Pentagon Issues Results: Repeal of DADT Will Have No Negative Effects

This afternoon's report release is the capstone of over nine months of intense research by Defense Department General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and Army Gen. Carter F. Ham and the their 66-person research team. Until this afternoon, neither knew the other's opinion on the matter.

The results? As the media has already regularly stated, a whopping 70% of service men and women believe that the repeal of DADT will have little/no effect on their unit's cohesion or capabilities. But the results are far more conclusive than that: the study received responses from over 115,000 service members, which is over 28% of the surveyed group and the largest military study to date. Given this number, the margin of error lies under one percentage point. Service members surveyed said the following:

• 70% stated there would be positive or no effect.
• 69% already believed they had worked with a homosexual person in their unit.
• 92% stated that their "ability to work together" with a homosexual coworker had been "very good", "good" or "neutral".

Additionally, the research team surveyed over 44,000 spouses of military members, only 12% of whom said that they would want their military spouse to leave the military earlier if DADT was repealed-- 74% said there would be absolutely no effect in their opinion.

Researchers also received responses from over 300 anonymous homosexual members in active military duty, via an internet forum set up for the purpose. Only 15% said that they would want to tell anyone in their unit that they were homosexual, laying to rest some concerns over the problems of "knowing someone is homosexual". One gay serviceman stated: "I think a lot of people think there is going to be a big 'outing' and people flaunting their gayness, but they forget that we're in the military. That stuff isn't supposed to be done during duty hours regardless if you're gay or straight."

For the full manuscript of the Pentagon's results, click here.

The Pentagon's results will likely incite major political debate-- on Thursday, undecided Congressmen will have the opportunity to hear from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, Johnson and Ham in order to reach their decision regarding DADT's repeal. This is becoming increasingly important, especially considering the number of lower district courts that are currently looking at the issue.

Gates, who initially requested the report state: "[The repeal] can be done, and should be done, without posing a serious risk to military readiness."

Army General Ham, who stated today, for the first time, that he is personally against homosexuality, stated that he believes in the results, "If I didn't believe what's in that report, I wouldn't have signed it."

Illinois Poised To Enact Civil Unions

The Illinois House of Representatives passed a civil unions bill by a vote of 61-52 on Tuesday afternoon, with swift passage expected in the more liberal Illinois State Senate by the end of the day and SB 1617 ending up on Governor Pat Quinn's desk shortly thereafter.

Chicago Pride covered the story thusly:

Openly gay Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), who co-sponsored SB 1716, started his opening statement at 5:17 p.m on Tuesday. "Once in every generation," he said, "legislatures across the country have a chance to advance the cause of liberty and justice for all."

The Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act (SB 1716) which passed to cheers in the chamber with a 61-52 majority vote, received support from the Democratic leadership in Springfield, including Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, who was present.

[...]

Conservative groups, including the Catholic Conference of Illinois and Washington D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage (NOM), lobbied hard against the bill.

The bill does not recognize same-sex marriages, but will provide the same spousal rights to same-sex partners when it comes to surrogate decision-making for medical treatment, survivorship, adoptions, and accident and health insurance.

California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington have passed laws allowing same sex civil unions. Same-sex couples can marry in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington D.C. and Iowa.

Congratulations to Illinois! I think it is quite amusing that heterosexual supremacists are now left making the counterfactual claim that "civil unions are identical to marriage" and are thus opposing measures that many in the LGBT community reject as "separate but unequal."

Church and Condoms

While I was surfing the web I found this interesting article involving the church. Everyone knows that those in power within the Catholic Church do not approve of homosexuality because it goes against their beliefs. One of the arguments that the church uses against the LGBT community is that marriage is for procreation, and since LGBT couples cannot reproduce without a third party they should not be allowed to get marriage. How can the church keep pushing for this argument when they are supporting condoms? This is what the article brings up. The church first says that male prostitutes can use condoms to protect from HIV, but then later clarifies that everyone including men, women, and transsexuals to use condoms to prevent HIV. Even though the church’s stance is pushing the use of condoms for the prevention of HIV, it is still interesting to see that the church supports them in any way because it prevents procreation. Just something to think about. What are your thoughts?

The Risk for Transgender People

I don't understand why people are so adamant about their negative associations with transgendered people. I can see how, if you've lived an isolated life, especially in certain parts of the country, the concept can at first seem unfamiliar and strange, but why continue to harbor anger toward people just because you might've been taught to disapprove?

In October 2010, the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force released the results of a study which found that 41% of transgender people in the U.S. have made a suicide attempt, 19% say that they have been refused medical services due to being transgender, and 2% report they have been assaulted in a doctor's office.

Obviously, these statistics show that becoming transgender is not an easy decision and there are many risks involved, especially because society typically dictates what a man and a woman should act and look like. The process is expensive, uncomfortable, and stressful. It wouldn't make sense for a person who is completely comfortable with the gender they were born with to undergo such a change, and yet people still continue to claim that such a change is morally wrong.

It just doesn't seem like all that disapproval can be good for someone. They should let go of the anger and just let everyone be happy with who they are or who they want to be.

I Love You Phillip Morris

***Warning: contains "graphic" content***

This Jim Carrey movie looks awesome, but I could not help but notice the differences between these two movie trailers. The first one is mainly focusing on the "con-man" aspect of the movie, with the gay relationship as an almost insignificant detail. The second one however, is wholly focused on the fact that the protagonist is gay. Could it have something to do with the french subtitles? Or am I simply reading in to this too much? Whatever the case, this movie caught my attention and I hope it gathers more attention.  

The "N" Word. Yea I Said It. The NAACP

As the racial social climate of America transitions into an new Era, it is imperative that the initiatives of the NAACP do so as well, or else this lack of advancement will render the NAACP obsolete.
The NAACP has been a progressive group that has fought for the equality of African American citizens throughout history. While its goals in regards to the advancement of the African American were crucial during the period of its erection, since then they have become rather dated and irrelevant to current situation of the African American. 

A primary focus of the NAACP has been to abolish the “n” word from the common vocabulary. While this is a noble task to accomplish, it lacks the possibility to advance the state of the African American both socially and socioeconomically. I think that it should definitely be an issue that we attack over a long period of time, but equaling the socioeconomic and political play field holds just as much if not more in contemporary America.

More energy should go into advancing the school systems of African American ghettos. Statistics show that few African Americans graduate high school, and even fewer matriculate to college. Deconstructing the system of institutionalized racism that has been established would benefit the black community significantly more than the abolishment of the “n” word. While the “n” word holds historical derogatory significance, as an African American it’s more important to me that my community becomes more politically and socioeconomically included, as opposed to creating this perceived equality gained by completely abolishing the “n” word.

Please do not misinterpret my desire for more significant social change as a discrediting factor in the fight to abolish the “n” word. Look at this website and hopefully it will make you think twice when using the word only amongst your private circle of friends.

Swimming and Institutionalized Racism...

Who would of thought that swimming would be linked to slavery? I'm sure that we have all heard the racist jokes that talk about black people and their lack of the ability to swim. Today I was discussing the origin of some racist jokes and their significance in the real world. Needless to say, the joke about black people not being able to swim came up. Being black myself and having had an abundance of black friends who could swim, during this discussion I argued that there was no correlation between race and one’s ability to swim. To my surprise, after doing some research, these acquisitions were proven to not only be jokes but they were also shown to have statistical social truth.

Studies show that a far higher percentage of black, as opposed to white, children lack the ability to swim. After doing more research it was evident that this was not a biological problem like many of these jokes, and people, imply; rather it was due to institutionalized racism. Many blacks are currently still living in the ghettos that their slave ancestors fled to for a chance at freedom. The poverty of their ancestors from being a slave has been passed down for generations. Today, school systems in ghettos are not set up in a way that is geared towards getting blacks through high school, into college, and immersed into the workforce.

Many people in ghettos simply cannot afford to swim. While it is quite a pity to think about, most neighborhoods that have access to pools and beaches are affluent. Lessons cost money as well, and when one is trying to make ends meet its rather difficult to try and squeeze some swimming lessons into the budget.

The lack of the ability to swim is not biological, but it definitely correlates with socioeconomics. Just another way that racism has been institutionalized.

Here is an article that is about six black kids drowning because of their inability to swim. It also speaks a little more in depth about the percentage of blacks and latinos that cant swim:


http://abcnews.go.com/WN/teens-drown-wading-louisianas-red-river/story?id=11312631

Gendering Young Children

I recently found this video on YouTube, in which young children are interviewed about gender and gender roles. While you are watching this, keep in mind that these kids are between the ages of four and five, yet they seem very certain of their beliefs already.

With beliefs that seem to take root between the ages of 3-5, it seems nearly impossible to eradicate the gender roles that are so prevalent in our society. I found it very interesting how the interviewer utilized barbie and ken dolls to depict an average mother and father. Another very revealing aspect of this segment is how quickly the young children respond to the questions, possibly showing how ingrained these ideas actually are. At the age of 5 these children had already took issue with cross-dressing, and already had firm ideas about the roles of men and women. With ideology like this finding its way into the minds of such young children, how can we create a more open-minded and accepting society?

What are your thoughts?

What do you think of the video?

Latest Study of Children Raised by LGBT Parents

The Williams Institute, which aims to "advance sexual orientation law and public policy" through scientific research is sharing the results of the longest study of children raised by LGBT parents ever to be recorded.

The Williams Institute, based out of UCLA Law, recently published the results of the United States National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS). The study is now in its 24th year, and recently studied the 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian couples, asking in particular about topics ranging from sexual abuse to sexual behavior.

Of the 78 teens surveyed, not a single teen reported any sort of abuse-- sexual or physical, which contrasts to the 26% of American teens that report physical abuse and the 8% of teens that report sexual abuse by their heterosexual parents.

Another note? Only 2.8% stated that they would describe themselves as homosexual. Nature vs. nurture win anyone?

The results go a long way in demonstrating the non-maleficent, and perhaps beneficent, impacts of having LGBT parents. The only problems I note with the study (after checking out the Williams Institute website, which you can find here) is that it only looked at 78 teenagers-- hardly a good sample. Additionally, the children were all raised by lesbian partners, which renders it inconclusive about gay partnerships.

Across the Universe, Across all Borders

On my flight to Vancouver yesterday, I was watching one of my all time favorite movies Across the Universe and embracing the incredible work of Julie Taymor (director of Broadway's Lion King). This movie, to those who haven't watched it, is about the younger generation during the 80s and their struggle with the Vietnam war, accompanied by the music of the Beatles.

One thing occurred to me when I was watching this movie is the lack of a revolution in our generation. There has been a series of revolutions led by the younger generation throughout US history and it seemed like we have lost the momentum since 90s. Of course, I'm not saying that we should fight without a cause and plan. A revolution is not a successful one without a positive cause and realistic plan; to fight without rationale is never triumphant (remember GLF?). Yet, it is disappointing that we live in a generation overwhelmed by technology, and lost sight of the need to stand up. There is always something to fight for: war in Iraq, LGBTQ discrimination and even world hunger. These are ambitious goals and may take years (or possibly never) before we see any positive results, but as Benjamin Disraeli once said, "action may not always bring happiness, but there is no happiness without action." 

I'll end this post with a short clip of a scene from the movie. This number is called Revolution, and it is about radicals protesting in wars, to the extend it becomes destructive. It is definitely one of my favorite numbers in the movie (even though it is not particularly the most dramatic performance to showcase Julie Taymor's brilliance).

Happy Thanksgiving!

DADT Update: DOD Report Out In 7 Days; Discharges Ceased; TV Ad Out

There have been multiple developments in the fight to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" recently.

The Defense Department has (barely) bowed to political pressure by agreeing to release its now-famous study of the impacts of open military service by LGBT soldiers on "unit cohesion, military readiness and effectiveness, recruiting and retention and family readiness" one day early, next Tuesday, November 30.

The Pentagon also announced that ever since Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued new procedures that require a DADT discharge to be approved by one of a handful of top military officers on October 21, no LGBT people have been "separated" from the military in the last month.

Recent polls have begun to show declines from the massive support for repealing the military's discriminatory DADT policy. In the last few days, a Gallup poll has been released indicating only 56% of Americans think passing DADT repeal in the Senate's lame-duck session is important or very important (compared to 60% who feel that way about passing the DREAM Act).

Today, the Palm Center had the above television ad touting the lack of consequences to open military service experienced by our NATO allies currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan rejected by Fox News.

I believe that the Obama Administration will deliver on its promise to have DADT repeal accomplished by the end of 2010.

Do you?

Cross-posted from The Mad Professah Lectures

"Reteaching Gender and Sexuality"

Reteaching Gender and Sexuality from Sid Jordan on Vimeo.

So, I was watching this video online today, and it got me to thinking about how the majority of the Prop 8 campaign (both yes and no), and the It Gets Better project focus on being gay as not being a normal part of society. While the It Gets Better project does serve to promote hope, this video talks bluntly about the fact that many people who identify as queer youth are tired of being put under the "LGBT umbrella." This really make me think, and I'm hoping it'll do the same to you.

Masculinity in Connection to Dwight Howard's Issues with Free Throws

Being the sports nut that I am I tend to check on the statuses of athletes in the NFL and the NBA. One article I read was about Dwight Howard and how he can improve his God-awful free throw shooting percentage, which is about 55%, far below the league average of about 72%. While reading the article I found some concepts involving masculinity and why Dwight will not improve his free throw shooting easily.

So, a famous NBA player named Rick Barry is considered one of the greatest small forwards of his era and the greatest free throw shooter of all time. He has the all-time record for free throw percentage, averaging about 90%. The reason he was able to achieve this percentage is because he shot his free throws underhanded, which are more likely to be made than the standard shooting technique. In fact, my grandfather told me that coaches required all players to shoot underhanded free throws before the sixties. That practice has virtually faded away overtime.

In the article, Rick Barry states that he will offer to teach Dwight Howard how to shoot underhanded free throws to raise his percentage, help add a few extra points to his average, and prevent the Hack-A-Howard strategy used against him. Yet, Dwight refuses to learn and apply the underhanded shot because of the modern media might perceive him in lacking masculinity; the same media that personifies masculinity in basketball as dunking, shot blocking, and shooting impossible shots. Howard is not the only horrible free throw shooter to say this. Shaq, who is considered to be the worst free throw shooter of all time, once said in Sports Illustrated that he would rather "shoot a negative percentage before I shot like that (underhanded)." Wilt Chamberlain, another notoriously horrible free throw shooter, said that he felt like a "sissy" when he shot underhanded. 


So immediately I find this dangerous view of masculinity as a detriment to one's production. What is so "sissy" about scoring a few extra points? What's so damn feminine about helping your team make some crucial free throws when the game is on the line? Honestly, Shaq could have probably surpassed Wilt's position on the All-time scoring list if he raised his free throw shooting by shooting underhanded. Wilt might have averaged 55 points per game in the season he averaged 50 if he applied Rick Barry's old time technique. 


Dwight Howard is a rising talent who has the chance to be completely unstoppable offensively if he can learn from Rick Barry's underhanded free throw techniques. Clearly, his current style is not working if he's averaging 55% percent this season. And honestly, what does it matter to Dwight's "manliness" if he's averaging more points and winning more games with underhanded free throw shots?

Transgendred Athlete

I read this article this morning about a transgendered basketball player on a Women's Division I Basketball team.  He plays for George Washington University in D.C. and on the school's website under athletics, it says that he is a male playing on a Women's team.  He has not yet undergone any surgery nor has he undergone hormone treatments.  He says that his team is very supportive of his decision and he will not undergo any such procedures until hiss basketball career is over.  It is a very rare occasion that a Division I athlete would reveal a secret of this magnitude out to the entire world. I commend him on his bravery especially for facing adversity within his own household.  He knew at a young age that he felt more like a 'boy' rather than the female body he was born into.  He used to want to dress in shorts and a shirt and much more baggy clothing but his mother would never allow him to leave the house looking like a boy.  She made sure that he wore 'girls' clothes at a young age to maintain her identity as a girl.  He was so desperate to show hi true personality that he packed clothes to change into once he got to school and could be who he wanted to be; though every night before heading home, he would change back into the clothes his mother saw him leave in.  Overall, I very much enjoyed this article and would recommend it to anyone looking for a quick read that leaves the reader with a sense of optimism and hope at the end for our futures.

And, on a lighter note

This one's just kind of confusing, but I think it might be a good thing.

A recent study done surveyed the television preferences of people on the basis of their political standing, and here's an interesting fact: among typically anti-gay Republicans' favorite shows is ABC's comedy "Modern Family," which if you don't know it, features a gay couple with an adopted Vietnamese daughter among its characters.

Wait, what?

Okay, to be fair, Modern Family features a very large family made up of three separate households: the aforementioned gay couple and their daughter, a traditional American household with a loving husband and wife and three children, and an older man (the father of one of the members of the gay couple and of the wife in the traditional household) who remarried to a somewhat younger Colombian woman with a son from her first marriage.  As explained to me by my sister's communication's professor (I was interviewing her about television for a school project) it presents lots of different options and lets the viewer decide which ones they like in order to appeal to a wide demographic.  But still, it's interesting that a show acknowledging the presence of many alternative lifestyles makes it into the top TV picks of Republicans.  What pleases me about this is the idea that the supposed best way to convince people to join a pro-gay rights stance is by them getting to know a gay person.  Although fictional characters are no substitute for reality, and may not actually have any effect whatsoever, at least Republicans are getting exposed to the idea.  Mitch and Cameron, the couple in question, have realistic concerns in a realistic life, and Mitch isn't even a stereotypical gay man.  Maybe seeing that will help people come around to the idea that there is no such thing as a secret gay agenda.

Interesting video with comments on it that make me want to punch a bear

(that saying doesn't make sense, no.  I picked it up from my sister.)

Anyway, I was browsing Youtube a minute ago and found this video about the interesting prospect that two caucasian parents could have a dark-skinned child.  According to the woman interviewed (and this makes sense to me) it's completely possible for this to happen, since there are a lot of genetic traits, race potentially among them, that can lie dormant for a very long time and then show up because of weird genetic stuff that happens.  If it can happen with freckles, or with eye or hair color (I can vouch for eye color - my uncle and I have hazel eyes but neither of his and my mom's parents had hazel eyes, nor did his parents' parents) why not race?  It's an interesting idea with interesting consequences.

However, a lot of the comments were extremely derogatory, usually along the lines of "she just slept with a black guy admit it" (note that the clip is about a FICTIONAL BOOK people).  That would be annoying, but wouldn't be enough to piss me off this much.  What made me want to punch a bear was the following comment, which incidentally has been voted up three times.  (this is why you don't read comments on Youtube if you know what's good for you.  Warning for hate speech/language.)

What does N.A.A.C.P stand for?

N*ggers Are Always Causing Problems.

Why do n*ggers keep chickens in their back yards?

To teach their kids how to walk.

Why do police dogs lick their ass?

To get the taste of n*gger out of their mouth.

Why does Alabama have n*ggers and California have earthquakes?

California got first pick.

Did you hear that the KKK bought the movie rights to "Roots"?

They're going to play it backwards so it has a happy ending.

Really world?  Really?

Edited by Prof. Buckmire

Johnnyboyxo

*******Warning for Mature Language*******

This is a video posted by JohnnyBoyxo. Her YouTube bio states "My Name is Johnny Boy/Johnnyboyxo, I'm a gender-bending platinum blonde bombshell on a mission to make you laugh...or drive you completely insane" I was introduced to this channel by a friend and have been keeping up with it ever since. Some of the other videos Johnnyboy posts are light, funny, and strictly for comic effect. I feel that this video is just as funny as her others, but it also manages to get a wonderful message across.

John McCain and DADT

The other day my roommate was watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and after the episode was done he asked me needed more blogs. I, of course, said yes and he then showed me this video.

Jon Stewart follows John McCain as McCain continues to fight removing the ban known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and even brings in John McCain’s wife to show how questionable their beliefs are. It's obvious to see that John McCain is still stuck in the 40's or 50's because the fight is already over and it's just a matter of time before the ban is lifted. Watch for yourself.

Prop. 8 Federal Appellate Oral Arguments On TV Dec. 6!

On Monday December 6th at 10am, A 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, also known as the federal Proposition 8 lawsuit. On August 4th, openly gay federal District Court judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violated the United States Constitution.

These facts have been known for awhile. The new information is that apparently the oral arguments in the Perry appeal will now be televised by C-SPAN and local channel KGO. This is a big deal, because the lower court was intended to be broadcast as well but the heterosexual supremacists defending Proposition 8 objected and appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court who overruled Judge Walker and banned the broadcasting of the oral arguments just days before the trial was scheduled to begin this past January.

Here are the details of the hearing on Monday, which will be in two 2-hour segments. The first session will be on whether the Proposition 8 propnents have "standing" to actually continue defending the statue, since the official parties to the lawsuit (the Governor and Attorney General) have refused to defend the voter-passed initiative in court. The second hour will be about the constitutionality of Proposition 8 itself.

Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:KKW): The Court orders that oral argument in these appeals be conducted in the following manner: The argument shall be divided into two hour-long sessions, with a brief recess in between. In the first hour, the parties shall address each appellant’s standing and any other procedural matters that may properly be raised. In the second hour, the parties shall address the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

During the first hour, the Hollingsworth defendants-intervenors-appellants (“Proponents”) shall first have 15 minutes, and the Imperial County movants-appellants shall next have 15 minutes in which to present their opening arguments regarding standing and other procedural issues. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 30 minutes in which to respond. Any time reserved by either appellant may be used for rebuttal, but only one rebuttal argument may be made and that by either appellant.

During the second hour, the Proponents shall first have 30 minutes to present their opening argument on the merits of the constitutional question. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 15 minutes, and the plaintiff-intervenor-appellee City and County of San Francisco shall have the next 15 minutes, in which to respond. Any time reserved by the Proponents may be used for rebuttal.

No later than November 24, 2010, the parties shall advise the Court of any objection they have to the allocation of time within each hour or of any reallocation of time within each hour that they wish to propose, by electronically filing letters with the Clerk of the Court. If any party wishes to give its full allotted time within either hour to an amicus curiae, it may request that the Court reallocate that time accordingly. Otherwise, no motions for leave to participate in oral argument by amici curiae will be entertained.. [7545517]

The names of the judges who will hear the appeal have not been released yet. Whoever loses at this level will appeal to the United States Supreme Court, who may or may not accept the case.

Gay Marriage Timeline

Click here to see what I am referring to.

There has been a lot of activity involved in the fight for marriage equality. From 2000-2010, you can see that progress has been made to provide more rights to same-sex couples, if not marriage itself. You can tell that over time the southern states have remained the same in dark red, completely against same-sex marriage. Yet, the progress has been made in the west and east coasts with states like California, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Massachusetts and New York which have provided more equal rights regarding marriage for same-sex couples. Many same-sex couples are given all the privileges of a  marriage without the status of a marriage, usually called civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Glee and Divorce

During this week’s episode of Glee, Kurt and Blaine were discussing equal marriage rights for gays and were while on the subject Blaine mentioned that if marriage is so sacred why not outlaw divorce.

This for me is new way of looking at marriage. Many state and higher courts all put marriage on this pedestal about how it’s so sacred that they have to keep LGBT from being able to take part in the benefits of something so “sacred”. So the question that can come up is if marriage is so sacred that must mean that when people get married they will never break it off because of its “sacredness”.

This, however, is not the case. In America, the divorce rate is about 50%, so pretty much 1 out of 2 married couples will eventually get a divorce. A lot of the anti-LGBT would use the argument that if the LGBT were allowed to marry then the divorce rate would increase and would not help our economy. This article has figures showing that when equal marriage is introduced to an area the divorce rate actually decreases instead of increasing. Having more married couples usually ends up in more children either through adoption or artificial insemination. Despite the ways of getting children there will be more kids, which is one of the state and government’s goals.

So what does this say about marriage and why would the state and government not see the benefits of equal marriage? Could equal marriage benefit not only the LGBT, but also the economy? What are your thoughts?

Outrageous Discrimination

There are always haters here and there who say stupid things, but I still find myself baffled at some headlines.

For instance,  this story about two high school girls seems ridiculous to me. One has been kicked out of school, and the other, who had previously dropped out, was refused re-admittance. Why were these teens unacceptable students?

"18-year-old Melissa McKenzie said she was kicked out of Del City High School in Del City, Okla., at the beginning of the semester when the principal found out she was living with her girlfriend instead of her family. The principal then told her if she returned to her family's home, she would be welcomed back to school."

 So the girls cannot attend high school because they are a couple. First off, that should have nothing to do with being able to attend school. Second, the "anti-lesbian" excuse is completely invalid because the high school in question is a public school with an anti-discriminatory policy that includes sexual orientation.

Apparently, the high school is ignoring the fact that several school board officials have told the girls to stop being gay in order to be re-admitted. Instead, the school administrators issued a statement saying the safety of students would always be top priority and suggested the girls file a complaint to the school board if they felt they were wronged.

Ok, what kind of answer is that? It just makes me really frustrated that two girls my age are being denied basic, public education on such a biased, hateful basis.

Statistics from my brain

So for those of you that had not figured this out yet, I'm a writer.  I have been for a really long time, and I love creating and screwing around with worlds and making characters and stuff.  A little too much, apparently, because when I recently decided to make a list of all of my active characters (as in, those I actually write about/think about with some level of frequency, who have an established story and personality) I came up with 62 of them.  I have clearly deteriorated into schizophrenia.

Rather than dwell on that thought, I decided to take the opportunity to take a count of the number of characters I had that fit into different labels (race, gender/sex, and sexuality to be specific, because I didn't have the time to do this in reality, so I really don't have the time to come up with other categories).  The results are as follows.

Of my 62 characters...
41 are female, 21 are male
49 are white/ethnic majorities, 13 are nonwhite/ethnic minorities (One Spanish, three Italian-American, one African, two black, one Latina, one Japanese, two who are ethnic minorities in a fantasy world you do not need explained to you.)
51 are straight, 12 are gay or "other" (Four lesbians, two bisexual, two undecided (as in I'm unsure enough about their sexual identity to not call them straight but I'm not 100% sure what they are), one asexual for all practical purposes, two generally asexual).

There is a lot of room for confusion/variation in here, if you couldn't tell from my qualifying everything, because of the factor of talking about people who do not actually exist, many of whom live in fantasy or science fiction universes.  For example, white is qualified technically as any ethnic majority in this list because one of the characters I determined as 'white' is actually dark-skinned, but he lives in a universe where that doesn't actually qualify him as an ethnic minority due to the circumstances.  'Asexual for all practical purposes' comes from Lurline, a character of mine who may or may not be attracted to either/or sex emotionally, but cannot have sexual relations without endangering herself, and since she considers sex to be an integral part of a romantic relationship, she's given up on the possibility of having any sort of romantic relationship, even a celibate one.  One of the 'generally asexual' characters is only thus qualified because she actually has no emotions and only a limited capacity to think on her own, being basically a soulless pawn, which invalidates the idea of sexuality entirely (and to some extent race as well, though because she is matched with a male partner gender still plays into her identity).

Still, I thought this was interesting to do.  It's clear that the vast majority of my characters are white straight females, which makes some sense - writers usually put something of themselves in their characters, and even though I don't identify as 100% straight I do identify as undecided, and straight is (perhaps unfortunately) sort of a default, so if I'm making a young white woman, I probably won't project my sexuality onto her, since I don't feel very strongly about that sexuality, and she'll end up being straight.  Usually if I make a character who's gay it'll be something I think about from the first that they will be gay or bisexual or whatever, but this isn't always the case, as with Axel and Ziba, those listed above as 'undecided.'  However, I do try to have the identities of my characters correspond to a relatively accurate population sample, which I think I've done fairly well in, though I could certainly improve.  (Not counting the very heavy female balance - I'm a woman, so it's just a lot easier for me get into the mindset of a character who is also a woman, and that's not going to change.)  There isn't a lot of liminal space being occupied, though... maybe I'll try that more in the future.

Also, if the length and detail I put into describing fictional beings frightens you, uh... yeah, I don't really claim that this is a sign of sanity or health.  Feel free to back away slowly the next time you see me.

A Little (Or a Lot) on Labels

So, recently I decided to write down everything I was feeling about who and what I was, and ended up writing quite a bit more than I'd expected. Here are some snippets of a few relevant things for this class, such as: names that I've used/preferred, pronouns, orientation labels, etc...

"My biological name is Patricia Leeann McGown. I am biologically female. I was born on December 10, 1992 to a Christian background. Almost exactly two years later, my brother was born. During my life so far, all seventeen years, I’ve learned a lot about who and what I am. It’s been a long, drawn out process. I’ve done some stuff that I’m not exactly proud of, and I lie a lot to hide from the things that I’m ashamed of.

Over the years, I’ve acquired quite a set of pseudonyms and nicknames that I’ll answer to. Some of them are from the internet, some of them make sense, and some of them are from God knows where in my mind. Here’s all the ones I remember right now:

• Tricia
• Trish
• Tish-Tish
• Patty
• Pa
• Trishy
• Squishy Trishy
• Clarke Alessane
• Reppy
• Dear
• Lonnie Leeann
• Leanna Crescent
• Clarke Classified
• Drew

I was in eighth grade when I discovered the Gay Straight Alliance in my school. Up until then, I’d been a Christian, in the Club for Christ, and I was everything a mother would ask for. I was a girl, I acted like one, I played feminine sports like volleyball, and I wore my hair long when I could, otherwise I curled or flat ironed it every morning. I was a straight girl. And then I realized that I liked girls. It was actually a very sore thumb moment. I remember waking up one morning and thinking to myself, “You’re going to Hell because you don’t just like boys.” That one was a shock, and I kept it to myself all through high school. Well, from my parents at least.

I started the coming out process (as bisexual) somewhere toward the end of my eighth grade year. I came out to Caroline, Gabby, Elena, and a couple other close friends. And then, at eighth grade promotion, I decided to tell Christine B. that I had a crush on her. She said she was flattered. I also begged her not to tell anyone because my family would find out, and I was terrified of that. And then summer came, and I ignored school for a straight three months. Everything was fine. I was happy and accepting of myself. I started looking up being bisexual and educated myself about the community. I came back from summer ready for high school.

Except when I started coming to summer volleyball practices, I noticed that I was being avoided. Nobody patted me on the butt when I made a fantastic block or crushed in practice. I saw girls doing it to everyone but me. I got no high fives, no butt pats, not even good jobs. When we took water breaks, I would go to the girl’s locker room to drink my water, otherwise the girls would look at me funny and not use the water fountain after me. So I finally asked someone. The response I got was, “We know you like girls, Tricia.” I was astounded. How did everyone know? I talked to Caroline, who talked to a couple other people, and we realized that Christine B. had told Laura W. that I was bisexual, and Laura told the entire tennis team, who, over the summer, had managed to tell everyone who was an entering freshman that I liked girls.

Not the greatest way to start off freshman year. So I was alone. I ate alone. There was no Gay-Straight Alliance. I thought, if this is what it’s like to be bisexual, I hate it. I joined the water polo team freshman year. The plus side to freshman year was water polo. Nobody seemed to care who I liked.

Starting my sophomore year, I was determined not to let my sexuality be the reason I had no friends. I started to tell people when I met them that I was bisexual until the whole school knew, and I became the president of the Gay-Straight Alliance. I worked with it for three years and set it up so that I would still be involved, no matter what. Which, coincidentally, meant that I was doing a lot of research about sexuality. Sometime between my sophomore and junior year in high school, I discovered pansexuality and things started to make sense. I’d heard of trans people, and I wondered who exactly would love them. I thought that I would if I could, and I realized that I did. Pansexuality seemed to just slip into place better than bi, and I was, by the end of my junior year, calling myself a pansexual girl, but I also said that I was a gay man in a gay woman’s body. I had no idea how true that was.

Senior year came and went, and college started. At Occidental, I realized how easy it was to be me. I could discover myself without the fear of being labeled. I could cut my hair short if I wanted to, wear what I wanted, and say what I wanted about myself without being shut down. So I did. I wear my hair short, I refer to myself in sometimes feminine pronouns, and sometimes masculine. I have discovered what I am, even if it’s got a lot of labels. I am the following:

• panromantic
• demisexual (or, more correctly to the asexual community, a “grey A”)
• transgender (in that I am bi-gendered/genderqueer)
• female-bodied, androgyne-identified (aka: biologically female, but feels androgynous...most days)
• queer
• African-American
• Irish

But more importantly, I am human. I deserve the same rights that everyone should have. I want to be able to get married to whomever I fall in love with, with the pronouns that the both of us prefer (at the time, forever, whatever [it shouldn’t matter]). I should be able to get married to whomever I fall in love with.

The labels shouldn’t be important to me.

I am a part of the LGBTQQIAAPD+ community, and damn it, I’m proud of who I am. I refuse to hide me anymore. I’m out to my parents as bisexual. I did it. That’s the big one, right? I did it. I’m out to my friends. I’m out on campus.

I am Patricia/Tricia/Lonnie/Clarke/Drew/Whatever I feel like calling myself, and I’m human.

It’s taken me seventeen years, eleven months, and fifteen days to say it, write it all down, understand, and accept it."

This is what labels have done in and with my life. Now, if we were to take a moment to think about what labels are doing for all kinds of other people in the world right now, what kind of a place would this be?

PS, this is a super interesting article (10 pages long, but worth your time when you have some) on Theories of Sexual Orientation. Take a look!

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

Believe me, gay marriage is really wrong. You’d even love to join the group:

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all;women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms, just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

*A little recontextualisation: the reasons are valid not only in America.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Above is an except I came across on sin-stuff.com written by username: Right. This illustrates the flaws in the reasoning against same sex marriage simply by stating the logic being used when determining that same sex marriage is wrong. Though clearly there was a hint of sarcasm, these claims definitely lack validity in the real world and are definitely not new to the debate of legalizing gay marriage.

The Castro in San Francisco

        Throughout this course we have been learning about influential gay leaders, events, and communities. I thought I would take the time to share a little about a neighbor near where I am from that has been particularly influential to gay rights in the Bay Area.

This is a picture of the Castro~as you can see there are many gay pride flags

        The Castro is considered one of the United State's first openly gay and gay friendly neighborhoods. It has also been a key destination for gay rights activism in northern California. After the Summer of Love in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district, the Castro came to prominence as an emerging gay community. Many gay leaders and activist gathered in this area to work and convene. In fact, before launching his political career, Harvey Milk owned a camera shop that was located in the Castro

Pictured above with family member Audrey Milk in front of his camera shop

        This area continues to be a pivotal apart of today's gay community, adding to the already diverse fabric of  the Bay Area in general. The Castro houses annual gay pride events and parades. Because this area is so well known and respected where I am from, I just wanted to share it with you all. If you have been to the Castro or a San Fran Gay Pride parade/event feel free to leave any comments or memories!



Gaga Speaks Out

While I am not the biggest fan of Lady Gaga’s music, no one can deny that more celebrities in Hollywood should follow her lead in regards to the stance she takes with the current issues surrounding the LGBTQ community. The included video includes Lady Gaga better articulating her thoughts and opinions of DADT.  

This the 21st Century, right?

Many of problems relating to gay marriage manifest itself through the definitional meaning of the word marriage. Marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman. In order to move forward it is necessary to reevaluate what constitutes a “marriage.” If the problem is in the language of the definition then we need to address that issue. The American Constitution was flawed from the very beginning hence the establishment of Amendments. If there is such an abundant of issues surrounding the definitional meaning, why not just alter the constitution to address all marriages as civil union instead. This is to apply to all unions, of any kind, despite sex.

While it is believed that gay marriage may not be pragmatic, who cares? Basing the decision of legalizing gay marriage on pragmatism seems a little silly. This makes it look like the government is denying a whole group of people the right to marry because its too much work to work it into how today’s society operates. It seems to me that something as simple as marrying who you want would be a standard accessible to all, regardless of sexual orientation. The juvenile behavior of denying people the right to marry because it goes against the norm needs to be halted. 

I like a boy in uniform

This is just such an amazing image, i couldnt help but post it. i knew a boy who became a marine...he hated it. he's a psychology major now, i think.
We've been hearing so much about DADT in class and on the news, but maybe we could think of another part of military policy for a while. What do people feel about women serving in the military? Actually, what do people know about women serving in the military, because i'm woefully uninformed. I'm under the impression, though, that women are not allowed to serve in open combat. Am i right? Hmm. well if anyone knows better than me, certainly correct me. But if we are to assume that i am right, what do people think about that? fair, unfair? based on what?
Personally i find it reassuring, given the fact that i am in face female. I feel the same way about DADT, to be honest. I recognize, though, that for people who want to serve their country it shouldn't matter what race, sex, orientation, or religion they are. What is the military rational for these limits? we shall see we shall see.

Actually, this brings me to a much more interesting question. I'm bored of the old one. Why is it that military rights are more of a talked about issue in the news than marriage rights? Why is it easier to get the right to hurt people than it is to get the right to love?

'nuff said.


(also props to anyone who knows the title of this post)

wait, what?

I don't see why there is such a deep divide in the Democratic/Republican party philosophies and some of their actual stances.

My understanding of each, in a nutshell:

Republican Philosophy: Republicans champion the Bill of Rights and favor minimal government intervention so that the individual can retain as many rights as possible. One source says, The purpose of government is to ensure that the rights of the individual are protected, and at the same time the government must restrict its activities to providing only the services that individuals cannot provide alone, such a national defense.
Republican Stance: Against gay marriage

Democratic Philosophy: Sacrifice individual rights for the "common interest"
Democratic Stance: Pro Gay Marriage

Obviously this is a highly generalized, crude analysis, but I can't help but think that for both parties the stance is inconsistent with the philosophy.

Now, wouldn't legalizing gay marriage be a victory for expanding the Bill of Rights? and strengthening the rights of the individual? And, oppositely, wouldn't keeping marriage between one man and one woman benefit the "common interest"- satisfying the needs of the heterosexual majority??

I just don't see the logic here...

More Books

So I havent actually read this book myself, but a friend recommended it to me and i figured it seemed appropriate for this class. it's called Misfortune: A Novel by Wesley Stace



The story follows Rose Old, a boy who was abandoned as an infant and then raised as a girl by a rich man whose own daughter had died. The interesting part begins when, as one reviewer puts it:

Inevitably, the young Rose reaches adolescence and suddenly doesn't look or feel ladylike any more. As greedy relatives circle in their attempt to wrest control of the estate from Lord Loveall, Rose discovers his true gender and adoptive status. When he reveals himself as a male to society at large and to his predatory relatives, he causes a scandal that jeopardizes the legitimacy of his inheritance. He does not feel at home in his male body and continues to wear dresses, even while sporting a fine mustache. After Lord Loveall dies, his survivors struggle to keep their claim to the Loveall fortune while Rose sets out to discover his roots... and himself.
-Eileen Rieback

This book seems particularly interesting, both because of the issue of transgendered identities, but also the way the author treats the main character's identity. it is not a historical analysis of transgendered issues in 19th century London, it is a story about one person's adventure. Thus it must treat Rose's gender identity, not flippantly, but as an integral part of her without being a big deal. The concept reminds me a lot of Emma, the hermaphrodite in Fausto-Sterling's The Five Sexes, who appeared "to be quite content and even happy" (Young in Fausto-Sterling 70) during a time when the medical establishment viewed hermaphrodites as being automatically unhealthy and unhappy.

Lets bring this to some vaguely academic close: it is one thing for a journal on the subject of sex, written by someone who has done a lot of research and previous writings on the subject, to put forward the concept of gender loosing it's binary opposites in society. It is another, however, for a novel, written for people who may not have the same academic background as the people who would be reading a journal about gender, to have a main character with such a fluid gender orientation. do you think this is an indication of changing sentiments? an island of change in an otherwise unrelenting sea of tradition? nothing you would ever care about? talk to me.