Who shouldn't allow whom in the restroom

I didn't want to write about this. I want to ignore it like I have in the past, but my mind just won't let me. The misunderstandings inflicted upon trans people by the general population is staggering, and it doesn't seem to be getting better. There is even an argument to be made that the treatment of trans people is getting worse as the public becomes more and more aware of us and it is more difficult to just be left alone to go about our lives.

LGBTQ Nation is reporting that Alex Wilson, a nursing assistant going to school to become a licensed practical nurse, has been threatened to be jailed and kicked out of the nursing program if she continues to use the restroom congruent with her gender.

Until Monday, Wilson said she has been using the women’s facilities, but that came to an end after another student complained to the school’s administration, reported WFLA-TV.

Wilson said she was pulled out of class and told her alternatives: “If I continue to use the female restroom that I would have charges pressed against me. And that because of that I would be removed from the program as a nurse.”

The thing that bothers me so much about this is the implicit idea that trans people are somehow the 'other' in all things. When we go to the bathroom, it can't be just to use the facilities, there must be some other reason. While most people won't put a reason on to it, the ones that do seem to think we use the restroom for sexual gratification instead of out of necessity.

The people that shouldn't be allowed in the restroom are the ones that sexualize the thought of using the restroom and then try to use the power of the state to prevent other people from carrying out a biologically necessary function. That's right: if no one has done anything out of the ordinary in the restroom and you still think you should complain about them? You are the one that needs to be restricted to a special, single occupancy restroom across campus.

Tim Huelskamp Introduces Anti-Marriage Constitutional Amendment

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) introduced a bill that he hopes will change the US Constitution to better represent his anti-gay views. Of course there is no chance that, in today's climate, the Constitution could ever be amended in such a way.

As near as I can tell, the main purpose for the bill is to give Rep. Huelskamp something to show the voters back home. It also provides a vehicle for other like-minded politicians to tout their anti-gay views for their constituents.  The Huffington Post has the following Representatives listed as cosponsors:

... Its cosponsors include Republican Reps. Joe Barton (Texas), Jim Bridenstine (Okla.), Mo Brooks (Ala.), Paul Broun (Ga.), Jeff Duncan (S.C.), John Fleming (La.), Trent Franks (Ariz.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Ralph Hall (Texas), Andy Harris (Md.), Randy Hultgren (Ill.), Sam Johnson (Texas), Walter Jones (N.C.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), James Lankford (Okla.), Mark Meadows (N.C.), Randy Neugebauer (Texas), Steven Palazzo (Miss.), Stevan Pearce (N.M.), Robert Pittenger (N.C.), Joe Pitts (Pa.), David Schweikert (Ariz.), Bill Shuster (Pa.), Chris Smith (N.J.), Steve Stockman (Texas), Tim Walberg (Mich.), Lynn Westmoreland (Ga.) and Frank Wolf (Va.)

Including Rep. Huelskamp himself, that makes the map of elected officials seeking to write their own prejudicial views into the US Constitution looking something like this:

The red area isn't limited to the Bible belt, even if it includes most of it. Nor is the red area limited to the South, again, even if it includes most of it. What it does show us is the place where we, the people for equality, need to do the most work. Here is where they are still electing anti-equality legislatures. Here is where we need the most help from the kind, decent, and caring people to help bring the entire United States into the light of freedom for all.

The Paula Deen discussion

Salon has an article on the Paula Deen incident from a different perspective:

"The difference now is that people don’t speak in public what they are thinking and sharing behind closed doors."

In still not sure where I stand on the Paula Deen incident. I don't think that I know enough about what actually happened to form a rational decision. I do believe that racial epitaphs should never be used, but I would be lying if I said I had never used them in the past. I don't personally know someone that hasn't used a racial epitaph at some point in their life.

I do regret my part in extending the racial disparity into the present, but I also believe that people that have sincerely tried to change and make amends for their horrible language in the past deserve the benefit of the doubt if for no other reason than there would be no one left if people weren't given the opportunity to change.

DOMA and Prop 8 fall

This is a note to myself as much as anything. There is no breaking news here. Everyone that cases already knows that DOMA and Proposition 8 were essentially overturned by the Supreme Court.

Proposition 8 was sent back to a lower court due to lack of standing. I believe this will allow the lower court's findings to stand. I don't think there will be any more cases, but since I am far from a legal expert, I don't know for sure.

On the other hand, section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was ruled unconstitutional. It is gone, never to return again. Unfortunately that doesn't mean everyone can marry, it means that if your state allows you to marry the Federal Government will have to recognize the marriage too.

There are still many questions to be answered, like what happens if you are married and nice to a state that doesn't allow same-sex marriage? I suspect there is another Supreme Court challenge in the making.

Westboro Baptist Church Gets Competition

But the competition is the kind that all people who support equality would hope for.

The Huffington Post and Gawker (among others) are reporting:

Aaron Jackson, one of the founders of Planting Peace, a multi-pronged charity that has in the past concentrated on rainforest conservation, opening orphanages and deworming programs, bought a house that sits directly across from the church's compound six months ago. On Tuesday, March 19, he and a team of volunteers are painting it to match the gay pride flag.

At first, it seems a little frightening to think of a house that is supposed to help LGBT people located right across from the Westboro Baptist Church. Most of the people that need help for being LGBT is because of people like the Westboro membership. The last thing you want to do is expose them to the same people that cause the majority of their torment.

But that isn't what the Equality House is about. Back to the Huffington Post:

"We want this house to be a message that where there's hate, there's also love. But we also want to raise awareness and capital, and we want to put all that money into creating and sustaining anti-bullying programs, along with supporting anti-bullying programs that already exist," he said. "Beyond the symbolic message of the home, [the house] will be utilized by volunteers to live here, and these volunteers will work on promoting equality anywhere in the world and managing these anti-bullying initiatives that we plan on creating."

Perhaps this is the first in a series of push backs against the very people that are the worst offenders of trying to keep society segregated. Perhaps it is time for people who believe in equality to stand as firmly as those that would see our society degraded into an us-vs-them competition where the only mobility is downward.

Sugarcoating Shit Isn't Enough

Young Republicans are seeking to make a political difference at the national level. Over the past two election cycles the Democratic party has taken the lion's share of the millennial generation -- people between 18 and 29. On a grand level I can't help but wish them luck. I think it is better for the country when there are multiple sides presenting multiple views on the right course for the country. What isn't worthwhile, however, is for one party to exist primarily to keep minorities out of the mainstream of society.

Rebranding the politics of prejudice instead of removing the prejudice all together is the wrong approach. Reuters is reporting that millenials are seeking a younger leadership that can speak more to their interests and leave the divisive social issues behind.

Fed up with a Republican Party strongly associated with anti-abortion, anti-gay and anti-environment stances many younger voters do not share, some young Republican groups are shaping their own message.

Concord 51, a new political action committee, bills itself as "the voice of the young, fiscally conservative professional" with a focus on the "three core issues of fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense, and energy advancement."

This sounds like the kind of ideas that should be put forward by the Republican party. These are things that the United States needs to have a conversation about. There is room for legitimate disagreement on the size of the military, what constitutes fiscal responsibility, and the best way forward with energy policy. But none of these things can happen as long as candidates are put forward that thrive on thoughtless comments and denigrating minorities.

Looking toward 2016, young Republicans are excited about the possibility of a younger nominee like Marco Rubio, 41, the U.S. senator from Florida who loves hip-hop and recently quoted rappers Wiz Khalifa and Jay-Z on the Senate floor.

Many showed up Thursday for a meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee in Maryland to scope out possible candidates like Rubio, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, 50, and U.S. Representative Paul Ryan, 43, of Wisconsin, the party's unsuccessful vice presidential candidate in 2012.

As you can see, the very people that are being pushed to the front as the savior for the millennials are the same people that practice the most disgusting acts of trying to make discrimination legal against minority groups.

You are never going to attract people to debates about legitimate politics as long as they fear that fundamental aspects of their personality or bodies are going to be made illegal. As long as we fear that you will hurt those that we love most, deny our marriages, take away our children, fiscally ruin our families, allow us to be fired for whom we date, deny us the right to make choices about our own bodies, or even protect ourselves from the dangers our the world then we will never be free to discuss other important ideas. The first thing we all must do is provide for ourselves and those we love. Stop putting candidates forward that want to attack our families and then we will be happy to discuss these other issues.

American Evolution on Marriage

I am very pleased that Sen. Rob Portman (R. Ohio) has changed his position regarding the fundamental right of people to marry the person that they love. He has shown that it is possible for someone's political and social stance to evolve toward equality. His new found belief that people of different sexual orientations should be treated equally is commendable.

As often happens, his position changed when he really stopped to think about what he was doing to other human beings. The event that prompted his reevaluation of his position was when one of his sons came out to him as a gay man. CBS News reports:

Portman told The Cincinnati Enquirer his evolution on the subject began in 2011 when his son, Will, then a freshman at Yale University, told his parents he was gay.

The love for a family member can do wonders, and both Will Portman and his father should be proud of their courage to evaluate and stand by the truth regardless of the potential consequences.

The problem, as Sen. Portman just demonstrated, is that oftentimes people haven't given any thought to the people that are being crushed under the laws that they pass. This has happened in state after state as well as the federal level.

Legislators and voters have been acting in destructive and inhumane ways against their family, friends, and neighbors. The question is: why? Why won't they take the time to look at the harm they are doing before their family members become collateral damage to their unexamined ideology. Perhaps it is fear, or religion, or maybe just being human that keeps some people from reflecting on the damage they are doing until it is too late.

Whatever the case, those that have been enlightened have a responsibility to others. It is out responsibility to help those that can be helped to see the discriminatory path that they are on and help them get on the path to equality. For those that can't be swayed from their anti-human path, it is our responsibility to challenge their bigotry at every turn.

It may not be right, but the burden is on us. The responsibility falls on our lap to engage those whose rhetoric flows from sleeping minds and turn them toward a path of equality.

Damsel in Distress

Anita Sarkeesian is the is the talented feminist behind the Tropes vs Women video series covering the stereotypes female video game characters, and by extension women who play those games, face. Anita Sarkeesian's Wikipedia page has a pretty good rundown of her if you are interested in some background information.

Anita was the target of some pretty vicious attacks on her character for even bringing up the problem of sexism in video games. There are plenty of people that can cover the story about what she went through better than I can, including (trigger warnings in case you are interested in clicking through) Anita on her own website.

The good news is that she has released her first installment in the series 'Tropes vs Women' on her website. There is a video and complete transcript if you prefer to read instead of watch.

Regardless of how you prefer to digest this information, if you like video games at all, or know anyone that does, it will be well worth your time to familiarize yourself with what she has to say.

Income Inequality in the United States

Humans generally like to think that they have a good imagination. We have all seen movies and television shows about far away lands and ancient times. We have seen artwork and read stories that push out thoughts almost to the breaking point. We have even seen people create conspiracy theories that are more complex than anything that could exist in reality. If there is one thing that humans are good at, it's imagining things. That's why it so mind boggling to understand that we are so completely wrong about the income inequality in the United States.

Here is a video on Youtube that tries to help us imagine exactly how bad the income inequality actually is:



I have a difficult time believing that Democrats or Republicans would actually approve of an income distribution like this. Perhaps the solution is higher taxes for the wealthy, perhaps it is greatly expanding social programs. Whatever the solution is, we owe it to all Americans see that this injustice isn't allowed to continue.

Hat tip: Pharyngula: Either tax the rich, or have a socialist revolution

Being Both Victim and Bully

Paul Fidalgo reminds us in a post at Near Earth Object that there is more to bullying than the simple dichotomy of being either a bully or a victim. Sometimes people caught in the middle between bullies and people that are more socially vulnerable find themselves battling on two fronts.

I had never even thought about this [both bully and victim] as a category, but it makes a lot of sense as I think back to those ugly days. Imagine: In desperation to avoid being bullied, or to make up for it in the eyes of your peers or in your own sense of self, you yourself turn to bullying someone else. In other words, since you find yourself unable to punch up, you opt to punch down.

Neither had I, though when I look back I suspect I fit into that category more than I would like to admit. Bullying is a difficult problem to say the least. It is often presented as an either/or situation with everyone wanting to eliminate the problem. Studies like the one Paul Fidalgo points out at Time should serve to let us know that it isn't that simple of a problem or it might have been solved long ago.

Regardless of how difficult the problem is, the least we can do is recognize bullying when we see it both in ourselves and in others. Even those of us that were bullied aren't immune from making someone else's life miserable. If we can be honest with ourselves and others, that might go a long ways in minimizing the amount of bullying that people have to face.

Inhofe Resists Treating Soldiers' Families With Respect

One of the Republican senators from Oklahoma, Jim Inhofe, has a problem with treating the families of military personnel with respect and dignity; at least if that family isn't like his.

Newsmax reports:

“In a weak attempt to not violate the Defense of Marriage Act, the administration is using a play on words by saying ‘same sex domestic partners’ can have access to benefits instead of ‘spouses.’ We are on a slippery slope here,” Inhofe, the ranking GOP member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement.

Indeed it is a slippery slope. First we treat one military family with dignity and respect for the service they are performing for our country, and the next thing you know we will be treating all of the families of military personnel with dignity and respect. There has to be something unamerican about all people being equal.

“Why would the DoD extend benefits to same-sex partners and then deny cohabiting heterosexual couples the same benefits?

That is actually an easy one to answer. Since -- due to fear, shortsightedness, politics, or whatever -- the United States passed a federal law stating that same-sex couples marriages would not be recognized by the federal government, they are simply treating all people that maintain the highest possible relationship status the same. The highest relationship status for a heterosexual couple is marriage; for a same-sex couple, it varies by location but can never be recognized as marriage by the government.

“The Department of Defense is essentially creating a new class of beneficiary that will increase costs and demand for limited resources that are currently available for military families, active and reserve forces, and retirees,” Inhofe added. “President Obama continues to expand the government’s financial obligations to support his liberal social agenda during a time when this Administration has imposed drastic budget cuts to our military readiness and national security.”

The Department of Defense is simply doing what the federal government has insisted that it do through legislation. The DoD is benefits for the families of solders. They didn't create the new class of beneficiaries, the government did. If you would like to see the new class of beneficiaries disappear, repeal the misnamed Defense of Marriage Act, recognize all married people as married, and treat every family with equality and respect.

Oh, but don't worry if you think your prejudicial thinking isn't still reflected by the federal government:

But the federal Defense of Marriage Act still blocks the agency from enacting more than 85 other benefits now provided to heterosexual military spouses and their children, NBC reports.

These include medical and dental care, housing allowances, and death benefits.

Your legacy of assholery will be assured throughout history.

Some BSA Parents: Screw Equality, We're Elite

It is difficult waiting on the Boy Scouts to decide whether they are going to allow equality in their ranks. Even at the accelerate rate that equality has been pushing forward for gays and lesbians recently, it is still moving at a glacial pace with regard to a human lifespan. Too many people that are born into inequality are forced to live with it until they die. And yet patience is becoming one of the most common refrains sung by the people that want to stop equality from happening.

NBC News reports:

A coalition of Boy Scouts councils representing some 540,000 youth -- or 20 percent of the organization’s 2.6 million active Scouts -- asked the national organization on Monday to delay a decision on ending the controversial policy, saying it was concerned “about the pace at which such actions are being taken,” according to a statement posted on the website of the Utah-based Great Salt Lake Council.

So what, specifically, is the problem with the Boy Scouts allowing each individual troop to make their own determination with respect to whether to allow gays into their ranks? It can't be because the rate of change is actually too fast. Depending on how the individual troops made their decisions, it is possible that not a single gay person would be allowed in the Boy Scouts. Instead, they feel sure that there are troops out there that want to end the discrimination, but if they don't all discriminate equally, then the ones that continue to discriminate will look bad in the eyes of the public.

Oldham said he had spoken with some troop leaders, pastors and parents who have expressed concern about the way forward if gays are allowed, particularly those units that will try to maintain the ban locally as would be permitted under the proposal. For more than two-thirds of Scouting groups affiliated with religious bodies, faith plays a large role in the private youth organization.

Yes, that's right. Religion plays a role in their discrimination decisions. And it isn't the love your neighbor, do unto others, kind of religion; instead, it is the kind of religion that is poison to the concept of equality and pisses on their own concept of loving your fellow man. It is a place where even though religion is required, it has to be their kind of religion that pushes bigoted ideas. No lesser religious thoughts that would not judge your fellow humans would possible be allowed, even if they are Christian religions too.

And what happens if other religious people step forward with equality in their hearts? Well, it seems like the only solution to the people that practice religions that push prejudicial ideas would be to remove themselves from dangerous thoughts like all men are created equal.

Angela Russell, who has an 11-year-old in the Boy Scouts and a 9-year-old in the Cub Scouts, said that if the BSA allows gays, particularly as leaders, they would be “breaking their own highly held codes to be ‘morally straight’ and to commit to such principles via oaths and promises.”

If the ban is lifted, “I must remove my boys from this program. My heart truly aches to think of it,” Russell, of Auburn, Wash., wrote in a letter she emailed to NBC News. “However, to leave them in a program that goes against its own teachings would be worse.”

There is a reason that people like Mrs. Russell don't want change to come so slow that essentially nothing changes. They don't want to see the idea of a tiered society come to an end. They don't want all people treated equally. They don't want any competition to their religious teachings that hold some people as lesser. The writing is on the wall. They realize that they will never be able to completely stop equality. Their only hope now is to slow it down to a crawl and pray for a miracle.