Amazon has removed books by a ‘gay cure’ conversion therapy author.
Joseph Nicolosi penned a book that spread the dangerous and harmful practice of attempting to ‘cure’ a person’s sexual or gender identity.
He was the co-founder of the National Association of Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and a prominent leader in the ex-gay movement.
His book, A Parent’s Guide To Preventing Homosexuality, is one of the most well known ‘conversion therapy’ books.
But now, it has been removed from the UK and US versions of Amazon.
Rojo Alan, from Peterborough, wrote to Amazon several times to get the book removed from listings.
He previously went through conversion therapy himself as a young child.
Failing to get the right response, he engaged with others to leave negative reviews on the website. Quickly, the rating fell from four stars to two stars.
‘I looked into the “rules of publishing” on Amazon, to see what sort of things they allow and don’t allow,’ he said.
‘Once I wrapped my head around that I started to look into the laws of conversion therapy. The legal side of things.
‘Once I gathered everything I went back to Amazon and I threw all the information I had at them in several conversations. Yet I was given the same “we will refer this to the relevant team”. Again it felt hopeless and I wasn’t too sure what else I could do.’
But, sure enough, Amazon removed all of the English language books by Nicolosi. It took Alan three months from the first email to removing the books.
‘Huge step’
‘These books were “how to” books,’ Alan told Gay Star News, also describing it as a ‘huge step in the right direction’.
‘These were books that were lying to parents on how they could cure their children from being gay or trans. It’s lying because it’s actually just a form of abuse.
‘The books went into ways in which you can mentally and physically abuse your child.
‘If this helps anyone from being harmed, that would be a good reason to do it.’
He was previously quoted in a documentary: ‘Everyone is heterosexual.’
‘The idea that some people are naturally homosexual, or naturally gay, is just a social construct.’
He also said: ‘So when you have individuals with same-sex attraction, we it as something went wrong developmentally and we try to resolve the issue and put them back on the path toward their natural heterosexuality.’
The World Psychiatric Association has condemned so-called ‘gay cure’ conversion therapy.
The group said they consider sexual orientation to be ‘innate’. They also said it is determined by ‘biological, psychological, developmental and social factors’.
‘WPA believes strongly in evidence-based treatment,’ they also said.
‘There is no sound scientific evidence that innate sexual orientation can be changed.
‘Furthermore, so-called treatments of homosexuality can create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination flourish, and they can be potentially harmful … The provision of any intervention purporting to “treat” something that is not a disorder is wholly unethical.’
As the U.S. — and many other parts of the world — celebrates the 50th anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall uprising, rainbow flags and LGBTQ-inclusive ad campaigns appear to be omnipresent, especially in big cities. The ubiquity of these Pride campaigns make it easy to forget that this was not always the case. While many point to corporate America’s embrace of LGBTQ inclusivity as a major sign of progress, others believe corporations are coopting the movement.
Advertisements geared toward gay and lesbian consumers began to appear in earnest in the 1970s, inspired in part by the energy of the Stonewall uprising, which is widely considered the spark that fueled the modern LGBTQ movement.
So-called “sin” products, like alcohol and tobacco, were the first marketed to gays. These companies had little or nothing to lose from a potential boycott by the religious right, according to Katherine Sender, a communications professor at Cornell University and author of “Business, Not Politics: The Making of the Gay Market.”
“Now, getting a gay boycott is a much worse thing than getting a boycott from the religious right.”
PROFESSOR KATHERINE SENDER
Absolut vodka was the first brand to build itself with an eye toward the gay market, featuring full-page ads in gay outlets, such as The Advocate. Other alcohol brands like Boodles Gin ran ads in gay publications, but most ad revenue came from local gay bars and businesses.
However, with the exception of Absolut, much of the advertising aimed explicitly at gays came to a halt in the 1980s because of the HIV/AIDS crisis and the stigma surrounding the disease.
Things changed in the 1990s. Marketing surveys, namely the 1988 Simmons Market and the 1990 Overlooked Opinions survey, presented an image of gays and lesbians as an affluent, untapped market. Marketers estimated the total annual income of the gay community at over $500 billion. The surveys, however, were not representative and helped to start what researchers have since described as the “myth of gay affluence.”
In 1994, Ikea launched the first television ad to feature a gay couple. In the commercial, the two men tease each other about their taste in furniture.
“I remember it extremely well, because it was radical,” said Bob Witeck, president of Witeck Communications, a firm specializing in LGBTQ marketing. The couple “behaved in every sense like a married couple, and it was radical because it was normal and natural,” he said.
Not everyone loved the ad. In fact, the backlash was swift and strong. The American Family Association staged a boycott, and an Ikea store in New York received a bomb threat.
That same year, AT&T launched a direct-marketing mail campaign, making them the first US phone company to openly target lesbian and gay customers (MCI ran an earlier campaign, but used suggestive statements and imagery rather than a direct appeal).
“They got a big pushback from the religious right,” Sender said.
Companies remained more focused on gay men, though a notable exception was Subaru. In the late ‘90s, Subaru undertook a very successful lesbian-focused marketing campaign after research revealed its sturdy, practical cars appealed to this demographic. “It’s not a choice, it’s the way we’re built,” a 2000 print ad boasted.
This new interest in the “pink dollar” coincided with a massive increase in gay and lesbian visibility in the media. Ellen came out on TV in 1997, which Sender called “a massive deal.” Shows like “The L Word,” “Queer as Folk” and “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” ushered images and information about gays and lesbians into homes across the country.
Despite the increased visibility and a number of successful ad campaigns, even into the early 2000s mainstream companies still risked a backlash for gay and lesbian inclusivity, according to Sender. Many companies were still afraid to be labeled as selling a “gay product.” Representation of transgender people was almost always negative, relying on transphobic tropes of deceit or mistaken identity, according to Sender’s research.
FROM THE GAY MARKET TO THE LGBTQ MARKET
Rich Ferraro, chief communications officer at GLAAD, a national LGBTQ media advocacy organization, has been consulting on LGBTQ images in advertising since 2008. He sees a very different media landscape today.
“The backlash that once occurred if a brand had LGBTQ marketing campaigns is no longer,” Ferraro wrote in an email. “For instance, fringe organizations like Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage and One Million Moms would start petitions (which never really reached large numbers), but now they do not.”
Sender agreed, saying, “Now, getting a gay boycott is a much worse thing than getting a boycott from the religious right.”
More and more companies are engaging in LGBTQ-inclusive advertising, Ferraro said. “Categories have exploded — spirits and travel were typically leaders in LGBTQ-inclusive campaigns, but now it’s retail, cars, banking and financial services, food and beverages, youth-oriented brands,” he explained.
Witeck said “there is probably no more efficient way to say we are a contemporary brand” than to make your ad campaigns LGBTQ-inclusive.
For legacy brands, like Coca Cola, they must always be refreshed and made relevant, Witeck added. “LGBTQ marketing is an effective way to say, ‘We get it. We look and talk and act like we are in the 21st century.’”
However, Sender said that LGBTQ consumers are not only looking for inclusion in campaigns, but are holding companies accountable in their employment and production practices.
“Now, people are asking more questions, particularly around transgender polices and health care,” she said.
“What constitutes the responsibility of the advertising companies is expanding in ways that are really quite powerful,” Sender added, noting that consumers are asking questions like, “Are they buying products or services or in countries that have extremely bad policies and legal enforcement around LGBTQ people?”
Because of their resources, companies are also in a position to exert powerful political influence if they want to. Witeck mentioned the corporate boycotts of North Carolina after the passage of HB2 (the so-called “bathroom bill) that helped to precipitate its repeal and major companies’ outspoken support for transgender equality.
While historically there has been much less representation of transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals, this year examples of such campaigns abound: Raquel Willis for Express on a Times Square billboard, Gillette’s commercial featuring a young trans man and his dad, and Uber running a campaign featuring trans, genderqueer and bisexual pride flags.
“Traditionally, one or two campaigns are inclusive of transgender people, now it is a norm,” Ferraro said.
GAY INC.
Kristin Comeforo, associate professor of communications at Hartford College, worries that advertisers often take a “check-the-box approach” to the inclusion of gender and racial diversity, rather than a genuine engagement with intersectional experiences.
She also worries that corporate sponsorship can silence the voices of LGBTQ people who face intersectional marginalization.
Sender agreed, noting that “the 50th anniversary of Stonewall is such a big deal everyone wants a piece of that.” As a result, she added, Pride marches have become “a party for everybody.”
“What gets left behind are the very real struggles of LGBTQ people in this country — trans people in particular and people of color facing multiple layers of discrimination,” she added. “This ‘party’ suggests that being gay is just an excuse to have a lovely time, but there is still a long way to go.”
Nearly 2 million LGBTQ youths ages 13 to 24 in the United States consider suicide each year, according to research released Thursday by the Trevor Project.
Using data from a variety of sources, including the U.S. Census Bureau, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its own National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health, Trevor Project researchers determined that LGBTQ teens were particularly at risk. Those 13 to 18 were approximately twice as likely to contemplate suicide as those 19 to 24.
Amy E. Green, the nonprofit’s director of research, told NBC News that although these numbers are harrowing, they are “conservative estimates.”
“These numbers are the bare minimum they could be because we used a conservative method to conclude our estimates,” Green said. “The fact that we still arrived at these huge astonishing numbers shows that this is a serious health problem.”
According to the mental health survey, released this month, there are multiple factors that can negatively affect the well-being of queer adolescents — the foremost being lack of acceptance.
More than 70 percent of respondents reported experiencing discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and two-thirds of respondents stated that someone has tried to convince them to change those identities.
Though previous research has revealed that LGBTQ youth are more likely to experience thoughts of suicide, Green said these latest figures “provide additional context to just how widespread this problem is.”
A separate research released by the Trevor Project on Thursday offered some positive news, however. LGBTQ youth who report having at least one accepting adult in their lives were 40 percent less likely to report a suicide attempt in the past year.
“I hope this research will inspire the country to come together to change policies on the state and federal levels that affect LGBTQ youth’s lives, like ending the harmful practice of conversion therapy, as well as inspire other researchers who are looking into this area to study the factors and find solutions,” Green said. “We also need to support organizations that are doing the work to launch anti-bullying and suicide prevention efforts.”
Three high-school students in Connecticut have filed a federal discrimination complaint challenging the state’s policy of letting trans students compete on sports teams according to their gender identity.
The complaint was filed on behalf of the three girls on Monday (June 17) by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative Christian organisation in the US that has also filed over 40 cases against Planned Parenthood.
Their complaint to the US Department of Education alleges that Connecticut’s policy violates Title IX, the federal civil-rights law that is meant to ensure students have equal access to opportunities regardless of their sex.
The complaint, which refers to trans girls as “biological males,” says that trans athletes should not be allowed to compete in the category corresponding to their gender identity because it’s unfair to cisgender girls.Free Antivirus Software Reviews 2019. Compare Free Antivirus Software Providers Side-By-Side.SEE MORE
Eliza Byard, executive director of GLSEN, a group dedicated to rights for LGBT+ students, said to CNN, “This is a serious lawsuit brought about by a parent and the Alliance Defending Freedom as part of a broader effort to bar trans students from equal access in sports.”
“Trans girls are girls, and they should have access to all parts of school,” Byard said.
All three girls making the complaint are teen track athletes. Two are unnamed and the third is Selina Soule.
“Girls deserve to compete on a level playing field. Forcing female athletes to compete against boys is grossly unfair and destroys their athletic opportunities,” said Christiana Holcomb, a lawyer with ADF, in an online statement.
“Title IX was designed to eliminate discrimination against women in education and athletics, and women fought long and hard to earn the equal athletic opportunities that Title IX provides. Allowing boys to compete in girls’ sports reverses nearly 50 years of advances for women under this law. We shouldn’t force these young women to be spectators in their own sports.”
ADF have other anti-trans lawsuits
The ADF’s mission statement is “defending religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.”
Its website says, “The abortion industry has been profiting from the deaths of infants for over 40 years,” and adds that the “good news” is that “a surging pro-life movement has forced the closure of 75 percent of surgical abortion businesses in America.”
Another lawsuit related to trans issues is detailed on ADF’s website in a post called“Two recent victims of the transgender movement.”
The lawsuit was filed by the ADF in November 2018 on behalf of a male professor who was given a written warning by a university for refusing to use she/her pronouns for a student who had informed him she was a trans woman.
“This isn’t just about a pronoun; this is about endorsing an ideology,” said Tyson Langhofer, a lawyer for ADF.
Complaint calls for ban on transgender students in girls sports
The high schoolers complaint in Connecticut calls for an investigation of Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC), the non-profit organisation responsible for high-school athletics regulations.
It also demands that trans girls track records are removed and for them to be denied access to women’s sports in Connecticut.
CIAC says that its policy follows a state-wide anti-discrimination law that requires students to be treated in school as the gender they identify with.
“The CIAC reviewed our transgender policy with the Office of Civil Rights in Boston earlier this school year to ensure compliance with Title IX,” said Glenn Lungarini, executive director of CIAC.
“In addition to reviewing the policy with our legal counsel, the CIAC also discussed our current policy with Connecticut’s Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities to ensure compliance with Connecticut legislation protecting students (and others) in their gender expression and identity.”
Alkyl nitrites, commonly known as poppers, pose very little chance of addiction, risky consumption habits or other psychosocial problems.
Many LGBTI people, but especially gay and bisexual men use poppers for recreational purposes or to enhance sex.
A new study found little evidence of typical dependency characteristics, including health, social, legal and financial problems. It also found no correlation between popper use and mental health or psychological stress.
Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) surveyed more than 800 men aged 18 to 35. Lead researcher Dr Daniel Demant, welcomed the decision by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to not ban poppers.
In 2018, the TGA issued a temporary ban on poppers. It put them onto Schedule 9 of the Poisons Standard – the same schedule as heroin.
But thanks to a vocal campaign from the LGBTI community and passionate submissions to the TGA, it backtracked on the ban. The TGA instead elected to classify them as a Schedule 3 drug. From February 2020, poppers will be available over the counter in pharmacies.
Poppers users will be made ‘overnight criminals’
Demant described the ban as creating ‘overnight criminals’ of the estimated more than 100,000 Australian users.
‘What we see with this research is that poppers are a very commonly used drug in the LGBT community, both recently and over their lifetime,’ Demant said.
‘Most of the users are already oppressed or marginalized based on their social identity as gay or bisexual men. This creates a question as to whether there would have been a discriminatory element in banning a substance with such a low risk profile.
Currently, poppers are available on prescription from pharmacies. But many people buy them illicitly at sex-on-premises venues or LGBTI bars. A vial for up to AU$50,(US$34.60/€30.63) despite costing a couple of cents to manufacture.
The new TGA decision to regulate poppers rather than banning them hopefully paves the way for some measure of quality control as well as the removal of the ‘extreme profit margin’ that exists now Demant said.
‘We could stop pretending that poppers are sold for anything other than getting people high,’ he said.
‘And once we do offer it in pharmacies, we would have something made to the highest standards for people to use.’
The American Medical Association has warned that violence against transgender people is rising in the US.
The medical body issued a warning about an “epidemic of violence against the transgender community, especially the amplified physical dangers faced by transgender people of colour.”
American Medical Association board member Dr. S. Bobby Mukkamala said: “According to available tracking, fatal anti-transgender violence in the U.S. is on the rise and most victims were black transgender women.
“The number of victims could be even higher due to under reporting, and better data collection by law enforcement is needed to create strategies that will prevent anti-transgender violence.”[
The body warns that “the physical risks faced by transgender individuals can have long and short-term negative impacts on the physical and mental health of these individuals, survivors, their communities, and the nation as a whole.”
A resolution was backed at the AMA’s annual House of Delegates meeting earlier in June raising concerns about a spate of anti-trans violence.
Trans women of colour are most likely to face violence
The resolution notes: “Since 2013, at least 128 transgender women, transgender men, and non-binary people (people whose gender is not male or female) have been killed across 32 states and 87 cities in the US.
“In 2017, there were 29 homicides of transgender people in the US reported in the media, the highest number ever recorded, in addition to many more that were not publicly known
“In 2018, advocates tracked at least 226 deaths of transgender people in the US due to fatal violence, 82 percent of whom were transgender women of colour and 73 percent of whom were Black transgender women.”
The body has backed calls for a central law enforcement database to collect data on reported hate crimes, and has also called for stronger law enforcement policies regarding interactions with transgender individuals in order to prevent bias and mistreatment.
Police in Dallas this month arrested a suspected serial killer who has been charged with the murder of black transgender woman Muhlaysia Booker and two other victims.
Kendrell Lavar Lyles is also a person of interest in the death of another black trans woman, Chynal Lindsey.
As President Donald Trump’s ban on most transgender military servicemembers continues to face legal challenges, 71% of Americans support allowing openly transgender men and women to serve in the military.U.S. Support for Transgender People Serving in the MilitaryDo you favor or oppose allowing openly transgender men and women to serve in the military?
Favor
Oppose
No opinion
%
%
%
National adults
71
26
2
Republicans
43
53
4
Independents
78
20
2
Democrats
88
11
1
Military veterans
56
43
1
Nonveterans
73
25
2
Men
64
34
2
Women
79
20
2
18-29
84
15
2
30-49
73
25
2
50-64
66
32
2
65+
66
33
1
May 15-30, 2019
GALLUP
These data are from a May 15-30 Gallup poll, which was conducted prior to a recent U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that allows the ban to stand for the time being, but calls for a review of the policy that could still jeopardize its legal standing. On Tuesday, the House of Representatives voted to block funding to implement the policy — though the measure’s chances of passing in the GOP-controlled Senate, much like the recently passed Equality Act, are unlikely.
Majorities of Americans across nearly all key demographic groups, except for Republicans, support allowing transgender men and women to serve in the U.S. military. Republicans (43%) are far less likely than Democrats (88%) and independents (78%) to support allowing trans servicemembers.
A small majority of adults with military experience (56%) say that transgender people should be allowed to serve, though nonveterans are more likely to say this (73%).
Women are more likely than men to support transgender military service, and support is higher among younger adults than older Americans.
These findings about Americans’ views of transgender people serving in the military are similar to Gallup’s polling in the years leading up to the 2010 repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, which barred gays and lesbians from serving openly. At the time, Gallup found that most Americans supported allowing openly gay servicemembers.
Americans Remain Split on Transgender Bathroom Policies
Americans’ views on gender-related policies governing public restrooms have shown little movement in recent years. Gallup first polled on the issue in 2016, when Barack Obama’s Department of Education directed public schools to allow transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity, rather than their birth gender. This policy has since been rescinded under the Trump administration.
The issue has roiled local and state politics, but public opinion has changed little, with 51% of Americans saying that transgender people should have to use the restroom corresponding with their birth gender and 44% saying that transgender people should use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity.Americans’ Views on Restroom Policies for Transgender PeopleIn terms of policies governing public restrooms, do you think these policies should — [ROTATED: require transgender individuals to use the restroom that corresponds with their birth gender (or should these policies) allow transgender individuals to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity]?
Birth gender
Gender identity
No opinion
%
%
%
May 15-30, 2019
51
44
5
May 3-7, 2017
48
45
7
May 4-8, 2016
50
40
10
GALLUP
The percentage of Americans who now have no opinion (5%) is half of what it was in 2016, likely reflecting that they have become more familiar with the issue in recent years.
Having restroom assignment based on birth gender is preferred by most by Republicans (78%) and men (61%).
By contrast, Democrats (66%), adults aged 18 to 29 (61%) and women (53%) are the groups most likely to say students should be able to choose bathrooms based on their gender identity.Views on Restroom Policies for Transgender People, by SubgroupIn terms of policies governing public restrooms, do you think these policies should — [ROTATED: require transgender individuals to use the restroom that corresponds with their birth gender (or should these policies) allow transgender individuals to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity]?
Birth gender
Gender identity
%
%
National adults
51
44
Republicans
78
18
Independents
50
46
Democrats
27
66
Men
61
35
Women
42
53
18-29
37
61
30-49
58
38
50-64
52
42
65+
52
41
May 15-30, 2019
GALLUP
Two in Three Americans Prefer Separate Restrooms for Men and Women
Many public places have responded to the transgender restroom policy debate by providing unisex restrooms that can be used by anyone. But according to the new poll, Americans prefer separate bathrooms for men and women (68%) in large public places as opposed to unisex ones (30%).Americans’ Views on Separate vs. Unisex RestroomsMore generally, in large public places such as malls, stadiums and airports, do you think there should be — [ROTATED: separate bathrooms for men and women, (or should there be) unisex bathrooms that can be used by all genders]?
Separate bathrooms
Unisex bathrooms
No opinion
%
%
%
May 15-30, 2019
68
30
2
May 15-30, 2019
GALLUP
Majorities of all key subgroups favor separate restrooms for men and women, with Republicans (81%) most in favor, but also a little over half of 18- to 29-year-olds (52%) and Democrats (56%).
Bottom Line
With gay marriage now a political moot point and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell having been repealed for several years, LGBT activists have largely shifted their focus to trans issues as the Trump administration has moved to undo the trans-friendly policies of the Obama era.
Similar to their views on openly gay servicemembers in the aughts, most Americans support allowing transgender people to serve in the U.S. military. This contrasts with Trump’s ban on transgender servicemembers, which he announced via a series of tweets in July 2017. Though the ban has since been subject to legal and political scrutiny, it remains in place.
Gender policies around public restrooms are much more mixed, with Americans leaning slightly toward policies based on one’s birth gender rather than their gender identity. While public opinion has moved little in recent years, the actual federal policies for schools on this issue have undergone an about-face from the previous presidency. Views on the policies are strongest by political party identification, so it’s very likely that policy changes will only take place upon shifts in party control at state and federal levels — as was the case in North Carolina, which became the focal point of this issue years ago.
The U.S. House delivered on Tuesday evening a stinging rebuke to President Trump’s transgender military ban, adopting an amendment that would bar the use of U.S. funds to pay for the policy.
The vote on the amendment, introduced by Reps. Anthony Brown (D-Md.) and Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), was 243-183 and largely along party lines. The measure was adopted as part of $983 billion minibus legislation for fiscal year 2020 seeking to fund the Defense Department, as well as labor, health and human services, education, state-foreign operations and energy and water development.
The amendment passed with bipartisan support. Nine Republicans — Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.), Tom Emmer (Minn.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio), Trey Hollingsworth (Ind.), Will Hurd (Texas), John Katko (N.Y.) and Tom Reed (N.Y.) — voted “yes” on the measure.
However, one Democrat voted against it: Rep. Colin Peterson (Minn).
Before April, transgender people could enlist and serve openly in the military thanks to a policy change during the Obama administration. But under the new Trump administration policy, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria disqualifies potential enlistees, and a diagnosis of gender dysphoria — with the exception of transgender people already serving in the armed forces — is cause for discharge.
It’s not the first time the House has voted to rebuked the transgender military ban. In March, the chamber approved a non-binding resolution introduced by Kennedy against the Trump administration policy.
After the House approves the underlying minibus legislation, it will head to the Senate, which has yet to take up any appropriations bills for fiscal year 2020.
Any version of the spending bill with a provision against the transgender military ban would likely not fare well in the Republican-controlled chamber. (But passage isn’t impossible. Ending a filibuster on budgetary legislation requires a majority vote in the Senate, unlike the 60 votes needed to proceed with policy legislation.)
The White House has already issued a veto threat over the minibus legislation, but for reasons wholly unrelated to the transgender military ban. In a White House Office of Management & Budget Statement of Administration Policy opposes the legislation, citing concerns about raising discretionary spending caps by more than $350 billion in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 and putting the U.S. government on track to add nearly $2 trillion in deficits over 10 years.
The vote on the Brown-Speier amendment will likely not be the last word from the House on the transgender military ban. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said he expects a floor vote against the policy as the part of the fiscal year 2020 defense authorization bill, which is legislation separate from the appropriations bill.
Jennifer Levi, director of the transgender rights project at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, commanded the House in a statement for approving the amendment against the transgender ban.
“A policy that turns away qualified, dedicated Americans who want to serve their country is baseless, discriminatory, and ultimately weakens our military,” Levi said.
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, referenced in a statement on the amendment polls showing a supermajority of the American public are against the policy.
“Military leaders don’t want this ban and the American people don’t want this ban — including a growing percentage of the president’s own party,” Minter said. “We won’t stop fighting in the courts to end the ban for good and we applaud members of Congress for continuing to fight for our transgender service members as well.”
If you haven’t purchased a home before, you will get a crash course in real estate vocabulary. One term you’ll likely hear that you probably aren’t familiar with is “Notice of Inspection.” This is a very important document that you must fully understand because it can save you a large amount of money. Let’s take a look at what a Notice of Inspection is, why it is so vital, and what role it plays in the home buying and selling process.
What Is a Notice of Inspection?
When you have a home inspection done, it’s very likely that the inspector will provide you with a list of items that need to be treated, repaired, or replaced. Unless the home is a new build, there will be at least a few minor things on the inspection report that are not in perfect condition. If these items are truly minor issues that you do not mind either fixing yourself or accepting as they are, you simply ignore them, complete the transaction, and enjoy your new home. For example, the inspection report may note that there are light bulbs burnt out or that there is a small hole in a window screen in the master bedroom.
However, if there are major items that need to be addressed, especially if those items include things such as insect infestations or damage that affects your safety, you will want those items repaired or replaced before you buy the home. These are the items you list on your Notice of Inspection document. At this point – everything on your list is negotiable… in some cases, the seller may address these items and make changes to your satisfaction before you move to closing, or the seller may completely reject any corrections, or even re-negotiate the purchase price in lieu of corrections.
When Do You Submit a Notice of Inspection?
When you put in an offer on a property and the seller accepts it, you start a number of different clocks. One of these clocks has to do with the inspection period. Typically, you have a ten-day period until the Inspection Objection Deadline to complete any inspections you want. This deadline is usually three days after everyone has signed the contract. For example, if you put in a bid on June First and the seller accepted and signed the contract on June Second, the third day would be June Fifth, three days after the last signature was added to the contract. Your Inspection Objection Deadline would then run from the Fifth to the Fifteenth.
Once the inspection is done and you have the report, you can put together your Notice of Inspection and submit it. In general, you want to do this as soon as you can so negotiations for a mutually acceptable resolution may begin.
Be certain you are clear on the amount of time you have to complete your inspection. While ten days is somewhat typical, that time period is not set in stone and can be modified to any length in the contract.
What Does a Notice of Inspection Include?
You can basically include anything from the inspection that you want the seller to repair or replace in a Notice of Inspection. In some cases, your lender may require some repairs before they will approve your mortgage; for instance, on an FHA loan, the FHA inspector will require any peeling paint to be scraped and repainted (as an example). Any damage or issues with the structure of the building, anything that presents a safety issue, or any part of the home that is not up to code will most likely have to be addressed before the lender will sign off on the loan.
Additionally, there may be things you may want the seller to repair or replace that are not required by the lender. These include things such as a cracked window, torn or stained carpet, leaky gutters, a closet door that doesn’t latch properly, and other minor or cosmetic items. You can include as many or as few of these items on your Notice of Inspection as you wish.
The seller does not have to agree to complete any of these items that the lender does not require. If they decline to make some of these repairs, you must decide if you’re willing to complete the purchase of the property or if you want to back out of the contract. In some cases, the seller may instead offer to purchase a home warranty for you, may offer to drop the selling price if you agree to do the repairs yourself, or may simply decline to make the repairs.
Your real estate agent is an invaluable resource during this process. They have completed hundreds of Notice of Inspection documents in the past, and they will be able to help you determine what is a necessary repair and what isn’t.
Those in the LGBTQ community may want to seek out the services of a full-time professional gay or lesbian real estate agent. In addition to helping you navigate the buying process, they understand any unique needs you may have as an LGBTQ individual or couple, and may make you feel more at ease. Feel free to reach out to any of the agents at www.GayRealEstate.com, where we have been helping the LGBTQ community with home buying and selling since 1991.
Mastercard has announced that it will allow trans and non-binary people to use their chosen names on plastic payment cards.
The True Name card will apply to credit, debit and prepaid cards used by trans and non-binary people.
The move is part of the bank’s initiative to support LGBTI rights. It aims to combat issues trans and non-binary individuals have experienced while using payment cards.
Many have spoken about feelings of fear and anxiety when they hand over payment cards which carry their birth or dead names.
Mastercard is not the first to implement changes designed to help trans or non-binary people.
In recent years, a number of businesses in the US have begun making changes to support, or accommodate for, the trans community.
‘The name on their credit, debit or prepaid card does not reflect their true identity’
Mastercard announced the True Name card at the New York City Commission on Human Rights on Monday (17 June).
‘We are working with partners to create a product, as well as a sensitive and private process free of personal questions, that will allow for true names, not deadnames, to appear on cards without the requirement of a legal name change,’ the statement says.
‘This will ease a major pain point for the transgender and non-binary community.
‘For many in the LGBTQIA+ community, the name on their credit, debit or prepaid card does not reflect their true identity.’ the statement adds.
‘As a result, for the transgender and non-binary communities in particular, the card in their pocket can serve as a source of sensitivity, misrepresenting their true identity when shopping and going about daily life.’
The move’s announcement was accompanied by a video. The video shows trans and non-binary people discussing the difficulties they experienced while using credit cards with their birth names.
People in the video describe having ‘moments of anxiety and moments of panic’ when handing over their payment cards.
‘It puts me in a place where I feel like I’m in danger,’ one of the participants says.
At the end of the video, the participants are given payment cards which have their chosen names.
Businesses making changes
Numerous businesses have begun making changes or expressing support for the trans community.
Last November, over 50 of the biggest businesses in the US signed a pledge to stand in solidarity with the trans community.
This follows a number of anti-trans policies which have been implemented or proposed under US President Donald Trump.
Since Trump took office in January 2017, his administration has made various moves to roll-back the rights of trans people.
This includes a ban on trans individuals serving in the US military. There have also been moves to curtail the rights of trans students and trans prisoners.