LGBT books vandalized with urine

Around 40 books about same sex marriage and gay and lesbian issues were found to be vandalized with what appears to be urine in Lamont Library at Harvard University. The incident is being investigated as a hate crime.

Marco Chan '11, co-chair of the Harvard College Queer frustrating" and "disconcerting," and said that it represents a Students and Allies, called the incident "extremely concern not only for the LGBT community, but for the Harvard community at large.


"I am very outraged. It is hard to conceive this as a coincidence when there are 40 books on the same subject," Chan said. "The message that this incident sent to me is that we need more resources not only for the LGBT community but also targeted towards other people."

Chan suggested workshops on homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual issues—similar to the mandatory freshman orientation event Sex Signals—as one possible way to respond to the bias evidenced by the incident.

(via Feministing)

Obama Makes "It Gets Better" Video

I have been compulsively watching "It Gets Better" videos, and am super excited that President Obama made one.



Thoughts on what Obama says or doesn't say here? Do you have a favorite "It Gets Better" video?

My personal favorite is Tim Gunn's (and not just because I watch too much Project Runway).

To learn more about the It Gets Better Project and watch some videos click here.

Report: LGBTQ students face harassment, but we can help

A recent study revealed some unsurprising, but nonetheless saddening data showing what hardships LGBTQ students must deal with.

...Nine of 10 [LGBTQ middle and high school students] reported experiencing harassment at their school within the past year based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, and two-thirds said they felt unsafe at school because of who they are. Nearly one-third skipped at least one day of school within the previous month because of concerns for their safety. Perhaps not surprisingly, locker rooms and bathrooms were locations of particular worry for LGBT students. Surely we as a country can and must do a better job of protecting these students and ensuring their rights to a first-class education free of fear of discrimination and harassment.

The report also included a list of factors in schools that have been shown to lead to better educational outcomes for LGBT students, as well as reductions in harassment, including the presence of supportive student clubs like GSAs, inclusive curriculum (a discussion of important LGBT figures in history, like Harvey Milk, for example), and supportive educators.

Despite the fact that LGBT students remain a particularly vulnerable population in schools, there is no explicit federal prohibition against discrimination and harassment of students based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Similar protections already exist for students based on race, color, sex, religion, disability or national origin, and it is long overdue for Congress to act to protect LGBT students.

Fortunately, there is legislation currently pending in Congress — the Student Non-Discrimination Act — that would protect students from discrimination and harassment in public schools based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity and would provide victims with legal remedies. And the bill includes protections against anti-LGBT harassment, which is particularly important in light of the findings in the latest National School Climate Survey.

To find out more info as well as how to contact your member of Congress to encourage her or him to support the Student Non-Discrimination Act, click here.

Dean Loses Job for Marrying Partner

This is so infuriating.

According to MassLive.com, Christine Judd was athletic director and dean at Cathedral High School in Springfield, Massachusetts — until she married her partner last month. At that point the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield gave her a choice — quit or be fired. Says diocese spokesman Mark Dupont,

Without being specific to this matter, it should be clear that all employees of our Catholic schools are made aware of our policies and regulations. This includes language that clearly states that whenever by public example, an employee engages in or espouses conduct which contravenes the doctrine and teaching of the Catholic Church, that employee may be subject to disciplinary action. To do otherwise would be in contradiction to the values we believe in and are teaching in these same schools. So while we certainly want to be compassionate and understanding, we must be true to who we are.

Judd says that she's "still exploring her legal options," and that "she questions if there are lay persons who work for the Catholic diocese who divorce and remarry without an annulment, or employees who use birth control, or men who have had vasectomies, or individuals who are pro-choice on abortion."

Emotional Creature

Eve Ensler (Of Vagina Monologues fame) has a new book of monologues out, I Am an Emotional Creature: The Secret Life of Girls Around the World. MTV has been promoting the work through posting videos of young women reciting segments of five of the monologues on their website. I am predisposed to like everything Eve does and really appreciated large portions of these pieces. However, there are a couple of elements of the monologues that annoyed and offended me a little. Below are my thoughts on the video segments I saw and monologues I read.

The first monologue listed on MTV’s website for the series is “You Tell Me How to Be a Girl in 2010.” The parts of this monologue that I really like are how Eve takes on homophobia with lines like “And if the hetero nuclear family is so great/how come everyone is fleeing it” and how she highlights the world’s violence against women problem (“Women are burned, raped, bludgeoned, sold,/starved, and buried alive/and still don’t’ know they are the majority.”) However, neither of these aspects were highlighted in the video clip read by Aubrey Plaza. What is highlighted is the part of the monologue that calls my generation apathetic, “What happened to teenagers kissing/instead of blogging and dissing?/What happened to teenagers marching/and refusing/instead of exploiting and using?” That really made me angry. As Stephanie Herold wrote for Campus Progress, young activists do exist despite the lack of “teenagers marching.” And part of the way we are working to bring about change is by doing some of that blogging.

The second monologue “I Dance” I found very powerful, especially when it speaks out against society’s attitudes towards a young woman’s body “I dance past your lustful eyes/Your dirty interpretations of my teenage body.” However, again, what was chosen to be highlighted in the video was the part that speaks against technology, “I dance ‘cause it’s better/than sexting.” I realize that technology has been utilized as a way to abuse women, but the theme of technology-bashing in these monologues is really disheartening for someone like me who does most of their activism through it. Sure, we should highlight what is wrong with it (it makes it easier to bully and emotionally abuse people) but not without also displaying the awesome ways young people are using it.

The third monologue “Asking The Question” is just awesome, both the part emphasized via video and the entire thing. Adorable and happiness inducing.

The fourth monologue “It’s Not a Baby, It’s a Maybe” was a really thoughtful look at how one young woman might think about an unplanned pregnancy. However, I was once again disappointed with the segment they decided to highlight in video. The video seemed to deliberately avoid the central conflict in the monologue, which was whether or not the speaker would get an abortion.

The fifth monologue “Dear Rihanna” was hard to read, but I appreciate how it captures some of the troubling reactions people have to dating violence. The video segment seemed well chosen.

If any of you get a chance to see any of the videos or read any of the monologues let me know your thoughts in comments.

Mike Huckabee creates a stir on my Facebook news feed

Facebook is clearly the best place for anyone (like me) who clearly has nothing better to do than try to educate their friends about sexism/racism/homophobia.

Mike Huckabee recently went to The College of New Jersey and was interviewed by the school's newspaper. A transcript of the interview provides the following quote from Huckabee, about legalizing same-sex marriage:

"That would be like saying, well there's there are a lot of people who like to use drugs so let's go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, should we accommodate them?" he said, according to a transcript of the interview.

One of my friends wrote a status about this quote saying that he did not think the comparison was hateful at all. I responded to his status, but I will keep my analysis out of the comments for the time being.

So go ahead, discuss.

4 year old hate speech

(trigger warning - language)

So.... one of my 4 year olds called another a faggot today.

In case you don't know, I work in a preschool, one that has a mission statement of specifically empowering women and girls.

We had just come in from playing outside and were taking off snowpants and boots, about to head to lunch. I don't even know what happened in the build up, but it came pretty much out of no where.

I didn't catch the first part of what he said, but he was talking to another girl. He ended the comment with, "faggot!"

I said, "What did you say?"

He said, "faggot?"

"No. That is not ok. You can not use that word. It hurts people," I said.

"I can say it at my house!"

"Well, this isn't your house and I don't want to hear it."

"[brother] says it!"

"And if he were here, I'd tell him the exact same thing."

"Aw, come on, can't I just say (mouths faggot) one more time?"

"No! I don't want to hear it again."

I usually don't respond to kids swearing. Most of the time they're just trying to get a reaction from someone and it's easiest to let it rest. Often, another kid will tell me another kid swore and I just tell them to tell the offender that they don't want to hear it.

I think I was just so surprised that I instantly responded. But even so, I wouldn't have let that one pass. I responded with emotion, I think more emotion than the kids are used to me wielding. It's just ... these are 4 year olds. Faggot should not be in their vocabulary.

There are several open lesbians who work at my site, several of whom bring their partners to school functions. His mother works at the site and he has spent the night over at one women's house many times.

I don't know if he knew what it meant. I doubt it. Would he have used it if he knew what it meant? I don't know.

He did know that it wasn't something nice to say.

He did know that you're supposed to say it in a mean tone, spitting it out of your mouth like venom.

He did know that it was a name you use when you want to make someone feel inferior, like shit, to show that you're better.

He knows it's supposed to hurt. Which means that it doesn't matter if he knows what it means, because he'll use it again as a weapon. Except next time, I won't be there.

Crosswords with a side of homophobia and gender dichotomies

I love crossword puzzles. Some day, I'm going to be old and crotchety, complaining about needing to do my puzzles (difference now is that I'm not old).

This type of stuff in yellow, however, pisses me off:


Clue to 41 down: Like Rocky or Rambo
Clue to 43 down: ______ boy (sissy)

Really? Really, Newsday Crossword puzzle for February 18, 2010, author Fred Piscop and editor Stanley Newman? These clues really work for you? Because they're not working for me.

The clue to 41 down is just in bad taste, in my opinion. It establishes guns, violence and death as things indicative of being a man. To not be those things is to not be manly, at least according to Fred Piscop and Stanley Newman. Personally, I like my men violence-free, thank you. If Rambo and Rocky are manly, then what is womanly? Is there anything outside of either manly or womanly? We live in a world of grey, Fred Piscop and Stanley Newman. Get with it.

I've really got issues with the clue to 43 down. When this is what you get for a Google search for sissy, you can probably bet that it might not be the best crossword clue. Especially when the word is "mamas." Let's brainstorm some alternative clues. "Childbearers" or "The ____ and the Papas" or ANYTHING ELSE APART FROM A SISSY JOKE. The entire world is full of enough homophobia as it is; do I really need it in my crossword?

I'm really appalled that this can get by as a crossword clue. What were you thinking, editor Stanley Newman? Author Fred Piscop, why would you write something homophobic as a clue?

The most annoying part is that these types of things can be avoided - you just have to think about it. Or mainly, someone besides yourself.


Note: I highlighted 44 down in green simply because I thought it was a fine example of where the author and editor may be coming from. And I have the sense of humor of a 12 year old.

Troll Patrol: Say What???? Edition

In response to my post about our radio show (which didn't happen due to some bad technical difficulties), I got this utterly confusing troll comment:

There's also no such thing as "bisexuals". You have gay men who don't want to be "out" all the way, and you have college straight women who make out with their friends for drinks.
No such thing.

This same troll also told me that there is no such thing as homophobia.

But according to this person, apparently, there is also only one kind of woman: the "college straight" kind. No other varieties, even if they "make out with their friends." Because they would only do that for drinks. Not as a legitimate expression of their sexual/emotional desires. And as far as men go, well, they're all totally gay. Maybe straight, too, but this person leaves that up for interpretation.

What??

Labels: Which to wear to Christmas?

I came out as queer in 2009. The reason this subject has been on my mind lately has everything to do with the use of labels, my family, and the holidays.

For several years I’ve applied several labels to myself without problem. In 2005 I took on the label of liberal. In 2007 I took on the label of feminist. These labels I wore with pride, and they seemed to fit me comfortably. When I came out as queer, however, the taking of that label felt different to me. It was an appropriate label, but it just didn’t feel the same.

It was when I started coming out to people that I decided against the term bisexual and went with queer instead. However, when getting to know new people, I didn’t always use the term queer. It wasn’t that I felt ashamed of my sexuality, but openly applying the label with new people was a challenge for me, one that I didn’t seem to face when discussing the topic with people I had known before and had then come out to. The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that it has something to do with the fact that the nature of the labels is different.

When I say that I’m a feminist, people may make assumptions about my attitude and my sexuality, but they also make assumptions about my ideas and my politics. When I say that I’m queer, people only have my sexuality to make assumptions about, and that hits a lot closer to home and is a lot more personal than when people have other things to assume. I’ve made a lot of progress in being comfortable with the label queer, and I’m wearing it a lot more freely than I did at first. But being at home with my family for winter break makes me feel like hiding again.

My sister is the only person in my family that I’ve deliberately come out to. I never did come out to my parents directly. They know because they found out who I’m dating. Since my sister and I have been home from college, I’ve talked to her about a plan I had come up with, one that I wouldn’t actually undertake. I wanted to come out to the rest of my mother’s family on Christmas Eve, before dinner, after the prayer, and after someone, as always, asks, “Any announcements?” I would tell my grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins something catchy like, “I’m here, and I’m queer!”

When I mentioned that idea, my sister cautioned me. She said that maybe queer wasn’t the best word choice. She said that some of my relatives may not understand what queer meant and that they might think that I only liked women. Although I disagreed with the tone of the statement which suggested that having people assume I was strictly attracted to women was somehow worse than liking men, women, and everyone in between, my sister did have a valid point.

There was an incident a few years ago in which some family members started talking about one of my second cousins. He is the only of three brothers who hasn’t gotten married and had children. He still doesn’t even have a girlfriend. My family discussed how, perhaps, he was gay. Several family members seemed unwilling to even consider the idea, appearing rather put off by the thought. At the time, the incident made me uncomfortable. Remembering it now makes me hesitant, especially considering that my mother’s family is rather religious, although not overbearing about their beliefs.

As the holidays approach, all I can think about is how my mother’s family is aware of some of the labels I wear, but not all of them. It doesn’t seem fair. The only reason I choose to wear labels is so that people who know me can have a better understanding of who I am. Labels are identifiers and are not static. Labels should evolve. New ones should pop up and old, inaccurate ones should fade out when a person changes. Can my family truly know who I am if they aren’t aware of a label that is important to me? Is it fair of me to not tell them something that might make them uncomfortable, even if I want to be open? Thinking about this, I need to decide which ones I’ll be wearing to celebrate the holidays this year with my family.

Homophobia at MPLS Pride

First, we've got this video of a group of young teens harassing a man as he leaves the Minneapolis Pride parade, including walking past some security guards from a local building:



The man in the video has utter composure and reacts in the best, most impossible manner. Also, don't read the comments on the video. It's a combination of racism and heterosexism.

Then some people were kicked out of a taxi by a homophobic driver (after being picked up in front of a gay bar).

And out of Minneapolis, there's this.

How? How in this day and age can people still be like this? How do we as surrounding society allow this to happen? Why do we create these spaces where homophobia thrives and grows?

To the people in these situations, my utter condolences.

via.

Today is International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO)

IDAHO this year is focused on the issue of transphobia. I wanted to talk a little bit about this issue, because I have seen it play out even on a college campus like mine that claims to be so progressive.

Earlier this year, the feminist group at Knox, Students Against Sexism in Society (SASS) decided to forcibly "gender fuck" two bathrooms in one of the buildings on campus. We did not have permission from any of the administration, and in order to cause the least amount of panic, we decided to set up a table for three days outside of the cafeteria and explain our mission as well as collect signatures of support. We wanted to make the two chosen bathrooms gender neutral, meaning that people of any gender could use them. We explained that this would not effect the other bathrooms on the lower level of the same building, in case this idea made people uncomfortable.

We got over 100 signatures in support of our initiative, and had lots of people ask questions. We explained that the gender dichotomy present in bathrooms was not suitable for a number of transstudents who expressed that they did not feel comfortable in either bathroom. Designating these two bathrooms gender neutral would help make students feel more at ease.

I tabled for a while each day, and one day I was sitting with three SASS members who are trans-identified, when someone came up to talk to us. He approached us and asked us the usual questions, but unlike most of the people we talked to who reacted in one of two ways, "Oh, that's great!" or "Oh...okay..." he started asking more and more questions. He made sure to tell us that he was interested in having a discussion, but at the end, this was what he had to say (in my words): If transpeople feel uncomfortable with dichotomous bathrooms, maybe they should just go to counseling to help them with those feelings of discomfort. It makes more sense than making a larger population of non-transgender people feel uncomfortable having gender neutral bathrooms.

The conversation unraveled from that point. I couldn't believe that this guy, saying he wanted to have a conversation, had us talk with him only to shut us all down by implying that gender neutral bathrooms were unfair to cisgender people. What? It makes no sense to ask transpeople, who are not privileged like cisgender people are in this society, to adapt to a world that was not meant to benefit them at all. All we were asking for were two gender neutral bathrooms in a building with more than two bathrooms, and this guy still couldn't see the point.

It's this kind of attitude, even though it may seem small and unproblematic, that proves how important it is for us to work for transrights not just in our own countries, but around the world. It is this kind of attitude that allows people to feel entitled to murder transpeople, to harass them, to make them feel like an Other.

To read an appeal rejecting transphobia and respecting all gender identities, click here. To sign the appeal, click here. I did!