Op-ed: Five Years After SB 1070, Still Undocumented and Queer
Arizona’s infamous anti-immigrant law was signed into law on April 23, 2010 and ought to be a warning about legalized discrimination.
Luis Aguilera Garcia
www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/04/24/op-ed-five-years-after-sb-1070-still-undocumented-and-queer
#Occupotty and the Gender Politics of Bathrooms
The floor plan of the White House recently made headlines because of a subtle change that’s caused a bit of a stir: it now features a gender-neutral restroom. Just one. But one was enough to make headlines. Many people don’t think twice about which restroom to use in public. Some people’s choice, however, is more of a dilemma than you might assume. Many transgender individuals struggle with the restroom issue in public settings. And this is an issue that forces cis-gender folks to confront deeply held beliefs about a gender-segregated setting — beliefs some may not fully realize they hold and many may be ill-equipped to discuss.
Making use of a public restroom is not often understood as a political act. Yet, a group of transgender folks in the U.S. and Canada are participating in a bit of digital activism by doing just that. It’s a quiet social movement, but it’s already gained some media attention. Pictures posted alongside the hashtags #Occupotty, #WeJustNeedToPee, and less often #LetMyPeoplePee on all manner of social media are starting a much-needed conversation about gender in and around public restrooms.
Brae Carnes is a transgender woman living in Victoria, Canada whose photo-activism went viral when she posted an image of herself applying lipstick in a public restroom with a line of urinals against the wall behind her. Brae told reporters at the Times Colonist, “I’m giving them what they want… I’m actively showing them what it would look like if that became law and how completely ridiculous it is” (here). And Brae is not alone. Michael Hughes, a transgender man living in Minnesota, also caused some digital waves when he posted a series of pictures of himself in women’s restrooms with captions like: “Do I look like I belong in women’s facilities?” Brae and Michael are part of a vocal group of trans* rights activists opposing legislation that would force transgender people to use the public restroom facilities associated with their birth gender (the sex they were assigned at birth). So-called “bathroom bills” are being introduced in the U.S. and abroad, and #Occupotty is an important challenge to the proposed legislation.
Those introducing bathroom bills most often justify them as being about “protection,” “public safety,” and as attempts to reduce violence and assault. The bills rely on the transphobic myth that transgender individuals are sexually perverse and that they are likely to be sexual predators. Thus, defenders of these bills often claim that they are about protecting cis-gender people. This avoids the troubling truth that transgender individuals are far more likely to have violence committed against them than they are to commit this kind of violence against others. Indeed, Media Matters found no evidence to substantiate the claim that restroom sexual assaults were higher in trans-inclusive jurisdictions. One survey of transgender and gender non-conforming individuals in Washington D.C. found that 70% of respondents reported having been either harassed in, assaulted in or denied access to public restrooms (see here). It’s an important issue and Brae Carnes and Michael Hughes are helping to draw more attention to the lives that hang in the balance.
Bathroom bills portray trans* persons as sneaky and deviant and as attempting to trick the rest of us into using a restroom with them. But, as Mic.com reported, there have been zero reported attacks on cis-gender people by transgender people in public bathrooms. All of the documented attacks victimized trans* persons. So, why is the conversation about transgender people committing violence rather than about protecting transgender folks from cis-gender violence?
This is an instance of what sociologists Laurel Westbrook and Kristen Schilt call a “gender panic” — situations in which people collectively react to challenges to biology-based ideologies about what gender is and where it comes from by attempting to reassert those ideologies. Bathroom bills produce just this type of ideological collision where biology-based ideologies and identity-based ideologies are pitted against each other in public discourse. Inside this ideological discord, we gain new information about the gender binary, gender inequality and how our beliefs about gender difference take a lot more work to uphold than we may assume.
Bathrooms are intensely gendered spaces. The belief that men and women, boys and girls, ought to relieve themselves in separate rooms is a powerful illustration of our collective investment in gender differences. But, sex-segregated bathrooms are a matter of social preference and organization rather than being recommended by our biology. And when we attempt to resolve this gender panic by resorting to biology (such as introducing legislation mandating the criteria of “birth gender” for public restroom use), we continue an awful tradition of putting transgender people at risk of violence under the guise of protecting “us” from “them.” But, social scientific research shows that we are in far greater need of policies that protect “them” from “us.”
Bathroom segregation is a political issue and one that deserves academic and public feminist support. The proposed legislation relies on myths associated with cis-gender and transgender people alike. Whether motivated by hate or misunderstanding, these laws fail to acknowledge well-documented facts about violence against transgender people, and in doing so, play a role in perpetuating continued violence and discrimination against transgender people. #Occupotty is a political statement and a request for recognition and rights. But these brave digital activists are doing more than that, too. They are exposing a set of myths that also work to justify gender and sexual inequality. Whether openly acknowledged or not, it is for this reason that #Occupotty meets resistance and it is for this reason that it deserves more support.
This post originally appeared at Feminist Reflections
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Op-Ed: We Must Stop the Legislative War on Transgender People
In an op-ed published this morning in The Advocate, HRC President Chad Griffin and Founding Executive Director of the National Center for Transgender Equality Mara Keisling spoke out against the recent increase in anti-transgender legislation.
HRC.org
Michigan GOP-Controlled Senate Committee Approves Anti-gay Religious Objection Adoption Bills
Bills heard and approved in two hours by a Michigan Senate committee Wednesday could allow religious adoption agencies to refuse to work with same sex couples, reports Iron Mountain Daily News.
Three bills – which passed 4-1 along party lines – would also prevent governments from refusing to license or provide funding for adoption agencies that exercise such objections. The GOP-led House passed the bills last month.
Supporters say the legislation won’t prevent anyone from adopting because faith-based agencies that choose not to work with gay people would refer them to other places.
However, Sommer Foster, director of political advocacy for Equality Michigan, said the bills represent “an attempt to write religious discrimination into Michigan law.”
Sen. Bert Johnson (right), the only Democrat on the committee, offered amendments that would have prohibited agencies from denying placement if it’s not in the best interest of the child, make public cases in which they would deny services and comply with federal and state civil rights acts.
All six amendments were voted down.
Jim Redmond
Mother of bisexual asylum seeker will sue Britain if they send her son home to die
British boyfriend: ‘When people complain about immigration, this is not someone you need to worry about’
joem
HRC Imagines: What Gift Would Marco Rubio Bring to a Same-Sex Wedding?
-blgo263.jpg)
Presidential candidate Marco Rubio recently said that despite his long history opposing marriage equality, he would consider attending a same-sex wedding.
HRC.org
From D.C. Council Member To Male Strip Club Promoter, Jim Graham Is Proof You Can Have It All
After serving four terms as a Washington, D.C. council member, Jim Graham decided it was time for a change. He was tired of working in government and craved something a little more stimulating. So he took a part-time job producing events at an all-nude strip club.
“I wasn’t sure what I wanted to do after leaving the Council,” Graham, who lost his council primary last year, tells Metro Weekly. “I knew I didn’t want to work full time. I’ve had two jobs in 31 years. Fifteen years at Whitman-Walker, 16 years on the Council, and I really wanted to do something different. And I did want to make some money, and I also wanted to have some fun.”
Related: Watch Male Strippers Have Their Penises Measured, Learn To Hump Chairs
Graham toyed with the idea of launching an all-male erotic ballet troop, but changed his mind after a friend encouraged him to try something a little less artistic. So he teamed up with The House, a popular gentlemen’s club that typically features female dancers, to offer two nights a week of x-rated male entertainment.
Sundays will feature male dancers performing for a mostly gay audience, and Thursdays will cater to females. But don’t expect the strip shows to be lowdown or trashy. As an openly gay man and former elected official, Graham says his standards are high.
“The dancers are not just going to be standing, gyrating,” he insists. “They’re going to be giving a performance. They’re going to start with their clothes on and take them off. There will be an opportunity for them to speak. It’s just a very different atmosphere.”
Graham admits that some people have expressed surprise over his latest career change, but it doesn’t bother him in the least. Working in an all-nude strip club is better, he says, than becoming a lobbyist.
“I know it’s considered an unusual path for a former D.C. council member,” he says, “but it’s preferable to peddling influence, which is what some council members do. I’m peddling entertainment.”
Related: Regular Guys Try Out Magic Mike Stripping
Graham Gremore
Marriage at the Supreme Court 2.0: Windsor, Perry, and Context — Part 2
This post is a continuation – to read the first part, click HERE.
In Part I of this post, we took Kenji Yoshino’s invitation, sparked by his book, Speak Now, on Hollingsworth v. Perry, to take a look at the context for the upcoming Supreme Court marriage argument. We traced the key legal history back from 1972 and Baker v. Nelson to the passage of Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I have been arguing that a multi-pronged strategy was necessary to win marriage rights, but the step-by-step litigation strategy was the central mode of success. Let’s pick up where we left off.
The preemptive nature of DOMA was its most striking element. In 1996, there were no legally married gay couples in the states, and yet Congress still felt the need to discriminate against them and give states the right to ignore legal marriages just because the individuals are gay. It wasn’t until 2004 when Massachusetts legalized marriage for gays that the effects of DOMA could actually be felt by a real live person. Between 1996 and 2004, advocates went to work in progressive states, mostly in the Northeast, to set the groundwork for marriage rights. After Massachusetts took the jump, 13 states passed constitutional bans on marriage equality. Others followed. But Massachusetts was joined by a handful of other states on the pro-equality side, including Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, and New Hampshire.
California was a unique case. In re Marriage Cases brought marriage equality to that state in 2008, but that freedom was famously taken away in Proposition 8. The denial of marriage rights in a state like California — the progressive home of the Castro and West Hollywood (and countless other cities and towns gay Californians called home — felt particularly harsh. A group of activists, led by 4 pioneering plaintiffs and represented by an “odd couple” of Ted Olson and David Boies, decided to challenge Prop 8 in federal court.
CONTINUED, AFTER THE JUMP…
What followed was a remarkable trial where plaintiffs’ lawyers brought in experts and introduced testimony from family members about the effects of the denial of marriage rights.
And lawyers supporting the ban brought their own vitriol to the stand. As Professor Yoshino argues, this aspect of Perry — the trial — was among its most significant contributions to the marriage equality fight. Trials force us to lay bare our arguments for all to see. They force us to put aside emotional rhetoric and meet burdens of proof in front of a dispassionate magistrate. They tear away the muck of political campaigns and show the world who the parties really are: Are they victims? Liars? Oppressors?
The trial also had the effect of gathering factual evidence about the practical effect of marriage discrimination on families, children, and the state, and the lack of any effect on heterosexual couples, religion, and collective morality. The Perry trial was the first time marriage equality had its day in court and the echoes of that day are still being felt.
But Perry was not the only federal case ongoing at the time. As gay couples starting marrying after 2004, they started feeling the burdens imposed upon them by DOMA.
Both problems required attention. In keeping with the theme of setting the appropriate legal foundation for the ultimate goal of a nationwide right to marry, several DOMA cases were filed and many in the community hoped that one of them would reach the Supreme Court before the Prop 8 case. To some, DOMA discrimination was stark, obvious, and easy to understand: in the world of legally married couples, legally married gay couples were treated differently. The underlying right to marry seemed like a step further, a little more controversial, and, perhaps, not yet ready for prime time. At a time when only a handful of states allowed gays to marry, setting aside the underlying question of gay marriage bans seemed like a good idea.
Edie Windsor’s case, led by Paul Weiss’s Roberta Kaplan, got to the Supreme Court first. In his majority opinion in Windsor, Justice Kennedy, who wrote Romer and Lawrence, not only handily tossed every pretextual argument in favor of the antigay marriage definition — the familiar references to children, tradition, and so forth — but also rested the decision on the inherent dignity of gay persons, the importance of protecting the thousands of children of gay couples, and the Constitutional protections afforded all Americans.
With Windsor in place, the marriage bans started to fall. From June 2013 to today, marriage equality went from a handful of states to the vast majority of the country through appellate court decision after appellate court decision. All of them cited Windsor. Even seen narrowly, Windsor stands for the proposition that discriminating against legally married gay couples violates their constitutional rights. It also holds that all the reasons anti-equality forces have posed to justify not just DOMA, but every underlying state ban on gay marriage, do not sufficiently justify the discrimination. This may be Windsor‘s most significant legal contribution: if the rationales didn’t meet constitutional muster for DOMA, they are not going to meet constitutional muster for state bans.
Where Windsor may be the most important legal precedent, Perry, which was cut short because of a procedural problem, was the ignition for our cataclysmic success. As Professor Yoshino argues, the Perry trial put antigay discrimination in front of the public. It highlighted our opponents’ true antigay beliefs. It made our success possible.
***
Follow me on Twitter.
Ari Ezra Waldman is Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School. He holds a Ph.D. from Columbia University, a J.D. from Harvard Law School, and a B.A. from Harvard College. Ari writes regular posts on law and various LGBT issues.
Ari Ezra Waldman
www.towleroad.com/2015/04/marriage-at-the-supreme-court-20-windsor-perry-and-context-part-ii.html
