States' rights for the win?

i'll be very upfront here: i am not a legal scholar, and everything i'm about to say comes from my amateur ability to analyze court opinions.

according to my facebook newsfeed, equality (that pesky concept) has been achieved! the supreme court overturned DOMA! even google incorporated a rainbow graphic for folks who searched words like 'gay' or 'lesbian'.

i certainly would not begrudge folks their celebrations. many people have worked very hard on multiple levels to facilitate this legal gain. congratulations! however, it's important to note that the same supreme court that overturned DOMA also dismantled the voting rights act of 1965. so, when we exclaim 'equality!', whose equality are we really talking about?

there is something strikingly similar about these two cases. most notably, both opinions rely on federalism and the ability of states to make their own decisions. in justice kennedy's majority opinion for overturning DOMA, he commented that it would violate federalism and states' rights to "chart their own course" (new york times). justice roberts wrote the majority for the decision on the voting rights act, explaining that the voting rights act of 1965 departed from the principle of states' rights.

now i understand that these are complicated, multi-faceted decisions that deal with more than the question of federalism. however, that they both had this thread in common is not inconsequential. there is a relationship between the court deciding that states have the right to grant marital status and the court determining that the federal government does not have the right to regulate states' voting laws. i don't know what the connection is between the timing of these decisions or the convergence of their use of federalism. i'd love to hear what folks think about this!

i do think that if the gay and lesbian movement is invested in fighting for equality, then today is a difficult day because many gained legal access to rights based on the same principles that the court used to de-prioritize the rights of others. therefore, at the same time that gay, lesbian, and queer couples will celebrate their legal claim to marital status, other folks will confront greater obstacles to their right to vote. for example, the state of texas already announced its intention to go ahead with voter id laws - racist laws that will disenfranchise many.

while overturning DOMA certainly facilitates greater access to rights for many glq couples, the connection between these two decisions is troubling. it's more than time to consider who is being included and who is being excluded from the idea of 'equality'.

For all the gay female athletes who did it first.

"with 'i'm gay', a sports barrier is broken'. that's the headline on the front page of the online version of the new york times today, which is, honestly, a little confusing. we'll get to that in a second though. we all know the build-up is the best part.

i have a conflicted relationship with sports. when i was a kid i read the sports page every morning. i was a dedicated celtics and red sox fan. i knew a lot about my teams. i went to games. i also played basketball and softball for years. i was an umpire and ref too. i was all about it. i stopped in high school. for a lot of reasons. since distancing myself from the world of competitive sports, i have ambled back in a few ways. one of the ways was through starting to follow women's sports like roller derby and the wnba.

i lived in seattle for three years, and the storm is a fierce team of talented athletes. they won the title. twice. still, i couldn't tell you how many times i have overheard conversations from folks bemoaning the fact that seattle doesn't have a professional basketball team since they lost the sonics. apparently, the storm doesn't count.

in the past few weeks i've read a number of articles pondering over the lack of out gay male athletes in professional sports. especially after brittney griner, a ncaa champ and #1 draft pick for the wnba, came out this past month. when she made her announcement, sports media asked: when will a man come out? until today, there were no active professional male athletes who were out, but there are a whole bunch of active professional female athletes who are and have been for years. it's just that no one (aka the media) really cares.

for comparison, the headline of the article covering griner's coming out was: female star comes out as gay, and the sports world shrugs. female athletes are, in large part, expected to be gay. by participating in spaces that are overwhelmingly considered to be male, they are transgressing gendered boundaries and thus not 'appropriately' performing femininity. women who play professional sports are like tomboys who never grew up. they either need to prove their femininity by being really 'girly' (since somehow mainstream society still doesn't understand femme queerness) or they need to prove their heterosexuality by being hetero-coupled. if they don't, they are read as masculinized women and assumed to be gay. when they come out, no one cares because a) they already expected it b) no one watches their sports anyway and c) why care about women's sport if you're not attracted to the women (and you can't be attracted to gay women; that's wrong).

there are numerous issues with a system that 'forces' all people who are not the 'dominant' sexuality to come out and identify themselves to begin with. that's a bigger issue than this post, and i'm not going to address it right now. i think it's great that jason collins has come out. maybe he will be a great role model for young gay (male) athletes. it's important to note, however, that he is not the first out professional athlete. there have been many before him, and the mechanisms that contribute to their invisibility are real. so for all three of you who read this post, i'd like to make some of these female athletes a little bit more visible. here's a link to a list ellen made of some out athletes. check it out:
http://www.afterellen.com/content/2012/05/12-our-favorite-out-athletes-last-40-years?page=2,0

Not everything needs to be reenacted.

i know, i haven't been posting. i created this blog for a number of reasons. one of them was to have a welcome distraction from my school work. it turns out, i have had more 'welcome distractions' than i have had time for lately. here's hoping that with the fast approaching end of my masters (oh wow), i will again feel highly committed to my blog! and, you know, find a job or something...

since the title for my blog comes from the haggadah, i felt that i really should sit down and get some thoughts out during passover. so here goes! (forgive me if i'm rusty).

the other night when i was making dinner and listening to this american life, i learned about the conner prairie interactive history park in indiana. they bring history to life! they have a special event called: follow the north star. guess what that re-imagines? well, according to their website, during the 'follow the north star' event, you get to "become a fugitive slave on the Underground Railroad, fleeing from captivity, risking everything for freedom". that's right, with a simple payment of $20 for non-members and $17 for members (yeah, they have members), you too can experience slavery.

there are innumerable problems with this interpretation of a 'history' lesson. i mean, people are paying money to re-enact slavery. they are re-imagining slavery. just let that sink in for another moment.

since there is no way i could present an exhaustive list of all the issues with 'follow the north star', i'm going to raise two that strike me as particularly salient. one, this is not what slavery was like. conner prairie boasts authenticity due to extensive research. it seems, however, that they are forgetting one highly distinguishing characteristic - slavery was not a choice. when teachers bring a school group to participate in follow the north star, the kids come away believing they now know what slavery was like. this is a quote from an eighth grader pulled from one of the testimonials one their website: "'Follow the North Star' puts you in their place". however, they all got permission slips signed. they elected to go. they were probably excited for their field trip. i hope we're all on the same page here. creating the opportunity for a bunch of americans (mostly white americans) to believe they understand what it felt like to be a slave works toward erasing the experience of actual slaves and the complicated legacy slavery left in the states.

two, 're-enacting' slavery firmly establishes it as something of the past. school groups can go and learn about how mean white people were to black 'way back when'. it's as if all of these 'bad' things (as in, racist and violent attitudes and behaviours) happened back then and are a part of 'history' not present day. teaching slavery in an old-timey fashion without concurrently locating everything within a post-colonial context really just seems to re/produce a post-racial attitude.

like i said, these certainly are not the only problems with 'follow the north star'. also, 'follow the north star' is not the only event at conner prairie interactive history park! check out their website for more rousing trips you could go on: http://www.connerprairie.org. or, consider having your wedding on the prairie!

i'm interested to hear what other people think about this 'history' park. what strikes you?

also, check out the episode of this american life in which they visit it: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/120/be-careful-who-you-pretend-to-be

To the women who harassed me at the pool.

i've struggled writing this post. i meant to write it days ago, but it's proving to be more difficult than i anticipated. i'm pretty sure i know why.

sometimes i get made fun of, looked at, whispered about, and called names. it doesn't happen a lot and, honestly, i don't usually mind all that much. the most contentious space for me seems to be washrooms. i have a lot of privilege though - i'm white, i'm able-bodied, i live in a progressive city, and i grew up middle class. equipped with all that privilege, i often walk into a washroom feeling a bit antagonistic, ready to challenge anyone who dares tell me where i do and don't belong.

this may sound strange, but i far prefer outright harassment. if someone takes issue with my gender identity or my sexuality, i want them to come out and say it to my face. when they opt instead to whisper it to their friends or communicate through caustic stares, the onus is on me to confront them if i want to have a dialogue. and this is where our story begins.

last week i went to school early to swim as i often do. typically i go with a couple of friends, but classes are over, so i went on my own. i had finished changing and was about to head to the showers before starting my swim. at this point, a couple women came into the area of the changing room that i was in. immediately upon seeing me, they shared some intense sort of reaction. it was startling. for context, it was about 7:30 in the morning. i was definitely still waking up. it took me a little bit to realize what was going on. however, from the changing rooms to the showers to the lanes to the whirlpool back to the showers and the changing rooms, they were always there. they were always looking at me and whispering and laughing with another friend. they communicated to me with a quickness and sharpness that made me feel judged, humiliated and profoundly uncomfortable.

they never spoke to me. since we never directly interacted, i began to think i was probably paranoid. chances were i was making this up, creating their hostility. but why when i finished a lap were they waiting at the end of the lane glaring at me? why, when i switched lanes, were they still keeping track of my whereabouts? i'd finish a lap and look up to see all three of them from the other end of the pool, staring at me. it was not a friendly stare.

when i finished my swim, they were in the whirlpool. i always go into the whirlpool when i finish. it's the best part! i figured i should skip it though. it would just be the four us. no, that's ridiculous. i would go in and, anyway, i was probably making this situation up. i went into the whirlpool. the energy was so remarkably hostile, that i felt honestly nervous about changing in front of them. i left quickly to get a head start.

i was changing as quickly as i could. they arrived as i was putting on my binder. they laughed at me, and i turned to face the wall. they were clearly good friends, but they kept their towels glued to their bodies and their backs to me as they changed. people were walking around naked, but these women were painstakingly meticulous about not being exposed. of course, it's totally possible that this is always how they changed and that it had nothing to do with me, but it felt very personal.

i was flustered and trying to leave as quickly as possible. i walked out the wrong way on accident and had to turn around and walk past them again. when i passed them, they were talking about me. we all caught eyes for a moment. they looked at me and looked briefly, maybe, embarrassed but it might just have been the shock of being caught in the act. they put their hands over their mouth. i kept walking, and i heard them laugh. i paused and turned to walk back and confront them.

here's the issue: they never said anything to me. they harassed me for an hour. for an entire hour they made me feel like less and less of a person, but they did it so insidiously that there was nothing i could grasp ahold of in order to confront them. i was left with 'feelings' - a sense of hostility. as i stood paused in the hall, ready to go back and start something, i realized how it would go. i would say: do you have a problem? and they would simply say: no. that would be it. what recourse did i really have? what could i really say? would i tell them that i had seen them whispering and pointing? to which i'm sure they would respond with an apology instead of an explanation for what they were 'actually' talking about. it was a no-win situation for me. confronting them would not make me feel better about what had happened, so i left.

i felt horrible though. i took me longer than usual to shake off the interaction. it certainly wasn't the first time i've been harassed. it wasn't really the worst time, either. i struggled to understand why i couldn't seem to get over it, why i felt so upset. i think i've figured it out. i think it was the insidiousness of it along with how outnumbered i felt. there were three of them and just one of me, and the way they went about it left no room for a dialogue. i felt like i was just receiving hostility for an hour and had no way to respond without coming off as a belligerent, paranoid person. i felt backed into a corner and powerless, and that's why it seemed so much worse.

i guess the point of this post is to regain a bit of that power through telling the story.

Stop spending so much on your tomboy

i tend to be late to the celebrity gossip game. i also tend to be late to new fads and latest trends in general. it's kind of an anomaly that i have a blog. ask any of my close friends and they will tell you that i'm actually very 'bad' at the internet. i know the internet is this incredibly vast resource that i could be utilizing in a much more interesting way, but i just have no idea how to go about doing it. so then i get bored or frustrated and go do something else.

for years, i've learned about key pop culture icons and issues through reading bitch magazine, a publication my sister turned me onto when i was younger. i want to make something clear though: this is not something that i'm touting as being awesome. i'm not proud of my lack of pop knowledge. i think pop culture is fascinating! i'm just really, really bad at keeping up.

all of this is really just a disclaimer to the fact that i just became aware of this whole shiloh jolie-pitt gender identity crisis story-line.

what! how did i not know this? someone who probably knows me too well snagged a left-behind tabloid with a nannies reveal on on suri cruise and shiloh jolie-pitt. i'd like to point out that i also learned many other interesting things in this tabloid, like all about prince harry's nudey photos. fascinating.

a moment of catch-up for folks who may also be new to this whole suri and shiloh business. suri is the daughter of the infamous scientologist (and actor?) tom cruise and katie holmes (ahem, joey potter). shiloh is the 'daughter' of angelina jolie and brad pitt. both of these kids are six years old and have been compared to each other for years. moreover, both of these kids, apparently, have some serious issues that will inevitably land them in a therapist's office (according to star magazine and unnamed sources - the best kind of sources). this would be a good place to say that all of 'the information' in this post comes from what i read in the tabloid. it is in no way credible.

the premise of the article i devoured yesterday was that suri and shiloh are both suffering from significant 'abnormalities' which their parents overindulge due to a) their financial ability to and b) their guilt over their inability to spend enough time together. suri and shiloh's 'issues' are laid out and compared, then a "board-certified psychiatrist" chimes in.

suri's problems revolve around an overindulgence of material items. suri has her own credit card. suri has a separate bedroom for her imaginary friends. suri likes to eat off of gold plates. this proclivity for consumerism is compared to shiloh's desire to be a boy. that's right, shiloh's main issue is that 'she' prefers to present as a boy and, in fact, has stated that she wants to be a boy. [note: i'm using female pronouns in quotes for shiloh because i have no way of knowing how shiloh actually identifies but at least want to acknowledge some instability of the feminine]. initially chalked up to imitation of 'her' father, the psychiatrist in the article furthers the analysis of shiloh's troubles by claiming: "only having boy haircuits, wanting to be a boy - that's more than being a tomboy. it's closer to a gender-identity problem" (emphasis mine).

let's review. there are two six year old children of celebrities being compared in this article. they are both presented as having boundary issues. the article states that whatever they want, they get - ie, they are overindulged. for suri, this accounts to lavish material goods. for shiloh, this means not preventing 'her' from dressing in the clothes that feel most comfortable for 'her' identity and engaging in the type of play that 'she' wants. how are these two the same? oh, that's right, they're not.

the article does end by distinguishing between them. one of these issues (unchecked consumerism versus gender exploration) is clearly far worse than the other. according to the board-certified psychiatrist, the answer is obvious. shiloh has deeper problems.

i know, this is a tabloid. however, tabloids are designed to sell. they aim for mass appeal. what does it say about where north american society is at in terms of creating space for gender variance that this is the kind of popular talk around shiloh? why does it even seem appropriate for 'us' to invade this young kid's life and make wildly unfounded conclusions about the potential harm of letting kids explore gender? if anything, i think this article demonstrates that gender is not losing its significance as a category in mainstream north american society. we use gender to understand other people. if we can't immediately identify their gender, that is a problem. how do we know if we can be sexually attracted to them without being gay, for instance? the horror! if we can't identify someone's gender, that is a problem with them (or their parents, as with shiloh), and it should be remedied immediately. that way we can go on our merry way, content in where we stand in this genderist society.

but maybe ask some of us who have worked to understand our gender and the ways that it just cannot fit into the so beloved binaries about what a difference the intentional, active creation of space for gender exploration would have made. i can't speak for everyone and would never try to, so i'll just say that for this genderqueer, it would have been a world of a difference to have had that space. maybe i should have been indulged. maybe it shouldn't have just been about being a tomboy or a girly-girl, which is just another false binary that obscures lived experience. maybe meeting kids where they're at and validating their experience is the key to turning gender identity 'problems' into just gender identities.

I'm coming out...as a grinch.

i feel like the grinch. it's not christmas, but that's not the type of grinch i feel like. i think i'm the 'gay equality campaign' grinch. what is the target of my grinchiness? well,  there's a new song and accompanying video that is being held up as the next anthem of the gay movement. in case this video hasn't shown up in your internet world yet, here it is

heralded as equality's new anthem, 'same love' is a hip hop song about how okay it is to be gay. the video focuses on an interracial, wealthy gay male couple during their journey to marriage and beyond. the song is being used as part of the referendum 74 campaign in washington to support gay marriage.

there is a lot to this song that is really positive. macklemore and lewis (responsible for the song) discuss stereotyping and some of the oppressions faced by queer people today. they also criticize the prevalence of 'that's gay' in hip hop music. i'm going to go out on a limb and say the issue of prejudice isn't widely covered in music, so good on them! how wonderful to have people singing along to lyrics that promote positive associations with marginalized identities!

i said i feel like a grinch, so clearly it's not all sunshine and rainbows for me. the first time i listened to this i was just getting into the song when the chorus (sung by mary lambert) started up. here are the lyrics to the chorus: and i can't change, even if i tried, even if i wanted to...

wait, why am i trying to change? why do i want to? there is nothing about being queer that makes me want to lift a finger toward heterosexuality. i do not mean to discount the obstacles faced daily by queer folks (including myself). however, let's be clear about the cause of these difficulties. queerness is not inherently problematic or inherently a struggle. it is society's reaction to queerness that results in barriers and challenges. the wording that a queer person can't change even if they tried or even if they wanted to  suggests that there are reasons to change. there is a strong discourse around the idea that queer people are born queer, so we can't change and you have to tolerate us because there is nothing we can do about it! i do not see this as helpful language. folded into that argument is the suggestion that if queer people could try really hard to change their ways, they not only should but that they would want to. regardless of whether or not people do choose to be queer (which is a blog post for another day), the language in this chorus insinuates that there are reasons why queer people would try or want to not be queer. i don't see that an affirmation of my identity.

i also have an issue with the underlying theme of the song, which is that it's all the same love. gay, straight, queer, bi - everyone loves the same, so what's the difference? an interesting discussion around this topic surfaced during the gay marriage debate in iowa. a strapping american eagle scout raised by two moms stood up in the state senate to proclaim that there was absolutely nothing different about being raised by two women in a queer household. in response, a young queer woman wrote that she was also raised by two moms and she felt that growing up in a queer household was a different experience than being raised within a heterosexual one. unfortunately, i can't find the article, but i'm going to keep looking and then i'll post it. the point, however, is not whether zach wahls or this young woman is right. the point is why is the 'gay equality' movement so invested in presenting queerness as the same? this framing raises similar questions as the chorus: do i want to be the same? why do i want to be the same? i don't.

fluidity and variation are two of the beautiful elements of queerness. proclamations of sameness and attempts to 'market' queerness as 'just like everybody else' actually work to erase some of the distinguishing, liberating, and empowering aspects of queerness itself. many queer people fight not be reduced to boxes. so why is the movement so interested in fitting entire identities into pre-established boxes?

i guess for me, it's not important that everyone loves the same. every time i've fallen in love, it's felt different, so i suppose i'm a bit skeptical that everyone does in fact love the same. again, not the point. really, i think the argument that everyone loves the same is weak. the point is that no one should be in position to tell others how, whom, how many, when, why (etc) to love. who has the right to make those decisions for others? i don't trust anyone to make decisions about love for me. i barely trust myself. we don't all love the same, and that's a beautiful thing because we can learn from each other, grow in our ideas about love, and change.

i've had this post in my mind for a while now, but i was feeling hesitant to really come into my grinch identity. however, as the internet community gets so excited about this wonderfully produced anthem, i can't fight it anymore. i take issue with these messages. they do not represent me. i think it's important to make that known, and if that makes me a grinch, well, i can't change, even i tried...even if i wanted to.

Only super hot women get the blues.

there's probably no reason why life needs to take its toll on my blog updating, but i guess that is what has happened. it's been a while. life certainly got in the way. i guess i just needed something particularly provocative to pull me out of myself and push me back into the blogosphere. well, i found it.

on september 21st jezebel ran an article [http://jezebel.com/5945355/super-hot-women-more-likely-to-have-super-painful-endometriosis] with the headline: super hot women more likely to have super painful endometriosis. i went right to it for a couple of reasons. first, i have endometriosis, so i'm particularly interested in 'research' on it. mostly though, that's a fairly bogus proposition for any study. it sounded more like something i would read in the onion. after checking to make sure i was accidently reading the onion, i checked out the article.

the blogger covering the story mixed the report with a healthy balance of incredulity, sarcasm, and the facts of the case. basically, some italian doctors got 300 women (a shockingly small number of participants for a study like this) together according to three groups. 1) 100 who identified as having retrovaginal endometriosis (this is a really bad type); 2) 200 who identified as having regular endometriosis; and 3) 100 who didn't have it. this next part is amazing and really makes me wonder what they wrote down on their ethics application. after getting these 300 women together, the doctors measured their bmi, breast size, and waist-to-hip ratio. yes, you read that correctly. in fact, go back and re-read it. then, just to make sure there weren't too many biases impacting the data, they had two doctors who didn't know the endometriosis status of the women rate their physical attractiveness on a scale of 1-5. but wait, there's more! wary of making false claims, the doctors added a questionnaire component to the study. they asked about sexual history. why? obviously because women who have sex before age 18 are hotter than women who don't. duh.

through this finely crafted study, the doctors found that women with retrovaginal endometriosis were more likely to have small bmi's and big breasts and were more likely to have intercourse before age 18. the doctors thought it might have something to do with estrogen, but only because high levels of estrogen have already been linked with endometriosis.

this study is terrifying. besides the fact that it is very poorly done, it is based on highly subjective ideas about what it means to be attractive. you know what, that's not even my biggest problem with this blatantly offensive research. as someone who deals with endometriosis, i have been consistently frustrated by the lack of substantive research in this area. researchers consistently understudy health issues associated with female bodies. it is both not surprising and immensely depressing to see that when a study in this topic was funded and completed, that study was so entirely bogus, so entirely offensive, and so entirely pointless. how in the world would it help anyone with endometriosis to know the likelihood that they would have lower bmi's and bigger breasts? this study provides absolutely nothing for people who are actually experiencing pain.