industry.

“It is really really great news for sex workers, for the movement, for women, men and human rights,” said Jennifer Drummond, coordinator of the Sexual Assault Resource Centre at Concordia University. “It’s amazing.”

The court stressed that the ruling was not about the question of whether prostitution should be legal, but rather whether parliament infringes upon the constitutional rights of prostitutes with these bans. In her written decision, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote:

“The prohibitions all heighten the risks the applicants face in prostitution — itself a legal activity. They do not merely impose conditions on how prostitutes operate. They go a critical step further, by imposing dangerous conditions on prostitution; they prevent people engaged in a risky — but legal — activity from taking steps to protect themselves from the risks.”

The decision was unanimous with all nine justices voting in favour of striking down the laws. “In a very basic sense it means that sex workers are considered human beings, and people that have rights,” said Drummond, “the right to safety, security and a work life and a personal life free from violence.” Drummond is also President of the board of directors at Stella, l’amie de Maimie, a Montreal-based support and advocacy organization for sex workers.

Terri-Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott brought forward the constitutional challenge that resulted in the case reaching the Supreme Court. The three women all have experience in sex work. Bedford was appealing a decision from March of this year by the Ontario Court of Appeal which upheld the ban on street soliciting, while the Ontario and federal governments were appealing that same decision’s revoking of the ban on brothels and limiting the law against living off the avails of prostitution.

“Whether or not one agrees with sex work, it is indisputable that the current laws have served to discriminate against and further marginalize an already at-risk population,” said Megan Evans Maxwell, the executive director of the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation. “If sex work itself is legal, it follows that the government cannot constitutionally enact laws that discriminate against sex workers practicing a legal act. The challenged laws create genuine barriers to sex workers’ full and safe participation in society.” According to Evans Maxwell, neither criminalization nor the condonation of prostitution were the issues before the Supreme Court in this case. Instead, the ruling should be understood as a decision about women’s equality rights.

Safety and security are serious concerns for those working in the sex trade. Nicole (a pseudonym) worked in massage parlors in New York City over a period of three years. Though the prostitution laws within Canada and the US differ, her experience of the fear and stress of navigating her occupation transcends borders. She considers where she worked to be the safest possible environment, in that their clients were carefully screened, but still there was no recourse if a client was aggressive. This powerlessness was also coupled with the fear of being arrested by an undercover cop. Nicole was sexually assaulted several times at work. “It’s not even about the fact that we couldn’t report it to the police but that we couldn’t even blacklist clients for fear of what kind of revenge they could enact on us, like reporting us to the police, or getting even more aggressive if we fought back too hard,” she said. “That lawlessness is really scary.” She believes this problem is drastically magnified for women working on the street.

Electra (a pseudonym) feels similarly. She worked briefly at an escort agency in Toronto and believes the violence within the field is not inherent to the trade, but is rather a direct byproduct of the inequality encountered by prostitutes. For her, it is the entire social framework encompassing prostitution that must change. “It is only in such a puritanical world where exchanging some product of yourself is deemed as morally wrong, compared to other trades,” she said.

Within the industry, sex workers who solicit on the street face the greatest threat of violence. Prostitutes work alone and they cannot properly screen their clients. The current laws make it illegal for these workers to take crucial safety measures. “Legislation that both legalizes the profession, but then criminalizes any attempts to increase safety, has the effect of discriminating against sex workers,” said Evans Maxwell. “It isolates them and fails to take into account their already disadvantaged position in society. Even more troubling, the legislation actually places women in further harm.”

The legacy of Robert Pickton was a specter over much of the Bedford case. Pickton was able to abduct and murder women from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside neighborhood while the police turned their attention elsewhere. In 2002, Pickton was charged with the murder of 26 women, the majority of whom were sex workers. He was convicted on six counts of second-degree murder.

Drummond believes the ruling could change a lot for sex workers. It gives them more control over their work, both in terms of their safety and heath. Prostitutes can now work together and indoors. They can hire security and drivers. And while these things may be beyond the reach of many individuals that are street soliciting, it is still an important milestone.

“I feel silly talking about security because my workplace was so safe compared to what most sex workers deal with,” said Nicole, “but honestly the exertion of running any operation where your number one priority is avoiding law enforcement and your number two priority is doing your job always sucks.” Nicole found that the secretive nature of her job was emotionally taxing. “I would hope that legality would make it easier for sex workers to be honest with their friends and family about their job,” she said. “The toll of keeping that secret can drive you insane.”

These new provisions allowing for more transparent sex work will, however, not take effect immediately. The court’s ruling will be suspended for one year in order to allow parliament time to respond. The Canadian government must now decide whether to adopt new prohibitions, but any such measures would have to be in accordance with the court’s decision. In recognizing the intertwined nature of the bans on soliciting, brothels and living off the profits of prostitution, the court did allow the possibility that aspects of the current laws could be maintained if certain provisions were altered. “There are definitely going to be challenges ahead,” said Drummond. “We’ve won the legal battle but there is going to be a political battle to come. But I’m hopeful; we are going to have a big year ahead of us.”

Also.Also.Also: Jean Grae and The Rando Have Their Eyes on The “Harvard Lampoon” and Other Stories We Missed This Week

Hello, gingerbread cookies! IT’S THE BIG DAY. IT’S XXXMAS. AND THAT MEANS I’M SHARING THIS PHOTO ONE MORE TIME.

It also means nobody’s reporting on the news because I mean, HOLIDAYS! END-OF-YEAR-TOP-TEN-LISTS! Duh. But have no fear! ‘Twas the night before XXXMAS and all through the house, I gathered the stories we missed this week for you.

Congrats, Dot-Marie!

Glee star Dot-Marie Jones got married this weekend. TO A WOMAN, Y’ALL! Bridgett Casteen and Dot-Marie were married Saturday night in their Los Angeles home and managed to get their friends to show up by punking them into thinking they were throwing a holiday party. NOPE! IT’S A CELEBRATION OF LOVE, BITCHES!

https://twitter.com/bridgettamanda/statuses/414463373367980032

Meet The Rando

Ari Fitz (the one and only) has created a special space just for you and her and anyone else perusing YouTube called The Rando. Subscribe now and the big news is sure to come later! And to think: you’ll be the first to know.

The Court of Love

+ Texas can keep up the homophobia thing as long as they want – but once the SCOTUS cuts in, it’s likely they’ll get what’s coming to them.

+ The lawyer defending Pennsylvania’s gay marriage ban has invasively and biphobically demanded the plaintiffs challenging the law reveal their sexual histories – including whether or not they’ve ever had different-sex sexual relations.

+ The floodgates to gay marriage have been opened in Ohio.

+ Uganda’s law allowing homos to rot in prison for life just for being who they are has passed.

Jean Grae on Your Screen, Tonight!

Tonight. 8PM. It’s all happening. And it’s all at jeangrae.com.

https://twitter.com/JeanGreasy/statuses/415158224208547840

Read It And Weep

+ An African-American woman is about to become the head honcho at the hilarious “Harvard Lampoon.” I’m psyched. And so is B, who sent me this link.

WILKINSON: Well, it kind of, in a lot of ways – not only being a member of The Lampoon and now the president – sort of hit home just because “SNL” was one of the few shows I was allowed to watch. Growing up I wasn’t allowed to watch, like, “Seinfeld” and “The Simpsons” and a lot of things that sort of inform Lampoon writers’ sensibility. But I was allowed to watch “SNL” if I stayed up late enough. And so, like, Maya Rudolph and, you know, Kenan Thompson and all those people meant a lot to me. And so the discussion definitely made me think more about representation and what it means in comedy.

And honestly, as a writer, I think we pay a lot of attention to the performative aspect of comedy, but as far as the number of performers go, there’s way more gender and race equality in performance of comedy than there has ever been in writing. Like, no one is paying attention to the fact that, like, there are absolutely, like, no people of color writing for – and, like, shows – a lot of shows that are predominately black don’t have any writers of color in the writers room. And to me, that’s insane, like, it’s 2013. And so those are sort of things that I get more riled up about.

+ It’s here! THEM, the first-ever trans* literary journal in the nation, is FINALLY HERE.

Founding editor Jos Charles sees the magazine as a form of resistance, with its publication aiming to create a space where trans* folks can interact and speak their minds—even when what they have to say is complicated and controversial. “Television, porn, literary journals, personal blogs, all propagate narratives and symbols about who trans* folks are,” says Charles. “Typically, folks like to conflate our differences and squeeze us all into one discernible narrative… Cis readers seem to really like seeing us [either] happy or dead. I would like THEM to be a place where that narrative can be upset—whether by exploring other stories or contextualizing the familiar ones.”

You can read it online.

Romi Tells The Truth to GO

It’s Christmas, and on Christmas you tell the truth. So here goes.

Bisexual Real L Word star Romi’s divorcing husband Dusty, and says she’s primarily interested in dating women and/or being single now.

F*ck This Shit

Just when you thought the world had failed you enough, you find out that two years ago Rachel Bradshaw-Bean was sent to disciplinary school for “public lewdness” because she’d reported her rape to the proper authorities, who also – by the by – failed to act.

Surprise! Women Make Diversity Happen

Well, it’s official. Bringing women into the boardroom sparks more gender diversity. This concludes today’s segment, Common Fucking Sense.

Dashing Through the Snow, in a One-Horse Open… Wait.

This snowperson bouncy house was spotted outside the Navy Pier in Chicago. Nothing to see here.

Just chillin’ like the typical snowperson it is, it’s just out to bring people joy and – wait a second.

THAT SNOWPERSON HAS A VAGINA, AND IT IS THE ENTRANCE TO THE BOUNCY HOUSE. And it’s all been confirmed by Jezebel.

According to my friend Julie who shared this photo, “The other awesome thing about this that you can’t see in the picture is that it was really hard and intimidating for the kids to get in the vagina because it was a huge wind tunnel. So a dude had to hold it open and they had to barrel in against the strong wind blowing out.”

Happy holigays, y’all.

Mourning Madiba: South African Queers Grapple With An Uncertain Future

When Funeka Soldaat got the phone call, she thought it might be a joke. It was only after checking Facebook and seeing it reported in the media that the reality sunk in; Nelson Mandela had died. She, along with her country, was devastated. As a black South African born under apartheid, 52 year-old Soldaat had many reasons to revere Mandela. But as a lesbian she felt an added sense of indebtedness and grief.

“Mandela played a critical role in changing attitudes towards rights of LGBTI people in South Africa,” wrote Anthony Manion in an email. Manion is the director of South African queer archival organization GALA , or Gay and Lesbian Memory in Action. After a week in which world leaders descended on the country as South Africans marked the life of, and then buried, their former president, it is perhaps only now in the quiet aftermath that the significance of his death is being absorbed. The rainbow nation is a country of contradictions and complexities when it comes to its queer citizens, and as LGBT South Africans mourn Mandela they also worry about the future.

“He is the only normal president that we have had after we got liberated,” said 39 year-old Ndumie Funda. “We should celebrate his past, but we should think of the future. What is the future holding for us in South Africa?” Funda is the founder and director of Luleki Sizwe, an advocacy organization based in the Gugulethu township outside of Cape Town that provides support and resources for black LBT women. When she muses about the current hardships of today’s South Africa, it is not only poverty and unemployment statistics that worry her; the escalating number of hate crimes is a very personal and pressing concern. Though it can be difficult to get an accurate understanding of the situation as statistics can be unreliable due to underreporting, a minimum of 31 lesbians have been killed since 1998 through violence motivated by their sexual orientation. And black lesbians and transgender men are particularly at risk. South Africa has the highest rates of reported rape in the world. And the practice of “corrective rape” (rape of a queer woman in an attempt to change her sexual orientation) is widespread, especially within some of the more impoverished townships and rural areas. These crimes are rarely prosecuted and, when they are, few end in conviction.

In 1996, South Africa became the first country in the world to have a constitution enshrining the rights of gays and lesbians. Protection for transgender individuals was later read into the constitution. Ten years later in 2006, South Africa became the fifth country globally to legalize same sex-marriage.

Mandela was a catalyst for ensuring that the African National Congress (ANC) included LGBT rights within its mandate of equality. After he had been elected president, he made specific mention of the rights to equality for LGBT people in his inaugural address in 1994. He also personally met with LGBT rights activists Phumi Mtetwa and Simon Nkoli, as they lobbied for the inclusion of the sexual orientation clause within the final draft of the constitution. Manion speculates that, without Mandela’s support, it’s possible that clause may have been excluded. “Mandela’s belief that ‘freedom is indivisible’ and that ‘the denial of the rights of the one diminish the freedom of others’ continues to inspire,” wrote Manion. “And is a reminder to LGBTI people that we must fight not only to combat homophobia and transphobia, but all forms of social and economic oppression.”

Soldaat too feels that, though Mandela was not always vocal in the media about accepting homosexuality, he consistently influenced his colleagues within the ANC to fight discrimination against LGBT South Africans. “We were so comfortable cause he never tried to undermine or to judge anyone. He never made any homophobic statements,” said Soldaat, who is a coordinator and founder of Free Gender, a black lesbian advocacy organization based in the Khayelitsha township of Cape Town. She, like Funda and many others within the country, is dissatisfied with their current head of state. President Jacob Zuma has been embroiled in sexual and financial scandals since before he took office, the latest pertaining to millions of rand of government money that was spent on updates to his residence. He has also made public homophobic remarks prior to his presidency.

Currently, the legal protections and support for the equality of LGBT citizens, quietly facilitated by Mandela, often do not translate into the realities of everyday life for queer South Africans. “He died in a really critical time in our lives, with the increase of the killing of lesbians,” said Soldaat. Funda has personally felt the effects of this targeted violence; her primary motivation for starting Luleki Sizwe was her former partner. Her fiancé was gang raped at gunpoint and contracted HIV as a result of these attacks. She later died of AIDS. A 2009 ActionAid report cited an interview with LGBT rights organization Triangle Project’s then director Vanessa Ludwig, who says the group deals with as many as 10 new cases of corrective rape each week, with the numbers continuing to increase.

In 2011, both Funda and Soldaat became members of a newly created interim task force established in partnership with the Department of Justice to examine hate crimes targeting the LGBT community. Funda hopes that corrective rape will soon be classified as a hate crime, but the national election set for April 2014 could interfere with this legislation. As painful as Mandela’s death is, she feels he should be allowed to rest. But as LGBT activists here, Funda and Soldaat cannot afford to stop working. “It is a very frustrating time,” said Soldaat. “It is a scary time.”

2014 Sochi Winter Olympics Presidential Delegation Includes Two Lesbians

The White House released a statement yesterday with the names of the Presidential Delegations to the Opening and Closing ceremonies for the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. Two of the members, one on each the Opening and Closing Ceremony delegations, are lesbians! The Honorable Billie Jean King, recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom and all-around amazing human being, and Caitlin Cahow, Olympic silver medalist and bronze medalist in women’s ice hockey.

For the first time in 14 years, the United States delegation will not be led by a President, Vice President, First Lady or former President. The White House said that President Obama would not be making it to Sochi because of “scheduling conflicts” but that he “is extremely proud of our U.S. athletes and looks forward to cheering them on from Washington… He knows they will showcase to the world the best of America – diversity, determination and teamwork.”

The February 7, 2014 Opening Ceremony delegation will be led by Janet Napolitano, the former United States Secretary of Homeland Security, and will include Michael McFaul, the US Ambassador to the Russian Federation; Robert L. Nabors, Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy; Billie Jean King; and Brian Boitano, Olympic gold medalist in Figure Skating.

The February 23, 2014 Closing Ceremony delegation will be led by William Burns, Deputy Secretary of State, and will include Michael McFaul; Bonnie Blair, five-Olympic gold medalist and one-time bronze medalist in Speed Skating; Eric Heiden, five-time Olympic gold medalist in Speed Skating; and Caitlin Cahow.

Caitlin Cahow, currently a law student at Boston College, said of her inclusion in the delegation,

It’s obviously a statement that’s being made, but I think it’s an incredibly respectful one. Basically, the White House is highlighting Americans who know what it means to have freedoms and liberties under the constitution. That’s really what we’re representing in Sochi and it’s not at all different from what’s espoused in the spirit of Olympism.

So I think it’s just a great group of people. I can’t believe I’ve been named one of them because it’s a remarkable roster and I just think that we’re going to represent what the best America can be. Hopefully, it will unify all of Team USA and send a message of love and acceptance to the world.

Yes, it’s a big deal that two openly gay athletes are on the Presidential Delegations. As Cara said in her article “What The Heck Are LGBTs Gonna Do About The Sochi Olympics?” (which I highly recommend reading if you’re feeling at all confused/conflicted re: these Olympics):

On August 1st, Russian Sports Minister Vitaly Mutko told a state news agency that anyone advocating a “nontraditional sexual orientation” at the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics will be “held accountable… Even if he’s a sportsman, when he comes to a country, he should respect its laws.” Legislator Vitaly Milonov told the BBC that the Russian government lacks the authority to suspend the laws even if they wanted to. A week later, Mutko, apparently training for the Strategic Backpedaling event, asked the law’s critics to “calm down” and assured everyone that as long as LGBT athletes and spectators keep quiet, everything will be fine, because Russia’s constitution guarantees “rights for the private life and privacy.”

So, yes, gay athletes and media will be in danger. To what extent, we don’t know. Here’s what we do know: members of the LGBTQA community in Russia are in present danger every day. We need to realize this and continue to shed some light on the human rights abuses going on in Russia.

And while having two openly gay members of the Presidential Delegation is certainly not on the same level as a boycott, it is one hell of a statement. I do still feel conflicted about the United State’s participation in these games, but I’m justifying my own participation as a viewer and spectator by realizing that the most I can do right now is support the gay athletes that are risking a lot to be there in order to do what they do best, whether that be curling or luge or figure skating.

The 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics begin February 7th and last until February 23rd.

Also.Also.Also: Flipping the Bird to Every Member of the GOP in a Custom Lesbian Wedding Dress and Other Stories We Missed This Week

Hello, Birkenstocks! This weekend I thought I was gonna go to work early, but then I couldn’t catch a train and I went shopping for gifts instead. I ran a mean DIY wrapping station, let me tell you. Let’s catch up on the stories we missed while I was rockin’ around the Christmas tree.

Cleveland’s Trans* Tragedy

Two of three murdered trans* women in Ohio were killed last week.

The Right-Wing is Wrong

+ A Michigan Republican Committeeman said gay people wanna get married so they can get free health care… for AIDS. Then, my head exploded.

+ Republican Senator Mike Lee has proposed legislation legalizing discrimination against gay people (and non-virgins, among others) by employers who identify with a religion. Presumably, Christianity.

+ Michigan Governor Rick Snyder is open to talking about LGBT folks and where they fit into the state’s nondiscrimination laws, but he refuses to start the conversation.

The Marrying Kind: Lesbian Bridal Wear is a Growing Industry

When you’re gettin’ married/
To another chick/
Who you gonna call?/
La Mode Abyssale!

In 2011, two of Helen Bender’s lesbian friends approached her with a problem. They wanted to enter a civil partnership and throw a big party, but could not figure out what to wear.

Neither of them were into dresses, but they did not want to wear trouser suits either: they were women in love with another woman, after all, they said.

They also insisted on not seeing each other’s clothes before the ceremony.

After much counselling, Bender came up with a solution – a gold overall with a jacket and a matching cream-coloured dress of variable length – and soon realised that she had chanced upon an unexpected gap in the market.

Requests for on-demand wedding dresses for lesbian couples have been flooding into the 27-year-old’s small studio in Mainz, Germany, ever since. And after her label La Mode Abyssale (“fashion without limits”) was invited to New York fashion week in September, the international market now beckons too.

This Drug Could Save Lives and It Isn’t Marijuana

Anastrozole, an existing drug, was recently discovered to cut Breast Cancer risk in post-menopausal women.

The Best Binder Full of Women

Butch is a new book that reads like your life story.

WATCH: Toni Morrison and Junot Diaz Talk Race

It’s not MHP and bell hooks, but it’s still damn great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huSOtlQa0fY

Sh*t’s Not Great in Ethiopia

“In many countries, it’s getting better for the LGBT community. In Ethiopia, it’s getting worse.”

Judge Feminist, Presiding

Will Nina Pallard outlaw men? Probs not, but a girl can dream.

The Senate voted late Wednesday to confirm Nina Pillard to the second-highest court in the United States, and now the American people must watch helplessly as their country spirals into a feminist dystopia where it is illegal to be a man, or something.

Pillard is a former attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union and a noted advocate for women’s rights…Pillard’s credentials have made her very, very scary to congressional Republicans, who previously blocked her confirmation after calling her a “militant” and “radical feminist.”

Australian High Court Shuts Down New Marriage Equality Law, Gay Marriages Declared Invalid

In extremely upsetting and infuriating news, Australia’s High Court has overturned legalization of same-sex marriage in Australian Capital Territory (ACT).

In October, the territory was the first part of Australia to legalize same-sex marriages. However, the national government challenged the law, claiming that it contradicted federal law, which specified in 2004 that marriage was between a man and a woman.

The High Court ruled unanimously against the same-sex marriage law, saying in a statement:

Whether same-sex marriage should be provided for by law is a matter for the federal parliament. The Marriage Act does not now provide for the formation or recognition of marriage between same-sex couples. The Marriage Act provides that a marriage can be solemnised in Australia only between a man and a woman.

The High Court went on to say that any change in marriage equality reform would have to come from the Federal Government. ACT legislation allowed all Australian gay couples to marry inside the ACT, which includes Canberra, Australia’s capital. The 27 couples who have been married since the law came into effect last weekend are being stripped of their marriages.

Ivan Hinton, who was married last Sunday to his partner Chris Teoh, said, “In less than a week we’ve been married and we’ve been unmarried, at least on a legal level. We’re still married. I’ve made commitments to Chris to spend the rest of my life with him.”

Rodney Croome, the National Director for Australian Marriage Equality said, “This is devastating for those couples who married this week and for their families.”

The Australian Christian Lobby said in a discriminatory and ultimately objectively incorrect statement:

Marriage between a man and a woman is good for society and beneficial for governments to uphold in legislation. It is about providing a future for the next generation where they can be raised by their biological parents, wherever possible. It is now time to move on.

Last year, a bill that would have allowed same-sex marriage was voted down in both houses of Parliament, but civil unions are legal in some Australian states.

Polls from last April suggest that almost two-thirds of Australians support same-sex marriage, compared to only 38% in 2004. About 81% of young people are in favor of same-sex marriage.

Reform is still possible, and maybe even inevitable. Greens leader Christine Milne said,

What the court has decided has made it very clear that the Federal Parliament has the power to legislate for marriage equality…. [The ruling is] a clarion call for everyone in the country who supports marriage equality to now put pressure on the Federal Government and the Federal Parliament to change it.

Darlene Cox, who married partner Liz Holcombe on Saturday, said “I have to say the weekend was so fabulous that it’s taken the shine off, but we’re still walking on air… We were legally married for five days and that’s terrific.” She’s not angry with the High Court ruling, instead arguing that laws are enacted and people change them, which is part of the democratic process. Now the responsibility is on The Federal Government. She said, “If they were so sure that they needed to challenge the legislation, let’s make sure marriage equality is on the national agenda.”

feature image via feminspire.com

Also.Also.Also: Kathleen Hanna, Ellen Degeneres, and The San Antonio Four Walk Into a Pantene Commercial and Other Stories We Missed This Week

Hello, bamboo shots! I had a snow day yesterday, which was nice because I hate snow and awful because I hate snow.

Here’s the stories we missed this week while I was hibernating.

Justice for the San Antonio 4

The San Antonio Four were released from prison after 15 years.

This Sunday, in central Texas, four women and their families sat down to a big lunch together. It would have been a wholly unremarkable scene, but for one thing: Three of the women were only recently released from prison for a crime they say they didn’t commit.

Elizabeth Ramirez, 39, Cassandra Rivera, 38, Kristie Mayhugh, 40, and Anna Vasquez, 38, are the San Antonio Four. In 1994, the women, all lesbians, were accused of aggravated sexual assault on a child; by 1998, they’d been convicted of the crime and were starting their prison sentences—15 years for Rivera, Mayhugh, and Vasquez; 37 1/2 years for Ramirez, because she’d been the “ringleader.” But on Nov. 18, 2013, Ramirez, Mayhugh, and Rivera were released on bail after the testimony of an expert medical witness used to convict them was found to be faulty and a judge recommended that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacate their conviction. Vasquez, who had been out on parole for a year already, will no longer have to meet strict parole requirements.

Finally, justice prevails in a case that, one can only hope, is a relic of a weird, panicked time in recent American history, when the word gay or lesbian was too often conflated with pedophile.

Black LGBT Power 100

The G-List Society Black LGBT Power 100 has the approval of Elixher, meaning it has my implicit approval already.

We have to give props to G-List Society, a blog dedicated to entertainment, events, news and lifestyle in the LGBT community, for the first installment of their 2013 “Black LGBT Power 100.” We’re impressed by the depth and breadth of people and organizations spotlighted — from Harlem’s lesbian-owned restaurant Billie’s Black to trans author Janet Mock and openly gay The Voice contestant De’Borah Garner.

“Hundreds of Black same-gender-loving men and women from all over the world grabbed headlines locally, regionally, nationally and internationally for their significant achievements, record-breaking accomplishments and controversial notoriety that rival demographics with seemingly larger influences,” boasts G-List Society blogger Waddie G. “Throughout 2013, many brave people in the Black LGBT community stepped out on their courageous leadership in positive and controversial ways to show that power is also in the Black same-gender-loving voice regardless of reach.”

This Week in Women

+ Why can’t TIME magazine just choose a woman for person of the year already. Like, would it be so fucking hard to name Wendy Davis or Hillary Clinton or Janet Mock or any fucking person on Earth who does not identify as a man person of the year or is that an actually impossible feat. If George W. Bush can do it, can’t we all?

+ The ACLU is suing the Conference of Catholic Bishops on behalf of Tamesha Means, who was denied care at Mercy Health Partners when her water broke at 18 weeks. While they’re on the phone with those jerks they should pass along the memo to the Pope that economic equality includes women’s rights and LGBT rights.

+ Surprise: women journalists are at more risk for danger on the job because of sexual harassment and violence and general douchebaggery.

+ I don’t think Pantene is going to solve your sexism problem, y’all.

Don’t you hate it how people are labelled differently for engaging in the same behaviour? What’s “persuasive” in a man is labelled “pushy” in a woman. A father who stays up all night working is “dedicated,” but a woman who does that is “selfish.” That is, like,  so unfair. Luckily, that problem has a solution. And I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that the solution to that problem, which uptight complainy feminists might call “sexism” but that this ad calls “labels,”  isn’t “collective political action and widespread cultural change.” The solution is shampoo. 

+ Our political system needs to care about black women.

+ Women don’t appreciate when you use sex to sell cheap shit.

+ “Passing for White and Straight: How My Looks Hide My Identity.”

My privilege in passing reflects a racism and heterosexism that continues to flourish, despite romantic notions that racial mixing and gay marriage will create a utopian future free of prejudices.

Police officers don’t suspect me. Store owners like me. White strangers don’t feel threatened by me. Racists get too comfortable with me. Homophobes unknowingly befriend me. My straight white doppelgänger and I ride the subway together as I try to lose her in crowds and leave her behind at parties. I dispel her with the perpetual coming-out, the casual “I’m not white,” the introduction of my partner.

I’ve spent most of my adult life actively trying to evade her. But every time I sit down with new people, I know that she sits down first.

+ Toni Braxton wants to play a lesbian on Orange is the New Black. Lesbians around the world rejoiced.

We Wish You A Queerer Christmas

This holiday season, rely on friends.

Author’s Note: And wine.

The Other Other Bound 2

Ellen and Portia made a Bound 2-themed holiday card for their loved ones this year. This that red-cup-all-on-the-lawn shit.

Gay Rights Roundup

+ The first same-sex weddings in England and Wales will begin March 29, 2014! That gives us juuust enough time to buy a nice hat.

+ Fortune 500 companies are getting the hang of this equal-benefits-for-same-sex-attracted-folk-and-their-kin thing.

+ Westboro Baptist Church plans to protest Nelson Mandela’s funeral and go immediately to Hell.

+ ICYMI: It ain’t easy being queer and homeless.

 There were times — after he told his parents he was gay, for example, and his mother wept and his father tried to hit him — when Fredy Bolvito curled up on a bench in Union Square here and cried because he had AIDS and no job and no place to stay and he felt, he said, that “my life was over.”

+ Virginia Rep. Randy Forbes thinks the GOP campaign fund shouldn’t give money to gay candidates.

+ Viet Rainbow is mad as hell and they’re not gonna take it anymore:

Hieu Nguyen and fellow protesters stood on the sidewalk holding signs and waving an enormous rainbow flag as the traditional Vietnamese parade passed them by.

Barred from the Lunar New Year’s event — and largely ignored in their own community — members of the fledgling gay rights group decided it was time to stop playing nice.

They took training sessions with established LGBT groups, sought out legal strategy from veteran gay rights defenders Lambda Legal and attended workshops.

Now emboldened activists are flexing their muscles and demanding change in Little Saigon, a sprawling immigrant community that has dragged its feet on coming to terms with basic gay rights issues.

“This is not the Rosa Parks era,” said Nguyen, a Garden Grove social worker. “I’m not sitting at the back of the bus anymore.”

You Should Go / Give / Be Excited About…

+ Bloom: Memories will feature the first-ever trans* character in an RPG. And it’s all thanks to a trans* game developer. SO SUPPORT IT ALREADY.

+ Feminist Campus is spotlighting young feminists with the Feminist You Should Know contest – and all this week, you can vote for a winner!

+ Support Rape Aid with a $20 ticket to their Wintry Mix party! Oh, and you get to go.

+ On Friday, DC’s West End Cinema will be screening The Punk Singer. I’ll be there!

Kathleen Hanna, lead singer of the punk band Bikini Kill and dance-punk trio Le Tigre, rose to national attention as the reluctant but never shy voice of the riot grrrl movement. She became one of the most famously outspoken feminist icons, a cultural lightning rod. Her critics wished she would just shut-up, and her fans hoped she never would. So in 2005, when Hanna stopped shouting, many wondered why. Through 20 years of archival footage and intimate interviews with Hanna, THE PUNK SINGER takes viewers on a fascinating tour of contemporary music and offers a never-before-seen view into the life of this fearless leader.

Protecting the Protectors: UN Moves to Increase Protections for Women Human Rights Defenders

Two days before the eighth anniversary of International Women Human Rights Defenders (WHRDs) Day, a UN General Assembly Committee passed a draft on protecting WHRDs, which, after months of negotiation and polarised debates, is expected to be taken up by the Plenary next month.

By its terms, the General Assembly would call upon all States to promote, translate and give full effect to the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including by taking appropriate, robust and practical steps to protect women human rights defenders.

According the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which led the preparations and negotiations, the resolution calls upon states to recognise that WHRDs “should be able to carry out their work without restrictions or threats to themselves or their families” and to “stop criminalising, stigmatising and hindering the work of [these] women.” This includes reviewing and amending national laws in order to ensure consistency with international human rights law.

The resolution has taken months to reach this stage due to fraught negotiations over its language.

African countries had insisted on highlighting respect for customs and traditions. Russia, Iran and China had called for language which insisted the rights defenders should follow national laws, diplomats and activists said.

In the end Norway agreed to delete a paragraph which said states should “strongly condemn all forms of violence against women and women human rights defenders and refrain from invoking any customs, traditions or religious consideration to avoid their obligations.”

African nations in turn withdrew a proposed amendment which said human rights defenders had to fall in line with “local situations,” diplomats said.

More than 30 European countries, including Britain, France and Germany, withdrew as co-sponsors of the resolution in protest at the concession.

Iceland remained as a co-sponsor, but its UN ambassador Greta Gunnarsdottir called the concession “a low point” for the UN rights committee.

The Vatican led opponents to references in the draft to the risks faced by those working on sexual and reproductive health and gender rights, activists who monitored the talks said.

In 1998, the UN adopted the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which outlined the specific duties of states in protecting “anyone working for the promotion and protection of human rights.” In 2010, Special Rapporteur Margaret Sekaggya released a report noting that “women defenders are more at risk of suffering certain forms of violence and other violations, prejudice, exclusion, and repudiation than their male counterparts.” Not only do WHRDs face hostility from their families, societies and the authorities for “challenging accepted socio-cultural norms […] about the role and status of women in society,” the violations they face may themselves take a gender-specific form, particularly sexual abuse and rape.

In questioning the stark and violent gender disparity in human rights activism, Nobel Laureate Jody Williams writes for The Huffington Post:

The answer is clear: women who stand up for human rights are a threat to the status quo. These women are a threat in societies that view women as second-class citizens. State and non-state actors have therefore retaliated against women defenders and the work they do to promote gender equality and women’s participation in public life.

The unique threats faced by WHRDs have come to global attention again in the last few months due to the prominence of major personalities, particularly Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani student and activist who was shot in the head by the Taliban for advocating girls’ education, and Denis Mukwege, the Democratic Republic of Congo doctor briefly forced into exile for his work helping rape victims.

The long-drawn negotiations, especially around the section of the resolution that prohibited using “customs, tradition and religious consideration” to justify violence against women and that was eventually withdrawn, have highlighted the importance of navigating cultural relativism, sensitivities and nuances in campaigning for women’s rights worldwide. There is no avoiding it: democratic deliberations, especially on an international scale, require that differences of values need to be respected and worked through, not simply worked around; in other words, cultural differences (and clashes) are not just obstacles to be overcome, they are the context in which any and all meaningful collaborative work must be done. There are also no easy answers as to how to balance universal conceptions of human rights – as is a core part of the very existence of the UN – with more relativist, diverse understandings of people’s value and belief systems.

At the same time, it’s debatable whether the UN is the place where these answers will be revealed or if it’s even the most appropriate avenue to be grappling with these massive questions. UN-level international and inter-regional negotiations are just as much political posturing and aggressive assertions of national sovereignty and self-interest as they are any real defense of “cultural” integrity and value.

Given the extent to which states are themselves implicated in the harm caused to WHRDs, it is likely the UN will be limited in its authority to ensure that any internationally agreed upon legislation will actually be implemented at a national or local level. It is probably still too early to see what concrete change will come from this in protecting the valuable work and even more valuable lives of WHRDs, but it does, hopefully, signal a turn for the better that the events of this week have placed this issue squarely back onto the global agenda.

The Whole World Can Learn Something From Southeast Gaysia and the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus

International movements marching to liberate their LGB(TIQ) brethren from the clutches of homophobic governments, led by the likes of HRC and others, are on the rise nowadays, bringing awareness to the dangerous conditions in which some LGBTIQ people live worldwide – yet at the same time steamrolling over the voices and work of those very people. What’s far too often missing from the narratives of global activism is the nuances of local contexts and agency of these “oppressed” people, people who don’t simply sit around waiting to be saved. This is where the ASC comes in: formed initially of an informal network of regional grassroots activists and despite numerous unsuccessful attempts at lobbying ASEAN governments, the group is growing strength to strength and this coming year looks set to be a big one for them.

The ASEAN SOGIE (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression) Caucus (ASC) – previously the LGBTIQ People’s Caucus – is a network of diverse activists in Southeast Asia that aims for the inclusion of SOGIE provisions in ASEAN human rights mechanisms.

To understand more about what the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus does and why, I talked to activists Ron de Vera (Philippines), Anna Arifin ‘Upi’ (Indonesia) and Ng Yi-Sheng (Singapore).

 

What is ASEAN?

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is an international organisation comprising 10 member states (Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines) and 2 observer states (Timor-Leste and Papua New Guinea). It was formed in 1967 with the aim of facilitating economic growth, social progress, cultural development and regional stability.

ASEAN represents approximately 600 million people. (In comparison, the European Union represents 28 member states and 500 million people, while the USA has 314 million people.)

ASEAN covers an incredibly diverse geographical region. Political systems range from democracies (Indonesia, Philippines) to communist states (Laos, Vietnam) and from constitutional monarchies (Cambodia, Malaysia) to absolute ones (Brunei). Islam, Buddhism, Roman Catholicism and Hinduism are the main religions practiced in the area, with secular states, religious ones and everything in between existing alongside each other. Southeast Asia is home to many indigenous peoples and Indonesia alone speaks more than 700 languages. Quite significantly, there is massive economic disparity among ASEAN member states: GDP per capita ranges from US$50,000 (Singapore) to US$850 (Myanmar).

Southeast Asia is also the birthplace of the Yogyakarta Principles (“joug-ja-car-ta”), a “universal guide to human rights which affirm binding international legal standards with which all States must comply.” These principles informed the 2008 UN Statement on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, which has not been adopted by the UN General Assembly and remains open to signatories.

 

Why the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus?

Both social conceptions of SOGIE and related legal protections vary significantly from country to country, but the ASEAN member states have one thing in common: discrimination, harassment and violence against people of non-normative SOGIE are highly prevalent in all of them.

From a recent press release by the ASC:

According to Social Action for Equality (SAFE), a Manila-based organization that monitors hate crimes against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) people, there have been more than 164 LGBT killings in the Philippines since they started monitoring media reports in 2009. Figures on violence against LGBT people remain underreported due to poor protection mechanisms and legislation in the region.

The network of LGBTIQ activists that was to later become the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus evolved through gatherings such as International LGBTI Association (ILGA)-Asia Regional Conferences. In 2011, prior to the ASEAN People’s Forum (APF) or ASEAN Civil Society Conference (ACSC) in Jakarta, four community groups – Arus Pelangi (Indonesia), The Institute for Studies of Society, Environment and Economics (iSEE) (Vietnam), Information Connecting and Sharing (ICS) (Vietnam) and ILGA-Asia – gathered 42 LGBTIQ activists from eight ASEAN countries for the first time. The group formulated three recommendations for ASEAN leaders, which they presented at the APF/ACSC.

From the 2011 statement of the first ASEAN LGBTIQ People’s Caucus:

In various parts of the region, pride is unraveling and we will not take exclusion sitting down. LGBTIQ activists and organizations continue to actively engage government institutions, mass media, and civil society for equal rights and basic fairness. It is in this spirit of pride and dignity that we are reclaiming our rightful space in our respective countries and demand our governments to:

• Immediately repeal laws that directly and indirectly criminalize SOGI, recognize LGBTIQ rights as human rights, and harmonize national laws, policies and practices with the Yogyakarta Principles.
• Establish national level mechanisms and review existing regional human rights instruments (e.g. AICHR, ACWC) to include the promotion and protection of the equal rights of all people regardless of SOGI with the active engagement of the LGBTIQ community.
• Depathologize SOGI and promote psychosocial well-being of people of diverse SOGI in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) standards, and ensure equal access to health and social services.

 

What has the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus done?

The ASC has directly lobbied ASEAN leadership at two junctures: first, in 2011 during the drafting of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD) in Indonesia at the 8th APF/ACSC, and second, in 2013 during the adoption of the Declarations on the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the Elimination of Violence Against Children (DEVAW and DEVAC) in Brunei at the 23rd ASEAN Summit. Unfortunately, neither effort has been successful in getting SOGIE provisions included in ASEAN legislation.

The campaign around the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration garnered much public visibility and action, including a street parade and gathering in Cambodia.

Organising around the recent ASEAN Summit, which took place in Bandar Seri Begawan, took on a different character. Brunei is hostile to both LGBTIQ people and protests in general, which made physical campaigning challenging. Instead, the ASC turned to social media.

During the summit (Oct 8 to 10), the ASC facilitated a real-time, thematic online discussion dubbled “#ASEANtoo! Queer Tweets” meant to raise regional and international awareness of ASEAN SOGIE issues as well as expose the lack of transparency of ASEAN processes.

“Queer Tweets” was part of a larger and still ongoing campaign called “We are #ASEANtoo!”, launched a week before the summit. Responding directly to the exclusion of SOGIE protections in declarations protecting women and children from violence, the ASC produced a video containing tales of real violence against non-normative SOGIE people in Southeast Asia.

The ASC is also still accepting photos of people holding signs saying “We are/I am #ASEANtoo” in support of the campaign. See the current photos on the #ASEANtoo Tumblr and submit your own via the ask page, at aseantoo[at]gmail[dot]com, or on the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus FB page.

 

What is the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus up against?

When I asked my three interviewees about challenges they’ve faced, they were quick to point out something that hasn’t been a problem: co-operation. Despite coming from very different backgrounds and fighting battles of very different characters locally, the group has managed to get along and get things done very, very well.

Yi-Sheng: We have common aims and beliefs. Those of us who are involved in the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus are those who believe in inclusivity, in feminism and humanism, and the understanding that LGBTI rights are linked to other forms of human rights (e.g. labour rights, minority rights).

Anna: The other similarity that we have is the context of the problems that we are dealing with – discrimination which leads to stigma and violence.

The emphasis on inclusivity is key in an organisation in which the heterogeneity of its participants could otherwise be a debilitating weakness. For instance, the change in language from “LGBTIQ” to “SOGIE” was meant to reflect the diverse ways in which “queer” identities and behaviour are understood, conceptualised and expressed, recognising that using using language that does not speak to everyone’s cultural, historical and individual experiences can in itself be oppressive. In particular, what many would popularly understand as “trans*” identities and expression are incredibly variant in Southeast Asia.

When it comes to activism, members of the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus operate in markedly different political climates. Some governments are more receptive and accessible than others: activists have reported relative success in lobbying leaders in Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines, while the Malaysian state sponsors campaigns demonising LGBTIQ people. Brunei remains largely impenetrable. Key challenges also differ from country to country: in Singapore, the government remains the largest obstacle to SOGIE recognition and protections, while in Indonesia, religious majorities have disproportionate sway over these issues.

However, as Anna mentions, the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus works on what all of them do have in common: violence and discrimination. They aim for decriminalisation, depathologisation and safety provisions to be enforced regionally.

Some parts of Southeast Asia are not always the safest for LGBTIQ activists – the 2010 ILGA-Asia Conference in Surabaya, Indonesia was cancelled due to threats and harassment from Islamic fundamentalists – but the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus has yet to encounter such danger. Many groups that form the ASC are not recognised as legal entities and/or do not have access to funding, but other more well-established groups provide the structural support for the ASC’s meetings and activities. Anna noted that work as a local activist is more likely to invite threats and public backlash than regional activism.

Finally, ASEAN’s decision-making mechanisms pose a significant challenge to the ASC’s lobbying efforts. The ASC has criticised ASEAN extensively for its lack of transparency – civil society organisations were consulted in drafting the AHRD, DEVAW and DEVAC, but no SOGIE organisations were included and ASEAN did not reveal how, where and when these organisations were chosen. Critically, major decisions in ASEAN require a unanimous vote, which makes it hard to pass anything even remotely contentious. Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore have repeatedly blocked the inclusion of SOGIE provisions in regional agreements.

Where does the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus go from here?

To further their work in increasing SOGIE representation in ASEAN processes, the ASC intends to become a legal entity within a year. In the meantime, they will continue to lobby the ASEAN leadership via the ACSC/APF, in which some ASC members are currently represented on national and regional committees.

The group also plans to release an annual report on the status of human rights of people of diverse SOGIE in Southeast Asia.

At the level of local activism, different Southeast Asian countries are moving forward at considerably different paces. Thailand is on the brink of introducing same-sex civil partnerships while Vietnam just recently removed a ban on same-sex marriages. The Philippines, despite being one out of only two countries worldwide that do not recognise divorce (the Vatican City being the other), is widely considered the region’s most gay-friendly state and home to the world’s only LGBT party. Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei and Myanmar still grapple with Section 377, a British colonial era law that criminalises sex between men.

Regional activism around SOGIE issues is still very new, and it will be interesting to see how the ASC develops as well as how it interacts with and builds upon more established local movements. As Yi-Sheng concludes, “I personally will say I hope the group can help to connect more national activists and build a regional movement. There is a lot of strength we can draw from regional solidarity – and we are always learning from each other’s struggles and successes.”

---

Ron de Vera is a development worker, LGBT rights activist, educator, writer, photographer, poet and sports fanatic based in Manila. He serves as the Spokesperson and Head of Education of Social Action for Equality (SAFE), an organisation that documents hate crimes against LGBT people in the Philippines.

Ng Yi-Sheng is a writer and queer activist. He writes for the pan-Asian LGBT news site Fridae and serves on the committee of IndigNation, Singapore’s queer pride month. His is the author of SQ21: Singaporean Queers in the 21st Century and the co-editor of GASPP: A Gay Anthology of Singapore Poetry and Prose.

Anna Arifin ‘Upi’ works with Arus Pelangi, an Indonesian civil society organisation. Arus Pelangi was founded in 2006 to give voice to the nation’s LGBT community and challenge discrimination. Given the diversity of Indonesia, the organisation places strong emphasis on plurality, non-partisanship and equality in its campaigns.

Recent EU Court Ruling Might Make Life Less Miserable For LGB Asylum Seekers

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled last week that persecution on the grounds of sexual orientation is considered grounds for asylum to be granted in the European Union (EU). It identifies LGB people as members of a “particular social group” that is deserving of asylum protections should that membership place them at risk of harm in the country of their nationality, as per the language of the United Nations (UN) and EU agreements that guide asylum and refugee legislation in the region.

The term “refugee” shall apply to any person who […] owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.

– Article 1, 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (UNHCR)

The preliminary ruling is expected to set in motion EU-wide changes in legislation pertaining to LGB asylum seekers. Up till now, neither the UN 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees nor EU Council Directive 2004/83/EC explicitly recognised sexual orientation as grounds for asylum. Individual EU member states, however, may have already recognised LGB/T people as constituting a protected “particular social group.”

The issue was brought to the attention of the ECJ, the EU’s highest court in the matters of EU law, due to a case in the Netherlands involving three men from Sierra Leone, Uganda and Senegal who are seeking refuge in the country due to a “well-founded fear of being persecuted in their countries of origin by reason of their sexual orientation.” A Dutch court initially rejected the asylum petitions, claiming that the men could “exercise restraint” to avoid persecution. However, the Netherlands Raad van State (Council of State), which is hearing the cases at final instance, consulted the ECJ for a preliminary ruling because asylum is an EU-level issue.

This ruling is what is at the centre of recent media attention. It made three main points:

• First, as mentioned earlier, LGB people constitute a “particular social group” that is protected by both the UN Refugee Convention and the EU Council Directive.
• Second, the existence of laws criminalising homosexuality is insufficient basis for asylum considerations. The risk faced by LGB asylum seekers must be “sufficiently serious” to be considered persecution, i.e. those laws must be actively enforced.
• Third, LGB asylum seekers cannot be expected to conceal or exercise restraint in expressing their sexuality. The ECJ press release states that the court believes “a person’s sexual orientation is a characteristic so fundamental to his identity that he should not be forced to renounce it.”

To better understand the impact this ruling could have across the region, it helps to first consider how much sway the ECJ has over national legislative frameworks as well as the current situation for asylum seekers in the EU.

The EU, which represents 28 countries, is working towards an eventual transition to a “Common European Asylum System” that recognises that asylum is a fundamental right and that granting it is an international obligation. Standardising laws pertaining to asylum seekers across member states ensures that the asylum process doesn’t become a lottery, i.e. asylum seekers should be expected to be treated uniformly and fairly no matter where they end up. Regional legislation is also in place to ensure that asylum seekers do not apply to other countries within the EU if they are rejected by the first country to which they apply.

With regard to the particular case of the three asylum seekers, the ECJ can only clarify the validity or interpretation of EU law and cannot actually settle the dispute. This remains the prerogative of the Dutch courts. Now that the ECJ has clarified its position on the issue, what the Netherlands Raad van State eventually rules on the fate of the three men will then set legal precedent for other courts and tribunals within the country.

It is hard to say with any certainty how much regional EU law influences national asylum legislation and processes across the board. On one hand, due to the Schengen Agreement, internal borders among member states of the EU and certain non-EU states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) are considerably relaxed, e.g. you do not need a passport to travel from France to Spain to Italy. This incentivises a common – or at least similar – policy on asylum seekers; when national borders are no longer as heavily enforced, who one country lets in or keeps out directly impacts your own population.

On the other hand, national sovereignty still reigns supreme. This is perhaps clearest in the UK, one of two EU states (the other being Ireland) that are not part of the Schengen Area: the Borders Act 2007 significantly stepped up restrictions on and monitoring of non-EU migrants, including asylum seekers and refugees. National borders, especially of countries that have more clout in the EU and can expect to face less backlash from other member states, can be temporarily reinstated. After the Arab Spring, France and Germany threatened to reinstate border checks in order to prevent Tunisian and Libyan refugees that Italy had granted temporary residence permits to from entering their countries.

Furthermore, a 2010 report by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) found that rates of success of asylum applications vary wildly from country to country.

According to Eurostat figures, protection rates (refugee status and subsidiary protection) for the same groups of asylum-seekers vary considerably from one Member State to another. For instance, protection rates for Somalis in 2009 ranged from 4% to 93%. Germany and the Netherlands received the largest numbers of Iraqi asylum-seekers in Europe that year; Germany recognized 63% whereas the Netherlands granted protection to 27%. For Afghan asylum-seekers, the two main receiving countries were the UK and Greece: the UK recognized 41%, and Greece 1%.

The report also condemns the widespread detention of asylum seekers in Europe.

In EU Member States, the detention of asylum-seekers is widely practiced and poorly regulated. Seeking protection is a fundamental human right, not a crime. […] In some countries there is a thin line between reception and detention. Euphemisms such as “closed reception centre” or “obligatory presence” may conceal the fact that asylum-seekers are held in confinement or that their freedom of movement is very limited. Airport transit zones are treated as being outside Member State territory, so national legislation regulating detention does not apply for persons stranded there.

Amnesty International estimates that 600,000 people, including children, are detained in Europe every year for “migration control purposes, mostly with no court decision.” UNITED for Intercultural Action, a European network based in the Netherlands, has been monitoring the deaths of those who have tried to enter “Fortress Europe” since 1993. After the Lampedusa tragedy earlier this year, Italy Prime Minister Enrico Letta granted Italian citizenship to the 366 mostly Eritrean, Somali and Ghanaian migrants who died, but those who survived were crammed in severely overcrowded refugee centres and, for the crime of being “clandestine immigrants,” faced fines up to €5,000.

Politicians have raised fears of “asylum shopping,” i.e. the idea that refugees will move from one country to another looking for the best welfare provisions. There is plenty of popular anti-immigrant rhetoric based on fears of drains on overburdened welfare states, national security and clashes between value systems. In a climate of recession and austerity in which a rise in xenophobia and nationalism is expected to impact the upcoming EU elections, asylum seekers and refugees in Europe today face mounting challenges.

Even before facing the risk of being told to “go home and be discreet,” as the ECJ just ruled that courts cannot do, LGB asylum seekers are expected to “prove” their sexuality to border agents and judges. This often goes about as well as you’d expect. A 2010 report by the UK Lesbian & Gay Immigration Group found that lesbians and gay men applying for asylum due to persecution because of their sexual orientation faced higher refusal rates (98-99%) than asylum seekers making other claims (73%), while a 2010 report by Stonewall noted that “[UK Border Agency] staff and judges often assume that a person can only be lesbian or gay if they have engaged consistently and exclusively in same-sex sexual activity. Questions focus on sexual activity and asylum-seekers are expected to share explicit sexual experiences.”

The ECJ ruling does not comment on how authorities are to verify asylum seekers’ sexual orientations, though it is clear that being granted refugee status is highly contingent on what authorities make of this. The difficulties of proving one’s sexuality – even before demonstrating the risk or experience of persecution as a result of it – is significantly harder for those who have been married or who have children. This is especially true of women and bisexual people. If “progressive” queer communities still disregard the identities of bisexual people or those who come out later in life, imagine talking to a border agent about it.

The issue of LGB asylum seekers in the EU is further complicated by the fact that a legacy of European colonialism is inextricably tangled with a lot of anti-LGBT legislation and persecution worldwide, particularly in Commonwealth countries (otherwise known as the former British Empire). The Kaleidoscope Trust, a UK-based charity, just released a report on human rights abuses against LGBTIQ people across the Commonwealth. Navigating the past, present and future of state violence against LGBT people worldwide involves addressing the damage caused by colonialism and the complicity of present-day governments while avoiding the neocolonial rhetoric of “enlightened white people saving the poor brown gays.”

Asylum laws, and in particular, the ways in which the image of the EU is constructed as a safe haven for the world’s persecuted as a result of them, play a big role in this tension. The EU is not necessarily a safe place for LGB asylum seekers and it is not completely divorced from what goes on in these othered, “less tolerant” countries. In the words of feminist writer Flavia Dzodan, who has long been a critic of immigration policies and laws in the EU:

These people, we are told, are escaping conditions outside the realm of our responsibility. The structural poverty, political turmoil, warfare, etc, they face back home has nothing to do with us, or so goes the dominant narrative. In this narrative, the European Union then positions itself as “saving” these migrants by allowing them to stay (as the case might be with some) or alternatively, the European Union is saving us from their scourge by detaining them in inhumane conditions and eventually deporting them (as the case is with the vast majority).

Finally, it’s worth noting that the ECJ ruling does not establish whether people can seek asylum due to persecution on the basis of gender identity. While activists and authorities are often addressing anti-gay laws that specifically criminalise “homosexual acts” or “homosexuality,” it would be amiss to overlook the many ways in which trans* people are also subject to state violence and brutality as a result of the very same laws as well as other discriminatory policies.

There are reasons to celebrate the ECJ ruling, of course, and in time it might make a real difference to the lives of real people, hopefully starting with the three men seeking asylum in the Netherlands. At the same time, exuberance around this development needs to be tempered with an understanding of the limitations of EU authority as well as serious consideration of the current poor track record on these states’ treatment of asylum seekers and refugees.

Pope Francis Wants To Know What You Think About Gays (If You’re A Bishop)

In preparation for the Catholic Church’s 2014 Extraordinary Synod on “The Pastoral Challenges to the Family in the Context of Evangelization,” the Vatican has issued a preparatory document to bishops that has sent eyebrows skyrocketing all around the world. Formally released on Tuesday, the document contains an overview of current Church teaching on the family, as well as broad discussion of some of the unique challenges in today’s society. More unusually, it also includes a 39 question survey with instructions that the bishops share it “immediately as widely as possible to deaneries and parishes so that input from local sources can be received.” Questions delve into numerous hot button issues including same-sex marriage, birth control, polygamy and forms of feminism “hostile to the Church.”

Some of the questions about same-sex couples include:

• Do unions which are not recognized either religiously or civilly exist? Are reliable statistics available?
• What is the attitude of the local and particular Churches towards both the State as the promoter of civil unions between persons of the same sex and the people involved in this type of union?
• What pastoral attention can be given to people who have chosen to live in these types of union?
• In the case of unions of persons of the same sex who have adopted children, what can be done pastorally in light of transmitting the faith?
• How do the particular Churches attempt to meet the needs of the parents of these children to provide them with a Christian education?

Though the wording on some of the questions leave much to be desired, the fact that these issues are even up for serious discussion is remarkable. This survey is the latest in a series of indications that the church under Pope Francis may be preparing for serious change. Since his appointment in March 2013, Pope Francis has sent numerous signals that he is ready for a major shift on social issues – at least in dialogue, if not eventually in doctrine. He has repeatedly called for tolerance, specifically stating that gay people should be integrated into society, not marginalized. Last month he wrote a private letter blessing a gay and lesbian Catholic group, and recently, speculation has been mounting that he may be the first pope ever to appoint a woman as cardinal. (On the other hand, the Vatican seems to be working to dispel this rumor, with one Vatican spokesperson announcing “This is just nonsense.”)

Within the Catholic Church, the Synod of Bishops is a relatively new tool, created in 1965 as part of the Vatican II reforms in order to “provide a deeper interpretation of divine designs and the constitution of the Catholic Church” and foster unity and cooperation of bishops around the world. Under normal circumstances, these meetings are held every couple years and focus on special regional issues (past examples: “Netherlands,” “America,” “Middle East”) or “ordinary” general themes (“Preserving and Strengthening the Catholic Faith,” “The Formation of Priests in Circumstances of the Present Day”). Occasionally, an “extraordinary general session” of the synod may be called to “deal with matters which require a speedy solution.” To date, there have only been two extraordinary general sessions, one in 1969 and one in 1985.

The 2014 Extraordinary Synod, held October 5-19, will be the first of two extraordinary synod meetings planned under Pope Francis. The first will be attended by a select group of about 100 people, including the presidents of all episcopal conferences. The second, held in 2015, will be much larger, opening up to include experts and Catholic families.  Responses to the preparatory document are to be submitted by the bishops by the end of the 2013 calendar year.

Although the preparatory document went out to bishops on October 30, there seems to be little consensus on how it should be interpreted, or how the questionnaire should be distributed. The Catholic Church in England and Wales has set up an online survey to collect responses, and welcomes Catholics outside of their districts to respond as well. In the United States, no public forum has been set up, and in fact a letter written by the US bishops’ conference’s general secretary Monsignor Ronny Jenkins only asks for bishops to provide their own views, with no mention of even seeking the views of the people in their parishes.

Still, it’s early, and there are two more months for the bishops to prepare their submissions. Preliminary meetings to go over the results are expected to take place in February, and there’s ample opportunity both prior to and after the submission date for the Vatican to issue clarification. Given Pope Francis’ record so far, there seems to be plenty of reason for at least guarded optimism. Keep an eye out.

HRC’s International Expansion Funded By The Worst Humans

It’s been an interesting year for the HRC. With the repeal of DOMA and the advances for marriage equality in many places in the US, their longtime cause of marriage equality has seen unprecedented success. The masses of people who changed their Facebook and Twitter photos to a red equals sign during the wait for the Supreme Court’s ruling was a good indicator that the HRC has become visible and gained traction with the mainstream, including people who had never even heard of them six months before.

But the HRC’s visibility has been unwelcome for many members of the community it claims to advocate for. There is a long and contentious history between HRC and the trans* community; HRC was the last civil rights organization to endorse a gender-identity-inclusive ENDA back in 2004, and ultimately didn’t maintain their endorsement of it. TransGriot notes that when HRC called an all-trans* panel to discuss trans* unemployment in 2008, they neglected to include any black or African-American trans* people, despite the fact that black trans* people suffer twice the unemployment rates of other trans* people. At the height of the backlash against Wall Street and big banks for their lack of accountability during the recession, HRC presented Goldman Sachs with a “Workplace Equality Innovation Award” at a $650-per-plate dinner. Recently, undocumented queer activist Jerssay Arredondo says that HRC asked him to stay silent about his undocumented status at a White House rally.

HRC has also been criticized by many for, put simply, becoming the face of assimilation politics. It’s an organization led by a white cisgender gay man, bolstered by celebrity and corporate sponsors, which focuses a bulk of its efforts on issues relevant to white, cisgender power elites. The fact that HRC seems to be interested more and more exclusively in same-sex marriage and in raising lots of money for this issue — even when the source of that money is a drone manufacturer —  but often joins the fight for it late and ineffectively, has raised questions for many.  Specifically, the question of whether or not the HRC is actually interested in intersectional queer equality.

The stakes were raised on that question this week when HRC announced that it’s going to begin doing its work on an international scale, with help of the Paul E. Singer Foundation and the Daniel S. Loeb Family Foundation. What work is that? Well:

In keeping with HRC’s mission to end discrimination against LGBT people, the grants will help fund efforts to educate Americans on the human rights of LGBT people around the world; provide fellowships at HRC for foreign LGBT advocates; expose the work of prominent anti-gay American organizations that have pushed anti-gay laws and legislation overseas; and leverage its relationships with American policymakers, faith communities, corporations and other change agents to help protect the human rights of LGBT people abroad.

In addition to being namesakes of foundations, Paul Singer and Daniel Loeb are also actively involved in the HRC’s new project. They are described, respectively, as:

A strong advocate for LGBT equality, Mr. Singer has most recently worked with HRC to advance LGBT rights in the United States, including the organization’s efforts to achieve marriage equality.  He is also a founding member of American Unity PAC, an organization dedicated to supporting GOP candidates who support marriage equality.

and:

A long-time advocate for human rights, Mr. Loeb worked closely with Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York Legislature on the state’s successful effort to legalize marriage equality in 2011. He has supported similar efforts throughout the country and helped return marriage equality to California by becoming an early funder in 2010 of the historic Perry lawsuit sponsored by the American Foundation for Equal Rights.

Outside of his involvement with HRC, Daniel Loeb is a hedge fund manager worth $1.5 billion personally. In terms of issues relating to gay rights, Loeb’s work seems to be entirely centered around marriage; his organization was one of the signatories on the amicus brief sent to the Supreme Court in support of marriage equality, but it’s unclear what else he’s done in concrete terms. Loeb has donated to PACs related to Obama and Harry Reid, but has also donated to “Straight Talk America,” a PAC created by John McCain, and the “Every Republican is Crucial” PAC, which is committed to keeping the House Republican. Loeb has used a variety of unorthodox tactics in the business world, chief among which is his habit of writing vitriolic letters to CEOs and heads of companies that he takes issue with that delineate their failings. In a recent Vanity Fair profile, Loeb is described as hostile and extreme; although he describes himself as an “activist investor,” he also does things like play both sides of a teacher’s union controversy by asking to manage the teacher’s union pension fund while also supporting an organization that opposes teacher’s pensions. Although it is, of course, impossible to plumb the depths of anyone’s true political or ethical leanings from a distance, the evidence doesn’t suggest that Loeb has ever put his money behind something for any reason than to make more money as a result of it.

Things get even more interesting when we look at Paul Singer. Also a hedge fund manager, Singer is an even larger donor to Republicans and their causes than Loeb; he underwrote the last GOP National Convention and Wall Street Journal claims that his hedge fund is one of the nation’s biggest sources of political donations full stop, and the majority of it is to Republicans. In addition to his politically conservative donations, Singer has also donated to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, which may or may not be related to the fact that his son is gay, and was married to his partner in Massachusetts. Singer donated almost $1 million for marriage equality in New York, divided between his own money and funds he raised; he also donated $250,000 to the Maryland Marriage Campaign. He encourages support of gay marriage and workplace equality among Republicans and on Wall Street, and in 2012 he donated $1 million to the “American Unity” PAC, which was created to “encourage Republican candidates to support same-sex marriage, in part by helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it.” The year before, Singer had donated $1 million to Mitt Romney’s Super PAC, “Restore Our Future.” Mother Jones has an excellent breakdown of other highlights of Singer’s resume, including orchestrating the selection of Paul Ryan as Romney’s runningmate and donating to the Koch brothers’ projects.

That’s an awful lot of money! Is it all made via being extraordinarily gifted at hedge fund management? Well, sort of. Scott Long at A Paper Bird has done a lot of research on how Singer’s money is made, and the answers aren’t flattering. Singer engages in a specific kind of investment that involves buying large amounts of debt from countries (usually developing nations) that are struggling economically, and then waiting until they’re more financially stable to collect on the debt, adding on millions and millions of dollars in extra fees and marked-up interest. It’s called a vulture fund, and it’s an accurate descriptor. Basically, much of Singer’s fortune comes from taking advantage of developing nations when they’re in a transitional or chaotic state, and then flying away with all the money he can carry as soon as they’re back on their feet, regardless of whether it pulls the country’s feet out from under it once again. And this is the money that the HRC is going to use to go back to, in some cases, those very same nations and “save” their queer people. As Long says, “It’s a sick irony that the money HRC takes to fund its new work in the Third World is made off the backs of Third World suffering.”

The three powers that be — the HRC, Loeb, and Singer — seem to have two major elements in common: an interest in same-sex marriage and a real gift for raising money. Most of the victories actually attributable to the HRC in any way are marriage equality-related; marriage also seems to be the primary focus of Loeb and Singer’s donation and activism. Will this be the right set of skills to accomplish the kind of work and fight the kinds of injustices that they’re interested in on a global scale? The two issues that the HRC outlines in its blog post announcement are the violence against queer people in some African nations and the anti-gay laws in Russia:

Being gay is still criminal in 76 countries, and in five countries plus parts of Nigeria and Somalia, being gay is punishable by death.  Some countries, like Uganda and Nigeria, are taking steps backward to further criminalize LGBT people.  And countries like Russia have recently passed laws to criminalize support of the dignity and humanity of the LGBT community.

It’s not immediately clear how the experience garnered by fundraising for marriage equality would translate into the context of Uganda, Somalia, or Russia. The challenges of working towards basic human safety and, eventually, equal rights for queer and gay people in those nations are complex, and informed by centuries of historical and cultural context. So far, there’s no evidence that seems to suggest that the HRC has taken steps to understand the sociopolitical and cultural contexts of the queer communities in its own country. If the organization doesn’t see why it would be important to include black trans* voices in a conversation about unemployment, or why a trans* flag belongs at a marriage equality rally, or why Jerssay Arredondo’s undocumented status is related to his queer identity in important ways, how are they going to understand the constellation of political, cultural and historical factors that lead to anti-gay violence in Uganda, or murders of trans* women in Central America, or corrective rape in South Africa? If they don’t understand any of those issues, how can they help fix them?

If the HRC did look into those cultural and historical factors, they might be aware of the ways in which the plight of gay people abroad has often been worsened, not improved, by US involvement. For instance, in Uganda, one of the nations the HRC identifies as being needful of its aid, the anti-gay sentiment and violence that threaten gay Ugandans can be traced back pretty easily to American religious evangelists. Part of the HRC’s stated mission seems to think about addressing this; they do say that they’ll “expose the work of prominent anti-gay American organizations that have pushed anti-gay laws and legislation overseas.” It would be a daring move for them, though, given the fact that the conservative billionaires who back anti-gay legislation and leadership abroad are probably attending many of the same parties and expensive fundraising dinners as Loeb and Singer. People like members of “The Family,” the ultra-powerful religious conservative group, are more likely to be sitting next to Singer at a gala than being exposed by him. And based on their track record, the HRC is more likely to ask them for money than expose them for anything, either. As Teju Cole talks about in “The White-Savior Industrial Complex,” the kind of activism that the HRC is announcing it will perform doesn’t take into account the agency or wishes of the people in the countries they’re trying to “save;” a more ethical and effective kind of action would be to address the ways in which America and American money are implicated in human rights abuses abroad. But the fact that the HRC is choosing to fund its project with money made by trying to bankrupt developing nations as they attempt to stabilize makes that feel like an unlikely possibility.

There doesn’t seem to be any real indication anywhere that the HRC is the best organization for this job, or that they have really anything in the way of experience or networks to effect real change abroad. In fact, once could argue that their belief that they do functions as a sort of litmus test: if you think you’re qualified to address all problems of violence and inequality for queers all over the globe, no matter how different they are or how disparate their root causes, it’s probably a sign that you aren’t. So if they aren’t going to be any good at it, why is the HRC interested in doing this work abroad at all?

As Scott Long pointed out, a quote from Paul Singer might hold a clue: “Some of the worst offenders in [the area of oppression of LGBT people] also happen to be the same regimes that have dedicated themselves to harming the United States and its democratic allies across the globe.” It’s convenient, then, for US homeland security and defense concerns that a US organization has reason to insert itself into another nation’s state of affairs. It also begins to look familiar: the pattern of showing up at another nation’s doorstep with an abundance of resources in tow and announcing that you’re going to save their beleaguered (and often implied to be “backwards”) people looks a lot like colonialism done in the name of saviorism, but with some serious perks in the form of imperialism. The fact that the HRC has a strong history of looking out for its own interests before those of the community and making decisions that affect many without asking for input and the fact that Loeb and Singer have both demonstrated a willingness to make their fortunes by capitalizing on inequity make it clear that this new project is likely going to benefit its organizers more than the people it’s ostensibly helping.

The HRC has proven an incredible ability to raise money for queer causes and to create narratives about gay lives and families that the mainstream can relate to. Unfortunately, they haven’t yet developed the ability to truly dialogue with or understand the diverse, intersectional communities that they want to represent, and therefore put their skills as an organization to meaningful use. Until the HRC can truthfully consider its crusading a success at home, maybe it should reconsider repeating its mistakes elsewhere — for many people around the world, the stakes are a lot higher than wedding bells.

Scientists Make Progress Engineering Artificial Blood In Lab; Sexy Vampires Imminent

On Monday, October 28. a team of researchers in Romania announced that they had created a new type of artificial blood that could one day be used in humans without negative side effects. By Thursday, hordes of sexy vampires worldwide had came “out of the coffin,” revealing their existence on the basis that they no longer need to feed on humans to survive.

…Okay, just kidding about the vampires. Probably. But the blood thing is true!

Created by researchers at the Babeş-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca, the artificial blood (not Tru Blood, but you can think about it that way if you want to) is made of water, salt, albumin and a special protein – hemerythrin – extracted from marine worms. This stress resistant protein is unique to the research and has been key in creating a stable product that can be used in transfusions. According to lead researcher Dr. Radu Silaghi-Dumitrescu, previous attempts at artificial blood have ended in failure because the blood has been unable to withstand mechanical and chemical stress, often creating toxic byproducts under real life conditions.

So far, the hemerythrin-based artificial blood has had very encouraging results in tests with laboratory mice. “Mice treated with this ‘Made in Cluj’ artificial blood did not experience any side effects, and this is precisely what we want, not to display signs of inflammation or disease,” said Silaghi-Dumitrescu. Although human testing is “a very delicate topic,” the team is committed to further exploration of the possibilities, with the ultimate goal of creating artificial blood that will be accepted by the human body in a state of shock (such as surgery). In time, they hope to create “instant blood,” a mixture of salts and protein that can easily be transported and which will turn into artificial blood when water is added.

The biggest hurdle for the team right now, Silaghi-Dumitrescu explained to Adevarul, is “administrative predictability.” Since the project’s start in 2007, he has found that even when funding is approved “on paper,” bureaucratic impediments can get in the way of actually purchasing equipment necessary to continue experiments. However, the team remains optimistic about the prospects. Silaghi-Dumitrescu estimates that it will take one to two more years of research with animals before they can move on to human trials, which would take another two to three years minimum. From there it would be passed to a manufacturer and undergo further testing before potentially going to market.

If everything goes as planned, Silaghi-Dumitrescu and his team would almost certainly be in the running for a Nobel. Today’s human blood donation system is plagued with supply chain issues, not to mention the persistent and sensitive questions regarding who is and is not allowed to donate. Gay people are often excluded, for reasons rooted in legitimate concern about the spread of HIV, but complicated by ignorance, homophobia and inefficient screening techniques. An artificial blood supply could remove many of these issues from the equation and ensure a steady supply of life-saving blood for humans and vampires alike.

(Again, just kidding about the vampires! …Probably.)

Paris Lees Debuts On BBC’s “Question Time” In A Skeleton Top, Is Awesome

Last night I braved BBC’s Question Time, an hour-long political debate show, to listen to what activist and journalist Paris Lees had to say over the humdrum squabbling of British politicians. PinkNews has identified Lees as QT’s “first transgender panelist”; however, Eddie Izzard, who does identify as trans*, previously appeared on the show in 2005.

Lees was joined by Jeremy Browne MP (Liberal Democrat), Matthew Hancock MP (Conservative), Chris Bryant MP (Labour) and Harriet Sergeant (author and Daily Mail journalist).

In arguing against the privatisation of probation services, Lees shared her story about having been in juvenile prison as a 16-year-old and the need for state resources to continue to support and rehabilitate youth in positions similar to hers. Lees also commented on recent press regulation debates and legislation from her perspective as both a journalist and an activist working for better representation of trans people in the media.

Browne MP: We have a fantastic thing in Britain, which is that we stand up against the over-mighty, we fight back against a hierarchy, and it’s that freedom that the press argues so passionately for.

Lees: The press ARE the hierarchy. We’re talking about 500 of the most elite, pampered, privileged, overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly male, overwhelmingly heterosexual old boys’ club that all went to Eton and Cambridge.

Other highlights of the night include Lees volunteering to take Jeremy Browne’s place should he ever step down to make way for a Labour Party actually led by working-class politicians, questioning why anyone’s work would be worth the millions currently on the paychecks of the chief executives of the Big Six gas suppliers, and of course, being dressed for Halloween.

Lees may have described herself as a “slag from a council estate that doesn’t know too much about anything,” but she held her own on the panel alongside seasoned politicians and then some. It was clear that she often carried the crowd’s favour, judging by their applause and the response on Twitter.

The BBC made a good call last night for trans visibility, but don’t worry – lest anyone think QT is getting too progressive for its boots, stay tuned for next week’s episode, in which they’ll be giving a platform to “not racist” UKIP leader Nigel Farage for the fifteenth time.

Also.Also.Also: Sally Kohn Gets The Heck Out of FOX and Other Stories We Missed This Week

I’m supposed to say something witty up here. Then we dive in to all the stories we missed this week! And look – a puppy!

More Doctors Should Be Talking About DV

76% of women have never been asked about domestic violence by a doctor. (Spoiler alert: more than 34% of women will survive domestic abuse.)

The Next Steve Jobs is Currently a 12-Year-Old Girl

Paloma Noyola Bueno is “the face of Mexico’s unleashed potential.”

In the Eyes of the Law

+ Leaders of the Maasai tribe are seeking royalties for pens named after them in the “Indigenous People’s Line” of the Italian pen-making company Delta. In other news, some people buy pens named after native tribes.

+ Native American tribes in Oklahoma are coming together to treat LGBT folks like average everyday humans, which is in and of itself an act of protest against the state. Telling.

+ Gender-neutral bathrooms are Philly’s first task as “the most LGBT friendly city in the nation.” (It’s on the rise. Or something.)

+ Varying perceptions of gender are partially responsible for the varying treatment of trans* folks in different environments and situations.

In the controversies we examined, it is access to bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams at the center of gender panics. Moreover, not all sex-segregated spaces are policed equally. Because of beliefs that women are inherently vulnerable, particularly to unwanted heterosexual advances, it is women’s spaces at the center of these debates. Thus, with these controversies, much of the discussion is about a fear of ‘male’ bodies in ‘women’s’ spaces.

All The Women Who Are Independent(ly Involved in Engineering) Throw Your Hands Up At Me

Trying to count female engineers might be the first step toward making sure more of them are to come.

F*ck the Police

Feministing has video of police targeting trans* folks with violence, but in Baltimore officials still think the problem is that LGBT folks need “guidance” on interacting with cops.

Pop Culture Roundup: Sally Kohn Overcomes, Eminem Still Sucks

+ Sally Kohn has left FOX for their liberal nemesis, MSNBC.

+ The Atlantic has warm fuzzies about bisexuality’s latest on TV.

+ …and Slate has the audacity to ask “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MEN?!1” about the same screen.

+ Women internalize rape myths through sexualizing and dehumanizing video games. It’s science.

+ Eminem still sucks, and ain’t nobody got time for that.

“Granted, it’s not directed towards the gay community, but subconsciously it is. He’s using the word f-ggot to degrade another man. As if the worst thing a man can be is gay. What type of message does that embed into the minds of young kids, both gay and straight?”

Soloman’s SolRay Records labelmate LastO, who is also openly gay, added: “He’s a lil’ too old to be using gay and f-g and sh– as an insult; playground s—.”

Misandry Crafts

Some days you hate men so much you need a cross-stitch just to say it right. And trust me – there’s an Etsy shop for that.

And because ladies, even the most riotous of ladies—after all, this generation’s interest in crafts started under the Riot Grrrl movement, where girls first embroidered “feminist” on pillows and formed knitting groups called “Stitch ’n Bitch”—like being girlish and tough, the misandry message has evolved in the form of arts and crafts. Check Etsy for the word misandry and you’ll find super-cute pom-pom knit hats with “misandry” emblazoned between rows of hearts. You’ll also find lavender and white heart-shaped misandry hair barrettes, a plastic misandry necklace and a misandry-adorned heart-shaped felt brooch with beads.

That’s not all. There’s artwork too, like this vintage photo of a woman gazing somewhere into the distance (maybe into the future of women’s suffrage?), encased in a sepia pink-hued heart.

Men who love to blame feminists for the end of men will, I’m sure, troll these Etsy sites until the end of time, whining along as they click, “Told ya so.” It’s one of the reasons misandry crafts are possibly a response to this sentiment: You think we hate you so much? Okay, you’re right. We’re wearing it on our sleeve now. Or around our neck. Or on our heads. Or as a pin.

You Should Go: Mix NYC

Let the gay reign over your eyeballs at the upcoming MIX NYC “Queer Experimental Film Festival.”

Cat Writing: It’s A Career

The 20th annual Cat Writer’s Conference starts on Halloween. It’s real. Like, really. Like, quit your job right now.

PinkNews Gives Award to Anti-Trans Politician, Only One Trans Judge on Award Panel

The inaugural PinkNews Politician of the Year award, announced on Wednesday, has attracted controversy as one of its recipients – Tina Stowell, a Conservative member of the House of Lords – has been called out for her anti-trans stance over the course of the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. The award was shared with Labour MP Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary.

Liberal Democrat politician Sarah Brown and activist Natacha Kennedy were among the first to point out Baroness Stowell’s staunch anti-trans defence of the “spousal veto” amendment in the equal marriage legislation.

https://twitter.com/auntysarah/status/393279957428076544

Does @Pinknews' honouring of Stowell mean they now endorse the #spousalveto for trans people? If so #equalmarriage is not equal marriage.

— Dr Natacha Kennedy (@natachakennedy) October 24, 2013

Under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, trans people require the permission of their spouses to obtain a full Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) that allows the holder to change their gender on official documents. What their spouse is agreeing to is the conversion of their “heterosexual” marriage into a “homosexual” one, codifying a distinction between the two in spite of the popularity of the phrase “equal marriage.” Without it, they can only obtain an interim GRC unless they divorce their spouse

Placing the legal rights of trans people in the hands of their spouses has deeply damaging consequences. According to the 2013 survey “Spouse Reactions to Transsexuality” by Zoë Kirk-Robinson, commissioned by T-Vox.org, only 49% of trans people who came out to their partner or spouse received positive responses in the long term. Only 46% of those with children are allowed to see them upon divorce or separation, and 26% of respondents stated that a spouse has made a divorce difficult, while 44% of partners or spouses have actively attempted to prevent their partner from transitioning.

This event is not without precedent: in 2008, Stonewall gave its Journalist of the Year award to Julie Bindel, in spite of her infamous transphobic 2004 article “Gender benders, beware” for The Guardian. While Bindel has apologised for that article, she has published yet more damaging pieces since and has been making transphobic remarks up to just a few months ago. However, unlike Stonewall, an LGB charity which has always excluded trans people – if not steamrolled over their interests altogether – PinkNews does address the trans community in its aim to be the “premier LGBT news outlet in the UK and beyond.”

The Politician of the Year honour was one of two judged awards, the other being Business Network of the Year. The remainder of the awards (Community Group of the Year, Advertising Campaign of the Year and Parliamentary Speech of the Year) were voted on by readers.

Here is the list of the judges for the Politician of the Year award:

• Iain Dale, Presenter LBC
• Mike Freer, MP for Finchley and Golders Green
• Tom Copely, London Assembly Member (Labour London wide)
• Baroness Olly Grender
• Anna Doble, Head of Online, Channel 4
• Paris Lees, Columnist GT (Gay Times), Diva and the Independent
• Simon Topham, Managing Director GT and Diva
• Donna Halkyard, Head of Diversity, BAE Systems (Business network award)
• Tom French, the Scottish Equality Network
• Corinne Pinfold, former reporter, PinkNews, policy officer, School Leader Support Service

Of the panel of 10, only one (Paris Lees) is a trans woman, which PinkNews mentioned in defence of the outcome.

@auntysarah jointly with @YvetteCooperMP. And picked by an independent panel of judges

— PinkNews (@PinkNews) October 24, 2013

@annajayne @auntysarah @YvetteCooperMP one, @ParisLees. We also had straight allies on it too!

— PinkNews (@PinkNews) October 24, 2013

PinkNews has yet to make any further comment on the matter. Lees has apologised for what she calls her “ignorant mistake.”

https://twitter.com/ParisLees/status/393293510838714368
https://twitter.com/ParisLees/status/393293841320538112
https://twitter.com/ParisLees/status/393296215145590785

It seems this decision arose out of oversight rather than malice, and it is, of course, unfair to place the blame squarely on Paris Lees. The judging process highlights the difficulty of appreciating the nuances of what support for the same-sex marriage legislation really means: unless you were following the passage of the Bill closely, you would see little cause to question Baroness Stowell’s advocacy of it.

This does not, however, let PinkNews off the hook. Having only one trans person on the panel of judges, especially one that had multiple straight allies, placed an unfair amount of pressure on one individual to represent a core part of the LGBT community. Furthermore, as Lees acknowledged, she isn’t “terribly political.” In a vote for a political award in the same year that a significant piece of LGBT legislation passed, one which had different consequences for different groups under the LGBT banner, it is puzzling why PinkNews did not select someone who did follow the passage of said Bill closely.

In response to this, activist Zoe O’Connell is accepting nominations for an alternative Politician of the Year award, recognising those who have championed the rights of trans people.

The rules are simple. Nominations are open for any politician elected to public office, who people feel have made a positive difference to the lives of trans people, covering the whole period of the equal marriage consultation and subsequent legislation. Initially, nominations were to be restricted to allies only as otherwise it could end up being divisive, but after discussion on twitter nominations will be allowed for anyone. Unless someone else feels like coming out, this is a very short list.

Nominations will be open until 5pm on Friday, 1st November and can be made by commenting [on her post], via twitter (@zoeimogen) or EMail (zoe@complicity.co.uk). Nominations may be anonymous – please indicate if this is the case – and you may nominate more than one person. “Trans” in this context is as people self-identify.

Shortly after nominations close, the final result will be decided by public vote.

Also.Also.Also: Ramming Lesbian Girl Scout Cookies Down Your Throat and Other Stories We Missed This Week

Hello, beautiful! It’s a SUNSHINE DAY! (DeAnne, are you surprised?)

Here’s the stories we missed while I was working for the weekend.

For The Cause: The Good, the Bad, the Reactionary

+ The ladies of Xelle are raising a red flag for LGBT equality, and it sounds pretty damn good.

+ Really pathetic Internet trolls are upset that professional sports teams were part of #SpiritDay last week and stood united against anti-LGBT bullying. But (surprise!) nobody really cared, and they remained on the right side of history.

+ Montenegro’s first-ever pride parade was met with violence.

+ Sigourney Weaver really, really loves you.

+ Fuck Emily Yoffe. And go go Amanda Hess!

This Week’s Unanimous “Fuck Y’all” Is Directed At PJI

Since the Pacific Justice Institute thinks allowing trans* folks to use their preferred bathrooms is equivalent to “harassment,” they should probably look into learning the definition of harassment. They’re currently organizing with parents in Colorado against a high-school student who has been out as trans* for two years and fears for harassment because she wants to use the girls’ room, because that’s a GREAT USE OF TIME.

Thank Alanis that her mom is speaking out to support her:

My daughter was the one who learned about the Pacific Justice Institute. She saw it online. She was upset. It made her panic. She saw where their story had become international news and she saw what people were saying. It gave her anxiety attacks. She was upset about the whole thing. She kept asking me how people could do that to her. She saw all this negative stuff about her and she can’t understand how they could say those things when they don’t even know who she is as a person. They don’t know what this does to a kid…

What you’re doing isn’t right. You say that you’re a God-loving people but you’ve targeted my daughter – a kid – like this. You shouldn’t do this to any kid. You should be ashamed. You’re wrong for what you’ve done to my daughter.

I’ll Drink to That

Meredith and her kick-ass Autostraddle column were featured in Beer Advocate! Turns out lots of people find women and beer to be an excellent combination.

Oh Na Na, What’s Your Name

Depending on the year you were born and the specific region of the United States in which you were located at that time, I probably already have a good idea. But we can check with Drake just in case, because I hear you’re good with them soft lips. (What the fuck does that even mean?!)

Ramming Gay Marriage Down The Throat of Homophobes Forever

+ Linda Oliver, Mayor of West Union, South Carolina, thinks us queers are “ramming” gay marriage down her throat. There’s an obvious punch line here but I’m way too kind to do that. I’m a journalist. Plus, nobody else likes her anyway so I guess she’ll go and eat worms.

+ Meanwhile, in North Carolina, the good deeds of a rogue county clerk are bringing local lesbians together for life. In matrimony, I mean.

+ Gay couples in Tennessee are gonna FIGHT! FOR THEIR RIGHT! TO A MARRIAGE PAAAAAARTAY.

I’m So Glad I Was A Girl Scout

If Girl Scout cookies are made with lesbianism, then I’m clearly not buying enough. Should we be sacrificing them to Lesbian Jesus at Camp after all? I was just busy eating them in bed while I counted pennies toward my abortion fund piggy bank, but I can be there in five minutes if you need me.

Religious Right activists have long campaigned against the Girl Scouts of the USA, and pastors Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner of Generations Radio have now joined in by urging listeners not to purchase Girl Scout cookies.

“Please, I beg of you, do not buy Girl Scout cookies,” Swanson said. “Please, I beg of you, stop buying Girl Scout cookies.”

But if they do, he said, they should “take a big, fat, black magic marker” and “start marking out all of the references to the Girl Scouts of America on all the boxes.” Swanson warned that the “wicked” Girl Scouts are promoting “lesbianism” and abortion, calling the cookies “food offered to idols.”

You Better Werq, Bitch

+ Don’t miss it: Our own Autostraddle writer Vivian Underhill, mastermind behind Queered Science, was featured on Bitch:

“In the early 90s at Princeton, there were only a handful of students who were out as LGB people,” says Dr. Donna Riley, who helped found the first engineering program at a U.S. women’s college (the Picker Engineering Program at Smith) and is openly bisexual. “We were mostly just met with silence. We knew to compartmentalize, and we knew when and where it was safe to be out—and that was definitely not in the engineering building.”

+ Elliot Sailers, a former Ford model, is making waves with a gender-bending new ‘do and a mission to make it in mens’ modeling.

Caitlin Oliver Pretty Much Pwned Everyone, And Other Queer Victories

+ Caitlin Oliver of Chicago set a new arcade game world record this week. It’s been reported that, in return, every bro on the globe accepted some ice for their burns.

+ In Eagle Pass, Texas, Eileen Hernandez (“I am actually a lesbian. I really am.”) and Jennifer Mijares (her straight friend) were elected Homecoming Queen & Queen. I have so many positive emotions about this that it’s actually crazy.

“If one person would try bringing us down, so many others would say no, keep your head up, what you guys are doing is awesome,” Hernandez says. So they kept those heads up and by Friday night, both girls were wearing crowns. “We’re just smiling like crazy,” Hernandez says. “Tears fell down our face.” “We were excited. We won. We won first place,” Mijares says. “And we made a difference,” Hernandez says.

You Should Go (And Give) (Unto Others) (That’s What She Said)

+ If you’re free Monday at 6:30 PM and you live in / around / near New York City, you should probably come on down to the Sallie Bingham Center’s discussion “about the political significance of documenting women’s lives and the importance of informing one’s activism with a historical perspective.” I’m in now way, shape, or form biased due to my own involvement in said discussion, which will also involve Jaclyn Friedman, Ellie Smeal, and Merle Hoffman. But if you like my face, that’s another good reason to show up, too. Whatever brings you to the table.

+ If you’re able to hit up La Casa Azul in Coyoacan before February 2014 you should check out Frida Kahlo’s dress collection. But if not, there’s a gallery for that.

+ I really, really, really want you to support Creeps.

Creeps is a movie that follows the highs and lows of Mona and Freddy, two best friends who decide to quit drinking and doing drugs for a week so they can have great skin for a party. Mona has recently found out that her ex-girlfriend has become a successful artist and is having a big art opening in a weeks’ time. Of course they MUST attend, look fabulous and have the sexiest arm candy in sight. They sadly agree that the only real way to accomplish this is to form a pact: 7 days of sobriety. By the time they make it to the opening, they aren’t speaking, they’ve barely slept, and disaster ensues.

The Weed Fairy Comes In Broad Daylight For No Reason

It wasn’t me. Promise.

Survey Says: Gay is Okay in the UK, Will Probably Continue to Be

The 2013 British Social Attitudes survey (BSA30) found that almost half (46.7%) of respondents believed “sexual relations between two adults of the same sex” to be “not wrong at all,” compared to a fifth (22%) who said it was “always wrong.” The BSA30 report and news headlines highlighted the drastic change in public opinion since the survey was first conducted 30 years ago, when the proportions were roughly reversed: half the public (50%) said it was “always wrong” and a fifth (17%) answered “not wrong at all.”

The survey is conducted annually by NatCen Social Research, an independent not-for-profit organisation, and engages a representative sample of 3,000 people. Since 1983, the BSA has been measuring and tracking changes in people’s social, political and moral attitudes.

Anti-gay public opinion peaked in 1987, when nearly two-thirds (64%) believed same-sex sexual activity to be “always wrong” when only a tenth (11%) said it was “not wrong at all.” The 80’s were marked by the HIV/AIDS crisis, which turned public sentiment hostile particularly to gay and bisexual men, and the introduction of Section 28 under the Thatcher administration.

The 90’s, on the other hand, saw anti-gay sentiment on the decline again alongside medical advances in the treatment and understanding of HIV/AIDS as well as a rise in LGBT activism in the UK.

To roughly compare trends in public opinion to those in government policy, here’s a quick summary of key legislation concerning LGB rights in England and Wales:

• 1967 Sexual Offences Act: decriminalisation of male homosexual acts
• 1988 Local Government Act (Section 28): prohibition of promotion of homosexuality by legal authorities and schools
• 2000 Sexual Offences Act: equalisation of age of consent at 16 + legal recognition of female homosexual acts
• 2002 Adoption and Children Act: equal access to adoption for all individuals and couples (marriage no longer required)
• 2003 Local Government Act: repeal of Section 28
• 2004 Civil Partnership Act: legal recognition of same-sex relationships
• 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: equal access to IVF and assisted/self-insemination for all individuals and couples + recognition of both parents in same-sex relationships on birth certificates; later equal access to surrogacy for all individuals and couples in 2010
• 2010 Equality Act: codification of anti-discrimination laws and protections on the basis of sexual orientation
• 2013 Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act: legal recognition of same-sex marriages

(N.B. Bills do not immediately come into effect upon passing both Houses and receiving Royal Assent: same-sex marriages, for example, will only begin in mid-2014. Scotland and Northern Ireland are governed separately, with Scotland’s legislation on these issues more closely mirroring those of England and Wales.)

Despite same-sex adoption being on the books for a decade now, BSA30 found that public opinion is still divided on this: 48.2% agreed that “homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt a baby under the same conditions as other couples” while 44.6% disagreed.

Survey respondents were similarly divided on same-sex parenting more broadly: 44.4% agreed that a “same sex female couple can bring up a child as well as a male-female couple” while 34.8% disagreed. The figures for same sex male couples were 42.5% and 39.2% respectively.

With regard to same-sex marriage, which was legalised only very recently, over half (56.5%) agreed that “gay or lesbian couples should have the right to marry one another if they want to,” twice as many as the number of people (22.8%) who disagreed.

Other survey results were distinctly less controversial: 90.2% agreed that it was “acceptable for a homosexual person to hold a respectable position in public life,” and most respondents were okay with gay people being teachers in colleges or universities (86.2%) and schools (82.6%).

The BSA30 report also studied how opinion varies among different groups and over time. It noted that attitudes towards homosexuality were influenced by age group (“each successive generation has more liberal views than the one before”), education level (graduates being the most tolerant and those without any qualifications the least), party identification (Conservatives being the most, well, conservative) and religion.

Not surprisingly, religious belief is closely linked to attitudes to homosexuality. Those who aren’t religious are the least likely to see it as always or mostly wrong, only 16 per cent do so. This compares to disapproval rates of over a third among Anglicans (40 per cent) and Catholics (35 per cent). The highest disapproval of all is found among non-Christians, six in ten (61 per cent) of whom see homosexuality as always or mostly wrong (although these figures need to be treated with caution due to the small sample sizes involved).

Across all groups, regardless of demographic or ideological differences, acceptance is on the rise. Nonetheless, the rise in anti-gay sentiment from the early to late 80’s followed by its decline till today – all tracked by this survey – highlights the difficulty in predicting social trends and the dangers of assuming that homophobia is straightforwardly on the decline. Public opinion both influences and is influenced by government policy, and can be waylaid in unpredictable ways by events like the HIV/AIDS crisis.

With these caveats in mind, the present and future are looking fairly optimistic for LGB people in the UK. The BSA30 report concludes that “the patterns […] described here do point fairly clearly towards the liberalisation we have already seen continuing over the next few decades.” See its website for the full list of questions, topical report on homosexuality or a newly launched interactive data tool which compares results from 1983 to 2013.

Times A-Changing: Even the Church of England Thinks This Ridiculous Homophobic Vicar Is Wrong

Featured image via Portsmouth News/Solent News

When Aimi and Victoria Leggett walked into St. Mary’s Church in Warsash, Hampshire, they were expecting to be able to have their one-year-old son baptized into the Church of England at the same church where Aimi was. However, after the vicar who was supposed to preside over the ceremony started questioning them and refused to let both women be listed as the mother on the church baptism register, they left the church feeling dejected and insulted. They were told that the forms only had one space marked “mother” and that the other would have to be listed as the Godmother on the form.

Reverend George Gebauer is retired, but has been acting as one of the officiants at the church while St. Mary’s searches for a new vicar. The couple had originally set up the baptism with Reverend Andy Norris, the church’s previous vicar, but he has since left the parish. When they met with Gebauer to set things up, he told them that he “was unable to do this because the church baptism register only has space for one mother and one father” and that he believes “it would be illegal” to register them both as the mother. This is despite the fact that the two women have been in a civil partnership since October, 2011 and that Victoria has received the same parental rights as Aimi, the biological mother, in court, things that would have been easily found out if Gebauer had simply asked. He went on to say that “They will find themselves in the same situation if they go to another vicar or church,” even though they previously had done exactly that with the church’s old vicar and he had no problem with the idea of listing them both as mothers.

According to Aimi Leggett, Gebauer talked to the couple about how no child could have same-sex parents and questioned them about why they even wanted to have the child baptized into the church for ten or fifteen minutes. The Leggetts wanted to baptize their son, Alfie, at St. Mary’s because that is where Aimi was baptized and where her parents were married and they say that they want to bring up their child the same way they were brought up. Rev. Gebauer, however, said he would not perform the ceremony unless Victoria would agree to be listed on the forms as the Godmother instead of one of the mothers. After this, the Leggetts stormed out of the church and started looking at St. Peter’s Church in Titchfield as a possible alternative sight to have their son baptized.

Gebauer denies the couple’s claims that this was case of discrimination, maintaining that as far as he knew, it was a legal issue. According to him, it was simply a case of the church’s documents not having space to list two mothers on it. And even though laws regarding same-sex parental rights in England have changed over the years, the reverend believes that registries and forms can’t be changed to keep up with the new laws. He also claims the two women didn’t even say that they were a couple, although it seems like that would have been made clear when the two women shared a last name, talked about how Alfie was both of their sons and both wanted to be listed as the boy’s mother. Still, Gebauer insists that it had absolutely nothing to do with their sexuality and that he did all that he could to help them. Despite all the powers he has a vicar, he is powerless against the forms that have one spot for “mother” and one spot for “father.” There’s no way that can be changed to list two women who both have legal parenthood as being the two mothers of a single child.

While he started off only making arguments about the practicality of the dispute, that it was the registry’s fault and not his, the reverend soon showed just what he really thinks about the couple and gay and lesbian people in general. He called the couple selfish for demanding to be treated equally to a heterosexual couple in that they both be listed as mothers, saying that “they only think of themselves it seems.” He also claimed he was acting in the best interests of the child. He had to make sure nothing fishy was happening and he insinuated that they may not be the real parents when he said “We can only make sure the child is theirs. For all we know it they may have pinched the child.” Gebauer topped it all off by adding that he believes that gay and lesbian people have something fundamentally wrong with them.

I feel sorry for gay and lesbian people. We know there is something not right with their make-up. They produce too much hormone – they’re imbalanced. That’s the way they are. It’s a medical issue.

So clearly, his refusal to help the couple wasn’t because he has something against lesbians. The obvious problem is that it would have been too difficult to find out if both women had parental rights.

Thankfully, the higher-ups in the church know a secret backdoor channel to find out who has legal rights to be called a mother. After hearing about the trouble that Gebauer was causing, the Venerable Gavin Collins, one of the archdeacons of the Portsmouth diocese, used the revolutionary idea of talking to the parents and was able to quickly clear the situation up. Collins said that there would be no problem at all and that Victoria “has full legal co-parental responsibility for Alfie. We can therefore enter their details onto the baptism register as ‘mother’ and ‘mother,’ as they would like.” Thankfully, there is something of a happy ending for the Leggett family and the baptism is back on schedule to happen at St. Mary’s. Also thankfully, Gebauer will not be there to officiate. Although the Leggetts are happy that they will be able to baptize their son, the experience has understandably left a bad taste in their mouths and they are excited to be able to move on. To top it all off, based on the ease that this problem was fixed, it could have easily been avoided. If Gebauer had only talked to the couple and asked if they both had parental rights like the archdeacon did, this could have been solved in about two minutes. Instead, he assumed that they couldn’t possibly both be actual mothers to the child. It was this assumption, probably aided by Gebauer’s archaic notions about gay and lesbian people, that led to the Leggetts being mistreated and denied the same services that heterosexual couples get and that the Leggetts have every right to receive.

This conflict shows the growing generational divide between leaders in the Church of England. Similar to the growing number of Christians in America who support marriage and other rights for gay people, churchgoers in the UK are starting to differ from the church traditions they grew up with. The Church of England has for a long time been strongly opposed to LGBTQ rights, but they have slowly been changing that stance. In 1998, they passed a resolution where they rejected “homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture” but also said that they should listen and be sensitive to the queer community. A recent poll showed that 44% of Anglicans support gay marriage while 43% are opposed. It’s not only the congregations that are supporting gay rights, though. When a gay marriage bill was being argued in Parliament, the Church made the decision to try to strengthen the bill, and especially parental rights for queer couples. While they still do not support same-sex marriage, the Church of England decided that the law’s passage was inevitable and according to the Rt Rev Tim Stevens, they should “join with other members in the task of considering how this legislation can be put into better shape.” One of the major ways they decided to do that was to fight to change a provision that said when a woman in a same-sex marriage has a baby, her spouse wouldn’t be classified as the child’s parent.

Unlike Gebauer, some parts of the Church seem to be trying to reach out to queer parents. In its most recent job description for a new bishop, the Manchester Diocese included a “requirement to foster better links with the city’s lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender communities.” While they may not be 100% on board with gay rights, it does seem like they are evolving their position and are willing to help the queer community in some instances. If Gebauer had only talked to the couple and asked if they both had parental rights like his superior did, this whole problem could have been solved in about two minutes. Instead, he assumed that they couldn’t possibly both be actual mothers to the child. It was this assumption, probably aided by Gebauer’s archaic notions about gay and lesbian people, that led to the Leggetts being mistreated and denied the same services that heterosexual couples get and that the Leggetts have every right to receive. What’s interesting about Gebauer’s actions are that they aren’t only out of step with most of the world, but with the culture of his own religious community. While we may be used to cringing at stories like the Leggetts’ because they’re so familiar, it seems like we’re finally reaching a time where we can roll our eyes and laugh at them for their backwardness — because increasingly often, the rest of the Church is too.