AZ SB 1045 - Discrimination Against TRansgender People and Anyone Who Does Not Identify or Appear as Biologically Male or Female

I received this email today from the Arizona Counselors Association - I have sent a letter to Mr. Kavanagh, who drafted this "strike everything" amendment to Senate Bill 1045 expressing my concerns around legalizing discrimination against anyone who does look or identify as strictly male or female by traditional standards.

If you are a counselor or even a concerned citizen in Arizona, please write to one the representatives below.

Social Justice Action

Transgender SB1045 - No Loo 4U

Re: SB 1045
Who: All Mental Health Professionals
When: ASAP, prior to March 27th 2pm
How To: See Below

Transgender SB1045
No Loo 4U

The Appropriations Committee will be hearing a strike everything amendment tied to SB 1045 proposed by state Representative John Kavanagh. The strike everything amendment is clearly targeting and discriminating transgender individuals and is an affront to civil rights and human rights. The Government Relations/Public Policy Committee and AzALGBTIC of the Arizona Counselors Association are asking that Professional Counselors, Counselor Educators, and Counseling Students write the members of the Appropriations Committee expressing their reasons that they vote "NO" on the Kavanagh Amendment. As counselors, part of our identity is addressing oppression and abuses of power and privilege, this is an opportunity for counselors to practice Social Justice. Please take a few minutes and write to the Appropriations Committee.

This is a link to read the strike out amendment:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/1r/proposed/h.1045jk.pdf

Here are some talking points you can pick and choose from:

There is no problem for this bill to solve. There are no cases of transgender people causing problems in "private" spaces. It is unnecessary and only promotes discrimination. Instead of the government protecting the most vulnerable, this only encourages people to bully them.

This law tries to single out transgender people with targeted discrimination. It serves no purpose but to deny a specific minority with rights others enjoy. Such laws are unconstitutional.

This is fear mongering, a victimization of transgender people. The problem isn't them, it's other people's irrational and unjustified fear. Legislating discrimination against the innocent to satisfy the irrational fears of the privileged is the worst kind of discrimination.

This bill is written with the presumption that transgender people are inherently dangerous and society needs to be protected from them. There is no rational basis for this.

Transgender people are struggling with a recognized medical condition, they face horrible levels of discrimination, and most of them live in poverty. This just encourages people to pick on the weakest among us. This is bullying in law.

Transgender people are the most murdered minority in America. We are the ones who need protection. Others do not need protection from us. Laws like this promote the hate that gets people killed.

Everyone has a gender expression, not just transgender people. This makes it legal to humiliate men for having long hair by forcing them to use a women's room, or degrading women who wear pants by pointing them at the men's room.

This bill in no way addresses physical anatomy, which is what Kavanagh claims it is about. It just characterizes all transgender people as deserving denial of access to all private places.

Last week, Mr. Kavanagh said all transgender people should be in jail. This week he says they should just be degraded and humiliated when trying to use a public restroom. Perhaps next week he will actually get to know one of us and realize that we are just people. You are rushing in and passing laws on something you know nothing about. This is not governance.

This is an inappropriate revision to the law to be coming out of Appropriations. This law has absolutely nothing to do with government expenditure and is nothing but condoning of discrimination in the private sector.

Please send your emails to the members of the Appropriations Committee before 2:00 pm Wednesday, March 27, 2013.

Chairman: John Kavanagh (R) jkavanagh@azleg.gov 602-926-5170
Vice-Chair: Justin Olson (R) jolson@azleg.gov 602-926-5288 https://www.facebook.com/justin.olson.779?fref=ts
Lela Alston (D) lalston@azleg.gov 602-926-5829 https://www.facebook.com/lela.alston.5? fref=ts
Rick Gray (R) rgray@azleg.gov 602-926-5993 https://www.facebook.com/rickgrayaz? fref=ts
Michelle Ugenti (R) mugenti@azleg.gov 602-926-4480 https://www.facebook.com/michelle.rita.ugenti?fref=ts
Paul Boyer (R) pboyer@azleg.gov 602-926-4173 https://www.facebook.com/pauldboyer? fref=ts
Adam Kwasman (R) akwasman@azleg.gov 602-926-5839 https://www.facebook.com/AdamKwasman?fref=ts
Chad Campbell (D) chcampbell@azleg.gov 602-926-3026 https://www.facebook.com/chad.campbell.52687?fref=ts
Stefanie Mach (D) smach@azleg.gov 602-417-3126 https://www.facebook.com/StefanieMachAZ?fref=ts
Thomas Forese (R) tforese@azleg.gov 602-926-5168
Andrew Sherwood (D) asherwood@azleg.gov 602-926-3028 https://www.facebook.com/sherwood.andrew?fref=ts

I would also copy your state Senators and Representative by using the link below to find out who they are:

http://www.azleg.gov/alisStaticPages/HowToContactMember.asp

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, Elizabeth Forsyth (elizabeth.forsyth@me.com), or Chad Mosher (chadmosher@gmail.com)

Thank you for your efforts to stand for justice and equality,

Gordon Gray and Elizabeth Forsyth (President of the Arizona Association for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues in Counseling- AzALGBTIC)

Gordon Gray II
Government Relations/Public Policy Chair
AzALGBTIC Bylaws Chair
Arizona Counselors Association
P.O. Box 38652
Phoenix, AZ 85069
602-300-6198 (Cell)
623-748-9599 (FAX)
gordongray@me.com

This article comes from NPR's 13.7 Cosmos and Culture blog. Barbara King reports on an incident that happened in Virginia (where she lives) in which a transgendered woman was asked to leave a spa (with sex-segregated baths) because of five complaints that she didn't look feminine enough (she is a marathoner and happens to be muscular). The complaints had nothing to do with her genitalia, only her muscular appearance.

From this story, King moves into the complex world of fluid gender identities, something this culture is going to have to deal with as more and more people become gender-queer (whether they identify that way or not).

Flexible Gender Identities Confound Expectations Of A Male And Female World

Riya Suising

by BARBARA J. KING
March 14, 2013

Last month, a traveler from California named Riya Suising came to Virginia (where I live) on business. While here, Suising decided to visit a spa and relax in its communal, sex-segregated baths, something she, a marathon runner, often does at home.

iStockphoto.com

What happened next shocked her. The spa's manager asked Suising to leave, based on what he said were five complaints lodged by other spa customers. For some people, Suising — who, by her own description is tall and muscular, with broad shoulders — did not look feminine enough to be sitting in the female baths.

Suising, a transgendered person, told The Fairfax Times: "None of the complaints, as they were described to me, referenced my genitalia in any way. I can't believe that they would discriminate based on physical appearance. I was not doing anything but keeping to myself."

It's that comment of Suising's — I was not doing anything but keeping to myself — that I find most poignant. And this was no momentary lapse in judgment for which the spa subsequently apologizes. No, as The Fairfax Times article makes clear, it's the spa's policy to not accept what it terms "any kinds of abnormal sexual oriented customers," a policy that's been interpreted as legal in Virginia.

I learned about what happened to Suising from my daughter, Sarah Hogg, after discussing with her a book we'd both just read: Stone Butch Blues by Leslie Feinberg. In this novel, a young person named Jess Goldberg, born female, struggles for many years with gender identity.

As an adolescent, Jess identifies as butch in a butch-femme culture, and later takes steps, including hormone therapy and breast-reduction surgery, to pass as a man. Later still, Jess embraces an identity that is neither wholly female nor wholly male.

Repeatedly, Jess loses hir job (this pronoun is meant to adress Jess' blended identity). Jess is also attacked and beaten. The attacks occur not only when police raid the bars Jess visits in the 1960s and 1970s (both before and after Stonewall), but also when Jess is out in the everyday world, shopping or waiting for the subway. In other words, harm comes to hir even when Jess is not doing anything but keeping to hirself.

There was something different about Jess. For some people, being unable to categorize hir as male or female upon sight was disconcerting enough to trigger discrimination, or worse.

Author Feinberg, a political journalist and gender activist, notes in an afterword that, though fiction, the book is "Real all right. So real it bleeds."

I asked my daughter Sarah — who thinks about these things in the course of her leadership role with James Madison University's Madison Equality organization — two questions: Was it believable that someone who just looked different would be the target of such discrimination in the everyday world, even when keeping to hirself? And even if that result had occurred decades ago, weren't people more informed, aware, and accepting now?

That's when Sarah showed me the article about Suising. While Suising wasn't physically harmed at the spa, the incident clearly and understandably has caused her much emotional pain. What happened at that spa was wrong. Suising identifies as female: end of the story (or it should be). As with anyone, she should be judged on her behavior, not her appearance.

I've written it here before: there's so much gender variety in our world, beyond a strict, imagined born-male versus born-female dichotomy. Some people identify as female, some as male, some as both male and female, some as neither. Feinberg has the character Jess speak this truth through fiction:

Who was I now, woman or man? I fought long and hard to be included as woman among women, but I always felt so excluded by my differences. ... Who was I now, woman or man? That question could never be answered as long as those were the only choices; it could never be answered if it had to be asked.

~ You can keep up with more of what Barbara is thinking on Twitter: @bjkingape

Why Did 16 Eagle Scouts Return Their Pins?

This is via BuzzFeed, and it was posted a couple of weeks ago. One might easily assume these letters are in response to the recent release of documents showing the Boy Scouts had known about and not reported child molesters in their ranks (they did however ban them from any involvement and kept a list of names so that they could not go to another town and perpetrate).  But they aren't - they are in protest of the decision by the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts recently to reaffirm its ban on gay scouts and scoutmasters.

As one of the young men below states:

Being “mentally awake and morally straight” means thinking for yourself and standing up for others in times of inequality. Every boy in this country deserves to have the opportunity to take part in scouting regardless of sexual orientation.

The young and not-so-young men represent the values I would hope our sons be taught - discrimination of any kind is wrong and should not be tolerated.

16 Eagle Scouts Returning Their Pins

These Scouts penned open letters to the Boy Scouts of America to explain why they can no longer be affiliated with an organization they dedicated years of their childhood to be a part of.  

Reported by Stacy Lambe 

1. James S. Kleven, Troop 18

Via: eaglebadges

I left the Boy Scouts when I was sixteen, grappling with the conflict between my sexuality and the BSA’s ban on openly gay members. Though I regret that I was not brave enough then to be honest about my reasons for leaving, I realize now that no young man should be forced to make that awful decision.

Via: eaglebadges

2. Michael A. Weber, Troop 179

Via: eaglebadges

[T]he day I obtained the Eagle rank was a very proud moment, but not only for the same reason it is for most. For nearly a decade now, I have felt a great sense of accomplishment at having earned the Eagle rank as such an unlikely candidate. But this pride doesn’t outweigh the burden on my conscience.

Via: eaglebadges

3. Britton Lense, Troop N/A

Via: eaglebadges

I looked at the Boy Scout Handbook in relation to someone who is gay and only saw disappointment on numerous occasions. I took a promise as a Boy Scout to live by the Scout Oath and Law and as my values are no longer aligned with those of the BSA through defending those who are gay. I am being reverent and faithful in my religious beliefs and that is why I am returning my Eagle Scout Badge and certificates received from many including the President of the United States, New York Governor and Senator, my high school, Boy Scout Troop and others.

Via: eaglebadges

4. Christopher Clawson, Troop 11

Via: eaglebadges

Being a leader of men does not come with a ‘straight’ prerequisite. That the National Executive Board recently reaffirmed a ban on gay scouts and scoutmasters is deeply troubling. In the course of my career as an entertainer, I have met and worked with numerous members of the LGBT community – many of whom have told me it wasn’t so much a choice that they made as it was an affirmation of who they were. After all, no rational adult would choose a life of constant ridicule, harassment and rejection.

Via: eaglebadges

Read the rest of the article.

Gawker - Man With Breast Cancer Denied Medicaid Coverage

Damn, this is effed up - men get breast cancer, too, and my guess is that the combination of obesity (more breast tissue and more endogenous estrogen production) combined with all of the carcinogenic xenoestrogens in the environment will cause at least a ten-fold increase in male breast cancer over the next 20 years to so. Insurers need to get on board with reality here.

Man With Breast Cancer Denied Medicaid Coverage

By Lauri Apple Aug 7, 2011

Every year 2,100 American men are diagnosed with breast cancer, which obviously means that breast cancer is not a "woman's disease." Yet the federal government still treats it as such, as Raymond Johnson—an official Man With Breast Cancer—can tell you.

Johnson, 26, learned he had breast cancer last month when he presented to his local hospital in Charleston, S.C. with terrible chest pains. After receiving his diagnosis and being discharged from the hospital, he applied for Medicaid. Supposedly he met all the eligibility requirements except the one that required him to be a woman, so his application was denied.

Because his job doing honest work laying tiling doesn't pay as much as, for example, a position as a union-busting Verizon executive does, due to American priorities, Johnson can't really afford to pay for his chemotherapy, surgery, and other medical expenses out-of-pocket. Now he's at risk of losing his entire livelihood. USA! USA!

"Cancer doesn't discriminate, so this program shouldn't discriminate," says Johnson, correctly. The state's Department of Health and Human Services supports his position, and wants the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to stop discriminating against male breast cancer patients. It's not the first time that reps of the South Carolina health agency have made this request of the feds; the last time, they received a response informing them that "Congress would need to change the law" before men were eligible for Medicaid's breast cancer coverage program. In other words, it's not looking too good for Raymond Johnson's wallet right now.

[Post and Courier, WCIV, Image via WCIV]

Tags: men, health, discrimination, breast cancer, insurance, Gawker, cancer, Medicaid, Congress, chemotherapy, surgery, Raymond Johnson, Man With Breast Cancer

President Obama Decrees June 2011 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month

In what represents a much smaller step forward than it might seem, President Obama has decreed that beginning in 2011, June will be LGBT Pride Month. In one way it's a monumental recognition - but until the laws change allow same-sex marriage, until a trans man is not questioned about having a penis as proof he is a man, and even until we include intersex in the acronym (LGBTI), then no proclamation will change the fact that LGBTIQA (Q = questioning; A = allies) are not accorded full citizenship in this country.

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
May 31, 2011

Presidential Proclamation - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

The story of America's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community is the story of our fathers and sons, our mothers and daughters, and our friends and neighbors who continue the task of making our country a more perfect Union. It is a story about the struggle to realize the great American promise that all people can live with dignity and fairness under the law. Each June, we commemorate the courageous individuals who have fought to achieve this promise for LGBT Americans, and we rededicate ourselves to the pursuit of equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Since taking office, my Administration has made significant progress towards achieving equality for LGBT Americans. Last December, I was proud to sign the repeal of the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. With this repeal, gay and lesbian Americans will be able to serve openly in our Armed Forces for the first time in our Nation's history. Our national security will be strengthened and the heroic contributions these Americans make to our military, and have made throughout our history, will be fully recognized.

My Administration has also taken steps to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans in Federal housing programs and to give LGBT Americans the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital. We have made clear through executive branch nondiscrimination policies that discrimination on the basis of gender identity in the Federal workplace will not be tolerated. I have continued to nominate and appoint highly qualified, openly LGBT individuals to executive branch and judicial positions. Because we recognize that LGBT rights are human rights, my Administration stands with advocates of equality around the world in leading the fight against pernicious laws targeting LGBT persons and malicious attempts to exclude LGBT organizations from full participation in the international system. We led a global campaign to ensure "sexual orientation" was included in the United Nations resolution on extrajudicial execution -- the only United Nations resolution that specifically mentions LGBT people -- to send the unequivocal message that no matter where it occurs, state-sanctioned killing of gays and lesbians is indefensible. No one should be harmed because of who they are or who they love, and my Administration has mobilized unprecedented public commitments from countries around the world to join in the fight against hate and homophobia.

At home, we are working to address and eliminate violence against LGBT individuals through our enforcement and implementation of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. We are also working to reduce the threat of bullying against young people, including LGBT youth. My Administration is actively engaged with educators and community leaders across America to reduce violence and discrimination in schools. To help dispel the myth that bullying is a harmless or inevitable part of growing up, the First Lady and I hosted the first White House Conference on Bullying Prevention in March. Many senior Administration officials have also joined me in reaching out to LGBT youth who have been bullied by recording "It Gets Better" video messages to assure them they are not alone.

This month also marks the 30th anniversary of the emergence of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, which has had a profound impact on the LGBT community. Though we have made strides in combating this devastating disease, more work remains to be done, and I am committed to expanding access to HIV/AIDS prevention and care. Last year, I announced the first comprehensive National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States. This strategy focuses on combinations of evidence-based approaches to decrease new HIV infections in high risk communities, improve care for people living with HIV/AIDS, and reduce health disparities. My Administration also increased domestic HIV/AIDS funding to support the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program and HIV prevention, and to invest in HIV/AIDS-related research. However, government cannot take on this disease alone. This landmark anniversary is an opportunity for the LGBT community and allies to recommit to raising awareness about HIV/AIDS and continuing the fight against this deadly pandemic.

Every generation of Americans has brought our Nation closer to fulfilling its promise of equality. While progress has taken time, our achievements in advancing the rights of LGBT Americans remind us that history is on our side, and that the American people will never stop striving toward liberty and justice for all.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2011 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists, and to celebrate the great diversity of the American people.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand eleven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.

BARACK OBAMA

Tags: President Obama, Decree, June, 2011, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Pride Month, LGBT, gay marriage, law, discrimination, homophobia, presidential proclamation, LGBT pride month, HIV/AIDS epidemic

Marco Fanara - Cultural Relativism Versus Sexual Rights as a Coherent Set of Human Rights

At one point in his discussion, Fanara offers this quote:

The notion that there are two and only two genders is one of the most basic ideas in our binary Western way of thinking. Transgender people challenge our very understanding of the world. And we make them pay the cost of our confusion by their suffering. (O’Flaherty, Michael & John Fisher (2008) Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and International Human Rights Law: Contextualising the Yogyakarta Principles)

We label anyone who transgresses the accepted gender binary as ‘different’ or weird or even ‘abnormal’ - we make them 'other' and exclude them from most communities - forcing them to live "on the fringes, or outside the periphery of society in regards to enjoying human and/or sexual rights."

These exclusionary structures - the process of "othering" - Fanara argues, "cultivate and permit symbolic and even physical violence against any form of sexual difference or ‘deviance’ that may be perceived as a possible threat to sexual ‘normalness’."

Good article.

Cultural Relativism Versus Sexual Rights as a Coherent Set of Human Rights

Marco Fanara
United Nations Mandated University for Peace

May 24, 2010

Abstract:
Proponents in favour of sexual rights as a coherent set of human rights argue sexuality is a fundamental component of one’s self and are therefore universal. Opponents of such views suggest sexual rights are not in fact universal mainly due to cultural relativism, which includes, but are by no means limited to religion, cultural beliefs, social systems, and politics must be taken into account when discussing ‘universal sexual rights’. This paper aims to address and attempt to answer one question: Do various ideological differences undermine sexual rights as a coherent set of claims within human rights?

This is a short but interesting article - here is the first part of his argument:

Sexuality is an evolving concept at best, fluid and ever changing.1 It is a concept that transcends, but nevertheless includes, notions of sexual activity to encompass gender identities, sexual orientation, and reproduction, to name a few. There are many aspects that interact and contribute to one’s sexuality, such as cultural, social, economic, ethical, legal, historical, religious, biological, psychological, and spiritual factors.2 Sexuality is expressed through one’s desires, attitudes, beliefs, thoughts, values, fantasies, practices, and relationships.3 Many argue sexuality is a fundamental component of the personality of every human being, and as such are universal and entitled to protection through sexual rights.4 Miller (2008) concurs, “sexual rights make a strong claim to universality, since they relate to an element of the self which is common to all humans: their sexuality.” As is the case with universal human rights, universal sexual rights are based on the inherent freedom, dignity and equality of all human beings.5 Others argue cultural relativism and various ideological differences (be they political, religious, cultural, social or otherwise) must be taken into account when discussing ‘universal sexual rights’.

Herein, for the purposes of this paper, we will now discuss the various issues surrounding sexual rights. Albeit this paper covers an extensive array of issues, note it is by no means comprehensive or exhaustive, rather allow this paper serve as a mere introduction into the vastly complex issues surrounding sexual rights. More specifically, we will address and attempt to answer one essential question: Do various ideological differences undermine sexual rights as a coherent set of claims within human rights?

So what exactly are sexual rights? As noted by Richardson (2000), there are “competing claims for what are defined as sexual rights and lack of rights, reflecting not only differences in how sexuality is conceptualized but also the fact that there is no singular agreed definition of sexual rights.” O’Flaherty and Fisher (2008) state sexual rights are those rights relating to one’s perceived or actual gender identity and/or sexual orientation. The World Health Organization cites sexual rights as those that are:

human rights that are already in national laws, international human rights documents and other consensus statements. The include the right of all persons, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, to: (1) the highest attainable standard of sexual health, including access to sexual and reproductive health care services; (2) seek, receive and impart information related to sexuality; (3) sexuality education; (4) respect for bodily integrity; (5) choose their partner; (6) decide to be sexually active or not; (7) consensual sexual relations; (8) consensual marriage; (9) decide whether or not, and when, to have children; and (10) pursue a satisfying safe and pleasurable sexual life. The responsible exercise of human rights requires that all persons respect the rights of others.

Similarly, the Yogyakarta Principles are a set of principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. The Principles affirm binding international legal standards with which all States must comply.6 Said rights include: The right to universal enjoyment of human rights, non-discrimination and recognition before the law; The right to human and personal security; Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; The right to expression, opinion and association ; The right to freedom of movement and asylum; The right of participation in cultural and family life; The right of human rights defenders; and last but not least the right of redress and accountability. Alternatively, Miller (2008) argues there does not exist a universally, politically or substantively accepted set of sexual rights standards in the world today. She further asserts international human rights law, contrary to popular belief, actually facilitates the state’s repressive role in regulating sexual activity and expression as it says very little about the national regulation of sexuality.

The question now becomes, can states relegate the above noted sexual rights on cultural or ideological grounds? As Miller (2009) notes, “attacks on sexual rights are linked to the emergence of an amalgam of political interests that draw together justifications based on religious, culture and nation to undermine human rights.” Many academics argue a number of states restrictive and discriminatory regulation of sexuality is interrelated to power relations between heterosexuality and any ‘other’ form of sexuality and that there is little moral justification for such oppressive regulation.7 “Means to control sexuality are institutionalized not only in cultural and social norms and customs, but also in legal policy and practice.”8 What is often deemed as ‘normal’ sexuality (hegemonically masculine heterosexuality) by cultural and social expressions leaves little space for social recognition of sexual diversity and as such often times defines ‘other’ forms of sexuality as deviant.9

Full citation:
Marco, F. (2010, May 24). Cultural Relativism Versus Sexual Rights as a Coherent Set of Human Rights. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1749653

Tags: Marco Fanara, Cultural Relativism, Sexual Rights, Coherent Set of Human Rights, transgender, transsexual, culture, discrimination, gender roles, traditional masculinity, SSRN, Human Rights

Who Decides Who Is a Man and Who Is Not a Man?

An interesting case is about to hit the courts in which a man was fired for not being born with a penis. El’Jai Devoureau (pronounce LJ) has identified as a man his entire life, unfortunately (it seems), he was born with a female body. So in 2006 he began hormone therapy and had "sex change" surgery.

According to the Social Security Administration, the New Jersey DMV, and his Georgia birth certificate, he is a man. He is a man as far anyone who knows him is concerned.

Last June, Urban Treatment Associates in Camden hired him and then fired him when his boss heard that he was transgender. His job was to supervise the men who are in treatment while they give urine samples to make sure they are not switching clean urine for their own.

So this is where the issue gets interesting - what is in question is his gender:

In its January filing, Urban Treatment said that firing Mr. Devoureau was legitimate, “since the sex of the employee engaged in that particular job position is a bona fide occupational qualification” — implying that Mr. Devoureau was not really a man.

According to the New York Times, New Jersey is one of 12 states that ban discrimination based on transgender status.

Here is the beginning of the NYT article:

A Lawsuit’s Unusual Question: Who Is a Man?

By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: April 10, 2011

What is a man? For El’Jai Devoureau, this is not a rhetorical question.

El'Jai Devoureau, 39, said he was asked by his supervisor if
he had undergone any operations to change his sex.

Mr. Devoureau, who was born physically female, is a man at the Motor Vehicle Commission, at the Social Security office, at home, at job interviews. But what about at the urinal?

In a case with a truly unusual set of factors, Mr. Devoureau filed a discrimination lawsuit on Friday that could break new ground in New Jersey and across the country, turning on the question of who is or is not a man. An employer fired Mr. Devoureau because it said only a man was allowed to do his job: watching men urinate into plastic cups at a drug treatment center.

Mr. Devoureau, 39, says he has identified himself as a man all his life. In 2006, after he began taking male hormones and had sex-change surgery, he adopted the name El’Jai (pronounced like L. J.). A new birth certificate issued by the State of Georgia identifies him as male, as does his New Jersey driver’s license, and the Social Security Administration made the change in its records.

“As long as I’ve been a person, I’ve lived as a man,” he said in an interview. “At age 5, I did everything a boy did: I climbed trees, I played football, I played with trucks. Most of the people in my life, all they know is I’m male.”

Read the whole article.

As far as I am concerned, El'Jai is a man. Period. He identifies as a man, he lives as a man, and the government recognizes him as a man. It is not the penis that makes the man.

As Helen Boyd points out at the en|Gender blog, this is obvious discrimination:

So here’s how you tell this is discrimination: if a man who had lost his penis in an accident had this job, no one would have fired him for being penis-less. If a man who had hypospadias & had to pee sitting down had this job, likewise. If a man who had a penis that required a catheter for him to pee had this job, he wouldn’t have been fired.

THUS: El’Jai Devoureau was fired for being trans. As a culture, we still haven’t worked out how wholly incorrect this “genitals at birth determine gender for a lifetime” idea is.

Yep - wonder how long it will take to make that leap.

Tags: men, male, transgender, law, discrimination, trans men, transsexual, masculinity, ethics, essentialism, El'Jai Devoureau, New Jersey, Urban Treatment Associates

The Looming Male Backlash - Rosalind C. Barnett & Caryl Rivers

George Diebold / Getty Images

Rosalind C. Barnett & Caryl Rivers, writing at The Daily Beast, propose that women should expect a "looming" male backlash - this conjecture is based on a recent study that suggests that young men who read about women’s success become nervous (not sure how they are defining any of these terms, but ok).

The authors believe this finding is further proof that "women still face serious obstacles on the road to equality." Apparently, Caryl Rivers and Rosalind C. Barnett are gender studies experts. I think they are manufacturing a "looming" crisis out of thin air, while actually ignoring a new and serious issue within their own ranks.

The Looming Male Backlash

by Rosalind C. Barnett

Caryl Rivers

A recent study revealed that reading about women’s success makes young men nervous—but the finding’s just the latest proof that women still face serious obstacles on the road to equality, say gender studies experts Caryl Rivers and Rosalind C. Barnett.

You can’t miss Women’s History Month. Every March, posters, books, articles, films, and lectures celebrate female success. These pats on the back can only be a good thing, right?

Maybe not. According to a recent study, spotlighting women’s achievements makes some men very nervous. We might be better off whispering our kudos or toasting each other in out-of-the-way bars.

The research, published in the journal Basic and Applied Social Psychology, reveals a major gap in how men and women view female success. In a survey given to American college students, young men reported high levels of anxiety after reading census data that showcased the gains women have made over the past 40 to 50 years, like graduating from college at higher rates than men and excelling in historically male professions.

Seemingly threatened by this progress, the male survey-takers also reported feeling a strong sense of solidarity with their own gender—protective of it, even. And they tended to exaggerate how far women have come and how far behind men have fallen.

The findings are ominous: Despite recent headlines cautioning “the end of men,” women still have miles to go to achieve gender equality—and men’s uneasy response to female success hints at real-world challenges ahead. We know from prior research that when men feel threatened, they tend to energetically protect their status. No study can claim to predict the future—but having spent decades researching gender relations, to us, this new report suggests that men might be less likely to hire women, mentor them, or value them as colleagues.

Equally troubling: The study also found that many young women aren’t concerned about gender-based career obstacles. When female survey-takers read about current opportunities to enter previously male-dominated occupations, they reported low levels of threat as well as a diminished need to bond with their own sex.

Read the whole article.

Most of their argument is not at all new - same statistics (roughly), different year - and yes, this needs to change - but nothing about it suggests a looming backlash, more like business as usual:

This month’s report from the White House on the status of women showed that, at all levels of education, women earned about 75 percent of what their male counterparts earned in 2009.

Indeed, female MBAs earn, on average, $4,600 less than male MBAs in their first job out of business school. Women start behind and never catch up. Professionals are hit the hardest. The latest data show that female physicians in the U.S. earn, on average, 39 percent less than male physicians. Women financial analysts take in 35 percent less, and female chief executives, one-quarter less.

They introduce a new form of oppression, however, or at least it's new to me - they call it the glass cliff - "in which female business leaders are more likely to be appointed to powerful leadership positions when an organization is in crisis or high-risk circumstances."

So the idea is that things are going badly and they aren't going to get better, so let's appoint a woman CEO and then fire her when things get worse - we will look progressive for hiring a woman while also discrediting women as CEOs.

Seriously? We are supposed to take this seriously based on THREE examples?

Carly Fiorina (Hewlett Packard), Kate Swan (W. H. Smith) and Patricia Russo (Alcatel-Lucent) were appointed to top positions at a time of tumbling share prices. All were fired or pushed out of their jobs.

Show me 20 examples and I may believe there is a pattern. I don't know about the others, but Carly Fiorina is an idiot - HP should have fired her for being stupid and should not have given her a $21 million buy-out.

While the article essentially blames men for being nervous about successful women, and also being discriminatory in pay and promotions (none of which is new or news - yes, there is still work to do to get women equal pay for equal work), the article ends with a "real" issue - one that I think should be the focus of concern:

It’s not just men who propagate and accept workplace stereotypes, but women as well. New York University psychologist Madeline Heilman finds that women see competent female bosses as ruthless, strict, mean, and stubborn. But they see equally competent men as professional and capable. Too often, we have met the enemy, and she is us.

Why didn't they write an article about this? Unless this changes, it does not matter what men do or don't do - it'll be women who are holding women back.

Tags: men, women, sexism, work, employment, discrimination, The Daily Beast, The Looming Male Backlash, Rosalind C. Barnett, Caryl Rivers, gender studies, gender roles, culture, business, glass ceiling, glass cliff, young men, anxiety, successful women

Daddy Dialectic - Parenting While Male: 74 Fathers Talk about Playground Discrimination

Interesting - it seems that stay-at-home dads still are not accepted as actual, honest-to-god parents. "Parenting while male" is how some dads refer to the discrimination they face. Sad, very sad.

Parenting While Male: 74 Fathers Talk about Playground Discrimination

Posted by Jeremy Adam Smith

You’ve probably heard the phrase “driving while black,” which refers to a perception that black drivers are more likely to be stopped by cops. This was whispered in the African-American community for years before it broke out into the wider cultural conversation and was gradually validated by empirical studies.

Similarly, stay-at-home dads have whispered for years about feeling unfairly targeted for "parenting while male," and recently their concerns have started to get mainstream attention. In last week's Wall Street Journal, Free-Range Kids author Lenore Skenazy explored what happens when “when almost any man who has anything to do with a child can find himself suspected of being a creep.”

I spotted the column in a tweet from the redoubtable DadLabs. I replied: “I was once asked to leave a playground by a grandmother. I wonder how many guys have had that experience?” DadLabs tweeted back: “Most? Or faced playdate discrimination of one kind or another? #dadsnotpervs.”

This little twitter exchange echoes less-public discussion I’ve heard many times at gatherings of fathers: that they are often made to feel like outsiders at parks, playgrounds, and situations where most of the other parents are moms or grandmoms—and that their participation in playgroups or classes is sometimes rejected.

Atrocity stories circulate, but how widespread are actual "parenting while male" experiences, really? To start to get the answer, on Monday I created this survey, which as of this morning had been taken by 74 guys—60 percent of whom spend 31 or more hours a week taking care of a child.

Read the whole post.

Tags: stay at home dad, parents, fathers, discrimination, stereotypes, Daddy Dialectic, Parenting While Male, 74 Fathers Talk about Playground Discrimination, Jeremy Adam Smith

Slate: Young Women Better Educated, Earning More than Young Men

This sign has been hanging on the wall in plain view for years - with so many more women than men getting a college education, it was bound to happen that they would eventually be earning more. That time has come.

Some feminists will likely be happy to see this, but others will worry that this will detract from the equal pay for equal work argument. In reality, there is always a huge downside to any inequality - women have felt it for decades, if not centuries.

Are Young Women Earning More Than Their Boyfriends?

Yes, but only because they're better educated.

By Heather Boushey
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 7, 2010, at 1:27 PM ET

The news last week was that if you're a young woman without children, you have a shot at making more money than your boyfriend. "Young, single, childless women out-earn male counterparts," says USA Today; "Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top" says Time.

On the other hand, little has changed - men still earn more than their female coworkers for the same job, bringing the same education/experience to the workplace.

There are two ways to look at the gender pay gap. The first way is to ask whether equally skilled men and women in comparable jobs are paid the same. That's the way to gauge workplace fairness. Do women with similar credentials in similar jobs earn as much as the men they work with? It's in this context that the answer remains no.

How do we know that? To understand workplace fairness, economists analyze how much of the overall gender pay gap—women still earn 78 cents on the $1 of what men earn—can be explained by the characteristics of workers and the jobs they hold and how much cannot be explained by anything except the person's gender. In other words, they compare workers of the same educational attainment holding the same kinds of jobs—male college-educated electrical engineers and female college-educated electrical engineers. The American Association of University Women tackled the pay gap question this way and found that for college-educated women, the gap emerges as soon as they graduate. Their research shows that a woman earns 5 percent less the first year out of school than a man who goes to the same college, gets the same grades, has the same major, takes the same kind of job with similar workplace flexibility perks, and has the same personal characteristics, such as marital status, race, and number of children. Ten years later, even if she keeps working on par with the men around her—that is, continues to have the same level of on-the-job experience—the AAUW found that she'll earn 12 percent less.

Again, it's all in how you look at the numbers and what the polling question really asks. Boushey breaks it down a bit in her article:

But from the media reports, it's clear that the analysis compared the median earnings of women and men aged 22 to 30 working full-time who do not have children and who live in the largest cities in the United States. Reach Advisors did not address whether the men and women in the sample had similar skills or experience, or held the same kinds of jobs. They asked: If you're a young, childless woman, do you earn as much as a young, childless man? With the question framed this way, the answer was yes. In fact, Time reports, Reach Advisors found that "in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group."

What it really comes down to for this age group is that more women have more education than their same-age male peers, so they should earn more money or get the higher paying jobs. This is what the education numbers look like plotted out in a neat graph:

Since it's hard to read those numbers, here is how it breaks out:

Among women aged 22 to 30, a third (34 percent) have some college education and a third (35 percent) have a college degree or more. Among men in that age group, less than a third (30 percent) spent some time in college, and just over a quarter (28 percent) have a college degree.

So what does this man for young men?

A 2008 article in Newsweek suggested that 1 in 5 school age boys have emotional or behavioral problems -according to the parents who sought medical advice. Only 1 in 10 parents of girls reported similar problems (full study here).

Twice as many male children as females are medicated for ADHD or some other mental health issue. Within this overall it breaks down like this:

Older boys (7.6%) were prescribed medication more often than younger boys (5.8%), and older girls (4.4%) were prescribed medication more often than younger girls (2.6%)

The causes for this supposed epidemic of ADHD (are kids really that different than they were 40 years ago when I was entering pre-school?) range from environment to parenting, but I suspect it is even more complex than stated.

The Newsweek article lists some possible causes:

• environmental pollutants found in plastics
• parents now schedule their kids' time from dawn till dusk
• by age 4, an ever-increasing number of children are enrolled in preschool
• elementary schools have become test-prep factories
• standardized testing begins in kindergarten
• recess is being cut to allow more time for reading and math drills
• active play is increasingly frowned on—some schools have even banned recess and tag

Some kids are dealing with this demand for performance and increased early education pretty well, although despite all of this, test scores by the time they reach high school have changed little in 40 years.

The ones who can't handle this pressure, in general, are the boys.

So here a few other possibilities for why boys are failing:

• lack of omega-3 fats in the diet
• too much processed foods
• too little "real" food
• too little time in nature
• too little quality time with parents
• too much television
• too little unstructured play time
• not enough exercise
• not enough rough and tumble play
• not enough time with fathers
• mothers too protective (helicopter moms)
• boys expected to act more like girls
• education system skewed more toward girls (over-correction)

I could go on and on. It's not one single cause - nutrition is part of it, child rearing is part of it, the educational system is part of it, and so on.

Unless we start addressing these issues, the gap between women and men in education will continue to widen, and men will eventually be left behind.

Tags: Young Women, Earning More, young men, Boyfriends, better educated, educations, Slate, Heather Boushey, college, Reach Advisors, sexism, discrimination, discrimination, sexism, education, culture, gender differences, research, media, boys, girls, men, women

Male Child Abuse and Fatalities - The Numbers

I found these links at The Spearhead, a site that I read regularly and often disagree with either in part or in whole. The contributors are often very angry (perhaps some of the stats below are WHY they are angry) and extremely anti-feminist. But they do seem to care about men, their health, their rights as fathers, and some of cultural bias against men (although they focus on the biases and injustices perceived to come from women far more than others).

A recent post (linked to above) focused on the fact that boys of all ages die more frequently than girls as a result of abuse. Based on what I know of child abuse, this makes sense - but we seldom here about male children being killed (far more often by mothers than by fathers). When the media covers such a story, it is usually about a female child.

Age and Sex of Child Fatalities, 2006

This table compares the age and gender of children who died from maltreatment for only those States that reported fatalities in the Child File. The first column lists the single-year ages ranging from birth to 3 years. Then the ages are grouped together: 4–7, 8–11, and 12–17. Next the population, number of victims, and rate of fatalities per 100,000 are presented for boys and for girls. Then the boys and girls are added together for total fatality victims. A total of 1,129 children died as a result of abuse or neglect, as reported by States in the Child File only.

AGE	GIRLS
	POPULATION	NUMBER	RATE PER 100,000
<1>	1,462,500	215	14.7
1	1,457,529	61	4.2
2	1,458,173	58	4.0
3	1,437,652	30	2.1
4-7	5,647,666	43	0.8
8-11	5,603,650	25	0.4
12-17	8,983,687	22	0.2
Total	26,050,857	454	Blank Cell
Rate	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	1.7

AGE	BOYS
	POPULATION	NUMBER	RATE PER 100,000
<1>	1,531,444	284	18.5
1	1,525,624	108	7.1
2	1,527,348	82	5.4
3	1,504,541	42	2.8
4-7	5,902,038	91	1.5
8-11	5,868,580	29	0.5
12-17	9,430,198	39	0.4
Total	27,289,773	675	Blank Cell
Rate	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	2.5

The numbers for who is the abuser generally do not reflect what we see in the media or in the popular culture. If it's a family member, we seem to assume it must be the father, but it's not - when it's a parent it is more often the mother.

Figure 4-2 Perpetrator Relationships of Child Fatalities, 2006

This pie chart indicates that 27.4 percent of child fatalities were perpetrated by the mother acting alone. Such nonparental perpetrators as daycare providers, foster parents, or residential facility staff were responsible for 14.6 percent of fatalities.

The numbers are no better from 2008:

Table 4-5 Perpetrator Relationships to Child Fatalities, 2008
Child Maltreatment 2008

Relationship to Child	Child Fatalities
	Number	Percent
PARENT
Mother	358	26.6
Mother and Other	119	8.9
Father	170	12.6
Father and Other	19	1.4
Mother and Father	289	21.5
NONPARENT
Daycare Staff	25	1.9
Foster Parent (Female Relative)	1	0.1
Foster Parent (Male Relative)	1	0.1
Foster Parent (Nonrelative)	2	0.1
Foster Parent (Unknown Relationship)	3	0.2
Friend or Neighbor	3	0.2
Legal Guardian (Female)	1	0.1
Legal Guardian (Male)	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
More than One Nonparental Perpetrator	28	2.1
Other Professional	1	0.1
Partner of Parent (Female)	4	0.3
Partner of Parent (Male)	36	2.7
Relative (Female)	32	2.4
Relative (Male)	18	1.3
Staff Group Home	2	0.1
Unknown or Missing	232	17.3
Total	1,344	Blank Cell
Percent	Blank Cell	100.0

Based on data from 41 States.

It bothers me that we generally assume men are the perpetrators and girls are more often the victims. NO CHILD should be abused - but there is some not too subtle sexism involved here - against boys and men.

When was the last time you saw a male child on Nancy Grace or one of those other shows that make celebrities out of missing children (always white, generally blond and blue eyed)? Surprisingly, however, more missing boys are mentioned on network news than missing girls - I wouldn't have believed it before reading the study linked to.

Bu then there is this commentary that comes from Sociological Images:

Commenter eruvande pointed out that when discussing the case of an 11-year-old boy, Shawn Hornbeck, who was kidnapped, beaten, and sexually abused for 4 years, Bill O’Reilly implies that he must have liked the situation or wanted to be there, because otherwise he could have escaped:

When Van Susteren points out the case of Elizabeth Smart, who also seemed to have opportunities to escape and didn’t “choose” to take them, O’Reilly refers to her as a “little girl,” although she was 14 when she was kidnapped.

I am trying to imagine a similar response to a girl. Although we often still blame women for being raped, it seems to go the other way when it comes to childhood sexual abuse/kidnapping: girls might get to be innocent victims, but boys ought to have been tough enough to get away. If they didn’t, they must have liked it.

Unbelievable, really.

No, really, it's fucking unconscionable.

Tags: men, boys, abuse, death, media, culture, discrimination, Male Child Abuse, Fatalities, statistics, US Dept of Health and Human Services, children, child abuse, girls, gender bias, mothers, fathers, The Spearhead