A Curious Eye

A Curious Eye

I post my favorite news from all around the web. Topics you'll see:
Queer - Liberalism - Activism - Student Issues- Public Transportation - Peace - Environmentalism - Politics - Law - Atheism - Vegetarianism - Feminism - Sex Positivity - Philosophy. I've been told my gayness is only matched by my enthusiasm.

Why do they think ‘fat dyke’ is an insult? To me, it means… I’m gonna eat fried chicken and pussy. That’s why I brought wet naps.
Margaret Cho (via rufflebutts)

(Source: liquorinthefront, via lgbtlaughs)

dearcissexism:

ryankun:

what not to do when someone asks you to use certain pronouns

  • ask them why
  • ask them whats between their legs
  • tell them theyre wrong
  • hammer them with personal questions

what to do when someone asks you to use certain pronouns:

  • call them by those pronouns
  • have a snack if you want w/e youre pretty much done here

Addition:

What not to do:

  • Tell them that’s not a “real” pronoun

What to do:

  • Ask them how to use it if you’re not sure

(Source: muriearty, via genderqueer)

NY Times Does Not Retract Dehumanizing Coverage of Trans Woman Who Died in Fire

In response to criticism from the LGBT community and allies over its coverage of a fire that killed a transgender woman this weekend, the New York Times released a statement that reveals a lack of understanding of how serious this problem is.

New York Times Metro Editor Carolyn Ryan stated: “We typically try to capture the personal stories of those whose lives are lost in a fire, and we sought to do so in this case. We certainly did not mean any disrespect to the victim or those who knew her. But, in retrospect, we should have shown more care in our choice of words.”

Unfortunately, the problem with the Times’ article on the death of Lorena Escalera, a transgender woman of color, is bigger than their “choice of words” or with their attempt to “capture” her story. It’s their failure to recognize trans women as women.  

The decision by writers Al Baker and Nate Schweber to call her “curvaceous” in the first sentence was not a poor choice of words. It was a poor choice of focus. The way this entire article is framed comes directly from an idea that transgender women are curiosities. That they’re other. That they should be treated differently than other people.  Saying that Lorena was “called” Lorena, even though that is exactly how police identified her, was not a poor choice of words. It was a disrespectful jab at her identity as a trans woman, by implying that she wasn’t really Lorena.

Lorena was a daughter. She was a friend. She was a beloved member of a community. But the only elements of her story that writers Al Baker and Nate Schweber seemed concerned with were; what she looked like, what her neighbors thought she looked like, and whether any items that would typically belong to a woman were in her apartment when it burned. Very little of this is relevant to the actual personal story of Lorena Escalera’s life. It seems very clear that this personal information was included in order to “spice up” the story by exploiting Lorena’s status as a transgender woman – not to actually inform readers about her life.

“As my city’s and our nation’s paper of record, I would expect the New York Times to treat any subject, regardless of their path in life, with dignity,” said trans advocate and journalist Janet Mock. “In Lorena Escalera’s life she was so much more than the demeaning, sexist portrait they painted of girls like us. It goes beyond a ‘choice of words.’ According to the Times’ limiting, harmful portrait of Lorena, she was nothing more than a ‘curvaceous’ bombshell for men to gawk at. That is not the ‘personal’ story of any woman, and until we treat trans women like human beings - in life and death - with dignity, families and struggles, our society will never see us beyond pariahs in our communities.

Unfortunately, many Americans, including members of the media, do view transgender people – and trans women of color in particular – as curiosities at best, or not deserving of basic human dignity at worst. And very few Americans know any trans people in their day-to-day lives, so this viewpoint is never dispelled.  This is why extra care must be taken when reporting on a story that involves a transgender person, especially if that person is no longer able to speak for themselves, as is the case here. Writers and editors alike must be made aware of how common this underlying bias is, and make a conscious effort to remove it when they see it.

This is where the Times’ statement truly fails. Not only does it not show an understanding of what the problem with the original article was, it also makes no assurances to the community that it will educate its writers and editors about how to report on transgender people in the future. There’s nothing forward-looking in the Times statement.

GLAAD did ask the Times to detail what steps will be taken in the future to ensure this doesn’t happen again. We were told that this statement “will be all there is from us on this.”

But this statement is not good enough.  The New York Times has highlighted the personal and inspiring stories of transgender people in the recent past, including an article on Harmony Santana, Laverne Cox and other transgender actresses, a piece on triathlete Chris Mosier and one on classical pianist Sara Davis Buechner. We can be almost certain that the New York Times does understand the problems with its piece on Lorena, and is embarrassed that it ran. Now it’s time for them to say so publicly, and to tell its readers that steps are being taken to ensure that an article like this won’t be printed again.  We thank members of the LGBT community, including trans leaders like Janet Mock, Autumn Sandeen, Laverne Cox, and Jennifer Finney Boylan, trans author and New York Times contributing writer, as well as Colorlines and Feministing, for bringing attention to this story. We hope to continue putting pressure on the Times until they offer assurances that changes will be made.

(Source: transfeminism, via projectqueer)

50 Cent’s Straight Rights Concerns and Why Homophobia Will Continue After Marriage Equality

50 Cent, in an interview in which he endorsed marriage equality on the grounds that “If everyone else is for it, then hey, to each his own. I don’t have personal feelings towards it because I’m not involved in that lifestyle,” also decided it made sense to tell the world that:

So in process, we need organizations for straight men. We do. We need organizations for straight men in the case you’ve been on the elevator and somebody decides they want to grab your little buns. Times are changing. Those organizations are set up for at one point they were being attacked for those choices. Now its completely different. Obviously [homosexuality] is more socially accepted.

One of the hardest things about getting people to surrender their privilege is helping them to understand that giving some of it up isn’t going to materially change their living conditions. Asking that women be treated equally isn’t to ask that women have the right to sexually harass men or to invert the pay gap so women make more than men. Advocating for gay rights is in part about communicating that 50 Cent’s arrogant fear that gay men want to grab his ass is unfounded. Liberation, done right, can make things better for both people who have privilege and people who don’t. The people who are disadvantaged get access to the rights they see denied them. And then people who have privilege end up freed from their fears of what might happen if things change, benefitting from their contact with people they were previously separated from.

Keep reading at ThinkProgress.org

The Obama Effect: Why More Black Voters Are Turning Gay-Friendly

Since President Obama came out in favor of gay marriage a couple of weeks ago, there’s been a noticeable shift in black Americans’ opinion on gay marriage. A new Washington Post-ABC survey found that 59 percent of black people now say they support same-sex marriage—an 18 point jump since Obama’s announcement. Fifty-three percent of Americans now believe that same-sex marriage should be legalized; that represents a seismic shift since 2006, when just 39 percent of those polled thought it should be legalized.

The Washington Postwarned of a “relatively small sample size,” but numbers elsewhere are echoing the pattern: A recentPublic Policy pollshowed that 57 percent of Maryland voters approve of the new gay marriage law, with 55 percent of African Americans planning to vote for the law and only 36 percent now opposed. Those numbers have reversed from just a few months ago, when 56 percent of black voters saying they would vote against the new law and only 39 percent planning to uphold it.

Perhaps more important than the numbers, influential black celebrities like Will Smith and Jay-Z, along with political leaders like Jesse Jackson, Corey Booker, and Rep. John Lewis, have come out in favor of same-sex marriage. So has the NAACP. Obama’s not getting much love from the black churches, but he seems to have persuaded, or at least emboldened, a large portion of the black community to support gay rights.

Keep reading at Good.is

tyleroakley:

It’s really easy to be pro-gay when this is the opposing argument.

The damn liberal media twisting her words out of context by quoting her!

knowhomo:

LGB* Charts and Graphs
OkCupid’s Personality Charts  2011 (Straight V. Gay/Lesbian)
(text below from OKCupid)
Beyond Sex: Gay & Straight Personalities 
More than just asking about specific desires and behaviors, our match questions are designed to tease out our users’ underlying personalities. We’ve collected over 669 million answers from users so far. 
knowhomo:

LGB* Charts and Graphs
OkCupid’s Personality Charts  2011 (Straight V. Gay/Lesbian)
(text below from OKCupid)
Beyond Sex: Gay & Straight Personalities 
More than just asking about specific desires and behaviors, our match questions are designed to tease out our users’ underlying personalities. We’ve collected over 669 million answers from users so far. 

knowhomo:

LGB* Charts and Graphs

OkCupid’s Personality Charts  2011 (Straight V. Gay/Lesbian)


(text below from OKCupid)

Beyond Sex: Gay & Straight Personalities 

More than just asking about specific desires and behaviors, our match questions are designed to tease out our users’ underlying personalities. We’ve collected over 669 million answers from users so far. 

I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.

RNC chairman: Gays deserve 'dignity and respect,' but not marriage

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said Sunday that while he supports “dignity and respect” for all Americans, including gays and lesbians, that doesn’t mean gay marriage should be legalized.

“People in this country, no matter straight or gay deserve dignity and respect. However, that doesn’t mean it carries on to marriage. I think that most Americans agree that in this country, the legal and historic and the religious union, marriage has to have the definition of one man and one woman,” Priebus said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Priebus, who said earlier that he does not believe the fight for marriage equality is akin to a civil rights issue,  added that he believes gays and lesbians deserve equal rights, including in the area of workplace discrimination.

“I think they deserve equal rights, in regard to say discrimination in the workplace, issues such as Mitt Romney has pointed out numerous times, hospital visitations. I think that for the sake of dignity and respect, sure. But if you’re defining marriage as a civil right, then no, I don’t think people who are of the same sex should be married under our laws,” he said.

Op-ed: Marriage Equality and…

One GetEQUAL activist says that when President Obama articulated his evolution, everyone seemed to forget where else he either hasn’t evolved or hasn’t acted.

BY DAN FOTOU

MAY 14 2012 5:36 AM ET

Ever since Wednesday, I can’t help but feel conflicted and a bit deflated. Don’t get me wrong – it was a good day and a strong step forward for President Obama to finally come out in support of marriage equality. We can anticipate gay rights being a major talking point during an election year; this time not so much as a liability but instead as a voting bloc that has power. But here’s the thing – when Obama articulated his evolution, he failed to acknowledge marriage equality as a civil rights issue. He fell back on the tired Republican line that “marriage is a states’ rights issue.” Does he not realize the heartbreak and destruction we face, as individuals and as a community, from one ballot measure to the next – and that with each vote against us we’re denied another piece of our dignity as full human beings?

Tuesday’s passage of Amendment One in North Carolina fed on the prejudices and paranoia we’ve had to overcome for decades. Then President Obama made room for hate by invoking the states’ rights rhetoric. It’s in these very states that we are repeatedly victimized, stigmatized, assaulted, humiliated, and killed, all in the name of God and freedom. It’s in these very states that we need federal protections. The president issued a statement ahead of the vote saying he opposed any measure that added discrimination to a state constitution. But if he’s going to stand on the side of marriage equality, then why half-ass it and leave room for hate and intolerance to thrive from one state to another?

Equally heartbreaking is the fact that over the past several years, the marriage equality issue has defined our community to the point that nothing else matters; to the point where most folks within and outside of our community think once we’ve got marriage, we’ve got it all. Marriage, in fact, is only one slice of a very large pie. And it would benefit a minority within the community. It’s important, but the sad reality is that in a majority of states we can all still be denied a job, denied housing, denied public accommodations such as emergency care, denied access to education, denied credit, and denied federal funding for public programs just for being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. The president supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, but the call for full federal equality means full federal equality, not just simple lip service to pacify us once again during an election year.

With each new election season, it becomes ever so much clearer that the LGBT community continues to be played by our elected officials. “Hey, hey, look over there, look over there, that will make you happy and get you off my back!” Meanwhile, over here, the very issues that would significantly impact the daily lives of LGBT people get conveniently left behind in the news cycle, forgotten by us all, and a year later we ask, “Hey, what ever happened to…?”

Case in point: Over the past weeks a lot of media attention and activist energy focused on Obama’s refusal to sign an executive order that would protect from discrimination LGBT employees of federal contractors who receive more than $10,000 a year from the federal government. While the order wouldn’t cover all LGBT workers, research from the Williams Institute shows it would cover 16.5 million more workers – totaling 22% of the U.S. workforce – a significant down payment toward ENDA. This order has 73% approval of likely 2012 voters across party lines, including 61% support among self-identified Republicans, according to a poll from the Human Rights Campaign. And HRC found that 87% of Americans believe LGBT people already have employment protections, indicating that this move by President Obama would be a total yawn for the American public. It’s a no-brainer and certainly carries limited, if any, political risk. Yet, on Wednesday, with all the hype around Obama’s coming out for marriage equality, his refusal to sign the executive order had been forgotten by the press and the majority of the LGBT community who are now making campaign donations, calling him a champion and chastising anyone who questions Wednesday’s events.

Keep reading at Advocate.com

Court of Appeals: Maryland must recognize same-sex marriages from other states

POSTED: 9:58 AM FRI, MAY 18, 2012 
BY STEVE LASH 
DAILY RECORD LEGAL AFFAIRS WRITER

Maryland must recognize as married same-sex couples who legally wed in other states, Maryland’s top court unanimously ruled Friday.

In its 7-0 decision, the Court of Appeals said recognition is required under the legal doctrine of “comity” because same-sex marriage is neither “repugnant” to the state’s public policy nor expressly prohibited by state law.

“Maryland recognizes liberally foreign marriages, even those marriages that may be prohibited from being formed if conducted in this state,” Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote for the high court. “Liberal recognition of out of state marriages promotes uniformity in the recognition of the marital status, so that persons legally married according to the laws of one state will not be held to be living in adultery in another state, and that children begotten in lawful wedlock in one state will not be illegitimate in another.”

The Court of Appeals’ ruling comes as a Maryland state law permitting same-sex marriages is slated to go into effect Jan. 1.

But that law, the Civil Marriage Protection Act, will likely be put before Maryland voters this fall, as opponents of the measure are pressing to put it on the Election Day ballot in November.

Ironically, the Maryland court issued its ruling by essentially granting the divorce of a lesbian couple that married in California when the state permitted same-sex couples to wed.