Burning Words

It’s been a good week for getting rid of politicians with a penchant for sexual harassment.

Earlier in the week, Troy Buswell, the Western Australian state Liberal leader, finally stepped down. Buswell had been lambasted for months after various incidents of sexually harassing women, including sniffing the chair and making sexual remarks towards a Liberal staffer, and snapping open the bra of a Labor staffer, and had unbelievably managed to hold on through several leadership challenges. Finally, after the polls showed that his behaviour had gotten so unpopular that the Liberals were going to get absolutely thrashed, he stepped down, and he’s been replaced by former leader Colin Barnett.

It gets better. Len Kiely, the Northern Territory’s boorish Labor Minister for the Environment, has been defeated in the territory election tonight, with a massive swing of more than 18%, double the general election swing - and that against a three-time loser opposition candidate. Kiely had a history of drunken indiscretions until an incident last year where he made disgusting sexual remarks towards a female security guard while trashed at the cricket. He had to step down as Deputy Speaker - only to be brought back into the ministry by Paul Henderson late last year. Karma came back to him this week, however, when the woman he’d harassed letterboxed Kiely’s electorate with a letter about what he’d done.

Good riddance, you bastards.

And on a completely different note, go read the Down Under Feminists Carnivale over at Audrey and the Bad Apples. It’s easy to forget that we’ve got a lot of great bloggers out here, and I’ve got quite a bit of good reading to catch up on.

Tags: assholes, politics, sexual harassment

The aftermath of the London Pride fiasco keeps going on, it seems, and it isn’t getting any better.

Sarah’s description of a meeting with the Metropolitan Police over the issue is, um, wow. I especially like the bit where the Pride London representative stated that the ban on trans women using the proper bathrooms was instigated by Pride London, had been done for “health and safety reasons”, and that they wouldn’t have done it if they’d known it was illegal. As Sarah said - “How about not doing it because it’s wrong?”

There’s also a variety of other trainwrecks on behalf of both the police and Pride London, the most horrifying being that a trans woman was sexually assaulted as a direct consequence of the actions of the police officer and Pride steward that night, after being forced to use the men’s bathroom. Sarah ultimately raises the prospect of a trans boycott of the 2009 event, which sounds like it’s well and truly warranted at this point. I’m struggling to think of an example of where an LGBT organisation has behaved this badly towards the trans community - I suspect even HRC would be incapable of something like this.

Thanks to Helen for the heads up.

Tags: assholes, discrimination, trans

I’ve been meaning to get back into blogging again for a bit, after a couple of months where I’ve been dealing with a bit too much personal crap to be paying much attention to the world around. This incident of “what the FUCK were you thinking?” at London Pride, however, should prompt as much outrage and scorn we can raise.

UK trans activist Roz Kaveney’s account of what went down:

Official stewards who were running the toilets at Trafalgar Square announced that I, and any other transgender or transsexual woman, had to use the disabled toilets and was not allowed to use the regular women’s toilets. I pointed out to the stewards that I transitioned and had surgery before they were born; I was more polite than a polite thing. No dice.

Having this happen at any public event is worthy of a furore, but I can’t even comprehend the sort of cluelessness on the part of those at Pride that would allow for this to happen. It’s really not that hard: you’re organising an event which purports to include the trans community, nay, to represent trans pride, and yet everyone at the scene lacks the most basic awareness of trans issues, or just plain don’t care.

It gets worse.

I went and fetched a posse of transwomen and transmen and we made a collective fuss. Their response - and remember these were official stewards AT PRIDE - was to radio in ‘we’re being attacked by a mob of trannies! send backup’.

Just…fuck. Upon being challenged on an issue where they were firmly in the wrong, their response is not only to decide that they’re being attacked by a mob, but to do so with derogatory language to the minority involved, who, y’know, ARE IN THE GROUP YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESENTING.

And worse.

They were joined by a policeman, who was a LGBT liaison officer, who claimed that we had to be able to show our Gender Recognition Certificates if we wanted to use the women’s loos and got quite upset when I explained to him that I had been involved in drafting the Act and that it did not take away rights that existed before it. At one point he threatened to arrest us for demonstrating on private property - those loos belong to Westminster Council, so you are not allowed to make a fuss there.

Both of these things greatly disturb me. Firstly, that you have an police LGBT liaison officer who appears to be both blatantly ignorant about trans issues, and not to give a shit about it. There’s something very wrong about the training of community liaison officers if the whole respecting transfolk thing gets missed altogether. This officer needs to be very promptly canned.

Worse than that, though, is the use of Gender Recognition Certificates in this way - and that’s something that might well be a warning to any jurisdictions using similar systems. They’re meant to be a legal document signifying a change of status under the state; they’re most certainly not meant to be a “gender card” if you will, signifying who you’re allowed to discriminate against. Nor are they expected to be something that one would be carrying on one’s person. If as it seems here it’s being used in that way, that needs to be stopped, and that law needs to be changed to make damn sure that pulling this sort of thing has consequences for those who do it. It’s something that I hope Press for Change get onto in the wake of this, and it’s a lesson to those pushing for the adoption of similar systems elsewhere to see that that gets included into any new legislation.

And here’s a big “fuck you” to the stewards concerned for further trying to justify it on the base that there had been a sex attack that night. The trans community gets enough of this absolute bullshit from the batshit right without having to get it from equally ignorant folks who are supposed to be on our side. Props, though, to the trans guys who stood by the women who’d been turned away, declaring that if Roz et al were being told they couldn’t use the womens, then they, beards and all, should have to use them.

To make matters worse, someone who appears to have been one of the stewards dropped by and commented anonymously on Roz’s post:

Amongst the stewards there were indeed a number of trans people and official Pride policy is to treat any individual as the gender they present as. But seriously, you want more trans recognition then it’s up to you to get pro-actively involved rather than complain after the event when something goes wrong.

And for the record a woman was attacked that was not just an excuse. It is possible that there was an over reaction in an attempt to prevent further problems. Unfortunate but surely in such a tense situation to an extent understandable. There proposed solution of asking you to use the disabled toilets (gender neutral) whilst far from ideal was an attempt offer a workable solution.

Yes this wasn’t good but your way of dealing with it only suceeded in putting more pressure on already tense and overstretched Stewards and police officers, which was far from ideal and in my opinion did no favours to tran gender issues and the way trans people are viewed.

It seems that, according to this lovely person, preventing us from using the fucking bathroom is our fault, associating our community with sex offenders is “understandable”, and crying foul in the face of treatment that would be atrocious at any event, let alone at a queer one, “does us no favours.” I say that it does London Pride no favours if these are the sort of volunteers it places in a position of responsibility that involves dealing with members of the trans community.

I think this sort of conduct on the part of an LGBT organisation warrants an international outcry; christ, if it happened to me here, I’d be seeing them again in court.

Here’s the contact details for Pride London. I suggest people drop them a line and let them know how unconscionable this is:

Email: info@pridelondon.org

Post:

344-354 Gray’s Inn Road
London
WC1 8BP

Phone: (in the UK) 0844 884 2439

People may also be interested in contacting the police department in Westminister concerning the actions of the gay and lesbian liaison officer. Their email address is westminster@met.police.uk, and there’s also a contact name and UK phone number for their consultation group, which is supposed to deal with minority issues: Julie Etheridge, 020 7641 3258.

There’s also an online petition about the incident going around; please sign that as well if you get the chance. (Thanks to Helen G in comments for pointing that one out)

Tags: assholes, calls to arms, queer issues, trans

So, here’s a hearty fuck you to the scriptwriters of medical-themed soap opera All Saints.

I really shouldn’t be surprised at the ability of some people to come out with the most ignorant and offensive ablist prejudice, but they’ve gone out and done it. Last Tuesday’s episode contained a storyline implying a connection between incest and Down’s Syndrome. Real fucking charming stuff. There’s already reports of Down’s kids getting harassed because of it, and the Down’s Syndrome lobby groups are rightly hitting the roof, with reports of legal action and advertiser boycotts - good on them.

Channel Seven’s response has been downright unimpressive too. The producers have denied any wrongdoing, the station won’t make any comment, and is resisting calls for a retraction/apology. Yeah, I shouldn’t be surprised when some asshole manages to get away with defaming an entire fucking marginalised group, but god this reflects badly on this society.

Tags: assholes, disability, media

I’ve mentioned it before on this blog, but one of the things that’s thrown me off a little bit over the last few months is that I’ve suddenly started getting read by people as straight. Until about the end of last year, I’d been read as queer ever since I was old enough for people to start reading me as queer.

Now, in many ways, that’s a good thing - to not be read as “other” for once is well, kinda neat. The downside of this, though, is that it doesn’t act as a warning side any longer to dickheads to stay the hell away.

My neighbour in college for most of the year has been what seemed to be this really nice guy, who I wind up talking to quite a bit, even if we never really got to know each other. Last night, he added me on Facebook - at which I point I discovered that half of his groups were anti-gay ones, with his details stating that he was a Christian conservative, and another group about loving Ann Coulter to boot. I did a double-take, but there was nothing on there that suggested in any way that he might be joking. And I’m suddenly thinking - my god, how did I not know I’d been living next to a complete asshole for the last four months? More than that, I’ve never really had to give too much of a damn about people being down with my being queer before, but I’m gathering that he wouldn’t have been nearly so friendly had he known he was living next door to a trans dyke.

I imagine he’s going to find out about at least the latter part of that soon, because hey, I’m a mouthy bitch and I don’t like these types to go uncalled on their shit. Still, I’m so not used to being in this sort of position that it throws with me for a bit of a loop. I’ve never actually had to deal with homophobic people I’ve actually grown to like before, because I was always so visibly queer that it never came to that.

Tags: assholes, homophobia, personal, queer issues

via The Bilerico Project:

The American Psychiatric Association has named the members of it’s working group to reassess the inclusion of Gender Identity Disorder in the forthcoming new edition of the DSM, the DSM-V. It could almost not possibly be worse. The list reads like a who’s-who of obsessed creeps who’ve made a career out of attacking trans healthcare.

Let’s start with the chair of the working group. It’s Kenneth Zucker, of Toronto’s notorious Clarke Institute. As Mercedes Allen notes over there, he’s notorious for his use of “ex-gay” style “reparative therapy” to try and beat the transness out of trans kids. This is a man who shouldn’t even be allowed to practice medicine, let alone be put in this sort of position of responsibility.

It doesn’t improve from there. The next one on the list is none other than Ray Blanchard, the creator of the theory of “autogynephilia”. This is a theory that has zero credibility outside of right-wing circles, is patently unscientific, and relies on ignoring the entire existence of transmen to even pretend for it to make sense. How in the hell was this man let anywhere near this working group?

There’s one clinician on the list who’s actually well-known for dealing with trans issues in a realistic context: Peggy Cohen-Kettenis. It isn’t a bad choice; she’s prominent and supports proper healthcare, but I’ve read some kinda odd work of hers that did take on board a bit of Blanchard’s work - perhaps the only respected psychiatrist to do so. It could certainly be worse, but I ain’t thrilled about it either.

There’s only one other person on the list who seems to have any knowledge about transpeople at all, and that’s an endocrinological specialist, Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg. Unfortunately, he looks pretty terrible too: according to Robbie: “Meyer-Bahlburg seems pretty ambivalent about whether trans people should be treated at all, especially trans youth, and thinks that Money’s notorious ideas about intersex treatment need “only minor modifications”".

Of the rest (according to Zoe Brain in comments), we have a guy who specialises in violent male sex offenders, a guy who specialises in female orgasmic disorders, a guy who specialises in sexual dysfunction, a sex therapist, and another specialist in sex offenders. None of these last five have any relevant experience in dealing with actual gender issues.

This is nothing short of a nightmare. Think of it this way: what if you were queer, and the decision over your future legal status just got handed to Peter LaBerbera?

I just don’t even know what to say. It’s obvious that WPATH weren’t even consulted in choosing the makeup of this working group. I’m hoping to god that Cohen-Kettenis and some of the randoms can inject some sense into the process, or otherwise that the results of the working group get tossed out at a later stage, but this is just inconceivable. These people have the power to abolish trans healthcare as we know it.

Update: Mercedes Allen suggests in comments over there that the resistance to this has already started, with people pointing out that having Zucker anywhere near this group makes a mockery of the APA’s past clear opposition to reparative therapy being used against the LGBT community, and starting to link up with some of the veterans of the fight to take homosexuality out of the DSM. It’s a start, but god I hope it works.

Tags: assholes, health, trans

Labor senator Kate Lundy has also been told to stick to her principles after saying she would not back the ACT’s planned same-sex civil union laws in federal parliament. Senator Lundy says she will back any Rudd government decision to over-ride the territory’s legislative assembly.

“If it comes to the Senate, I am bound by my party position, so I am not able to do what (Liberal ACT senator) Gary Humphries did in crossing the floor [in 2006],” Senator Lundy told ABC Radio. - This morning’s The Australian

A few years ago, there was a time when I was active in university Labor circles. I met Senator Lundy a few times, and as a person, she’s brilliant, progressive, and I used to look up to her. As a legislator, though, I’ve come to the conclusion that she’s a complete waste of space. I’ve dealt with her office on LGBT issues before, and she wouldn’t even give a public statement that wasn’t quoted word for word from federal Labor party policy. That she won’t even publicly oppose either an attack on the rights of her constituents, or even the independence of the flaming territory, is a new low, even for her, but it’s not a surprise. A computer could show up, give the requisite vote with the government, and spit out the pre-written press releases - and save taxpayers the significant salary she’s getting paid.

It’s a good article though - as Kevin Rudd makes exactly clear why he loves the registry option so espoused by Croome and Morgan so much:

Despite previously arguing it was a matter for the states, the Prime Minister said today that no other state was proposing laws similar to the ACT. Instead, Tasmania and Victoria have established relationship registers, which largely involve filling out a form, rather than a ceremony or the creation of a legally binding partnership.

Which is, y’know, what I’ve been saying all along.

It’s kind of ironic that the voice of sense in this situation comes from Liberal Senator Gary Humphries. I’ve met Humphries as well; he met with a group of us to discuss his position on LGBT issues prior to the last federal election, and his position amounted to “but the children! but the children!” to the point where I nearly wound up laughing at him because it was so nonsensical. Still, at least he had the guts to cross the floor in 2006 against his own government because of the territory rights argument - which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for his supposedly progressive Labor counterpart, Lundy.

Senator Humphries said it would be hypocritical if Senator Lundy did not cross the floor to vote against any government disallowance motion.

“Labor, having voted two years ago on the floor of the Senate to defend the right of the ACT government to pass this very same legislation, (is) now standing on the other side of the chamber saying: `Actually we don’t think you do have that right after all’,” Senator Humphries said.

He couldn’t be more spot on there. It’s hypocrisy of the worst degree from Labor.

Tags: assholes, canberra, Civil Partnerships Bill, queer issues

We have now lost two of the most brilliant fucking voices of women of colour in the blogosphere in the space of two weeks. First, it was Brownfemipower. Now, it’s Blackamazon.

I can’t say I blame her. She’s had to put up with far more shit than anyone should have to for getting up and expressing one’s opinions; from white feminists scapegoating her every time one of them fucks up and gets called on it, to being stared at like an object and literally run away from at the WAM conference a few weeks ago. She also happens to be one of the most brilliant bloggers I’ve ever read, someone I’ve been hugely influenced by and someone who I greatly admire.

So, to Amanda Marcotte, to Seal Press, to Hugo Schwyzer, and to every fucking ignorant white feminist who had their back, had so much empathy for them as they continually and unapologetically screwed up, but couldn’t see either BA or BFP as, y’know, humans who might warrant empathy too, are you fucking proud of yourselves?

I’m angry and upset beyond words. I want no part of this fucking movement if this is the direction that we’re headed in.

Tags: assholes, feminism, oh fuck, racism

It seems as if it’s the month for glaring displays of obnoxiousness about sex work: whether it be my deranged sociology lecturer, tigtog’s stunningly clueless effort at Ren’s, or Sam Berg’s attempts to silence Ren.

I keep noticing one thing again and again with these people. It’s obvious that these people care about those involved in sex work, or at least think they do. What they don’t have, though, is empathy. For all the words and time and energy spent on trying to save people from the sex industry, these folks generally seem to have very little ability to try and envision themselves being put in the shoes of those that they’re proposing to save. Women in the sex industry, to the likes of many of these folks, are a moral dilemma, a political problem: what they are not seen as, at least in more than a superficial sense, is people. That’s a horrifyingly privileged position to be coming from, and I think it’s why the ultimate product of that mindset is such ineffective and downright harmful social policy.

For so many of the Jensens and the MacKinnon’s of the world, it seems as if sex work can only ever be conceived of as a moral dilemma, a political problem, rather than one rooted firmly in the actual lives of those who, for whatever reason, are actually involved in that business. I see this in the tendency of many of these folk to repeatedly reframe sex workers’ rights arguments as being about it all supposedly being “empowering”, thus allowing it to fit into some sex work good/sex work bad narrative. Moreover, I think it’s a stance one needs to have to view a “war on prostitution” as being any sort of desirable political strategy beyond its sheer impracticability. Here’s why.

The likes of Jensen and Mackinnon profess to be all about those who are doing sex work for reasons other than personal choice, but from any sort of empathetic perspective, it’s a pretty unhelpful way to go about helping those women. See, say, against all the odds, you succeed. Say that anti-sex work laws, for the first time in history, completely eradicate prostitution in that jurisdiction. What in the fuck are the women who were doing sex work, say, because they can’t find another way to survive, or to pay for an addiction, supposed to do now? Do they get to starve while you folks cheer your (hypothetical) victory?

I’ve read associated theories about how the cash involved in paying for sex work will suddenly magically reappear in the non-sex work economy in such a way as to go back to those particular women. This is not a rational position. If you fight to make sex work disappear without actually providing to the support to those who don’t want to be there to allow them to get into something better, you’re effectively throwing them out on the street. The sex industry does not occur in a void. People either want to be there, or if they don’t, they’re there for a reason. As I mentioned above, perhaps they can’t find other work. Perhaps they have an addiction. If you’re going to actually help these people, perhaps it might be more useful to assist in fighting the causes rather than the symptoms. The practical result of the antis actually succeeding at eliminating sex work would be tipping some already marginalised people out of their means to make some ends meet, and forcing them into an even more precarious position. In the far more likely event that they don’t, it just means those involved in sex work wind up making less money and working in far more dangerous conditions. Either way, this is a bizarre means of planning to come to anyone’s rescue.

If one wants to actually help those who don’t want to be doing sex work out of sex work, perhaps it might, y’know, be helpful to actually listen to those voices, rather than rampaging in to the rescue. Perhaps it might be helpful to redirect the vast amounts of time, energy and money that goes into political crusades against sex work towards directly helping those women, actually giving them an out. Might it not be more effective to say, help people who need to get out of the business find jobs, or training, or stable accomodation? How about, in the meantime, helping those who are doing sex work to gain the safest possible conditions for doing so, so they’re not at quite the same risk of, y’know, getting killed and all that stuff. And perhaps, if one is concerned about sex trafficking, it might be helpful to fight for increased policing efforts on that front, rather than targeting sex work just because it’s easier. All of these things could make a difference, but you’ll never see Berg or Jensen or MacKinnon or Jefferies shifting their focus out that way: it’s far easier to feel better about oneself if one is getting to play the big feminist hero saving the poor wimmins, than it is if one sees ones role as a decent fucking human being to be a supportive ally rather than a saviour.

I’m fed up with this daft, distant, entitled bullshit from feminists who should know better. If you’re going to profess to be all about saving people, then maybe, just maybe, it might pay to actually listen to those women first, and act with empathy rather than ill-thought-through sympathy. If someone wants to be doing sex work, it’s their own damn business. It isn’t mine, and it shouldn’t be theirs. And if someone doesn’t, then efforts should be directed at providing the direct assistance they individually need and want, not dumping them in the shit because the theory says that it’s a bright idea.

Ultimately, it comes down to this. For gods sake, I’m about the most unlikely “sex-pozzie” around, seeing as I’m about the biggest prude around. The thing, it’s not about me. It’s not about what I might find empowering, or what I might want to do. I can’t conceive of sex workers as a distant other in need of saving; I’ve had friends over the years who’ve been in sex work, more often than not not because they wanted to be. So, when the Mackinnons and Jensens of the world start talking about saving the wimmins in some great abstract, I see faces, faces of people that criminalisation and anti-sex work policies have royally fucked over. I see trans girls I knew as a teenager who were trying to get out, and having a fucking hard time of it because the support services simply were not there. I realise that if I’d been less privileged in my own life, it could have been me in those shoes. And I wish that, for once, all of these defenders of the wimmins would realise that IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU. It isn’t your challenging moral, philosophical or political dilemma: it’s about people’s lives, damnit, and just because you’re distant enough from those actually affected to see them as some sort of helpless other in need of saving does not give you a license to fuck with deeply marginalised people’s lives because it allows you to feel righteous.

Tags: assholes, sex work

So, we have another developing shambles of a situation - and once again, the self-described defenders of the wimmins aren’t coming up smelling of roses.

Earlier in the week, the brilliant Renegade Evolution was invited to speak at a forum at William and Mary College on sex work, pornography and such. It was supposed to see Ren and the also-excellent sex workers’ rights advocate Jill Brenneman debate male “feminist” John Foubert and anti-sex work crusader Sam Berg. I’d have loved to have seen it. However, it seems that the organisers are under pressure to uninvite Ren because Berg feels uncomfortable with her presence.

The likes of Berg frustrate me to no end. I may be roughly the most unlikely “sex-pozzie”, considering that I’m about the biggest prude around, and I’ve been putting off doing a full post on sex work for a while, now not being the time seeing as I’m a bit drunk and tired. But ultimately, it seems to me that the likes of Berg love to spruik how they’re saving the wimmins while doing absolutely fuck all to actually help anyone who doesn’t want to be doing sex work out of doing sex work. Ren is a vital voice in that discussion, seeing as, y’know, she’s an actual sex worker and all (Brenneman also being a former sex worker), and a damned intelligent one at that. I’m very uncomfortable with the fact that Berg, coming from a far greater position of privilege, could threaten Ren’s very right to speak on her own fucking experience because it clashes with Berg’s theory.

I urge those organising the sex work debate at William and Mary College to stand behind their original invitations and let both Ren and Jill Brenneman speak for the sex workers’ rights side of the discussion. If Sam Berg is too afraid to debate an actual sex worker in the flesh, then let her relent and not show up, and find someone who can. For all that Berg and their cohorts would love to make sex work/pornography a moral discussion, this will always be, first and foremost, about people’s lives - and I will always listen to those who are directly affected, first and foremost, before those who are distant and choose to run with theory. The prospect of silencing those who most need to be heard is nothing short of disgraceful.

Tags: assholes, sex work