Tuesday Bloggaround

New York becomes the first state to pass legislation that will allow trafficking victims to clear their criminal records of prostitution charges.


A teacher is fired from a Christian school for having premarital sex.

[Trigger Warning] Everyday, at least 5 children in the U.S. have their healthy genitals mutilated, including at Cornell University. Liss over at Shakesville covers the story and starts a discussion thread.

See if you can spot the threat to moral values.


A French Trans-woman is mandated to enlarge her breasts before she can legally be considered a woman. Carrie Polansky over at Gender Across Borders gives us the story.

Link Love

We also have exciting news! Two of my pieces were accepted for Blog Carnivals:

My Controversial piece appeared in the June edition of the Carnival of Progressive Politics and is available over at My Political Side, run by the fabulous S. Gaissert. 

My True Blood piece appeared over at the June 20th edition of the Bobo Carnival of Politics and is available over at The Bobo Files.

-Harvey

True Blood (not the show)

What constitutes dirty blood? Oh, right: blood from men who have sex with men... because, you know... all men who have sex with men must have AIDS.

This is basically the thinking of the Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability, who voted 9 to 6 against lifting the ban that prevents men who have sex with men from donating blood.

Heterosexual privilege #3: I can donate blood.

This sounds so simple, but it is a ban that is mired in archaic language that lumps together an entire group of people and actually prevents them from providing much needed aid to the rest of the world via donations.

When it boils down to it: this ban is hurting more than it is helping. I don't want to make the mistake of trying to make this "seem" more important by getting the attention of straights, because it's already a blatant injustice that should not need fear-mongering to make this topic newsworthy. Heterosexual people should care about this, even if it didn't affect them and their health. That being said, the logic of the Federal Advisory Committee (whom one would think would be making decisions in interest of improving the health of all) is simply unfathomable to me, given that all donors are tested for HIV before donations are accepted.

Interestingly, it's not just gay men, but African-Americans who are also at high risk for contracting HIV. I absolutely do not think that the Federal Advisory Committee should generalize and stigmatize all African-Americans in addition to gay men, as any form of discrimination is abhorrent and unwarranted. I do, however, think that this underlines the faulty logic of the FAC in coming to their decision. Unfortunately, non-heterosexuals and African Americans (note that these are not mutually exclusive categories) are two groups who suffer from discrimination within the medical field when they are sometimes the two groups that need the most medical assistance due to being at risk for contracting these and other diseases. As you could imagine, this can be incredibly problematic when it comes to preventative health care. Groups that do not feel welcome within doctors offices and hospitals may not trust medical practitioners whole-heartedly and may choose to not utilize such services when needed. Another related example is with size discrimination, as people who are considered "overweight" or "obese" are unfortunately stigmatized in medical settings, which may lead to these individuals to become less likely to take necessary steps to prevent illness.

Discrimination against particular groups in medical settings is a clear example of highly-educated people who are still largely influenced by stereotypes and misconceptions. Far too often, it is assumed that these forms of outright discrimination are only perpetuated by the uneducated, but this is a dangerous falsehood that must be brought to light. Whether perpetuated by a child playing in your neighborhood or by the board members for the FAC, these forms of blatant discrimination and slander must be corrected if we have any hope of living in a just world.

-Harvey Milk Jr.

Legally Gay - For All of Your Queerly Legal Needs!

Why hello there friends!

Allow me to introduce myself - I'm Legally Gay and I'm here to provide your recommended dose of equality, civil liberty, and LGBT justice! Woot! I'll be discussing current LGBT legal news, reviewing LGBT/Legal books, and keeping you informed! Let's get started - shall we?

Today's Topic: Take a hike, Ike!

The Associated Press reported that Missouri Congressman Ike Skelton (D) stated he was not in favor of repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" any time soon. When questioned about it, his response was “What do mommies and daddies say to their 7-year-old child?”

*GASP*.....you mean....mommies and daddies across the country may actually have to admit that homosexuals are REAL, and an ACTUAL part of society?

First things first, why are children below the age of 8 politically active and/or care about DADT? Can't they just play with gender-specific toys and shove jellybeans up their noses, like we all did at that age? Of course, what Skelton probably meant was that conservative parents will use this as an opportunity to tell their children why gays shouldn't be allowed in the military, contributing to the skewing of their political ideology before they even reach an age where they can understand what's going on...

Anyway, as the ever-fabulous Rachel Maddow pointed out on The Rachel Maddow Show recently, congressman Skelton is essentially avoiding the conversation around gays in the military because he may not agree with homosexuality. That's all fine and dandy for him, he's allowed to believe whatever he wishes - but when it affects armed servicemen and servicewomen who are being forced to "pass" as straight for threat of losing their jobs and livelihoods, it becomes an issue. Ike! Stop using your personal distaste for homosexuality to mitigate legislation! It's about time the Obamanator took on this issue, which has been completely blown out of proportion all because some conservatives are worried that gay soldiers will snuggle up a little too closely to their straight counterparts at night.

Give me a break! As my good friend Wikipedia shows, over 13,000 - yes, THOUSAND - servicemen and servicewomen have been dishonorably discharged from serving solely because of their sexual orientation since 1994. Wake up, congressman Skelton, and stop trying to deny the queer community of their rights just because you think they're icky! As for the future of DADT, we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Perhaps what's scariest about this entire ordeal is that Skelton is a Democrat! Who voted him into office? Silly Missourians!

Anyway, that's all for now folks! Keep checking in for your recommended dose of Queer justice! Next time, I'll be reviewing the book "Covering: The Hidden Assault on our Civil Rights" by Law Professor Kenji Yoshino! And look out for the introduction of Feminist At Heart!

Signing off,

Legally Gay

[[Primary source: "Get Equal" group calls for Skelton to apologize.]]

Controversial

Heterosexual Privilege #2: I am not automatically considered inherently "controversial" or "political".

Ah yes... the luxury of being politically apathetic... many straights I know admit to not really give a flying fuck when it comes to politics. The word "politics" itself is a rather value-laden, "dirty" word which can often invoke imagery of corrupt politicians who scream at each other until they turn red in the face. When you're in the politics biz, you will be hated. It's unfortunate, but true. It's damn near impossible to appease everyone, and those that do are probably incredibly vague and noncommittal when it comes to important issues for fear of pissing people off. Frankly, it's "cool" to not care. This generation of digital natives is unfortunately encouraged to be apathetic by peers who love to criticize, but will not admit to having positive feelings over something. It's much more difficult to publicly love than it is to hate, especially when you're young and self-conscious. Those that make strong, bold statements about a person, idea, place, etc. run the risk of pissing people off, which is decidedly "not cool". In my experience, the "cool" kids in high school were the ones that had absolutely nothing interesting to say.

Back in my early blogging days, I had a livejournal account throughout high school, where I stumbled to understand more about my awkward self and my even more awkward life. On one occasion, one of the "cool" kids talked to me online to tell me that he read my livejournal, which made me feel super flattered. I didn't particularly like him, but I swooned because he was one of the "cool" kids, and was giving me attention. After careful inspection, he informed me that it was deep. I thanked him, to which he corrected me by saying "being deep isn't cool". Yes, he was serious. I look back on this now and wonder if it was maybe his idea of a nice gesture... one cool kid to a nerd, telling him his secrets about how to be cool... or maybe he was just an asshole.

Anyway, I digress. Having opinions is seen as a bad thing... particularly in high school. After recently learning about the many inequalities that exist in our world today and reflecting on discrimination I have personally experienced, I now know that I cannot afford the luxury of being politically apathetic. Perhaps my peers who enjoy heterosexual privileges can afford to do so because they enjoy many financial, social, and legal benefits that I do not (hence one of the reasons for writing this blog).

Besides the whole having-opinions-thing, there's the whole being gay thing. In contemporary U.S. society, gays are considered inherently controversial. For this year's superbowl, CBS rejected a commercial for a gay dating website that featured two men kissing ZOMG. The nerve of those gays, thinking they can kiss on television! CBS did, however, air a commercial for an anti-choice group, Focus on the Family.

Okay, let me stress here that CBS rejected a non-political dating website commercial and approved of a commercial from a very political organization. Many well-intentioned people who are sympathetic to my argument noted that if they "air some commercials like that, they should air all." Please note: a gay dating website is not rallying to immediately change legislation, while an anti-choice organization is. The two should not be placed on an equal political playing field, because one of which is not even trying to be political. I could possibly understand if they decided to deny a commercial asking for the repeal of DADT, but dating? Come on. Dating is hard enough without being considered a political statement.

It's not just gays kissing, either. Somewhere, deep in the DNA of all gay people is the gene for political controversy which prevents them from being "family friendly". Just ask Johnny Weir, three-time U.S. skating champion who was very popular in this year's Winter Olympics. Weir was rejected from Stars On Ice in March because he was not "family friendly".

Nevermind gay people who raise families. They obviously don't count. OH right, they mean traditional families. You know... like on Leave it to Beaver! The middle class white family with two happily married heterosexual parents (of which the wife is expected to stay home and cook/clean/care for the children) who aren't particularly interesting and two cisgendered heterosexual children who always seem to be getting into g-rated mischief! Yeah, Tradition!... because throughout all of history and across all cultures, all families raise their children in this exact manner. If they don't, well... then they aren't real families. What? The Etoro Tribe in New Guinea don't have little league and clam bakes and boy scouts and apple pie? Well then FUCK THEM. They must be rejected from both Stars On Ice and CBS commercials. Huh? U.S. Women worked outside of the household during the second world war? We should probably alert the Texas Board of Education so they can tear those pages out of their history books.

(please note my sarcasm)

Don't even get me started about the phenomenon of new stories that cover a celebrity's coming out process garnering more media attention than the Iraq war and the healthcare debate combined. It's ridiculous how much we care about these "scandals" in the U.S., and it makes coming out as gay seem like a smart career move for washed-up entertainers who need a "controversial" publicity stunt.

So, we have people with opinions and gay people who are not considered cool. God forbid you are both! Then you're really up a creek without a paddle. Actually, many gay men I know avoid discussions of politics, even if the discussions are about their own rights! My theory is that they don't want to rock the boat too much, lest they REALLY piss people off. Being gay can be rough enough on your social life, so I think a lot of gay men don't want to be too outspoken so they can avoid being seen as too deviant. I've even talked to some gay men who disdain gay men that are active in social justice and politics, citing the reason that "those gays give us a bad name and make us all look annoying". I thought that was actually a really interesting explanation, as he obviously wanted gay men to be seen in a positive light (seeing that he is one). His (and many others') idea of how this should be done is by being complacent and conforming so that society can see how well-behaved and "cool" we are by not particularly caring about our own rights as citizens, or about our freedom of gender expression. Some could argue that if Johnny Weir wasn't so flamboyant, he would have been more socially acceptable. To that I say: Changing the individual is the lazy choice, changing the society is the right choice.

If the route to being "cool" and "family friendly", is being "straight-acting", having no opinions, and not expressing affection in public, then count me out.

eternally uncool (and okay with it),

Harvey Milk Jr.