The hemoncology floor of Seattle Children’s Hospital performs Kelly Clarkson’s song “Stronger”
Jealous spoke at a national conference on rights for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, the 24th national conference on LGBT equality.
March 25, 2012
A Transgender Candidate Is Hoping to Make History [nytimes.com]
by Kate Taylor / nytimes.com
Zoning. School overcrowding. The design of New York’s transportation system.
These are just a few of the subjects that Mel Wymore, a candidate for City Council on the Upper West Side, brought up in an interview before addressing the elephant in the room: that, if elected, he would be the first transgender member of the Council.
“I’m not running because I’m transgender,” said Mr. Wymore, 50, who was born female but now, after testosterone therapy and top surgery, identifies as transgender. But, he said, that “doesn’t mean that being transgender doesn’t bring a certain perspective.”
Although gay men and lesbians have broken many electoral barriers — serving as mayors, state legislators and members of Congress — the same is not true of the transgender community. Only a few, including a Democratic district leader in Westchester County and a former member of the Hawaii Board of Education, have been elected to office around the country.
“I think there is a feeling that there is too much difference there,” Mr. Wymore said. But he said he believed: “This is the seat. This is the community that’s ready to go forward.”
The race, for the Sixth District seat occupied by Gale A. Brewer, who is term-limited, is competitive and has drawn a number of candidates, including Marc Landis, a district leader; Helen Rosenthal, a former chairwoman of Community Board 7; and Ken Biberaj, a vice president of the Russian Tea Room.
Melissa Sklarz, a transgender woman, said that the race was full of worthy candidates, and that as president of the Stonewall Democratic Club of New York City, she could not make an endorsement. But she described Mr. Wymore’s candidacy as “an opportunity for transgender people everywhere.”
“He’s a great representative,” Ms. Sklarz said. “Many people only know of transgender, I guess, from watching Chaz Bono on ‘Dancing With the Stars.’ Mel Wymore brings a much different, broader experience.”
March 21, 2012
Turns Out Being Born a Woman Is a Major Financial Mistake [jezebel.com]
by Cassie Murdoch / jezebel.com
As if being a woman wasn’t difficult enough—what with all the not having control over important decisions about our own bodies, making less money than our male colleagues, and, yes, let’s play the childbirth card—we are also routinely hit with financial penalties just for having the balls to be born with a vagina. That’s right, women pay more for everything from razors to houses to health care for no reason other than that we are women. It’s like our own personal vagina tax, and it sucks.
In fact, it’s enraging. You might think such gendered pricing practices would be illegal and we wouldn’t even have to worry about them, but alas they are not. Of course, there are federal civil rights laws which project against discrimination in employment and housing on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation, but the same cannot be said for the sales of goods and services. Some states and cities have their own statutes, but they often don’t make much of a dent in these kinds of widespread problems.
In fact, this problem is so pervasive that often we don’t even notice it’s happening—we just accept the cost of items as a given, sort of like the air around us. But there are lots of little ways we’re charged more than men. Marie Claire has a detailed run-down of how this plays out, and they point specifically to dry cleaners, who often charge women three times as much to clean shirts which are virtually identical to mens’ dress shirts. They justify this by saying that these “blouses” require extra labor to press. Hmm, seeing as I wear a larger shirt size than some of my male friends, yet their shirts fit on the pressing machine, this hardly seems possible.
Then there are things like haircuts and women’s toiletries, which are typically priced higher than their men’s counterparts, despite the fact that, even though they are all wrapped up in them purty pale pink packages, they are virtually the same products. (Maybe pink ink is just astronomically expensive?) Obviously retailers don’t like to admit to it, since if they did, we’d come running at them, nails filed to a point and extra-gentle razors in hand, demanding a refund, but it is happening.
January 28, 2012
Gov signs transgender rights bill [wwlp.com]
by Christine Lee, 22News State House Correspondent
BOSTON, Mass. (WWLP) – Governor Deval Patrick hosted a ceremonial signing Thursday of a civil rights bill that extends protection from discrimination to people based on their gender identity or gender expression.
“I signed this bill as a matter of conscience. No individual should face discrimination because of who they are,” said Patrick
“And we intend to enforce that bill the way it is intended to do,” said Attorney General Martha Coakley.
Patrick formally signed the transgender rights bill quietly in his office late November, but the start-of-the-year ceremonial signing drew an overflowing crowd from the transgender community.
Legislative leaders praised the progress Massachusetts is making toward recognizing transgender rights. “Allowing them to more easily find employment, housing, education, credit, and most importantly, a better quality of life,” said House Speaker Robert DeLeo (D-Winthrop)
The bill is big step for the Commonwealth, but activists note, their work isn’t over yet.
“These things are vital but we mostly need public accommodation,” said Danica Ali, an LGBT activist from Springfield. “[It] must be added to the bill.”
Public accommodation refers to the right to stay at a hotel, ride a bus, or even use a bathroom without being discriminated against. The bill signed by the governor falls short of extending those rights to transgendered people and activists feel their fight isn’t over until it does.
“Just because it’s such a basic right for people and the fact that it’s not protected is kind of atrocious,” said Kaylin MacNeil of Holyoke.
The governor acknowledged there’s work to be done but for today, he wants to relish in what they’ve accomplished so far. The House Speaker said nearly 33,000 Massachusetts residents will now no longer face discrimination.
http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/politics/state_politics/Gov-signs-transgender-rights-bill
January 28, 2012
NAACP president says group supports extending rights to transgender residents in Maryland [washingtonpost.com]
“This striving for inclusion is not new,” Jealous told a crowded convention room at the Baltimore Hilton.
Last year, legislation that would have protected transgender people from housing and employment discrimination passed the House of Delegates, but the bill failed to pass the Senate.
About a week after the legislative session adjourned in April, an attack on 22-year-old transgender woman at a McDonald’s restaurant in Rosedale highlighted the issue again.
First Lady Katie O’Malley, who also attended the conference, told a crowd outside the convention room where Jealous spoke that “cowards” prevented same-sex marriage legislation from passing in Maryland last year. The measure cleared the Senate but stalled in the House of Delegates.
“We didn’t expect the things that happened to the House of Delegates to occur, but sadly they did, and there were some cowards that prevented it from passing,” she said.
Still, she told the crowd she and her husband, Gov. Martin O’Malley, are hoping the votes will be there this year.
The governor has made same-sex marriage legislation a priority this session.
Katie O’Malley, who is a judge in Baltimore District Court, also told the crowd that religion should not play a role in determining state laws relating to civil rights.
“We’re all very diverse and that’s what makes us so strong, but religion should never play a part in what the laws of our state are, and that’s what we’re trying to convey to religious leaders who are opponents of the bill,” she said.
January 19, 2012
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/
January 19, 2012
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.”
January 13, 2012
Awesome Homeless Girl Places in Intel Science Competition [jezebel.com]
by Margaret Hartmann / jezebel.com
Here’s your inspiring story for the day: 17-year-old Samantha Garvey of Long Island moved into a homeless shelter with her family a year ago, but she still managed to become one of 300 semi-finalists for the annual Intel Science Talent Search. Garvey conducted a two and a half year study on aquatic ecosystems, which she describes in the video above. She says her family’s situation “motivates me to do the work I do. I want a better life. I want a home. I want to show other people that even though you’re going through something bad, there’s a brighter side to everything.”
December 7, 2011
Hillary Clinton Speech “Human Rights Must Include LGBT” [bbc.co.uk]
The full text of the speech is available here at this link: New Civil Rights Movement
The MP3 audio of the speech is available at this link: Hillary Clinton Speech on Human Rights Audio Only
The US has publicly declared it will fight discrimination against gays and lesbians abroad by using foreign aid and diplomacy to encourage reform.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience of diplomats in Geneva that “gay rights are human rights”.
A memo from the Obama administration directs US government agencies to consider gay rights when making aid and asylum decisions.
Similar policies already exist for gender equality and ethnic violence.
“It should never be a crime to be gay” Mrs Clinton said at the United Nations in Geneva, adding that a country’s cultural or religious traditions was no excuse for discrimination.
Her audience included representatives from countries where homosexuality is a criminal offence.
Many ambassadors rushed out of the room as soon as Mrs Clinton finished speaking, the Associated Press news agency reported.
‘Human reality’
The announcement, cited by the White House as the “first US government strategy to combat human rights abuses against gays and lesbians abroad”, is also being seen as part of the Obama administration’s outreach to gays and lesbians ahead of the 2012 election.
The official memorandum does not outline consequences for countries with poor records on gay rights. But it allows US agencies working abroad to consult with international organisations on discrimination.
“Gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world,” Mrs Clinton said in Geneva. “Being gay is not a Western invention. It is a human reality.”
The new policy could pose awkward questions for US officials formulating policy towards some regular allies and regional powers.
In 2011, the state department’s annual human rights report cited ally Saudi Arabia’s abuses against gays. The country bans homosexuality outright.
Afghanistan also prohibits homosexual activity, and the same report found that authorities “sporadically” enforced the prohibition.
In the US, Republican presidential candidates criticised the administration’s decision, with Texas Governor Rick Perry saying in a statement that “promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money”.
Mrs Clinton acknowledged the US had its own mixed record on gay rights. As late as 2003, some states had laws that made gay sex a crime.
Earlier this year President Barack Obama signed into law a bill repealing the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law and allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the US military.
More here at the BBC link:
December 6, 2011
11th Circuit Court: Transgender Discrimination Is Sex-Based Discrimination [thinkprogress.org]
By Zack Ford on Dec 6, 2011 at 2:22 pm
A Georgia transgender woman has won her appeal that she was illegally fired for planning to make her gender transition. Vandy Beth Glenn had been a legislative editor in the Georgia General Assembly, but her supervisor, now-retired legislative counsel Sewell Brumby, testified that he found the thought of her transition “unsettling,” “unnatural,” and something that others would view as “immoral.” An 11th Circuit panel ruled that her termination constituted sex discrimination and the decision could have a far-reaching impact on protecting the rights of transgender people:
In each of these foundational cases, the Court concluded that discriminatory state action could not stand on the basis of gender stereotypes. The Court’s more recent cases reiterate that the Equal Protection Clause does not tolerate gender stereotypes. Accordingly, governmental acts based upon gender stereotypes–which presume that men and women’s appearance and behavior will be determined by their sex–must be subjected to heightened scrutiny because they embody “the very stereotype the law condemns.”
We conclude that a government agent violates the Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition of sex-based discrimination when he or she fires a transgender or transsexual employee because of his or her gender non-conformity.
The state could still appeal this decision to the full 11th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is worth noting that all three judges on the panel concurred, including Judge William H. Pryor. Pryor’s nomination to the bench was opposed by LGBT groups, who noted that he had filed an amicus brief supporting sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas. He also cast the deciding vote to oppose hearing a challenge to Florida’s law that banned gay people from adopting.
