Housekeeping, 9.21.08

+ news +
Geriatric gays,
Brad Pitt puts out,
and Library of Congress gets shut daaaown for the week.

Sincerely,
ts

(...to the full post)

'Extreme Pornography'

The UK government has recently moved to criminalize both production and consumption of porn that it deems "grossly offensive and disgusting." Clause 63 of the new Criminal Justice Bill defines this kind of porn as containing "real or pretend" acts which: (1) threaten a person's life; (2) may result in serious injury to the breasts, anus and genitals; (3) involve sexual interference with a human corpse; and (4) contain a person performing intercourse or oral sex on an animal. The law will effectively ban most ‘violent’ pornographic depictions, as well as images and stories featuring necrophilia and bestiality.

Is this law an intrusive policing of sexuality that will end up criminalizing most adult-consensual BDSM online communities? Or will it help to reduce violent sexual crimes, as the government claims?

If we accept the constructivist contention that sexuality is constituted by social discourses, it would appear that the UK government might have a point. Our sexual “natures” are not the expression of some internal, bio-psychological state, but are instead effects of cultural production. Thus, removing a key source of words and images that construct violent sexual desires will reduce the incidence of those desires. Presumably, if sexual violence is not craved, then it is much less likely to be implemented non-consensually. Banning ‘extreme pornography’ will reduce the amount of rapes, murders, kidnappings and tortures that are of a sexual nature.

Although this perspective appears to make intuitive sense, it represents a highly flawed and immature understanding of social constructivism. First of all, banning violent porn is not going to eliminate violent sexual desires. Violence is so much a part of our art, cultures, religions, history and daily life that eliminating the sources by which violent sexualities are constructed would require a censorship program of Stalinist proportions. Millions of paintings, movies, history books, works of fiction, holy texts, government policies etc… would have to be eliminated in order for this ‘purge of violent material’ to be truly successful. Eliminating violent sexual desires is as impossible as eliminating all instances or depictions of violence that might inspire those desires.

Furthermore, what is so bad about violent sexuality if it is practiced in an adult-consensual context? It is certainly a much more ethical alternative to violence as it is usually committed. What is more immoral? Torture and humiliation at the hands of Saddam Hussein’s henchmen, U.S. authorities at Abu Ghraib and Nazi ‘scientific’ experimenters? Or the same kinds of activities in an adult consensual framework, in which there are codes of conduct (such as ‘safe words’) that can ensure safety and security for all practitioners? Most violence is committed on a non-consensual basis, and it is that violence that is most morally questionable. Pleasure through consensual violence can be unproblematic if there are sufficient safeguards for the health of all concerned.

Thus, if the government were truly interested in providing some kind of regulation for ‘extreme pornography’, it would do well to pass laws that bind producers and consumers of such porn to accept an adult-consensual and safe framework of activity. For instance, requiring porn producers and users to sign statements about the necessity of adult-consensual safeguards in violent sexual situations would be a major step forward. Another useful policy is mandating that violent porn websites have to feature at least one page that lists guidelines for safe and healthy BDSM. If the government is actually concerned about people who want to practice violent sexuality, then it should enforce these kinds of regulations. The government should also avoid passing measures that would inhibit BDSM parlors (which usually have very well developed standards of collective safety and rule-enforcement) from practicing. In the 1990s, “decency laws” in many Western countries forced BDSM establishments to shut down or disperse to isolated parts of town. Thus, violent sexual cultures lost major institutions that encouraged adult-consensual and safe behavior.

Another issue that practitioners of violent sexuality should be aware of is the implications of structural violence in society. Women, racial and sexual minorities are frequently the subjects of systematic violence. Eroticizing sadism against these particular groups is, thus, highly problematic: sexist, racist, homophobic and ableist discourses can perpetrate sexuality, as they can any other social practice. I am certainly not advocating for a ‘ban’ on BDSM practices that reflect patterns of social dominance. Rather, it is simply necessary for the participants in such practices to be aware of the social implications of their actions. There is a risk that social oppressions reproduced in sexuality can feed back and reinforce dominance in the wider social realm. Practitioners of violent sexuality should at least be aware of this risk.

Overall, the UK government’s move to ban ‘extreme porn’ is a mistake. It is not going to contribute to a reduction in violent sexual crimes. If the government is truly interested in regulating ‘violent sexual practices’ (and ensuring the safety of its citizens), it should use ‘extreme porn’ websites to spread awareness about adult-consensual and safe BDSM practices.

***For More Information***
The Wikipedia page on ‘extreme porn’ has a surprisingly good summary of the concept as well as an insightful analysis of the debate around it. Also, check out the following articles: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7364475.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1527806.ece
In addition, take a look at this very interesting ‘diagram’ of various kinks and fetishes: http://www.trevoroldak.com/uploads/fetishmapbig.gif
For a useful analysis of how ‘decency laws’ have forced the closure of BDSM establishments that encouraged safer sex, adult-consensual practices and ‘healthy play’, check out Michael Warner’s excellent book, The Trouble With Normal. I have also dealt with a similar topic in a previous post.

(...to the full post)

Well, there's always Montgomery County, Maryland

School and a surprisingly active social life have been keeping me pretty busy lately. Although I am not usually a big music buff, I was tempted by four concerts in two months: Tori Amos, Tegan & Sara, Sia, Regina Spektor. I see a trend. Anyway, my sex life has also been markedly more interesting this fall, with visitors from near and far adding spice to my bedroom. I also purchased a new sex toy, although this one has been quite disappointing thus far. But putting an old one to new use, on the other hand (or, on the other person)....

I digress. My point is this: I have been a little mentally absent from the sociopolitical world outside my personal life. So forgive the slight un-timeliness of the discussion to follow. Our primary topic: gender identity protection in Montgomery County, MD.

According to a press release by Montgomery County, "more than 100 U.S. jurisdictions, including 13 states and the District of Columbia, have already passed similar legislation, covering 37 percent of the country’s population."
The county's new bill providing protection for gender identity, passed unanimously by the council and signed off on by the county executive,

...prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in housing, employment, taxi and cable service, and public accommodations. …Initially, council members in committee agreed to allow a person to use [private facilities, such as health club locker rooms,] based on the gender that a person "publicly and exclusively" asserts…[The bill sponsor] agreed to pull references to such facilities after hearing concerns of colleagues and the community. The county's anti-discrimination code makes exceptions for areas considered "distinctly private or personal," and Michael Dennis, compliance director for the county's Human Rights Commission, said the exemption would extend to locker rooms and restrooms. This would allow a facility owner to segregate based on biological sex.
     -- Washington Post

County law now defines gender identity as "an individual's actual or perceived gender, including a person's gender-related appearance, expression, image, identity, or behavior, whether or not those gender-related characteristics differ from the characteristics customarily associated with the person's assigned sex at birth."

I particularly like to check out the conservative reactions to this kind of legislation, much as it sometimes elevates my blood pressure in a most alarming fashion. Negative reactions focus largely on the safety of defenseless women and children, whose privacy will surely be preyed upon by men who are "confused about their 'gender identity'":

The council and county executive have publicly stated that access to these areas will be decided by their operators. But all they are doing is kicking the issue into the lap of the county's Human Rights Commission, which is on record saying it will grant bathroom rights to transgenders according to their perceived gender when a case is brought before it," Turner said. … In other words, a male teacher or student will be able to use the female restrooms and locker rooms if he thinks he is a female.
     -- World Net Daily

It always surprises me when religious conservatives, who should be focused on our spiritual well-being, are so incapable of looking past our physical bodies.

In a separate but related article from WND:

The problem, according to [the Transgender Law Center], is that many transgendered people have few safe places to go to the bathroom. They claim to "get harassed … and arrested in BOTH women's and men's rooms." One sufferer, who had clearly entered a restroom of the opposite sex, whined that he had been "dragged out by security guards."
     -- WND

It's interesting that not only is the woman's gender claim being refuted and male gender asserted ("clearly…of the opposite sex"), but then the loaded vocabulary ("whined") that immediately follows deliberately undercuts the supposed masculinity. So we see the discomfort the authors feel, their unwillingness to fully accept either the person's self-identified gender or their assigned gender. The "claims" of harassment are dismissed as whining, the people (and we can reasonably assume it is MTFs being targeted in this article) told to toughen up and get over their "confusion"—nevermind that some of the discomfort and harassment transgender people face centers around the same privacy and personal security concerns that women are asserting.

A brief excerpt from the truly frustrating, to which I feel no need to comment:

According to [the TLC's document supporting gender neutral restrooms, called] 'Peeing in Peace,' it is important that transgenders be allowed to use multi-stall facilities with mixed company. The guide states, "If people are worried about privacy ...stall doors could extend all the way to the ground and locks on individual stalls could function more effectively."

Why would such desires be so important?

Considering that, according to Yale and Harvard-connected psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover [link added], pedophilia is more than three times more common among homosexuals than among heterosexuals, and since the GLBT population is strongly unified, doesn't it strike you as odd that a major transgender organization endorsed by the homosexual lobby would consider having children undress in a teacher's office? And that they would insist on using multi-stall restrooms of the opposite sex? And that they would desire stalls that extend to the floor and securely lock? (If only Sen. Larry Craig had been so lucky.)
     -- WND

Some unrelated German litigation for thought: an intersex woman is suing the doctor she claims removed her female organs without proper consent 30 years ago.

(...to the full post)

religion, ethics, and law--can we have it all?

Drinking some rum & (probably chemically toxic) wyler’s light, listening to two drunk people talk politics. It seldom gets better than this. Our proposed topics for my blog today? Gender and divorce. The government’s ideal role, if any, in marriage. Housing discrimination. Gender neutral bathrooms. The recent Ohio ruling. How the Ohio ruling drew on science or scientism.

As my roommate and my friend argue religion, I do some quick Googling. Did you know that “gender news” leads you to http://www.gender-news.com, a ministry of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood “informing the Evangelical community of gender-related news”?

I think it’s all fascinating.

First, we have a religious claim of truth about gender:

“I am saddened, because the solution to feeling uncomfortable about ‘having to choose a gender at the bathroom door’ is not a change in the signs but a return to the biblical truth about God’s design of men and women.” [source]

Simultaneously, we have a religious claim of ideals about gender and the effort needed to attain them:

“The thing you need to understand about biblical manhood is that a male does not check off a manly to-do list (get a well-paying job, buy a house, get married, raise some kids, teach Sunday school), and once accomplished "becomes" a "man." Rather, a male is always "becoming" a man. I know we're getting a little philosophical, but stick with me.” [source]

Curious and...curiouser.

My drinking buddies, as they continue discussing belief and worship, have now left politics well behind for a more heated debate on the existence of a higher power. But I cannot forget the political ramifications of this entire conversation. Because this ongoing consideration of science “versus” religion (for they are so often posed in opposition) does affect my civil rights, especially when schools like Patrick Henry aim to create “champions of God” by developing strong debaters and politicians.

I guess part of the problem is when people base political and social morality, through legislation, not on moral reasoning, but on obedience to a particular higher power…while proclaiming that all citizens are welcome to believe (or not believe) in whatever higher power(s) they choose. You can have religious freedom and ethics-based legislation at the same time, but you cannot base those ethics on religion.

I’m not religiously intolerant the way many of my queer friends have become. I recognize the power of faith in our lives as one which can be quite positive. Granted, I also tend to take a Dune-like view on organized religion. I mistrust the direct influence of faith on government. I think faith is meant to be personal, is best kept personal, and the Bible often supports this view for Christians. And anyway, what’s the point in free will, if government requires us all to conform to one vision of ideal behavior?

(...to the full post)

Housekeeping, 8.3.07

+ news +
Sandy case,
the homosexual panic no more?,
and not queer enough for the week.

Sincerely,
ts

(...to the full post)

S is for Sex Change

If you can get your hands on it, read Julia A. Greenberg’s article “Defining Male and Female: Intersexuality and the Collision Between Law and Biology,” published in the 1999 Arizona Law Review. (Try a public or academic library with access to Lexis-Nexis.) This applies some complex perspectives on gender—held by pomos, feminists, anthropologists, biologists, etc.—to our legal system. Foucault and the others certainly were clever at times. In Greenberg’s law review article and in court cases across the world, we see discourse and control intertwined; it becomes not just socially but legally mandated to define identities and even to shape bodies to support these ways of talking and perceiving the world. A rigidly policed gender binary is necessary in order to sustain heterosexism (and, arguably, sexism).

I did a lot of reading for this blog and was going to reference many an article and news case. I find, instead, that I feel like ranting.

Most states in the USA have some method of changing one’s legal sex (whether by revising or replacing birth certificates). But throughout the country, and definitely across the globe, these methods vary. Is the petitioner’s identity claim enough? Does it take a letter from a psychologist? A physician? Both? Must a supporting letter diagnose gender identity dysphoria? Intersexuality? Is prior treatment required—hormonal, therapeutic, surgical? How much treatment?

On, and on, and on, it goes. And I can’t help but think: we can change our hair, nail, eye color at will; darken pale skin with chemicals or sun damage; eat and laze ourselves into life-threatening obesity; staple our stomachs into submission and liposuction the fat out of ourselves; augment or reduce breasts for aesthetics or health or self-confidence; pierce nearly anything (and gauge those piercings); enlarge a penis with chemicals, gadgets or surgery…but add something like a penis or breasts where they’re not expected, and suddenly the matter moves from a decision between either you and you, or you and your doctor…to one between you and the government.

It especially matters to the government if you want possession of a penis to entitle you to being treated like everybody else with a penis. Because you already recognize that what’s in your pants is not just of private significance, but also strangely important to government/society and pivotal in their regulation of your relationships. If you want, say, to bring your Mexican wife into the country, you’d better be able to prove you have a legitimate marriage, which usually means you’d better prove your maleness, which usually means prove you have a penis. And, in case you’re wondering at my failure to mention snatch: at birth, we’re sorted into 1) those who have a penis, and 2) those who do not have a penis (or, in some cases, have too small a penis to count). That’s right, feminists. Women are still defined by their lack, from the get-go. And courts are inclined to look at it as “but you don’t have a penis!” or “what’d you do with your penis?!” or, more quietly, “well, you do have a penis….”

But let’s get back to the general concepts of body modification. A state-recognized woman can change her breasts at will. A state-recognized man can (try to) change his penis. In cases of intersexuality, surgery is often expected in order to move someone more in line with an idealized male or female body form. This is because we realize there are plenty of recognized “dudes” who are overweight and have breasts, plenty of women with mustaches and flat chests and slim hips, and so on. And we want you to be able to (spend your money to) correct these unfortunate physical inadequacies and further polarize yourself. But don’t ask to move across the sex lines, and definitely don’t ask to straddle both sides of the line, or to live on a different plane entirely. Our culture will continuously ignore intersexuality and the fact that the bajillion factors in so-called straightforward biological sex do not always align in this binary fabrication we call male/female. (did you see what I did there? Straightforward. Ha.) There are testes with tatas, XY with a side dose of extra X, and many other variations in the human form (including the much-feared Clitorises of Unusual Size). But hey, why question the binary sex system and its associated stereotypes, when we can just call out these individuals with “abnormal” genotypes and phenotypes, these “freaks of nature”?

Well, excuse me, darlings, but maybe an unadjusted body is as friggin’ “natural” as it gets, and we should get over this socially constructed discursive and medical regulation of our bodies and recognize evidence of life outside the binary.


Some food for more academic thought:
DOJ - Recognizing Sex Change to Allow Immigration by Marriage
What’s up in Egypt
Miss Spain rules to allow transsexuals and mothers
HRW: Resource Library for International Jurisprudence on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Spanish Government to approve transsexual rights law
Legal aspects of transsexualism (Wikipedia)
An identity under scrutiny in Palestine (Human Rights Watch, 21-6-2007)
Gender Recognition Act 2004 (Wikipedia)

(...to the full post)

Housekeeping, 7.15.07

+ news +
Surgeon general shenanigans,
damnit,
and the is this really happening?? for the week.

More guest writers to join in the very near future!!

Sincerely,
ts

(...to the full post)

Open Your Eyes Lest You Miss Out On All The Great Programming The CW Might Just One Day Offer.

Hoppity little bunnies have giant fucking eyes. People love bunnies. In great part due to the sheer size of the eyes because as many a tweaked out gay boy on poppers and meth (or not) will be shouting from the rafters, “The bigger the better.” And to similar effect as your trusty strap-on, duck-billed fist, or plugs, one glimpse of the limpid, empty pools of a bunny’s eyes (still attached to the rest of the body, mind you) can fill a willing party right up with warm fuzzy feelings. Hypothetically, a direct correlation can be formed between bunny eye dimensions and our love for them. The larger and more vapid they are, the higher potential for fawning over the fuzzy squishiness of the snuggle bunny.

A human being, on average to their body mass, has proportionally smaller ocular organs than said bunnies. Therefore, it is safe to assume that humans are less fawned upon. As they should be. Because if some humans had larger eyes, perhaps they would see a little more. Or even if they just opened up their eyes and registered a tad bit more, they would be less prone to do stupid shit. For shame.
Down in West Palm Beach, a 17-year-old teenage boy is being accused of attacking a 39-year-old woman. The boy states that the woman got into the car with him and his friend and proceeded to seal the deal with, well, a tight-lipped seal on his manhood. Little did he know that when he removed her bikini he would find a familiar appendage. He says the woman attempted to rape him. On the flipside, the tranny contends that the boy knew full well that she was transgendered yet continued to aggressively paw her and slip in the usual hand-on-the-back-of-the-head trick. Either way, he proceeded to remove her teeth with a lifeguard stand. Latent teenage homophobe vs. potential stat rape tranny in a two-piece. If only they got to the bottom of it sooner.

A lesbian, using the womens’ facilities, was removed from the Caliente Cab Co. Mexican Restaurant in Manhattan. After reports that a man was using the john, a bouncer walked in to pound on the stall door. She offered to show ID but to no avail. The woman is being represented now by the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund. She is not transgendered. Dude just looks like a lady. Wait. Lady looks like a dude. Befuddlement aside, this happened right after the pride march. Stifled laughter and long embittered legal battle may now commence.

In other blind-sighted news, July First is the official date for many state laws to take effect. Some of note:

Colorado bans abstinence-only sex education in all schools (except for one district), requiring schools to teach sex education based on scientific research and to include information on contraception. Pray tell, why does one specific district get to put the kibosh on all the sex?

Virginia requires convicted sex offenders to register their e-mail addresses with the state.

Florida starts a one-year pilot program to test randomly for steroid use among high school athletes participating in football, baseball and weightlifting.

And my favorite:

In Mississippi, an abortion provider must perform a sonogram and give a pregnant woman the chance to listen to the heartbeat. Meanwhile, Manhattan Mini Storage has placed a print ad that states: “Your closet space is shrinking as fast as your right to choose.” Running alongside is a picture of a wire coat hanger.

The world is a confusing place. So much to see. So much to take in. So much craziness to get wrapped up in. So, be it an unforgettable spring break surprise, a faint hint of an Adam’s apple, or a fetus cursing you to hell, keep your eyes peeled for the signs. Like the bunny. It will keep you out of trouble. And if not, at least they’ll think you’re cute and lovable. And then eat you anyway.

(...to the full post)

Hate crimes

Too many people die because prejudice and fear take such deep hold of individuals, and because society repeatedly sends the message that it does not care equally about all its members.

The appalling police (non)response in this case has many of us thinking about hate crimes legislation. Whatever your feelings about taking into account motivation when sentencing a criminal, this case suggests another reason to sometimes give federal authorities jurisdiction for local crimes. As much as we need to trust our police officers to investigate impartially—whether the victim is an investment banker or a sex worker, a white person or a person of color, etc—can we always trust them to do so? Putting the FBI in charge of cases where bias runs deepest ensures full and fair treatment of these cases, but does it also suggest, even allow, that partiality and bias to exist within our local law enforcement agencies?

I do not know whether hate crimes legislation is the best way to go. I do know, however, that hate crimes legislation already exists in various forms, and discrepancies within those forms ought to be addressed. Hate crime statistics are gathered where the victims’ actual or perceived race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation partially or wholly motivates the criminal. Based on 1968 law, the FBI is authorized to investigate hate crimes based on race, religion and ethnic origin. At present, “limitations in federal statutes prevent the FBI from investigating crimes of bias motivated solely by gender, disability, or sexual orientation.” (source) HR 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (LLEHCPA) sponsored by John Conyers (D-MI) and Mark Kirk (R-IL), would extend that investigational authority to crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, disability and gender identity. (Note that this would include misogyny and misandry, not just hatred of folks who are transgender or gender variant)

Will hate crimes one day expand to include other broad categories of people? Class and socioeconomic status? Profession? Criminal status? Age? How can the FBI recognize the compounded, interactive status of these identity groups in hate crimes (the confusion between perceived gender performance and sexual orientation being only one very obvious example) What differentiates personal hatred from the manifestation of societal hate? It seems to me that hate crimes legislation seeks, in part, to affirm that society does care about the lives of even those with controversial identities or affiliations. At the same time, it calls out (confirms) these sources of difference and dispute.

It is a time to be sad and concerned. Yet we draw strength from the positive responses, by individuals and society, to these devastating tragedies. From productive legal responses to the increasing creation of and popularity of films telling the true stories of our losses and bringing to light the very human suffering involved (award-winning Boys Don’t Cry and Lifetime TV’s A Girl Like Me: the Gwen Araujo Story both come to mind).

Least we think, however, that all transfolk tales are stories of victimization and abuse. I leave you with a few reminders. Popular films do not solely mourn our losses, but they also celebrate our lives and proclaim our victories with comedy, family drama and documentary. A few examples from 90s through today The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar, The Birdcage, Transamerica, and TransGeneration. Bit by bit, we are becoming more whole and real in our onscreen gender representations.

Last fall Kim Coco Iwamoto became the transgender person with the highest-ranking elected office in the USA. Her post to the Hawaii Board of Education is particularly nifty when you consider Americans’ tendency to be especially protective of their children and especially confrontational around said children’s education. However, while Kim Coco is out and proud to her friends and family, the issue was not raised publicly during her campaign and has only created a media stir since. Stay tuned to continuing reactions as she serves the education system in this role. Here Hawaiians have a great opportunity to be welcoming and affirming pioneers. And maybe, just maybe, we won’t see a repeat of the 1990s when the people responded to a Hawaiian Supreme Court declaration—that limiting marriage to opposite sex couples is sex discrimination—by amending their constitution.

(...to the full post)