Enough With the Bathrooms: Stigma, Stereotypes and Barriers to Trans Equality

@HuffPostGay

Recently, attempts to effectively implement the right to non-discrimination for trans people in the United States has been met with fear-mongering about inappropriate use of public bathrooms.

In Maryland, a lawmaker reportedly expressed concerns that predators and pedophiles might enter women's bathrooms if that state passes a bill, currently under consideration, to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. In Arizona, some parents were worried about trans children choosing the most appropriate bathroom for themselves, lest this "infringe" on other children's "privacy." And opponents of a non-discrimination law in California, already in effect, are gathering signatures to have the law repealed, because, they say, it violates the rights of those students who may be uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a person who is trans.

In fact, integrated public bathroom use seems to be the top objection raised in the United States to advancing equal rights for trans people, especially children. There are 3 main reasons for this.

First, there is a general discomfort among many Americans with co-ed social interaction as anything other than (straight) "courting." Over the age of 5, co-ed sleepovers are seen as inappropriate by many, and school dances as early as 5th grade push the notion that you really should only show up with a "date" of the opposite gender. What children take away from these overly gendered (and hetero-centric) rules of interaction is anyone's guess, but it is clear that many parents view co-ed friendships with suspicion.

Secondly, there is a common conflation of nudity and sex in US media and public discourse. It is telling that the discomfort around trans people's public bathroom use is about potential sexual interactions rather than actually using the toilets.

As a logical proposition, the argument that bathroom use must be strictly divided on the basis of genitalia in order to prevent public sex has always confused me. For starters, experience shows that such interactions can and do happen without any connection to trans people. Most of us remember the 2007 bathroom stall incidentthat ultimately had Senator Larry Craig of Idaho resign, and news of cis straight couples having sex in public bathrooms surface with monotonous regularity. Moreover, it would be impossible to police genitalia-based bathroom use without engaging in precisely the kind of "peeping Tom" activity those opposed to non-discrimination protections for trans people claim inevitably would follow the adoption of such measures.

Third, and most importantly, the linkage between trans equality and public bathroom use surfaces the stereotyped notion of trans people as somehow over-sexed, "perverted" or perhaps just "making it up." I have previously written about the comment reportedly made by a lawyer who was arguing against a 6-year-old trans girl's right to use the girl's bathroom at her school, with reference to the notion that the girl might be lying about her gender identity and really just want to see other girls go to the bathroom. Unfortunately, such preconceived notions about trans people just making it up or being over-sexed are not isolated to this case.

To be clear: gender identity is not about sex, it is about who we are. The founder of the website "We Happy Trans," Jen Richards, recently wrote a great piece about the fact that the trans community is as diverse as any other. Shocking, I know (not). The truth of the matter is that everyone has a right to non-discrimination, and that trans people pretty much everywhere face unique barriers to exercising this right because of stigma, stereotypes and legal obstacles to changing gender markers.

It is ridiculous that one of those barriers consistently should be someone else's discomfort with sharing a bathroom with people whose genitalia may or may not look like their own. Especially because the main point of those opposed to non-discrimination measures is that no one should be looking at anyone else's genitalia in the first place.

I say, enough with the bathrooms. No one should not have to pay for someone else's prudish illogic.

Women Wake Up Grumpier? Look Around and You’ll See Why

@RHRealityCheck

This week, Duke University published a new study, which found that women wake up grumpier than men. The study’s authors attribute the additional grumpiness to women needing more sleep than men. Me? I think there is just a lot to be grumpy about lately.

First, the wage gap between men and women grew over the past year, instead of narrowing like it is supposed to. Economic downturns usually hit those who are already suffering discrimination the hardest, so it is no surprise that, when the going gets tough, women and racial minorities are the first to get cut, the last to find jobs, or the most likely to find themselves in lower-paid and less secure positions. Still, considering the fact that female-headed households in the United States are more than twice as likely to be poor than male-headed households, maybe it should also not come as a surprise if we are sour.

Secondly, women are still being discriminated against in applications for new mortgages or refinancing, at least in Chicago (and there is no reason we should think Chicago is the worst case scenario when it comes to gender discrimination). The disparity is even greater when it comes to African American loan applicants. Given that Wells Fargo agreed to pay $175 million in 2012 to settle accusations that it discriminated against non-white mortgage applicants before the economic turndown, this news is not earth-shattering. Then again, having definite proof that your mortgage broker might turn your loan application down just because you don’t have the right genitalia can make a girl grumpy.

Third, a quantitative review of women in literary arts in 2012 shows that we are depressingly under-represented in the media, both as authors under review and as writers. Whether this under-representation is because women write about topics that are not considered “serious” enough for these periodicals, or because women themselves are seen as “light,” it is sad. And sad is just another word for grumpy.

And then there is this: a new survey showing that most women in the United States say we should have dated a guy for at least a month before he sees us without makeup. Sixty percent of the respondents said they wouldn’t take their makeup off while sleeping if spending the night with a new boyfriend.

I cannot decide which part of this survey makes me the maddest. First, there is the obvious exclusion of the three to five percent of the respondents who are dating women. Then there are the questions about the true state of equality in the United States and the stereotyped visions of women needing to wear makeup to be properly clad.

But I think what really got to me is what this survey says about the rock-bottom levels of women’s self-esteem in this country. Why would so many women believe wearing makeup is essential to the future of their relationship with a man? Why would they choose to sleep with someone they do not trust enough to see them naked?

Don’t get me wrong: I enjoy wearing lipstick as much as the next person, and I absolutely understand the power of putting on a mask. But that is precisely the point. Makeup is a mask. That so many women believe they have to wear one, even in bed and with their partner, is a measure of just how mad we should be.

So for Duke University to say that women wake up grumpy because we need more sleep is a bit like the typical comment about pre-menstrual syndrome. Sure, on certain days we may need more sleep or be hormonally disposed to flare up. But this does not mean there isn’t plenty to be mad about.

How Do You Prove That Discrimination No Longer Exists?

@RHRealityCheck

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives finally passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which reauthorizes funding for the fight against domestic violence in the United States. The bill passed after a prolonged partisan fight over specific protections for Native-American women and lesbian, bisexual, and trans women. Also this week, the conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court questioned the need for the promotion of equal voting rights, and, in particular, the continued need for oversight of equal rights in states that historically have discriminated against African Americans.

Each story elicited a pundit storm of outrage over the partisan divide on discrimination on the basis of sex, race, or sexual orientation. Many politicians and justices quoted in the press perpetuated the notion that liberals care about discrimination while conservatives do not.

But that would be an oversimplification.

At the heart of the discussion about the need for both VAWA and the Voting Rights Act is a fundamental disagreement about what governments should do about discrimination, and, even more so, what they shouldn’t do.

That difference of opinion is what led Justice Antonin Scalia to refer to the Voting Rights Act—a law that was conceived of as a tool to overcome racial entitlement among whites—as perpetuating a sense of racial entitlement among non-whites. By portraying people of color as receiving, or rather demanding, special treatment, Scalia converted the legal protection of equal rights into a situation of enforced discrimination.

It is also why some Republicans cited “inclusiveness” as the reason they supported explicit benefits for generally underserved populations in VAWA, while other Republicans claimed to vote against these benefits for the very same reason. While the former acknowledge that some women need to be explicitly named in order to be visible to policymakers and service providers, the latter promote the notion that by treating everyone the same, we will somehow magically be equal.

Simply put, the difference is not so much whether someone cares about discrimination but rather if they choose to see the full range of its reach. With some notable exceptions, most people across the political spectrum recognize flagrant forms of racism, sexism, and homophobia. The real divide is on how much we believe can and should be done to overcome historical disadvantage and internalized prejudice. Should the government allow quotas in universities to promote race and gender equality? Should states actively promote a diverse workforce?

International human rights standards are clear that affirmative action can only be legitimate while it serves a purpose; when a situation of historical disadvantage has been overcome—that is, when those who were meant to benefit from affirmative action genuinely are equal—the special measures must go.

The question, of course, is how to determine the exact moment when everyone truly has equal opportunities. This is a question that necessarily will have different answers for different people. Recent studies suggest that discrimination is still a reality for many of the subgroups that benefit the most from both the new incarnation of VAWA and the Voting Rights Act: Blacks, Latinos, working women, and Native Americans. Still, the American public just reelected a Black president, and the minority leader of the House of Representatives is a woman. In other words, systemic inequalities persist even though some people manage to escape their consequences. In this situation, perhaps the best test of whether temporary special measures are still warranted is conversational. When we stop talking about how strange it is that President Obama and Representative Pelosi got to where they are, there will be equal opportunity for all.

Of course, the courts cannot use conversation as a legal test to determine when to mandate an end to temporary special measures. Conversation can, however, be a rule of thumb for the rest of us until such time where it is no longer remarkable to find African Americans or women in positions of power.

In the meantime, the onus should be on the government, including members of Congress and justices of the Supreme Court, to prove when affirmative action has run its course, both when it comes to the prevention of domestic violence and voting rights.

TV Recognizes the “Modern Family”—Why Not Governments?

@RHRealityCheck

I don’t watch “Modern Family,” the prime-time sitcom depicting “non-traditional”—e.g., same-sex, interracial, and inter-generational—couples. Still, I’m struck by how fast family realities change and how slowly laws and societal perceptions about what’s “right” reflect those changes.

The couples depicted in “Modern Family” were surely seen by society at large as more unusual in 2009, when the show first aired, than even just five years later. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering two cases that might pave the way for federal benefits for same-sex couples, the number of interracial marriages is steadily growing, and the combination of reproductive technologies, longer life-spans, and the normalization of serial monogamy has taken age somewhat out of the equation when it comes to forming a family.

Even so, real-life individuals in same-sex couples, or those who live with someone of a different race or generation from themselves, often face daily struggles to protect their families from legal uncertainty and publicly articulated disgust. Depending on where we live, our intimate lives and families may be subject to criminal sanctions, unequal legal protections, scrutiny, shaming, and belittling.

Often, the protection of our families in law—while welcome—does not mean we are immune to community shaming and violence. In Latin America, for example, a wave of new marriage equality laws has not yet had an impact on pervasive community violence against LGBTI individuals. And though it is more than 45 years since the Supreme Court invalidated the prohibition of interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, prejudices against interracial couples—in particular where one of the partners is Black—are expressed frequently in social media and in some cases result in discrimination.

This tug-of-war between perceptions, laws, and reality expresses itself clearly where courts have to decide to what extent legislators get to put their own—or their constituents’—prejudices before principles of equality and facts about child welfare.

This week, the European Court on Human Rights issued a ruling in one such case. The court held that Austria had violated human rights by denying two lesbian women a proper evaluation of their adoption petition. One of the women had petitioned to adopt the biological son of her female partner, a child they both had been parenting since infancy.

The Austrian government argued that its adoption laws are based on the notion that all children ideally grow up with a father and a mother. The European Court on Human Rights countered that this vision does not adequately protect child welfare and certainly is not enough to implement discriminatory laws. So far, so good.

However, the case also permitted subjective perceptions of what a family should be to persist in the law. In this week’s ruling, the European Court highlighted the fact that Austria allows unmarried different-sex couples to adopt each other’s children, whereas unmarried same-sex couples cannot (and same-sex couples are not yet allowed to marry in Austria). Had Austria reserved adoption for those who are married and marriage for those who are straight, a close read of the ruling indicates that the court might have allowed this; after all, the Court had allowed precisely this set-up in a 2012 ruling involving France.

To be sure, governments have the mandate, and even the obligation, to encourage family structures that benefit society generally and children more specifically. And the laws and policies that flow from this mandate must to some extent be subjective. The state may, for example, believe that marriage has a value in and of itself, and not only as it relates to parental and economic stability, and, as such, seek to promote marriage through tax structures and inheritance laws.

But beliefs only go so far. The obligation of the state to protect the human rights of both children and adults must find its expression through science and facts. One fact is that same-sex couples and LGBTI individuals already parent children. Another, that the welfare of children correlates with parental support and love, and not with the parents’ sexual orientation, race, identity, or age.

But the overarching fact that governments across the world should address immediately is that there are any number of “modern families” who are discriminated against by law and ostracized in their communities.

Violence Still Prevalent Despite Progress on LGBTI Rights in Latin America

@RHRealityCheck

As 2012 came to a close, Sao Paolo joined the jurisdictions that allow same-sex marriage. The joy this news elicited is absolutely warranted. However, it may cover up the fact that equal marriage rights do not mean the end to hostility against those who aren’t straight.

Arguably nowhere is this truer than in Latin America.

First the good news. Latin America has been making unprecedented advances on same-sex marriage and related issues these past couple of years. Argentina legalized same-sex marriage in 2010, as the first country in Latin America, right after Mexico City (the largest metropolis in the region) did the same in 2009. In early December 2012, Saba Island in the Caribbean followed suit, and Uruguay’s lower house passed a same-sex marriage bill. And then, as mentioned, later in December, Sao Paolo did the same. Meanwhile, the transgender rights regulations that were pushed through by Argentina's government earlier in 2012 are considered some of the world's most progressive.

Bearing all this in mind, one might be excused for thinking that Latin America is an accepting and safe place to live for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people.

That would be the wrong conclusion.

For decades, those who don’t look or act straight have been targeted for violence across the region. Brazil has been dubbed “the world champion in the murder of homosexuals” and in 2012 the brutal murder of an openly gay man in Chile highlighted the surge in violence against gay men and transgender individuals in particular. The main LGBTI organization in Peru, MOHL, notes that every 5 days a lesbian, gay, or transgender person is killed in that country. In 2011, the leader of an LGBTI organization in Mexico was beaten to death. Meanwhile, in December 2012 the Peruvian police put forward new regulations that prohibited police officers from having sex with a same-sex partner in a “scandalous” manner.

While this ban was almost immediately repealed after public uproar allegedly caused a split in the cabinet on the matter, it offers a clue to how support for same-sex marriage can co-exist with extreme violence against LGBTI populations. And that clue is the word “scandalous.” In essence, what the repealed regulation sought to control was not so much sex with a same-sex partner or same-sex relationships, but rather how those relationships would “look” in the public eye.

It is this same logic that is at play when individuals targeted for violence and murder in Latin America (and elsewhere too) are those who most visibly challenge gender norms: transgender men and women, “effeminate” men, “butch” women, or androgynous individuals who do not easily fit into a gendered box. These individuals are primarily being punished for not conforming to prevalent gender norms in their appearance and public behavior, rather than their private lives. Within this logic, same-sex marriage can be seen as conformity rather than revolt: it is an indication that same-sex couples are “just like” different-sex couples and therefore not threatening the status quo.

Of course, anyone who has ever dated someone of their own gender in Latin America will know that hostility extends far beyond those who don’t conform to prevalent gender-norms. Holding hands in public for two men or two women is a transgression some believe merit violence regardless of what each of the two looks like. This, apart from the obvious fact that nothing can or should excuse violence against any of us for any reason, including gender expression and sexual orientation.

This situation should serve as a reminder that legalizing same-sex marriage can only get us part of the way to full respect for LGBTI diversity and rights.

And perhaps more to the point, the coexistence of same-sex marriage and brutality against LGBTI communities in Latin America should make it clear that we must attack the larger fallacy at stake: the notion that only those who look, speak, talk, think, and live like the majority deserve equal rights and protection.