Feel the Homomentum!

Episcopal Church Moves to End Ban on Gay Bishops:

The bishops of the Episcopal Church voted at the church's convention on Monday to open "any ordained ministry" to gay men and lesbians, a move that could effectively undermine a moratorium on ordaining gay bishops that the church passed at its last convention three years ago.

The resolution passed on Monday was written in a way that would allow dioceses to consider gay candidates to the episcopacy, but does not mandate that all dioceses do so.

A similar measure was passed on Sunday by the church's other legislative body, the House of Deputies, which is made up of laypeople and clergy. On Tuesday, the bishops' version will probably go back to the House of Deputies for reconsideration.

...The debates at the convention in Anaheim over the last few days have made it clear that the liberals increasingly have the upper hand within the Episcopal Church. At a debate over whether to develop formal rites for same-sex blessings, 50 people testified in favor and 6 against.

A committee on Monday overwhelmingly approved a measure that would permit same-sex blessings, and the House of Bishops will take that up later this week.
First the Lutherans (some of 'em, anyway) and now the Episcopalians! Hey conservative evangelicals: This is what it looks like when Christians actually pay attention to that dirty hippie commie Jesus fella. Take a note!

[H/T to Shaker Liz.]

Open Wide...

Bathrooms, again? Still?

I want to write a few words about this post, from TransGriot, about a trans woman who was thrown out of Casino Rama, not two hours from where I sit, right here in theoretically-progressive Canada.

Y'know...I transitioned nearly seventeen years ago.

I mention this, not to assert any "I've been at this a long time" privilege, but rather to frame what I'm about to say in terms of how big a problem it is. I guess what gets me about it is that, here we are in 2009 - approaching twenty years after I immigrated to women's country - and we're still yammering and flailing about bathrooms.

I don't get it. I really don't. I do understand that there are women for whom the presence in the bathroom of a man would be seriously problematic, and quite possibly triggering. I do. I'm even one of them (a woman who could be triggered by this).

But there wasn't a man in there. There was a trans woman.

Her purpose in being there wasn't to harm anyone. It was to eliminate waste, a function which even the most privileged among us have to do occasionally (though some seem uptight enough that I wonder how long it's been since they pulled the cork). Maybe she even felt like checking her makeup, if she was wearing it. Or she wanted to fix her clothing. Or wash her face or hands. Who fucking knows? Who fucking cares?

But beyond that, the bit that really bugs me: the idiotic idea that a WOMEN sign on the door acts as a magical rapist repellent. Here's a newsflash: despite what the bathroom bigots' careful research (involving, no doubt, several seasons of Law & Order: SVU) may tell them, the vast majority of rapes do not occur in public committed by strangers. And of that tiny minority which do, the number which occur in the manner, "he wore a dress so he could get into the women's bathroom unseen" has to be among the smallest*. The very idea that a rapist would fake a trans woman's identity in order to move around more comfortably just shows the depth of ignorance being displayed here: there are few identities a rapist could assume that would be more likely to draw attention to themselves.

Cause if you think "passing"** is that easy, you obviously have never tried it.

Remember: she wasn't bothering anyone. She hadn't approached anyone. She was just sitting on the toilet, like six billion other fucking humans on this dirtball every freaking day, and was hustled out of the casino by five guards for having the nerve to need to pee. The guard didn't know her surgical status: in Ontario, one does not require surgery to change gender markers on ID, so as far as the guard might have known, she may have kicked someone out who had the same damned equipment as she did. And in the end, what fucking difference does it make? I mean, really? It's a women's bathroom. It's not like she's walking up to a urinal and lifting her skirt, y'know? What right of someone's is she violating? Is it her simple existence which is the violation? That an icky tranny freak will be peeing too close to some cisprivileged bigot?

If it is to be Casino Rama's corporate policy that trans folk will be required to use only the unisex bathrooms, then they'd better make that policy a lot more public. That way the bigots will know where to spend their money, and people with any empathy will know where they shouldn't spend theirs.

I want to also acknowledge/draw attention to something slightly problematic in the post I've linked to. This made me wince (emphasis mine):

The casino is not only owned by First Nations peeps, it sits on reserve land. You would think the last place a transperson would face such disrespect is in a First Nations owned casino due to the concept of two spirit people that is part of First nations culture.
I see this as problematic in two ways. One, it suggests that First Nations culture is monolithic. This is no more true than it is to say "European culture has the concept of the siesta".

Second, it's related to the fallacy that oppressed people can't/don't oppress. I don't think I need to explain the logicfail there. It's a good article, but this section did give me a wince moment. I do believe that TransGriot is a progressive place, and that this was unintentional, but All In means, to me, that I don't just fight for the progress that is relevant to me, so I felt it important to speak up.

If you feel like making a comment to Casino Rama itself, you can find their contact information here.

In the end, I'm quite confident that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal will see justice done. They've done a pretty good job on protecting trans people's rights so far, and this one seems pretty clear cut.

But it's still revolting to me that we're having this stupid, stupid argument still.

* Quoting our blogmistress on the topic (many times, in many places):

"Women are about three times more likely to be raped by someone they know than a stranger, and nine times more likely to be raped in their homes, the home of someone they know, or anywhere else than being raped on the street."

** "Passing" is a deeply problematic concept in trans identity, which I'll only touch on briefly here. It has to do with judgement of people's performance of gender, conformity to societal strictures, privilege of wealth and youth, and a good dozen other deep and important trans-related issues. Suffice it to say: it ain't easy.

Open Wide...

Media Bias (Hint: It Ain't Liberal)

Ron Fournier, the Associated Press' Washington bureau chief, says that "senators and witnesses can't always say what they want to say" during confirmation hearings, so "they speak in code"—and then he helpfully translates the "code" for us.

WHAT SHE SAID: "If I introduced every one that's family," Sotomayor said with a strong voice and a smile, "we'd be here all morning."

WHAT SHE MEANT: I may not look like all of you but, trust me, I'm no different than every other family-loving American. I'm surrounded by people who love me.
Really? Sonia Sotomayor, in noting she has a large family during a nationally broadcast statement, really meant to convey she knows she doesn't look like—who? members of the Judiciary Committee? members of the Senate? every American watching along at home? As Digby notes, "This kind of remark says far more about the person who says it than the person they are ostensibly describing."
WHAT HE SAID: "Judge Sotomayor's journey to this hearing room," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., "is truly an American story."

WHAT HE MEANT: If you love America, you'll love Sotomayer -- or at least vote for her.
Or he was merely coyly reminding the audience that the Latina up for nomination is as American as anyone else in the room—and, gee, I can't imagine why he'd feel the need to do that, when wire service Washington bureau chiefs busily exhibit their expansive tolerance by interpreting Sotomayor's comments about her family as a treatise on looking different from all the "normal Americans" or wev.
WHAT HE SAID: " ... a struggle ripe with anti-Semitism .... likewise, the first Catholic nominee ...," Leahy said, underscoring that Sotomayor, like Catholic and Jewish nominees before her, would be a barrier-breaking justice.

WHAT HE MEANT: Criticize Sotomayor at your own risk. You don't want to sound racist.
So Leahy can't even bring up that Sotomayor is a trailblazer without being accused of implicitly condemning others' potential racism. Echoes of when a person of color points out that a white person has said/done something racist, and the POC is accused of "playing the race card," so that it's impossible to call out racism without having it immediately turned around on you.

In this case, the white Leahy celebrating a Latina's success despite still-evident racial barriers in America can be nothing but, according to Fournier, a caution that any criticism will be called racism. Then, if there is later occasion for Leahy (or another Democrat) to call out a demonstrable bit of racism in the proceedings, the criticism can be disregarded as unserious, because, hey, we already knew Leahy was going to "cry racism" on any criticism, anyway. Remember how he praised her? But we all knew what he really meant.

Never mind that the GOP has already established a history of using racism against Sotomayor (and of calling her racist), which would give Leahy the right to make such an admonishment even if he were.
WHAT HE SAID: Leahy said nobody should demonize "this extraordinary woman, her success or her understanding of the duties she's faithfully performed the last 17 years."

WHAT HE MEANT: Criticize Sotomayor at your own risk. Don't be sexist.
Merely mentioning that Sotomayor is a woman is, according to Fournier, Leahy "playing the gender card," implying that criticism of her will be deemed sexist.

This is the position of trolls we've seen come through here day after day for years: I can't say anything negative about POC without being called a racist! I can't say anything negative about women without being called a sexist! I can't say anything negative about queers without being called a bigot! You just silence dissent by lobbing -ists and -isms at me! Over and over and over, despite the reality that I manage to criticize people of color (like our president) and women (like Sarah Palin) and queers (like John Aravosis) all the time without resorting to race-baiting, gendered slurs, or anti-queer epithets.

But it's just so convenient for privileged fuckwads to believe—and claim—that support for diversity is akin to the silencing of dissent, that they'll say it ad infinitum, irrespective of mountainous evidence to the contrary, until they believe it.

And the Washington bureau chief of the AP has done precisely the same.

There's your "liberal media bias" for you, right there. The AP's exactly as liberal as your average troll at Shakesville.

Open Wide...

Et tu, Colbert?

This morning, I got an email from Shaker Elke asking if I'd watched The Colbert Report last night:

I was wondering if you saw the clip … where they replaced Sharon Stone's head with Sonia Sotomayor's head in the scene from "Basic Instinct" where she uncrosses her legs in interrogation and flashes her nethers at a row of smoking, middle-aged men who stare as though they've never seen a vagina before.

I'm a big fan of Colbert, but I couldn't believe he did that. It was completely sickening the way they just HAD to sexualize a professional woman whose role as a public figure has nothing to do with sex. I was so despondent after that, I just turned the TV off.
With the mix of trepidation, rising defensiveness, and rueful resignation that has become a familiar feature of my watching videos of various Talk Show Hosts I Used to Like, I headed over to the Colbert Nation website and watched the video.


[Partial transcript of relevant section below.]

Let's be very clear about this: It's not irony. It's not satire. It's not even remotely relevant to the sketch and would not have a place there if Colbert hadn't "pretended to hear Rush right." It's just the demeaning sexualization of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor for fucking laughs.

Two women have sat on that bench in the Court's 200 year history, and I'm not even going to soft-peddle it: This shit is why. The unwillingness or inability or flat refusal to regard women as people rather than some less than subset, defined by what's (assumed to be) between their legs, is why Sonia Sotomayor will be only the third woman in US history to sit on the Supreme Court.

And her nomination will be rife with questions about her stance on women's reproductive rights, and her support for women's autonomy over their own sexuality will be a key point of contention and controversy. Because women's bodies are still considered public property, property of men, to do with what they will. And if Sonia Sotomayor won't publicly make her body available as a sexual plaything to demean her, well, fuck, her head can just be stuck on the body of a woman who will.

I am heartbroken to see Colbert engaging in this rubbish.

And I'm sick to the fucking teeth of it. I bet you are, too. Time to pick up our teaspoons in a big way, Shakers. If anyone's going to listen, it's going to be Stephen Colbert, so let's make this one count.



Stephen Colbert
c/o The Colbert Report
513 West 54th Street
New York, NY 10019

Comedy Central: (212) 767-8600 or mail@comedycentral.com

Form for comments on Comedy Central programming.

Form for comments on Viacom brands.

Viacom: (212) 258-6000

Time to make some noise.
Transcript starting at 1:50

Colbert: As always, Senate Minority Leader Rush Limbaugh has led the fight [against Sotomayor's nomination]. Here's what Rush said when he found out Sotomayor said wise, Latina women would reach better conclusions than white males.

Limbaugh [video]: Sotomayor was following her basic instinct; she is racist!

Colbert: Not only a racist, but if I'm pretending to hear Rush right, she was also in Basic Instinct. Word of warning, senators—if your questioning gets too tough, you might see this.

[video clip of Sharon Stone uncrossing her legs, with Sotomayor's head superimposed on Stone's body]


Colbert: I'm just saying! [wild laughter and applause from audience; Colbert tries not to laugh] I'm just saying! A Supreme Court nominee of all people should have briefs. [laughter and groans] You're welcome. You're all welcome.

Open Wide...

Bread and Teaspoons

Good morning (unless it isn't where you are, in which case I wish you Good $TIME_PERIOD), and welcome to the second weekly installment of Shakesville's networking post, Bread and Teaspoons*. My apologies for being a day late with it - honestly, I just spaced on Monday morning, because it was technically my Saturday (I'd worked the last nine days through, finishing up on Sunday night). Monday will be the usual day, though.

As I said last week, there are hundreds of us here, maybe thousands, all over the US and Canada, and out into the rest of the world. We work in all kinds of fields, doing all kinds of different things, and most of us tend to be online creatures: we roam the Toobz constantly, and in doing so, encounter many opportunities.

So this is a weekly post, Mondays, providing a spot for Shakers to network a little with one another, see if we can help each other out some.

Here's how it works: There should be three sorts of comments here.

1) You comment here with any details of work you're seeking: where, what, that sort of thing. You give an e-mail address at which you can be reached - feel free to set up a special e-mail for it, if you don't want to post your regular one for the world to spam - and if another Shaker has a lead, they can contact you directly to pass it along.

A work-seeking comment should include:

  • - a short summary of the skillset you're seeking work with;

  • - a short summary of your experience

  • - where you're looking for work to happen

  • - your contact e-mail
Please do NOT include information such as your full name or telephone number, as this is and will remain a public post, and once posted, there's no taking it back (because it'll be spidered by a search engine, not because we don't want you to).

It is explicitly alright to comment to this each week with similar info.

For example, I might post a comment saying:

I'm a professional translator of French, German and Russian, with nearly 17 years of experience. I'm looking for basically any translation job, academic, commercial, personal, genealogical, you name it, with one exception: I do not currently have certification, so if you need a certified translator (usually for legal docs: birth certificates, divorce decrees, wills), you need someone else.

I am also available as a writer or editor, for academic, journalistic, creative, marketing-oriented or any other type of written communication. Basically, if you'll pay me, I'll write or edit it.

You can contact me for business purposes through my business address, translatey.caitie@translateycaitie.com.
**

2) The second type of comment would be task offering: if you've got a job you think might suit someone here, consider posting it as a comment. Use the same guidelines as above: give general information here, and specific information when you exchange e-mails. An offered task might look something like this:

I have a doctoral thesis which needs proofing and editing by Thursday, is anyone available? You can reach me at ABDShaker@shakesville.miskatonic.edu.

I'd like to be clear: only offer tasks which you have explicit permission to offer. If you come across something that isn't yours, but think some Shakers might want to know about it, either ask permission of the offerer, or offer it privately to someone whose comment says they might be interested (based on their skillset). For instance, you're on some other site, you see someone asking for, say, help in designing their new website. Don't come here and offer the job as a comment, unless you have that person's explicit permission. What you could do is go through the comments, and send an e-mail to anyone with the right skillset.

3) The third kind of comment I'd love to see is success stories! We’d love to know when this works out, and people actually find some employment through our efforts. If you feel like sharing, tell us how it worked out for you. As an example, here in our second week, I'll give you my own:

Before the end of last week, I had a Shaker who happens to be a project manager for a translation agency contact me, and I'm in the process of signing up with that agency for freelance contracts. I also got a potential job not through Shakesville that's exciting me: a possible full-book literary translation job. This'd be the Big Time for me: a book being published with my name associated with it. The deadline was supposed to be Sunday, but they've pushed it back to Thursday. I share that one only because, hey, maybe good news is contagious!

So, that's what we'd like to see.

What we do NOT want to see:
  • - recommendations/references, even for other Shakers - leave those for the contact phase of your negotiation

  • - rates info - again, leave this for the contact phase of your negotiation; we don't want to encourage bidding wars between Shakers

  • - illegal employment - whatever we may think of a given law against a certain activity, we don't want to put Shakesville in any awkward spots legally

  • - links to job search, agency or other sites - this is meant to be Shaker-to-Shaker, here, not a spamming point for other sites; only link to sites which are yours
So there. Have at it, Shakers, for Bread and Teaspoons!

Important disclaimers: Shakesville makes no endorsement or claim as to the capabilities of anyone commenting to this post, and anyone considering hiring someone should be prepared to treat it like any other business situation: DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE. We're not doing any screening of this, so you'll want to make sure you check references, use safe-payment procedures (e.g., ask for a deposit), all the things you'd do when working with any stranger on the Internet. While this is intended for Shakers in general, remember that there is no real obstacle to being able to comment here, and do the things you need to do to keep yourself safe.

* As might be evident, this is an intentional reference to Bread and Roses, a longtime slogan of the left. In this case, though, my hope is that if we achieve steady bread, we will use it to power our teaspoon use.

** Now, don't go writing to that one yet, because that's not my actual domain name (which I've not got running yet, but should soon), and I'm only using it as an example (though it happens to be true). The e-mail listed for me under Contributors works just fine for now, if you've got something for me.

The last ten Bread and Teaspoons: One.

For further back, each post has this last-ten in it - skip back, and you can go back ten from there.

Open Wide...

Random That Mitchell and Webb Look Clip



Gendered Advertising

[H/T to CelticFeminist.]

Open Wide...

Cheney's Assassination Program Confirmed

Back in March, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh revealed that he learned about "an ongoing covert military operation that he called an 'executive assassination ring'."

Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command -- JSOC it's called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...

Congress has no oversight of it. It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths.

Under President Bush's authority, they;ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That's been going on, in the name of all of us.
That certainly seems to be the "CIA Project" of which Cheney's concealment has been making headlines over the past few days, in which the nature of the concealed program has slowly emerged.

AP: "CIA Director Leon Panetta has terminated a 'very serious' covert program the spy agency kept secret from Congress for eight years, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a House Intelligence subcommittee chairwoman, said Friday."

New York Times: "The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday."

Wall Street Journal: "A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative terminated by Director Leon Panetta was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives, according to former intelligence officials familiar with the matter. The precise nature of the highly classified effort isn't clear, and the CIA won't comment on its substance."

New York Times: "C.I.A. Had Plan to Assassinate Qaeda Leaders—Since 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency has developed plans to dispatch small teams overseas to kill senior Qaeda terrorists, according to current and former government officials."

Washington Post: "The plan to deploy teams of assassins to kill senior terrorists was legally authorized by the administration of George W. Bush, but it never became fully operational, according to sources briefed on the matter. The sources confirmed that then-Vice President Richard B. Cheney had urged the CIA to delay notifying Congress about the diplomatically sensitive plan—a bid for secrecy that congressional Democrats now say thwarted proper oversight."

This is Bourne Identity shit we're talking about, and although "in the movies," the US sends targeted non-military assassination squads around the world killing people outside war theaters, this is not reality. It's also what we used to consider murder once upon a time.

Steve succinctly describes the issue:
In context, this isn't about operations in a combat zone. If the CIA had intelligence on an al Qaeda leader in, say, Kandahar, U.S. officials would act on that intelligence without concern for "logistical, legal and diplomatic obstacles." Indeed, predator drones make it possible to strike without sending teams of Americans at all.

This secret program, however, was apparently designed to consider what to do in response to intelligence about an al Qaeda leader believed to be in, say, Hamburg, where sending a predator drone isn't an option.

For the same reason the U.S. government would be displeased with foreign paramilitary teams carrying out assassinations on American soil, the prospects of sending small, surgical U.S. assassination squads around the world, including into allied countries, proved problematic.

"It sounds great in the movies, but when you try to do it, it's not that easy," a former intelligence official said, noting the logistical challenges. "Where do you base them? What do they look like? Are they going to be sitting around at headquarters on 24-hour alert waiting to be called?" And this doesn't even touch on the legal and political difficulties.
The Guardian politely notes that the program "pushed the limits of legality."

On the one hand, an assassination program is not a huge strategic departure, nor an ethical departure, from sending drones to kill alleged al-Qaeda operatives on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. On the other hand, we're talking about committing murders in urban centers on the friendly soil of our allies without telling them what we're doing. And because the Bush administration didn't even tell Congress, it's a massive foreign policy risk with no oversight, no checks, no balances, nothing. Just Dick Cheney and his assassination squad.

In March, people said Seymour Hersh was crazy.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Bein' Green

Open Wide...

What The Hell?



Portly Dyke

What the hell is up with that pose? What the hell is with that pole in her hand?? What the hell is up with that dyke ... in a dress??? What the hell????

[See also: Deeky, Liss, evilsciencechick, katecontinued, ClumsyKisses, Mistress Sparkletoes, Liiiz, Reedme, Mama Shakes, Mustang Bobby, RedSonja and MomTFH.]

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

Suggested by Shaker Kevin Wolf: If you could have a stack of, say, a dozen copies of any movie on DVD, is there any title you'd be pressing into the hands of friends—even strangers—telling them they've missed something great?

Kevin says: "My answer is Robert Benton's The Late Show (1977), starring Art Carney and the always-marvelous Lily Tomlin. A tribute to old detective films like The Big Sleep, with a mystery nearly as complicated as featured in that classic, The Late Show updates itself (to the 70's anyway) by playing retired gumshoe Carney off Tomlin's oddball designer/agent/actress, whose quest to get her kidnapped cat back (yep, that's right) puts them both on the trail of stolen stamps, missing guns, and a devious killer. Of course, given the cast, it's got a lot of comedy. And the supporting cast is great, with Eugene Roach, Joanna Cassidy, and an excellent performance from Bill Macy (Maude's husband Walter on TV) as Carney's low life street informant. Pauline Kael said of the characters in this movie, they're all originals."

We did a similar QotD to this almost four years ago now, and I answered Henry Fool. However, I just recently watched Living in Oblivion (available for instant viewing on Netflix! hint hint) after not seeing it for years, and I fell in love with it all over again. Iain had never seen it, and he loved it, too.

And, of course, everyone knows I'm an inveterate Harold & Maude pusher.

Open Wide...

Of Life and Death

Sisters Face Death With Dignity and Reverence:

A convent is a world apart, unduplicable. But the Sisters of St. Joseph, a congregation in this Rochester suburb, animate many factors that studies say contribute to successful aging and a gentle death — none of which require this special setting. These include a large social network, intellectual stimulation, continued engagement in life and spiritual beliefs, as well as health care guided by the less-is-more principles of palliative and hospice care — trends that are moving from the fringes to the mainstream.

For the elderly and infirm Roman Catholic sisters here, all of this takes place in a Mother House designed like a secular retirement community for a congregation that is literally dying off, like so many religious orders. On average, one sister dies each month, right here, not in the hospital, because few choose aggressive medical intervention at the end of life, although they are welcome to it if they want.

"We approach our living and our dying in the same way, with discernment," said Sister Mary Lou Mitchell, the congregation president. "Maybe this is one of the messages we can send to society, by modeling it."
Read the whole thing.

*makes mental note that Isle de Shakes will need its own retirement community like this one*

Open Wide...

The Trials and Travails of Transness: The Importance of Cis

by Shaker Alexmac, a transgender woman studying at the University of Florida.

[Part 3 in an ongoing series. Part 1 is here; Part 2 is here.]

I would like to make a quick break from my series and talk a bit about language. Recently at Pam's House Blend, there was a large flare-up over the us of cis, and Autumn Sandeen claimed that the word cis had been "weaponized." I do not want to focus on the details of the incident at Pam's House Blend, but I would like to emphasize the importance of the word "cis."

This word was popularized by Julia Serano in her book Whipping Girl. Cis, as in cisgender or cissexual, refers to people who do not have cross gender feelings. Also, it has a nice symmetry as it is also a Latinate prefix, but it means on the same side as, as opposed to trans, which means on the opposite side of. Studying biology, I use this prefix a lot to refer to biological process, but it is not as commonly used as the trans prefix. Which leads to: It decenters gender identity and expression from "trans" and "normal" to "trans" and "cis." It functions in much the same way as heterosexual does for homosexual. It makes trans just another possibility in the spectrum of identity instead of this "other" thing. The word is value-neutral and was coined specifically to serve as a counterpoint to/for transgender people.

Since cis people are the majority group, they have privilege that transgender people don't have. Transgender people have to prove their gender by dropping their pants. They are excluded from bathrooms due to their status. They don't receive care because they aren't they right gender. Cisgender people have privilege even if they didn't ask for it. They are not pathologized as transgender people are. Cisgender privilege exists as surely as male privilege and white privilege exist.

The word cisgender is meant to equalize the relationship between cisgender and transgender people. If that is to happen, cis people need to realize that they have privilege by virtue of the fact that their subconscious sex matches their physical sex, and that there is nothing wrong or deviant about having those things not match. I want to be regarded as an equal person who is transgender and the word cis provides a valuable tool to talk about the experiences of the non transgender population.

This word brings up a lot of controversy and many people do not accept it. I would like to draw from Julia Serano's post on the word cis. Many people respond to the word cis by saying that they don't identify as cis. I say in response that the word cis is only trying to describe the people whose subconscious sex matches their physical sex. If anyone wants to use a different word that doesn't position transgender people as an Other, then I would be pleased to call them that. The word itself is not important; it is simple a way to express the idea of non-transgender people without othering transgender people.

Another common response is that cis sounds jargony or academic. My response is that the word cis fill an important void. It allows transgender people and allies to describe the ways we are marginalized by having an equal term for people who are not transgender. Having this word allows new ideas such as cisgender privilege to be developed and discuss how it affects trans lives.

I have seen a lot of pushback against this word, but I feel it is misguided. I am a white person, even though I usually don't self identify as such. Having a way to describe my race as something other than normal compared to people of color places me on a continuum of racial identities and allows people to point out the privilege of the majority group as white privilege. Pointing out privilege can be painful to the privileged, but it is important for minority groups to have a vocabulary to fully describe their experiences and their relationship to the majority class. The word cis does that for transgender people.

There are other good discussions of this issue at the following posts: A Point About Cis and Semantics, Gender, and 'Cis'.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day


"I think First Dude up there in Alaska, Todd Palin, ought to take Levi down to the creek and hold his head underwater until the thrashing stops."—Professional superfuck Pat Buchanan, to much laughter on the "Morning Joe" set, on what Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's husband Todd should do to his grandson's father, Levi Johnston, after Johnston said he believed the governor's resignation was motivated by wanting to take advantage of lucrative offers and spend more time with her family.

Buchanan inexplicably remains a valued contributor at MSNBC, despite the fact that he has unapologetically claimed that AIDS is retribution against gays, praised Hitler as "an individual of great courage," stated that women "are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed" as are men, argued that black Americans are ingrates who should be appreciative of everything white Americans have done "to lift up blacks," asserted that Colin Powell endorsed Obama because they're both black, and hosted a deeply xenophobic English-only conference, just for a start.

Evidently, there's nothing Buchanan can say or do—including engaging in eliminationist rhetoric—that's so objectionable it renders him unfit to be offered a high-profile and widely coveted spot as an MSNBC commentator or makes the likes of Joe Scarborough, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, David Gregory, and/or Rachel Maddow unwilling to legitimize his despicable positions by appearing with and regarding him as a professional equal.

Email viewerservices@msnbc.com and joe@msnbc.com.

Open Wide...

In Case You Were Wondering...

...if the entire Cheney nuclear family is populated by assholes, yes, yes it is.

Open Wide...

Daily Kitteh



Olivia

Open Wide...

Women and Men

Last week, I was deeply amused by one of conservative commentator Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds' awesome blog entries about what he calls THE MANCESSION, in which he provides "a scary graphic" showing the male unemployment rate higher than the female unemployment rate and quotes an explanation care of our favorite feminist concern troll, Christina Hoff Sommers, purporting to answer: "Why is it happening?"

Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan, characterizes the recession as a 'downturn' for women but a 'catastrophe' for men. Men are bearing the brunt of the current economic crisis because they predominate in manufacturing and construction, the hardest-hit sectors, which have lost more than 3 million jobs since December 2007. Women, by contrast, are a majority in recession-resistant fields such as education and health care, which gained 588,000 jobs during the same period. Rescuing hundreds of thousands of unemployed crane operators, welders, production line managers, and machine setters was never going to be easy. But the concerted opposition of several powerful women's groups has made it all but impossible.
At the time, I sent it to Deeks so he and I could snark about it by email, because that's what we do, and Deeks said, "Oh you powerful and conniving women, with your lobbies, looking to sink all those male-dominated industries! Because that would be totes good for women in the long run."

I pointed out: Now, totally aside from the fact that they're ignoring the realities about how women who are unemployed fall off the grid more easily because they just become stay-at-home-moms or homemakers or wev after they can't get a job for a year, I love how the conservatives are going apeshit how it's SO AWFUL because the recession is hitting professions dominated by (straight) men, and it doesn't occur to them that those professions are male-dominated because men drive women OUT OF THEM.

See: firefighter story from last Thursday. Also see: Films like North Country, about how women who try to do a job like mining are harassed with rape and death threats and subjected to actual violence just for trying to "do a man's job." Etc.

So women were forced into underpaid pink collar professions like education and nursing. By men. And now the female-dominated industries are thriving. And now the same men who forced them there are whining about it. Priceless.

Meanwhile, the male-dominated professions known as the financial industry and politics, the members of which who are, by any measure, more responsible for the current economic crisis than feminists or any other damn scapegoat, mysteriously aren't coming up for criticism. Funny that.

It's almost enough to make one think that maybe the MANCESSION wouldn't be so bad, if only the power of commerce hadn't been centralized in the hands of men.

But that's just crazy talk!

Fast forward to this morning, when I received an email from Shaker IvyCeltress linking to this op-ed in the Washington Post, which reports "at least half a dozen [studies], from a broad spectrum of organizations such as Columbia University, McKinsey & Co., Goldman Sachs and Pepperdine University, [have documented] a clear relationship between women in senior management and corporate financial success. By all measures, more women in your company means better performance."

Without debating the nature v. nurture merits of some of the op-ed's contentions, which really would necessitate a whole other thread, I'll just note that, whether women and men tend to be different (which does not mean "unequal") by way of their genes, their socialization, or some combination thereof, one of the most important ways of honoring those differences is by full-throatedly endorsing diversity.

The people who don't support diversity are people who use "different" as an excuse to treat the Other as less than, and subsequently use that asserted inequality as the basis for exclusion.

Hence, male-dominated industries with institutional bias against inclusion—which are now failing as a result of an intractable belief in their own superiority.

The irony would be funny, if so many people weren't suffering as a result.

Open Wide...

Monday Blogaround

This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, distributors of the award-winning biographical documentary Butch Pornstache: The Myth, the Man, the Mustache.

Recommended Reading:

Ginmar: Jul. 10th, 2009

Avedon: What?

Renee: The Obamas and the Door of No Return

Marcella: New Orleans Police Call Over Half of Rape Reports Noncriminal

Andy: Vigil, Burial Held for Slain Gay Sailor August Provost

Fatemeh: When Stereotypes Collide: The Persian Jews of Beverly Hills

Vanessa: Seeking Justice

Leave your links in comments...

Open Wide...

Lawd have mercy, Ann Coulter just jumped up on a bitch's Blogger page!

This terrifying account of an early morning Coulter encounter has been cross posted from AngryBlackBitch.com.

Lawd, have mercy!

A bitch just hit publish and...Lawd!..the Blogger publish page came on screen to confirm that everything went okay...gulp...and there on my screen was a Google ad promoting Ann Coulter's column.

Heaven to hell and back again on a red eye - that's just wrong...not right...jarring and disturbing and ...WRONG!

A bitch has done nothing in my life to deserve a forced viewing of the Queen of Rancidity on my Blogger publish page before 8 o'clock in the morning.

Nothing...you hear that Blogger!

Merciful goddess...gave a bitch the shakes...shudder.

Open Wide...

Dr. Regina Benjamin, Surgeon General

President Obama has chosen to serve as surgeon general Dr. Regina Benjamin, a rural, Gulf Coast family physician, MacArthur Foundation Genius Grant recipient, a Nelson Mandela Award for Health and Human Rights recipient, the first black woman to head a state medical society, and the first woman, first African-American woman, and first person younger than 40 to sit on the board of trustees of the American Medical Association.

Basically, what I'm telling you is that she rocks.

Her 2008 MacArthur Fellows bio reads like a Bizarro World version of a Bush-era appointee bio, i.e. that of a qualified, competent, and profoundly admirable person:

Regina Benjamin is a rural family physician forging an inspiring model of compassionate and effective medical care in one of the most underserved regions of the United States. In 1990, she founded the Bayou La Batre Rural Health Clinic to serve the Gulf Coast fishing community of Bayou La Batre, Alabama, a village of approximately 2,500 residents devastated twice in the past decade by Hurricanes Georges, in 1998, and Katrina, in 2005.

Despite scarce resources, Benjamin has painstakingly rebuilt her clinic after each disaster and set up networks to maintain contact with patients scattered across multiple evacuation sites. She has established a family practice that allows her to treat all incoming patients, many of whom are uninsured, and frequently travels by pickup truck to care for the most isolated and immobile in her region.

Benjamin is skilled, as well, in translating research on preventive health measures into accessible, community-based interventions to decrease the disease burdens of her diverse patient base, which includes immigrants from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, who comprise a third of Bayou La Batre's population. A committed local physician, she also plays key roles statewide and nationally, helping others establish clinics in remote areas of the country and serving in leadership positions in such health-related organizations as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians. With a deep, firsthand knowledge of the pressing needs and health disparities afflicting rural, high-poverty communities, Benjamin is ensuring that the most vulnerable among us have access to high-quality care.

Regina Benjamin received a B.S. (1979) from Xavier University of Louisiana, attended Morehouse School of Medicine from 1980 to 1982, and received an M.D. (1984) from the University of Alabama at Birmingham; she also holds an M.B.A. (1991) from Tulane University. She completed her residency in family practice at the Medical Center of Central Georgia (1987). The CEO of the Bayou La Batre Rural Health Clinic since its founding in 1990, Benjamin has also served as the associate dean for rural health at the University of South Alabama's College of Medicine and as president of the State of Alabama Medical Association (2002-2003).
Awesome. Totally awesome.

H/Ts to Shakers SamanthaB and Sunburned Counsel, the latter of whom says, "She is a very, very different nominee then the last one." Too true. I was not expecting much after Dr. Sanjay Gupta's nomination, and this is a very pleasant surprise indeed.

Open Wide...

Daily Puppeh


No, this is not a new arrival at Chez Cowboy. This is our neighbor's collie, Harley.

Harley is simply one of the best dogs we've ever met. He always loves seeing his Uncle and Aunt Cowboy whenever he's taking a walk or greeting us when we visit. You can imagine our delight when the neighbors asked us to check up on him yesterday afternoon while they were out for most of the day.

After taking a nice walk around the complex, we went to a shady spot and he just plopped down to relax and have us administer affection. How cute is that smile from that big happy pup?!

Open Wide...