How to Quit Worrying And Actually Assert Yourself [jezebel.com]

Original article title: How To Quit Worrying About Being Bitchy and Actually Assert Yourself

By Anna North / jezebel.com

When you’re a lady — even if you’re smart, together, and tough — standing up for yourself can be pretty difficult. Women are supposed to smooth things over, be nice to everybody, and defuse conflict rather than cause it — so asking for anything at all controversial can seem transgressive or even bitchy. Here’s how to get over that, and start getting what you want.

Challenge your assumptions about what’s “nice”

Or rather, what’s kind, or good. I talked to Sue Hadfield, author of How to Be Assertive, who says,

People aren’t going to like it when you start saying no if you have always been a doormat. But constantly trying to please other people in the end leads to stress and sometimes depression.

It can also lead to relationship problems. You may think you’re being nice by keeping your emotions to yourself, but you’re also depriving the people around you of the opportunity to know how you’re feeling. People who care about you — partners, friends, family members, etc. — don’t want to unintentionally bug you or make you feel bad. Nor do they deserve the simmering resentment you may start to feel if you never speak up. So while being assertive about your own needs may seem like a more confrontational choice in the short term, in the long term it can actually be the loving thing to do. Also, remember that a lot of prohibitions against women’s assertiveness are rooted in sexism. Dr. Lois Frankel, author of Nice Girls Just Don’t Get It: 99 Ways to Win the Respect You Deserve, the Success You’ve Earned, and the Life You Want told me,

What women need to understand is that the fear of being seen as “not nice” or bitchy comes from social messages about how they should behave.  It’s the way men have gotten women to acquiesce for centuries.  Just the thought of being considered less than nice makes a woman feel less than feminine.  Each time you hesitate or avoid asking for what you want you’ve bowed to these messages.  The vast majority of women could be more assertive and still be far from bitchy in reality.  When you’re called that, it’s usually because you didn’t do what someone else wants –- in which case, kudos to you!

Do your homework

Ah, this tip again. But seriously, preparing beforehand can make you more confident about standing up for yourself — and it can make other people more likely to give you what you want. Says Frankel,

Advance preparation is the key.  If you want to ask for a raise, you don’t just go in and ask for it, you prepare your business case in advance and practice delivering it to a friend before you speak with the boss.  Or if you want to have a difficult conversation with your mother-in-law, write down in advance what you want to talk about, why it’s important to you and what you’d like to see happen in the future.  Then stick to the script.  The more you do this, the easier it becomes.

You can also practice your script with a friend beforehand. Says Hadfield,

If you are asking for something (promotion, more help, etc) get as much information as you can to help your case. Decide what exactly you want and then role play it with someone you trust. Learn the words you are going to say and then practice your body language to make sure that you don’t appear aggressive or nervous. If it’s a difficult phone call write down what you want to say and practice saying it calmly.

Getting plenty of information will help you feel secure about whatever you’re asking for, and practicing will help you actually ask for it — especially if you’re not in the habit of doing that thing. If you practice your pitch beforehand, you’re less likely to slip back into doormat behavior.

Don’t be afraid to ask for more time

Hadfield offered me this tip:

If you are ever asked to do something that you are not sure about always say, “I’ll think about it and get back to you.”

This is great advice for a lot of reasons. First of all, it’s a lot easier to say no if you haven’t already said yes. And if you feel like you have to answer on the fly, you’re more likely to say yes — in the short term, this is the easy, “nice” response. But if you take some time to think about it, you might realize that you’d really rather say no. And then you can do your homework (as above) and get back to the requester prepared to be assertive.

Show that you appreciate the other person

Standing up for yourself doesn’t have to mean being a total dick. You’re not responsible for keeping everybody else happy all the time, but you can also maximize your chances of getting what you want by showing your appreciation and being a little bit conciliatory. Frankel offers a couple of strategies:

One great way is to practice the technique of “contrasting” when delivering difficult messages.  It enables a woman to say what she does want and doesn’t want without being too strident or demanding.  It sounds like this, “I don’t want you to think I’m not grateful for all that you’ve done for me because I am.  At the same time, we agreed that you would provide additional services for that price and I didn’t receive them so I’d like to discuss when you will be delivering those.”  Another is to use “inclusive” taglines after you give a strong opinion.  For example, “You can hear I feel strongly about this but I’d also like to hear what you think so that we can get all of the best ideas on the table and move forward.”  At its core, assertiveness is about expressing yourself clearly while showing concern for others.  Do that and you won’t wander into aggressive territory.

Don’t confuse being appreciative with beating around the bush. Frankel also has a couple of warnings: “don’t couch your opinions in the form of questions” and “don’t use preambles before getting to the point.” It’s tempting to lead up to your request or complaint with a bunch of equivocal language, but that can just confuse listeners and prevent you from getting your point across. And if you ask a question when you really want to make a statement, you’re not doing yourself any favors.

Start small

If the idea of standing up for yourself freaks you out a little, Frankel says you can “begin by taking small steps in low-risk situations.” Maybe that means not saying sorry when somebody else bumps into you. Or it could mean asking for clarification rather than pretending you understand. Hadfield says that “I’m not sure what you mean” can be a very assertive statement, adding “assertive people aren’t afraid to say when they don’t understand something — but don’t be self-deprecating.” For me, learning to speak up when I don’t understand something has been really important. It’s easy just to let somebody continue talking, and harder to interrupt and admit you don’t get what they’re saying. But once I got in the habit of saying “I don’t know what that word means” or “tell me who that is,” I learned that admitting you don’t know something actually shows you’re confident — you know you’re smart, and you’re not worried that the other person is going to doubt your intelligence. And asking questions when you need to can build confidence too — you’ll have the information you need, and people will often take you more seriously when you make the effort to seek it.

In my case, this kind of small act of assertiveness has paved the way for bigger ones. For you, what constitutes a small self-assertion might look different. But taking small steps — no matter what they are — can help you get closer to being the kind of person who stands up for what she wants even when what she wants is something big. And as Frankel says, if that kind of person is a bitch, so be it.

http://jezebel.com/5877566/how-to-quit-worrying-about-being-bitchy-and-actually-assert-yourself

Sweden keeps sterilisation rule for trans recognition [pinknews.co.uk]

by Joseph McCormick /pinknews.co.uk

The Swedish Government have announced that they will not modernise a law from the 1970s which makes sterilisation compulsory for transgender people before the state will recognise their gender identity.

Many have argued that the current law breaks Article 3 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which protects “the right to respect for [everyone’s] physical and mental integrity”.

The majority of the Swedish Parliament are reportedly in favour of the change, but the process has been blocked by a small conservative party.

Sirpa Pietikäinen, Finnish centre-right MEP told The European Parliament LGBT Intergroup: “This isn’t about LGBT rights; it’s about human rights and torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”

Raül Romeva i Rueda, Green MEP from Spain added: “The government’s decision is rather surprising: forcibly sterilising transgender people is recognised as inhumane across the political spectrum. It’s barbaric, outdated and highly unnecessary—not to mention against Sweden’s human rights commitments.”

At this time, the World Health Organisation classifies gender dysphoria under “mental and behavioural disorders”, a definition the European Parliament have already called to be changed.

As well as mandatory sterilization, the 1972 law also makes divorce compulsory for trans people, which it has been suggested, does not line up with recent “gender neutral” marriage law changes in the country.

Speaking to news agency TT in 2010, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt described the law as “a dark chapter in Swedish history.”

Other party leaders also supported this suggestion, including Christian Democrat Göran Hägglund.

Jane Fae, feminist writer and campaigner on issues of sexual rights responded today, saying: “It is wholly ironic that Sweden is in the news today over this issue – since the question has surfaced in relation to moves to repeal existing laws in this respect, which would be wholly positive.

“It is to be hoped that the Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, currently in thrall to a small reactionary right-wing party, will pluck up the courage to resist their pressure and allow reform through his parliament.

“However, we should not overlook the fact that despite Human Rights declarations to the contrary, in Europe and elsewhere, the requirement for surgery that effectively sterilises an individual before they can be recognised in their identified gender, is pretty widespread, throughout much of Europe and the United States. Or worse, as in states like Tennessee, gender assertion is not recognised at all, no matter what an individual does.”

Some European countries have already put an end to sterilisation as a prerequisite for recognition, including the UK, Austria, Germany and Portugal, whilst others are soon to follow.

The Nederlands LGBT Equality Policy states that they are currently abolishing the sterilisation requirement, but several other Western countries uphold this law.

France has been at the centre of controversy surrounding this issue, specifically in the case of Delphine Ravisé-Giard, who, despite living as a woman for some years, was told in 2010 that she had to prove that her “change of sex” was “irreversible” before the state would recognize her gender.

Several American states also still have the same law.

A key player in the fight to have these laws changed, Thomas Hammarberg has, in the past, criticized the EU for a general lack of knowledge on these issues.

Hammarberg, the commissioner for Human Rights, wrote in 2009 that “Discrimination against transgender persons must no longer be tolerated” and has criticized the slow move towards the end of transphobia.

There have also been calls from the Swedish Left and Green Parties to review the minimum age for gender reassignment surgery, however this news comes as a blow to those in support of the changes.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/01/17/sweden-keeps-sterilisation-rule-for-trans-recognition/

Don’t disclose sex of fetus until 30 weeks: doctor [edmonton.ctv.ca]

The Canadian Press

TORONTO — Dr. Rajendra Kale calls it the most severe and repugnant form of discrimination against females — and he wants to see it stopped.

The practice of aborting a female fetus after the parents learn the sex of their developing child through ultrasound is not as widespread in Canada as in such countries as India and China, where a cultural and often religious preference for boys has led to the estimated destruction of millions of females in the womb.

But Kale says smaller numbers in Canada, estimated in the thousands, are no reason to ignore such gender-based violence.

“Female feticide devalues women completely,” said Kale, interim editor-in-chief of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. He wants to see doctors withhold information about the sex of a child in the womb until 30 weeks’ gestation to prevent “an unquestioned abortion” because parents prefer a boy.

Kale said research in Canada has found the strongest evidence of fetal sex selection among some Canadians of Asian descent, including people from India, China, Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines.

“What this means is that many couples who have two daughters and no son selectively get rid of female fetuses until they can ensure that their third-born child is a boy,” he writes, while stressing that not all Asian-Canadians condone nor engage in the practice.

In an editorial in Monday’s issue of the CMAJ, entitled “It’s a girl — could be a death sentence,” Kale puts the onus squarely on the medical community to try to halt sex-based abortion.

He calls on the provincial colleges that regulate physicians to rule that health-care professionals should not reveal a baby’s sex to any woman before 30 weeks of pregnancy.

“I’m arguing that the sex of the fetus is medically irrelevant information because it does not affect care in any way whatsoever, except in the very rare instance where you have sex-linked genetic diseases,” Kale said in an interview.

“Doing so should be deemed contrary to good medical practice. Such clear direction from regulatory bodies would be the most important step toward curbing female feticide in Canada.”

Kale said waiting to divulge the sex of the fetus until after the start of the third trimester would still give parents who want to know whether they are having a boy or a girl enough time to prepare their nursery or purchase appropriate clothing.

“So you’re just postponing the point at which you deliver that information,” he said.

While the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, for instance, does not have a specific policy on sex-selected abortion, the regulatory body does advise its members that it is “contrary to good medical practice to use ultrasound only to view the fetus to obtain a picture or video of the fetus or to determine the gender of the fetus,” spokeswoman Kathryn Clarke said by email.

The B.C. regulatory body likewise states that testing to identify fetal sex should not be used to accommodate societal preferences, that terminating a pregnancy for an undesired sex is repugnant and it is unethical for a doctor to facilitate such a course of action.

The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada said Kale’s proposal runs counter to the medical group’s policy that a patient’s request for disclosure should be respected.

“Examination of the fetal genitalia is a recognized part of the routine second-trimester obstetric ultrasound,” the SOGC said in an emailed statement. “Providing patients with results of diagnostic imaging procedures is part of the Canadian standard of care, and fetal sex determination and disclosure should not be exempt.

“Therefore, the SOGC believes it is the right of the patient to be informed of the gender of their fetus, and that this information should not be withheld.”

The professional organization also said Kale fails to acknowledge cultural values that lead some people to seek pregnancy termination based on the sex of the fetus and does not take into account biochemical testing products that can give expectant parents a highly accurate fetal sex determination as early as eight weeks into pregnancy.

“The SOGC in no way condones pregnancy termination based on non-medical reasons, such as the gender of the fetus. The SOGC feels strongly that it is the cultural values and norms in specific segments of the Canadian population that must change to ensure that females are not confronted with procedures and intolerant environments before or after they are born.”

Though reasonably intentioned, Kale’s call for policy changes is likely a moot one in any case, said Bernard Dickens, professor emeritus of health law and policy at the University of Toronto.

During deliberations of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, it was suggested that withholding the gender of a fetus could be a way to reduce the possibility of sex-based abortion, but the control device wasn’t built into the subsequent legislation, the 2004 Assisted Human Reproduction Act.

Dickens suggested that was likely because the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of McInerney v. MacDonald, had ruled in 1992 that patients’ medical information is not owned by their physicians and must be surrendered at a patient’s request.

“If the patient persists and wants to know the sex … the doctor cannot lawfully deny the patient the information,” he said.

For Kale’s goal to be fulfilled, new legislation would be needed that contradicts the Supreme Court decision, but introduction of such a law would no doubt trigger a challenge based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Dickens said.

A challenge could be based on contravention of a number of enshrined rights, including discrimination on the grounds of the right to security of the person, that women have the right to continue only wanted pregnancies.

There are also pockets among some of Canada’s immigrant Asian communities that hold strong religious beliefs that a male heir is necessary to carry on the family name and to perform certain rites to ensure deceased parents have a proper afterlife.

“And, of course, this could trigger a Charter claim of denying religious convictions or violating the anti-discrimination provision of the Charter,” Dickens said. “So any legislation could trigger a Charter argument on that sort of ground.”

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120116/female-fetus-abortion-kale-120116/20120116/?hub=EdmontonHome