EU Wants To Fix Gender Inequality… By Banning Porn?

feature image via Shutterstock

The European Parliament is set to vote March 12th on a proposal that seeks to ban all forms of  “pornography” from “the media” without really specifying to which pornography or media they’re referring. The proposal is being put forth by Kartika Liotard and comes under the heading “on eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU.” Here are a just a few of the things that this report states:

14. Points out that a policy to eliminate stereotypes in the media will of necessity involve action in the digital field; considers that this requires the launching of initiatives coordinated at EU level with a view to developing a genuine culture of equality on the internet; calls on the Commission to draw up in partnership with the parties concerned a charter to which all internet operators will be invited to adhere;

17. Calls on the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising, which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism.

19. Calls on the Member States to establish independent regulation bodies with the aim of controlling the media and advertising industry and a mandate to impose effective sanctions on companies and individuals promoting the sexualisation of girls;

This resolution isn’t legislation and it can’t be legislation, but the report may influence legislation in the 27 member countries. This proposal is being vocally opposed by a Swedish MEP from the Pirate Party, Christian Engström. He is worried, and rightfully so, that pornography is in the eye of the beholder and that this could potentitially mean nudy pics that you take of yourself and consensually send to other adult humans. He has called this proposal “an attempt to circumvent the article on information freedom in the European Convention of Human Rights.” This proposal could also lead to Internet Service Providers policing their customers for porn watching. And because the language is so vague, sexual content on social media networks like Twitter could eventually be under fire. Let’s face it, we know that half of tumblr could be classified as porn if you adopt a very strict interpretation.

Kartika Liotard by Oliver Hansen

There are many, many reasons why this report/proposal/bullshit is a steaming load of terrible, heaped with a side of awful. Here’s a few of them.

There’s A Scummy Side To Every Industry Ever In The History of the World

Okay, show of virtual hands: how many people have seen a mainstream television show in the past year that sexualized girls, that treated men and women unequally or reinforced gender stereotypes? Oh, that’s all of us? So clearly the answer is to ban all television shows from the air, right? NOTHING GOOD CAN COME FROM THESE HOTBEDS OF PREJUDICE!

Of course that’s not the answer. Any sane person would argue for greater representation in the medium, for female directors, writers and actors. The same can be said for porn.

Annie Sprinkle is quoted as having said “The answer to bad porn is not no porn. It’s to make better porn!” Jiz Lee added to this quote in Autostraddle’s Quest for Awesome Queer Feminist Porn: “I’d prefer that the answer is actually to make MORE porn.” With more porn comes more representation and the opportunity to break down sexual tropes and gender stereotypes. Every industry has people are are sexist shit muffins that make crappy products/shows/art/statements that are offensive, objectifying etc. I feel like it’s on us to create the revolutions we want to see, not to eliminate the industry all together, because that would leave us banning pretty much everything. Then we are three steps closer to Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale (remember? The slippery slope started with burning porn in the park!), and that shit gives me the willies. It’s on us to be educated consumers and, in some cases, educated creators. If we don’t like what we see, why not make something different? Or give our money to the people making something different? In short, if the EU wants to solve the problems created by porn, they should be issuing a proposal calling for more of it.

Say it with me now: porn is not inherently bad or violent or sexist or unethical just because SOME porn is bad, violent, sexist and unethical.

Christian Engström, via his website

Sex Panic!

Everyone panic! The sex is going to corrupt women! We are delicate flowers with no agency and we’ve never sullied our virginal eyes with the sexy times before. Also the makers of porn violate women’s rights by exploiting them as performers! Also also, porn targets the children! We, the proponents of porn, are seeking to rip childhood away from the innocent and indoctrinate them into a world of lust and leather.

Nope, sorry. Not true. Sex is something that most people in most cultures engage in, regardless of gender. Not all porn is exploitative of its performers, though some of it is (see the above heading, and note that many industries the EU is not seeking to ban also exploit their workers). And all reputable porn sites begin your journey with a warning. On my sex blog, if you click the link that says you’re a minor and not legally permitted to view porn, you get pictures of kittens. No one’s trying to reach the children here, at least not the legal, sane people of the internet.

However, Iceland Interior Minister Ogmundur Jonasson is writing actual legislation (not just a proposal) that would attempt a ban on internet pornography in his own country, legislation that’s founded in the same worldview as the European Parliament’s proposal. The reasons that he and his political advisor, Halla Gunnarsdottir, are using:

“It is anti-violence because young children are seeing porn and acting it out. That is where we draw the line. This material is blurring the boundaries for young people about what is right and wrong.” – Halla Gunnarsdottir

“It is looking a pornography from a new position – from the perspective of the harm it does to the women who appear in it and as a violation of their civil rights.” – Professor Gail Dines, an expert on pornography and speaker at a recent conference at Reykjavik University

Because apparently Icelandic parents shouldn’t be responsible for the kinds of content their children have access to. No way. And women have no agency when they appear in porn. And people who engage in violence are programmed by porn, not by the wider culture.  Gizmodo hit the nail on the head when they said “Now, by banning access to internet porn, Iceland will join countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other temples of democracy widely known to protect women’s and children’s rights.”

The panic over sexual content controlling our mindbrains and violating women’s rights makes unfair assumptions about all humans, regardless of gender. Dr. Brooke Magnanti (Belle de Jour) has a lovely take down on the Telegraph in which she makes the following point:

As per ever, the focus of the panic is mainstream, heterosexual porn being viewed only by men. Yet again the assumption is that all men are easily programmed, woman-hating abusers, and all women are meek sub-adults who must be protected from the clutches of sexy, sexy evil. In this worldview, gay people, mutual consent, and women’s sexual agency conveniently do not exist. If you think this represents all or even most of pornography then you need to get out more. Where by “out” I mean “the internet”.

I am sick of sex panic. I am sick of sex panic turning into laws. Almost every person engages in sex at some point in their lives. Errbody gonna have to get over it.

Iceland Interior Minister Ogmundur Jonasson via Everything PR

This Is A Giant Cop Out, How About We Actually Make The World Better?

All of the above points make me furious, but none so much as the title of the proposal itself. “On Eliminating Gender Stereotypes in the EU.” Wouldn’t it be super, super convenient if eliminating porn eliminated all the damage done to women by centuries upon centuries of the patriarchy? But no, that’s not how it works. This, however, presents a nice little package all tied up with a nice little bow. No more porn, no more problem. Never mind that women in Europe still earn less than men. Or that historically, the unemployment rates have been higher for women than men (though right now, it’s pretty bad for everyone). Or! That men still outnumber women in decision making positions throughout the EU (a whopping 3% of board chairpersons). Or Hungary not having a single women’s shelter in a country of  10 million people. Or abortion’s illegality in Ireland. Or victim blaming during rape trials in the strip-club-less zone of Iceland. These are all fixable problems that might actually go a long way toward making men and women more equal. Things like this have been in play long before the boom of the porn industry and, if we focus on blustery bullshit non-problems, will still be in play long after we’re done censoring the hell out of sex. Many of these problems are also addressed in the proposal, some with real suggestions for tackling the problems! But the kind of sex negativity and censorship exhibited in the above quoted statements makes me question the authenticity. Kinda like when American Republicans toss abortion restrictions into budgets and tax law.

At the very least and kindest, it makes me question if the authors of this proposal have lived on this planet and have a basic understanding of human interactions.

I also think we, as humans who are trying to figure out how to govern ourselves, have this backwards. If we’re talking the violent, sexist porn and not just all porn in general, I don’t think it’s a cause of a greater problem of inequality between men and women. I think it’s a symptom of it. It’s an effect. In an open letter by 40 free speech activists encouraging Icelandic Interior Minister Ogmundur Jonasson to drop the Iceland-specific legislation, “the Internet is not the source of violence, it is merely a medium by which violence is made apparent.” Just because violence is now visible doesn’t mean it was never there. Looking in a mirror of society and seeing that violence is unpleasant, but getting rid of the mirror doesn’t get rid of the ugly problem. If society were to change a little bit (or a lot), mainstream porn might look a little more like Dr. Magnanti points out it does in San Francisco:

Rather, the forms that sexual entertainment takes are a result of gender stereotypes rather than their cause. In sex-positive, queer-friendly San Francisco, porn looks a lot like society there. In image-obsessed, results-orientated mainstream media, porn looks a lot more plastic and uninviting to everyone but straight cis men.

This is just sex panic. It’s sex negative and sets a precent for censorship. It’s also not going to help. The inclusion of a porn ban has all but guaranteed that the rest of the proposal — the parts with meaningful things — will now be called into question and will receive bad press due to these small sections. Even though this isn’t legislative and, even if passed, likely won’t lead to much, it’s still a distraction from real discussion. Let’s keep our porn and actually try to improve the world, shall we? Or even use porn to improve the world

Québec Government Wants to Know What Your Deal Is With Homosexuality

When it comes to applauding global gay rights, Canada is always on the podium, winning an award without even trying. Ever since we started performing gay marriages almost a decade ago, queer couples from far and wide have been tying the knot at a steadily increasing rate. We’re at the point where we’re creating museums to recognize how much this simple act has changed the Canadian landscape. In Québec, gay adoptions are being seen the new normal. But gay marriage and children aren’t the be-all end-all. There are other pressing issues like tolerance and, more importantly, acceptance to worry about. Even with protections in place, some laws still can’t dissuade some people from being bigots.

A recent survey of 800 Québecers showed that even though 90% had no issue with gay marriage, 40% were uncomfortable seeing Real Life Homosexuals. While government agencies could simply applaud the acceptance rate, Québec leaders focused on making homosexuality more palatable for the public. Though they couldn’t put kissing lesbians on every street corner, they did find a way to let people see PDGay for themselves.

Does that change what you thought 20 seconds ago? Fight Homophobia

Starting in 2011, Justice Québec drafted the Government action plan against homophobia to figure out how to combat the H word. Amid the 40 recommendations, it focused on four major issues: establishing an office to fight homophobia, creating a university research chair position, increasing financial support for community LGBT organizations and raising awareness of homophobia and sexual discrimination around the province. They met two goals in 2011 by establishing the Bureau de lutte contre l’homophobie and appointing Université du Québec à Montréal’s Dr. Line Chamberland as the research chair under a $475,000 five year grant. Between 2011 and 2012, the government spent $590,000 funding crisis help centers, pride celebrations, as well as school and community outreach programs. Now it’s time to make it a home run.

Justice Minister Bertrand St-Arnaud, the minister in charge of the fight against homophobia made a press release on Sunday.

Québec is being recognized internationally for its respect of fundamental rights and freedoms, regardless of individuals’ sexual orientation or sexual identity. However, there’s still a long way to go before social equality is on par with social equality.

…

It is crucial to fight all forms of homophobia. Every individual has the right to grow and participate fully in all aspects of society, regardless of the sexual orientation or sexual identity. Let’s therefore all set ourselves the collective challenge of making Québec a nation proud to fight all forms of homophobia.

In the release he announced a new ad campaign that will run from March 3rd to the 31st, asking people to self reflect on their own prejudices. In two commercials airing on French television networks, a man seeks his partner at the airport and a woman walks in on her surprise party. Both actors show a glimmer of recognition in their eyes as they pause before a man and a woman, giving the viewer a moment to wonder which person they’re smiling at. In the English radio ad, the listener eavesdrops on a couple’s evening plans.

(SIGHS) Honey, do we have to go to your parents’ place for dinner tonight? I mean… your dad’s just gonna to take me upstairs and show me some new stamp he bought for his collection…right… and besides we were just there like… what… 4 days ago?

(SMILING) Nice try! That was 2 weeks ago. Now get your coat.

Two weeks?

Yep!

The viewer soon realizes that none of these pairings represent heterosexual couples, leaving the announcer to ask, “Does this change what you thought a few seconds ago?”

The ad campaign relies on simple scenarios and self-reflection instead of hard-nosed tactics trying to shame the viewer into coming around. Although Montréal has the second highest population of gays in Canada, the island only represents 45% of Québec’s population. While it’s easy for us to say that anti-homosexual viewpoints are wrong, sometimes it’s a simple case of ignorance instead of venomous bigotry. In a province often divided by language, economics and geography, it can be challenging for people to access the education they don’t even realize they want.

Bureau de lutte contre l’homophobie heeded both calls by creating Lutte Homophobie and Fight Homophobia as complementary websites to service both populations. A quiz surveys how open-minded viewers are by putting them into different scenarios where they might be confronted with the face of LGBT. Would it matter if your child’s schoolmate had two mothers? What if your coworker hadn’t always been a woman? What do you think when you see two men in a bus shelter sharing a bench and a kiss?

This doctor has always been bisexual. via Fight Homophobia.

For people that realize they’ve been going about their lives in a misguided way and seek change, the site’s information and resource pages let people know what they can do to make a difference. From trying to destigmatize bisexuality and the inclusion of trans* in the DSM to recognizing that POC might not identify with a predominantly white LGBT community, the site offers insight and outreach for people living throughout Québec. Instead of asking “Why were you so wrong?” it asks, “Where can we go from here?”

As we’ve all unfortunately seen, people don’t react well when you call them out on their shit. The sites simply remind everyone that gay people are around, and (in an infinitely more polite way than I could ever say) they had better fucking deal with it. This year the campaign works on visibility and next year they’ll tackle the more controversial issues of same-sex parenting and overall acceptance. Even though giant displays of PDA, gay or otherwise, will probably never be welcomed, a few more couples should feel free to hold hands or give each other a peck without being asked to leave. Because really, discrimination should be the only thing that bothers you.

Don’t Let London Rain on Your Pride Parade or Potential Lack Thereof

Even with four months to go before London flies their rainbow bunting, storm clouds are already predicted for the parade route. London LGBT + Community Pride, the official organizers that took the reins last October, released a statement after their meeting on Tuesday. Instead of an invigorating press release telling Londoners of the fabulous, glittery splendor that lies ahead of them for the 40th anniversary of the first national conference for LGBT equality. Chairman Michael Salter hinted that Pride may be a little bit boring this year. AKA there may not be a London Pride this year.

Via London24

With such a short lead time this year we need the community and its supporters to really get behind Pride – to show the spirit that we saw last year when record numbers of people took part in the parade in reaction to the threat to Pride’s survival.

Although we are confident in our planning it is true that if we are unable to secure the funding and volunteers that we need to deliver a safe Pride – one that showcases the best of our community – we may have to cancel the event for 2013.

A statement on their website reveals how strained their organization is.

If it seems by the end of April that we are not on course to secure the necessary funding or volunteers then we will have to consider scaling back or cancelling the event.

The London LGBT + Community Pride doesn’t know if they can pull this party off and their worry is not without precedent. Plenty of Londoners still have the bitter taste of disappointment in their mouths after last year’s WorldPride fiasco. It was supposed to be an opportunity for LGBT Brits to share the international spotlight with the Olympics, Paralympics and Diamond Jubilee but instead, it devolved into a bloody disaster. Nine days before the parade, the event was re-categorized, rescheduled and re-billed as a float-less and vehicle-less march. Official events surrounding the parade were also nixed, reverting Pride Week to a so called “normal day.” Given that all of the other London-centric events received enough funding to wow the world, the queers felt like they were getting the short end of the disco stick.

Via Londonist

Just like last year, money (or lack thereof) is to blame. Given that the event will see 40,000 parade goers taking over London’s busiest district, the projected costs are high. Last year the Mayor’s Office sponsored £100,000 of their £300,000 budget and it still wasn’t enough. Smirnoff backed Pride London for the past two years, but they have yet to sign on for 2013. This year the GLA  is ponying up £150,000 for Pride, leaving the organizers £280,000 short. With a lot of those rainbow dollars ear-marked for security and safety, you have to worry how much “scaling back” they’ll have to do to the parade and events if fundraising targets aren’t met. Last year all of the SoHo WorldPride events fell on the chopping block.

When it became clear that Pride London couldn’t raise the funds, they said they were “returning to the roots of the original Pride London rallies” when they hacked away at the WorldPride roster. Even though it seemed like a giant fib, that blatant excuse could just be the motto London’s organizers need for 2013.

One of the big differences about us and our plans for Pride in London is that we’re also encouraging community groups and businesses to run events under the Pride banner in the week running up to Saturday 29 June. We will promote those events at the heart of the week-long Festival of Pride.

Pride in Vietnam via AFP

Call me crazy, but re-imagining pride as a community based festival seems obvious. What is Pride supposed to be other than an opportunity for queers to rise up and take back a city that’s rightfully theirs? If the parade is the only thing that’ll survive a funding cut, it isn’t too much to ask small businesses and community leaders to help fill out their event. San Francisco manages to host 23 community run stages and venues to give a richer view of their community. Last year Vietnam hosted their very first pride parade and no one complained that it was a self-organized affair. Given that the UK is in the midst of law reforms that’ll prove just what their neighbours think of them, queers may need to turn to one another for support in case the rest of the country won’t.

via Guy Smallman

If Prides are ever to return to their grassroots, they’ll need support from citizens in addition to smaller organizations. London LGBT + Community Pride project they’ll need over 700 volunteers to run the show, so go out and volunteer if you happen to be in London this summer. They also need other minds to ensure that the events  can be as inclusive as possible. So send out an application to sit on the Community Advisory Board before Thursday evening if you can make that difference.

We want Pride in London to be for, of and by our community. And we need the community to work together with us because only together can we put on a pride that will make all Londoners proud, celebrate our achievements, campaign for change and continue to remind people of the importance of equality.

The Paralympics, Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee set the bar high in terms of events hosted in and by London. We might not leap over that bar in year one, but together we can build Pride in London in the coming years to become a beacon to the rest of the world. It’s no more than we, and London, deserve.

Mexican Supreme Court Invokes U.S. Civil Rights Legislation In Marriage Equality Ruling

Last December, the Mexican Supreme Court unanimously decided that a law in the southern State of Oaxaca which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman was unconstitutional. The decision, written by Minister Arturo Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea, was made public this week and invokes international precedents from European, Inter-American, and United States courts.

Before we dive into what this means for the future of marriage equality in Mexico, the U.S. and the rest of the Americas, let’s take a step back and look what happened two and a half months ago. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Mexico City since 2010 and in Quintana Roo (the southwestern state probably best known in the U.S. for Cancún) since May 2012 and, while all states are required to recognize those marriages, they are not required to grant them. In Oaxaca, same-sex marriage is outlawed by article 143 of the Civil Code which states that “Marriage is a civil contract celebrated between only one man and only one woman that are united to perpetuate the species and to provide mutual support throughout life…”

Alex Alí Méndez Díaz via: after marriage

The law was challenged thanks to a local couple and the law student they met while planning a 2011 gay rights march, Alex Alí Méndez Díaz. After filing a suit on behalf of three couples and winning one of them, Méndez Díaz headed to the Supreme Court after the government appealed the rulings. Which is where we find ourselves today. The recently-released document outlines the plaintiff’s arguments, describes the lower court proceedings and decision, and then renders the Supreme Court’s decision using a variety of historical and international evidence.

Méndez Díaz based the bulk of his case around the 1st and 4th Articles of the Constitution and the precedent set by the Supreme Court’s decision in Mexico City (the action of unconstitutionality 2/2010). Article 1 guarantees every individual the rights and protections that Constitution grants and along with prohibiting slavery, outlaws discrimination based on “ethnic or national origin, gender, age, differing abilities, social conditions, health conditions, religion, opinions, sexual preferences, marital status, or anything else that may be against human dignity and have as its object to restrict or reduce the rights and liberties of persons.” According to the action of unconstitutionality 2/2010, these rights not only belong to individuals, but also to couples when considering them as families.

And families in Mexico have special rights. Among other things, Article 4 ensures that “The organization and the development of the family will be protected by law,” and that “Every family has the right to a dignified and decent life. The law will establish the instruments and supports necessary to accomplish this objective.” Again, the action of unconstitutionality 2/2010 provides support for this argument; they sustained that “the transformation and secularization of society has resulted in a great diversity of ways to construct a family that don’t necessarily arise from a marriage between a woman and a man.”

Not only did the the Supreme Court agree with them, they came out vigorously in support of overturning the law. While our own Supreme Court will look into just how suspect of a class sexuality is, the Mexican Court has already decided that, according the first article of their constitution, sexual orientation warrants heightened scrutiny. A suspect class requires the state to demonstrate that any discrimination written into law demonstrates a “compelling state interest” and, according to the Supreme Court, restricting marriage to different-sex couples falls far from that goal. They throw out arguments that couple marriage with procreation; not only do we not require straight couples with children to get married or require straight couples who desire to marry to prove that they will have children, they argue, Article 4 was written to apply to a social reality and at this point in time, that reality includes many different kinds of families. They not only refute the claim that marriage is being “disfigured” but admonish the representative who used this argument in court saying that “this type of approach is totally unacceptable in a constitutional state of law that aspires to treat all its citizens with the same respect and consideration.”

Minister Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea

Some of the most compelling parts of the document, though, show up in the discussion of the history of discrimination against LGB people in their fight for marriage equality. After asserting why it is necessary for same-sex couples to be allowed to marry, Minister Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea shifts the tone to address the reason why they lack rights to begin with. “The reason that same-sex couples have not enjoyed the same protection as heterosexual couples is not due to oversights from legislators, but because of the legacy of severe prejudices that have traditionally exited against them.” The minister invokes Loving v. Virginia, the landmark case that legalized interracial marriage, saying that the power to marry “is worth little if it doesn’t grant the the possibility to marry the person one chooses.” In a somewhat less direct analogy, he brings to light what he sees as the cases connections with Brown v. Board of Education. The court believes that separate institutions – like civil unions – are not equal because, just as black children were segregated on “the unacceptable idea of white supremacy, the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is also based on prejudices that have historically existed against homosexuals.”

Unlike the in the United States, this ruling does not mean that same-sex couples in Oaxaca have the right to marry. Although the Court ruled the Civil Code unconstitutional in these three cases, two more cases will need to be brought against the Civil Code for the law to be overturned. And though the eventual five rulings will be made by the Supreme Court, they will only apply to Oaxaca, not the entire country.

Some have seen the use of U.S. law in these decisions to signal impending change in the United States. However, the massive differences in our two constitutions and the different legal traditions in our countries makes me skeptical about the effect Mexico’s ruling will have here. Two of the strongest pieces of evidence came from parts of the Mexican constitution that don’t have equivalents in the U.S. constitution. We lack any sort of protection for the family as a unit and the equal protection clause remains highly debated. Another precedent that the Supreme Court used to support their opinion, Karen Atala Riffo y Niños v. Chile, came from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, a court whose jurisdiction the United States does not submit to. And while the arguments used to overturn the law are articulate and legally sound, using foreign precedent in the U.S. is high controversial.

While this might not be great news for our perpetually-independent(-even-if-it-hurts) country, this might be the turning point the rest of the Americas need. With marriage equality already legal in Argentina, parts of Brazil, and two states in Mexico and the number of court cases ruling in favor of same-sex couples climbing, it’s becoming harder to fight against gay marriage and win.

Break Out the Champagne! Marriage Equality is Coming to France

Champagne is in order — not just bubbly wine, actual Champagne (TM). Last night I was out for dinner and a singular email made me drop my naan bread to turn to my girlfriend. Normally I wouldn’t sully my naan for anything, let alone French Parliament proceedings, but this time was different. “Gay Marriage in France! It’s-a-happening!”

On Tuesday evening, France’s lower house finally voted on Bill 344. The Marriage for All draft bill has been making its way through Parliament since November but for many worried citizens, it didn’t look like it would survive. The promised bill was posed to open up the definition of family, granting queer citizens the same familial rights afforded to their heterosexual counterparts. The underlying change from “husband and wife” to “spouses” passed 249-97 on February 2nd. However, the controversial issue of assisted procreation was dropped to appease conservative deputies and as of last week, it was still undecided whether adoption rights were still a possibility. After 5000 amendments by the opposition and countless manifestations put on by allies and opponents alike, the deputies had their vote: 329-229. Gay marriage and adoption? On les a! The times they are a-changing.

via AFP

At its heart, the law is supposed to unite families instead of pushing them apart. Leading up the vote, Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault reassured, “This law is going to extend to all families the protections guaranteed by the institution of marriage. Contrary to what those who vociferate against it say – fortunately they’re in the minority – this law is going to strengthen the institution of marriage.”

The Catholic church has been a major part of this very vocal minority, with religious figureheads decrying the immoral future that lies before children of homosexual households. They have taken part in countless conservative manifestations throughout the country, but even in century old institutions like the church, there are people willing to break their silence. Elie Gafray, a retired Catholic priest and current mayor recognized the paradox he’s living. Even though he will abide by Catholic law, he supports gay rights and will marry gays and lesbians as the mayor of Ereac. Speaking to the media and his bishop, he notes that the church is behind the times. “If gay marriage is adopted it suggests the French state is more open to homosexuals than the church. And that bothers me.” He’s received countless letters from citizens, the majority of which applaud him for representing a modernized viewpoint.

VIA Nataly

Thankfully he isn’t the only one. More people are willing to open up and cross over party lines and vote for what they feel is right instead of what they’re told is right. Roselyne Bachelot, a right-wing politician and former minister under Sarkozy spoke of her support earlier this month.

I’ve been fighting for equal rights for heterosexual and homosexual couples for forty years. I remember very well when we were trying to promote civil unions several years ago…there were only four or five of us (politicians). We went to go see right and left-wing politicians who said: ‘What is this? But we got through to them and we won, and  we’ve seen more and more people joining our fight. And we will continue.

The clear win by 100 votes in the lower house just shows how many people have joined that fight. Justice Minister Christiane Taubira spoke after Tuesday’s vote, giving an impassioned speech in her signature style combining humour and poetry. She reminded her fellow MPs that the game of love will still exist for France’s citizens and their orientation has nothing to do with it.

via Reuters

There will still be plenty of women to look at you, gentlemen, to observe you, to try and see the tenderness that sometimes exists behind your carapaces, to try to break through the faults that are sometimes hiding behind your affable exteriors and to discern the interlacing of your talents and your weaknesses if you are able to forge paths through the sea, as Antonio Machado.

…

This bill brought us to think of others, brought us to acknowledge otherness. And otherness, as the philosopher Lévinas said, “is derived from our indestructible sense of empathy.”

Despite being dropped from this bill, the debate for medically assisted procreation continues. Mere hours after the lower house vote, Taubira noted in an interview that this issue is “a legitimate claim for lesbian couples … but that it is a heavy topic that should be dealt with separately.” Given that it is decidedly more controversial, it’s also less likely to receive full support from the majority Socialist government. A high ranking Socialist party member was quoted saying “Hollande knows that MPAs (Medically Assisted Procreation) is what divides the left and unifies the right. If he really had wanted to amend the law regarding MPAs, he would have had Jean-Marc Ayrault include it in the text of the Marriage for All Bill.”  For now, it’s off the table so the rest of the bill can pass. MPA has been submitted to the Nationale Ethics Council, and will be put forward as a separate bill toward the end of the year. If not, then Hollande may hold off and say it isn’t time.

So even if it’s still early and Hollande may not be able to follow through on all of his campaign promises, some queer citizens are already breathing a sigh of relief with this news. Queer couples have to wait until April 2nd for the bill to go through Senate, but they might be able to set their wedding date for this summer. Even if some right wing politicians might try to put a few more constitutional roadblocks in the bill’s way, ultimately there doesn’t seem to be much that can get in the way of the text put forward by the National Assembly which the Socialist Party has majority control over. For now the approval of Bill 344 is a partial victory, but a poignant victory nonetheless.

What Does The Pope’s Resignation Mean For Us?

Yesterday Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation, sparking shock among his followers, speculation about successor by media outlets and feelings of extreme “so what” among non-Catholics. While many of us in the United States and Europe hear, if anything, news of closing Catholic schools and churches without priests, the news may in fact have more of an impact than we realize.

The current pope’s reign has meant a number of changes for members of the Church – especially liturgical changes such as showing “restraint” during the sign of peace and a new interpretation of the wording used during mass in the English-speaking world. But the reach of the pope goes beyond the pew. His example sets the tone for Catholics world-wide and with the world Catholic population staying at a steady 17% over the past 50 years, the number of Catholics is undeniably growing. In the global south in particular, the number of Catholics has soared.

via yorksjre.wordpress.com 

As ThinkProgress has noted, the pontiff has used Catholic social teaching to encourage Catholics to work for a healthier environment with special attention paid to poor nations, a fair economy though unions and wealth redistribution, universal health care and immigration reform in the United States.

At the same time, though, his legacy has been harmful for women, LGBT people and other marginalized populations. In his last mass before he was elected pope, the  then Cardinal spoke against the “dictatorship of relativism.” In a way this homily set the tone for his papacy, which was markedly conservative and often criticized as being intolerant and even disastrous. Lacking the charisma and delicacy of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI often made missteps in his visits with leaders of and speech about other religions. In a 2007 visit to Brazil, he told Bishops that native South Americans had been “silently longing” for Christianity and that their conversion purified their culture. Though a week later he spoke about the “unjustifiable crimes” perpetrated to facilitate the conversion, the controversy was reminiscent of 2006’s insensitive remarks on Islam. When the Pope decided to remove restrictions on Priests who wished to say mass in the original Latin, his decree did not remove the inclusion of a prayer that calls to “deliver [Jews] from darkness.”

With over 20 million Africans living with HIV/AIDS and Catholicism on the continent having grown 33% from 2000 to 2010, the Pope’s position on condoms is especially relevant. In 2010, he moderated his stance by announcing that “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility.” This change opened doors for aid workers to reach Catholic communities, but his example of a male prostitue as a condom user prompted anger from officials and groups who were concerned that faithful Catholics would continue to refuse condoms out of a desire to separate themselves from immoral people (like prostitues) who used condoms.

Although different, the pope’s legacy in the United States is just as palpable. His continued condemnation of birth control has lead to a standoff between American bishops and the Obama administration. And let’s not forget the American nuns. In 2012, the pontiff issued a reprimand to members of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious for promoting “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.” Finally, his take on homosexuality has been viewed by many as a step back. While Catholic doctrine is, essentially, “love the sinner hate the sin” with bigger words thrown in for good measure, the pope seems to view us more darkly. As the author of “On The Pastoral Care Of Homosexual Persons,” he asserted that, “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” The pope has also taken a few seemingly-unrelated opportunities – such his most recent Christmas speech – to reaffirm his opposition to homosexuality.

With a new pope expected to be elected before Easter, the question becomes who he will be. Potential cardinals include Angelo Scola, archbishop of Milan, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna and  Marc Ouellet, the Canadian head of the Vatican’s office for bishops. With nearly 40% of the world’s Catholic population residing in Latin America, many are hoping to see a pope from somewhere outside Europe. While at this point it’s all speculation, one thing is certain: Pope Benedict XVI’s presence will be felt during the election. Though he won’t be directly involved in the decision-making, the pope appointed 67 of the 118 cardinals who convene to decide on his sucessor.

Though it’s unlikely that we’ll see much change from the Catholic Church after the election, it’s important that we have at least a passing familiarity with one of the most influential men on the planet. As queers, many of us find ourselves alienated by conservative religion and struggle to see its impact on our daily lives. Yet by educating ourselves about what we don’t understand or believe and seeking out conversations with queer-uninformed people, we find new allies who can work to change the church from the inside out.

The Sochi Olympics Are a Year Away But Russia’s Still Living in the Past

Feature Image via RIA Novosti

In exactly one year, I’ll be sitting on my couch wrapped in a Canadian flag, screaming at a television cuddling my Quatchi(s). If my previous Olympics experiences have taught me anything, it’s that as soon as that cauldron lights up, the world becomes one massive smorgasboard of facepaint, alcohol, flag inspired outfits and vuvuzuelas. Sochi is set to rack up a fifty billion dollar tab, making it the costliest Olympics to date. Will there be giant blue bouncing balls this time? Or supermodels in snowglobes? Only time will tell. But unlike other host countries that did their social spring cleaning before the world’s attention turned to them, Russia is taking a different approach. They’re pulling their skeletons out of the closets and stuffing their citizens deep inside.

Russia is brazenly pushing through its gay propaganda law in the face of mounting international criticism. The bill is supposed to “protect” impressionable children from the homosexuality by banning and severely fining any groups that are depraved enough to show that LGBT people exist. A similar bill already passed in St. Petersburg and now is now poised to go country-wide. In its first reading last month, the draft law passed 388-1. Yes, one. Sergei Kuzin, the deputy behind that lone vote asks a simple question, “Do you seriously think that you can foster homosexuality via propaganda?” Elena Mizulina, the chair of the Duma’s family issues committee apparently thinks so. She’s quoted as saying that”the spread of gay propaganda among minors violates their rights. Russian society is more conservative so the passing of this law is justified.” Even though the bill still has to make it through two more readings before it gets Putin’s signature, this Russian society has already proven itself to be an inhospitable host.

Whistler’s Pride House

For the past two Olympics and Paralympics, Pride House has existed as a place of refuge among the other international pavilions. Created for the 2010 Olympics, the organization set up houses in Whistler and Vancouver to provide LGBT athletes and allies with spaces to relax, unwind and be themselves. The venues also provided resources and support services for international athletes that sought asylum from their homelands. It was a safe space that allowed queers from all over the world come together to share their experiences, kind of like the Olympics themselves. London followed suit this past summer with two weeks of events celebrating and educating queers in sports. The games were so queer-inclusive that many said that the Olympic gaymers trounced their straight competitors. But sadly, the legacy ends there. Plans for an LGBT friendly space in Sochi were scrapped when a judge asserted that the Pride House would undermine Russian society. Of course, this bigoted view underscores the need for an LGBT sanctuary at Sochi.

There has been a huge amount of backlash when past Olympic athletes were caught in immoral acts during the games. When a Greek athlete sent a racist tweet before the games, her Olympic committee stopped her from competing. Even though she could have brought home a prestigious medal, they still exposed her since she “showed no respect for the basic Olympian value.” This value being that everyone should be able to play sports without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit. But what if it’s the host that’s spouting the hateful rhetoric? So far: nothing. Confronted with questions surrounding Russia’s gay propaganda law, the International Olympic Committee wouldn’t take a stand. Sandrine Tonge, their spokesperson said, “The IOC would like to reiterate its long commitment to non-discrimination against those taking part in the Olympic Games. The IOC is an open organisation and athletes of all orientations will be welcome at the Games.”

How welcome can athletes feel at Sochi next year? USA Today spoke to several out athletes about their experience and concerns for LGBT acceptance in the Olympic Games. Johnny Weir really loves Russia and Russia loves him right back, but even he acknowledges that his sexuality puts him at odds with their society. His advice for queer athletes that aren’t as knowledgable about Russian culture is to tone down the flamboyancy; “if you don’t call attention to yourself, attention won’t come to you.” But in a country where homosexual propaganda might be outlawed, will everyone be afforded that luxury? Even though Weir has traveled Russia with his husband, the journalist acknowledged that his case may be special. Not all queers can hide behind their celebrity (or the country’s love of figure skating) and get a pass.

Blake Skjellerup, a New Zealand speedskater that competed in Vancouver, feels differently. “I don’t want to have to tone myself down about who I am,” he said, “That wasn’t very fun and there’s no way I’m going back in the closet. I just want to be myself and I hate to think that being myself would get me in trouble.” After visiting Vancouver’s Pride House, he was inspired to come out and show others it’s okay to be gay. “If I had felt like I needed a space to be myself away from the Olympic village, it would have been there. I hope the idea can grow from Olympics to Olympics.”

Louise Englefield, the London Pride House coordinator, still wants to pass the queer torch onto Sochi. Since there’s no set venue, she hopes that the national houses will do their queer citizens proud by taking a day to host their own Pride House. And maybe a few more Skjellerups will come out of the closet, a few more Weirs can convince the Russian government that gays aren’t so bad and these out female athletes can continue to take their rightful place on the podium.

BBC Calls For Trans* Inclusive Comedy Scripts

Television’s portrayal of trans* characters will 99% of the time send you into fits of semi-incoherent, apoplectic rage. “Give me a freaking drink,” I implore, after watching another shitstorm of an episode of Glee, “so I can throw it in Ryan Murphy’s eyes! Won’t someone please give Unique the fabulous storylines she deserves?!”

image via glaad.org

“Stop calling her “he,” you arseholes!” I yelled at my telly on Saturday, as a long-running medical drama presented a young transwoman who was consistently referred to by everyone – even the HOSPITAL STAFF – as being male. And that’s not even starting on the fact that transmen are horribly, hideously under-represented anywhere that’s not Degrassi: The Next Generation (which I have never actually watched) or Boys Don’t Cry. Isn’t it just infuriating?

Luckily, I’m not the only one who thinks this needs changing, and if you live in the UK, then you – yes, YOU, RIGHT THERE, reading this right now, drinking tea from your chipped mug – can help be the change you want to see.

The BBC Writersroom has joined forces with Trans Comedy to launch the Trans Comedy Award, a competition for writers to create a script which actually represents trans* people accurately:

The Trans Comedy Award opens up an opportunity for the transgender community and members of the general public to portray transgender characters and the transgender experience in a fresh affirming manner, without resorting to cliché or stereotype.

We are looking for original comedy sitcoms, comedy dramas or sketch shows featuring transgender characters and/or themes and written for television. An award of up to a maximum of £5000 will be shared between the selected writer(s) in order that they may develop a pilot or taster.

image via bbc.co.uk

Yup – the BBC is running a nationwide search for new comedy writing talent, which actually talks about what it’s like to be trans* without resorting to those squick-worthy “jokes” about Thai ladyboys. Scripts should be a half-hour pilot episode, and can be sitcoms, comedy-dramas, or even sketch shows with recurring trans* characters.

We’re not looking for issue-led stories. We want to see comedy which comes from the characters and their interactions with friends, family, colleagues etc. So you can touch on the issues of relationships for example but keep it balanced with always comedy in mind.

If you think you’ve got what it takes, then you’d better start writing: the deadline for entries is February 28th. Check out the BBC Writersroom website for more information on rules, FAQs, and how to enter. And if this leads to some trans* friendly shows being (finally) commissioned, then all the better.

We Won A Thing: UK House of Commons Votes to Legalise Gay Marriage

feature image by © Paul Brown/Demotix/Corbis

I was all ready to write an article on how the right-wing of the Conservative party are still trying to ruin stuff for us adorable queer Brits – how 23 Conservative party chair men were lobbying for the bill to be delayed; how a Member of Parliament is allegedly receiving death threats for his opposition to the bill; how it will apparently negatively affect the chances of the Conservative government being re-elected in 2015 – but then I realised that there was no way I’d finish writing the article before the vote happened on February 5^th, the result of which would kind of render my previous idea moot. Instead, I sat tight and followed the bill’s progress online – mainly through The Guardian live-blog, because I am a fan of the liberal media. The numbers looked good – 380 MPs had expressed their support, and the Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, is in favour.

This was the second reading of the “Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill”, and there was a huge debate before the voting took place, where 71 backbench MPs (MPs who aren’t Cabinet ministers) got to give the House of Commons their two pennies. The debate started at 12.45pm, and the vote took place at 7pm. Results came out at 7.15pm.

And we won.

We won big. Out of 650 MPs, the bill passed its second reading 400-175, a majority of 225. The more astute of you may have noticed that this means 74 MPs abstained (one – the Speaker, John Bercow, notorious fan of the gays, cannot vote), but even with them all voting against, the bill still would have passed with a majority of 149 votes.

via the guardian

However, it isn’t all sunshine and rainbows – the numbers belie a much bigger problem. Out of 303 Conservative MPs in the House of Commons, “140 or so” voted against the bill, according to Conservative MP for East Worthing and Shoreham, Tim Loughton. He added that “there are 132 Conservative MPs who voted in favour”, and 31 abstained – which means that only 44% of Conservative MPs supported David Cameron’s party line on the bill. Conservative MPs have discussed the overwhelming number of people who have spoken to them opposing the bill – does this mean they will lose part of their key demographic? How is David Cameron going to handle the fact that more than half of his party rebelled, voting in favour of the old ways? It’s certainly going to damage the new Conservative party image he’s trying to cultivate: it’s hard to say you’re in charge of a progressive party who support equality when 56% of your MPs don’t. The bill only passed because of overwhelming support from the other parties, notably the Liberal Democrats (the smaller party in the UK Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition) and Labour.

The other problem is that this bill is not yet law. It has to pass to the Committee stage and the Reporting stage, be voted on again at the third reading, and then go through the same stages in the unelected House of Lords. Legislation will be batted back and forth between the two houses before everyone gets bored of scrutinising the fine print and it is officially signed into law by the Queen.

See that 2 in a green circle? That’s where we are right now. via parliament.uk

Of course, complaints will arise. I’m envisioning middle-class white men waxing lyrical about how the Institution of Marriage has been Irrevocably Destroyed. I’m envisioning Church of England bishops kicking up a fuss, and Daily Mail columnists asking “won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children?!”. But the future looks bright. The bill is pretty much guaranteed to pass into law, though nobody can say for sure if it will be sooner or later. As Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg puts it:

“No matter who you are and who you love, we are all equal. Marriage is about love and commitment, and it should no longer be denied to people just because they are gay.”

Also.Also.Also: Canada’s Census Actually Provides Data on Gay People and Other Stories We Missed This Week

Today is the best Wednesday of all time because I am spending it with Brittani Nichols in real life. While I am out living your fantasies, here’s the stories we missed this week.

Delhi’s Cab Service for Women

Cabs for Women by Women is exactly what it sounds like: another way women in Delhi are going to keep each other safe.

No More Revenge Porn

Women are fighting back against revenge porn, and they’re taking down GoDaddy with the whole mess:

A group of 23 women have signed on to a class-action lawsuit in the hopes of putting a dent in the practice of “revenge porn” — a rather despicable type of online pornography that consists of user-submitted pictures, usually of an ex-wife or ex-girlfriend and usually without the subject’s permission. According to The Houston Chronicle, the suit targets the revenge porn site Texxxan.com as well as its host, GoDaddy.com; it additionally names unidentified defendants including “the persons and/or entities hosting Texxxan.com” and “all subscribing members.” “I’m going after the revenge porn industry,” attorney John S. Morgan said. “The only way to destroy this industry is to go after the people who fund it.”

Taking on this industry has been a challenge. Many victims prefer not to pursue the sites hosting their pictures for fear of having their identities revealed. There’s also the constant fear of the offending ex-lover finding more motivation for continued harassment. In the case of the Texxxan.com lawsuit, plaintiff Hollie Toups told BetaBeat that the site said it would remove her pictures after she entered her credit card information — an offense that helped spur Toups to go public with her plight and sign on with the class-action lawsuit. “I went from being depressed and embarrassed to being really pissed off,” she said.

One-Liners About Really Important Women

+ PolicyMic picked 5 famous women who they think “should be on Twitter” without once mentioning that I’m actually already on Twitter. Rude.

+ Hillary Clinton is so over your bullshit.

+ Julie Penelope, lesbian separatist and academic, passed away on Thursday at 71.

+ Whitney Houston’s mom, Cissy, is opening up about her daughter’s death in a soon-to-be-released book – and confronting the rumors about her relationship with a woman.

+ Vice recently interviewed Emily May of Hollaback!, which is pretty badass.

+ The Real L Word’s Lauren Bedford has MS and wants to do whatever it takes to raise awareness about the condition.

+ Amy Poehler is writing a book that will replace every book.

+ Chely Wright and Lauren Blitzer are expecting two bundles of joy that will arrive at once, also known as twins!

An Inmate’s Sex Reassignment

Ophelia De’Lonta is close to getting sex reassignment surgery, covered by taxpayer dollars, while enrolled in prison.

“It’s major,” said De’lonta. “Finally, I can get what I need. That’s just like making parole. Really. It’s something that’s very much overwhelming.”

The appeals court ruling does not decide the merits of De’lonta’s 8th Amendment violation claim, and it doesn’t suggest that sex change surgery is the remedy.

It does say, the fact that Virginia D.O.C. is providing treatment for De’lonta’s disorder already, doesn’t foreclose the possibility that the medical services have become constitutionally deficient.

“As long as you are holding me here, you have to provide the treatment. Should happen that should happen,” said De’lonta.

De’lonta could become the first in the nation to have state-funded sex change surgery to treat gender identity disorder and the compulsion to self castrate.

Les Mean Girls

Cool girls got you down? Don’t get too miserables about it.

Gayborhood Watch

If you live in Canada, finding the queers has never been easier. Just look at the Census data, dood.

VAWA Should Probably Exist

It’s baaaaack! As promised, VAWA is making a reappearance in the Senate and potentially will do the same in our lives in the near future, just so long as the Republicans don’t fuck everything up. Again.

I’ve Got Some (Mostly Real Bad) News

Wes Breedwell got fired from his job for supporting gay rights and all he has to prove it is this lousy tee-shirt.

In New Jersey, Isabel Perez lost her job for being a lesbian. In Georgia, it’s a double-whammy of shitty times with public money funding scholarships at private homophobic institutions and highways filled with vanity plates – but none for le gays.

In Moscow, a same-sex kiss-in turned into an opportunity for jackass homophobes to hurt people as per ushe. At Boston College Law School, vandals used MLK day to spread hate at the LGBT student group office. In Portugal, though, gender identity and sexual orientation are now protected identities, which is a solid step toward making sure all of this bullshit stops.

Also, Mark Zuckerberg is playing nice with Chris Christie and, thankfully, Chris Hughes is bitching him out about it while experiencing higher levels of personal success.

I’m Really Inspired and Want To Learn About Knots and Camping Now

The Boy Scouts of America just may end their homophobic reign over the universe. From BSA spokesperson Deron Smith:

For more than 100 years, Scouting’s focus has been on working together to deliver the nation’s foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training. Scouting has always been in an ongoing dialogue with the Scouting family to determine what is in the best interest of the organization and the young people we serve.

Currently, the BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation. This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs. BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families.

While your son is enrolling, maybe buy him a book for young queers.

Gay Cake Cake Cake Cake Cake Cake Cake Cake Cake Cake Cake

C’mon, put your name on it. Or at least on the letter next to it.

I present to you: a coming out cake.

Look At These Fucking Autostraddlers

On Sunday, thousands took to the street in Paris to rally for marriage equality / general sanity in France, including these ‘straddlers!

Brian Ellner, an American advocate of same-sex marriage who helped lead the campaign for it in New York State, is here as an adviser to a lobbying group called All Out. He said the level of support in France was “quite amazing.”

“France is always important as an exporter of ideas,” Mr. Ellner said in an interview. “That’s why it’s important internationally. I believe a win in France would undoubtedly have an impact globally and even in the United States,” where the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in March on two cases concerning same-sex marriage.

Frédéric Martel, an author and broadcaster who organized a gathering for government ministers, artists, intellectuals and other notables after the march, said: “We have to be in the streets and be strong. The bill will pass, we know it.”

“We Support At-Risk LGBT Youth” Deemed “Offensive Language” By Youth Festival

Last week, Sydney-based LGBT youth organisation Twenty10 attended Rediscover the River, a festival event in Parramatta, New South Wales, which is a large and culturally diverse suburb located about 20kms west of the Sydney CBD. They had been invited to participate, probably along with dozens of other organizations. Once at the festival, however, Twenty10 was asked to remove two “offensive” promo banners from its kite-making stall.

According to Twenty10’s official statement, on the morning of January 17 the market stall team:

“arrived early, eager and excited to be invited by Parramatta City Council to be making kites with the community… At approximately 11:00am, we were advised by a direct representative of the Lord Mayor, John Chedid, who after viewing our site and signage, directed us to remove our signage because it was ‘offensive.’”

Twenty10 decided to leave the event soon after out of concern for the safety and wellbeing of the school-aged members in attendance, as well as volunteers and staff.

When I think of content that could possibly be declared “offensive” by organisers of a family-focused event, I think of language and images that are sexually explicit, violent, racist, homophobic or in some other way inappropriate for young eyes. I don’t think of this:

The offending sign

Like all good promotional banners, Twenty10’s succinctly communicates what the organisation does, which is providing “support services for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, same-sex attracted and gender diverse young people, their families and communities.” According to Twenty10, the same banner has been hung at hundreds of public events and has never attracted a complaint. This is not at all surprising, since it’s an objectively inoffensive sign. It doesn’t even use clip art or Comic Sans.

In Australia, homosexuality is legal and discriminating against gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered people is not. With that in mind, there appears to be no valid reason for the Lord Mayor and his staff to have demanded the removal of Twenty10’s banners. Parramatta City Council’s official statement only goes as far as to state that the request was made “in response to numerous complaints made by members of the public” and that the “Council regrets any inconvenience or offence taken by its actions and values the efforts, and contribution of Twenty10 in servicing at-risk youth.” An internal communication reminded employees that the council values diversity and supports Twenty10’s mission, as well as reiterating that since the request to move the sign was based on the public’s concern, it doesn’t reflect any prejudice on the part of the council.

The Council’s failure to explain exactly what aspect of Twenty10’s banner was so offensive to the community is likely an indication that they don’t have an answer, or at least not one that won’t portray the Liberal Lord Mayor John Chedid as a homophobe (or a politician who does the bidding of homophobes, which is effectively one and the same) and/or land him in a significant amount of shit with the Anti-Discrimination Board. (It’s worth noting that the Council claims to have only “requested” that the banner be removed, whereas Twenty10 claim that they were “directed.” It’s unclear whether Twenty10 could’ve refused without consequence, although that is neither here nor there as the request never should’ve been made in the first place.)

There are so many dumbfounding elements to this story, and I’m not even talking about how Chedid prioritised the precious feelings of a handful of homophobes over the fair treatment of an organisation that’s widely respected for its work with LGBT youth. The first is that Twenty10 has had a longstanding relationship with the Parramatta City Council. It seems strange that event organisers would assign a market stall to a known LGBT organisation and then suddenly decide that it’s inappropriate for them to promote who they are and what they do.

Another kicker is that the Council’s official statement actually acknowledges that Twenty10’s youth members are at-risk members of society. Obviously the Lord Mayor and his staff failed to consider this at risk status when deciding that mentioning gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, same-sex attracted and gender diverse young people in a public space is somehow offensive. Way to further alienate people who already struggle to achieve a sense of belonging in the community!

Understandably unsatisfied with Council’s non-explanation, Twenty10 have called for an apology, stating that “instead of expressing regret at something that may have caused inconvenience, we’d like an apology that includes an explicit acknowledgement of what went wrong, an acknowledgement of what exactly was offensive and how can we be assured that this will not happen again.” It’s also been proposed that the Lord Mayor and his staff participate in a Twenty10 training program that looks at the sensitivities and nuances of working with disadvantaged youth.

Although it’s arguable that none of us should be surprised by any form of homophobia at this point, it’s still somewhat surprising to see this in Sydney. Sydney has long been considered one of the most queer-friendly cities in the world and it’s home to plenty of local politicians who are passionate about promoting LGBT rights and building tolerant communities. You only have to look to the City of Sydney’s Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, as an example; last year Moore had a float in the Sydney Mardi Gras and this year she proposed that pedestrian crossings along Oxford Street, in Sydney’s gay district, are painted in rainbow colours. The plan was endorsed unanimously by the council.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the City of Parramatta council is less unanimous in their views, at least those on this particular issue. Independent councillor and former mayor Lorraine Wearne was willing to apologise for offence but also called some responses to the event an overreaction, while independent councillor Paul Garrard stated that a family event was no place for a ”semi-political” group. Labor’s Julia Finn, on the other hand, spoke out, calling the council’s actions “disgraceful and embarrassing” and deemed the  reasoning behind the removal request to be inadequate. I’m sure most of Sydney’s population agrees. There’s a difference between the kind of “tolerance” that means LGBT communities and organizations are allowed to share space with the rest of of the community, and the kind of real engagement and solidarity that means their work and their identities are understood and respected; it seems many authority figures are able to grasp that concept, and it’s a pity that they have to be in the same boat as those who don’t.

The Guardian Impressively Talks About Gay Sex By Not Talking About It

In a recent Guardian article, British journalist and author Nick Cohen puts on his whimsical ally cap and tries his best to tackle an age-old question: Why are straight people so darned invested in what gays do in bed? 

While Cohen is a well-intending friend of the gays and goes so far as to describe himself as one of the “men who are ‘secure’ in their heterosexuality [and] have little interest in what their homosexual friends do in bed,” I immediately felt like the question of why queer sex is so policed would have been best answered by someone who’d actually been on the receiving end of that kind of homophobia, or someone honest enough to own up to their own homophobia (be it internalized or free-range).

Narratives from those who who have been discriminated against and those from reformed homophobes seem to bear the most leverage in society today. Not only do we need to understand how this sort of oppression affects people in order to ensure that it does not continue to occur; we need to believe that people can actually change for the better. Because he wasn’t exploring homophobia from either of these two positions, Cohen’s extremely verbose essay – while witty at times – did little for me.

Nick Cohen

Instead of pinpointing the specific reasons why people are willing to condemn gay sex, Cohen explores the sterile, old hat history of homophobia in religion, and how it is often rooted in contradiction and self-loathing.  He pokes fun at Catholicism’s hypocrisy in asserting that sex is not the enemy one second, and then stating otherwise the next:

 It is not true that all we ever “think about is sex”, protested the Catholic journalist Melanie McDonagh in the Spectator. Without a blush, she then went on to demonstrate that she could think of little else. Society should tolerate men and women whose attraction to their own sex is not expressed in sexual relations, she explained, as she began her discussion of vicars’ todgers. If a vicar uses his penis for sex “without a procreative purpose”, however, then out of the church he must go.

A vicar can be in a civil partnership, [the Anglican church] conceded earlier this month. But if he wishes his superiors to elevate him to a bishopric, he must submit his sex life to cross-examination. Only if he can tell them he abstains from sex will they promote him. These are questions that shame the interrogator more than the interrogated.

The most fascinating part of Cohen’s essay comes when he stops talking about religion and brings up the AIDS epidemic in Britain and how political conservatives were forced to actually acknowledge the disease and its scope of devastation. He tells the story of William Whitelaw, a British Conservative Party politician who blushed when he was instructed to describe anal sex to prime minister Margaret Thatcher.

Whitelaw and and Thatcher

When Cohen concluded his essay on the note that gay sex is none of straight people’s business, I found myself wondering if his disinterest and apathy towards queer sex was any better than the overinvestment which blatantly condemns it. Whether intentional or not, both erase and invalidate our sexual experiences. While Cohen never really answers his title question of why straight people are obsessed with what gay people do in bed, I’d venture to guess that it’s because society simply doesn’t talk about queer sex on the same level that it does good ol’ PIV intercourse. And when we don’t talk about something, its taboo factor only stands to increase.

It seems fitting that the guy who says he “doesn’t care” about what we do in bed never outright discusses queer sex, let alone sex between women, or gender non-conforming folks. It would’ve been nice to see Cohen clarify that not all gays and lesbians have bodies which fit the status quo, and that people who identify as queer are constantly finding new ways to mess with the boundaries of morality and immorality as defined by faith. But this just wasn’t the case.

Fetishizing queer sex is one thing, but being curious is another. We kill the gasp! factor surrounding queer intimacy by talking about it. I can’t fault a heterosexual friend for asking me about strap-ons when I know she went through high school without ever talking about lesbian sex in her health class, and that the Cosmo she reads as a young adult is no better. I want straight people to care! I want them know that’s it’s possible to be respectfully curious, to ask questions, to get brutally honest answers from those of us within the LGBT community instead of misinformation from god knows where. The only dangerous questions are those which go unasked.

Talking about LGBT bodies is a good thing, particularly when it comes to the reproductive justice. I want to be able to have meaningful conversations about the lesbian aversion to gynecologists, in-community sexual assault, cancer awareness for transgender individuals, and so many other issues unique to our community.

One thing is certain: I do not want to have to wait for another AIDS epidemic for the Willie Whitlaws of the world to finally express concern in my body and the ways in which I use it.

100 Pictures of 2012: Queer Girls & Friends All Over The World

What a special year it was for queermos all over the globe. Let’s all take a moment to stare into their faces and eyeballs and think about love and togetherness and imagine a big bright beautiful future glimmering ahead of us in 2013, when unicorns will dive into rainbows and turn into pretty dragons who will stop global warming and ensure equality for all forever and evermore. Not all of these photos are of queer girls, but most of them have queer girls in them somewhere.

If you’d like your photo removed or if you spot an error in the caption, email bren [at] autostraddle [dot] com or carrie [at] autostraddle [dot] com!

France’s Counter-Protests Warm My Frozen Heart

Another day, another protest. If you gazed upon the streets of Paris this weekend you would have seen a familiar scene: long lines of people shouting and hollering over same-sex marriage. It happened a month ago, it happened a few weeks ago, so really there’s no surprise that it’s happening again.

Be Not Afraid Via Pierre Goyard

But unlike the previous manifestations that condemned homosexuality and warned how the fabric of society would be torn apart if gay couples had families, these demonstrations were organized by the other side of the argument.  The gayer side of the argument. The wittier side.

Did you ask for our opinion on your marriage? Via Pierre Goyard

We want adoption, not your balls/kids Via Pierre Goyard

Destruction of traditional marriage isn’t part of the gay agenda Via Pierre Goyard

Damn right! Via Pierre Goyard

Les Straddlers via Nataly J

Inter-LGBT, Fédération LGBT and Coordination Interpride-France teamed up to organize a series of weekend rallies throughout France. Up until now, conservative anti-gay citizens had claimed the title of vocal majority and used it as a platform for their ludicrous claims. To prove that the VITA Alliance didn’t speak for everyone, same-sex supporters showed they could put on an equally impressive march, even if they lacked the coordinated T-shirts. Organizers estimated more than 100,000 people took to Paris’s street on Sunday, which echos an IFOP poll result projecting that 60% of France’s population support same-sex marriages and 46% are in favour of same-sex adoption.

Via Pierre Goyard

You had gays, we’ll also make straight (kids). Via Pierre Goyard

Homophobes from all countries – punish yourselves Via Pierre Goyard

Les Straddlers Encore via Nataly J

Even though the protesters were smiling and in good spirits, they weren’t ecstatic. The proposed same-sex marriage law is a step towards progress, but it still falls short of equality. The law extends rights to married couples, but what about families? While the VITA Alliance and other groups protest the law because it may hurt children that are born to same-sex couples, same-sex supporters worry that the law won’t do enough to protect kids and their parents. When it comes to same-sex co-parent adoption, non-biological parents would have to jump through a thousand hoops, including marriage, before they could say their kid was theirs. A heterosexual man would simply have to sign on a dotted line to say he was the adoptive father of his partner’s children. Amantine Revol, deputy president of the association Les Enfants d’Arc en Ciel expressed her concern,

We’re not talking about virtual kids, we’re talking about perhaps hundreds of thousands of children currently being raised in gay families in France who need legal rights. What is being proposed is not enough – couples would have to marry before applying to adopt their own children, which could take years. Gay co-parents need immediate legal recognition and the automatic right to be named on a child’s birth certificate.

Our children also need to be protected Via Pierre Goyard

Via Pierre Goyard

Via Pierre Goyard

Via Pierre Goyard

Via Pierre Goyard

Equal rights are not a threat Via Pierre Goyard

SOS Homophobie President Elisabeth Ronzier has similar misgivings,

This is a historic moment because it’s the first time a French government is moving towards more equal rights for gay couples and families. But we’re not celebrating yet because the proposed law still doesn’t give complete equality. We want equal rights to medically assisted procreation. We want legal rights for co-parents – that means full parental responsibility for people raising a child with their partner. We have urged the government not to bow to the pressure of the opposition against this law. We expected some to oppose it, but we’ve been shocked by the violence of the opposition – and the retrograde, cliche-ridden arguments bordering on insults.

There’s another month of hand-wringing and people-watching before French citizens see which side made a greater impression on Parliament and the people, but this weekend’s protests stand as message to Hollande that he can’t back down or fail those that voted him into office. We’ll see whether love or hate wins out in January when the anti-gay rally dons their gendered shirts once more on the 13th and Take Action for Equality walks on the 27th.

Homophobic Swedish Soccer Squad Sacked in the Name of Love

When Swedish soccer players on the Sörskogens IF team decided to use homophobic slurs to intimidate an openly queer, all-inclusive opposing team, the consequences were immediate.

The Former Sörskogens IF

According to local news coverage, the Sörskogens players took upon themselves a series of efforts to make the Stockholm Snipers — a team described by its coach as “mainly […] homosexual, bisexual and transgender people” but which also includes people of all backgrounds and identities — feel abused and demoralized. They chanted slogans like ‘you’ve given us all HIV’ and ‘you’ve infected us all’ to Snipers team members, and encouraged fans to participate. They made threats to players and left the Snipers so shaken that the team locked themselves in their dressing room until the entire grounds were cleared following the game.

Snipers Coach Christoffer Smitz described the team’s experience as “unpleasant” and confirmed that they received threats and hid out until full-time was over.

The Stockholm Football Association fined the amateur team 5,000 kroner ($755) following a report of the incident; the president of the Sörskogens club, Ketil Torp, didn’t think that was enough. “We had no choice but to close down the whole team,” he said, confirming that homophobic abuse was not going to be tolerated. The entire first-team squad involved in the game has been suspended for the rest of the season.

“This kind of abuse fits neither in football nor outside the game,” Torp added. “We are a club with 90% youth players and it must be clear that this is not in our values.”

The official Twitter of Sörskorgens IF publicly echoed the sentiment of Torp and the Sörskorgens Board:

“Just to be clear. This section of Sörskorgens IF has nothing to do with the ugly actions towards LGBT. The team has been sacked. #thumbsup”

Although the behavior of the Sörskorgens first squad at that fateful match was deplorable and unjust, the action taken on behalf of the team’s board and league officials is remarkable and heartening. In a world where sports culture often glorifies gender-normative performance at the expense of inclusivity, seeing figureheads and powerful players speak out against homophobia is huge. Sweden, of course, comes well-endowed with a reputation for being borderline-otherworldly amazing towards queer people, but the situation still plays out as a remarkable attempt to hold athletes and individual people accountable for participating in a culture that remains broken in its treatment of LGBT people. Whereas it is easy to see this situation play out, in another time or place, differently, instead we saw a tangible example of what it means not to tolerate homophobia, no matter how accepted it might be.

Also.Also.Also: Gay Marriage Is For The Goats and Other Stories We Missed This Week

Hello little monsters! This week I ate an entire family size bag of white cheddar popcorn in two days. But I took a short break from the hypnotism of UTZ brand snacks so I could round up all of the stories we missed this week!

Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous

Mila Kunis, the girl you wished you were banging on your date to see Black Swan, is going to produce a feminist series called Meridian Hills for the CW. And Sara Ramirez of Grey’s Anatomy is a self-described gay ally for life! BFFLZ! Maybe all of these sweet celebrities can help smooth over the conflict between seapunks and Rihanna.

Also, LOL at a female anchor from Ohio’s Fox station calling Rachel Maddow “an angry young man.” Jesus Christ, fuck off already.

Also, there’s an Amanda Palmer video out that Crystal says is basically porn. See for yourself!

Gays Around the Globe

This week in Spain, the Constitutional Court reaffirmed gay marriage. And the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury (so chivalrous) pledged to think a little more about hating gay people and evaluate if it’s still okay. Lesbians from mainland China lived it up at Hong Kong pride, which drew 4,000 in an effort to smash homophobia and the patriarchy forever and ever amen.

Yet in Liberia, gay marriage is just one of the targets of a new homophobic campaign, and in New York, queer homeless youth are stuck on the streets.

While the outpouring of support has been heartening, Siciliano hopes that the renewed awareness will stretch beyond Sandy. “This is an ongoing crisis in the city, and the Mayor has been unwilling to increase the funding,” he said. “I was really struck by something yesterday. People were asking how long shelters will be open, and he said, ‘We’re not going to let anybody go sleeping in the streets.’ Well, there are thirty-eight hundred kids out on the streets every night. The day-to-day situation for gay homeless youth in New York City is a hot mess. It’s appalling that we can’t provide more shelter beds. What kind of city are we?

Let’s all take a lesson from Brazil, where homophobic doofus J.R. Guzzo, who formerly worked at Veja magazine (one of the most popular in the region) denied that the gay community existed and attracted the vitrol of basically everyone else who lives there. When he compared gay marriage to goat marriage, the newest meme was born: Goats to Marry.

If You Need a Reason to Crush on a Mountie, I Have One

Look no further than this “It Gets Better” video for another reason to visit a Canadian park.

Good to Know

This week, HuffPo printed a lengthy thing on bisexuality that turned out not to completely suck! Also, keep your eyes peeled for an anti-DOMA video for the ages. Because it’s on the way! OutServe SLDN and Freedom to Marry coming together can only mean the best PSA of all time, I think. Maybe while we wait we can review great gaycation packages and destinations.

And in case you were wondering, your period really is ruining your life and your health. At least sort of.

According to recent reports, a woman’s monthly cycle is more than just an inconvenience. Certain times of the month can contribute to worsening asthma symptoms, an increased risk of certain types of knee injuries and even the cycle of poverty.

Lastly, did you know Brittani Nichols went to Yale? She’s so amazing. And hilarious. Here’s a video of LGBT people who went from Yale being typically overachieving people with great voices and theatrical properties!

Notes On Watching America Vote, From A Canadian

Today is a very important day for my country, Canada: America will vote for a president while we partake in our favourite national pastime – watching Americans. This morning I awoke to Jian Gomeshi speaking about the election on CBC radio’s The Q. Last week I stayed up until two in the morning glued to the Canadian documentary program, The Passionate Eye’s, series, “Anger in America.” This Hour has 22 Minutes recently ran a skit in which Romney eats Big Bird for Thanksgiving Diner. And tonight,an impersonated Don Cherry, the infamous host of Hockey Night in Canada, will be only one of many Canadian T.V hosts covering the American election.

The world stares at the US election as smallcreatures stare at a boa constrictor into whose cage they’ve been dropped.

— Joyce Carol Oates (@JoyceCarolOates) November 6, 2012

Pierre Trudeau saw the U.S. as more of an elephant. He once said, “Living next to the United States is a little like sleeping with an elephant. You always wonder if they will roll over on you.” But according to a recent National Post editorial board, we don’t have much to fear: “regardless of whether [Mitt Romney] or Barack Obama is inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2013, no one is forecasting major disruptions in the U.S-Canada relationship.” I wondered why it is that Canadians care so much about what happens in America tonight, so I decided to ask my friends and fellow Canadians how they felt about this election.

I had confirmation that not only do we care, but this election is making us anxious. My friend Christal tells me, “I’m too nervous to watch. I might go to the gym to distract myself.” Diana, a host of the popular radio show Gaywire, might be coping in a different way: “I haven’t had hard liquor in 2+ years. If Romney wins tonight (or is close to winning) I will be drinking one drink after another.”

My friend Mike explained one of the reasons we’ll all be closely watching this election: “To me one of the issues that should be front and centre of every voter is climate change. Internationally, the U.S. is a key constituent in making that change possible and hope this election doesn’t move the U.S. backward.”

Taryn, a political science student at the University of Alberta, and Christal both emphasized the connection between what happens in America and what happens here. When asked if she cares about this election, Christal said, “Of course I care. U.S. politics can (and do) majorly influence Canadian politics. It’s no coincidence that Harper came into power while Bush was president.”

Taryn explained, “I have witnessed what a more (neo-)conservative politician is capable of doing here in Canada. When it comes down to it, the legality of abortion is important to me based on principle, and Obama being a more socially progressive politician does make me root for him, especially based on his attempt at introducing health care. I also know that American politics will have a great affect on Canada and the rest of the world, and having an American president like Romney will only increase the speed at which Stephen Harper is able to turn Canada into something we don’t recognize or want.”

You only need to think of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to know that we as Canadians have a lot to lose at the hands of the Americans; but the reason The National Post is able to say that our relationship with the U.S. is safe is because, compared to Canadians of previous decades, we don’t have as much to lose. As The National Post says, “unlike in the 1980s, and even the early 1990s — there simply is no longer a serious constituency for across-the-board protectionism in the United States (or, for that matter, Canada).”

This, my dear Canadians, is because we have already sold out. The National Post makes it seem like we should be relieved; when really the lack of animosity between the Canadian government and the American one should be a cause for concern. In the 1987 anthology, If You Love this Country:Facts and Feelings on Free Trade, edited by Laurier Lapierre, Margaret Atwood writes:

Our national animal is the beaver, noted for its industry and its co-operative spirit. In medieval bestiaries it is also noted for its habit, when frightened, of biting off its own testicles and offering them to its pursuer. I hope we are not succumbing to some form of that impulse.

margaret atwood, via poetryfoundation.org

Today, not only does America have our oil and our water, it also has our undivided attention. When it comes to Canada, the key word in the Joyce Carol Oates tweet is dropped. We have allowed our government to drop us into this cage. While it may be easy to picture America as a big boa constrictor of a bully and see ourselves as small, victimized creatures, it seems like its varying degrees of privilege, rather than differences of citizenship, that define where we stand on these issues.

Low-income Americans don’t care that Canada has been sold for its resources. They care about having resources.

As Autostraddle’s very own Fonseca says, “My mom gets by on $1,000 USD monthly. She has to make it stretch. I don’t think she cares where her gas, plastics, etc. come from, or if they can be recycled.”

She further explained that when low-income Americans go to the polls, they’re voting for the party that promises them prosperity – the American dream. Meanwhile, North of the border, rich and poor Canadians alike support Harper because he promises the Canadian equivalent of the American dream – a strong economy otherwise known as Canada’s Economic Action Plan.

As my friend Taryn highlights, candidates haven’t spoken about things like climate change, poverty, and racism on a societal or structural level: “The current American electoral system is broken, just as the Canadian one is – we do not have candidates representing the full breadth of options in terms of what will make our societies more just, equitable and sustainable.”

This evening as we watch the winner give his victory speech, we need to ask ourselves whom exactly the victory is for: low-income Americans? Canadians? Women? And then, we need to think about putting our beaver-industriousness to good-use and gnaw our way out of the damn cage.

He’s Got The Whole World In His Binders: What Romney/Ryan Would Mean for Women Globally

To the untrained ear, it might seem as though Mitt Romney is, in these final weeks before the election, making some last ditch efforts to board the women’s rights train. And to be sure, he’s made some semantic strides. From not really mentioning women’s rights at all to talking about binders full of women (which were forced into his hands, did you hear about that?) to Monday’s debate in which he employed  female pronouns as “rhetorical pawns,” someone seems to have given Mitt the memo that women do cast votes/have political importance.  In the foreign policy debate, Romney actually said things like “gender equality” and “women in public life,” phrases that he may have learned specifically for last night’s debate. But it’s important to remember that for all his pandering to female-identified voters, a Romney/Ryan administration would disastrous for women not just in this country, but literally all over the world.

A supporter of reproductive rights in the Philippines

If Romney’s busy busy first day in office goes according to schedule, international women’s rights will be soundly and immediately demolished: as Rachel mentioned in her recap of the debate, a Romney administration could mean a reinstatement of the global gag rule — in fact, he has pledged to do so. The global gag rule, or the “Mexico City Policy” as it’s officially named, bans international women’s health organizations from receiving USAID funding if they mention abortion to their clients, even as simply a word included in sexual health education. As explained on ThinkProgess, “Health clinics are forced to choose between censoring the health programs they have developed to serve women’s needs or being denied the funding they need to keep their doors open at all.”

And since Paul Ryan doesn’t want anyone to have an abortion because he thought a fetus looked like a cute bean, we should all take this threat very seriously. It’s estimated that 40 million abortions will take place in the developing world this year — from which 47 thousand women will die. But the global gag rule would mean more than just a loss of abortion rights: without funding from the US, women’s health clinics would have a hard time providing safer-sex supplies. It’s also bound to lead to an increase in back-alley abortions, and since it would cut off funding to the organizations that would provide care to women suffering from abortion-related complications, the global gag rule directly puts women’s lives at risk.

Additionally, Romney has promised to block the US from contributing to the United Nations Population Fund (a George W. Bush policy that was ended by Obama). The United Nations Population fund “supports programs in some 150 countries to improve poor women’s reproductive health, reduce infant mortality, end the sexual trafficking of women and prevent the spread of H.I.V.” The current federal contribution to the fund reaches 31 million women, and according to the Guttmacher Institute, prevents 22,000 maternal deaths annually. Despite those numbers, Romney justifies his desire to stop giving money to the fund by claiming that it provides support to coerced abortions in China, though a State Department investigation found this idea to be totally false, according to the New York Times.

At the heart of the United Nations Population Fund is the belief that reproductive rights are at the intersection of human rights, gender equality and population dynamics, and a lack of access to reproductive rights marginalizes women and young people — more so for those living in poverty. Likewise, at the heart of Romney’s foreign policy is a global, systematic take down of women’s rights, starting with the poorest and most vulnerable.

It’s Getting Better for Gays in Latin America Thanks to Todo Mejora

The It Gets Better Project, which has changed  – and saved – countless lives in the United States in the face of gay bullying has finally touched down in Latin America.

Todo Mejora, which is an official affiliate of the It Gets Better Project, was the brainchild of psychologists, researchers, reporters, lawyers, and activists like Júlio Cezar Dantas, who felt compelled to speak out about the mindless homophobia and violence that terrorizes LGBT youth and adults in his beloved Chilé after 24-year-old Daniel Zamudio was brutally attacked and later died in Santiago for being gay.

During the weeks Zamudio was fighting for his life, a TV reporter asked me, What can you really say to young people while Zamudio is in the hospital? 

I closed my eyes and said, “If you are a parent and are watching this, talk to your children, hug them; let them know they are loved. If you are a teacher or an adult caretaker, learn ways to teach about non-discrimination, respect and care. If you are an LGBT young person, know that for every time we are discriminated against, there are 1,000 times when we celebrate who we are and live fulfilling lives as LGBTs. If you are feeling scared, watch the videos on our page, download the resources, call a friend.  Don’t hurt yourselves. It really does get better.”

Dantas describes Todo Majora as a “project of compassion,” and since its launch in March, it has gotten over 70,000 hits and garnered over 80 videos and testimonies from LGBT people in Latin America. “Everything gets better,” reads the site. “Every video changes a life.” In an effort to be as inclusive as possible, the Todo Majora crew searched everywhere from lesbian bars to the Internet to find living, breathing queers willing to share their stories and reveal their identities to spread hope. In regions where violence is a very real and permeating threat in the lives of many queer adults, this was a real challenge and took a lot of time; for Dantas, who defines hope as “the light in the darkest moments,” it was a vital step in creating change.

The now-growing movement to end LGBT bullying and suicide faced a unique challenge in adapting the It Gets Better Project to fit an entirely new region, especially one which struggles with excessive rates of bullying and suicide, stringent gender roles and gender-based violence, and an overall culture of machismo. The language of Todo Majora fits the dialogue regarding gender and sexuality in Latin American countries, and the faces and stories are familiar and relatable to LGBT populations there. Todo Majora feels like home, and it was no small effort. Much like your favorite website Autostraddle dot com, the campaign is a labor of love that has grown to include volunteers and staff members working full-time elsewhere, all coming together with one common goal.

“We are empowered,” Dantas said, “by the reminder of the importance of our task: to tell LGBT youth how beautiful they are, that there is someone looking out for them, and that even the worst days of their lives will pass, and it will get better.”

Australian PM Julia Gillard Receives Backlash For Being Honest, Because of the Patriarchy

By now, I’m sure you’ve heard of Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s smackdown on Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. If you haven’t, catch up below. You will absolutely not be upset you spent fifteen minutes watching it or reading the transcript. If it’s clear to us that Gillard’s speech was amazing, then why are people attacking Gillard for being a hypocrite and saying she has damaged her own integrity?

First, some background on this speech and the issues surrounding it: Speaker Peter Slipper was recently caught saying some pretty sexist and terrible things in text messages to advisor James Ashby. These messages are problematic and have led to a lot of discussion recently regarding whether or not to dismiss Slipper, and Abbott himself has gone on record talking about how disgusting Slipper’s misogynist texts have been and how Parliament needs to do something about it. Well, that’s all fine and good, except there’s already a court case against Slipper for sexual harassment from Ashby. Slipper has since resigned from his position as Speaker.

It isn’t a Parliamentary issue. Claiming it is Parliament’s place “to judge Slipper when there is a court case in motion sets a dangerous precedent and makes a mockery of what Parliament is for.” No one was in support of Slipper’s text messages, they were in support of separation of powers. Parliament and the Judiciary system are two separate powers, just like the United States’ Executive and Judiciary branches. Key word: separate. Because it is a Judiciary matter now, it isn’t a Parliamentary matter. Gillard wasn’t ignoring the Slipper issue. Slipper made some terrible comments about vaginas, but Abbott has the potential power to make terrible laws about vaginas. That’s what Gillard’s speech was about.

via Sydney Morning Herald

Pinpointing exact sexist comments made by Abbott in her speech was sheer genius, especially considering Abbott’s wife tried to label him a feminist earlier this week. Honestly, I read that article thinking that it must have been from The Onion. Perhaps this new feminist-Abbott angle inspired Gillard’s speech, referencing quotations from Abbott himself:

He has said, and I quote, in a discussion about women being under-represented in institutions of power in Australia… The Leader of the Opposition says “If it’s true… that men have more power generally speaking than women, is that a bad thing?”

And then a discussion ensues, and another person says “I want my daughter to have as much opportunity as my son.” To which the Leader of the Opposition says “Yeah, I completely agree, but what if men are by physiology or temperament, more adapted to exercise authority or to issue command?”

Nevermind the fact that Abbott has been extremely outspoken about women’s reproductive rights and health, especially in reference to a blanket abortion ban. As Corrine Grant of The Hoopla points out, Abbott has given speeches claiming that “abortion is the easy way out”, has tried to prevent access to Gardasil (the cervical cancer vaccine) and voted against easily accessible RU486 (the abortion pill). Yet, Gillard is getting the backlash from the media.

The Australian media has latched onto the strange idea that because Gillard didn’t vote in favor of dismissing Slipper, that she is a hypocrite who can’t possibly be for women’s rights. Apparently, she doesn’t respect women enough to dismiss Slipper for his sexually harassing texts, but Gillard wasn’t making a speech about Slipper. She was making a speech about the hypocrisy of Tony Abbott calling himself a feminist in the wake of the Slipper case.

Perhaps the most upsetting critique of Gillard’s speech comes from Peter Hartcher of the Sydney Morning Herald. In his opinion piece, he says, “If there was one thing that should have been different about Gillard’s prime ministership, it should have been that Australia’s first female prime minister should have been a flag bearer for women.” In what way is Gillard not being a “flag bearer for women” by calling out the Opposition Leader’s extensive track record of misogyny? Was it when she voiced her opinion from a woman’s perspective or maybe when she said it was hurtful that the Liberals have attacked her family in the past?

Tony Abbott is totally a feminist
via {SBS}

Abbott has said of the speech, “Just because the Prime Minister has sometimes been the victim of unfair criticism doesn’t mean she can dismiss any criticism as sexism or she can dismiss any criticism on gender grounds.” Yes, Mr. Abbott, I am completely sure you would still have called her a “witch” and  “bitch” if she were a male politician.

I’ll be the first to admit that Julia Gillard hasn’t always been my favorite person. I found it unsettling when she took over power from Kevin Rudd, but I had high hopes for her as the first female Prime Minister of Australia. Although she lost some points with me by saying she wasn’t in favor of marriage equality, I still support Labor’s decision in focusing on Slipper’s case as a judiciary matter, not a Parliamentary one.

There seems to be a “boys club” mentality in Australian politics, this week’s Q&A assured me of that, whether they admit it or not. Calling that out does not diminish Gillard’s credibility as a leader. I don’t find it surprising that male journalists have been the majority behind the Australian media’s major backlash to her speech, but I am left questioning if we even watched the same speech.