Discover Top Posts Tagged with #pal 1

pal 1

3 March 2017|Wisconsin congressman leads on bipartisan letter to Trump on transgender students

Topic: Working together to hinder transphobia

Recently, over one hundred members of congress signed a letter addressed to the president of the United States, Donald Trump. Within this letter, the congress people are asking that Trump reconsider his decision to rescind Title IX guidance that specifies schools’ need to protect transgender students from harassment and discrimination. The letter cites over 350,000 transgender people between 13 and 24, and how 77% of trans students from kindergarten to the end of secondary school had experienced bullying, harassment, assault, or being forced to conform to rooms that did not match their gender. The letter underscores the importance of educational communities, with both staff and students, knowing and having the tool of legal support of trans students. If Trump were to heed the wise content that the congress members put together, there would be a dramatic shift in policy and discrimination against the trans youth of America. Unfortunately, such a feat seems unlikely, but the very rally of so many members of congress to join together to defend trans children is moving and may strike up efficacy in the younger generation, as well as serve as a form of unity for the current congress when passing bills in regards to discrimination against members of the LGBT+ community. Contact your local elected officials to let them know what you care about today, and join the fight.

#pal 1 #lgbtq #congress #title ix

17 February 2017|North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory Calls LGBT Criticism ‘Political Theater’

Topic: Transphobia in Politics

It has been a little over a year since I have been completely, utterly flabbergasted by the audacity that elected officials have with their blatant transphobia. In Janet Shamlian and Jon Schuppe’s article, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory describes advocacy for trans and LGBT rights as a personal attack on him. He describes wanting people to be treated as the people they are, and respecting their gender identification, as “political theater” and a “calculated smear campaign.” Clearly this man is an expert in morals and political correctness. He knows what is right and what is wrong. Allow me to show you just how much of an expert he is:

QUOTATIONS FROM FORMER GOV. MCCRORY:

“Would you want a man to walk into your daughter’s shower and legally be able to do that because mentally they think they are of the other gender?… I happen to disagree with that, but I’ll allow business to make that decision themselves.”

Using rooms based on assigned gender at birth rather than actual gender is “common sense.”

“You know, we all have to make adjustments in life. And we’ve had the proper etiquette situation for decades in our country, and all of a sudden through political correctness we’re throwing away basic etiquette.”

“I empathize with these people who have some very unique needs. But at the same time it doesn’t mean everyone else should have to compromise a well established etiquette of men in men’s restrooms and showers and locker rooms.”

Yes, he is indeed, without a doubt, clear as day, completely aware and all-knowing of what gender is, without a hint of ignorance.

His act of misdefining gender and political correctness, along with his platform as an elected official, perpetuates bigotry, transphobia, and all around ignorance. His speech could promote hate crime and validate people who have no regard for the self identification of gender. Politicians are already fairly disconnected from the public when it comes to LGBT+ matters; his ridiculous labeling of transphobia as etiquette and demonizing of trans citizens further worsens the divide between the affected youth and elected officials. This in turn decreases efficacy and could just further the lack of recognition and representation of non-straight, non-cis minorities as well as promote the rise of those who, similar to him, believe tradition should reign supreme over human rights. Break the cycle today and contact your local elected officials with what you feel is important.

#pal 1 #lgbtq #transphobia

10 February 2017|No Rest at Rest Home: Fighting Bias Against Gays and Lesbians

Topic: Discrimination against LGBT+ and how the government can help

Discrimination against those in the LGBT+ spectrum as well as abuse of the elderly in senior living facilities are both things that frequently happen but does not get enough awareness. The two intersect in Mark Miller’s article on Marsha Wetzel, a 69-year-old who was abused in Glen St. Andrew due to being a lesbian. She filed a lawsuit in their Federal District Court in Chicago, seeking justice for her attacks and harassment. Wetzel said that she was verbally abused by other residents, as well as “pushed, shoved and spit on, and that she was injured, including bruises on her arm, a bump on her head and a black eye.” She describes her experience as dehumanizing and wrong. The majority of LGBT+ adults (in a survey of those living in a long-term care facilities) thought they would be discriminated against if they were open about their sexual orientation. Additionally, discrimination in the housing market was further supported by “A larger ‘pair test’ study by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 50 metropolitan markets found that rental housing applications by heterosexual couples were frequently favored over those from gay male and lesbian couples.”

If Wetzel’s case ends in her favor, as is hoped, it would set a precedence of protecting against hate crimes, assault, and harassment even in a private setting. This would in turn have influence over legislation and with more awareness and support, ultimately bring the protection of the elderly and the LGBT+ community to the forefront. Such a situation requires momentum and advocacy, and it is up to us to rally that reinforcement. Do your part, spread the word, and do not forget: contact your elected officials with what is important to you.

#pal 1 #Marsha Wetzel #lgbtq

20 January 2017|For First Time, Openly LGBT Governor Elected: Oregon’s Kate Brown

Topic: LGBT+ spectrum becoming normalized with more representation throughout government

Oregon is the home state of an American milestone: the first election of an openly LGBT governor. Having stepped in as governor in 2015, Kate Brown, a bisexual woman, won her election. Although there have been governors who were outed or came out during or after their election, she is the first person within the LGBT+ community to be openly out before being voted into gubernatorial office. This election plays an important role in terms of representation. With about 4% of the population identifying as LGBT+ in recent statistics, it is difficult for the youth within the spectrum to find predecessors with whom they can relate.

"If I can be a role model for one young person that decides that their life is worth living because there’s someone like them in the world, it’s worth it.“

With the normalization of non-straight or non-cis citizens holding office, public policy may be influenced to finally be less based in incorrect generalizations that perpetuate stigma and more so in the realities of their constituents and, especially now, their colleagues. Hopefully we may spread awareness about her, and any other worthy politicians, through this blog. You can access her progressive stances in community safety, environmental responsibility, the education system and Oregon economy here. Additionally, read up on her actions as governor, such as the support for the minimum wage increase as well as her responses to occupation in wildlife refuges.

#pal 1 #lgbtq #Kate Brown

13 January 2017|The LGBT Politics of Christian Colleges

“Depending on the theological and political climate of the school, colleges have different ways of dealing with this new reality.”

Topic: How traditional institutions react to new support for LGBT+

There is clear statistical evidence that Americans are becoming accepting of people within the LGBT+ spectrum. With recent movements, there has been a lot of action taken as a direct result of activism within the group, such as the legalization of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. These contemporary progressions come in conflict with institutions founded in tradition. One of the clearest manifestations coming to play is within Christian colleges, as shown through Wheeler’s piece. The new waves of support and tolerance are causing ripples throughout the policies of the schools, with many being blatantly homophobic. Cases of blatant discrimination, such as being expelled for one’s partner, or being denied donations for homeless LGBT+ youth, something that runs rampant in America, can be seen. Many schools attempt to find a compromise between the school’s convictions and the students’ climate. These schools alienate non-heterosexual, non-cis members through, despite granting entrance, denying the right of free expression of anything that could be sinfully gay or non-cis.

Their method of going about change does nothing to lessen the severe stigma and fear students face. In addition to discriminating against religious college students within the LGBT+ spectrum, one of the more painful aspects of considering the article lies in the parallels to similar institution. Our government, despite being separated between church and state, has traditional members who have their own convictions. While the American population changes in favor of supporting its non-heterosexual citizens, will politicians be able to keep up, or will the right-wing retain its ways? One of the largest concerns is that even under the premise of “acceptance,” there will always be unaccepting beliefs, an impregnable belief that people are not people due to their sexual orientation or identification, and that those who holds these beliefs will remain power with like-minded constituents.

#pal 1 #lgbtq #discrimination

6 January 2017| FDA to re-evaluate controversial ban on gay men donating blood

Topic: Regulation on MSM blood donations in the United States

Since the 1980’s AIDS epidemic, rife with misconceptions and bigotry, up until 2015, the United States employed a lifetime ban on blood donations from gay and bisexual men. The current policy by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in order to reduce the risk of the the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) entails a 12-month donor deferral for men since the last sexual contact with a man. The policy is heavily controversial, considering in order for men like Jay Franzone, pictured above, need to commit to 12 months of abstinence in order to avoid a ban rooted in discriminatory stigma.

Jacqueline Howard’s article emphasizes the attainability of lifting or lessening this ban, considering research supported no increase in risk of transmission in donations from gay men. Additionally, it provides further awareness for the present discrimination against members of the LGBT+ community. There is no inherent aspect within men who have sexual contact with other men that makes them more susceptible. All donated blood is required to be tested before transfusion, and there could be an additional 615,000 pints of blood available for helping people. My question lies within the constitutionality of the policy established by the FDA. As an executive agency, they are government representatives, and remain unsupported in denying a person the equal protection. Their actions are not driven by protecting people, but rather by the political agenda of maintaining support from the constituents so heavily reliant on the incorrect stigmas stemming from the ignorant AIDS epidemic suppositions. Is it not the administration’s responsibility to regulate in a way that protects the most citizens? Perpetuating discrimination and discouraging donations do not seem to be in our best interest. Perhaps the consideration of altering this ban will create further discussion in regards to remnant bigotry.

#pal 1 #FDA #lgbtq