Oppose the DSMV Committee Members on Gender Identity Disorder

Here's the link to the petition again. In case you need convincing, or know someone that does, here's a letter I wrote to get people to pay attention:

Hi Guys,

I don't for the most part send out mass emails because I think it's really annoying. However I just signed the petition "Objection to DSM-V Committee Members on Gender Identity Disorders" and it's really important to me that you at least know what this issue is about. Signing the petition would be great too, but telling other people about what is going on would be better. People need to know. Please at least read:

Here's the deal. The American Psychiatrist's Association is rewriting the DSM-V (manual that describes mental illnesses, etc). They've appointed to the committee a bunch of people who think that gay and transgendered people should be treated with "aversion therapy" to "cure" them of gayness/transgenderism. There was a show on NPR about Kenneth Zucker, one of the appointees, a couple weeks ago if you happened to hear it. It described (among other things) a 6 year old biologically male child whose parents had been counseled by Zucker to punish the kid if he played with dolls, hung out with girls, or showed any interest in the color pink. Listen here. It's heartbreaking.

Not only would Zucker and the others reclassify transgenderism as a mental illness to be treated with "aversion therapy," they would reclassify it as a form of homosexuality which they also think is pathological. Meaning, if they get their way, a gay or trans person could go to their local friendly psychiatrist for help with depression/anxiety disorder/whatever, and end up being "treated" so as to reverse their gayness/transness. Basically Zucker wants to reclassify homosexuality as a mental illness. In case we need some reminding of what that means, here's a direct quote from the NPR story on what used to happen when homosexuality was defined as a mental illness: "According to Jack Drescher, former chairman of the American Psychiatric Association's committee on gay and lesbian issues, one treatment was to try to condition homosexuals out of their sexual preference by attaching them to electrical shock machines and shocking them every time they were aroused by homosexual pornography."

This is a really big deal and it is not getting enough attention. Please sign the petition and talk to other people about why it's important. Imagine the queer people you know. If they were in a bad spot and needed help from a professional, would you want them to be able to get that help without being judged? Or would you want the people who are supposed to be helping them subjecting them to more degradation and forcing them to twist their own identity?

Thanks for reading,
~Sarah

Happiness as a Feminist/Radical Activist

This is a modified post from my personal blog. A few weeks ago my boss said something about how our workplace had always been a place for people who had their eyes open politically and then made a joke about how that's probably why three quarters of the staff is on anti-depressants. That got me thinking...

Mostly i've been of the opinion that feminists are generally happier with their lives and themselves personally because they can sort of shed all that social programmed shit. But a few weeks ago i was feeling more like i didn't want to read some of my new feminist books/feminist news sources because it's just too much. Sometimes i get in these moods where i'm all inside my head so i try to distract myself by watching Friends (which i really like, actually). But then I start thinking about the ways in which it's not actually that funny because it insults women or plays on insecurities of personal appearance (or any social insecurities, really). The other day i was wondering if the acquaintances I have who AREN'T feminists are actually happier in their bubbles because they don't spend time worrying/raging about rape victim blaming/women body hating/sexuality fearing societies/etc. They can just go on with their lives not worrying about or being aware of larger social issues.

But then again, there are so many non-feminists who participate in fucked up shit like weight-losing contests, etc. That's kind of fucked. I guess at least i don't have to worry about that kind of shit. (not because i'm perfect, obviously, but because i'm okay with my body).

thoughts? does this sound self-centered of me? i'm beginning to feel like my non-feminist acquaintances are weary of me because they think i think i'm better than them or something. but some of them don't seem to care about anything that happens to other people. I told one of them about the DSM-V Committee on Gender Identity Disorders and she just said "oh" and left the conversation. "Oh?" "OH?!?!?!?!???" "Oh, your identity as a person might get reclassified as a psychological disorder thereby subjecting you to degrading and horrific "aversion therapy should you ever need to go to a psychologist?" "OH??? No big deal. Whatever Sarah, I'm going to go make out with my boyfriend now." Or worse, "how dare you get angry and bring to my attention the fact that you are oppressed!" AGGGHHHH!!!!

on other news: i am SO EXCITED for this book: http://feministing.com/archives/008218.html

Let's Not Put the Cart Before the Horse, People

While driving home from work today I heard the news about the passage of the non-inclusive, certain-veto ENDA in the house. I couldn't help thinking "Is this really as far as we've come? All around us we hear daily shouts about the possibility of gay marriage, and yet I can still be fired for being queer?"

A couple months ago I asked why we focus so damn much on marriage equality when people can still be fired for being queer. Sure, we just had a month of drama over ENDA, but in the mainstream, whenever you hear about queer rights, all you hear about is marriage. Right-wingers ranting on about the sanctity of marriage. Brad Pitt saying that he wouldn't marry Angelina until everyone who wanted to could get married. Constant articles about this or that state that legalizing civil unions or outlawing marriage (Type "gay rights articles" into Google, and 6 of the first 10 results are about gay marriage. None mention employment). But we can still be legally fired for being queer! Why isn't there more attention focused on this, by the mainstream media certainly, but from our advocacy groups especially? I hope that I have not just realized what the answer is.

Are we pursing marriage equality more vehemently because it is an issue that is very important to upper class queers, while employment discrimination is more likely to affect poorer LGBTQ folk? The HRC's Corporate Equality Index rates companies on their "policies and practices pertinent to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees, consumers and investors." Their 2008 report shows that 98% of the companies rated provide employment protection on the basis of sexual orientation (only 58% on the basis of gender identity).

Well, super. Sounds like employment discrimination (at least for GLB folk) is on the way out the door, right? Think again. The companies rated are the largest 200 privately owned firms, the top 200 law firms, and Fortune Magazine's list of the largest 1000 publicly-traded businesses. In other words, the most successful, corporate conglomerates who can afford to pay their laywers, investment-bankers CEOs, CFOs, etc plenty of money. No mention of how employment discrimination affects the queer people who work lower-paid jobs.

So what have we got here? A whole bunch of upper-class queer folk for whom employment discrimination isn't much of an issue, and who have money to contribute where they see fit. The queer folk who work at such corporations most likely have more money to donate to advocacy groups like the HRC, than those who work at smaller independently owned businesses and get paid minimum wage.

Understandably, these upper-class folk might not see employment discrimination as being a big issue, and thus might encourage our advocacy groups to focus less on employment, and more on marriage equality. Marriage, besides being something that these people might want because of commitment reasons, is an especially important issue to upper-class queers because of it's relation to money. Marriage rights include taxes, retirement accounts, social-security benefits, pensions, and home protection--issues vital to the upper-class, but less important to poorer queers that the more immediate prospect of being fired.

Are our advocacy groups bowing to the well-funded interests of upper-class queers, and thus emphasizing the need for marriage equality over the more basic need for employment rights? I would like to think not; however, let's not forget that a non-profit must always be thinking about how it's going to get the money to fund it's next initiative. If their wealthy donors are putting pressure on them to lobby for marriage equality, then it is very much in the interest of the advocacy groups to do so, despite more pressing and basic problems.

So please, if you happen to be one of those wealthy queers, be sure to emphasize to the groups you fund how important it is that they stick up for the poorest and most discriminated against in our community. Just as our GLB folk must speak out for the protection of our trans folk, our upper-class people MUST fight for the protection of those less well-off than they. As they say, money is power. And it is absolutely incumbent upon those with power to be responsible for the way they use it.

Link-O-Rama

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders (R) announces support for Gay Marriage



Also:
Maybe everyone already knows about this, but here's the HRC's lovely, visual-aid-y, list of maps that show state-by-state GLBTQ laws. Awesome.

and, it's GLBT month at Young Adult Books Central. Check it out!

Senator Craig: Victim of Entrapment Targeting Queer People

Upon reflection I'd like to modify my statement that Senator Craig did nothing that wasn't consensual. Admittedly he peeked into the policeman's stall. I'm not gonna say that that was a brilliant move on his part. That's pretty gross. However I don't feel like that's something that someone should have to resign or get arrested over.

Sarah Kernshaw has an intriguing (and occasionally infuriating) article in the New York Times about the issue of entrapment and whether things like ogling/leering/peeping in person should be crimes. As she says "when is a leer too long and an ogle illegal? What is the legal standard on staring?" While peering into someone else's stall is something that people should be doing, I don't think we should be criminalizing it. What is an appropriate legal punishment for peeping? Certainly not incarceration. We already have a big enough problem with overflowing prisons in this country. Each time we decide to criminalize something, we should first take a long, hard look at what the appropriate punishment should be if someone commits that "crime."

And what "crime" did Senator Craig even commit? Asking for consensual sex is now a crime? There's no evidence that he even intended to have sex in a bathroom, and even if he did I'm not sure that that should BE a crime. As Laura MacDonald says in her awesome article in The New York Times, "Public sex is certainly a nuisance, but criminalizing consensual acts does not help." She then cites a study conducted by Laud Humphreys in 1970.

Humphreys conducted an extensive investigation into the public-bathroom-sex scene and found that there is always a call-and-response system for eliciting anonymous sex that would weed out any uninterested persons "after that first tap or cough or look went unnoticed." Thus, he concludes that "on the basis of extensive and systematic observation, I doubt the veracity of any person (detective or otherwise) who claims to have been 'molested' in such a setting without first having 'given his consent.' "

This leads me to the question of who exactly the police are supposedly protecting in this bathroom sting scenario. They can't be protecting any adult males who might be in the stalls, because in order for the rendezvous to occur, it would have to be validated several times on both sides by signals of consent.

Sarah Kernshaw (New York Times) suggests that they're protecting the hypothetical teenage boys who might be using that bathroom. First of all, let me point out that any sex occurring with underaged boys would still be consensual. However, addressing the underaged issue, I think it would be very difficult to prove that anyone who was looking for anonymous sex in an airport bathroom was specifically looking for sex with an underaged boy. In fact, I think it's pretty unlikely that anyone would even look for underaged sex in an airport bathroom. Most people in airports are adults, and any underaged kids are most likely traveling with family and thus not very likely to have a lot of alone time to have anonymous sex in a bathroom. In any case, an adult policeman couldn't accuse Senator Craig of looking for sex with an underaged person because the policeman himself would have been of-age.

So if the police aren't protecting adult men (b/c the sex is consensual), and they don't seem to be attempting to protect underaged boys (because they're not making efforts to prove that that's what's going on), then who exactly are they trying to protect? And from what? The only thing I can assume is that they're trying to protect people from their own decisions to have consensual anonymous sex.

Once again, consensual sex is not against the law. Anonymous sex is not against the law. Gay sex is (thankfully) no longer against the law. So the police are protecting people from their decisions to do things that are perfectly legal. In which case, they're appointing themselves as the enforcers of personal morality, which I'm pretty sure isn't in their job description.

On another note, it seems clear to me that Senator Craig was a victim of entrapment because the call and response system would not have continued if his actions had not been reciprocated. A guy looking for anonymous gay sex would have to be crazy to push himself on someone who had shown no sign of being interested. At the very least he would probably get a disgusted look and a rude brush-off. At the worst he could be beaten bloody, harassed, stalked, etc etc. So if he continued along his call-and-response path, it must have been because the policeman responded to his advances. And if the policeman responded to his advances, then once again the question becomes: what crime, exactly, did Senator Craig commit????

However, not only was Senator Craig a victim of entrapment. He was a victim of a police sting that specifically target gay men (who, let me say again, were doing nothing except hoping for some consensual sex. I.E. NOT A CRIME!). Last time I checked, the police are supposed to be there to enforce the law and to protect people. Not to be the self-appointed morality squad and to target populations that are already the victims of hate crimes. If you want to stop sex in public places, go right ahead, just make sure that a). there's a law against it and b). that it's actually happening before you go around arresting people. In other words, wait until you know the crime is happening before you punish people for it.



N.B. Sorry no links to the New York Times articles--I read them in hardcopy. They're from the Sunday, Sept 2, 2007 Week in Review section. "When Fighting Crime Means Enticing Crime" by Sarah Kershaw and "America's Toe Tapping Menace" by Laura M. MacDonald.

Senator Craig: Read the F-ing Police Report

It is not at all clear to me what Larry Craig did that was so awful. If you read the police report, you can see that all he did was use some (rather circumstantially identified) code to allegedly indicate that he was interested in having sex with someone. He did not actually have sex with anyone. He didn't touch, grope or in any other way harass anybody. He didn't even talk to, see, or make eye contact with the guy. All he did was tap his foot, wave his hand along the bottom of the stall and touch his shoe to someone else's shoe. What he did in no way bothered anybody else in the bathroom (other than the police officer he allegedly came on to, who apparently indicated he was interested in sex by using the same code).

There are so many reasons why this whole thing bothers me. It seems pretty clear that he is being attacked solely upon suspicion of queerness. Which, clearly, is unacceptable. But I think what bothers me more is a). the way that it's being justified, and b). the comments I've heard from queer people, which have been just as nasty.

The whole affair is being portrayed as if Senator Craig actually had sex with someone in a bathroom. Not only that, but the labels "lewd conduct" and "disorderly conduct," as well as the way that Senate Republicans are reacting, leads one to believe that he did something really heinous (e.g. harassing someone, sex with children, prostitution, rape, etc). However he did none of these things. All he did was inoffensively, nonverbally, and without any physical contact ask someone for consensual sex. There is no indication that he planned to have sex in the bathroom (and even if he had, so what, ppl have heterosexual sex in bathrooms all the time and it's laughed off as being nontraditional but still sort of accepted. Witness the Friends episodes where Monica and Chandler have sex in the bathroom or in the hospital broom closet).

Republicans are reacting to this as if he did something morally reproachable, but I'm at a loss as to see what he did that was worthy of reproach. The only thing that I can see is that he allegedly wanted to have sex with someone even though he was already married. However this issue is completely not within the realm of what the country needs to be concerning itself about. That is a personal issue between him and his wife. It's not the business of Senator McCain, or anyone else who is calling for his resignation. You can't get arrested for cheating on someone. And you certainly can't fire someone because of it. Besides, how are we to know that his wife didn't already know about it? Just a thought, but maybe they have an open marriage. In any case, the issue is not anyone's business besides his and his family's, so I see no reason why he needs to be dragged through the muck and then be forced to resign over it.

The other thing that bothers me about this affair is the way that the queer people I know have been reacting to it. I have heard him being torn down for saying "I am not gay. I have never been gay." I heard one person say, very derogatorily "I guess he thinks it's something that comes and goes." Well, yes, actually, for some people it might come and go. Namely those people who aren't completely 100% gay or 100% straight. Basically what's being said here is that he's "not gay enough" to be accepted and treated with decency.

I've also heard the point of view that queer people shouldn't care what happens to him because he's been historically anti-gay in his legislative choices. Yes, it is true that he isn't not particularly pro-equality. However, attack him for his positions then. Don't attack him for "lying about who he is" or not being "gay enough." Personally, I don't think that we should force unwanted labels onto anyone. Maybe Senator Craig doesn't identify as gay. Maybe he's attracted to men AND women. Maybe his sexuality has changed over time. Maybe his sexuality still varies. There's really no way for anyone other than Senator Craig to know these things, so I really don't think it's appropriate for us say that he is definitively gay (and here i mean 'gay' in it's use as being attracted EXCLUSIVELY to men), and therefore lying to the country. *Sigh* Just one more example of the queer community ripping into it's own when it should be supporting those who are having a hard time...

I'm not saying that Senator Craig is a great person. I'm just saying that he doesn't deserve to be treated the way he currently is. It seems pretty clear that he's being attacked solely because he's suspected of being queer. However, instead of being outraged at the way he is being treated or giving him any kind of support, the queer community is turning around and attacking him as well. Disgusting.

EDIT: Just found something else. I saw it implied that this was an excellent opportunity for the Democrats (and thus queer people) because it will turn the Christian right against Republicans in Idaho so that some Dems can get elected. Well, super! Damn, I know I'M excited about the idea of sacrificing a possible queer person for the sake of getting some Democrat elected who may or may not ultimately support equality. Sounds like a GREAT plan to me!