Recently in Queer Issues Category

Del Martin (right) with her wife, Phyllis Lyon

Sad news: LGBT rights activist Del Martin has died.

Martin, who married her longtime partner Phyllis Lyon on the first day same-sex marriage was legal in California, co-founded (with Lyon) the first national lesbian rights organization, the Daughters of Bilitis in 1955.

Lyon released the following statement on Martin's death: "I am so lucky to have known her, loved her and been her partner in all things. I am devastated, but I take some solace in knowing we were able to enjoy the ultimate rite of love and commitment before she passed." (Emphasis mine)

This is incredibly sad, but what an amazing woman - and an amazing life!

Pam has more.

Lapriss Gilbert was forced to leave a federal building after a guard in the Social Security office told her that her "lesbian.com" shirt was offensive.

She said the guard, who works for a private company hired by the Department of Homeland Security, demanded that she leave the building or face arrest.

"As an African-American and a lesbian, I haven't been through one day without facing some sort of discrimination ... but this is just shocking," said Gilbert, 31.

A witness, Paul Dumont said, "For her to be told to leave was completely unnecessary, especially considering how peaceful and quiet she was responding the the security officers." In his statement to police Dumont noted that the guard's "loud, unreasonable, aggressive and angry approach to the situation almost caused chaos."

Via the f word.

It looks like Hallmark is targeting a new consumer.

While the language doesn't directly refer to marriage (considering the fact that two states in this country actually recognize gay marriage), they were created shortly after California legalized. The cards have mushy language that could apply to marriage or civil unions like, "Two hearts. One promise."

But, but...it's Hallmark! The corporate monster that commercializes (and banks off of) every holiday to the point of puking, not to mention serves as a huge contributor to the heteronormative machine (Valentine's Day, etc.).

That being said, this has to be more a good thing than bad, no? Thoughts? Has anyone seen any of these cards?

h/t to Julia.

This was a great blog by author Kate Bornstein (of My Gender Workbook fame) on this summer's animated blockbuster, Wall-E.

Her blog post, cleverly entitled WALL•E: A Butch/Femme Love Story... or Silly Rabbit! Robots Have No Gender:

I'm completely smitten with WALL•E, this summer's Pixar/Disney offering. But the last thing I expected to see in my friendly, heterosexual upper east side Manhattan neighborhood movie theater was a feature length cartoon about a pair of lesbian robots who fall madly in love with each other. WALL•E is nothing short of hot, dyke Sci Fi action romance, some seven hundred years in the future! Woo-hoo!

I had similar thoughts while watching the movie about how they were obviously attempting to gender the robots--this is a children's movie for godsake! But similar to the political subtext of the film, there was an interesting subtext about gender and romance that Bornstein explains in her post.

The film makers take a great deal of care in pointing out that WALL•E and EVE's notion of butch/femme romance is based in the world and culture of Hello, Dolly. Hello_dolly_3That's supposed to be a cue for the audience to believe they're a "healthy" heterosexual male and female couple. But it's not proof that they are male or female. And anyway, how camp is Hello, Dolly!?

Is it that simply by looking at the robots, we can tell that WALL•E's a boy and EVE is a girl? What was it up on that screen that defined the robots' gender? Both robots were naked, so we could see their entire anatomy, right? Neither of those robots had a vagina or a penis. Did you see one or the other? Neither robot was sporting an Adam's apple. Neither EVE nor WALL•E flashed any tit that I could see. So, we've got no way to spot those robots as male or female by using secondary sex characteristics. But still, most of us would swear on a stack of holy bibles or holy Gender Trouble that those robots are male and female. How did we most of us come to agree on that?

Read the rest for more!

Via Sugarbutch Chronicles

Not just leather daddies, haha. Well this does warm my heart on some level, but I am cheesy like that. I have known many gay couples through out my life that have desperately wanted to adopt and weren't able to for legal reasons or because of homophobia.

The cost remains high, and a good lawyer is essential. Yet despite complications, the idea of becoming a biological dad with help from a surrogate mother is gaining allure among gay men as the status of "married with children" grows ever more possible.

With same-sex marriage now legal in California even to nonresidents, and Massachusetts extending its 4-year-old gay-marriage policy to out-of-staters, in-wedlock parenting is suddenly a realistic option for gays and lesbians nationwide, even if their home state won't recognize the union.

Fertility clinics and surrogacy programs report increased interest from gay men, while couples who already have children are getting married -- or considering it -- to provide more security for those kids.

But before I keep doing my happy dance, I have some issues with the framing of "married with kids." The fact that it is a very costly thing to either adopt or have surrogacy, makes it something only elite (white, male, upper middle class-as depicted in the picture above) gays can do. Furthermore, the assumption that you have to be married to have children perpetuates the myth that women who have children out of wed-lock are somehow illegitimate. It is a slippery slope while mainstream gay/lesbian rights groups fight for "legitimacy" in the marriage system, there are many many other types of people engaging in alternative sexual behaviors who's rights are not only overlooked but not met through the fight for gay partnerships and adoption rights.

via CNN.

Thanks to Twanna for the heads up!

Miriam mentioned the other day that the Democrats had improved the language about reproductive rights in the party platform. Yesterday, however, came the news that they've stripped out the platform's only references to gay and lesbian Americans. Here's the edited version:

We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.

Cynical interpretation: They're trying to scale back explicit support for LGBT rights.

Hopeful interpretation: They're defining "families" broadly and inclusively -- not limited to straight or to straight and queer couples.

Thoughts?

This ad is apparently airing in California right now:

(There's no spoken commentary -- just images.)

On one level, I really like this approach because it uses the wedding-industrial complex against itself. It takes as a given the fact that many straight people (women in particular) desire and idealize this sort of mega white wedding, and uses that to tug their emotions. I can see how this would be a very compelling. In that, it feels subversive. Taking the ultimate heteronormative, capitalist celebration and turning it into an argument for equality. I like that.

On the other hand, you could argue that this ad is just propping up the same old ideals about extravagant weddings and proper marriages. That it's not subversive at all -- it's more of the same.

What do you all think?

For more food for thought on the subject, check out Miriam on why marriage isn't her golden ticket, Courtney on how gay marriage has her rethinking her personal views on getting hitched, and Samhita on how marriage laws erase transgendered people.

(Thanks to Crystal for the link.)

A highschool in Okeechobee, FL didn't allow their GSA to organize. They reached out to the ACLU who then filed a federal lawsuit. A year and a half later, the GSA won through one of the first decisions of its kind.

via Alternet.

In his first-of-its-kind decision on July 29, Moore ruled in Yasmin Gonzalez vs. School Board of Okeechobee County that not only can the club meet, but also that a school board "is obligated to take into account the well-being of its non-heterosexual students."

It is one of a kind in that it explicitly states protecting the rights of non-straight conforming students.

Also, via the ACLU website:

"Judge Moore's ruling that GSAs are beneficial to gay students and that they don't harm straight students is unparalleled. This is a clear victory for the students, for the Okeechobee GSA and indeed for all high school students in Florida," said Robert Rosenwald, Director of the ACLU of Florida LGBT Advocacy Project. "These are brave students who would not be silenced and did not tolerate discrimination. So many children cannot stand up for themselves, but hopefully this ruling will serve as warning to other Florida schools that equal access truly means equal access, and schools that choose not to follow the law will be inviting similar litigation."

Yes, this is your happy for today.

Thomas Beattie, the pregnant trans man who made headlines recently after an appearance on Oprah and an article for the advocate, just gave birth last month.

You can see the video from the Good Morning America segment here.

Courtney has an awesome column up at the TAP -- one that really resonates with me -- about how seeing her queer friends excited at the prospect of getting hitched has caused her to reexamine her own views on marriage.

I've spent more time than I'd like to remember in the past three or four years explaining to family, friends, and perfect strangers why I'm not dying to walk down the aisle (note: he has spent at least half as much time doing so, an incredibly irritating discrepancy). Usually my answer goes something like this: 1) I don't want to participate in an institution that's been historically sexist and currently discriminates against my gay friends, especially considering that my partner and I couldn't have been married in some states just 40 years ago (we're miscegenators), and 2) I'm uncomfortable with the "till death do us part" rhetoric that seems to suggest that two people parting ways is an inherent failure, rather than, as is so often the case, a necessary moment of growth and change.

For the latter explanation, I usually get a pitying look and an onslaught of romantic counter-argument, as if I am a princess in a fairy tale who has suddenly lost faith in the glass slipper. (Never mind the cold, hard fact that over half of marriages end in divorce.) For the former, I get little more than skeptical silence; people always suspect that the political argument is just a big cover up for my boyfriend's frozen feet.

Public reaction aside, I'm starting to doubt my own justifications. What am I to make of my commitment to not participate in a sexist, historically racist institution when my own gay friends are flocking to the coasts so they can join in the gift registry and the white-dress hoopla? Of course they deserve all the legal protections and economic benefits of a legalized marriage; according to the Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, there are over 1,400 state and federal rights guaranteed by marriage, while there are only 300 state benefits and no federal protection for civil unions. But do these rights really trump the woman-as-property history and discriminatory present (on a state by state basis, of course)? Why do so many of my gay friends have such faith that they can transform the institution when I'm still so unsure?

Go read the rest! And for another perspective on marriage, check out Miriam's writing on the subject.

I highlighted this awful McCain quote in this week's WFR:

I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don't believe in gay adoption.

Wonk Room has the goods on just how extreme McCain's position is. Nearly every child welfare organization in the country opposes adoption bans against gay people (both couples and individuals).

McCain not only expressed his opposition to adoption by "gay couples"-as if that weren't bad enough. He said he wants "both parents" involved and therefore doesn't believe in "gay adoption." This approach rules out adoption by gay individuals-even though these adoptions are permitted in every state except Florida. In fact, it seems to rule out adoption by single heterosexuals too.

So basically only people exactly like John McCain could possibly make loving parents. What a jerk.

Also, given McCain's belief in forced-birth policies, shouldn't he want to encourage adoption, not limit it?

So to speak. According to last week's Chronicle, the age old and very organized movement in India for LGBTQ rights is coming out.

That silence broke Sunday, when gays and lesbians found their voice in three major cities - New Delhi, Kolkata and Bangalore - in the first large public display of gay pride India has ever seen.

"Up until now, we've been in the public space protesting a violation, or someone being beaten up," said Gautam Bhan, 28, one of the New Delhi parade organizers. "Now we feel like we have enough of a foothold to celebrate a positive presence."

While the U.S. gay-rights movement has progressed to the wedding altar, Indian activists are still fighting for decriminalization of gay sex. Efforts to reform a 19th century law banning homosexuality are galvanizing the gay community as it fights for reforms in a country where arranged marriages are still the norm.

I will ignore that this article started with saying, "protests are as Indian as spicy curry," but I think the immediate comparison to how the US gay-rights movement is leaps and bounds ahead because we are starting to legalize gay marriage is an oversight and framed with the assumption that the US is defining the way we talk about sexual liberation. We have dictated the timeline and so everyone else needs to fall in line. Sounds familiar? It ignores the nuanced ways that queer identities exist in indigenous cultures. The article does quote this however,

In their book "Same-Sex Love in India," authors Ruth Vanita and Saleem Kidwa wrote that homosexuality was generally tolerated in precolonial India as long as it didn't get in the way of the above-mentioned duties.

The mentioned duties being baby making.

Let me start by saying, I think this is great. Homophobia and hate crimes against the LGBTQ community is a huge threat in India. But also, I find it interesting that the rainbow is being invoked along with similar imagery and slogans from the US gay rights movement are being used for this moment of gay liberation. Is it similar to the US where the movement is majority middle class and where a working class and people of color queer movement generally looks different? Or is it the imagery that caught on and is a way of standing in international solidarity with other gay rights movements?

So, did anyone do any pride-related events this weekend? I'm sad to say I missed the NYC march...it looks like it was as fun as ever despite the rain.

Pic from Taylor Siluwe.

via AngryBrownButch, Rinku Sen talks about the myth that communities of color are more anti-gay than white communities:

Transcript after the jump...

It seems every few weeks there is another study about sexual difference and biology. I've written before about what bothers me about studies that talk about gender difference, and I similarly take issue with studies about sexuality and sexual orientation.

Why do they bug me? Because the premise behind studying the why of sexual difference is unfair. When we decide to look for the cause of queer sexual orientations to me that says "here we have a problem. let's find the root cause!" Queer sexualities are not a problem, or an abnormality, or a disease that we need to cure.

The same goes for "why are you gay" discussions. I frankly find them offensive, because we are once again searching for the root cause of this sexual abnormality. I also think these studies (and the way the media likes to misuse them) are overly deterministic. They imply simple cause and effect relationships between biology and sexuality that are just not accurate. We are all super complex beings, with many factors that influence who we are and our behaviors.

They also tend to make conclusions that are just generalizations backed by statistics--like the recent BBC report about gay brains looking like straight brains of the opposite sex. Not all queer women are the same, nor are all queer men. Nor are all straight women, etc. These generalizations just serve to reinforce the categories that we already believe to be valid.

Some within the queer community have fought in support of the "I was born this way" logic, because they feel that it is the easiest way to fight against discrimination. Since I can't help being the way I am, you have to respect me and my lifestyle. That doesn't hold up too well though if scientists (or psychologists) decide they have a "cure" for homosexuality. Then we no longer can stand behind the I was born that way logic and instead it becomes a choice to fix the problem or not. Some conservatives (and those in favor of ex-gay therapies) already believe this.

Again, we are super complicated beings and it's pretty difficult to prove where sexual preference comes from. But what if it was a choice? I think that should be respected just like anything else. I'm in support of sexual practices between consenting adults, no questions asked.

I'm not saying we should ban these studies--obviously scientists will conduct whatever studies they want, but it would be great to see them covered in a more nuanced way that doesn't fall into these traps.

If she identifies as a woman, she is a woman. But that is obviously too much for the state of Virginia to understand, so they are trying to figure out if they should prosecute a husband and wife for getting married, because it turns out the wife is an MTF. So technically they are violating the same sex marriage. Since a transgender woman's personhood is not recognized by the state.

A prosecutor says the decision to press charges could turn on whether the pair knowingly misled officials when they applied for a license and later, traveled to a courthouse for a ceremony. If the bride was transgender, and identified as a woman, it is unclear whether the marriage would be considered illegal.

The pair went to Newport News Circuit Court on March 24 to obtain a marriage license -- McCain appearing as a woman and saying the name "Justine" before a deputy, said Newport News Circuit Court clerk Rex Davis.

McCain produced a Virginia driver's license, but a design quirk -- the 'm' or 'f' for male or female appears directly against a darkened state seal -- meant nobody noticed McCain's gender, Davis said.

If she identifies as a woman than she is a woman. Is she "fooling" herself along with the courts? If she "mis-led" them that would assume that she is not actually a woman according to the state and her rights as a transgender person are illegible. The debate around gay marriage doesn't always factor in the relationship between transgender citizens and the legal apparatus of marriage.

via CNN.

In conjunction with Pride month (and the CA marriage decision) the American Civil Liberties Union is hosting an LGBT blog symposium. Head over and check it out. You can see more about my thoughts on marriage, as well as some super stars like Angry Black Bitch, Pam from Pam's House Blend, Kate Clinton and others.

From the Associated Press: "Gay couples in Norway will be granted the same rights as heterosexuals to marry, adopt and undergo artificial insemination under a new equality law passed Tuesday."

Yesterday was a pretty exciting day in SF. But this is not as exciting. I am all for fair and balanced coverage, but I have to question the motives of publishing the thoughts of Fred Phelps. "God hates fags" isn't exactly well meaning political discourse. It is hate speech.

Thanks to Greg for the link.

As of today, the fact that the person you love shares your gender is no longer a barrier to marriage in California. Huzzah! Here's to the many couples who will marry today -- and hopefully live happily ever after.

And for a reminder that marriage isn't the be-all, end-all of queer activism, listen to our gal Miriam on WBUR (Boston's NPR affiliate).

I know this won't come as a shock to all you feminists, but relationships that don't hew to traditional gender roles are more equal.

Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.

While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll.

We've written a lot about research that shows unequal opposite-sex relationships "can take a toll" -- mostly on women, who are still stuck with the bulk of the housework. So it's understandable that, in a relationship where neither partner is socially "marked" as the one responsible for housework, things would be more equitable on that front.

Beyond the housework example, I thought the article was going to veer into "all women resolve conflict, and all men avoid it, therefore gay couples don't fight" territory. But I was pleasantly surprised. It's more about how couples interact within their relationship -- not necessarily about the gender of the individuals involved. I was relieved to see one of the researchers quoted as saying, "“Like everybody else, I thought this was male behavior and female behavior, but it’s not."

Of course, the overall frame for the article -- that same-sex couples are more equitable and therefore happier -- is a generalization. There are egalitarian hetero relationships. There are queer relationships where gender roles come into play. The take-away lesson should simply be that with more equality -- and with some breathing room from society's expectations for our gender -- we're all a lot happier in relationships.

Jen Biesty and Zoi Antonitsas are partners. As in, romantically involved and committed. Not "galpals."

How hard would it have been for the Boston Herald to write the headline: "'Top Chef' couple will heat up Macy's"?

Thanks to Sara for the head's up.

The American Pyschological Psychiatric Association (APA) appointed members at the beginning of May to the Committee on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders for the revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V).

This committee will be reexamining the DSM-V, which is the manual of mental disorders that controls the diagnosis and treatment of gender and sexual difference. It was a big deal when homosexuality was declassified as a disorder, and some queer and trans activists are calling for gender identity dysphoria to be similarly declassified.

Since then, lots of people have been expressing their concern about two particular appointments: Ray Blanchard and Kenneth Zucker (who has been appointed as chair).

From Rea Carey, Acting Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

We are very concerned about these appointments. Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard are clearly out of step with the occurring shift in how doctors and other health professionals think about transgender people and gender variance. It is extremely disappointing and disturbing that the APA appears to be failing in keeping up with the times when it comes to serving the needs of transgender adults and gender-variant children.

I've gotten quite a few emails about this, as well as a link to a petition against these appointments.

Why does this matter? Some people have been alleging that these two members are proponents of "reparative therapy"--tools used to make homosexual or gender non-conforming children straight through therapeutic methods and gender normative behaviors (don't let your son play with dolls, etc). You can listen to a recent NPR story comparing two different therapy philosophies about gender variant kids.

The way the APA classifies these gender and sexual identities is important for the standards of care for queer and gender non-conforming people. It impacts what kind of medical care they can receive as well as how they are treated by the psychological community. If homosexuality (or gender variance) are considered "disorders" that implies that a) there is something wrong with these behaviors and b)that there is a cure.

I also received an email with a response from Dr. Blanchard, which pretty much denies all these allegations against him. You can see his statement after the jump.

Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore, editor of That's Revolting! Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation, has an interesting piece in Alternet where she argues that "gay marriage does nothing to address fundamental problems of inequality."

What is needed is universal access to basic necessities like housing, health care, food, and the benefits now obtained through citizenship (like the right to stay in this country). Legalized gay marriage means only that certain people in a specific type of long-term, monogamous relationship sanctioned by a state contract might be able to access benefits. While marriage could confer inclusion under a spouse's health-care policy, it does nothing to provide such a policy. Marriage might ensure hospital visitation rights, but not for anyone without a spouse. Marriage may allow for inheritance rights between spouses, but what if there is nothing to inherit?

What do you think?

Ellen rocks my world. Jill makes a good point that there are biggie reporters who wouldn't be this direct with him. Big ups!

I'm a little late on this, but I have to mention it. Did anyone else find it really irritating that Deborah Solomon's Questions with Cynthia Nixon in the last New York Times Magazine seemed like some weird "Ask a Lesbian!" column? Check these questions out (the last one is the kicker)...

A few years ago, you moved in with a woman, after leaving the father of your children. Do you find it easier living with a woman than a man because you have more in common? I think you do have more in common.

You can use the same bathroom in movie theaters, for instance. That’s absolutely true!

Can you share clothes? No. Christine doesn’t wear women’s clothes; she only wears men’s clothes. She won’t even wear any kind of women’s shoes. I bought her a pair of cowboy boots that were from the women’s department, and she was like, “Don’t do this again.�

Does she watch sports on TV? She does. We don’t have a TV. But when there was a World Cup, we went to the local Ruby Foo’s and watched it. And we actually did watch the Super Bowl as well. She tried to explain it to me.

Do you think of her as the male figure in the relationship? No, I don’t at all. Look at what’s happening now. She’s at home with the kids, and I’m the one out pounding the pavement. . . . She’s for Hillary, and I’m for Obama.

I swear, I was waiting for her to ask about scissoring.

A while back I had made a call for proposals for an excellent anthology and it is finally ready and it is available free online with interactive features. So please go check out Beyond Masculinity: Essays by Queer Men on Gender and Politics.

Check out Jay Smooth's take on the historical problem of homophobia in hip hop culture and what we often call the politics of outing or "spotting the gay." You won't regret it. I swear.

A woman who was thrown out of a NYC restaurant (the Caliente Cab Co) for being in the woman's bathroom just won a large settlement.

The incident happened during Pride weekend (ironic, right?) last year, when Khadijah Farmer was burst in on by a staff member while in the woman's bathroom. The staff person told her to leave, even after she showed him ID proving that she was a legal woman (and a biological woman in this case as well). It seems that her "not so feminine" (Khadijah's words) presentation was what caused the incident.

The Transgender Legal Education and Defense Fund took up the case, and they were awarded all of their demands.

From the NYTimes article:

“The settlement was so darn good,� Mr. Silverman said. “We got everything we wanted for Khadijah, and in terms of getting good terms on the issues we were looking at, we couldn’t in good conscience litigate.�

Among the workplace practices that Caliente Cab agreed to adopt in the settlement was to add gender identity and expression to its corporate nondiscrimination policy; to adopt a gender-neutral dress code for its employees; and to amend its employee handbook to state “persons patronizing or employed at Caliente have the right to use the bathroom facilities consistent with their gender identity and expression.�

It's been a pretty good week for the queer community, with this and the CA decision, as well as a possible victory for the trans community in Ontario.

In the wake of the California Supreme Court's decision to overturn the state's same sex marriage ban, Ellen DeGeneres announced her plans to wed girlfriend and actress Portia de Rossi on her television show yesterday.

She received a standing ovation from her audience.

Thanks to Think Progress for the vid!

Woot! More to come...

UPDATE: Autumn at Pam's House Blend has the ruling.

Just to add to what Jessica posted two days ago about the Michigan Supreme Court decision, the University of Michigan is trying to find ways around the decision.

After a lower court ruled that the gay marriage ban applies to benefits, some universities switched their benefits programs so that they were available not to domestic partners but to “other eligible individuals,� a category that would include many gay partners, but would also include others who live with but are not legally related to university employees. For example, the University of Michigan’s criteria include joint residence for at least six months, some joint financial ties such as checking accounts, and no legal relationship or marriage between the individuals involved.

After the Supreme Court decision Wednesday, the university immediately asserted that its new benefits are not domestic partner benefits and are thus not covered by the ruling. Further, the university said it had eliminated domestic partner benefits after the lower court’s decision. “The university believes all current benefit offerings are in full compliance with Michigan law. The university cares deeply about recruitment, retention, and maintaining a healthy workforce and we design our benefits with these principles in mind,� the statement said.

This is why these kind of referendums (like the 2004 ballot measure that created the MI law) are so insidious. I wonder how many of the people who voted against gay marriage would agree that same sex couples should be denied access to each other's health care.

Thanks to Rose for the link

It seems that banning same sex marriage just wasn't enough for Michigan. The state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments and universities can't offer health benefits to same sex partners of employees.

The court ruled 5-2 that Michigan's 2004 ban against gay marriage also blocks domestic-partner policies affecting gay employees at the University of Michigan and other public-sector employers.

The decision affirms a February 2007 appeals court ruling.

Charming.

h/t Delightfully Dawgmatic.

Less than a week after the annual Day of Silence action, a principal in Memphis displayed a list of couples in the high school -- including gay couples, outing some of the students. The ACLU is suing the school on behalf of two of the students.

In September of 2007, the principal at Hollis F. Price Middle College High told teachers she wanted the names of all student couples, "hetero and homo," because she wanted to monitor them personally to prevent students from engaging in public displays of affection. The two students now represented by the ACLU, Andrew and Nicholas (who have asked that their last names not be revealed), were two A students who had been seeing each other for a short time and were attempting to keep their relationship quiet and private. The principal heard about them through another student, then wrote their names on a list she posted next to her desk, in full view of anyone who entered her office.

ABC News reports,

"I really feel that my personal privacy was invaded," Nicholas, one of the young men who claims his sexuality was exposed without his approval by his principal, told ABC News' Memphis affiliate Eyewitness News Everywhere. "I mean, Principal Beasley called my mother and outted me to my mother!"

"It was actually frightening," Nicholas said of the incident, which occurred in Fall 2007, "to see a list with my name on it where not just other teachers could see but students as well."

Of course it was frightening, giving recent events like the murder of 15-year-old Lawrence King, who was killed by a classmate because he was non-gender-conforming. And a recent report shows anti-gay hate crimes remain a big problem in Tennessee.

The principal, Daphne Beasley, says she made the list of couples in an effort to combat public displays of affection. (Related news this week: Some people are so upset by gay couples kissing in public that they think it's necessary to involve the police.) Beasley claims it was a "personal call list" used to notify parents (which, hello!, is problematic in itself), and it was never posted publicly. But the ACLU says the list was highly visible in her office.

[ACLU lawyer Christine] Sun, who told ABCNEWS.com that she believes the Memphis school district to be "homophobic," said that Nicholas' mother — who was "shocked" to hear that her son is gay — reported that Beasley said she "had a problem with homosexuality" and that "homosexuality will not be tolerated."

Advocates for Youth has issued an action alert, and is encouraging people to write to the Memphis City school board to demand that policies be implemented to protect students from future harassment by school staff.

For more on making schools a safe space for students of all sexualities and gender presentations, check out GLSEN. GenderYOUTH also does great work, and right now they're conducting a survey of how schools and campuses are doing in terms of prohibiting discrimination and promoting awareness of gender identity and expression. Click here to tell them what's going on at your school.

Last night Ryan Sorba, an "anti-homosexual activist" spoke at Smith College. Sorba, the author of the upcoming book, "The Born Gay Hoax," (yes, seriously) can been seen in action here. The awesome feminists of Smith forced Sorba out after a mere twenty minutes of speaking, when he was drowned out by protesters.

Pam has more.

Thanks to Diana and Anne for the heads up!

Anyone remember Erin Davies? She's the Albany woman whose Volkswagen Beetle was defaced with "fag" and "u r gay," and instead of fixing her car - she decided to take action. She kept the slurs on the car as a way to start conversations and to raise awareness about queer issues and homophobia.

Well, it seems Davies' car has gotten a new look. Thanks to the folks at Volkswagen, Davies got her car an awesome new paint job. She now takes the Fag Bug across the country, keeping a blog.

Davies says, "Fag Bug has become much more than when it started. And to be able to transform it into something positive, rather than have people look at my car and be upset and hurt, I'd rather they look and see how bright the colors are, see something fun and playful instead of something hurtful." Davies is also has a book and movie in the works. Awesome!

Thanks to Rob for the link.

Castro's Cuba was less than perfect with regard to the treatment of the queer community. Many queer people were put in labor camps and anti-gay reform programs early on and many, many fled. However like most of the world, things changed over the years with regard to laws, but not as much in terms of mindsets. Raul Castro's daughter Mariela, who is the head of the National Center for Sex Education is trying to pass legislation that will further support the rights of the GLBT community in Cuba.

She is currently attempting to get the Cuban National Assembly to adopt what would be among the most liberal gay and transsexual rights law in Latin America.

The proposed legislation would recognize same-sex unions, along with inheritance rights. It would also give transsexuals the right to free sex-change operations and allow them to switch the gender on their ID cards, with or without surgery.

There are limits: adoption is not included in the bill and neither is the word marriage.

Interesting stuff. Early homophobia and mistreament of the gay community in Cuba was not unique to Cuba. At that point there were not many countries that protected the rights of gay citizens. In fact there are many states in the United States where sodomy is still illegal, lest we forget.

via BBC.

Thanks to Candice for the link.

New York is introducing a bill to the City Council this week that would expand protections of victims of intimate partner violence to unmarried couples. Only married/divorced couples or blood relatives can currently seek a civil order of protection from a family court. The bill would allow same-sex and unmarried couples to get the order without having a criminal proceeding first, which is known to possibly escalate violent behavior.

"We will continue to advocate on the state level for a broader definition of family, but we can't wait for the state to act," said Christine Quinn, speaker for the City Council.

Check out more information on intimate partner violence in LGBT relationships.

Ann linked to the horror show that is Oklahoma legislator Sally Kerns in yesterday's WFR, but I thought it was worth posting here anyway.

For more info, check out Pam's posts here and here.

If you'd like to contact Rep. Sally Kern and let her know how you feel about hate speech, you can email her at sallykern@okhouse.gov, or call her at 405-557-7348.

The video came via The Victory Fund.

In response to the New York Times piece about gender-segregated public education, I encourage you to read this smart explanation of exactly why Leonard Sax is full of it, brought to you by education expert (and feminist!) Sara Mead. She also explains the important difference between single-sex and gender-based education.

My colleague Dana Goldstein also had some smart things to say about that distinction. She also connects the issue to the recent spate of hate crimes against gender-nonconforming teens and pre-teens:

The stereotyping, heteronomativity, and misogyny of such an education (Girls! Someday you can wash dishes too, just like mom!) would be laughable, if it weren't the backbone of actual lessons being taught to actual American children. But there's also a more positive form of single-sex education, a trend represented by schools like Harlem's Young Women's Leadership School, which is based on building the self-esteem of girls of color in a culture that doesn't present them with very many models for success. Indeed, it would be naive to deny that girls and boys face different kinds of challenges. In our December print issue, I profiled a program in suburban New York that provides after-school sociocultural extras to African American boys, including a high school support group to talk about masculinity issues, including the lack of present fathers. And girls face a whole host of gendered challenges, from pregnancy, to eating disorders, to self-cutting.

Of course, there are ways to combine co-ed schooling with extra counseling that gives kids safe spaces to talk about more gender-specific problems. But any school dis