the ch!cktionary

    10 Mar 2010

    In 2006, Harvard University modified its non-discrimination policy to include gender identity and expression (the latter protects EVERYONE on campus, not just those who identify as transgender). Four years later, the school is taking a must-needed step forward by covering top surgeries for transgender employees and students. Before this, trans members of the Harvard community were much like women under a Stupak-ized version of healthcare: equal payers, but not equal beneficiaries. Of course, there is still so much more work to be done, but this move is a great step forward.

    Shoutouts to the amazing Trans Task Force and UHS’ Sara Kimmel, who were the powerhouses behind this change!

    17 Feb 2010

    I’m still 1-2 years away from actually being able to leave my country of birth, but this is why I cannot wait to get out of America:

    A Cambridge University developmental psychologist testified at a federal trial in San Francisco today that broad research has documented that children of same-sex parents are just as likely as those of heterosexual parents to be well-adjusted.

    “Studies have found children do not require both a male and female parent,” testified Michael Lamb, who heads Cambridge’s Department of Social and Developmental Psychology…

    Under questioning by a lawyer for the Proposition 8 campaign, Lamb admitted he was a member of the ACLU, the National Organization of Women, the NAACP, Amnesty International and the Nature Conservancy.

    And you have even given money to PBS, isn’t that correct?” asked David H. Thompson, who is defending Proposition 8. Thompson suggested Lamb was “a committed liberal.”

    Right. Liking black people, freedom of speech, and a public broadcasting system = being a RAGING liberal. Just like how supporting universal healthcare = being a socialist.

    There’s no way the above quote was chosen by accident. Thank you, Maura Dolan (the Los Angeles Times writer who wrote this story) for covering this with a sense of humor.

    3 Dec 2009

    GLAAD President on “Full Equality and How We Get There”

    From 4 to 5:30pm today, there’s an on-campus event that’s especially relevant given yesterday’s marriage equality defeat in New York:

    Full Equality and How We Get There
    Jarrett Barrios, President, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)

    Sert Gallery at the Carpenter Center for the Arts
    26 Quincy Street in Cambridge, MA

    Jarrett Barrios is President of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). At 40 years of age, Barrios is the youngest leader of GLAAD and, as a Cuban-American, he is also the first head of a national LGBT organization fluent in both Spanish and English. Barrios began his work in LGBT advocacy as a student at Harvard College, where he co-chaired the school’s LGBT student organization. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, he was a member of Queer Nation and worked for the Boston Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project. He has also served on the boards of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, and the Greater Boston Lesbian and Gay Political Alliance. He was the first openly gay person and the first Latino elected to the Massachusetts State Senate, where he represented a largely white, Catholic, and working-class district. As a State Senator, Barrios was an inspiring and outspoken advocate for marriage equality and the full rights of all gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens. He is an accomplished fundraiser and manager who broke fundraising records in his election campaigns and also managed a multi-million dollar budget at the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Foundation of Massachusetts. He is married to Doug Hattaway, his partner of 16 years, and they are raising two teenage sons.

    4 Nov 2009

    Is marriage a right?

    heresthething:

    Frankly, I find this argument offensive. Homosexuals and others in same sex couples aren’t fighting TO get married. We fight for the RIGHT to get married. If you don’t want to get married, nobody’s forcing you! But just imagine someone was telling you that you COULD NOT get married if you chose to. So, I’m sorry, but I absolutely cannot feel bad for you based on the idea that when everyone can get married (and someday we will acheive equality), you’ll be somehow forced to “join.”

    How exactly is this argument “offensive”? I’m an ardent and out supporter of LGBT rights, have attended the requisite rallies, written angry letters, you name it. (I don’t typically feel the need to brandish my queer street cred, but given that I don’t belong to the group, I do think I should justify my ability to comment on this issue.)

    Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that marriage is a “right” in the traditional sense. It’s not. It’s a privilege, meaning that those who choose not to get married will not get the privileges associated with marriage. Rights, on the other hand, don’t require sign-ups. So no, nobody is forcing anyone to join the club, but if joining the club is the only way to access the same set of legal benefits, then yes, you effectively have no choice but to opt in.

    (Perhaps a more helpful way to look at the debate would be to examine “the right to get married” and “the rights associated with marriage” as separate issues. The latter should be granted to all people, not just “married” couples.)

    4 Nov 2009

    Maine: Yes On Pot, No On Gay Marriage?

    As I’ve become increasingly disenchanted with marriage, I have become more inclined to believe that the entire marriage equality movement is a misguided effort. Sure, same-sex couples and feminist weddings might be mildly transgressive affairs, but they are ultimately reaffirmations of an institution too steeped in patriarchal values to ever change. I grant that civil unions — as they exist in the U.S. today — are an inadequate, “separate but equal” solution. Legalizing same-sex marriage is not merely a legal victory but a symbolic one. But given that the State has no place in granting marriages, is it simply too radical to propose that the government do away with any and all mentions of marriage and only grant civil unions to straight and gay couples alike? Will anti-marriage equality folks be willing to accept such a compromise?

    If marriage equality is ever fully realized in America, it will effectively spell the end of the fight for civil unions and domestic partnerships. The latter will not seem relevant to anyone but a very small minority (including me), because marriage is apparently the type of thing everyone naturally just wants to sign up for. So where does that leave those who don’t want to get married or want to have husbands and wives? Marriage has always been an exclusive institution in that not everyone can join. But when everyone can join, what happens to those who don’t want to?

    (On the bright side, Maine is taking a cue from my home state on the weed issue.)

    28 Jul 2009

    Bruno: A Social Experiment or A Queer Travesty?

    I’m about two weeks late on this, so forgive me if it’s been pointed out already, but isn’t Bruno just a social experiment disguised as low-brow entertainment?

    Bear with me. But first, a few points to keep in mind:

    1. Bruno is not some plot-driven drama you can enjoy alone. You go to this type of movie with friends. Half the fun is sharing the experience with other people.
    2. Fans of Sacha Baron Cohen will naturally be inclined to side with his character, even if they are homophobic bigots and even if Bruno is a walking, flaming gay stereotype.
    3. A personal disclaimer: I have never seen Borat and have watched about four Ali G segments in my entire life, including the one where he interviewed Naomi Woolf. It made me cringe.

    I watched Bruno at the Loews on the Common, the biggest theater in Boston, during opening weekend. The film was showing concurrently on two screens and ours was completely packed, so there were literally no open seats next to each other by the time the movie began (an important point to keep in mind for later). I was accompanied by Patrick, his German friend, and his friend’s boyfriend who is originally from Kazakhstan. Between the four of us, that makes one Kazakhi journalist and one German-speaking homosexual. Kind of ironic.

    To understand how Bruno is a social experiment, one has to recognize that there are two audiences. There’s the audience in the theater, of which I was a part, and there’s the audience depicted in the movie. The former may be laughing at the reactions of the latter, but really, both of us are the butt of Cohen’s joke.

    (SPOILERS AHEAD, though there’s not much to spoil, plot-wise)

    Here’s why: The film makes it near impossible for any young, hip, and seemingly open-minded person to walk out. There are two instances in Bruno when members of the on-screen audience are so offended that they walk out. The first audience is a focus group for a television pilot that the protagonist has produced with the help of his Filipino lover, with whom he assumes various positions. There’s also a segment which I can only describe as “penis-spinning”. The second audience is a group of spectators who expect to watch a pro-wrestling match and wind up seeing Bruno making out with his assistant instead. Unlike the first group, which was merely outraged, the second actually threw things into the ring and had to be restrained from approaching the actors.

    (END SPOILERS)

    Though I personally wasn’t shocked by the movie (which probably speaks to how jaded I am), I’m well-aware that its graphic content and language is hardly the norm in American cinemas. Patrick later described the movie as “an all-out assault on good taste”, which is actually quite a compliment, though you’d have to understand Patrick’s views to appreciate it. What I think he really means (and what I believe) is that the movie is an assault on homophobia and American conservatism. Because the theater audience is compelled to side with Bruno and distance itself from the conservatism of the people he pranks in the movie, anyone who walks out makes their prejudices quite clear. This is especially true given the huge popularity of the film. There’s no way to leave your seat in a packed theater without being noticed. If most people are watching Bruno with their friends, then there’s also the added pressure of peer judgment, not just judgment from strangers.

    The reaction from LGBT groups has been mixed, to be fair, and I can understand how one might be hesitant to endorse a movie whose protagonist embodies some of the worst beliefs about gay people. That being said, perhaps now is a time when an utterly unlikable gay character is actually a sign of progress. Bruno may be no Harvey Milk, but neither are most of my gay friends. That’s not to say that they’re all nymphomanic, trend-chasing fame whores, but they’re certainly not martyrs, so why does every other movie with a main gay character end in tragedy? Bruno is so unapologetic about his actions, so far from tortured or conflicted, and so fully in love with himself that his sexuality is almost secondary to his self-absorption. For that reason, I find the Bruno character far less offensive and more whole than other gay characters, most of whom are portrayed as either hate crime victims or accessories for single, white women.

    It surprises me that people don’t immediately recognize Bruno for what it is and instead write it off as another crude attempt at humor. I don’t think my interpretation is a stretch in the least, given that Cohen is rather smart, even if not always funny. Though I would hardly consider Bruno the best film ever made, I do think this 81-minute mindfuck is rather genius for mainstream cinema. If nothing else, it’s better than anything involving wizards or vampires.

    15 Jul 2009

    Does “Bachelor” Mean Unmarried or Single?

    aurorachronicles:

    I find it a little disrespectful to Adam Lambert (and his boyfriend, I guess) that People magazine listed him in the “Hottest Bachelors of 2009” or whatever list when it is completely obvious and out in the open that Adam is dating a dude. In fact, those last two links were actually from People magazine itself, which means that no matter how much they insist in calling Drake LaBry his “best friend”, there’s no way they aren’t aware of the situation and the fact that Adam has been quoted as calling him his boyfriend.

    Perhaps I’m not acquainted with what constitutes being single for People. Does simply not being married constitute being a bachelor? Are there other people on the list that have significant others? More importantly, are there other straight guys on the list that have girlfriends? If the answer to these questions is “yes”, then People is simply guilty of ignorance, or at least a dangerously loose definition of the word “single”. If the answers are “no”, then I can’t help but think they are taking some sort of issue with gay couples. Do straight non-marriage relationships count but not gay ones? I would imagine that, since gay marriage isn’t even legal in most of America, gay relationships would be treated with even more respect since there is no married alternative.

    All signs point to Adam being ok with it and actually flattered by the moniker, so I suppose there’s no harm done and no reason for me to meddle in anyone else’s affairs. But this did raise a red flag for me and got me wondering if this is something that regularly happens at this magazine. I can’t help but think that if I were dating someone who was listed in a nationally circulated magazine as “single”, I would get a little worried.

    In another completely unrelated piece of Adam Lambert news: Oh, wow, threesome!

    23 Jun 2009

    Graphical Overview of Same Sex Marriage Debate. Click to enlarge. (via Patrick Farley)

    Graphical Overview of Same Sex Marriage Debate. Click to enlarge. (via Patrick Farley)

    22 Jun 2009

    I was a late Obama convert, if you could even call it that. I ended up casting a ballot for him, but I was rather suspicious of his unwillingness to support same-sex marriage outright. I can’t tell you how many times I heard Obama supporters insist that he couldn’t afford to take a strong stance on gay rights until after he won the election. How many of them, I wonder, had to bite their tongue every time their hero said “civil unions” instead of marriage? Since I was unsure about how he’d handle the issue, I took a “we’ll see” attitude about his presidency and didn’t buy into all the post-election fandom. Trust me, it was pretty alienating out there. And now? Well, unlike the economy, this is not a matter that’s completely out of his hands and yet, he’s made little to no progress toward recognizing the civil liberties of one of the most visible and marginalized groups in the nation. When it comes to DOMA, he’s actually contributed to the further marginalization of LGBT people. The Department of Justice brief was ludicrous, unnecessary, and full of arguments oddly reminiscent of those I’ve heard from the religious right. (All this is especially hypocritical given that Obama loudly touted his opposition to DOMA when running for office.)

    Sure, I voted for him and it’s not like I’d prefer McCain, but this is an incredibly sad case of choosing the lesser of two evils. Obama was supposed to be the messiah, and now it’s become abundantly clear that he’s just another politician. Her husband’s frustrating non-contributions aside, Hillary Clinton would have been a far superior LGBT advocate had she won the Democratic nomination and the presidential race. For one, she wouldn’t make astoundingly stupid and obvious PR mistakes like asking Rick Warren to deliver the invocation. Second, she’s been a very public advocate for years and was the first person in the Obama administration to actually do something that expanded gay rights.

    The extension of benefits to partners of federal employees is a nice courtesy and all, but this comes incredibly late in the game and is hardly the earth-shattering change promised just a few months ago. Given the timing (the anniversary of Stonewall, the DNC’s LGBT Fundraiser), I’m going to call this a poorly disguised, eleventh-hour political maneuver.

    This isn’t to say that marriage is some great thing that we should all try to get our gay pals to sign up for. I will never get married because it is a (historically and religiously speaking) bullshit institution based on exclusion of those who don’t fit the parameters of acceptable relationships. My ideal America wouldn’t even involve marriage. I’d be happy with civil unions if they were given to everyone (including straights) and not a second-best option for those a little too queer to be accepted into the same club as everyone else. Unfortunately, the dissolution of marriage would probably provoke outcry among pro-family groups and aspiring Bridezillas.

    In conclusion, I should move to Europe, where this type of stuff is taken for granted. Seriously, America, get with the program. The entire Western world is ahead of you on this one.

    20 May 2009

    Marriage isn’t a right; it’s a privilege. Depending on the time, place, and partner, getting married could be harder than getting into Harvard, if not downright impossible. As recently as fifty years ago, miscegenation laws would have forbid me from marrying my boyfriend (or any man not my race) in certain areas of the United States. Before that, the legal and social benefits to getting married were denied to minorities, immigrants, and the poor for centuries. Marriage is, for lack of a better analogy, membership into the biggest country club in the world.

    Excerpted from my first column for CollegeCandy, a piece about marriage equality and its potential to transform a historically sexist institution.

    ss_blog_claim=2e43b69a85ddf3d9e1b2923415211607