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While this ban was almost immediately repealed after public uproar allegedly caused a split in the cabinet on the matter, it offers a clue to how support for same-sex marriage can co-exist with extreme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 In essence, what the repealed regulation sought to control was not so much sex with a same-sex partner or same-sex relationships, but rather how those relationships would “look” in the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

Myths About Homosexuality Fuel Uganda's "Kill the Gays" Bill

This week, as we are waiting for the Ugandan parliament to debate whether or not homosexuality should be punishable by death (or at the very least life in jail) it might be helpful to review whatever could make anyone reach such a murderous conclusion.

The short answer is: lack of awareness, sometimes wilful. Lack of awareness about what it means to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (no, it is not a lifestyle choice). Lack of awareness about the link between sexual orientation and sexually predatory tendencies (there is none). And lack of awareness about how to adequately address actual harm (for starters, it would make sense not to target those already marginalized for more abuse).

The draft legislation on the table in Uganda is not new. A version of the bill—which ups penalties for homosexuality and allegedly creates new provisions to criminalize the “promotion” of homosexuality—was already circulating last year. Moreover, the belligerent rhetoric directed at anyone who does not look or seem straight is neither innovative nor specific to Uganda. For years, politicians and pundits from the United States to Malawi have spread the notion that gay people “recruit” children and others into homosexuality and that paedophilia and homosexuality are intimately linked.

While these claims have been repeatedly refuted with facts, they stubbornly persist. There are any number of reasons for this, two of the most prominent being that 1) blaming gays for all society’s wrongs is easy and helps to divert attention from any real problems; and 2) that stereotypes about sexual attraction and gender roles—persistent in all societies everywhere—fuel fear of homosexuality. And it is only by tackling the latter that enough people will see through the former and identify it as wrong.

It is with this in mind that I invite you to identify the most harmful gender or LGBT-related stereotype in your society or immediate circle of friends, and to commit to calling it out as damaging whenever it comes up.

Here is mine: gay men and lesbian women are attracted to (literally) everyone of their own gender. I cannot count the number of times I have heard someone say that they are OK with someone being gay, as long as that person doesn't hit on them personally. Or that they feel uncomfortable in a locker room or sports club with someone who is gay or lesbian. Or similar variations on this theme.

Apart from the obvious delusional aspect of these comments (really, I always want to say, you are not that attractive), they just don't make any sense. If this proposition were accurate, it would mean that all straight men and all lesbian and bisexual women are attracted to me, a notion which I can personally attest to being false.

More to the point, this myth can be countered by inviting people to reflect on their own patterns of attraction. Everyone has sexual preferences and most of the time we can't say specifically why we want to have sex with one person and not the other. What we can say—gay, lesbian, bisexual, and straight alike—is that the vast majority of us don't want to jump everyone we see given they simply have the appropriate genitalia.

The bill which is likely to be discussed in Uganda is fuelled, partially, by the extreme version of this myth: not only do all gay men want to have sex with all men, they also want to have sex all the time. I want to believe that anyone who thinks through this logic for just a moment will find it ridiculous and even humorous in its absurdity. Yet, for the thousands of gay, bisexual, and transgender men and women living in Uganda it is not funny.

Myths can kill. And the only way to prevent that from happening is to kill the myths themselves.

Potential SCOTUS Review of DOMA Presents Pivotal Moment for Gay Rights in America

@RHRealityCheck

On Friday, November 30th (or today as you read this), the US Supreme Court judges are expected to announce which, if any, cases related to gay rights they will review. At stake are not only the right to marry and federal recognition of marriage-related financial benefits for same-sex couples who are already married. The cases before the Court touch upon our understanding of “the family” as an essential building block of society, and whether we can reasonably expect individuals to put part of who they are on hold in order to be considered worthy citizens.

The Supreme Court has been asked to review the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (known as DOMA), a piece of legislation which was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, and which forbids the recognition of same-sex marriages for the purposes of federal benefits such as tax breaks, social security survivor benefits, and estate tax.

DOMA also prohibits married same-sex couples from benefitting from the same immigration rights as married opposite-sex couples, leading to the summary denial of green cards to foreign spouses of U.S. citizens and permanent residents merely because they are not straight. But in June this year, the US Board of Immigration Appeals sent four such cases back to immigration authorities to determine whether the marriages are valid under state law and whether those marriages would qualify for immigration purposes in the absence of DOMA.

Those decisions follow Obama’s early 2011 announcement that his administration would no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA. In fact, the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ decision appear at least in part to be made in preparation for a, hopefully not too distant, post-DOMA world. But until this law is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, or repealed by Congress, DOMA will remain force.

Opponents of the federal recognition of same-sex marriage benefits at times phrase their view as a defense of “the family” as the basic building block of society, implicitly or explicitly noting that only opposite-sex couples with or without children also are worthy of state protection as inherently “good.”

And several international and regional human rights documents do, indeed, establish the “family” as a fundamental group unit of society, and, in particular, as essential in the upbringing of children and the protection of the rights of the child. 

However, the definition of what a family might look like to qualify for state protection is deliberately broad and inclusive. In 2006, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child clarified that when it talks about “family,” it means any number of arrangements, including same-sex families. In February this year, the Inter-American Court on Human Rights expressed a similar notion: “The Court confirms that the American Convention does not define a limited concept of family, nor does it only protect a “traditional” model of the family.”

More to the point, perhaps, study after study has dis-proven that an opposite-sex nuclear family is the only appropriate unit for bringing up children, and more than a third of children in the United States now live in single parent households and same-sex families.

Of course, this is not about marriage in the abstract, but rather about the benefits we assign to married couples, concretely, through the law. It is precisely because marital relationship are prioritized in law that same-sex couples would benefit tremendously from being allowed to marry in the first place, and to obtain federal tax, social security, and inheritance benefits when they do. If no marital relationships were given special status under the law, the impact of DOMA might be less stark on both adults and children.

It is unlikely that the Supreme Court judges will challenge this general privilege in law. But we can hope they decide to look at the suffering its unequal implementation causes.

In Europe, Same-Sex Couples Face High Barriers to Parenthood

@RHRealityCheck

There was big news this week for same-sex couples who want to have kids, especially if they are trying to figure out where to have them. Europe, it seems, is not the place, despite a reputation as the world's most gay-friendly continent.

On Wednesday, the French daily Le Figaro published an article titled, “Shrinks Warn against Adoption,” referring to a legislative proposal to allow same-sex couples to adopt. Also on Wednesday, the European Court of Human Rights heard from the Austrian government that its adoption policies are based on the biological principle that a child has one father and one mother, and that this is to secure the child’s well-being.

Meanwhile, Australia granted gay parents the same rights to paid parental leave as those granted to straight parents. In contrast, same-sex adoption is legal only in part of that country.

In truth, gay parents make some people uncomfortable. This discomfort is at the root of opposition to same-sex marriage. Opponents of marriage equality often argue that reproduction is the main purpose of marriage. As many have pointed out, if the point were to reserve marriage exclusively for couples who can biologically reproduce, the institution would be off limits to the elderly and the infertile, as well as to same-sex couples.

Of course, that's not the point. The point is to prevent same-sex couples from having children through in vitro fertilization or adoption. In many countries, these options are available only to married couples. France, for example, refused to allow a lesbian to adopt her partner's biological child whom she had cared for since infancy. The couple were told earlier this year by the European Court of Human Rights that France’s refusal did not constitute discrimination. After all, the court said, straight unmarried couples would also not have been allowed to adopt each other’s children. But a straight couple could have remedied the situation by getting married, a route that is not open to same-sex couples. This was irrelevant to the court.

It is, however, relevant to same-sex couples who wish to be parents, and to the children many of them already have.

In fact, hundreds of thousands of children grow up in same-sex households or with parents who are not straight. In the United States alone, an estimated 2 million LGBTI people are interested in adoption, and one-quarter of same-sex couples are raising children. These children are adversely affected by laws and policies that exclude their de facto guardians from legal protections and privileges that straight parents enjoy. Such protections might include the right to make medical and other crucial decisions, the right to support educational decisions, and the right to bequeath property.

Most opponents of marriage equality, adoption, and parental benefits would object to any implication that their position hurts children—though that is the inevitable consequence. Many of these opponents would say that they are trying to protect children against the “dangers” of growing up with gay parents. The belief that gay parents are not as capable as heterosexual parents of raising well-balanced, healthy, and happy children is a common, and damaging, stereotype. It is constantly contradicted by studies on the well-being of children in same-sex families. Study after study shows that the welfare of children closely correlates with parental support and love, not with the parents’ sexual orientation or gender expression.

In deliberating adoption by same-sex couples, the European Court of Human Rights and the French legislature should focus on children’s rights and dignity. If they do, they will quickly conclude that children deserve parents who love and care for them. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with a parent's capacity to do just that.

Are All Blacks Prejudiced Against All Gays? Beyond the Static View of Race, Sexual Orientation, and Otherness

@RHRealitycheck

President Obama’s support for marriage equality came just one day after North Carolina voters banned same-sex marriage. Twitter storms followed each development, in which tweeters first declared that black people were homophobic as a group, then just as sweepingly that they were not. Somehow, the North Carolina defeat for marriage equality was seen as proof that all blacks hate all gays, whereas President Obama’s support was proof of the opposite.

This overgeneralization is somewhat similar to some of the commentary in the wake of the Trayvon Martin tragedy. We heard that “black violence” was somehow worse and more endemic than violence committed by non-black perpetrators. This idea was also the organizing principle behind the blog-post that got John Derbyshire fired from the National Review for advising his children to avoid contact with black people who are, Derbyshire argued, statistically more likely to be arbitrarily violent, especially toward whites.

It is not hard to see the racist undertones of all of these arguments, down to the very notion that everyone of a certain “race” has personal character traits that are inescapably and intrinsically linked to their skin color. It is also not hard to find information to disprove them: many blacks in North Carolina opposed the constitutional same-sex marriage ban.   And Justice Department statistics show that most violence is carried out within racial homogeneous communities, so that, for example, black-on-white homicides are a rare exception rather than the rule.

There are, of course, good reasons to pool and parse statistical information about any population using group criteria that may illustrate unequal policy outcomes for individuals associated with those groups. In fact, we expect governments to collect and separate statistics with a view to analysing policy effectiveness and equal access to benefits, rights, and care. Generalizations about groups can also be helpful in visualizing the underlying reasons for inequality and devising strategies to overcome it.

However, problems arise when our only understanding and interactions with specific people result in our treating them as part of a group and not as individuals. Whatever else may be true about George Zimmerman’s interaction with Trayvon Martin, it is clear from his phone comments to the police dispatcher that he had preconceived notions about Martin’s "dangerousness" even before he got out of the car — preconceptions that therefore only could be based on Martin’s appearance, including his sex, age, color, and apparel, and most likely the combination of all of them.

The corollary of this notion is that one way to overcome racism and homophobia and other “group-isms” is for people to relate to each other as individuals. While it is true that some people are able to reconcile a generalized negative feeling about certain groups (“all blacks are violent”) while nurturing positive sentiments about individuals from that group (“some of my best friends are black”), it is also true that most people start seeing a group differently when they know and love someone who belongs to it. A generally homophobic parent with a gay child may not feel compelled to campaign for marriage equality any more than they did before their child was “out.” However, most will at least start questioning negative portrayals of “all gays” in the media. This is why Derbyshire’s advice to his children to actively avoid contact with blacks is so insidious: it pushes a false notion of otherness that is purposefully static.

Even more serious problems arise when policies that should be informed by data and statistics instead are influenced by such Derbyshire-style perceptions of static and false otherness. The racial profiling of stop-and-frisk practices is one blatant example. Along those lines, Michelle Alexander has amassed examples of situations where police departments target predominantly black communities for aggressive interventions and arrests for drug-related crimes, even where data shows that in that specific state or city, the main users or sellers of drugs are not black. Many of the arguments voiced against marriage equality are equally based on false ideas that all gay people are promiscuous, sexually predatory, or bad parents.

And perhaps this is where the real issue lies. It is almost instinctual for us to organize information about the world around us based on visual cues and personal experiences. And it is equally human to use these cues and experiences to generate assumptions about what might happen and what we should do about it. It is when we confuse trends or, worse, preconceptions with reality that abuse, inequality, and discrimination can take hold.

More disturbingly, negative generalizations about what everyone in a given group wants, thinks, and does help to justify those who actually do. When we portray all black people as homophobic we exonerate individuals of color who feel prejudiced against gays. They are not responsible for their beliefs—their skin color made them do it.

I would not wish to be called homophobic just because quite of lot of individuals who happen to be white make anti-gay remarks. Even less would I want these individuals to be able to brush off their anti-gay sentiments as a natural part of their “whiteness.” Prejudice is prejudice, wherever it comes from and whatever form it takes. Respect dictates we treat it as such.