Showing posts with label discrimination against LGBT people. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discrimination against LGBT people. Show all posts
09 March 2015
21 November 2014
08 November 2014
Why We Don't Come Out
Most people don't realize that, for all of the advances made in attaining equality for LGBT people, we still face suspicion, hostility; the prospect of losing our friends, families, jobs and housing; and even the risk of violence against us.
That is one reason why, even as the social and legal climate are changing, nearly half of all LGBT people don't come out to anyone:
Moreover, the reasons why some of us don't "come out" are depressingly familiar:
and the repercussions of "coming out" are still too common:
These charts came from an excellent article Tabitha Speelman wrote for The Atlantic last year.
That is one reason why, even as the social and legal climate are changing, nearly half of all LGBT people don't come out to anyone:
Moreover, the reasons why some of us don't "come out" are depressingly familiar:
and the repercussions of "coming out" are still too common:
These charts came from an excellent article Tabitha Speelman wrote for The Atlantic last year.
02 July 2014
What The Hobby Lobby Decision Means For Us
This week, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to allow family-owned or other closely-held businesses to opt out of a Federal requirement to pay for contraceptives as part of an employee's health coverage.
In the media and public consciousness, it has come to be known as the Hobby Lobby case, after the chain of arts-and-crafts stores whose founder and CEO claimed that his religious rights were being violated when his company was required to pay for birth control.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the five judges who voted for this ruling were all appointed by Republican presidents, while the other four--including the three women on the bench--were appointed by Democrats.
I am not a Constitutional (or any other kind) of lawyer. But, from what I understand, this ruling will affect far more than whether employers will include contraception in their employees' health insurance plans.
It almost goes without saying that the decision could open the door for employers to deny benefits to same-sex partners of employees if same-sex unions violate the religious beliefs of the employer. And, of course, the ruling also means that such employers won't even have to think about whether or not to cover therapy, hormones, surgery or other treatments for transgenders.
Even if you don't care about LGBT equality, you should be concerned. For example, if you should need a blood transfusion, your employer could refuse to cover it on the basis of his or her religion. Or, I'm guessing, he or she could refuse to pay the cost of your office visits or treatments if, say, your gynecologist is male.
What do you do if your employer is a Christian Scientist or Scientologist? The latter actually has the same tax-exempt religious status in the US that every mainstream church enjoys.
In the media and public consciousness, it has come to be known as the Hobby Lobby case, after the chain of arts-and-crafts stores whose founder and CEO claimed that his religious rights were being violated when his company was required to pay for birth control.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the five judges who voted for this ruling were all appointed by Republican presidents, while the other four--including the three women on the bench--were appointed by Democrats.
I am not a Constitutional (or any other kind) of lawyer. But, from what I understand, this ruling will affect far more than whether employers will include contraception in their employees' health insurance plans.
It almost goes without saying that the decision could open the door for employers to deny benefits to same-sex partners of employees if same-sex unions violate the religious beliefs of the employer. And, of course, the ruling also means that such employers won't even have to think about whether or not to cover therapy, hormones, surgery or other treatments for transgenders.
Even if you don't care about LGBT equality, you should be concerned. For example, if you should need a blood transfusion, your employer could refuse to cover it on the basis of his or her religion. Or, I'm guessing, he or she could refuse to pay the cost of your office visits or treatments if, say, your gynecologist is male.
What do you do if your employer is a Christian Scientist or Scientologist? The latter actually has the same tax-exempt religious status in the US that every mainstream church enjoys.
06 May 2014
This Army Doesn't Want Us
Time was when I used to donate to the Salvation Army, even when I could barely afford to do so. During the holiday season, I almost never passed one of their missionaries on the street without leaving some money--even if it was just loose change--in their donation buckets.
In time, I stopped donating, even when I could afford to do so. For one thing, I became cynical, as many other people did, about "charitable" organizations, especially those with religious affiliations. Of course, when I abandoned faith--let alone organized religion--altogether, I had even more reason to avoid SA. Sure, they do charitable work, as most churches and other houses of worship do, but (I reasoned) such work was in the service of furthering the religion. I just happened to think, even in those days when I didn't believe (or denied any belief) in any Supreme Being, that it should be the other way around: Belief or faith should further charity and good works.
Then, of course, once I began my gender transition, I had even less reason to support the Salvation Army. If they are a private non-profit institution, I guess it's their right not to hire people they deem as incompatible with their beliefs and values. (Don't quote me on that: I'm not a lawyer!) But I believe, as I always have, that there's no way they or anyone else can justify denying services to anyone who needs them, regardless of that person's beliefs (or lack thereof), race--or gender identity or expression.
Now, as someone who has stopped denying her faith (and started going to church), I am saddened and appalled that any organization that claims to be based on faith or any system of ethics can deny someone, especially a trans person, badly-needed housing or other services. And that is exactly what the Salvation Army is doing in Dallas.
Jodielynn Wiley fled death threats and dead animals left on her doorstep in Paris, Texas. After arriving in Dallas, found temporary housing in an SA-run service center. As the end of the thirty-day limit on her stay neared, she sought other options, including a two-year housing program run by SA. But she was told she didn't qualify because she hadn't had gender reassignment surgery. Meanwhile, two other women who arrived in the temporary shelter at the same time she did were admitted to the longer program.
If the Salvation Army wants to remain true to the spirit of its mission, it must recognize the dangers trans women--especially those early in their transitions--face. In addition to the risk of violence--we're sixteen times as likely as anyone else to be murdered--we have more than twice the rate of homelessness as the general public. And some of us don't have surgery because we can't afford it, are prevented from doing so for medical reasons or want to retain our reproductive capacity while living our lives in the gender of our mind and spirit.
The Salvation Army must recognize these facts. Otherwise, they are just another organization that practices taxpayer-funded discrimination under the guise of religious belief.
In time, I stopped donating, even when I could afford to do so. For one thing, I became cynical, as many other people did, about "charitable" organizations, especially those with religious affiliations. Of course, when I abandoned faith--let alone organized religion--altogether, I had even more reason to avoid SA. Sure, they do charitable work, as most churches and other houses of worship do, but (I reasoned) such work was in the service of furthering the religion. I just happened to think, even in those days when I didn't believe (or denied any belief) in any Supreme Being, that it should be the other way around: Belief or faith should further charity and good works.
Then, of course, once I began my gender transition, I had even less reason to support the Salvation Army. If they are a private non-profit institution, I guess it's their right not to hire people they deem as incompatible with their beliefs and values. (Don't quote me on that: I'm not a lawyer!) But I believe, as I always have, that there's no way they or anyone else can justify denying services to anyone who needs them, regardless of that person's beliefs (or lack thereof), race--or gender identity or expression.
Now, as someone who has stopped denying her faith (and started going to church), I am saddened and appalled that any organization that claims to be based on faith or any system of ethics can deny someone, especially a trans person, badly-needed housing or other services. And that is exactly what the Salvation Army is doing in Dallas.
Jodielynn Wiley fled death threats and dead animals left on her doorstep in Paris, Texas. After arriving in Dallas, found temporary housing in an SA-run service center. As the end of the thirty-day limit on her stay neared, she sought other options, including a two-year housing program run by SA. But she was told she didn't qualify because she hadn't had gender reassignment surgery. Meanwhile, two other women who arrived in the temporary shelter at the same time she did were admitted to the longer program.
If the Salvation Army wants to remain true to the spirit of its mission, it must recognize the dangers trans women--especially those early in their transitions--face. In addition to the risk of violence--we're sixteen times as likely as anyone else to be murdered--we have more than twice the rate of homelessness as the general public. And some of us don't have surgery because we can't afford it, are prevented from doing so for medical reasons or want to retain our reproductive capacity while living our lives in the gender of our mind and spirit.
The Salvation Army must recognize these facts. Otherwise, they are just another organization that practices taxpayer-funded discrimination under the guise of religious belief.
07 March 2014
Fit To Compete As A Woman
In 1976, male-to-female transsexual Renee Richards was denied entry into the US Open. The United States Tennis Association based its ban on a "women-born-women" policy of which, it seemed, no one was aware until the USTA cited it. She won a suit against the USTA and competed for several years, rising to as high as #20 in women's tennis rankings.
The controversy over whether MTFs should be allowed to compete as women has continued through the ensuing decades and over different sports ranging from golf to mountain bike racing. Now the battle has reached fitness competitions.
Yesterday, personal trainer Chloie Jonnson-- who has lived as a woman since she was a teenager, had gender reassignment surgery in 2006 and has been taking female hormones--filed a discrimination suit against the Cross Fit company in Santa Cruz, California. She sought--and was denied--the right to compete in last year's Cross Fit Games, which determine the fittest man and woman.
The suit alleges that one of Jonnson's teammates asked about the eligibility of transgender competitors in an anonymous e-mail to the game's organizers. (Anonymous e-mail. Hmm...Sounds familiar.) In response, the Game's organizers determined that athletes have to compete in the gender to which they were assigned at birth.
None of the news accounts I've seen mention any previously-written policy on the matter. Some things don't change in four decades, I guess--namely, the level of knowledge about transgenders possessed by organizers of some athletic events. According to every scientist and doctor familiar with transgender patients and issues, someone who was born a male and takes hormones for several years has no advantage in strength or endurance over female athletes. Even the International Olympic Committee, not exactly known for its progressivism, allows transgender athletes to compete in the gender by which they identify as long as they've had sex-reassignment surgery.
One thing that makes Jonnson's case particularly interesting and disturbing is that Cross Fit is based in California, which has some of the strictest laws barring discrimination based on gender identity. I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that fact alone should compel Cross Fit to allow Jonnson to compete. Or so I hope.
The controversy over whether MTFs should be allowed to compete as women has continued through the ensuing decades and over different sports ranging from golf to mountain bike racing. Now the battle has reached fitness competitions.
Yesterday, personal trainer Chloie Jonnson-- who has lived as a woman since she was a teenager, had gender reassignment surgery in 2006 and has been taking female hormones--filed a discrimination suit against the Cross Fit company in Santa Cruz, California. She sought--and was denied--the right to compete in last year's Cross Fit Games, which determine the fittest man and woman.
The suit alleges that one of Jonnson's teammates asked about the eligibility of transgender competitors in an anonymous e-mail to the game's organizers. (Anonymous e-mail. Hmm...Sounds familiar.) In response, the Game's organizers determined that athletes have to compete in the gender to which they were assigned at birth.
None of the news accounts I've seen mention any previously-written policy on the matter. Some things don't change in four decades, I guess--namely, the level of knowledge about transgenders possessed by organizers of some athletic events. According to every scientist and doctor familiar with transgender patients and issues, someone who was born a male and takes hormones for several years has no advantage in strength or endurance over female athletes. Even the International Olympic Committee, not exactly known for its progressivism, allows transgender athletes to compete in the gender by which they identify as long as they've had sex-reassignment surgery.
One thing that makes Jonnson's case particularly interesting and disturbing is that Cross Fit is based in California, which has some of the strictest laws barring discrimination based on gender identity. I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that fact alone should compel Cross Fit to allow Jonnson to compete. Or so I hope.
03 March 2014
23 February 2014
Not Welcome In Arizona
What rights does--or doesn't--religion confer?
Nearly everyone (at least, everyone I know) thinks that no matter how you interpret Islam, it doesn't give you the right to hijack a plane and fly it into the side of a skyscraper. And almost nobody in the Christian world thinks that the Inquision or the Crusades were positive developments.
Perhaps being refused service on the basis of your sexual orientation doesn't compare to such tragedies. Still, I am guessing that almost any first-year law student or seminarian would tell you that if religion doesn't confer the right to commit murder, it also shouldn't allow discrimination.
Apparently, that's not how legislators in Arizona see it. They've passed a bill that would allow businesses and other establishments to refuse service to LGBT people.
So, for example, it would be perfectly legal for a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding. Or a photographer could decide he didn't want to record a same-sex ceremony.
The two examples I've cited have actually occurred in other states. Now Governor Jan Brewer, on whose desk the bill sits, must decide whether she'll allow such things in her state. Given her record on civil rights issues, I'm not optimistic that she'll veto it.
Nearly everyone (at least, everyone I know) thinks that no matter how you interpret Islam, it doesn't give you the right to hijack a plane and fly it into the side of a skyscraper. And almost nobody in the Christian world thinks that the Inquision or the Crusades were positive developments.
Perhaps being refused service on the basis of your sexual orientation doesn't compare to such tragedies. Still, I am guessing that almost any first-year law student or seminarian would tell you that if religion doesn't confer the right to commit murder, it also shouldn't allow discrimination.
Apparently, that's not how legislators in Arizona see it. They've passed a bill that would allow businesses and other establishments to refuse service to LGBT people.
So, for example, it would be perfectly legal for a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding. Or a photographer could decide he didn't want to record a same-sex ceremony.
The two examples I've cited have actually occurred in other states. Now Governor Jan Brewer, on whose desk the bill sits, must decide whether she'll allow such things in her state. Given her record on civil rights issues, I'm not optimistic that she'll veto it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
