A checklist for bad slogans– a WIP

Recently, a LGBT retailer called OUT!Wear came under fire for selling “Womyn Born Womyn” gear– if you aren’t aware, WBW is a

transphobic slogan meant to exclude trans women from women’s only events on the basis of that male privilege they were supposedly allowed to keep despite all evidence to the contrary… yeah.

Anyway, the owner of the store finally posted a response. I’m a little less than satisfied, as apparently “I didn’t know” absolves one of the damage they caused by not doing the research. And there’s no comment about the number of people who reported being banned from the page and having their complaints about the shirt removed– but as her single “pre-response response” suggests, maybe they were all just too mean to bother with.

But yeah. So I’ve been thinking about this, and some very basic criteria for determining whether a slogan is discriminatory– ’cause even if you don’t know the history of a slogan, you can still look for clues in the words staring you in the face.

For instance, does this slogan…

_ Celebrate the fact that the wearer belongs to a privileged group over a marginalized one?
_ Promote the exclusion of a marginalized group from a larger group in which they also hold membership?
_ Draw complaints from members of a marginalized group who state that the slogan is demeaning or promotes exclusion/inequality?

In this case, if the first two hadn’t set off alarm bells, the third should have– instead, trans folks and allies were given the boot from the page during the first round of complaints, while comments that were left contain the type of anti-trans speech Christian Extremists would be proud of.

So, question time: what else would you add to the checklist?

An update and stuff

Ok, so I’ve never claimed to be good at updating on a regular basis. You can probably see why. In any case, if you’ve been wondering what I’ve been up to…

First, the job hunt. I’ve been putting out resumes all over the place. Starting to get a little discouraged. Moving on…

There’s been more than a hint of family fuck-uppery going on. That’ll probably get it’s own post ‘cuz I don’t feel like trying to make sense of some of it yet– let’s just say they’re as interesting as ever.

I’m kinda caught up in the Canucks fever going around– the energy is amazing, as are the people gathering.

If you’ve seen my FB, you probably know that I started a petition asking the Canucks to make an It Gets Better video. I know there’s some debate about the IGB project, but I’m really hopeful that a video by the Canucks (same could be said of other pro teams, etc.) actually has a shot at convincing straight kids that heterosexist douchebaggery is uncool. Which, you know, would kinda work to make things better for at least some queer kids, so you should totally sign the petition.

My birthday is coming up this month. I kinda want to get it over with– it’s always a  bit of a fucked up time of year for me. More family fuck-uppery to blame for that I think.

2009 Transgender day of Remembrance

Today is the Transgender Day of Remembrance.

Tomorrow, I will write about transphobia, and how fortunate I’ve been. But not today. Today isn’t about me.

Today is about Angie Zapata. It’s about Taysia Elzy. It’s about Cesar Torres. It’s about Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado.

It’s about every trans person and gender-nonconformist who has been denied a chance to live their lives because some fuckwad decided that they were less than human. It’s about those who can no longer fight.

It’s about remembering why we’re fighting so hard.

Thoughts on pot

So, I feel like writing. And I’ve been thinking about pot. Prepare for rambling.

I’m not a fan of pot prohibition. I believe that the act of smoking a joint is not inherently more injurious than many other legal acts. I do understand, however, that there are extraneous factors which can cause damage.

I have a couple ofbasic guidelines for judging behaviour related to smoking pot.

1. Discretion is the better part of valour.
   Discretion can save you a whole lot of trouble. If you aren’t being obnoxious, many people will not give a shit. It’s when you start stepping on people’s toes that they have problems. So, seriously, don’t be a dick.
2. If you shouldn’t do it while/after drinking, you shouldn’t do it while/after smoking.
   Yanno, people driving while intoxicated scares the shit outta me. I’ve mentioned before that I’ve been in a rather bad car accident. I’m not willing to repeat the experience. Don’t toke and drive.
3. Likewise, if you shouldn’t be drinking, you shouldn’t be smoking pot.
   If you’re doing something that needs your full attention to be effective (like, driving home from work, working with heavy machinery, or anything else that can cause mayhem, injury, or death) please, don’t do it stoned >.<
4. Know the risks.
   Some people just shouldn’t smoke pot, just as some people shouldn’t drink. Sometimes, there’s health reasons- inhaling smoke is not particularly healthy, and there can be side effects to smoking pot. Erowid is a good resource.

All of these can be further summed up in two words: Be responsible.

I don’t think that prohibition encourages responsible use. Instead, it pushes all use underground, and treats it all equally. And seriously? The dude who smokes a joint to de-stress once he gets home from work is not the same as the guy who does stupid, dangerous shit while stoned.

Prohibition obviously doesn’t stop people from smoking dope. I mean, seriously. I grew up in a rural area, where there was nothing to do but smoke dope. I went up to a cousin’s wedding near Vernon– damn, those people smoke a lot of pot. And no one really cares, because they aren’t stepping on anyone’s toes. There’s some pretty good local shit available up there. Ah, BC, how I love thee…

Anyways, I favour legalization with restrictions. Treat it like alcohol or tobacco- age restrictions, restrictions on where and when you can smoke, etc. One argument I’ve heard against this involves the amount of pot grown in private homes; on the other hand, people brew wine and beer at home, too. Make quality controlled pot available in liquor stores and tax it. Ta-da! The government gets money (and while I’m talking about the gov’t, maybe they could stop being such wasteful douches?), allows for a shift in control, and deflate the “there’s no quality control” excuse against pot use. And trust me, people will buy, if prices are reasonable. Restrict amounts that people are allowed to grow privately; if they want to grow more, they can adhere to whatever regulations for quality control and sales there are. If you put these laws in place, and make sure they’re reasonable, responsible users and growers will comply.

Fundie logic: Same-sex marriage = bad, inciting violence against queers = good

Gary Cass, of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commision, has decided quite firmly that hate crime laws violate his rights- despite, of course, his apparent lack on knowledge as to what entails a hate crime. So as a means of protesting this perceived unfairness, he has called upon clergy to incite hate crimes.

I can see this going one of two ways:

1. Those who listen to what he says stick to the standard “god hates queers” crap. Nothing changes, but he counts it as a success because no one is arrested; or
2. Someone takes his words and actively advocates violence against queers, leading to an actual attack on a queer (or someone who’s assumed to be such) that can be traced back to him. Any action- including protests and other acts that don’t involve legal repercussions to preachers- taken will immediately be seen as justification of his original point.

For those of you who aren’t aware, the US hate crimes bill explicitly states that protected speech is, well, protected.

(6) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution of the United States does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

What really pisses me off, though, is the fact that this guy- and a whole slew of others like him- are still pretending that we’re the ones without morals. ‘Cause, hey, we aren’t conforming to their idealized heteronormative and cisnormative roles. And that’s waay worse than advocating vandalism, assault, and other crimes meant to terrorize a marginalized group of people.

H/T Waymon

US Conservatives target trans people (surprise, surprise)

From Politico:

The federal government would be banned from funding sex change operations and other services for transgender individuals if social conservative activists get their way.

There’s no sponsor yet for an amendment to the health care overhaul – and it may remain in the dustbin of unrealized wedge issues – but culture warriors are shopping the proposal to Republican senators.

The language is written: “None of the funds authorized or appropriated under this act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be used to cover any part or portion of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of” any sex or gender reassignment procedure, surgery related to such a sex change, hormone therapy for a sex change or pre- and post-operation treatments for a sex change.

A senior aide to a Republican senator said that a public insurance plan could easily end up covering sex-change procedures if that’s not specifically banned in the bill.

“It’s not that hard to imagine that a new federal health plan crafted and implemented by this administration would cover sex-change surgeries. Anything not explicitly prohibited in the bill is effectively on the table. Most Americans probably would prefer that their tax dollars not pay for or subsidize transgender surgery,” the aide said.

Advocates for transgender people note that it is often difficult for them to obtain insurance that covers medical needs related to their transition and say that sometimes basic medical care has been unfairly denied.

“Unfortunately, some insurance companies broadly interpret language excluding transgender-related care and services to deny coverage for non-transition-related procedures for transgender individuals. Insurers justify these exclusions by stating that your current medical problem is somehow related to your transition,” the Transgender Law Center wrote in a fact sheet posted on its Website.

The ironclad language of the funding-ban amendment suggests the type of prohibition conservatives want to see on coverage of abortion if a new health care exchange includes a government-backed insurance option.

House Democrats say they have a plan that would segregate federal funds to prevent taxpayer support for abortion services, but abortion critics say the proposed firewall would not fully shield taxpayers from footing the bill for the practice. In its first iteration, the House version of the health care bill didn’t mention the word abortion – though it carried significant implications for the availability of insurance coverage for the procedure.

Several Democratic aides – and Sen Roland Burris (D-Ill.) – declined to comment on the proposal.

Never mind that for some, SRS is a medical necessity. After all, other people’s personal opinions on transsexuality are far more important than providing care to trans people, right?

Guh. Please, contact your reps and tell them that procedures necessary to stable mental and physical health should not be left uncovered simply because they squick some people.

(h/t Questioning Transphobia)

Just a few updates

So, it’s been a couple of days since I’ve posted, and I figured it was time for an update.

1) I’m still astounded by the stats on my last post. Seriously, it’s gotten 10 times as many hits as all of my previous posts combined. It’s a bit of a ego boost to know that there’s over a thousand people out there who want to know what you think

2) It looks like I’ve bought a house- #2 to be precise. Yay!

3) Remember to VOTE if you’re in Maine, Kalamazoo, or Washington state.

Seventeen, transphobia, and denial of intent

Edit: For readers in the US, Amplify has a petition set up. It’s not open to us Non-US residents, but you could always copy and paste their letter if you can’t think of what to write. And of course, don’t forget to spread the word about the campaign- the more letters they receive, the better.

Recently, an article in Seventeen magazine was pointed out to me. This article, entitled “My boyfriend was really a GIRL,” dealt with the story of a teen who was “deceived” by her boyfriend, who was- you guessed it- a trans man. Autumn Sandeen has a great write-up about why the article was offensive.

Noting that there was a facebook letter-writing campaign, I decided to send my own letter to the editors. A copy of the article can be found on the facebook page, as well as in Autumn’s article, if you want to read it first. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

So, now that you’ve seen the article, here’s the letter I sent off:

Take Action!

From the Courage Campaign website. Head over, grab the code, and pass it on!

Washington:

Who we are: Approve Referendum 71 is the campaign to preserve domestic partnerships in Washington State. By voting to approve, voters retain the domestic partnership laws that were passed during this year’s legislative session, including using sick leave to care for a partner, adoption rights, insurance rights, and more.

What we need: We need phone bankers to get our supporters out to vote. Washington is an all mail-in ballot state, and we need to ensure our supporters put their ballots in the mail. Also, youth turnout is a critical component of our campaign, and youth turnout historically drops in off-year elections. So we need a lot of help to turn them out.

How you do it: Sign up here to make remote calls for Approve 71. We’ll then contact you for a training, and you can make GOTV calls.

Maine:

Who we are: The No On 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign is working to protect Maine’s recently-passed law legalizing marriage equality for same-sex couples. Our opponents have put the issue on the ballot for Nov 3, 2009. Because of Maine’s early voting election laws, people are already voting at the polls, so we need help immediately to turn out our side at the polls.

What we need: We need you to devote a few hours to Call for Equality. Call for Equality is a virtual phonebank set up so that you can call Maine voters wherever you are. Much of Maine is rural, where canvassing isn’t effective, so we need to reach these voters- along with other supporters- by phone. All you need is a phone and internet connection. No experience required! We’ll provide the training, and all you need is a a few hours to help get a win in Maine.

How you do it: Click here to sign up for a training and your shift. There are lots of times available for your convenience.

Kalamazoo, MI:

Who We Are: The Yes on Ordinance 1856 / One Kalamazoo campaign is working in Michigan to support the City Commission of Kalamazoo’s twice approved ordinance for housing, employment, and public accommodation protections for gay and transgender residents. Opponents forced a public referendum on the ordinance so dedicated local volunteers, led by former Stonewall Democrats Executive Director Jon Hoadley, are working to ensure voters say YES to fairness and equality and keep Ordinance 1856.

Why The Urgency: In the final weeks, the opposition has gone all out with aggressive disinformation and misleading red herrings to try to defeat the ordinance. This includes signs that say “No to Discrimination” (even though voting No actually supports continued discrimination of GLBT residents), transphobic door hangers and fliers, and now radio ads that falsely suggest that criminal behavior will become legal when this simply isn’t true. The Yes on Ordinance 1856 supporters are better organized but many voters who want to vote for gay and transgender people are getting confused by the opposition.

How To Help:

1) Help the One Kalamazoo campaign raise a final $10,000 specifically dedicated to fight back against the lies on the local TV and radio airwaves and fully fund the campaign’s final field and GOTV efforts.

Give here: http://www.actblue.com/page/3-2-1-countdown

2) If you live nearby and can physically volunteer in Kalamazoo sign up here. If you know anyone that lives in Kalamazoo, use the One Kalamazoo campaign’s online canvass tool to remind those voters that they need to vote on November 3rd and vote YES on Ordinance 1856 to support equality for gay and transgender people.

Contact voters: http://www.onekalamazoo.com/tellfriends2

Househunting sucks, Colbert Rocks

Househunting sucks. We looked at three houses today.

• House # 1 is a 5 minute walk from the University. It’s also a piece of shit. That one got struck off the list pretty quickly.
• House #2 was gorgeous, though I’m still not sure about bus access. Still, it has potential. 2 years old, wood floors throughout, and a kitchen that’s just… *sigh* I want this house. However, it’s a little pricy at $359, 700. The suite is nice, and the whole thing needs little, if any work- a quick cleaning. I could rent out the upstairs for $1200/mo, easily.
• House #3 was not too bad, though it’s nearly 40 years old, and has some issues. It doesn’t have a suite, but is easily “suitable”- for another $10k on top of the $319k price tag. It’s slightly more central, but not enough to really matter. There’s no separate entrance for the suite, and the floors squeak like mad. You might think that I’m being picky, but… I mean, seriously, those are loud floors. On the other hand, the deck is awesome, and overall it’s not too bad. But unlike house #2, I won’t be able to move in right away.

Decisions, decisions…

In other news:

Colbert takes on the anti-Ref 71-advertisements.

‘Tis awesome.

Remember: If you live in Washington state, vote YES on 71. If you don’t live in Washington, pass the message on to friends and family who do.