Columns

/ /

Biden Administration Confronts US Anti-Trans Violence

,

To commemorate the Transgender Day of Remembrance on November 20, the Biden administration issued a report on violence and discrimination against transgender people in the United States. The report outlines positive steps the administration is taking to address the root causes of violence – but progress will be limited unless lawmakers enact laws that support them.

Over the past two years, Human Rights Watch spoke with dozens of transgender survivors of violence, advocates, and service providers in the states of Florida, Ohio, and Texas about the forms anti-transgender violence takes. One of the key findings of that research was that socioeconomic marginalization, such as unemployment, housing insecurity, and a lack of reliable transportation keeps many transgender people in unsafe situations. The most marginalized, particularly Black transgender women, are especially at risk.

The Biden administration’s roadmap, created with input from transgender people and advocates, identifies key concerns and outlines steps the administration has been taking to advance transgender rights. Among these are support for inclusive employment opportunities, health services, housing and homeless shelters, and antiviolence services, which are all badly needed.

Recognizing these factors is laudable, but state and federal lawmakers also need to take concrete steps to address them if meaningful progress is to be achieved.

At a minimum, lawmakers should stop demonizing transgender people and attempting to restrict their rights, and instead enact laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity. They should decriminalize sex work, making it easier for transgender sex workers to keep themselves safe and report violence when it occurs. They should explicitly cover gender-affirming care in state Medicaid policies and remove barriers to legal gender recognition to avoid instances in which people are publicly outed as transgender.

To improve support when violence occurs, lawmakers should reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, enact the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act, and provide training and support to ensure shelters and anti-violence services are truly inclusive. And they should ban the “trans panic” defense, which allows perpetrators of anti-transgender violence to use their own fear or dislike of transgender people as a legal defense to minimize culpability in criminal proceedings when they have harmed or even killed a transgender person.

The Biden administration has identified some ways it can act to curb anti-transgender violence. To do that effectively, federal and state lawmakers will need to demonstrate the same commitment.

/ /

To Stop Anti-Transgender Violence, Lawmakers Must Address Its Roots

,

As of early November, this year is the deadliest on record for transgender people in the United States, with at least 45 people killed. But their deaths are only the tip of the iceberg. Many other transgender people are subjected to violence and harassment, in public and at home.

Our recent research focused on Florida, Ohio and Texas, three states where dozens of transgender people have been killed between 2016 and 2021. We found that anti-transgender violence is intersectional; risk is shaped by race, gender, class and other factors.

During this period, at least 88 percent of the transgender people killed in Florida, 91 percent in Ohio and 90 percent in Texas were people of color. The majority were Black transgender women, who are most at risk of fatal violence.

Some transgender people who experience violence are targeted or harassed by strangers in public, but others described harassment and abuse at the hands of family members, intimate partners or law enforcement officers — and what they needed most were resources and support.

In part, the high rates of violence that transgender people experience are fueled by public hostility, which some lawmakers have stoked this year. In 2021, a record number of anti-transgender bills were filed in state legislatures — and some passed into law — which demonized transgender people and sought to limit their access to health care, public facilities, and sports and recreation. 

Other lawmakers have decried anti-transgender violence, typically by calling for more policing, stronger hate crimes laws, or harsher punishments. But if lawmakers want to address the problem, they need to address the conditions that give rise to it.

The transgender survivors and advocates I met with in Florida, Ohio and Texas described forms of violence that aren’t well addressed by hate crimes prosecution. Even when these prosecutions result in convictions, the state response lacks a survivor-centered, comprehensive approach and many survivors’ needs go unmet. 

Addressing the violence requires paying attention to the socioeconomic marginalization and discrimination that put many transgender people in circumstances where they are exposed to harm. According to a survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality, 29 percent of transgender people live in poverty, compared with 12 percent of the U.S. population overall. 

Without options, many transgender women engage in sex work and other informal economies, where criminalization puts them at heightened risk of violence by clients and law enforcement and can deter them from seeking assistance when violence occurs. 

When people do face violence, the services designed to shield people from harm often fail transgender survivors. In many parts of the country, transgender people do not have access to homeless shelters, domestic violence services, or law enforcement agencies that will provide them meaningful help. Instead, many transgender people report being re-victimized when seeking out a lifeline, being turned away or mistreated because of their gender identity when they are most in need.

The same survey found that nearly a third of those who responded had experienced homelessness at some point in their lives, and one in 10 had experienced homelessness in the previous year. 

Many transgender people do not know of shelters that will house them consistent with their gender identity, and when they are able to secure a place, they often face harassment from staff or other residents. Without a safe place to stay or the resources to move, many transgender people are unable to escape situations where they experience violence.

Some people we interviewed said they often felt most at risk when others could perceive that they were transgender and openly disparaged or threatened them. When transgender people are unable to access hormones and other gender-affirming health care, or are unable to update their identification to align with their gender expression, it can increase their exposure to hostility in public.

Protecting people from brutal, often fatal violence should not be controversial. Nonetheless, few states have taken meaningful action to address the circumstances that put transgender people at particular risk. Only 21 states expressly prohibit discrimination based on gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations, leaving people in many parts of the country without such basic protections.

More can be done. At the federal level, Congress could enact the Equality Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on gender identity in a variety of domains. Lawmakers also should enact bills such as the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act, which would bolster services for survivors of intimate partner violence and family violence, including transgender survivors. 

Condemning violence is not enough. If lawmakers are serious about stopping anti-transgender violence, they must address its roots. 

Unless steps are taken to prevent violence from occurring — at a minimum, prohibiting discrimination, providing people with safe employment and housing options, and ensuring that anti-violence services are accessible and affirming — our interventions after the fact are going to be too little, too late.

/ /

Be Warned: Gay Marriage and Gay Sex Are in SCOTUS Crosshairs

I’ve been around long enough in politics and corporate America to recognize overt signs of power grabs and people who would stampede over their mothers to get what they want. Oftentimes, it’s done abruptly, while in other instances, it’s done stealthily and slowly, chip, chip, chipping away until they finally get what they want — regardless of who has to pay the price.

When I worked on the Hill, the annual visit to congressional offices by pro-life forces on January 22, which was the anniversary of the passage of Roe v. Wade, was always a day to be dreaded if you were a congressional staffer. They were among the most stubborn, and paradoxically rudest people who came to lobby.  

I remember one time, a pro-life woman dropped the file folders all over the reception area in our office, and I leaned over to help her pick them up. Instead of saying thank you, she seethed, “If you are pro-choice, leave my papers alone.” We weren’t — and aren’t — dealing with rational people. 

For nearly 50 years, the pro-life movement has been laser-focused on overturning Roe v. Wade, so much so that many held their noses to support Donald Trump, because he had promised them Supreme Court justice nominations, as well as lower court judges. 

It was the pro-life and conservative dream to obtain a lop-sided majority at the Supreme Court. Despite the fact that Democratic presidents have been in power 17 out of the last 29 years, that wish came true with the confirmation of right-wing darling Amy Coney Barrett, who was rushed through after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and pushed the number of conservative justices to the magic number of six. 

The court, now, is known as the Roberts Court, since he is chief justice, and he has been twisting himself in knots to try and create a sense of balance about his court, by voting with the liberals on occasion. Roberts is fearful that his branded court will become one of the most divisive and negatively consequential. 

Take the court’s ruling on the horiffic Texas abortion law last month: despite Roberts’ vote against it, the measure was upheld. The law basically makes abortion illegal and those who try to seek one at the risk of getting arrested by citizen vigilantes. This, as CNN reported that 70% of Americans disagree with the idea of allowing private citizens to bring lawsuits against abortion providers. 

The court is definitely on its way to overturning Roe v. Wade, a fantasy that will come true due to the 18thcentury thinking of justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett. It’s only a matter of time. They’ve been outspoken through their careers about the illegality of Roe v. Wade, except of course when they testified at their Senate confirmation hearings, and lied through their teeth that they wouldn’t cast votes dictated by their personal convictions. 

They are die-hard anti-abortion activists – yes, activists not judges. And, if you want the unvarnished and unmitigated truth, and they are also rigidly opposed to gay marriage; therefore, you can bet your last dollar that they will now start to chip away at marriage equality. It’s virtually a guarantee, and they’ve already hinted that they will. 

When the court refused to hear a case brought by that nutty Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis last October, who wouldn’t abide by the law and issue marriage licenses, Justices Alito and Thomas, in their dissent, went ballisic on the decision that secured marriage equality nationally. 

Thomas, writing for himself and Alito, said that the decision “enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.” And that the Davis case “…may have been one of the first victims of this court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision.” 

And their final dart: “…Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty.” 

We wrote previously about Jonathan Mitchell, the architect of that slimy Texas abortion law. My colleague, Trudy Ring penned that Mitchell “…has invited the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn or at least severely undermine key LGBTQ+ rights decisions — the ones that struck down sodomy bans and established marriage equality.” 

Mitchell filed what is called an amicus brief, or a friend of the court, in support of the Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy except “in medical emergencies or for severe fetal abnormality.” As Ring wrote, “Two federal courts have blocked the law, but the state is appealing to the Supreme Court, which just today announced the date for the hearing. It is widely seen as the case that could overturn Roe.” 

In the brief, Mitchell calls for Roe to be overturned, and said that a decision to overturn could open the door for other “lawless” rights and protections to be reversed, including the right to have gay sex and the right to same-sex marriage. 

According to a story in The Guardian, “While the majority of the justices stressed that they had not yet ruled on the constitutionality of the Texas law itself, the ruling showed that the majority was receptive to Mitchell’s legal strategy.” 

You can be sure that Thomas and Alito are chomping at the bit to outlaw gay sex, and do away with gay marriage, and they will do it by chip, chip, chipping away. They now have three other comrades on their side, who are equally opposed to gay sex, and gay marriage, because it goes against their fervent religious beliefs. 

I had a conversation with a friend of mine about the ominous signs, particularly for gay marriage, and he was nonchalant about the doom that may – and is most likely – to lie ahead. “They can’t do away with gay marriage, since so many are married. How do you undo that?” 

Pretty easily, it turns out. There should be no denying that a major attempt on trampling our rights is being mounted. The Texas law was a harbinger that the court’s conservative members have no issue overturning precedent if it goes against their vaunted Christian beliefs. It almost seems like a forgone conclusion that they will uphold the equally destructive Mississippi abortion law, which at 15 weeks is “less” severe than the Texas law, So why wouldn’t they support the “watered down” law? 

We will indeed see Roe v. Wade come under its most ruthless assault. 

And, do you think that these Justices, and all those who lobbied for them, and supported them and voted for them will just stop at Roe? Think again. They are on a mission to do away with all of the progress made for women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights over the last five decades. Thomas and Alito said out loud what the others are thinking: Being gay, being married, and being equal is an affront to zealous religious doctrine.  It goes against the grain. You cannot be gay, and be Christian, in their eyes. 

Sometimes it’s as if our community takes things for granted, particularly the younger generation. They aren’t aware of all the fighting and hard work it took to get our community where it is today. They see an administration that strongly supports them; yet, they seem blissfully unaware of the stealthily and silent assault coming our way by a Supreme Court cloaked in black and in secrecy.  

If the court has the arrogance to actually strip away LGBTQ+ rights and marriages, it will start a fierce war. Corporate America has rallied strongly in support of gay marriage. So has the military. Most of society has moved beyond whether or not gay marriage is right or wrong. It’s more of a fact than a law. 

But the fact is that there are evil forces out there who want to do away with our right to marry, including five very powerful people. The Texas abortion ruling has invigorated the religious right. And so long as the court upholds laws like it, and inevitably Mississippi’s, we should be prepared to watch them dismantle gay marriage.  

Can you imagine anti-gay marriage and anti-gay sex vigilantes turning us in for cash rewards, similar to abortion? Just think about that for a moment, because the way the court is ruling these days, that’s not out of the realm of possibilities. 

/ /

What’s at Stake for LGBTQ+ Asian Dreamers

This summer, a Texas judge declared the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program unlawful. But President Biden’s administration is moving swiftly to respond and protect undocumented young people. He must, for so much more is at stake for LGBTQ+ Asian Dreamers.  

President Obama created DACA in 2012, which has helped thousands of undocumented young people to work, study, and improve their lives in this country, without the fear of deportation. Many of them are LGBTQ+. And many come from Asian counties.

To address this disastrous court decision from this summer, Biden is looking to shore up the program with new rules. Still, only Congress can permanently safeguard DACA recipients and grant them, along with the rest of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., a pathway to citizenship. 

Estimates say that 267,000 undocumented immigrants are LGBTQ+, of which a disproportionate share is Asian and Pacific Islander. More than 169,000 people who are API are eligible for DACA. According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, over 16,000 people from South Korea, the Philippines, India, Pakistan, and China have already benefitted from DACA. The court’s ruling will subject 800,000 potential DACA beneficiaries to again live in fear of deportation. 

On Biden’s first day in office, he announced the Citizenship Act of 2021 (HR 1177/S.348), which will give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship (including 1.5 million Asians and a quarter million LGBTQ+ immigrants), keep LGBTQ+ Asian immigrant families together, reduce visa backlogs, and expand visas and green cards for workers.

Absent congressional action, thousands of talented LGBTQ+ and Asian young people could be deported, many of them to countries where they cannot live their authentic lives and reach their fullest potential. 

For LGBTQ+ people, the stakes are even higher than those who are not LGBTQ+. Many countries in Asia and the Pacific prohibit same-sex relations, such as Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and Tonga. In Indonesia, police shaved the heads of trans women and publicly caned a gay couple for having consensual sex. In most Asian and Oceania countries, transgender people cannot legally change their gender on their IDs, and LGBTQ+ people are not protected by anti-discrimination laws. 

The programs supporting undocumented youth have real-world consequences for real people. Tony Choi is a 32-year-old gay Korean DACA beneficiary from New Jersey. In 2010, his options were taking care of his mother with cancer in the U.S. or returning to Korea where his LGBTQ+ identity would subject him to harsh hazing for two years in the mandatory military service. The Korean military penal law also criminalizes homosexuality. Because of DACA, he’s been able to serve his community. Bupendra Ram is a South Asian Dreamer from Fiji who came to the U.S. when he was only 2 years old. He is the first person in his family to earn a college degree, but he had to save every extra dollar from his minimum wage job in order to afford tuition. His undocumented status at the time meant he couldn’t receive financial aid. 

DACA has provided LGBTQ+ undocumented young people employment opportunities and educational opportunities. Asian Americans, South Asians, Southeast Asians, and Pacific Islanders are the fastest-growing racial group in the U.S. today and the largest segment of new immigrants. Undocumented immigrants, LGBTQ+ Dreamers, and DACA recipients are the ones who are making our country great and they deserve an opportunity for a pathway to citizenship.

Glenn D. Magpantay has been an advocate for the LGBTQ+, AAPI, and immigrant communities for over 30 years. He is a longtime civil rights attorney, professor of law and Asian-American Studies, and LGBTQ+ rights activist.

/ /

9/11: the day life changed forever

,

Even before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, I felt sad, angry, numb, scared, disoriented.

My partner Anne, the love of my life, died two and a half weeks before 9/11. She was diagnosed with cancer in the ER around New Year’s 2001 and died shortly after the chemo stopped working.

My world, like any grieving person’s universe, had completely changed.  

I barely knew what day it was. Brushing my teeth was a challenge. I couldn’t follow the plot when I glanced at a rerun of “The Odd Couple” on TV, let alone news headlines.

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold,” the line from W.B. Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming” ran through my  head.

Then, on a Tuesday morning, 20 years ago, everyone’s life changed. People from teens to grandparents felt as if the center had disintegrated.

Airplanes hijacked by terrorists crashed into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon. Nearly 3,000 people died in the attacks.

Everyone (64 people) on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon were killed along with 125 people in the building. United Flight 93 crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. Everyone on the plane died.

It’s widely believed that some passengers, including Mark Bingham, a gay public relations executive, tried to take control of the plane from the hijackers.

Investigators speculated that Bingham and the other passengers tried to overtake the hijackers to prevent an attack on the White House or a building such as the Capitol.

Along with those who died during the attacks, there were the many survivors and first responders who were burned and injured during the 9/11 attacks.

On 9/11, marriage equality was years away. As the Blade reported, LGBTQ people whose spouses died on 9/11 struggled to obtain survivors’ benefits.

Around 10:30 a.m. on 9/11, Barbara, a friend, called and told me to turn on my TV ASAP.

“There’s been an explosion in New York!” she said, “I think a plane’s crashed into the Pentagon!”

As instructed, I turned on my TV (you didn’t get the news on your phone then).

But, I could barely take it in as I watched the Twin Towers burn and the terror at the Pentagon. Still in shock from losing Anne, I couldn’t register the horror.

Seeing the images on the screen was like watching something from another world with no connection to me. But I soon learned nearly everyone would feel connected to the terror, anxiety and fear of 9/11. Including me.

The day after the Sept. 11 attacks, I went with a friend to the courthouse to record Anne’s will. Just as we’d entered the building, we were told to “evacuate the premises.”

After we waited about an hour outside, the security guard said we could go back into the building. There had been a bomb scare. “It could have been a terrorist,” he said.

There was much talk about how irony had ended after 9/11. Yet, because tragedy and comedy are so intertwined, humor didn’t die.

A few weeks after, 9/11, a paralegal helped me to settle Anne’s affairs. I remember that he wisecracked about Osama Bin Laden. Not, I believe, to trivialize the Sept. 11 attacks. Like many, I think he joked to try to cope with the terror.

No grief is like that of those who lost loved ones in a nano-sec on 9/11. Yet, like many, I’ve come to grieve for what 9/11 did to our country.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, we’ve been engaged in a misbegotten War on Terror. On Jan. 6, rioters, in an act of domestic terrorism, stormed the Capitol. A new law in Texas empowers private citizens to spy on women who want to have an abortion.

In the face of such terror and division, it seems quixotic to hope for an end to fear and divisiveness. Yet, in memory of those who died on 9/11, we must hope and work to make the world better.

/ /

The pain of racial injustice lingers. Here’s how you can support your Black partner

It takes a strong Black person to date a white person.

For better or for worse, romantic relationships are a minefield of opportunities to explore Black/white dynamics in America. It works well when the white partner is able to reduce the harm they create and learn from their partner, but it can also be traumatizing for the Black partner to relive life-alienating societal patterns in one of their most intimate relationships. 

When a white man is fascinated with my last name, I don’t expect them to know that it reminds me of how my family history has been ill-kept. In fact, the average African American has a quarter of European ancestry, largely introduced through generations of systemic rape under chattel slavery for 400 years. 

When a white man may playfully call me a “boy,” I am certain they wouldn’t know that my mom taught me to never let a white person call me that. “Boy” is among the many words that white people have historically used to demonstrate their superiority over Blacks. 

When I arrive at a white man’s house or apartment for a date and they keep me waiting on their stoop, I also don’t expect them to know that I’m constantly wondering if their white neighbors think I’m trying to break in. When white people call the police on Black people for waiting outside their actual homes, I must consider these possibilities. 

Many white people aren’t maliciously trying to harm their Black partners, but as Robin Di’Angelo taught us in her New York Times bestselling book, White Fragility, white people have many racial blindspots. At the same time, not acknowledging the impact of a race-related conflict could feel excustory, leaving the white person to miss a valuable opportunity to understand and meet the needs of their partner. This could also lead to the Black person feeling resentful. “I didn’t intend to create harm,” has become carte blanche for so many white people to leave the impacts of their words and actions unexamined. 

In my experience, many white men – gay or straight – aren’t used to being challenged as much as women and BIPOC folkx are challenged. This may lead to defensiveness. Reluctant to take accountability for his actions, I once had a partner tell me that it was “unusual” and that I was being “petty” for identifying an interaction in which I felt hurt by their actions. 

In my own dating, many times a white man has told me, “I think you misunderstood” or “That’s not what I meant,” when I’ve called them out on something that may have been slightly offensive. I’m able to identify the quick dismissal of accountability, and it’s not pretty. To be fair, none of us like the mirror to be held up to our face, especially when we’re feeling really insecure with what others may label us (e.g. racist, bigot, insensitive), but it’s necessary for us to move towards trust and learning, and also deeper intimacy in our relationships. 

I truly believe white people when they say they don’t mean to create harm, too. 

Navigating sexual desire can also be fraught with problematic statements, too. It’s like the time one white partner tried to assign a monetary value to my butt. He thought it was cute when he didn’t think about it. And also, I’ve written before about comparing Black bodies to chocolate in a sexual way seems innocuous to many white people, yet it objectifies us. After all, nobody asks chocolate if it wants to be eaten. They just eat it. And chocolate is so replaceable. You might think you want chocolate today, but tomorrow you may have decided that pie is better. It’s this kind of thinking that leads white partners to become fascinated with images such as BBC. It’s also this kind of thinking that leads white partners to believe they automatically have the right to touch or play with their partner’s hair, which for so many Black people is more than just hair, it’s a sign of Black pride. 

And when a white man that I have only been on one or two dates with doesn’t respond to my text or puts me through the typical non-sense games that plague any person who’s actively dating, I bet they don’t consider that this might trigger my own insecurities around my self-worth and value — insecurities that are perpetuated by a world that hypnotizes us to devalue Black beauty. “Do they not like me because I am Black?” is a question I’m sure every Black person has asked themselves in some context at some point in their lives. 

Why would they know these things? It’s not their fault that the world is organized in a way that these experiences are not visible for them. Sometimes it’s possible to be guilty and innocent at the same time; the innocence creates the guilt. Absence of awareness, doesn’t erase the factors at play, however. But now the tides are turning, and it’s no longer “acceptable” to just “not know” about the factors at play.

These are just a few examples. There’s actually a whole realm of studies related to decolonizing our sex lives. I’m not sure if white folks realize that as with all things in our unequal society, dating is harder for Black lives, too. I’ve dated plenty to say that I’m not sure most white men can really hold space for the most tender parts of my Blackness. 

For example, the lead up to the Derek Chauvin trial, the trial itself, and awaiting the verdict was an especially stressful time for me. It’s something I manage better now that I have been exposed to more and more injustice in the world, but still I haven’t become used to them. So many of my Black friends anticipated a not guilty verdict. We’re too familiar with these cases. It’s in these moments, where I know so much of the Black community is feeling a lot, that I think about my Black brothers and sisters out there that are partnered to white folks. I just hope their white partner is able to hold the space for them if they need it. Because while justice was somewhat delivered and Derek Chauvin was found guilty, the pain and suffering for the Black community will continue.

If you’re white, and partnered to a Black person, please consider this advice:

  1. Set aside time with your partner to learn about each other’s implicit biases. Taking a free assessment such as one through Project Implicit may give couples really interesting data to start that conversation together.
  2. Some relationship gurus call it contracting or developing personal user guides, but essentially the premise is the same: develop an understanding of each other’s perspectives and needs, perhaps with the help of a relationship counselor, to establish some norms and agreements for how you will navigate the sensitive parts of the relationship. You could also discuss preferred ways of resolving conflicts. Did you know about the Five Apology Languages?
  3. Actively and continually engage in learning, using books such as White Fragility or Blindspot or a memoir by a Black author. Spice things up and maybe read to each other in bed, if your partner is willing. Attending Black history museums, art exhibits, and community and cultural events are also a meaningful way to learn together, as well.

These are some of my thoughts, but not the definitive experience of interracial dating. Share your thoughts and stories in the comments on social media when you share this article! 

/ /

Coming out is not the serve you think it is

Coming out is undoubtedly part of the essence of contemporary queer culture. It represents a point in one’s journey to complete self-actualization where they fully accept themselves, their body, and also demand to occupy space in an insidiously cis-heternormative world. 

This concept/journey has become such a treasured part of queerness, so much so that National Coming Out Day is celebrated every year on Oct. 11, not only to commemorate the 1979 National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights which demanded civil rights and legislation for LGBTQ people, but to also allow queer people to be visible, unabashedly live in their truths, and inspire others who may be fearful to do likewise. 

On this day, millions of people around the world take to social media to pen heartfelt posts that usually include a picture of the individual (most probably displaying some iteration of a Pride flag) coupled with a paragraph about their journey “living in the closet” and how they’re elated to be free. By letting the world know that they aren’t afraid to fully be themselves, queer people are claiming space where their presence has intentionally been ignored.

Albeit the power of “coming out” has to accent personal self-autonomy and challenge the pervasive nature of gender and sexual conformity, it ultimately does what queer liberation exists in contrast to: Appeasing cis-heternormative culture, or quite simply, making cis-straight (to be loosely referred to as “straight” for the rest of this piece) people feel comfortable. 

When LGBTQ people come out, they participate in a kind of performance that requires them to explain themselves to straight people. Queer people dig deep into their past experiences, which are often traumatic struggles, and in the process present what often translates into a chronology of why straight people should accept them, and more importantly, be “comfortable” with them. This is wrong.

Queerness should never center on straightness or straight feelings. By giving attention to straight people in queer journeys, we relegate undeserved power to straight people and allow for them to feel as if they need to be placated. 

Contemporary coming out culture indirectly uplifts what we are so vehemently fighting against — practices that prioritize being straight over being queer. So, as we continue to come out, employers will feel as if they have the right to know of one’s queer identity and terminate their employment upon learning of it.

Parents will demand to know of their children’s identity to “protect” them, which has more to do with managing their own appearances rather than caring for and empowering their queer children.

Friends and acquaintances will fight tooth and nail to decipher one’s queerness so they can gauge what this entails for their personal and religious beliefs, and ultimately whether the friendship should continue because they feel as if they may be courted by their queer friend (which mostly likely will never happen), thereby unsettling their perception of themselves. 

Random strangers may also physically abuse and/or kill someone who reveals their sexual and/or gender identity on the basis of feeling as if they’ve been “lied” to or intentionally deceived. 

So, if coming out is not the serve we think it is, then how to LGBTQ people live in their truth and show the world it’s okay to be queer? Well, the answer is simple: The culture surrounding gender and sexuality must change.

With regards to gender, we must get rid of both the “sex” and “gender” markers. Sex, in simple terms, refers to the genitals you were born with. Gender is the norms and behaviors that your parents and community around you project on you based on your sex. 

Time and again, it has become clear that, sex and gender simply cannot exist in binaries (yes, there are people who are born with both a penis and vagina simultaneously, or even neither.) The culture we function under has prescribed behaviors to people with certain genitals and expectations to people who identify with either of the two genders. This should stop. 

When it comes to health, medical professionals should be able to care for patients adequately and efficiently if they conceive of a person’s sexual organs as just being and not in relation to society’s faulty prescriptions. You might ask, what does this mean for science and research? Well, we can be inclusive in medical research by drawing on the experiences of all possible sex identities instead of just narrowing it down to just male/female. Intersex people exist too! 

We should also abolish the notion of gender. When children are born, we should raise them as non-binary. Non-binary identity is the pinnacle of liberation because it rebels from the traditional boxes that confine identities. It allows people to be whoever they want, whenever, and on their own accord. 

By encouraging children to socialize into nonbinary identity, we allow them to fully discover who they are and allow them to exist at any point in the identity spectrum without feeling the pressure to contort into a specific, one-dimensional mold of behavior. There is no one way to be anything. Identity is subjective and shifts and changes with time. Let children grow into themselves without being told from an early age that there’s a right and wrong way to be. 

We should also set boundaries on how to have conversations about sexuality. Oftentimes, the people most interested in a person’s sexuality have no business knowing about it. Sexuality and sex is intimate, and therefore, people should respect that boundary. What someone does during intercourse and with whom they do it should be no one’s business. It should have no repercussions on one’s social capital. Quite frankly, with whom someone sleeps affects no one but themself and the sexual partners involved. You won’t die if your friend didn’t tell you they slept with someone who has the same genitals as them. Your company won’t go bankrupt if your employee doesn’t disclose that they’re transgender. 

We should move past caring about representation and work towards actualizing our liberation. Representation is good; it is important to see yourself reflected in society. However, representation is not the end goal. 

We should work to give poor queer people access to stable food, shelter and money. We should push for more queer-friendly mental health facilities. We should establish free universal healthcare that allows transgender individuals to medically transition at little to no cost. We should actively become anti-racist and create an environment where queer people of color never have to live under the shadow of racism.

Finally, we must stop worrying about straight people. The truth is, no matter how much we may try to create space for ourselves at a straight table, we’ll never be truly welcome. If we want to liberate ourselves we have to center ourselves, experiences and feelings. We have to fashion our own tables. 

Appealing to straight people will never bring the acceptance and freedom we yearn so much for. If anything, it places us in an unending cycle where queerness is othered and never the norm enough for it to not matter. 

So should queer people stop coming out? Not necessarily. However, it is imperative that we create a world where queerness is normal enough that we don’t need to come out. 

/ /

Pride is more than a rainbow

Pride season is here. Tens of thousands of ATMs across the country will sport rainbow adornments, Target and H&M will devote sections of their stores to a panoply of rainbow trinkets and garments, companies from nearly every business segment in America will wish the LGBTQ community a “Happy Pride.” Rainbow flags will be festooned across storefronts nationwide and then disappear.

What many companies fail to realize is this annual ritual known as ‘rainbow washing,’ can have unintended negative consequences. Pride is 24/7/365 and companies that relegate their LGBTQ outreach to one month a year are often perceived as pandering and “tokenistic.”

What forward thinking marketers understand is the need for brands to talk to the LGBTQ consumer on a year-round basis. So time to move off of the Pride-month-only strategy.

A $1 trillion spending engine, LGBTQ consumers are recognized as having the highest discretionary household income, estimated to be 23% above the national average. Recent surveys say that a whopping 20% of trendsetting millennials ages 25-34 identify as LGBTQ. The math speaks for itself.

The LGBTQ segment is not homogenous or monolithic. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, creating the need for nuanced outreach efforts. Fully, 61% of respondents in a recent poll found that diversity in marketing and advertising was highly important, positively impacting a brand’s bottom line. All aspects of marketing messaging can be customized and delivered to segments and subsegments of the LGBTQ consumer sector through multiple mediums.

LGBTQ consumers are highly enthusiastic, recognized as the earliest adopters and greatest influencers representing disproportionate control of a brand’s profitability. Brands should develop emotional connections. Qualitative research shows that ‘positive image enforcement’ leads to positive purchasing decisions. Oreo’s “Proud Parent” outreach and commercial is an of-the-moment illustration, making this connection. This community responds favorably to the perception of being treated equally, as friends or family, rather than as outsiders. 

Savvy marketers must carefully navigate a fine line, necessitating tactile communication, devoid of stereotypes, while staying laser focused on brand messaging. LGBTQ relatable lexicon and imagery should be employed, wherever possible, to create a stronger bond between a brand and this consumer. This consumer understands sincerity and authenticity. 

Not to be underestimated is the power and outsize impact of social media ‘influencers’ on brand building and purchasing decisions. LGBTQ influencers have surged on all main platforms, including Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook. More than 92% of those aged 18-34 respond that they seek recommendations from a trusted source. Choosing relatable influencers that connect with consumers on emotional levels is key. Impactful LGBTQ ‘champion’ Tyler Oakley, reaching more than 7.5 million followers, connects daily with core consumers’ values and aspirations.

The pandemic has forced companies to be creative in their marketing outreach. For example, many alcohol companies are hosting online happy hours and dance events with prominent DJs. A prime example is Jack Daniels’ drag queen hosted virtual entertainment parties. 

Recently, companies such as Budweiser, Walgreens, IBM and Microsoft, to name a few, have launched consumer specific campaigns representing the ‘world around us.’ Geico’s affectionate portrayal of a male couple is another example of how these slice-of-life moments are all encompassing, reflecting a melting pot of the USA.

Sponsorships are also highly effective ways to bond with the LGBTQ consumer. Molson Coors’ Vizzy Hard Seltzer’s $1 million sponsorship of the Human Rights Campaign is extremely visible, as is Kellogg’s collaboration with GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) on its “Together with Pride” cereal launch.

When Pride season comes to an end, farsighted companies will cease the 11-month hibernation, and will use 2021 to create a holistic approach to the LGBTQ consumer, talking to them throughout the year. One thing will become crystal clear: These visionary companies will jump over the rainbow into a pot of gold.

/ /

The New York Times Doesn’t Know What Pride Is For

In her major new account of ACT UP New York, Let the Record Show, writer Sarah Schulman recalls that the infamous AIDS activist group had a special nickname for a certain paper of record: the “New York Crimes.” Though a bit goofy, the pun drew attention to the New York Times’ very serious history of institutional homophobia and, at the time, derelict coverage of the HIV epidemic that ACT UP was fighting. While the paper has improved by many measuresin the decades since, it showed a little flicker of its old self this week.

After the announcement that New York City’s Pride organizer, Heritage of Pride, had banned uniformed police and security from events from this June through at least 2025, the Times’ editorial board righteously declared the move a serious “misstep” that threated to rend the LGBTQ community asunder. The editorial lamented the hurt feelings of some cops (one of whom described the news as “devastating,” despite the fact that she can still participate as an individual, just without her uniform) and damage to Pride’s “inclusive spirit,” and worried if now wasn’t a “strange moment for the L.G.B.T.Q. community to be closing the door on some of its own and missing an opportunity to broaden its coalition.” No, the editorial board concluded—this foolish, mean-spirited ban won’t do. “Taking a pledge to protect and serve your city,” it wrote, “should not mean sacrificing the chance to be included in a community celebration of your identity.”

Whether uniformed police should be present in Pride parades and other events is a long-standing point of conflict among queers. Other cities, like Toronto, already have bans in place, while many campaigns and their attendant pushbacks are ongoing elsewhere. That Heritage of Pride (not known for being particularly progressive) made this move in New York at the behest of community members and activists (and with the guarantee of pro-police backlash) suggests that consensus may be moving in the no-cop direction.

But I am not here today to convince anyone of which side is right. I simply wish to take a moment to draw our attention to why the Times is so wrong in this editorial—about what Pride is even for.

It is not until the ninth paragraph that readers are reminded why Pride events happen in the first place. The first Pride, in June 1970, was a protest march to commemorate the riots at the Stonewall Inn the year before that were—yes, indeed!—an uprising against police violence. And these riots were not, as the ed board implies, provoked by a single “police raid”; they were the culmination of decades of state violence perpetrated by police against queers, often in places, like the Stonewall, that were the only, already-imperfect havens they had. It is a fine thing that, as the Times points out, the NYPD finally apologized for its actions in a PR stunt during the Stonewall 50th anniversary celebrations in 2019—but not nearly fine enough to erase the simple fact that Pride emerged directly and inexorably from activism, specifically against police brutality.

Times do change, and prejudiced institutions can do better. But the editorial board’s misapprehension is not just a matter of the historical origins of Pride—it’s also, and in some ways more importantly, about Pride’s purpose in the present. The editorial invokes the language of “identity” throughout. In discussing one lesbian officer, it weirdly conflates sexual identity with choice of occupation, writing that Pride is a special time when “two parts of her identity converge.” Is “cop” an identity akin to sexuality? I’m not so sure, but I do think Pride is maybe not the place for celebrating that. We gather at these events, quite explicitly, to assert and honor our LGBTQ identities and history—whatever it says on your badge or lanyard or nametag about work is really not the point (which is one reason to be wary of the corporate presence in these events, but I digress).

Later, the Times writes that “the Pride parade is also about the joy of belonging—of being part of a people knitted together by shared identity and survival.” This is a benign-enough sentiment, up until the last word. What, one wonders, does the Times imagine queer people have had to “survive”? And which of us have had to do the most surviving? If you checked with trans women of color or queer youth experiencing homelessness, you might find that the police are at the top of the list of “things to be survived,” and thus you might begin to understand better why some may view cops’ presence, however “crisp and clean” their outfits, to be less than desirable at an event we agree should offer a modicum of joy.

To be fair, the Times does include a few paragraphs allowing that police violence against queers is a thing, though it notably limits its statistics to Pride season itself—as if incidents at the actual parade (which did in fact happen at the Queer Liberation March just last year!) are all critics were concerned about. “But,” the board inevitably pivots, “barring L.G.B.T.Q. officers from marching is a politicized response and is hardly worthy of the important pursuit of justice for those persecuted by the police.” And here we have the crux of the misunderstanding: The Times editorial board believes that banning queer cops from marching in uniform is political, that tying police violence to actual police is a politicized move detached from the harm that actual victims have endured. And this is inappropriate, you see, because Pride is a “celebration,” a joyful party where “politics” are in poor taste.

I’ll allow that that’s what Pride is for some—many, even. A mere celebration. But for others, Pride is meaningless without politics. Pride is political. Pride is a space and a season in which queers have the opportunity to express and test our political commitments, some of which, yes, may divide us—which is as it should be.

The Times editorial scolds that New York’s ban is “a poke in the eye at law enforcement more than a meaningful action to address police violence or foster a dialogue about law enforcement reform.” But political action sometimes requires a bit of poking, no? (ACT UP certainly thought so.) And here we are, right now, having what looks to me like a dialogue about law enforcement reform. Hm. Not to spoil the party, but could it be that, in this particular instance, mixing politics and Pride is working precisely as it’s supposed to?

/ /

Harvard, Stanford, Yale: Denounce Sedition of Your Graduates

,

Jan. 6, 2021 will go down as one of the most disgraceful days in United States history. It is normally the date set every four years for Congress to confirm the Electoral College vote and the election of a president and vice president. It is normally a day of formalities and unity. This year it was a day when a mob led by home grown terrorists including members of QAnon, neo-Nazis and white supremacists, supported by President Trump and his sycophants in Congress, broke down doors and windows to storm the Capitol building, overwhelming police and threatening members of Congress and their staffs. 

What I find incredible is they were spurred on for weeks by a group of Republicans who supported President Trump’s wild claims the election was stolen. They helped Trump rile up his supporters, feeding them lies and conspiracy theories already debunked by state Boards of Elections, state legislatures and courts at all levels including the Supreme Court. 

I can possibly understand Americans who have very little or no education believing some of these lies. But incredible as it seems some of the people spreading these lies and inciting insurrection were educated at our most prestigious universities. These elite schools should be embarrassed by their graduates who have committed sedition and they must take action in response if they are to save their reputations. This is not about First Amendment rights, which some claim, rather the actions of their graduates trying to overturn a basic tenet of our democracy, the right to vote and have your vote counted. They called for and supported insurrection.

I don’t know all the schools involved but we do know where some members of Congress who voted to overturn this election went to school. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) attended both Stanford and Yale. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) attended Harvard, as did Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.). Stefanik even serves on the advisory board of the prestigious Institute of Politics (IOP) at Harvard where hundreds have already asked them to sever any connection with her. 

One hundred and twenty-eight members of the House of Representatives and seven senators participated in efforts to overturn legally certified elections and invalidate the votes of millions of people in numerous states. They should all be charged with sedition, which their speeches and votes surely were. The definition of the term sedition is “conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.” Their speeches on the floor of the Congress, and statements to the media, surely fit this definition. 

Last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned President Trump if he doesn’t resign she would introduce impeachment proceedings in the House. By the time this column is published that may have happened. We must not allow an American president to walk away without repercussions for the violence and insurrection he fomented. There should also be charges filed against Rudy Giuliani and Eric Trump for their statements inciting violence at Trump’s rally, which preceded the mob going from the White House to storm the Capitol. 

The individuals who breached the Capitol must be considered domestic terrorists and should be dealt with as such. Their actions were an insurrection. The FBI is rounding them up across the nation and the U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. and Justice Department, as well as the D.C. Attorney General, are looking at appropriate charges to file against them. 

What must happen is an in-depth investigation of the Capitol Hill police, which may find some were complicit with the mob. 

One thing that should not be overlooked is how law enforcement prepared for and dealt with this nearly all white mob. It is clearly different than it would have been if this mob had been Black or brown. The racism is clear and very troubling. 

There is much still to learn about all this and we must be prepared for more violence leading up to the inauguration on Jan. 20. We must punish all we find complicit, and all those who entered the Capitol, to the full extent the law allows. We must make clear to all Americans and to the world acts of insurrection and sedition will not be tolerated if our democracy is to survive. 

Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.

1 2 3 4