#Trans people can use the courts to force their way into women's sports but they can't make other women or girls compete with them | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

cruisingthedemimonde · 4 years ago

Text

America’s Gay Men in WW2

World War Two was a “National Coming Out” for queer Americans.

I don’t think any other event in history changed the lives of so many of us since Rome became Christian.

For European queers the war brought tragedy.

The queer movement began in Germany in the 1860s when trans activist Karl Ulrichs spoke before the courts to repeal Anti-Sodomy laws. From his first act of bravery the movement grew and by the 1920s Berlin had more gay bars than Manhattan did in the 1980s. Magnus Hirschfeld’s “Scientific Humanitarian Committee” fought valiantly in politics for LGBT rights and performed the first gender affirmation surgeries. They were a century ahead of the rest of the world.

The Nazis made Hirschfeld - Socialist, Homosexual and Jew - public enemy number one.

The famous image of the Nazis burning books? Those were the books of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee. Case studies of the first openly queer Europeans, histories, diaries - the first treasure trove of our history was destroyed that day.

100,000 of us were charged with felonies. As many as 15,000 were sent to the camps, about 60% were murdered.

But in America the war brought liberation.

In a country where most people never even heard the word “homosexual” , historian John D’emilio wrote the war was “conducive both to the articulation of a homosexual identity and to the more rapid evolution of a gay subculture. (24)” The war years were “a Watershed (Eaklor 68)”

Now before we begin I need to give a caveat. The focus of this first post is not lesbians, transfolk or others in our community. Those stories have additional complexity the story of cisgender homosexual men does not. Starting with gay men lets me begin in the simplest way I can, in subsequent posts I’ll look at the rest of our community.

Twilight Aristocracy: Being Queer Before the War

I want us to go back in time and imagine the life of the typical queer American before the war. Odds are you lived on a farm and simply accepted the basic fact that you would marry and raise children as surely as you were born or would die. You would have never seen someone Out or Proud. If you did see your sexuality or gender in contrary ways you had no words to express it, odds are even your doctor had never heard the term “Homosexual. In your mind it was just a quirk, without a name or possible expression.

In the city the “Twilight Aristocracy” lived hidden, on the margins and exposed their queerness only in the most coded ways. Gay men “Dropping pins” with a handkerchief in a specific pocket. Butch women with key chains heavy enough to show she didn’t need a man to carry anything for her. A secret language of “Jockers” and “Nances” “Playing Checkers” during a night out. There is a really good article on the queer vernacular here

And these were “Lovers in a Dangerous Time.”

In public one must act as straight as possible. Two people of the same gender dancing could be prosecuted. Cross dressing, even with something as trivial as a woman wearing pants, would run afoul of obscenity laws.

The only spaces we had for ourselves were dive bars, run by organized crime. But even then one must be sure to be circumspect, and act straight. Anyone could be an undercover cop. If a gaze was held to long, or lovers kissed in a corner the bar would be raided. Police saw us as worthy candidates for abuse so beatings were common and the judge would do all he could to humiliate you.

Now Michael Foucault, the big swinging french dick of queer theory, laid out this whole theory about how the real policing in a society happens inside our heads. Ideas about sin, shame, normalcy, mental illness can all be made to control people, and the Twilight Aristocracy was no different.

While cruising a park at night, or settled on the sofa with a lifelong lover, the thoughts of Priests and Doctors haunted them. “Am I living in Sin? Am I someone God could love?” “Is this healthy? Have I gone mad? Is this a true love or a medical condition which requires cure?”

There was no voice in America yet healing our self doubt, or demanding the world accept us as we are. And that voice, the socialist Harry Hay, did not come during the war, but it would come shortly after directly because of it.

Johnny Get Your Gun… And are you now or ever been a Homosexual?

For the first time in their lives millions of young men crossed thousands of miles from their home to the front.

But before they made that brave journey they had another, unexpected and often torturous journey. The one across the doctor’s office at a recruiting station.

In the nineteenth century queerness moved from an act, “Forgive me Father I have sinned, I kissed another man” to something you are, “The homosexual subspecies can be identified by certain physical and psychological signs.”

These were the glory days of patriarchy and white supremacy, those who transgressed the line between masculine and feminine called the whole culture into question. So doctors obsessed themselves with queerness, its origins, its signs, its so called catastrophic racial consequences and its cure.

“Are you a homosexual?” doctors asked stunned recruits.

If you were closeted but patriotic, you would of course deny the accusation. But the doctor would continue his examination by checking if you were a “Real Man.”

“Do you have a girlfriend? Did you like playing sports as a kid?”

If you passed that, the doctor would often try and trip you up by asking about your culture.

“Do you ever go basketeering?” he would ask, remembering to check if there was any lisp or effeminacy in your voice.

Finally if the doctor felt like it he could examine your body to see if you were a member of the homosexual subspecies.

Your gag reflex would be tested with a tongue depressor. Another hole could be carefully examined as well.

Humiliating enough for a straight man. But for a gay recruit the consequences could be life threatening.

Medical authorities knew homosexuals were weak, criminal and mad. To place them among the troops would weaken unit cohesion at the very least, result in treachery at the worst. In civilian life doctors had much the same thing to say.

The recruit needed a cure. And a doctor was always ready. With talk therapy, hypnosis, drugs, electroshock and forced surgeries of the worst kinds there was always a cure ready at hand.

Thankfully the doctors were not successful in their task, one doctor wrote “for every homosexual who was referred or came to the Medical Department, there were five or ten who never were detected. (d’Emilio 25)”

Here’s the irony though, by asking such pointed and direct questions to people closeted to themselves it forced them to confront their sexuality for the first time.

Hegarty writes, “As a result of the screening policies, homosexuality became part of wartime discourse. Questions about homosexual desire and behavior ensured that every man inducted into the armed forces had to confront the possibility of homosexual feelings or experiences. This was a kind of massive public education about homosexuality. Despite—and be-cause of—the attempts to eliminate homosexuals from the military, men with same-sex desires learned that there were many people like themselves (Hegarty 180)”

And then it gave them a golden opportunity to have fun.

The 101st Airborn - Homosocial and Homosexual

“Homosocial” refers to a gender segregated space. And they were often havens for gay men. The YMCA for example really was a place for young gay men to meet.

Now the government was already aware of the kind of scandalous sexual behaviour young men can get up to when left to themselves. Two major government programs before the war, the Federal Transient Program and the Civilian Conservation Corps focused on unattached young men, but over time these spaces became highly suspect and the focus shifted to helping family men so as to avoid giving government aid to ‘sexual perversion’ in these homosocial spaces.

But with the war on there was no choice but to put hundreds of thousands of young men in their own world. All male boot camps, all male bases, all male front lines.

The emotional intensity broke down the barriers between men and the strict enforcement of gendered norms.

On the front the men had no girlfriend, wife or mother to confide in. The soldier’s body was strong and heroic but also fragile. Straight men held each other in foxholes and shared their emotional vulnerability to each other. Gender lines began to blur as straight men danced together in bars an action that would result in arrest in many American cities.

Bronski writes, “Men were now more able to be emotional, express their feelings, and even cry. The stereotypical “strong, silent type,” quintessentially heterosexual, that had characterized the American Man had been replaced with a new, sensitive man who had many of the qualities of the homosexual male. (Bronski 152)”

Homosexual men discovered in this environment new freedoms to get close to one another without arousing suspicion.

“Though the military officially maintained an anti-homosexual stance, wartime conditions nonetheless offered a protective covering that facilitated interaction among gay men (d’Emilio 26)”

Bob Ruffing, a chief petty officer in the Navy described this freedom as follows, ‘When I first got into the navy—in the recreation hall, for instance— there’d be eye contact, and pretty soon you’d get to know one or two people and kept branching out. All of a sudden you had a vast network of friends, usually through this eye contact thing, some through outright cruising. They could get away with it in that atmosphere. (d’Emilio 26) ”

Another wrote about their experience serving in the navy in San Diego, “‘Oh, these are more my kind of people.’ We became very chummy, quite close, very fraternal, very protective of each other. (Hegarty 180)”

Some spaces within the army became queer as well. The USO put on shows for soldiers, and since they could not find women to play parts, the men often dressed in drag. “impersonation. For actors and audiences, these performances were a needed relief from the stress of war. For men who identified as homosexual, these shows were a place where they could, in coded terms, express their sexual desires, be visible, and build a community. (Bronski 148)”

“Here you see three lovely “girls”

With their plastic shapes and curls.

Isn’t it campy? Isn’t it campy?

We’ve got glamour and that��s no lie;

Can’t you tell when we swish by?

Isn’t it campy? Isn’t it campy?”

The words camp and swish being used in the gay subculture and connected to effeminate gay men.

I would have to assume, more than a few transwomen gravitated to these spaces as well.

Even the battlefield itself provided opportunities for gay fraternization. A beach in Guam for example became a secret just for the gay troops, they called it Purple Beach Number 2, after a perfume brand.

This homoerotic space was not confined to the military, but spilled out into civilian life as well.

Donald Vining was a pacifist who stated bluntly his homosexuality to the recruitment board as his mother needed his work earnings, and if you wanted be a conscientious objector you had to apply to go to an objector’s camp. He became something of a soldier chaser, working in the local YMCA and volunteering at the soldier’s canteen in New York he hooked up with soldiers still closeted for a night of passion but many more who were open about who they were.

After the war he was left with a network of gay friends and a strong sense of belonging to a community. It was dangerous tho, he was victim of robberies he could not report because they happened during hook ups, but police were always ready to raid gay bars when they were bored. “It was obvious that [the police] just had to make a few arrests to look busy,” he protested in his diary. “It was a travesty of justice and the workings of the police department (d’Emilio 30).״

Now it might seem odd he was able to plug into a community like that, but over the war underground gay bars appeared across the country for their new clientele. Even the isolated Worcester Mass got a gay bar.

African American men, barred from combat on the front lines, were not entirely barred from the gay subculture in the cities. For example in Harlem the jazz bar Lucky Rendevous was reported in Ebony as whites and blacks “steeped in the swish jargon of its many lavender costumers. (Bronski 149)”

The Other War: Facing Homophobia

“For homosexual soldiers, induction into the military forced a sudden confrontation with their sexuality that highlighted the stigma attached to it and kept it a matter of special concern (d’Emilio 25)”

“They were fighting two wars: one for America, democracy, and freedom; the other for their own survival as homosexuals within the military organization. (Eaklor 68)”

Once they were in, they fell under Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: “Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.”

Penalties could include five years hard labour, forced institutionalization or fall under the dreaded Section 8 discharge, a stamp of mental instability that would prevent you from finding meaningful employment in civilian life.

Even if one wanted nothing to do with fulfilling their desires it was still essential to become hyper aware of your presentation and behaviour in order to avoid suspicion.

Coming Home to Gay Ghettos

“The veterans of World War II were the first generation of gay men and women to experience such rapid, dramatic, and widespread changes in their lives as homosexuals. Bronski 154”

After the war many queer servicemen went on to live conventionally heterosexual lives. But many more returned to a much queerer life stateside.

Bob Ruffing would settle down in San Francisco. The city has always been a safe harbour for queer Americans, made more so as ex servicemen gravitated to its liberated atmosphere. The port cities of New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles became the prime destinations to settle. Vining’s partner joined him in New York, where they both immersed themselves in the gay culture.

Other soldiers moved to specific neighborhoods known for having small gay communities. San Francisco’s North Beach, the west side of Boston’s Beacon Hill, or New York’s Greenwich Village. Following the war the gay populations of these cities increased dramatically.

The cities offered parks, coffee houses and bars which became queer spaces. And drag performance, music and comedy became features of this culture.

These veterans also founded organizations just for the queer soldiers. In Los Angeles the Knights of the Clock provided a space for same sex inter racial couples. In New York the Veterans Benevolent Association would often see 400-500 homosexuals appear at its events.

A number of books bluntly explored homosexuality following the war, such as The Invisible Glass which tells the story of an inter racial couple in Italy,

“With a slight moan Chick rolled onto his left side, toward the Lieutenant. His finger sought those of the officer’s as they entwined their legs. Their faces met. The breaths, smelling sweet from wine, came in heavy drawn sighs. La Cava grasped the soldier by his waist and drew him tightly to his body. His mouth pressed down until he felt Chick’s lips part. For a moment they lay quietly, holding one another with strained arms.”

Others like Gore Vidal’s The City and the Pillar (1948), Fritz Peters’s The World Next Door (1949), and James Barr’s Quatrefoil (1950) explored similar themes.

In 1948 the Kinsey Report would create a public firestorm by arguing that homosexuality is shockingly common. In 1950 The Mattachine Society, a secretive group of homosexual Stalinists launched America’s LGBT movement.

References:

Michael Bronski “A Queer History of the United States”

John D’emilio “Coming Out Under Fire”

Vivki L Eaklor “Queer America: A GLBT History of America”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lesbians

In 1947 General Eisenhower told a purple heart winning Sargeant Johhnie Phelps, “It's come to my attention that there are lesbians in the WACs, we need to ferret them out”.

Phelps replied, “"If the General pleases, sir, I'll be happy to do that, but the first name on the list will be mine."

Eisenhower’s secretary added “"If the General pleases, sir, my name will be first and hers will be second."

Join me again May 17 to hear the story of America’s Lesbians during the war.

#gay history #world war two #queer history #gay #lgbt

21 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

Why Do Republicans Hate Gay People

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-do-republicans-hate-gay-people/

Why Do Republicans Hate Gay People

Presidency Of George W Bush

George W. Bush did not repeal President Clinton’s Executive Order banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the federal civilian government, but Bush’s critics felt as if he failed to enforce the executive order. He retained Clinton’s Office of National AIDS Policy and was the first Republican president to appoint an openly man to serve in his administration, Scott Evertz as director of the Office of National AIDS Policy. Bush also became the second President, after President Clinton, to select openly gay appointees to his administration. Bush’s nominee as ambassador to Romania, Michael E. Guest, became the second openly gay man U.S. Ambassador and the first to be confirmed by the Senate. He did not repeal any of the spousal benefits that Clinton had introduced for same-sex federal employees. He did not attempt to repeal Don’t ask, don’t tell, nor make an effort to change it.

In April 2002, White House officials held an unannounced briefing in April for the Log Cabin Republicans. On June 27, 2002, President Bush has signed a bill allowing death benefits to be paid to domestic partners of firefighters and police officers who die in the line of duty, permanently extending a federal death benefit to same-sex couples for the first time.

The 2004 Republican Party platform removed both parts of that language from the platform and stated that the party supports anti-discrimination legislation.

Two Reasons Why The Bathroom Bill Targeting Trans People Is Flawed

We believe this bill is flawed for two reasons. First, as conservatives who believe in liberty and in supporting small businesses, we do not think that government should single out businesses for special public censure if they do not enforce the governments current social views.

Americans are still sorting out how they feel about trans people and how they can be tolerant or hospitable neighbors even if they disagree. Government should not use private businesses as pawns in an ongoing culture war, especially with something as private as their customers genitalia.

Second, the bill is counterproductive. We understand that the legislature wants to give parents peace of mind that their daughters will not use the same restroom as biological males. Parents want to make sure their kids are safe this is a completely reasonable concern. But forcing trans women to use the same restroom as young boys can be more disturbing and disruptive to businesses.

Hear more Tennessee Voices:

Dads: imagine walking into the mens room with your son and seeing Caitlyn Jenner, in a dress, fixing her makeup.

More disturbing still is when trans men who are far along in their transition people who look, act, and identify as male must use the same restroom as young girls.

More:Tennessee Voices, Episode 118: Chris Sanders, Tennessee Equality Project

The Fairness For All Act Is A Republican Response To The Equality Act

In March, House Democrats introduced the Equality Act, the first comprehensive LGBTQ civil rights bill to pass the House. While it has been stalled in the GOP-controlled Senate, it would provide sweeping non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people in the US in housing, employment, public accommodations, education, and health care for the first time under federal law.

At the time, there were that some conservative groups were working on a compromise bill, and it appears the Fairness For All Act is that compromise.

A small coalition of religious conservative groups led by the American Unity Fund and including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Seventh-day Adventist Church, 1st Amendment Partnership, Center for Public Justice, and Council for Christian Colleges and Universities have rallied behind the bill.

Im excited about the solutions that are embodied in the legislation, because I think that those are the exact ideas that were going to need to pass federal civil rights for LGBTQ people, said Tyler Deaton, senior adviser at the American Unity Fund.

The Fairness For All Act would provide many of the same protections for LGBTQ Americans, but it also provides ample exceptions for churches and religious organizations to continue to discriminate against queer people.

What we like about it is the stated intentional desire for fairness and a proposed process that will encourage collaboration because weve seen that work in our state, he said.

Republicans May Begin To Embrace Gay Rights

As Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus pointed out, gay marriage and gay rights are platforms that a higher and higher percentage of Americans support. Priebus warns Republicans to be more open to other views on the issue, and less set in their ways. However, Republican strategist Ed Rogers points out the catch-22 in this situation. Most current Republicans still oppose gay marriage. Where 58 percent of Americans now support gay marriage, only 39 percent of Republicans support it, with 59 percent of Republicans opposing it. This leaves the Republican Party in a tough spot. They must either reform their views to bring in new members and gain support in coming elections, which would risk pushing away those that have stuck with the Party through the years, or stand by their age-old platform, and risk continuing to lose support throughout the nation.

The Disney Vault Is Annoying

Disney has drawn the ire of many adoring fans because it only releases its movies to the public for home consumption for a limited amount of time. They even coined a term for this tactic, The Disney Vault. Audiences think this is corporate greed at its ugliest. Disney has a commodity, and they try to build fervor and revenue by only letting the consumer have access to it for a short period. Its basically the same business model McDonalds uses with the McRib and we all know how much everyone hates that. Can you imagine if the Star Wars movies were only sold periodically? Thatd be an outrage, right? Well, you can expect it to happen since Disney bought the rights in 2012 to all things Star Wars, from George Lucas for over $4 billion. Its no wonder why Disney movies have been pirated since VCRs came on the scene in the 1980s.

American Views Of Transgender People: The Impact Of Politics Personal Contact And Religion

As the Supreme Court examines cases it has already heard this term about the rights of gay and transgender people, the American public in the latest Economist/YouGov poll are for the most part tolerant and supportive of transgender employment rights. However, Republicans take different positions.

The overall public supports laws prohibiting discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, with Republicans closely divided.

More than one in three people know someone who is transgender, and the probability of this is even higher among Democrats and younger adults. Those with personal contact are more likely to believe there is a great deal or a fair amount of discrimination against transgender people. Half of Republicans and 88 percent of Democrats say there is a fair amount or a great deal of discrimination against transgender people.

One in five adults believes employers should be able to fire transgender workers who wear work clothes that match their gender identity. About three times that percentage disagree. Republicans are more closely divided on this question: a third say employers should be able to fire those employees, while 44 percent say that should not be allowed.

There appears to be greater acceptance of female to male transitions than male to female ones. Men generally accept a female to male as male , but also believe that someone transitioning male to female is still male .

Image: Getty

Here’s Where We Stand On Different Lgbt Issues

LGBT leftists tend to hate us because we put our principles first. We believe in religious liberty, free speech, God-given human dignity, limited government, and economic opportunity.

For that reason we frequently oppose radical gender theory and leftist policies like the Equality Act. We support a nuanced, science-based approach to transgender policy issues.

We recently spoke out in support of the legislature’s initiative to keep youth sports organized according to biological sex we find the effort to let biological males play girls’ sports anti-science and offensive.

As a result of stances like these, LGBT leftists regularly picket us, ban us, destroy our property, and call us ugly names.

Recently, our entire leadership team was kicked out of Nashvilles primary LGBT networking Facebook group, in contravention of that groups written rules, because the admins hated us.

We hope this background demonstrates our conservative bona fides. If we oppose a Republican LGBT bill, it is out of principle, not identity politics or blind devotion to those in the LGBT community who reject us. We were not asked to comment on the bill before it was passed, but we feel we would be remiss not to offer our perspective.

More:Tennessee’s anti-LGBTQ bills target vulnerable citizens who are worthy of dignity | Plazas

Views On Religion Its Role In Policy

When it comes to religion and morality, most Americans say that belief in God is not necessary in order to be moral and have good values; 42% say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values.

The share of the public that says belief in God is not morally necessary has edged higher over the past six years. In 2011, about as many said it was necessary to believe in God to be a moral person as said it was not . This shift in attitudes has been accompanied by a rise in the share of Americans who do not identify with any organized religion.

Republicans are roughly divided over whether belief in God is necessary to be moral , little changed over the 15 years since the Center first asked the question. But the share of Democrats who say belief in God is not a condition for morality has increased over this period.

About two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic leaners say it is not necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values, up from 51% who said this in 2011.

The growing partisan divide on this question parallels the widening partisan gap in religious affiliation.

About six-in-ten whites think belief in God is not necessary in order to be a moral person. By contrast, roughly six-in-ten blacks and 55% of Hispanics say believing in God is a necessary part of being a moral person with good values.

International AffairsEconomic ConditionsTrust, Facts & DemocracyClimate, Energy & EnvironmentRace & EthnicitySame-Sex Marriage

Lgbt Conservatism In The United States

Jump to navigationJump to search

LGBT conservatism in the United States is a social and political ideology within the community that largely aligns with the American conservative movement. LGBT conservatism is generally more moderate on social issues from social conservatism, instead emphasizing values associated with fiscal conservatism, libertarian conservatism, and .

Changing Views On Acceptance Of Homosexuality

Seven-in-ten now say homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with just 24% who say it should be discouraged by society. The share saying homosexuality should be accepted by society is up 7 percentage points in the past year and up 19 points from 11 years ago.

Growing acceptance of homosexuality has paralleled an increase in public support for same-sex marriage. About six-in-ten Americans now say they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.

While there has been an increase in acceptance of homosexuality across all partisan and demographic groups, Democrats remain more likely than Republicans to say homosexuality should be accepted by society.

Overall, 83% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say homosexuality should be accepted by society, while only 13% say it should be discouraged. The share of Democrats who say homosexuality should be accepted by society is up 20 points since 2006 and up from 54% who held this view in 1994.

Among Republicans and Republican leaners, more say homosexuality should be accepted than discouraged by society. This is the first time a majority of Republicans have said homosexuality should be accepted by society in Pew Research Center surveys dating to 1994. Ten years ago, just 35% of Republicans held this view, little different than the 38% who said this in 1994.

Acceptance is greater among those with postgraduate and bachelors degrees than among those with some or no college experience .

Reasons Why Conservatives Hate Democrats

November 5, 2014 by Samuel WardeNo Comments

20 Reasons Why Conservatives Hate Democrats

1. Democrats believe in higher education.2. Democrats believe in preserving the environment.3. Democrats believe in science.4. Democrats believe that carbon dioxide is dangerous.5. Democrats do not believe that minimum wage created our nations unemployment.

6. Democrats do not believe armed rebellion is a viable alternative to elections.7. Democrats do not believe that corporations are people too.8. Democrats do not believe that the sexual revolution created AIDS.9. Democrats do not know the proper height for trees.10. Democrats do not understand decent God-fearing Americans need missile launchers at home.

11. Democrats do not understand that banning abortions for high risk pregnancies can be a positive experience for women.12. Democrats do not understand that intelligent design is a proven scientific theory.13. Democrats do not understand that marriage is related to national security.14. Democrats do not understand that the media is a threat to national security.15. Democrats forgot that Hitler coined the phrase separation of church and state.

16. Democrats seem oblivious to the fact that most good Americans oppose gay marriage.17. Democrats seldom bring guns to crowded public events.18. Democrats want to force innocent multi-millionaires to pay taxes.19. Democrats want to let gays vote.20. Democrats want to let immigrants vote.

Log Cabins Better Record On Gay Issues

While Stonewall was cheerleading Obamas do-nothing Democrats, Log Cabin sued the government to kill DADT. In 2010, Log Cabin won an injunction preventing the administration from enforcing DADT. Only after fighting that injunction, and losing, did Obama finally repeal the law.

Log Cabin has also withheld its endorsement from high-profile Republican candidates who opposed marriage equality unlike Stonewall, we resist partisan groupthink, even when it costs us. We wouldnt be endorsing President Trump in 2020 if he werent truly an ally.

Trump openly supported LGBT equality before any of Stonewalls endorsees did. In 1999, while Democrats defended DADT, Trump opined that gays and lesbians serving openly was not something that would disturb me. In 2000, Trump proposed an amendment of civil rights law to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which would have rendered moot the employment discrimination case currently before the Supreme Court.

In 2015, though Trump needed religious conservative votes to win the Republican primary, he nevertheless stated publicly that religious freedom and LGBT rights are not mutually exclusive. He even rebuked his running mate-to-be, Mike Pence, for initially undervaluing LGBT interests in Indianas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, on which Pence ultimately reversed. Today, President Trump still has our back.

Stonewall Incorrectly Attacks President Trump

Stonewalls article censures Russia for orchestrating an industrial-scale genocide of gay men in Chechnya. Russias behavior is indeed alarming. So President Trump, collaborating with his Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, has launched a historic initiative to decriminalize homosexuality worldwide. Basham conveniently omits this fact.

Stonewall calls Trumps plan to reduce HIV/AIDS transmission by 90 percent within 10 years lip service because HIV+ immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border are separated from other immigrants. But this policy is intended to provide HIV+ immigrants, some of whom face untreated AIDS, with needed medical care. Stonewall also neglects to mention that Trumps budget included $291 million to fight HIV in 2020 alone. Trump also convinced the antiviral research group Gilead to donate billions of dollars of HIV prevention medication for 200,000 people. That is hardly lip service.

Stonewall further insinuates, ludicrously, that Trump is bigoted for halting Obama-era attempts to tell public schools which bathroom transgender students can use. We say, good: The well-being of children who do not identify with their biological sex is vitally important, but it does not fall under the originally intended purview of Title IX and would thus be better explored at the state and local level without federal intervention. Executive overreach in the name of LGBT rights does nothing to recommend our cause.

Relies On Star Power Not Plotlines

Back in the day, Disney movies sold themselves because their plots were incredible. They showcased fairytales and chronicled the rise of the underdog. This worked in Disneys animated and live-action movies, and the company was untouchable for decades. Then, they had a string of flops like Mulan, Pocahontas and Hercules. Suddenly, Disney was fallible. So, instead of hiring better writers, they took the easy way out they started to hire big name talent to headline its projects. And they havent looked back. Disney has hired giants in the film industry to voice its characters, like Miley Cyrus and . And of course, Disney puts the most popular celebs in its live action movies, like Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie.

Disney even has upcoming projects with Emma Stone, Reese Witherspoon and Emma Watson. But what good is it to have a big star in a movie if the plot is weak? The only good thing about this change in direction is that it finally steered Disney away from cramming cultural sensitivity down everyones throats. There was a period of time when it made sure to give every minority group its own movie, from Hawaiians in Lilo and Stitch to African Americans in The Princess and the Frog. Audiences perceived this to be the pandering that it was.

How Out Of Step Is The Republican Party On Gay Rights

The wedding wasnt the only reason conservatives targeted Rep. Denver Riggleman in a party convention , but it was the driving one. Which raises the question: How out of step with the nation is the Republican Party on same-sex rights?

Its an especially pertinent question on Monday, now that the Supreme Court, with the support of one of President Trumps nominees, just voted 6-3 that existing federal law protects gay and transgender workers from discrimination based on sex.

Thats a sea change in the legal landscape of protections for LGBTQ Americans. Before this ruling, in about half of the states, you could be legally fired for being gay or transgender. Now, you cant under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which the court ruled extends to LGBTQ Americans because it prevents discrimination on the basis of sex.

But like the Republican voters in Virginia who ousted Riggleman in favor of social conservative Bob Good, there is an active wing of the Republican Party seeking to push back on the march toward expanding legal protections for gay and transgender Americans. And they have powerful allies.

The Trump administration opposed interpreting the Civil Rights Act to encompass LGBTQ workers. The leader of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network called the six justices who supported this ruling, one of whom was Trump appointee Neil M. Gorsuch, activists, implying the court got ahead of where the public is on the issue.

Emily Guskin contributed to this report.

Mike Pence Accidentally Admits The Real Reason Republicans Hate Democrats So Much

Common Dreams

The grassroots organization People for Bernie on Tuesday advised the Democratic Party to take a page from an unlikely sourceright-wing Vice President Mike Penceafter Pence told a rally crowd in Florida that progressives and Democrats “want to make rich people poorer, and poor people more comfortable.”

“Good message,” tweeted the group, alerting the Democratic National Committee to adopt the vice president’s simple, straightforward description of how the party can prioritize working people over corporations and the rich.

Suggesting that a progressive approach to the economy will harm the countrydespite the fact that other wealthy nations already invest heavily in making low- and middle-income “more comfortable” by taxing corporations and very high earnersPence touted the Republicans’ aim to “cut taxes” and “roll back regulations.”

The vice president didn’t mention how the Trump administration’s 2017 tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited wealthy households and powerful corporations, with corporate income tax rates slashed from 35% to 21%, corporate tax revenues plummeting, and a surge in stock buybacks while workers saw “no discernible wage increase” according to a report released last year by the Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Popular Democracy.

Pence’s description of progressive goals was “exactly” correct, author and commentator Anand Giridharadas tweeted.

“Yes, and what’s wrong with making poor people more comfortable?” asked Rep. Ilhan Omar .

Gw College Republicans Invite Log Cabin Republicans And Lgbt Conservatives To Talk About What It Means To Be Gay And Conservative

Kicking off a discussion on the inclusion of LGBT people in the Republican Party, Charles Moran, the managing director of the conservative gay group the Log Cabin Republicans, told George Washington University students that they dont have to be a Democrat because youre gay.

The forum at the Marvin Center Amphitheater Tuesday night, hosted by GW College Republicans, brought together what Josh Kutner, director of political affairs for the group, described as an all-star panel of Republican and conservative political and media consultants: Dave McCulloch, managing partner at Capitol Media Partners; Brad Polumbo, an editor and columnist at The Washington Examiner; and Edith Jorge-Tunon, political director for the Republican State Leadership Committee.

Mr. Moran, who has 14 years of experience managing local and national Republican political races, started the discussion by asking panelists to explain how they came out as conservative and where they fit on the conservative spectrum.

Mr. Polumbo said he realized he was a conservative when he was dropped into the liberal bastion of the University of Massachusetts and wound up persona non grata in the gay community.

A Rand Paul libertarian and technically not a Republican, he said, I definitely have a very right-wing philosophy. I am more than willing to punch at both sides.

Live your life honestly, Mr. Moran advised. Be present. Share and be aware. Accept them for who they are and who they are not.

We’re Portrayed As A Perversion

From the left, right, and even a few biased researchers, people accuse transgender people of being perverts, fetishists, and likely rapists. This is in great part why the right-wing tactics against non-discrimination ordinances have been so successful: the right wing tells people that it’s a choice between protecting their wives and daughters or a tiny group of perverts.

Many Trump Supporters Are Lgbt

So Stonewall is wrong. But something more important is going on here. What really infuriates Basham is that Log Cabin has given cover for the presidents claim that some of biggest supporters are LGBT. As if saying so were a crime Trump commits in secrecy while his fabulous gay accomplices at Log Cabin run interference. But its just a fact: Many of Trumps most fervent supporters are LGBT people.

Left-wing gay activists, however, depend on creating the impression that all LGBT people are Democrats. Democrats then use this false narrative to consolidate unearned moral authority. That is why, when the prominent gay billionaire Peter Thiel expressed support for Trump, The Advocate promptly ran a piece arguing he isnt actually gay he just has sex with men.

The point of such chicanery is to insinuate that all Republicans are homophobes, and all homophobes are Republicans. That only works if Democrats speak for all gays. So just one prominent gay or trans Republican punctures the lie that the left has a monopoly on gay rights.

Log Cabin Republicans stand to disabuse the public of that lie. The Stonewall Democrats dont want you to know we exist. But we do, our ideas are better than theirs, and were not going anywhere.

Trans Rights: A Perplexing Issue

Like many other gay conservatives, however, he seems to disconnect gay rights and transgender rights. Kabel recalled a recent article with a quotation from the conservative activist Tony Perkins that contrasted the Democratic and Republican platforms in 2016.

“The only issue Perkins raised was the transgender bathroom issue,” Kabel said. “And I thought, ‘That means we won.'”

Kabel called transgender equality “one of the most perplexing issues going.”

“Transgender people deserve support and protection just like anybody else, but it’s a very complex issue,” he said. “It’s remarkable when you hear their stories, but it’s just a very perplexing issue about how to really address it and do it so that they’re protected but other people aren’t hurt, so that people’s religious views are actually taken into consideration.”

Transgender visibility is all but absent in the Log Cabin Republicans, from their leadership to their messaging.

An OUTSpoken Instagram post compares the LGBT left to the LGBT right by putting an image of a person who appears to be transgender or gender-nonconforming next to a shirtless picture of former U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock, while the campaigns store sells T-shirts bearing slogans like “gay for Tucker” “gay for Melania” and “gay not stupid.

OUTspoken sent Brokeback Patriot, who has stated trans women are not women, to New Orleans Southern Decadence party to ask passersby if they think Trump is pro-gay.

2 notes · View notes

redbeardace · 5 years ago

Text

The Equality Act

What is the Equality Act?

If you’ve paid attention to politics (in the US) over the past few weeks, the Equality Act has been name-checked quite frequently. It was listed as a Day One priority of virtually every major Democratic presidential candidate at a recent town hall. It was brought up in response to a recent pair of Supreme Court employment discrimination cases, one involving a gay man, the other involving a trans woman, both of whom were fired after coming out. But what is it?

The Equality Act is an update to a number of federal anti-discrimination laws, primarily the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act explicitly provides anti-discrimination protection on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. You can read the full text of it here, but if you don’t feel like it, the basic summary is that it’s mostly a Find-And-Replace job, substituting “sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity)” for the word “sex” in existing anti-discrimination laws.

Why is the Equality Act important?

Right now, across the entire US, it is illegal for someone to be fired due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. In many states, there is a specific state law prohibiting this form of discrimination. However, in the rest of the states, where there isn’t an explicitly state law, it’s prohibited because of an interpretation of the word “sex” in existing anti-discrimination laws.

These existing laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. For a plain, simple example, that means that you can’t reject a qualified candidate for a job, simply because she’s a woman. Sex cannot be the deciding factor.

And that’s where the interpretation comes in. Over the years, guidance of federal agencies and findings in court cases have held that this protection on the basis of sex extends to sexual orientation and gender identity. Let me tell a quick pair of stories to illustrate:

1: You have a hardworking, recently promoted employee named Alex. One Monday morning, Alex comes into the office, sporting a shiny new ring. Intrigued, you ask about it. “I got married to Elizabeth on Saturday!”, comes the excited reply. You congratulate Alex and wish him a happy life.

2. You have a hardworking, recently promoted employee named Alex. One Monday morning, Alex comes into the office, sporting a shiny new ring. Intrigued, you ask about it. “I got married to Elizabeth on Saturday!”, comes the excited reply. You fire Alex and throw the contents of her desk on the street.

In this scenario, the only difference between Alex and Alex is their sex. Their sexual orientation is effectively irrelevant. You fired Alexandra for doing something you would have been fine with Alexander doing, therefore you have illegally discriminated against Alexandra on the basis of sex.

Or so says the interpretation.

The thing about an interpretation of this kind is that it’s fragile. It’s great when you have LGBTQ-friendly people at the wheel. But all it takes is one fascist dictator wannabe to tell the federal agencies to change their mind. All it takes is five people in black robes with a lean to the right to say “Nah, I think it means this”.

And that’s where we are today.

The court cases heard last month will be decided next June, and there is a very real possibility that the Supreme Court will reject the interpretation that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected on the basis of sex. If that happens, it will immediately become legal to fire people or refuse housing or kick someone off a bus for being gay or being trans in more than half of the states in this country.

So that’s bad.

The Equality Act, by explicitly including protection for sexual orientation and gender identity, will make it clear that kind of discrimination is illegal. It won’t be open to interpretation, and will be far more resistant to the direction of the wind in DC.

What else should I know about the Equality Act?

It explicitly provides protection for intersex people. When I did a survey of state-level anti-discrimination laws earlier this year, I found that intersex people were largely ignored. That leaves them in legal limbo land where maybe they’re protected and maybe not. The Equality Act includes “sex characteristics, including intersex traits” under the definition of “sex”, and would thereby unambiguously include that in all of the protections provided. However, while the Equality Act is a step in the right direction, but it does not address specific intersex issues.

It covers the “perception or belief, even if inaccurate” case, which plugs some potential loopholes in protection.

It is worded vaguely enough to protect agender and non-binary people, but it does not explicitly mention them.

Unfortunately, sexual orientation is defined as a specific, enumerated list: “homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality”. Asexual and pansexual, etc., are not included. This is a common failure of many anti-discrimination laws. I doubt it’s born of malice. Instead, it’s a combination of ignorance and inertia. So many existing laws define it this way, it’s easy to copy and paste without thinking. I prefer the language in New York City’s ordinance: “A continuum of sexual orientation exists and includes, but is not limited to, heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality and pansexuality.”

There is no mention of romantic or affectional orientation in the Equality Act. This strikes me as a huge hole. Not only does this mean it completely leave out protection for aromantic people, it opens a loophole for discrimination based on romantic orientation of all types.

Nothing in the Equality Act tries to fix unnecessarily gendered language that exists in the law. That would be a far more involved undertaking.

So where does the Equality Act stand?

The Equality Act has been passed in the House of Representatives, where it was a priority of the Democratic majority there. After passage, it was sent to the Senate, where it will die, because the Republican majority there wants nothing to do with it. And the President wouldn’t have signed it anyway. There is no chance in hell that it will be passed before 2021, and even that would require Democrats holding the House, taking the Senate, and getting the White House.

So, you see, that’s a bit of a problem. The Supreme Court’s ruling on these cases will come out in June 2020...

What you can do about it!

VOTE.

And vote for the Democrat where applicable. Republicans are actively opposed to this issue. You have seen what happens when Republicans have control over the government and it is up to you to make sure that doesn’t happen again. Yeah, sure, Democrats aren’t perfect, but they’re a hell of a lot better than this fascist clown show and homophobic sidekick we have now, so vote Democrat and then keep the pressure on to force them to get better. (And while you’re at it, push them for Ranked Choice Voting so we can maybe get rid of the two party stranglehold...)

Find out about your local anti-discrimination laws. Local anti-discrimination laws won’t be overturned by the court decision in these cases. So, if your state or city does not already have LGBTQ protections in its anti-discrimination laws (or doesn’t even have any anti-discrimination laws at all) band together and make noise. Get them to pass one.

Tell everyone you can about this. Be loud. Silence will let them get away with it.

Fight back. If it all goes to hell in your state next June, boycott any business that fires someone for being trans, picket any apartment complex who evicts a gay couple. Broadcast their bigotry, shame them publicly. Make noise.

Reach out to your lawmakers and tell them that you support the Equality Act and think it needs to be improved and passed. And “improved” is key. Since it hasn’t passed yet, there’s still time to make it better. So tell them they need to make it better. (At the same time, don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. As it stands today, it’s a vast improvement over existing law, so work to get the Equality Act passed, even if they don’t fix it.)

But Wait... There’s More!

Another interesting (and unexpected) side story related to this which came up after I’d written most of this post is that ratification of the ERA is now within reach, thanks to Virginia going fully blue. While it’s very likely that VA will vote to ratify in one of their first actions in January, there’s some haziness about whether or not it will count. That means it will be a fascinating backdrop for the presidential election, with one side fully supporting ratification, maybe even with a woman carrying the flag for the second time in a row, and the other side being forced to explain why they don’t think women are equal, while they run a disgusting misogynist and/or someone who refuses to even eat with women. Popcorn time!

But... What’s the ERA, you ask? That’s a fair question, because it hasn’t been talked about much since it was killed by a pack of anti-feminists back in the 70s. It’s the Equal Rights Amendment, a constitutional amendment that reads “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

The haziness surrounding ratification is twofold: First, the original congressional language had a deadline, which has long since passed. Second, some states which ratified it early on have since rescinded their ratification. Proponents of ratification will note that the original deadline was extended once, and can be extended again, if needed, and beyond that, a deadline may not even be valid. As for rescinding the ratification, it’s not clear whether or not a state can even do that. At any rate, it’s bound to head to court and make a lot of noise along the way.

As you may have noticed, the language is very similar to the vague meaning of “sex” that the Equality Act is trying to fix. Will the ERA protect gender identity and sexual orientation? That’s unclear. It’s open to the same interpretation and court opinions that come up in the Civil Rights Act. In fact, the Supreme Court decision in those cases I mentioned above, whichever way it goes, will probably be the precedent at work, should the ERA actually get ratified and take effect.

So you know what that means, right?

Once the ERA is ratified, we're going to need the ERA 2 to explicitly include what the original ERA leaves out.

We have a lot of work to do. Time to get busy.

#equality #equality act #era #equal rights amendment

136 notes · View notes

brinconvenient · 5 years ago

Text

Dear cis friends who are dying to get my perspective on the latest trans story you heard in the news:

Before you read further, please know that I applaud your curiosity and your attempt to be aware of trans issues in the media.

But.

But, just because your friend is trans doesn't mean that she's qualified to answer (or interested in doing so for that matter) any trans-related question you may have. Especially on topics which are hot in the news - the reason so many trans topics are in the news and coming to your attention is because we are being targeted and used as a wedge issue by conservative and far-right groups in an effort to gin up energy and excitement to get their voters to the polls.

After they lost big on the same-sex marriage equality issue, they turned their attention to a more vulnerable and less protected group and began aiming all of their attention, marketing budgets and legislative resources squarely at us.

Since 2015, we have seen bills trying to keep us out of public bathrooms and locker rooms, bill after bill targeting our access to healthcare, identification, name change processes and court case after court case trying to enshrine the right to discriminate against us in housing, employment and public life based on someone else's religious beliefs and, of course, an administration that seems to be specifically trying to erase us from public existence and public service.

All of this is helped along through their friends in the media "just asking questions" - ones that usually have nuanced and complex (but not difficult to understand) answers. Which they don't care about, of course, because asking the question is enough.

The goal is to get you to ask these questions, too. And just the asking puts enough cognitive distance between you, a cis person, and trans people to create the "otherness" in your mind that they can use to justify our continued dehumanization. It also forces us to repeatedly have these same conversations, over and over and over again.

I have answered the exact same questions over and over again for old high school or college classmates, coworkers, random internet acquaintances, who heard someone talking about an issue they have never cared about before, but suddenly need to know the answers to.

Lately, for example, it's been trans teen athletes. Before that it was trans people in bathrooms and locker rooms and why trans people want to serve in the military and why employers shouldn't be able to let an employee up for wanting to transition.

Most of the time, I put in the work to answer those questions because I know you all mean well. And you want to know the answers to what sound like very reasonable questions and you're trying to be good allies.

Each one tied me up for days with follow-up after follow-up after follow-up. And tired me out because I had to do all the research they could have done, but chose not to do, to become at least a middling expert so that they were satisfied with hearing the answers from the one trans person they knew, instead of reading the numerous articles from actual experts and actual trans experts who have already been writing about this since this particular boil began to fester on the general public's collective posterior.

Did you stop to ask yourself why you thought I might have, given my current life circumstances, any valuable knowledge about trans teenage athletes, let alone the finer points of high school athletics regulations? Or whether I've done any research about two specific trans teenaged athletes halfway across the country from her, who happen to be the media's bugbear and the target of a lawsuit from cis competitors? Other than the fact that I'm the one trans person you know?

For the record, trans women do not have any special advantage over cis women, under most current regulation schema. Do you think that it's possible that the high school athletics organization which regulates those two particular athletes are completely unaware of their existence and are simply waiting on enough curious cis people to "just ask reasonable questions" before they consult the science and those girls' specific situation?

Have you considered how many trans athletes must exist and how you're only hearing about a handful of specific trans teen athletes who happen to be winning. Are you not concerned about trans athletes as long as they have the decency to lose to their cis competition?

Trans people have been allowed to compete in the Olympics since 2002 (I believe). Do you want to guess how many trans people have even qualified for the Olympics? Exactly 1, maybe. One trans man qualified, just last month, to try to make the Olympic team this summer. Zero trans women in *ANY* Olympic event have ever qualified. Ever.

And trans people are not new to athletics. We've competed in just about any event you can imagine.

I might be the only trans person you know, but you are not the only curious cis person I know. Consider that before deciding that my specific perspective is required for you to find some way to be comfortable learning that other trans people exist in situations you didn't previously know, think, or, frankly, care about before now.

Please understand that it is a terrifying and exhausting time to be a trans person in this society. We have an enormous target on our backs. None of that is helped by our cis friends asking us to help justify, identify and isolate the pockets of public life where it's reasonable to exclude us and discriminate against us.

We are roughly 1% of the population. Roughly equivalent to natural redheads. There's zero conversations about how natural redheads higher pain tolerance might give them some kind of athletic advantage over their competition in endurance sports.

But then, there's also no well-financed movement trying to legislatively, morally and socially ensure that you see them as a lesser form of human so that they can hold onto their political power.

When you see these stories, and your curiosity starts to churn, ask yourself these questions before you reach out to your trans friends:

1. What is this article/story/column trying to make me feel about trans people?

2. Does it rely on treating trans people as an "other"/less than human/oppressive in order to make me feel that?

3. Does it actually provide information, an opposing view and sources for its assertions or is it relying on your lack of knowledgeand expertise to create an emotional reaction?

4. Is there another article on this topic that might have more information? Has someone written a response to this article (often found by googling the headline)?

5. Does this article/story/column quote from a trans person who is not the target of the article (i.e. an expert source, not the subject of the article)? Does it even contain a quote from the subject of the article or only from those who oppose them? What have other trans people said about this story?

6. Is the writer a reliable journalist or columnist? What is the bias of the publication/media source?

7. Who benefits from this being in the media right now?

8. What emotional impact will this have on my trans friend if I ask her about it without thinking about any of these previous questions?

Please continue to feel free to ask me your questions about transness, but also please try to ask Google first, especially if it's about a news article about some new fun way that trans people are being targeted, or cis people finding novel ways to feel oppressed by our audacity to exist near them.

Please take some time to consider what emotional impact it might have on me to hold your hand through another conversation that requires me to defend the humanity and dignity of trans people. Don't ask me to make you feel comfortable with discrimination against trans people, no matter how reasonable it sounds.

#trans #transgender #trans women #trans men #trans youth #trans athletes #educate yourself #brin rants

20 notes · View notes

a-room-of-my-own · 6 years ago

Text

Authenticity & empathy: Meghan Murphy

Meghan Murphy is a freelance writer and journalist. She has been podcasting and writing about feminism since 2010, is the founder and editor Feminist Current, Canada’s leading feminist website and has published work in numerous national and international publications.

This is the text of the speech she gave at the 22nd meeting of Woman’s Place UK.

I’ve been thinking a lot about authenticity lately. We’re currently living in a culture wherein authenticity has been traded in for fakery. We support and reward virtue signalling and punish those who are real, those who tell the truth, those with integrity, those who insist on making political arguments based on critical thinking and what is right, rational, and ethical, instead of based on what is politically correct or popular.

I have a rather overzealous commitment to authenticity, which I think has played a sizable role in my insistence on pushing back against gender identity ideology and legislation. I know I have friends, or acquaintances, or friends of friends, or random internet followers with self righteous opinions who think maybe I should just back off of this. Or who claim I’m being ‘mean’ or unempathetic, because I continue to operate in reality rather than the fantasy land we’re told is the new normal, wherein black is white, up is down, and men are women.

But I see no empathy for women and girls on the part of trans activists, that is to say, those pushing gender identity ideology and legislation. What I see is bullying, threats, ostracization, and a misogynist backlash against the feminist movement and much of the work it’s accomplished over years.

I see no empathy for women who are now being forced to compete against male athletes in sport, essentially rendering women’s sport nonexistant, as they can no longer compete on fair ground, if forced to compete against men. I see no empathy for the female athletes speaking out against this reprehensible trend — instead they’re being smeared and threatened. I see no empathy for the lesbians being bullied right out of their own events and communities, as the LGBTQxyz+++ whatever movement does nothing to support them, and in fact seems instead to support the men pushing them around and hurling verbal abuse at them, simply for asserting that lesbians are females who are attracted to other females, not heterosexual men interested in playing around with lipstick.

We held an event in Vancouver earlier this month, addressing the issue of gender identity and kids, and our venue — the Croatian Cultural Centre — received so many threats they had to file a police report, hire their own security, and bring in the Vancouver Police Department to keep protesters off the property. They, for once, didn’t blame us — women, feminists — for the threats of violence sent their way, and rather asked, with disbelief, how it was us the trans activists were accusing of being ‘hateful’, while simultaneously verbally abusing and threatening violence against the venue’s staff.

Somewhere between 150 and 200 protesters showed up, and stood outside with signs saying things like, “Support trans youth”, “Love and Solidarity”, “Love trans kids”, “be careful who you hate, it might be someone you love” and “love wins.”

All this branding around “love” has been incredibly successful, of course. We — women fighting for women’s rights, people fighting for the truth, those of us who insist on acknowledging that biology is real, that females and males are real things, and that, no, there is no such thing as a “female penis” —have been painted as hateful, intolerant, and bigoted, despite the fact that we are the only ones engaging (or trying to engage in) respectful, civil, rational debate and discussion, and being shut down over and over again.

Despite the fact that WE are the ones concerned about male violence against women and how gender identity ideology and legislation will hurt women, as well as kids, who are now being sent down a path towards hormones and surgery that will destroy their bodies permanently, simply because they don’t conform to sexist gender stereotypes, it is trans activists who have positioned themselves as caring and politically correct, and us as cruel and intolerant.

As I was leaving the venue after that event, the stragglers screamed at me that I had blood on my hands. Which of course I do not, and which, of course, is incredibly ironic considering how many times I’ve been told I should be murdered on account of my belief that you can’t change sex, and that it is not possible to be ‘born in the wrong body.’

I see no empathy in trans activism for the girls who will lose scholarships and opportunities to boys who can easily beat them in athletic competitions.

I see no empathy for women and girls who don’t feel comfortable with naked men in their change rooms at the pool. I see no empathy for youth being put on hormones that will have a lasting impact on them, including permanent sterilization, all to accommodate adults who don’t want to see trans ideology questioned under any circumstances.

I see no empathy for the women and their children who will have nowhere to turn if their local transition house is defunded on account of a women-only policy.

I see no empathy for Kristi Hanna, a Toronto woman and survivor of sexual assault, who had leave her room at Palmerston house, a shelter for recovering addicts, because she was made to share a room with a man, and did not feel safe.

I see no empathy for the 14 female estheticians who were asked to give a male a brazilian bikini wax, then dragged to court when they declined, saying they only offered the service to women.

I see no empathy for the girls allegedly predated on by this man, who is being protected by our very liberal, very progressive society that’s choosing to put male feelings and desires above all else, under the guise of ‘inclusion’, and thanks to trans activism.

Women and girls are being told they may not have boundaries. That they may not say ‘no’ to men. And this is what we are told it means to ‘choose love’. This is what we are being told is ‘feminism’.

Trans activism says women may not define their own bodies as female. That we may not have our own rights, services, and spaces, that ‘exclude’ men. It says gender stereotypes are real and innate, but the female body is a social construction. It says that ‘woman’ is based only on adherence to or an affinity towards femininity, something feminism has fought against for years.

So much of what women fought for over the past century is being rolled back, and progressives are insisting we all shut up and take it, because it’s ‘nice’, and of course, women must always be ‘nice’, even if it means putting our lives, autonomy, safety, opinions, and rights aside.

NOTHING about the trans movement is progressive and nothing about it is feminist.

I brought up authenticity earlier on, partly because I am sick to death of this social media based culture wherein we put forth personas we believe our audience will like, modeling perfect faces, lives, and thoughts, which I find incredibly boring and depressing, but also because I see this devaluing of authenticity as having an incredibly destructive impact on political discourse, and certainly it’s manifested itself powerfully in the trans movement.

I don’t believe that, aside from a few exceptionally delusional or troubled people, a majority of the population believes it’s possible to change sex. I don’t believe that all these so called progressives look at a man we call him ‘she’, and believe he is literally a woman. I don’t believe all these people claiming ‘love wins’ and insisting women be more ‘empathetic’ as they give up all their rights and spaces, while these activists spout vile, hateful insults and threats at us, are really very loving at all.

I think people are not telling the truth. I think they are repeating mantras and going along with ideas and policies in order to appease their Facebook friends. I think they value social status a lot, and are willing to give up ethics and truth in order to be liked. And I think it’s pathetic. I think that these people are throwing women under the bus and even selling themselves out in the process, knowing that they’re spouting lies for virtual cookies and using us all to fake politics.

And I refuse to be used as some kind of stepping stool for empty headed, cowardly hipsters — these extremely privileged people who have fetishized oppression, but have no idea what marginalized groups actually face and deal with on a daily basis, because certainly it’s not ‘misgendering’ that is keeping people poor and vulnerable — who can’t be bothered to read, listen, or think before announcing, boldly, that women with actual politics, who actually understand history, and who are bold enough to take a stand against actual bigotry and oppression should be silenced, punched, or even killed.

The wrong side of history is an embarrassing place to be.

But unfortunately I worry that, by the time these people realize how much damage they’ve caused by going along with such a destructive trend, it will be too late. What does give me hope is all of you. This massive and growing movement of people standing up and saying ‘no’, we won’t take this silently and sitting down. This groundswell of people insisting on telling the truth, despite the fact that we lose friends, jobs, social status, and sometimes safety, for doing so.

And the more we keep doing it, the more will join us.

Meghan Murphy

20th May 2019

#Transgender #Gender #Gender critical #Feminism #Misogyny

6 notes · View notes

cosmicspaceslug · 6 years ago

Link

On Light and Shadow: Polyamory’s #metoo

Conventions and Beyond: Protecting our community from predators

How (Not) To Use a Privilege List – Puts into words something I’ve been thinking for the last year or so… privilege is a relative term, but it also has a risk of implying it’s something that no one deserves. Whereas I think it would be great of people of color had the same level of privilege with police and the legal system as white college boys.

Americans Who Were Detained After Speaking Spanish In Montana Sue U.S. Border Agency – A CDP agent turns out to be racist. This is my surprised face.

The Trump Administration’s Trans Military Ban Is Based on Debunked Information

Despite Prevention Programs, Sexual Assaults Rise At Military Academies

Highest Court in Indiana Set to Decide If You Can Be Forced to Unlock Your Phone

Brie Larson Isn’t Letting Her ‘Captain Marvel’ Press Tour Be ‘Overwhelmingly’ White and Male

Net Neutrality’s Day in Court

How a game about a Ladykiller helped me out of a bind

Same-Sex Couples Sue For The Right To Marry In Japan

The Final Version of the EU’s Copyright Directive Is the Worst One Yet

Brunel University Introduces Sport Hijab to Increase Muslim Women Participation in Sports

The ‘Strange Science’ Behind The Big Business Of Exercise Recovery – When society is fucking over so many people in broad systematic ways, it’s hard to get worked up about pseudoscience as some other skeptics… but it’s definitely still a backburner, on-my-radar issue.

1 note · View note

calacuspr · 2 years ago

Text

Calacus Weekly Hit & Miss – Megan Rapinoe & ICC

Every week we look at the best and worst communicators in the sports world from the previous week.

HIT - MEGAN RAPINOE

The growth of the women’s football game is down in no small part to its popularity and success in the United States.

The US Women’s National Team (USWNT) is the most successful women’s national team in history, having won the Women's World Cup four times as well as the Olympic gold medal four times and eight CONCACAF Gold Cups.

Football is the biggest female team’s sport in the US, so it’s no wonder that they lead the way when it comes to women’s rights.

Front and centre over the past few years has been Megan Rapinoe, outspoken, determined, passionate and never afraid to speak her mind.

Rapinoe has used her profile to campaign for workers rights; LGBTQ+ rights and equality; police brutality and systemic racism; and equal pay for the women’s game.

The decision by the Supreme Court in late spring to confirm that it was reviewing the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, which ensured the rights of women to make abortion a fundamental human right for half a century, sent shockwaves around the world.

Last week, the Supreme Court formally overturned Roe v. Wade, a decision which is expected to lead to a flurry of abortion bans across conservative-leaning states.

Rapinoe was put up for interview ahead of the USWNT’s match against Colombia and used her platform once again to express her concern for the developments

“It's hard to put into words how sad a day this is for me personally, for my teammates, for all of the people out there who this is going to affect.

"Pro-choice means that you get to choose. Pro-choice allows other people to be pro-life, if that is what works for them, or that is what their beliefs are, or if that is where they're at in their life.

“Pro-life doesn't allow anybody to make a choice. Obviously, you can understand from an individual perspective how difficult it is to live in a country where you have a constant, unrelenting, violent tide against you and onslaught as a woman.

"And it would be as a gay person and as a non-binary person, as a trans person, whoever this is going to affect because it affects a lot more than just women, or cis women," she continued.

"I am a cisgender, rich, white woman that lives in two of the most progressive cities in the world with the protection of not only myself and my resources, but this resource and this protection, as are all of my teammates. Not everyone is afforded that.

"We know that this will disproportionately affect poor women, black women, brown women, immigrants, women in abusive relationships, women who have been raped, women and girls who have been raped by family members, who, you know what, maybe just didn't make the best choice. And that's no reason to be forced to have a pregnancy."

Rapinoe explained that overturning women's healthcare provisions is not a "pro-life" decision, but about hurting women, who already have few support systems to keep their children safe, including high-cost healthcare.

"This way of thinking or political belief is coupled with a complete lack of motivation around gun laws. It comes with a pro-death penalty. It comes with anti-healthcare, anti-prenatal care, anti-childcare, anti-pre-K, anti-food assistance, anti-welfare, anti-education, anti-maternity leave, and anti-paternity leave. This is not pro-life.

"It's very frustrating and disheartening and frankly just infuriating to hear that be the reason that people are wanting to end abortion rights and end this vital aspect of a woman's not only healthcare and general basic safety in this country, but [also] her bodily autonomy, and the right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness and liberty is being assaulted in this instance."

"The entirety of the US government say to people's faces - to women's faces: "We do not care. We are going to force our belief system, which is deeply rooted in a white supremacist, patriarchal Christianity. We are going to force that upon you." First of all, your religion is a choice, and it is a belief that you have."

"Pro-life does not allow anything other than one very strict religious view and belief system to be forced upon everyone else."

Rapinoe ended the statement by reminding us that no one can obligate another person to succumb to their view, and the key to solving everything is love, respect, and autonomy.

"I encourage people to take a step back and come from a place of compassion and humanity and understand that just because I believe something doesn't mean everybody else has to.

"We all get to make our own choices, but ultimately we need to come from a place of love, respect, and autonomy to do what we feel is best for us," Rapinoe said at the end of the press conference.”

OL Reign, Rapinoe’s team, were swift to post their own supporting statement: ““OL Reign fiercely opposes the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and believes that every person should have access to reproductive health care.

“We are heartbroken by this decision and stand in solidarity with all of those impacted. By overturning this basic human right to body autonomy, our most vulnerable communities are impacted. This directly opposes our values at OL Reign and we are committed to fighting for equality.”

The NWSL followed suit, with Commissioner Jessica Berman saying: “The Supreme Court’s ruling today denies individuals in this country the full liberty and equality that is the cornerstone of a just society. Reproductive rights are human rights.

“Until every individual has the same freedoms as their neighbor, our work is not done. We will continue to make our voices heard. The NWSL is more than just a soccer league; we are a collective who will stand up every day for what is right.”

Other teams including NJ/NY Gotham FC, Racing Louisville FC and Angel City FC expressed their horror on Twitter and vowing to fight the decision until it is reversed.

The Supreme Court's decision came a day after the 50th anniversary of Title IX being signed into law as part of a landmark education bill which sought to bring gender equality to education by barring educational institutions that receive federal funds from discriminating on the basis of sex.

Rapinoe was one of over 500 women athletes that submitted a brief to the Supreme Court last year arguing that the effectiveness of Title IX was intertwined with the Roe decision remaining in place.

The USWNT beat Colombia last Saturday at Dick's Sporting Goods Park in Commerce City, Colorado and released a statement before the game: “As our women’s national team represents the US on the field today in Colorado, the occasion serves as a reminder of the rights and freedoms that women and their allies have fought for, earned and deserve.

“The Supreme Court ruling on 24 June is counter to the freedoms promised as a nation and as a people. US Soccer will advocate at every opportunity for human rights, including the right to make personal healthcare decisions as there is no equality without bodily autonomy.”

Rapinoe entered the game as a substitute to loud cheers with 15 minutes to go and admitted afterwards that she will continue stand up for the disadvantaged.

She said: “I think, as you guys have seen, the most powerful thing we can always do is show up and not only express our supreme skill and talent and joy on the field, but to be able to have that platform.”

Few can argue that she is fighting for those without the power of voice she enjoys - and all credit to her for doing so..

MISS – INTERNATIONAL CRICKET COUNCIL

Women’s sport is belatedly getting the exposure and backing it deserves with increased broadcasting coverage, new sponsors and investment.

Finally, young people have more female sports stars to admire and aspire to emulate and cricket is no exception.

Earlier this year, England captain Heather Knight backed the introduction of reserve days and five-day Test matches for women to compensate for weather delays and to cater for the growth of the game.

Knight said: “I think reserve days in Ashes and World Cups would be very useful," said Knight, whose side's last visit to Australia – for the 2020 T20 World Cup – was also impacted by rain, with a semi-final washout controversially ending their tournament due to a lack of contingency options in the playing conditions.

"It would be useful it they could be worked in, and potentially a five-day Test match would make things better for everyone – the players, the viewers – and make sure you don't miss the contest that you want to see.

"In a hotly contested series that might be tight, you don't want the weather to be the main story, do you? I'd be open to looking at different things."

As the global governors of the game, the International Cricket Council (ICC) need to do all they can to support all forms of the game, so it was a surprise when its Independent Chair, Greg Barclay, poured scorn on the idea.

"Absolutely, if they are going to play it, my personal view is they should have five days to play it in," Barclay said.

"If you look at the way cricket is going, there is no doubt that white-ball is the way of the future.

"That is the game that is sought after by the fans, where the broadcasters are putting their resources, and what is driving the money. Therefore, the counties that are developing women's cricket will focus on that.

"In order to play Test cricket, you have to have the structures in place domestically, and they don't really exist. So I can't really see women's Test or long-form cricket evolving at any speed at all.

"That's not to say they can't choose to play Test cricket, but I don't really see that as part of the landscape moving forward to any real extent."

Needless to say, the criticism came quick and fast.

Australian women's team captain Meg Lanning believes that the game’s governance should be more ambitious to include Women's red-ball matches in the near future.

She commented: "We understand not every country in women's cricket is at the point where Test cricket is the main focus, and hopefully that can continue to develop over time.

“What was a touch frustrating was that we want to be ambitious and see what's possible. At the moment, we've got India, England and South Africa now playing as well.

“There are some opportunities there, and while some of the other countries aren't in a position at the moment to do that, that's fine, but I don't think that means we shouldn't try and push for that in the future and see what happens.

"It's about being open to the possibilities and being ambitious with where we want to go with the game. Hopefully in 10 to 20 years, there are ten countries that are playing Test match cricket, but it's not about it all happening right at this moment.”

Former Middlesex captain Isabelle Westbury was more scathing, tweeting: “Rly disappointing comments from ICC Chair Greg Barclay on women's cricket on @bbctms. Sounds like he's 10 yrs behind the game he's supposedly trying to run.“

No wonder veterans of the game have called for new governance for the women’s game.

Former Australian Test captain Raelee Thompson was vocal in her criticism: .

"To think that Mr Barclay just flatly refused to even consider women's Tests and that he didn't even acknowledge there was any history … I mean, we introduced overarm bowling … you have to know the backstory to do it justice and I'm afraid most of the men in charge don't have any idea.

"I see a need for a separate women's council to look after women's cricket … I think we'd still have to be part of the ICC, but that would be a much better fit, because the women understand the needs of the female players and actually value the history of what our forebears have done."

As we have said many times before, it’s not the crisis that causes the most damage, it’s how you respond to it, and the ICC have seemingly made no attempt to apologise or address the comments made by Barclay.

In fact, in a follow-up statement, they expressed surprise that women's Tests are even a topic of debate.

"To focus on the lack of growth in Test cricket is to ignore a huge section of the sport," said the statement.

"The growth of women's cricket is one of the strategic priorities of the ICC strategy and the game has grown significantly in the 17 years since its integration with the ICC…

“Test cricket can be played by Members, but the ICC has chosen to focus its investment on the white ball game to accelerate the growth and engage broadcasters and commercial partners so we can achieve a long-term sustainable future for the game. This investment has been fantastic for the women's game."

The fact that the ICC Chief Executive's Committee comprises of 19 men and just one woman, Clare Connor, by way of her position as the chair of the women's committee, speaks volumes about how important it sees the women’s game.

Since the ICC took over women's cricket in 2005, only 20 women's Tests have been played, compared to the first 71 years of international women's cricket, when Test series were played regularly.

It’s hard to see how the ICC can claim to have supported or developed women’s Test cricket, and calls for a new International Women's Cricket Council (IWCC) will gather pace unless they address their systemic shortcomings.

0 notes

coochiequeens · 3 years ago

Text

Men in dresses telling women what they need to do to be good feminists. Just like men in pants.

In the discussion and debate over the ways and means to include transgender people in sports, voices like Nadia Jacobson’s need to be heard.

In years past, the 37-year-old club volleyball player was part of a men’s team striving to reach the higher-tiers of her nation’s volleyball pyramid. While feeling at home on the court, she felt out of step and out of place with herself.

“Volleyball was an escape from all my thoughts about my identity and my gender,” she said during an interview this week on The Trans Sporter Room podcast. “Even as I played on the court there still was this thing in the back of my head to where I couldn’t commit to it one-hundred percent.

“If I hadn’t been able to play volleyball all these years I wouldn’t be here today. The only highlight of my life all those years was playing volleyball. It was the only thing that kept me going.”

Jacobsen was among many transgender, non-binary and intersex people who told their stories to officials of the Danish Sports Confederation. The governing body spent 2021 working to revamp transgender inclusion policies across the nation’s sports leagues and clubs.

The results led to a report published two weeks ago, which called for changes similar to the sweeping new guidelines of the International Olympic Committee. Those are set to go into effect in March.

The effort ran into resistance by the usual suspects. Mass media in the country has been influenced to indifference or ignorance by online-powered anti-trans pressure groups.

The tactics mimic well-known anti-trans efforts in the U.S. and U.K., and drew the curiosity of one observer, cybersecurity consultant Maia Kahlke Lorentzen.

“It’s the relentlessness, the lack of other things of their lives and they just keep coming at you,” she said. “They don’t have any qualms about bullying and at the same time they talk about being feminists. As a feminist, one should be an accomplice or an ally.”

Lorentzen, a host of a popular podcast on issues of cybersecurity, internet literacy and digital self-defense, turned a scholarly curiosity into a special series on the online radicalization of transphobia. Much of the material has come from her own experience studying hate groups online and stories of individual trans people in her country like Jacobsen’s, who came out three years ago.

When Jacobsen came out, she was immersed into an online inferno of transphobic tweets, memes, and comment sections.

“Online, especially on Facebook and Twitter, it’s insane the number people who comment and call us men and say we have an unfair advantage,” Jacobsen said. “And you have the Danish media who beginning to mimic the English press and they are awful.”

Denmark’s television networks and newspapers have picked up some of the stories on the continuing trans inclusion debate in the U.S. Lorentzen paid particular attention to a news item by the Denmark’s public broadcaster last August on the now-dismissed lawsuit against Connecticut’s department of education and the state’s high school athletics governing body backed by the anti-trans Alliance Defending Freedom.

“Their sports coverage of trans issues is extremely transphobic,” Lorentzen said. “People don’t realize why the article are people, and people are not aware of how steep them are in transphobia.”

Lorentzen hopes her series can help educate and balance the transphobia that seems to be a dominant theme in Danish media. Jacobsen seeks to be the person she needed when she was younger with an ambition to mentor trans youth.

She’s had a positive recent experience to draw on. After coming out three years ago, endless misgendering forced her to leave her longtime club. A second act was stymied by trying to find a women’s team, but there wasn’t enough women available in her area to form a team.

She ended up on a co-ed team. The squad built a bond that led to playing at EuroGames 2021 in Copenhagen last August. The experience was not only affirming for Jacobsen, it was successful. Her team ended up with a gold medal effort in their division.

It was the perfect climax for someone who thought at one time that the game they loved would have to be left behind.

“It was amazing to just be a part of a team again,” she said. “It was something I missed since coming out. It was amazing and we have the gold medal.”

Nadia Jacobsen had much more to say at the intersection of her transition and playing winning volleyball. Maia Kahlke Lorentzen talking about not just facing the anti-trans trolls, but also fighting them. Hear the complete interview in the latest edition of The Trans Sporter Room.Check it out on Megaphone, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Apple podcasts, and many other platforms for Outsports podcasts as well.

#Danish Sports Confederation #International Olympic Committee #Keep men out of women’s sports #Protecting women’s spaces in not hateful

4 notes · View notes

nancydhooper · 5 years ago

Text

Four Lawyers. Four Projects. One Non-Stop Year.

It isn’t news that the Trump administration has kept ACLU attorneys working at breakneck speed for the past three years. In 2019 alone, we saw historic moments and victories—from defeating the citizenship question on the 2020 census and bringing the first trans civil rights case to the Supreme Court, to blocking a wave of abortion bans and many of the administration’s attempts to dismantle the asylum system. To name a few.

Here are some of our attorneys’ takes on 2019 and the year ahead—what’s changed for the better and for the worse, and how the outcome of the 2020 presidential election will affect the fight for civil rights and liberties in years to come.

Chase Strangio

Deputy Director for Transgender Justice, LGBT and HIV Project

What was your favorite moment of 2019?

A lot happened so it’s hard to pick just one moment, but for me one of the most memorable was the October 8 argument for the Aimee Stephens case at the Supreme Court. Obviously the moment itself was historic. Working on the case was pivotal in my life and my work. But even more than the hearing itself, I’ll never forget the feeling of coming out of the Supreme Court and seeing a crowd of trans people and allies chanting to Aimee while we walked across the plaza. It’s a special reminder that it’s not about what happens in court, it’s about how we move forward.

What was the biggest challenge?

This was a challenging year. Two things stand out: The Supreme Court taking on the Title VII cases and the increasing attacks on trans people in sports.

When we heard about the Title VII cases in April, it was a devastating blow. Aimee had already won in the lower court, and we didn’t want the Supreme Court to undo her win. It’s difficult existing in this political context with so many attacks on the trans community and going up to the Court knowing that no matter what, something would be lost—whether something rhetorical or in the public discourse or in the legal outcome of the case itself.

There’s also been a rise in attacks on the idea of trans people participating in sports. It’s disappointing seeing people we’d expect to be allies side with our opponents. It’s just another context that’s being leveraged in public conversations and policy debates to argue that trans people aren’t “real” and that we don’t deserve to participate equally in society. It’s painful and the people who are going to be the most hurt are the trans youth who are being singled out and demeaned by the adult lawmakers who are supposed to protect them.

How will the outcome of the 2020 election affect trans rights?

There’s a long way to go no matter who’s in the White House. But for trans rights, the shift from Obama to Trump was drastic. If Trump loses, we’ll continue to sue the government because the government will continue to discriminate, and it will take a lot of work to undo the anti-trans agenda of the last three years. But hopefully we will have a president that is less concerned with decimating us and our lives and we can work towards rebuilding some protections. No matter what happens, our resolve to fight and defend our communities will persist.

How do you unwind after preparing for a big case?

I operate at a constant state of stress, so it’s always a struggle. Maybe I haven’t done a good job of unwinding. I do love theatre, going to shows, engaging in creative processes to get me out of my head.

What got you into this work?

As a queer, trans person with access to resources I felt that I could serve my community by working within systems of power to disrupt and distribute power. It isn’t always easy and I don’t always do it perfectly but I could never imagine doing any other work.

Brigitte Amiri

Deputy Director of the Reproductive Freedom Project

What was the biggest challenge of 2019?

2019 was the year of the abortion ban, so it’s not so much one challenge in particular but the onslaught—we’re fighting battles at the federal and state level in a rapid succession. The states have been emboldened by the Trump administration and by changes in the judiciary, and it’s been a breathless fight against their attacks on abortion and access to contraception. Some of our most important victories of the year included blocking the abortion bans in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, and Utah.

Still, in 2019 there were also some great legislative victories for reproductive rights. A number of states have passed proactive measures that expand access. A perfect example is Maine, where the reproductive rights and justice movement got the state to pass a law expanding who can provide abortions and not just limit provision to doctors but to expand it to advanced practice clinicians. Another new law in Maine ensures that people can access abortion with Medicaid as insurance if they qualify. States like Maine will be a haven for abortion access if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned.

What will 2020 look like for abortion rights?

The attacks on abortion will continue in 2020, unfortunately. The states restricting access have been doing so for decades. And even if there’s a change in the presidential administration, the federal judiciary has now been changed for generations, so states that want to pass restrictions are still going to do so in an aggressive manner, in hopes that the courts will uphold their restrictions. So I think 2020 will be very busy.

Most people in this country support reproductive freedom, but anti-abortion politicians have their own agenda and refuse to listen to the majority of their constituents. Restricting abortion has always been used as a political tool that has been wielded by some politicians regardless of what the public wants.

What got you interested in reproductive freedom?

Ever since I was a little girl, I was always interested in fighting for what was fair. My mom was a feminist and a stay-at-home mom who took me to political rallies, and I used to babysit for a mom who worked at Planned Parenthood. These strong women instilled in me the idea that people should be able to make decisions about their own bodies and everyone should be treated equally in society. Eventually I went to law school because I wanted to use the law to promote social justice.

Is there a particular client from 2019 who stands out?

The staff at the EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Kentucky. Dr. Marshall, who owns it, and staff are amazing people and our heroes. They make sure patients get the care they need with compassion and dignity. They’ve endured so much in addition to the legal onslaught—including anti-abortion people blockading the clinic doors and vandalizing the clinic. They are my heroes.

Personally, my favorite moment of 2019 was calling the clinic and telling them the good news that the judge blocked the state abortion ban.

Dale Ho

Director of the Voting Rights Project

What was your favorite moment of 2019?

The census win. From the beginning I thought we had the better argument, but there were so many predictions that we would lose. I understand why we got those predictions, because we were the underdog, but it was hard not to let that seep in and affect my outlook. When we won, I felt vindicated.

What was the most important legal win?

Again I’d say the census case. If we lost, representation would have shifted away from diverse states and areas, and many communities would have lost their fair share of federal funding. It was a massive case of major significance.

No one believed that the Trump administration wanted to add the citizenship question to support voting rights. The Court’s decision affirmed how much we need honesty from the government on why it’s doing what it’s doing. And the case was a test for the Supreme Court, to see whether it would stand up to the kind of lawlessness that has become standard in this administration. It was nerve-inducing that four justices were willing to go along, but the center held.

The census case was also litigated at a breakneck pace—from a trial decision to the Supreme Court in only three months. It was maybe the most significant challenge in my professional life. I’m still recovering.

How do you handle stress when you’re on the road?

I always, always buy WiFi on planes, and take my noise canceling headphones with me. Sometimes I’ll get a Bloody Mary (virgin!) so I can work throughout the flight. When I’m flying out of New York, I get the same bad Italian hoagie from the CEBO Express in the airport—something I probably wouldn’t eat anywhere else.

How will the presidential election affect the Voting Rights Project?

I don’t think the outcome of 2020 will affect our work, because most of our work is in the states. We need to modernize our states’ antiquated registration and voting systems. Those are bad now and they’re going to be bad no matter who wins in 2020. We’re going to have to do that work and also focus on redistricting after the census happens, as local, state, and federal districts get redrawn all around the country. So we have a busy 2020 and a busy 2021 ahead of us, regardless.

What do you look forward to in 2020?

Election season is always an exciting time to be a voting rights lawyer. It can be challenging because you know in advance that it’s going to be very busy. But there’s a lot you don’t know that’s going to pop up—you know things will pop up but you don’t know what. It’s challenging to stay ready for that but I feel like every election I’ve been here, we’ve done some of our best work in that emergency, rapid response posture. I’m looking forward to it.

Omar Jadwat

Director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project

What is one moment from 2019 that stands out to you?

I’ll cheat and tell you two. The first was when we blocked the Remain in Mexico policy (or Forced Return to Mexico, or Migrant Protection Protocols, as it goes by a lot of names). We knew the policy would be a disaster and we were really glad to block it. The second was when a higher court allowed the policy to be implemented while an appeal is pending. Under this stay roughly 60,000 people have been dumped in Mexico in awful conditions. Cartels are preying on them, waiting for people to get off the buses and kidnapping them immediately. It all goes to show what an awful policy it is and how important it was to challenge it. The fact that we were able to stop it briefly was an important victory. Now the litigation continues.

What was the biggest challenge?

Protecting the asylum system. The administration has a multi-pronged strategy to attack asylum and basically eradicate the system unilaterally. A major focus of our work in the last year has been taking on these policies—we’ve challenged the standard for asylum, gang violence exceptions, detention of asylum seekers. There’s the first asylum ban, the second asylum ban, Return to Mexico, and more. A whole set of cases.

How has IRP’s work changed this year?

Our team has built a new set of muscles as we adapt to new challenges—challenges that would have been extraordinary and unusual in the past, which are now the norm. The administration often announces drastic policy changes with little or no warning, and the pressure is on our team to figure out what they’re doing, to analyze it legally, and put together a lawsuit as quickly as possible if there’s a legal problem. The administration has been so aggressive with its immigration policies and the scale of what they’re trying to do is getting more ambitious. It’s caused us to be more aggressive in terms of taking them to court, and then if we win that causes them to move fast to try to get rid of our victories. Everything is happening much more quickly than usual.

What got you into immigrants’ rights?

I come from a family of immigrants, including people who struggled with getting and maintaining status. I took a class with Judy Rabinovitz in law school, and she inspired me to follow this professional path.

What do you look forward to in 2020?

The possibility of a new administration to deal with and a humane, respectful system in the future. It’s refreshing to see so much public disapproval of anti-immigrant policies, and that sentiment has strengthened in the last couple of years. I hope that the sympathy and support we’ve seen for immigrant communities will continue to carry through.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/four-lawyers-four-projects-one-non-stop-year via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

lodelss · 5 years ago

Text

ACLU: Four Lawyers. Four Projects. One Non-Stop Year.

Four Lawyers. Four Projects. One Non-Stop Year.

Chase Strangio

Deputy Director for Transgender Justice, LGBT and HIV Project

What was your favorite moment of 2019?

What was the biggest challenge?

This was a challenging year. Two things stand out: The Supreme Court taking on the Title VII cases and the increasing attacks on trans people in sports.

How will the outcome of the 2020 election affect trans rights?

How do you unwind after preparing for a big case?

What got you into this work?

Brigitte Amiri

Deputy Director of the Reproductive Freedom Project

What was the biggest challenge of 2019?

What will 2020 look like for abortion rights?

What got you interested in reproductive freedom?

Is there a particular client from 2019 who stands out?

Personally, my favorite moment of 2019 was calling the clinic and telling them the good news that the judge blocked the state abortion ban.

Dale Ho

Director of the Voting Rights Project

What was your favorite moment of 2019?

What was the most important legal win?

How do you handle stress when you’re on the road?

How will the presidential election affect the Voting Rights Project?

What do you look forward to in 2020?

Omar Jadwat

Director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project

What is one moment from 2019 that stands out to you?

What was the biggest challenge?

How has IRP’s work changed this year?

What got you into immigrants’ rights?

What do you look forward to in 2020?

Published December 20, 2019 at 05:09PM via ACLU https://ift.tt/34DCIp7 from Blogger https://ift.tt/34NL3qo via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Blogger

0 notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

Why Do Republicans Hate Gay People

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-do-republicans-hate-gay-people/

Why Do Republicans Hate Gay People

Presidency Of George W Bush

The 2004 Republican Party platform removed both parts of that language from the platform and stated that the party supports anti-discrimination legislation.

Two Reasons Why The Bathroom Bill Targeting Trans People Is Flawed

Hear more Tennessee Voices:

Dads: imagine walking into the mens room with your son and seeing Caitlyn Jenner, in a dress, fixing her makeup.

More disturbing still is when trans men who are far along in their transition people who look, act, and identify as male must use the same restroom as young girls.

More:Tennessee Voices, Episode 118: Chris Sanders, Tennessee Equality Project

The Fairness For All Act Is A Republican Response To The Equality Act

At the time, there were that some conservative groups were working on a compromise bill, and it appears the Fairness For All Act is that compromise.

What we like about it is the stated intentional desire for fairness and a proposed process that will encourage collaboration because weve seen that work in our state, he said.

Republicans May Begin To Embrace Gay Rights

The Disney Vault Is Annoying

American Views Of Transgender People: The Impact Of Politics Personal Contact And Religion

The overall public supports laws prohibiting discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, with Republicans closely divided.

Image: Getty

Here’s Where We Stand On Different Lgbt Issues

LGBT leftists tend to hate us because we put our principles first. We believe in religious liberty, free speech, God-given human dignity, limited government, and economic opportunity.

For that reason we frequently oppose radical gender theory and leftist policies like the Equality Act. We support a nuanced, science-based approach to transgender policy issues.

As a result of stances like these, LGBT leftists regularly picket us, ban us, destroy our property, and call us ugly names.

Recently, our entire leadership team was kicked out of Nashvilles primary LGBT networking Facebook group, in contravention of that groups written rules, because the admins hated us.

More:Tennessee’s anti-LGBTQ bills target vulnerable citizens who are worthy of dignity | Plazas

Views On Religion Its Role In Policy

About two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic leaners say it is not necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values, up from 51% who said this in 2011.

The growing partisan divide on this question parallels the widening partisan gap in religious affiliation.

International AffairsEconomic ConditionsTrust, Facts & DemocracyClimate, Energy & EnvironmentRace & EthnicitySame-Sex Marriage

Lgbt Conservatism In The United States

Jump to navigationJump to search

Changing Views On Acceptance Of Homosexuality

Growing acceptance of homosexuality has paralleled an increase in public support for same-sex marriage. About six-in-ten Americans now say they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.

Acceptance is greater among those with postgraduate and bachelors degrees than among those with some or no college experience .

Reasons Why Conservatives Hate Democrats

November 5, 2014 by Samuel WardeNo Comments

20 Reasons Why Conservatives Hate Democrats

Log Cabins Better Record On Gay Issues

Stonewall Incorrectly Attacks President Trump

Relies On Star Power Not Plotlines

How Out Of Step Is The Republican Party On Gay Rights

Emily Guskin contributed to this report.

Mike Pence Accidentally Admits The Real Reason Republicans Hate Democrats So Much

Common Dreams

Pence’s description of progressive goals was “exactly” correct, author and commentator Anand Giridharadas tweeted.

“Yes, and what’s wrong with making poor people more comfortable?” asked Rep. Ilhan Omar .

Gw College Republicans Invite Log Cabin Republicans And Lgbt Conservatives To Talk About What It Means To Be Gay And Conservative

Mr. Polumbo said he realized he was a conservative when he was dropped into the liberal bastion of the University of Massachusetts and wound up persona non grata in the gay community.

A Rand Paul libertarian and technically not a Republican, he said, I definitely have a very right-wing philosophy. I am more than willing to punch at both sides.

Live your life honestly, Mr. Moran advised. Be present. Share and be aware. Accept them for who they are and who they are not.

We’re Portrayed As A Perversion

Many Trump Supporters Are Lgbt

Log Cabin Republicans stand to disabuse the public of that lie. The Stonewall Democrats dont want you to know we exist. But we do, our ideas are better than theirs, and were not going anywhere.

Trans Rights: A Perplexing Issue

“The only issue Perkins raised was the transgender bathroom issue,” Kabel said. “And I thought, ‘That means we won.'”

Kabel called transgender equality “one of the most perplexing issues going.”

Transgender visibility is all but absent in the Log Cabin Republicans, from their leadership to their messaging.

OUTspoken sent Brokeback Patriot, who has stated trans women are not women, to New Orleans Southern Decadence party to ask passersby if they think Trump is pro-gay.

0 notes

stars--n--stripes-blog · 5 years ago

Link

“Increasingly, girly boys and tomboys are being told that gender trumps sex, and if a boy is effeminate or bookish or freaked out by team sports, he may actually be a girl, and if a girl is rough and tumble, sporty, and plays with boys, she may actually be a boy,” Sullivan wrote September 20 for New York Magazine.

The cost of that pro-transgender propaganda may be huge, Sullivan wrote:

I don’t have children, but I sure worry about gay kids in this context. I remember being taunted by some other kids when I was young — they suggested that because I was mildly gender-nonconforming, I must be a girl. If my teachers and parents and doctors had adopted this new ideology, I might never have found the happiness of being gay and comfort in being male. How many gay kids, I wonder, are now being led into permanent physical damage or surgery that may be life-saving for many, but catastrophic for others, who come to realize they made a mistake. And what are gay adults doing to protect them? Nothing. Only a few ornery feminists, God bless them, are querying this.

In some ways, the extremism of the new transgender ideology also risks becoming homophobic. Instead of seeing effeminate men as one kind of masculinity, as legitimate as any other, transgenderism insists that girliness requires being a biological girl. Similarly, a tomboy is not allowed to expand the bandwidth of what being female can mean, but must be put into the category of male. In my view, this is not progressive; it’s deeply regressive. There’s a reason why Iran is a world leader in sex-reassignment surgery, and why the mullahs pay for it. Homosexuality in Iran is so anathema that gay boys must be turned into girls, and lesbian girls into boys, to conform to heterosexual norms. Sound a little too familiar?

Sullivan backs up his concerns by noting that the teenage sex-change treatment seems to be very hazardous to the physical health of the children:

In the case of merely confused or less informed kids, the consequences of [sex-change] treatment can be permanent. Many of these prepubescent trans-identifying children are put on puberty blockers, drugs that suppress a child’s normal hormonal development, and were originally designed for prostate cancer and premature puberty. The use of these drugs for gender dysphoria is off-label, unapproved by the FDA; there have been no long-term trials to gauge the safety or effectiveness of them for gender dysphoria, and the evidence we have of the side effects of these drugs in FDA-approved treatment is horrifying. Among adults, the FDA has received 24,000 reports of adverse reactions, over half of which it deemed serious. Parents are pressured into giving these drugs to their kids on the grounds that the alternative could be their child’s suicide. Imagine the toll of making a decision about your child like that?

Sullivan’s concern was echoed in an article describing how an Australian teenage girl broke away from her transgender clique by gathering the courage to declare herself a lesbian. The September 21 article in the Australian said:

Seemingly conservative, her parents couldn’t see the liberating appeal of trans. “They said, ‘Why would you say you’re not a woman? Wouldn’t it be better to defy all the expectations that are put on women, accept you’re a woman and be a good role model?’

“I remember going back to the queer group and saying, ‘Can you believe they said something so transphobic to me?’ ”

But she began flirting with her own thought crime. She took a risk, in private with a fellow queer group member she judged a friend. “I said, ‘I think it’s OK for women to be only into other women’, which you’d think in a tolerant inclusive community would be an OK thing to say.”

…

Questions and doubts came in a tumble. “It was very rapid, which was kind of scary because I felt like everything unravelled really quickly, and I think that’s somewhat common. I became really aware that I was going to lose all my friends, lose my whole [transgender] community as soon as I said I was not trans. I moved cities before I told anyone.”

The growing concerns about the radical ideology are forcing some governments to curb the use of drugs and surgery to impose “gender confirmation” on children who are too young to vote:

The Swedish Government announced today that they are putting the brakes on proposed laws reducing the minimum age for gender reassignment surgeries from 18 to 15.@Transgendertrd @cwknews https://t.co/COaxlW6b21

— Marcus Birch (@MarcusBirch5) September 19, 2019

In the United States, President Donald Trump is changing rules and regulations to restore the clear legal and civic distinctions between the two equal, different, and complementary sexes of male and female. This policy has outraged progressive leaders and the transgender groups, and both are asking the Supreme Court to legally abolish the two sexes by declaring that people’s internal feelings of “gender” be declared as always more important than their female-or-male biological sex.

Breitbart News has extensively covered the ideological motives which explain why progressives are so eager to exploit the adults and children who say they want to change their sex, despite much evidence of the medical dangers and loneliness suffered people who try to change their sex:

The progressive authors do not urge the small number of transgender people to seek other options, for example, waiting to see if their feelings change, or perhaps accepting a gay or lesbian identity. Instead, the authors use the plight of transgender Americans to push for a government-engineered transformation of sex and human relations throughout the United States.

Progressives believe this sexual revolution is possible because they believe sexual preferences are merely a “social construct,” which can be demolished and rebuilt by government. “Sexual classification is neither natural nor universal, but rather historically and culturally specific …. [and] sexual orientation is more accurately described as fluid … or in a constant state of (re)negotiation,” say the authors, Karen L. Blair, and Rhea Ashley Hoskin.

…

To change the public’s view that heterosexuality is the normal and best path, the pro-transgender progressives have adopted a strategy of using their allies in universities, media, and marketing to first downplay the linguistic, legal and civic distinctions between the two sexes.

For example, progressives are using the vague idea of “gender” to bury the obvious notion of “male or female.” This rhetorical carpet-bombing has also encouraged the claim that men who live as women possess a “female penis.”

Also, progressives use outliers — such as gay people, transgender people, or “intersex” people who have some biological attributes of the other sex, or the fact that women produce small levels of the male hormone, testosterone — to deny the overwhelming popularity of two-sex heterosexual normality.

…

This progressives’ strategy also requires their coalition to hide or downplay facts which spotlight the importance of biological sexual differences. For example, progressives ignore the many young women and men who “detransition” by quitting their damaging efforts to become transgender, and they denounce evidence that young people who would become gays or lesbians are being “transed.”

Progressives use the near-universal sexual rejection of transgender people to justify their demand that government sneak another sexual revolution into Americans' lives & communities. The goal is ending "compulsory heterosexuality" & the "gender binary." https://t.co/En8OHnfmXA

— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) September 6, 2019

Transgender Facts

In general, the transgender ideology says a person’s legal and civic recognition as a man or a woman must be determined by their “gender identity,” not by their biology.

The ideology also insists that men and women are more or less interchangeable, and it objects to the public’s view of the two sexes as simultaneously different, complementary, and equal.

The transgender advocates want to impose their ideology on Americans by establishing “transgender rights” laws, which would require the Department of Justice to penalize individuals and groups who insist that biology determines male-or-female status — and also shapes peoples’ likely political, civic, and personal priorities.

Polls show the transgender ideology is deeply unpopular, especially among women and parents. In 2017, former President Barack Obama told NPR that his promotion of the transgender ideology made it easier for Donald Trump to win the presidency.

Multiple polls show that most Americans reasonably wish to help and comfort people who think they are a member of the opposite sex, even as they also reject the transgender ideology’s claim that people’s legal sex is determined by their feeling of “gender identity,” not by biology. A U.K. survey shows a similar mix of sympathy for people who say they are transgender alongside lopsided opposition to the ideology.

The transgender movement is diverse, so its different factions have competing goals and priorities. It includes sexual liberationists, progressives, feminists who wish to blur distinctions between the two sexes, and people who glamorize the differences between the two sexes. It includes high-profile children, people who are trying to live as members of the opposite sex, troubled teenage girls trying to flee womanhood, and people trying to “detransition” back to their sex.

It also includes men who demand sex from lesbians, masculine autogynephiles who say they are entitled to women’s rights, alpha males who insist they are the natural leaders of women, parents eager to support their children’s’ transgender claims, wealthy donors, politicians, political professionals, revenue-seeking drug companies, surgeons, and medical service providers.

Transgender advocates claim that two million Americans say they are transgender to a greater or lesser extent. But very few people who describe themselves as transgender undergo cosmetic surgery of the genitals. Only about 4,118 Americans surgically altered their bodies in hospitals from 2000 to 2014 to appear like members of the opposite sex, according to a pro-transgender medical study. A Pentagon report commissioned by former Defense Secretary James Mattis said that “rates for genital surgery are exceedingly low- 2% of transgender men and 10% of transgender women.”

The progressive push to bend Americans’ attitudes and their male-and-female civic society around the idea of “gender identity” has already attacked and cracked many popular social rules. Those rules help Americans manage cooperation and competition among and between complementary, different, and equal men and women.

These pro-gender claims have an impact on different-sex bathrooms, shelters for battered women, sports leagues for girls, hiking groups for boys, K-12 curricula, university speech codes, religious freedoms, free speech, the social status of women, parents’ rights in childrearing, children’s safety, practices to help teenagers, health outcomes, women’s ideals of beauty, culture and civil society, scientific research, prison safety, civic ceremonies, school rules, men’s sense of masculinity, law enforcement, military culture, and children’s sexual privacy.

"Better to understand your sex is immutable, that you don’t need some off-the-shelf gender ID because instead you have a complex, unique personality. 'I’m not male or female,' says Sam Smith. 'I think I flow somewhere in between.' Darling, don’t we all."https://t.co/ZBaDZDyrZ3

— 4thWaveNow (@4th_WaveNow) September 22, 2019

By Neil Munro

#transgender ideology #transgender children #transmen #transwomen #mental health #*

0 notes

leftpress · 8 years ago

Text

'It’s Hard to Show the World I Exist': Chelsea Manning's Final Plea to Be Seen

In 2010, Chelsea Manning leaked thousands of classified documents in an attempt to shed light on the "true cost of war" in the Middle East. But while other whistleblowers continue to attract media attention and concern, Manning is locked in a maximum-security prison, six years into a 35-year sentence. On the heels of a last appeal to President Obama for clemency, Manning tells Broadly about her struggle for visibility and justice.

by Diana Tourjee | DEC 29 2016

Chelsea Manning is currently incarcerated in a maximum-security facility in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. She's been in United States custody for six years, and spent months in solitary confinement. For that entire time, she has been forced to dress like a man, with her hair cropped close to her head. Her connection with the outside world is limited: There are extremely strict rules about who can visit her, and media isn't allowed to speak with her directly, though she can correspond with journalists by mail. At times, her situation seems hopeless, but she has tried to persevere.

"Courage is not fearlessness," she wrote in a letter to Broadly this December. "Courage is the ability to keep going, even when you are unsure of yourself, even when you are nervous, and even when you are terrified. If you can still fight when the odds appear to be against you, and when it looks like you might be fighting it alone, then you are genuinely brave."

In May of 2013, Chelsea Manning was convicted of six counts of espionage and sentenced to 35 years in prison. The former military specialist is responsible for what is considered the largest leak of classified government documents in American history—they include the Iraq War Logs and the Afghan War Diary, two data troves that she believed would shed light on the "true cost of war" in the Middle East, such as the United States' failure to investigate thousands of claims of torture in Iraq, the detainment of innocent or low-threat-level individuals at Guantanamo Bay, and thousands of civilian deaths.

Get your Latest News From The Leftist Front on LeftPress.tk → Help Us Gather News (Click for Details) ←

Manning's sentence is extreme by any metric. Other convicted whistleblowers have had to serve far less time, often in the range of one to three-and-a-half years—though Manning is just a sixth of the way through her sentence, she has already been incarcerated twice as long as most other convicted whistleblowers. Earlier this year, she made a plea to President Obama to alter her sentence from 35 years to time served, which would free her immediately while recognizing her guilt. Last month, over 100,000 people signed a White House petition making the same demand. The President's second term will end in January, meaning he has less than a month to take action.

Though some people celebrate Manning as a whistleblower—she was the 2013 recipient of the Sean MacBride Peace Prize—others see her actions as treasonous and damaging to the state. "Let's charge [her] and try [her] for treason," a FOX news national security expert, KT MacFarland, wrote of Manning in 2010. "If [she's] found guilty, [she] should be executed." President-elect Donald Trump has selected MacFarland to be his deputy national security adviser, according to CNN.

And even among people who prize government transparency, Manning is often overlooked. The world seems to have rallied behind other, more visible whistleblowers, such as Edward Snowden, who has become something of a celebrity from his recluse in Russia. One of the main reasons for this, according to Evan Greer, one of Manning's biggest advocates and the campaign director of Fight for the Future, is that Manning is hidden from sight in prison, denied the right to speak for herself.

"Prisons are designed to dehumanize and hide people from the public. No one can see Chelsea, and very few people can actually hear her voice," she explains. (I conducted my interview with Manning through one of her lawyers at the ACLU, Chase Strangio, who had one of Manning's contacts dictate my questions to her over the phone.)

Manning agrees with this characterization. "I have been disconnected from the world for what's becoming close to a decade now. There isn't even a good photograph taken of me since 2013—and these were taken during my court martial," she said in her letter to Broadly. "It's hard to show the world I exist anymore."

Throughout her life—and certainly her life as a public figure—Manning has struggled against forces that would silence her. She grew up in a society that rejected her womanhood; she later joined the military, a hyper-masculine institution that has been described as "openly hostile" towards gay and trans soldiers; while serving in the armed forces, she witnessed injustices that were classified by the state; she was subjected to "cruel and inhuman" treatment in the custody of the United States government, according to a UN investigator; when she finally came out as transgender in 2013, she was frequently and intentionally misgendered in the press; and now, incarcerated in a high-security facility in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, she must fight against a system that may soon destroy her.

"Chelsea has a huge amount of support," adds Greer, "but we are fighting an uphill battle against the US government's attempts to silence her important voice through incarceration."

During Manning's childhood, "it was like trans people didn't exist at all," she told Broadly. She remembers the difficulty growing up as a young, feminine person. She had never heard about real people who had changed their sex, or escaped its strictures; the only representation of transgender people that she remembers from back then were characters from horror stories, like Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs, and caricatures on sensational crime dramas, like Law & Order.

Today, Manning reflects on her coming of age with the understanding that she was "shoved into the social role of a male." She believes her attempt "to meet other people's expectations of what a 'man' should be like" influenced the choices she made throughout her life. She once said she was bullied for being a "girly boy" when she was young. Hoping to curb discrimination in school, she tried to disappear among the boys by playing sports. Later, as an adult, Manning was encouraged by her father to join the army, and she enlisted in what is perhaps the most aggressively masculine institution imaginable in the summer of 2007—three years before she was arrested, and six years before she came out as transgender.

Before she was deployed to Iraq in October of 2009, Manning was stationed at Fort Drum in upstate New York. For the six months she was there—between February and August—she corresponded via AOL Instant Messenger with atheist vlogger Zinnia Jones. Jones was a young queer person with a relatively large audience. At the time, neither she nor Manning had come out as transgender or begun transitioning. Manning was presumably drawn to Jones because they both identified as gay men at that time, and they were both atheists who were interested in computers and mathematical theory.

Jones' videos, which she still makes today, had titles like "The Meaningless Death of Jesus," and "It Doesn't Matter if Being Gay is a Choice." Manning quickly opened up to her, telling Jones about her life and discussing her experience in the military. "It took them awhile," Manning wrote, referring to her fellow soldiers, "but they started figuring me out, making fun of me, mocking me, harassing me, heating up with one or two physical attacks."

While other soldiers succeeded in completing basic training in the standard 10 weeks, Manning—who is slender and stands 5'2" tall—said that it took her six months. Eventually she got through the program, despite her small size, and entered the army as an intelligence analyst. The broad, dark green military uniform sat heavily on her slight frame; she had officially become Private First Class Manning, someone her father had wanted her to be. In 2009, she was deployed to a remote location outside of Baghdad.

In the writing she produced during her service—correspondence with people such as Jones—Manning says that she feels an immense sense of responsibility to the men and women that she worked with. Though she took her work seriously, and she was good at it, that did not reconcile the deep anguish she experienced because of her gender identity. While Manning was working hard, she was also coping with worsening gender dysphoria. No one knew her as a woman, and she was alone in that way.

In November of 2009, one month following her deployment, Manning was reportedly in contact with a "gender counselor" back in the United States who specialized in treating military personnel with gender identity issues. She told him she felt "like a monster." According to the American Medical Association, if left untreated, gender identity disorder "can result in clinically significant psychological distress... debilitating depression and, for some people without access to appropriate medical care and treatment, suicidality and death."

On April 24, 2010, Manning confessed her gender identity issues to her superior, master sergeant Paul Adkins, in an email. A few days later, she sent a similar email to military psychologist, Capt. Michael Worsley. Manning attached a grainy black and white photograph of herself wearing a wig to the email and wrote, "This is my problem. I've had signs of it for a very long time. I've been trying very, very hard to get rid of it. It is not going away." In the email, she told Adkins that these issues were the cause of her "pain and confusion" and that they made "the most basic things in my life very difficult."

"It is difficult to sleep and impossible to have conversations. It makes my entire life feel like a bad dream that won't end. I don't know what to do. I don't know what to do," she continued. "I don't know what will happen to me. But at this point I feel like I am not here anymore. Everyone is concerned about me, and everyone is afraid of me. I am sorry." Adkins later testified that he didn't pass the message onto military commanders because "I really didn't think at the time that having a picture floating around of one of my soldiers in drag was in the best interests of the intel mission."

On May 8, 2010, Manning was found curled in the fetal position, having carved the words "I want" into the back of an office chair. "[She] felt that [she] was not there; was not a person," master sergeant Adkins wrote in a memorandum read at trial.

"They treated all of this with deliberate ignorance, assuming the situation would simply go away," Jones claims. "Gender dysphoria does not go away. I am very certain that this deliberate medical neglect and intentional withholding of necessary mental health treatment contributed heavily to her ongoing distress at that time. The Army failed her on this front."

There were other reports of unstable behavior during Manning's service: She lashed out at her colleagues and allegedly displayed "erratic" conduct. But those who knew Manning personally caution against conflating her deteriorating psychological state with her decision to leak classified materials, as if the former wholly explains the latter. "I trust that her decisions hold more significance than some random event emerging from processes of pathology," says Jones. "I would be very hesitant to describe her disclosure of materials as being the byproduct of a mental health condition."

Indeed, Manning believes in government transparency and has been vocal and passionate about her politics since before she deployed to Iraq. In her correspondence with Jones in 2009, she fiercely critiqued the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. When she was stationed at Fort Drum in Upstate New York prior to her deployment to Iraq, Manning participated in a rally protesting Proposition 8.

During Manning's trial, her ACLU lawyer, David Coombs, called on Jones to testify, speaking to the defendant's character. "He felt my story would provide information that would be helpful to Chelsea," Jones says, "by showing that she understood the importance of national and global peace and security and that she did not intend to harm the United States."

Manning has said that she wanted to help people in this nation to be informed and to have a say in the actions of their government, and still, after everything, she believes in this country. "It is so important that we continue to fight, even when we are cornered, even when we are desperate, and even when we are afraid," she wrote in her letter to Broadly, referring to LGBT Americans who may feel hopeless during these difficult political times. "There is a tendency in certain parts of our community to take a step back during a crisis, to wait and see what happens, and hope for the best. We absolutely cannot afford to do that."

Illustration by Julia Kuo

On February 3—almost three months before she emailed Adkins about her struggles with gender identity—Manning uploaded the Iraq War Logs and the Afghan War Diary to WikiLeaks, a media organization that accepts anonymously submitted classified documents in the interest of transparency. Manning had first tried to bring the files to the Washington Post and the New York Times, but she felt the former didn't take her seriously, and the latter did not return her phone call. She then turned to WikiLeaks, which she had previously become aware of after seeing the site publish a collection of pager messages from 9/11 that she immediately recognized as authentic documents from the NSA. When Manning leaked the Iraq War Log and the Afghan War Diary, she was in the US on leave from her deployment in Iraq.

Manning returned to Iraq on February 11. During that timeframe, she overheard some of her colleagues discussing footage in an Army server that showed an American Apache helicopter firing on a group of men on the street in Baghdad in 2007. She researched the time and date of its occurrence, and what she found shocked her: The footage shows soldiers in the US military aircraft opening fire on a Reuters photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, mistaking the telephoto lens in his hand for an rocket-propelled grenade (RPG). Noor-Eldeen appears to die immediately, though the helicopters spray the area back and forth with heavy artillery, killing several Iraqi men in the crossfire. Saeed Chmagh, Noor-Eldeen's assistant, begins to crawl away from the dead bodies, pulling himself onto the sidewalk in an effort to find safety, and the soldiers beg for an excuse to kill him; they say they hope he'll reach for a weapon, any weapon, apparently so that they will be allowed to shoot him.

When a van of good Samaritans appears and tries to help Chmagh into their vehicle, the soldiers in the helicopter beg again for, and are granted, permission to fire. They were unaware at the time that children were inside the van; a US military ground unit would later find the kids alive but injured. In all, 12 people were killed in the air strike.

Manning eventually uploaded the video to WikiLeaks on February 21 of 2010, and the organization published it on April 5, 2010, dubbing the footage "Collateral Murder." (At this point, the Iraq War Logs and the Afghan War Diary had not yet been published.) The "Collateral Murder" footage directly, and damningly, contradicted the US military's official account of what had taken place that day: In response to a Freedom of Information Act filed by Reuters in 2007, the military had claimed it could not estimate when, or if, the footage could be produced, saying in a statement released after the shooting that both Noor-Eldeen and Chmagh died as the result of an attack following insurgent fire, including RPGs.

"The most alarming aspect of the video to me," Manning later testified, "was the seemingly delightful bloodlust [the US soldiers] appeared to have. They dehumanized the individuals they were engaging, and seemed to not value human life by referring to them as 'dead bastards' and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers." She also likened one soldier's behavior to "a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass."

The release of the footage was met with outrage toward the army's apparently indiscriminate killings, both by the American public as well as people in Iraq. "At last the truth has been revealed," said Noor-Eldeen's father after the footage was leaked, according to the New York Times. "I would have sold my house and all that I own in order to show this tape to the world."

Manning had a reasoned explanation of her motivation for the leaks, which she told to a hacker named Adrian Lamo in May of 2010. "I want people to see the truth, regardless of who they are, because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public," she wrote.

When Manning uploaded the Iraq War Logs and the Afghan War Diary to WikiLeaks in February she added a note, which ended this way: "This is possibly one of the most significant documents of our time, removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of 21st century asymmetric warfare."

In May of 2010, Adrian Lamo, the hacker with whom Manning had corresponded after uploading massive amounts of data to WikiLeaks, turned her over to the Department of Justice. She had sought out Lamo a week earlier, apparently lonely and trying to make some human connection. Lamo was publicly connected to WikiLeaks, which may have made Manning see him as a relevant contact.

On May 27, Chelsea Manning was arrested. She was put in an "8' x 8' x 8' wire mesh cage in Kuwait," according to VICE, and held for two months before being transferred to the United States, where she was put in an even smaller cage at Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Virginia. Here, Manning was kept in solitary confinement for nine months, frequently stripped and left naked, and awoken when she fell asleep. A dentist provided mental health evaluations.

During this period, WikiLeaks was actively publishing the rest of the documents that Manning sent to them, including the Afghan War Diaries, the Iraq War Logs, and a massive collection of US diplomatic cables. (Manning's leaks clarified previously opaque international affairs and embarrassed US state officials, but their impact on our nation's relationship with foreign powers were "fairly modest," according to former Defense Secretary Robert Gates.)

While Manning's actions as a whistleblower sent shockwaves around the globe, the American government's treatment of her in state custody has become a human rights crisis in itself. In 2011, PJ Crowley, then the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, resigned from his position following public remarks that he made about Manning. "What is being done to [Chelsea] Manning is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid on the part of the Department of Defense," Crowley had said. His statement prompted President Obama to speak on Manning's experience at Quantico. At a press conference in 2011, Obama appeared satisfied with the Pentagon's assurance that the treatment of Manning was "appropriate."

A month after Obama was forced to confront Manning's treatment at Quantico, he publicly stated that she "broke the law," despite the fact she had not yet been convicted of any crime. Manning's defense attorney would later cite this statement by Obama as an example of the way that the US government affected public perception of Manning's guilt prior to her trial. In January of 2013, the pretrial imprisonment of Manning was indeed deemed illegal in a court ruling.

Photo via Flickr User Matthew Lippincott

When her trial finally came, Manning pled guilty to lesser charges in hopes that the judge would be lenient in sentencing. She did not plead guilty to the charge of aiding the enemy. As the prosecution prepared to argue that Manning had aided an enemy of the state, Crowley spoke out again, this time in a column for the Guardian in which he lambasted the US government for "making a martyr" of Manning.

Manning was ultimately acquitted of the aiding the enemy charge, but she did not receive the leniency she had counted on.

The conditions Manning faces in prison are brutal, and some of her advocates say they're tantamount to state-sponsored harassment. "The US military has kept her in a constant state of stress by continually harassing her with frivolous prison infractions," said Greer, the advocate who helped Manning to petition President Obama. Like Manning's lawyers and other supporters, Greer believes that Manning is "being denied the mental health support and gender-related health care that she desperately needs."

Until 2015, Manning was denied hormones to help her transition, and she's still required to wear her hair cropped closely to her head, in line with the military's standards for male inmates. In 2015, she was threatened with indefinite solitary confinement for possessing "contraband"—toothpaste and LGBTQ reading materials. This summer she was placed in solitary, as punishment for attempting to take her own life. In September, after Manning staged a hunger strike, the military guaranteed in writing that it will provide her with gender reassignment surgery, though she has yet to receive that treatment.

To some, Manning's treatment at the hands of the US military and her prolonged suffering is justification enough to commute her sentence. "Chelsea's mistreatment by the military and in their custody has been so protracted and indefensibly cruel that she should certainly be released immediately," insists Jones. Others, like Greer, note that Manning's continued incarceration essentially deprives the world of a vocal advocate for freedom and transparency. "She is an incredibly strong person with a brilliant and strategic mind, and she wants to use her talent and passion to make positive change in the world," Greer says. "The fact that she is kept away from us, locked behind bars, is truly a tragedy for our whole society."

Manning's lawyers at the ACLU, conversely, argue that her sentence should be overturned because her First Amendment rights were violated during her prosecution. In a brief filed earlier this year, the organization argues that the fact that she was prosecuted under the Espionage Act—a law first introduced during World War I that targets spies and traitors but has been used against whistleblowers and government officials who have communicated with the press in recent years—was unconstitutional.

One thing most of Manning's advocates unequivocally agree on is the fact that she will suffer immensely if she's not freed soon—and, with a looming Trump presidency, that her future may be frighteningly uncertain. While conditions have been brutal, Manning has at least finally been able to access healthcare. Many fear that such treatment could be threatened under Trump, who has been openly dismissive of the rights of trans people serving in the military.

Manning told Broadly that she suffers from feelings of desperation at times. "Sure, I have been surviving, and I plan on fighting to survive and move forward in the years to come," she said. "But I have no idea what challenges lie ahead."

Many advocates acknowledge that the present situation isn't very encouraging: President Obama has been notoriously tough on the prosecution of whistleblowers, and it doesn't help that many in the government still see Manning's actions as harmful to national security. "I will be surprised if President Obama commutes her sentence," PJ Crowley tells Broadly, adding that he does not consider Manning to be a whistleblower and considers her actions irresponsible and dangerous: "While serving in a war zone, she forwarded intelligence information and other sensitive material to someone not authorized to possess it," he says.

But even an establishment figure like Crowely, who believes that Manning's sentencing was just, recognizes that she should not have to spend 35 years in prison. "Chelsea Manning should be paroled at the first opportunity and allowed to go home and reconstruct her life," Crowley said.

According to Manning's lawyer, Chase Strangio, she "is seeking clemency and relief from her egregiously long sentence precisely so that she can, as Crowley suggests, 'go home and reconstruct her life', and so that she can, as Manning explains, finally live as the woman she was always meant to be." Strangio reiterates that Manning pled guilty, that she's not asking to be pardoned, and that she understands that she will "continue to face the consequences of her actions." Those actions, Strangio emphasizes, were motivated by a sense of duty to the American people.

"Chelsea acted in the service of the public interest to disclose information she believed imperative to inform people of harms perpetrated in the government's name around the world," Strangio explains. This is something that President Obama could consider when deciding whether or not to commute Manning's sentence to time served before he leaves office in January. According to Strangio, "her chances of surviving in prison much longer are slim, and action now will prevent the government from overseeing her unnecessary and untimely death."

Due to her belief that the American people have a right to know what their representative government is doing, and at whose expense, a woman is now locked in a prison in Kansas, where, among other injustices, she has been forced to fight legal battles to be given healthcare, punished for attempting suicide, and required to cut her hair because the state considers her to be a man. With incoming President Donald Trump's expansive military and surveillance powers, his apparent disinterest in truth, and cavalier attitude toward potential Russian interference in American politics, transparency in government is more important than ever before, as is the informed participation of the public in the sometimes disturbing behavior of the state.

Though there are platforms that share her writing, Manning, who risked her life and liberty to advocate for transparency, is now barely visible. Other than a digital black and white photograph taken during the first time that she dressed as a woman, the world has never even seen her. "I often worry that I have become more of a symbol than human," Manning wrote in her letter. If people forget that she is more than a whistleblower or a hero, then they'll never really know her, or understand the urgency and the severity of her situation.

"The truth is that I am just as vulnerable, and lonely at times, as everyone else," Manning continued. "I have my flaws. I have strengths. I have weaknesses. I also have talents. I have faults. There are a lot of things I can do. But there are also a lot of things I cannot do. I am only human."