(If you've a ridiculous and/or embarrassing photo of yourself from your youth, please send it to shakerwhatthehell_at_yahoo_dot_com. I'll post them up as part of our series called What The Hell? so everyone can laugh at with you.)
What's the most spectacularly out-of-character thing you've ever done?
Without question, my answer is moving to another country for someone with whom I had spent hardly any time in person, someone who was about to move to another country for me.
When I flew to Scotland to live there for awhile in May of 2002, to get to know Iain's friends and family and life before we returned to America after securing his visa, we had spent a total of five weeks in each other's company. Countless hours on the phone and computer, but only five weeks—and vacation weeks at that, with no jobs or bills or daily stressors—together, face to face, getting to know each other's quirks and idiosyncrasies. Five weeks on our best behavior.
Damn. In retrospect, that was some serious trucknutzery. Neither one of us can believe we actually did it.
Director Roman Polanski is feeling depressed two weeks after his arrest in Switzerland to face U.S. extradition for a 1977 case involving the rape of a 13-year-old girl, his lawyer was quoted as saying on Sunday.
"I found him to be tired and depressed," Herve Temime told the Sonntag newspaper, one of two newspapers he talked to after visiting the Oscar-winning director in a Zurich prison.
"Roman Polanski, who is 76, seemed very dejected when I visited him," Temime told another newspaper, NZZ am Sonntag.
"Polanski was in an unsettled state of mind."
Boo-hoo.
[H/T to Shaker Menolly. Commenting Guidelines: Comments expressing amazement the media considers this shit a story are on-topic. Comments expressing total and undiluted apathy for Mr. Rape-and-Flee are acceptable. Comments overtly wishing or making reference to the possibility he will be raped in jail are not acceptable and will be deleted. We don't perpetuate the rape culture here. Retributive rape is not justice; it is barbarism.]
One of the casualties of my computer meltdown was Photoshop, and we haven't been able to put our hands on my ancient copy of Photoshop 6, so, until we find it or I get a new copy, which shouldn't be too long, I'll be re-running some classic editions of C&S...
Strips One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47. In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman and a biracial queerbait telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.
Audiences fell hard this weekend for the winning combo of Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau, with Universal's "Couples Retreat" earning a surprisingly buoyant $35.3 million at 3,000 playdates.
Huh.
It's not that it looks any worse than any of the other sexist, homophobic, and otherwise bigoted swill that gets churned out on a regular basis; it's that I can't understand why anyone wants to go see it, because I must have seen the trailer like 97 times the last week, and I still have no idea what the hell the movie's about.
Something about sharks and men's junk? It's like, I'm hearing English words and seeing pictures of familiar things, but none of it is making any sense to me.
Around the country, women are paying 30 to 40 percent more for private health insurance than men. These are not isolated incidents but policies put in place by the insurance companies to maximize profits. Through the process known as "gender rating," which is illegal in just 10 states, insurers can actually charge women higher premiums just because they happen to have an extra X chromosome.
On top of pricing disparities, insurance companies have found other ways to make money at the expense of American women. For example, many insurers refuse to cover "elective" procedures...like giving birth! Others consider domestic violence victims to have a "pre-existing condition" and deny them coverage. The list goes one, but the trend is crystal clear.
When it comes to health care, women in America deserve to be protected from these outrageous policies.
Sign the petition to Congress and urge them to pass a health insurance reform bill that forbids insurance companies from discriminating against women.
The most random and ridiculous conversation of all time. Top Chef. The Rock. Republican douchebags. John McCain and our continuing fear of him. We are babbly things.
[Also available at Daily Motion. Full transcript below.]
Title Card: Vloggin' with Blogginz
KBlogz: I just can't get into Top Chef this season.
Liss: Why not?
KBlogz: I don't know. I just don't care about any of the contestants.
Liss: [laughs] But what about Mike Isabella?
KBlogz: [shrugs] Ehhhhh...
Liss: He should really be on Tool Academy, let's be honest.
KBlogz: Yeah, let's get real for a second.
Liss: Um, if you could, um, invent one challenge—either a QuickFire or an Elimination Challenge, what would it be?
KBlogz: It would be— Okay, it's—it'd be promotion, like a promotional episode, like they did for Lost?
Liss: Right.
KBlogz: Except it's—
Liss: You mean the one where they had the producers of Lost on and cooked for them?
KBlogz: Yeah.
Liss: Mm-hmm.
KBlogz: And, but this time, it's like cooking for the Hulk, because of The Hulk 2!
Liss: [laughs] Uh-huh. Is Edward Norton in that one, too?
KBlogz: I don't know.
Liss: Okay.
KBlogz: I don't even think it's being planned, but...
Liss: Oh! [bursts out laughing] I was like, how have I not heard about this?! Go on.
KBlogz: Well, he has talked about being in The Avengers movie, so maybe they can work both into the—
Liss: Yeah, okay.
KBlogz: —cooking challenge.
Liss: Uh-huh.
KBlogz: And basically the contestants just have to try to figure out what the Hulk would like to eat [Liss laughs] and Edward Norton has the privilege of being able to smash the room that he's in if he doesn't like his dish.
Liss: Ooh. That's good.
KBlogz: And he's painted green.
Liss: Mm-hmm.
KBlogz: And he's shirtless.
Liss: I think he's kind of a jerk, so that probably would work.
KBlogz: I don't know about that, but... [shrugs]
Liss: Even if he's just himself.
KBlogz: And then Robert Downey, Jr. and whoever they get to play Captain America, like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson would come in and subdue them.
Liss: That— I hope they get him to play Captain America! I love him!
KBlogz: Oh, okay. He's in The Tooth Fairy.
Liss: [laughs] He is?
KBlogz: Yeah.
Liss: You know, I'm kinda disappointed, though; I read recently that he's a Republican.
KBlogz: [nods] He is a Republican.
Liss: But he's pro gay marriage...?
KBlogz: Well, there you have it.
Liss: Hmm.
KBlogz: I remember seeing him at like a, I don't know, like a cross-burning or something, no, like a Republican Convention [Liss laughs], and he was like, "Can you smell what Sarah Palin is cooking?" or something.
Liss: [sadly] Awwwwwww.
KBlogz: Maybe I'm just making that up.
Liss: [laughs] He is kind of an enigma, though; I can't believe that he's a Republican. Why—
KBlogz: He's like, "We're gonna body-slam taxes!"
Liss: I was gonna say: Why are so many wrestlers Republicans? Do you have a theory on this?
KBlogz: Because a lot of 'em are douchebags?
Liss: Ohhh! [laughs] Of the Venn diagram of douchebags and Republicans, there's a lot of overlap, is what you're telling me?
KBlogz: [mimes overlap] The overlap is wrestlers.
Liss: [laughs] But aren't there more Republican douchebags than just wrestlers? What about Glenn Beck?
KBlogz: He's a wrestler! Don't you know that?
Liss: No.
KBlogz: He's the White Tornado.
Liss: [laughs] I've never heard that before.
KBlogz: Well, that might be because he's a luchedore, and you don't—you can't recognize him—
Liss: That's true.
KBlogz: —because of his [passes hand over face] mask. [pronounces "mask" like "mahhhsk"]
KBlogz: Yeah. [nods] Those are— He doesn't wear those in the ring, so... It's kinda like his robe that he takes off. [mimes pulling a sweater over his head]
Liss: Fascinating.
KBlogz: That's like a switch, and when, when the sweater comes off [mimes pulling a sweater over his head] it's time to get—you can get a suplex.
Liss: What does, um, what is Lou Dobbs' wrestling identity?
KBlogz: Pale Thunder.
Liss: [laughs] Pale Thunder.
KBlogz: Caucasian Fists [Liss laughs] of Terror.
Liss: Um, Rick Perry? Governor Rick Perry of Texas?
KBlogz: I don't know what his identity is.
Liss: Oh, you don't?
KBlogz: It's top secret.
Liss: Oh. Mitt Romney?
KBlogz: Uhh...
Liss: The Mormonator?
KBlogz: [laughs] Totally.
Liss: How about John McCain?
KBlogz: Uh... Ooh. I dunno. I don't think he should be wrestling.
Liss: I don't think so, either. He's too mean! [KBlogz nods.] He would literally tear people limb from limb.
KBlogz: You could make a movie out of that, like, it would be like the latest Rocky film, where he wants to get back into fighting, but everyone's like, "You're too old, John McCain!" and he's like: [makes fists and talks in mean voice] "Don't tell me I'm too old!"
Liss: Yeah, that's a good story.
KBlogz: Do you like that screenplay I just wrote?
Liss: Yeah. [KBlogz nods.] You know, I have to tell you that I don't think John McCain was too old to be president...only because I think that John McCain is gonna live to be 300.
KBlogz: He— I feel like—
Liss: He is TENACIOUS.
KBlogz: —if Death came for him, he would put him in a headlock and get a bunch of bargains out of him.
Liss: A bunch of bargains?
KBlogz: Yeah. [They both laugh.] He would bring other, like, Republicans back to life.
Liss: Yeah. He probably would.
KBlogz: Death would just learn that it's just not productive to go visit him, because—
Liss: So John McCain's wrestling name might be the Reanimator.
KBlogz: [shrugs] I guess so. That's kinda, uh, convoluted, but yeah.
Liss: [laughs] But if you had on YouTube the video of Death being put in a headlock, then people would understand.
KBlogz: Okay!
Liss: The word can be explained via YouTube very easily.
KBlogz: That's true. 'Cuz I hear "Reanimator" and I think, "What is he, like, a necromancer or something?"
Liss: Yeah.
KBlogz: I suppose that's basically the gist of it.
Liss: Yeah.
KBlogz: He could get, like, other, like, Republican heroes to fight with him.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed two gay rights bills, one honoring late activist Harvey Milk and another recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.
The problem is, they're being recognized as civil unions rather than marriages, but it's something to be filed under "Better Than Nothing" until California works out its same-sex marriage clusterfuck and just LEGALIZES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ALREADY! Because now, they'll have same-sex couples who are legally married (pre-Prop 8), and same-sex couples who are not allowed to legally marry in California, but can go to another state and get legally married only to have their legal marriage recognized as a civil union back in California.
Zuh? No, really:
In a signing message, Schwarzenegger said California will not recognize the couples as married but will "provide the same legal protections that would otherwise be available to couples that enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships out-of-state. In short, this measure honors the will of the People in enacting Proposition 8 while providing important protections to those unions legally entered into in other states."
If this doesn't underline the abject stupidity of refusing to legalize same-sex marriage, I just don't know what does.
It's only a matter of time, folks. Only a matter of time. Feel the homomentum...
And please make sure to check out (and add to your feeds/blogrolls) FWD/Forward: Feminists with Disabilities for a Way Forward. The list of contributors will almost certainly contain some familiar names to anyone who's spent more than about 5 minutes at Shakesville.
President Obama introduces his niece Sevita (daughter of his sister Maya Soetoro-Ng and brother-in-law Konrad Ng) to his personal aide Reggie Love. Care of Angry Asian Man, who's got another adorable picture of the president and Sevita here.
by Shaker Farore, a 20-something, genderqueer, rape survivor, polyamorous artist with from Wisconsin. She likes semicolons and hyphens, bright colors, and kittycats. She spends her free time playing tons of Katamari Damacy, struggling with a basket of mental and emotional issues, and fuming about feminine socialization ararararar!
Hey, Shakers! I'm pretty new to Shakesville, but I'm already madly in love with the community - y'all are the greatest! I've never written a guest post before - Maude knows I can barely update my own blog more than once every few months - but I'll give it the ol' college try, because I have something I feel is essential to discuss in a pro-woman, pro-body acceptance, and most importantly safe space.
I recently stumbled across the existence of two products that I find to be quite abhorrent, both through their advertisements on Hulu.com: Latisse and Juvederm.
There are a few primary reasons I am writing this post: I am very curious to see what Shakers might think of these products and their marketing as "beauty products" despite being pharmaceuticals. I also wanted to find a way to maybe warn others about the ads, in case there are other people like me who find the whole 'you aren't good enough!' line of advertisement to be triggering, so this post functions as a warning as well - if you see the beginning of an ad for one of these products, you may wish to click away.
I will be honest, though; a good portion of this post is pure outrage-fueled rant, and I tend to ramble, so go get yourself something to drink and make sure you're comfortable.
Done? Okay, onward!
Latisse is a prescription treatment for 'eyelash hypotrichosis' - aka having 'inadequate' or not enough eyelashes (inadequate being their word, not mine). Now, we have eyelashes for a reason - to keep stuff out of our eyes - so I understand that having an actual lack of sufficient eyelashes (hypotrichosis) is something you'd want to fix, but the advertisements play it off like a beauty product: 'Do you want longer, fuller, thicker lashes?' etc. It plays like a mascara ad, but it is in fact a prescription medication. Why do I suspect that there aren't enough people with hypotrichosis to make the product profitable without making people with sufficient eyelashes feel like they need Latisse? And that means making the product sound as innocuous as possible. The Hulu spot has a fine-print onscreen warning that the medication is prescription-only, but the only audio mention of it is that you should 'ask your doctor if Latisse is right for you', and audio fine-print is important for people like me who don't watch TV so much as listen to it...it would be easy to get the wrong idea.
Juvederm is an injectible gel that supposedly smoothes wrinkles. As I understand it, the idea is that the gel, once injected, sits under your skin, filling in the 'gaps' that create wrinkles - much like silicone would in cosmetic surgery. Again, the advertisement plays it like a beauty product, similar to commercials I've seen for anti-aging creams and other products you might find at your local make-up retailer. The website reveals that it is actually something you have to have your doctor do for you, but that it only takes minutes and you can 'step right back into your life!' immediately after, unlike, you know, that pesky, involved surgery business that requires a lot of consideration and whatnot. The advertisement I have seen says 'your doctor does it for you' and at the end simply says 'ask your doctor about Juvederm'; the whole thing is made to look enough like an anti-aging beauty product ad that the first few times I saw it, I didn't even register that it wasn't something you could take home and do on your couch.
Allergan is, as you may know, primarily a medical company, which may explain some of their marketing strategy; because of the aggressive clusterfuck surrounding pharmaceutical patents, many medical companies find it advantageous to sell their products on a line of 'YOU NEED THIS PRODUCT! OMG! RIGHT THIS SECOND! BUYBUYBUYBUYBUY!' Trying to convince you that there are things medically wrong with you that MUST BE TREATED RITE NAO is still a troubling thing, and definitely buys into the cultural concept of the human body as an ugly, dysfunctional thing that needs to be corrected and fought against, but it doesn't quite push my buttons in the same way as marketing solely to those with low self-esteem, perpetuating a money-sucking cycle of trying miracle product after miracle product after miracle product to try to attain that 'perfection' that is so lauded by magazines and beauty ads. Intentionally doing or intensifying harm to the psyches of women in order to make money is something I find indescribably horrific; having a medical company do so is unbelievable. Allergan employs many doctors; what was that about Do No Harm? It should come as no surprise that Allergan also has a department they refer to as "Obesity Intervention", which makes one product: the Lap-Band, a gastric banding implant. One of its selling points is that, if you lose enough weight using Lap-Band, your diabetes may disappear forevers! Yay! I just love Magic Science, don't you?
It's clear Allergan has chosen to make a good portion of their money by telling people, especially women, that they aren't good enough. Let me be clear: I don't have a problem with cosmetic surgery. I don't really have a problem with weight loss, as long as it's approached from a healthy, non-disordered mindset and not an impossibility pursued in the name of Thin = Worthiness. It's primarily an aesthetic choice, and there's a fine line between wanting to look a certain way because society tells you to and wanting to look a certain way because you find it aesthetically pleasing, but it is in there somewhere - and this post is not the place to start unpacking the intersectionality between personal aesthetic taste and cultural conditioning. My problem with companies like Allergan is that they sell their aesthetic products not based on their own merits, not based on 'do you prefer longer lashes?' or 'do you want to remove lines or scars?' or 'do you have problems with skin irritation?' but based on 'your lashes are inadequate' and 'nasolabial folds should not exist on anyone ever' and 'your skin is not smooth enough'. It's a choice to prey on low self-esteem and feminine socialization, rather than to let a quality product speak for itself, and though it may be a profitable marketing strategy it is, to me, a deeply offensive one, one of the more prominent indicators that Perhaps All Is Not Right with The Way Things Are.
This is the ad for Latisse that is on Hulu:
A Fox News report featuring an interview with Dr Lorrie Klein, who started selling Lumigan off-label, for eyelash growth, before Allergan created Latisse as a separate product:
Latisse, as mentioned previously, started out as Lumigan, a drug used to treat glaucoma. The product is fairly innocuous - its only troublesome long-term side effects are that it can add brown pigmentation to your irises, darkening them or changing their color entirely, or hyperpigmentation to your eyelids, which is 'usually' reversible. It can also cause irritation and inflammation, or, in what prompts some amusing mental images, hair growth in unusual places (if you get it on places other than your eyelids, that is). The main issue I have with it is the assertion that it is a prescription drug for people with 'inadequate' eyelashes. In every video and advertisement I've seen, none of the users have what I would call 'inadequate' eyelashes. I'm not exactly a connoisseur of lashes, but I would think that you'd need nearly bald lash lines before anyone other than you would notice. Then there's the issue that, in a lot of the ads, the model (usually Brooke Shields; why, Brooke, why? Your eyelashes were already gorgeous! If you grow any more you might cause an event horizon, and I really don't want to see you get sucked into a Brookularity!) is very clearly wearing mascara, which furthers the suggestion that applying prescription glaucoma medication to your eyelids in order to extend the growth cycle of your eyelashes is as much of an everyday thing as putting on make-up! It's the normalization here that bothers me, and when you couple that with the suggestion that YOUR EYELASHES ARE INADEQUATE, you're basically explicitly saying that everyone's eyelashes are Not Good Enough and that if you don't use a growth formula, you're Weird, or even a moral failure of some kind. That is an intensely creepy concept, to me, despite keeping-up-with-the-Joneses being a pretty standard advertising tool. Although, in fairness, that may be because I am somewhat creeped out by eyelashes in general, since I have some personal issues with body hair and follicle mites and ghhhhhhh okay I need to go read a book about bunnies and kittens for a while now and not think about how there are Bugs On My Face...
...
Okay, back. Juvederm! Let's go!
This is the ad for Juvederm that is on Hulu, minus the cheesy countdown at the beginning:
Potential trigger warning on the following videos; they include still photos and/or video of women having syringes puncturing the skin of their faces.
This is a somewhat disturbing YouTube ad for Juvederm procedures at 'Body Beautiful Spa' that gives a better idea of what 'injectible gel' really means than the spot on Hulu:
This is a clip of a woman being injected with Juvederm at 'Ageless Clinic', with the doctor explaining the mechanics of the product in a bit more depth:
In the process of researching Juvederm, there were two main things I noticed: One, the information on the website seems more optimistic than that provided by the doctor in the Ageless Clinic clip ('lasts up to a year!' vs 'lasts six to nine months', 'seven days or less for recovery!' vs 'five to ten days for recovery', etc); and two, the repeated use throughout the website materials of the phrase "JUVÉDERM® injectible gel is the first FDA-approved hyaluronic acid dermal filler that has proven its safety and effectiveness in persons of color," in some places going on to mention that it does not cause an increased risk of hyperpigmentation or hypertrophic scarring.
My first thought in response to this was 'Oh, that's refreshing! A beauty product acknowledging that POC exist! Even though I don't like the product, that's still a good thing, right?' However, I was absolutely FLABBERGASTED at the amount of othering going on in the FAQ question about it: "Can people with different skin tones/colors be treated with JUVÉDERM®?" I nearly choked on my drink. DIFFERENT skin tones or colors. Which raises the question, different from what? Different from each other? Everyone's skin tone and color is different from everyone else's. For example, in my fully Caucasian household, we all have yellowish or peachish undertones - no red or pink (it's amazing what a high school interest in makeup artistry will cause you to notice about the specific shades of people's skin, eyes and hair) - but no two of us have anywhere near the exact same skin color. So, that seems like a sort of arbitrary way to use the word 'different', vague and unclear bordering on nonsensical. It would be pretty useless if the product only worked on one person in the entire world. The answer, of course, is 'different from white people'. Because we all know that being white is the norm, and everyone else is weird and unusual, right? Ugh, ugh, ugh. Othering seems to be one of Allergan's favorite marketing tools.
Nearly all of the website's info is borderline condescending in a similar, but less outright offensive, way. Much of the information is extremely repetitive, and like most nonessential medical products, the negative effects are greatly downplayed while the potential positive effects are extremely optimistic or generalized. The most troubling thing, to me, is the heavy-handed attempts at normalizing what amounts to drive-through cosmetic surgery. Everyone will notice! All the cool kids are dong it! Just hop into your doctor's office and back out again, now with 50% more socially-acceptable age appearance! Plus, there are numerous references on the website to the fact that Juvederm is designed to 'correct wrinkles'. OHNOES YOUR FACE MADE A MISTAKE! Poor, silly face. Let's just correct that for you. It's another insidious thread in the tapestry of body-hate and youth-worship, one that sticks out maybe a little more than the others (Did You Know? Juvederm's slogan is 'Parentheses have a place, but not on your face!' Ha ha! Smile lines are EEEVIIIL and they do not belong on anyone ever!), and it's leading us to a place I don't ever want to see. Despite all the work by body acceptance groups, HAES, and so on, Western culture seems to be pushing harder and harder on women, demanding ever more unrealistic thin-but-not-too-thin, perpetually-young, adequately-eyelashed standards of 'beauty'.
So, I guess that's what it really comes down to: Normalization. As I said, I don't have a problem with cosmetic procedures. I don't have an issue with beauty products, outside of the all-women-should-use-them BS. Some people like them! Good for them! I hope they enjoy them! But they are not for everyone, and companies trying to insist that they are - advertisements trying to assert that they should be - marketing strategies based around telling us that people who don't like them or use them are Weird and Different and Not Normal - these things make my blood boil. Just another piece of junk on the pile of products that sell based on the idea that women aren't good enough as they are. Le sigh.
I plan to contact Hulu to ask them to remove the advertisements - they occasionally have the option to rate ads, so I assume they are open to customer feedback regarding them. A good opportunity for teaspooning, even though it might be considered a bit of a minor issue; personally, I feel it is a rare chance to fight back against toxic culture directly, and possibly influence what is rapidly becoming a very major source for many English-speaker's media diets. If you want to contact Hulu, you can do so at feedback@hulu.com .
You may, if you like, also contact Allergan to let them know what you think of their marketing style. 1.800.890.4345 is the place to register a non-medical product complaint. corporate_communications@allergan.com is the place to submit a question as a member of the media, should you be one. You can also call their Customer Service department at 1.800.433.8871, and they may be able to direct you to the proper forum for this sort of thing - unfortunately, despite their dozens of various department-specific phone numbers and e-mail addresses, there does not seem to be a complaints@allergan or youradvertisingismisogynist@allergan, so I'm not sure how effective teaspoons will be here - any suggestions would be very welcome!
It seems to me like a lot of smart peoplepajama-clad internet fringers have been saying quite loudly for quite some time that trying to reform healthcare while simultaneously protecting the insurance industry is a Bad Idea. For several reasons.
Like: Our healthcare system is broken because we treat healthcare as a for-profit enterprise, and so the most urgent reform is getting the enormous profits out of it, which means sending the insurance companies the way of the dodo.
And like: Requiring people who have access to healthcare via employer plans to stay in those plans, and making the public option a safety net rather than an actual option, means that insurance companies will merely deny treatments at a greater frequency to stay competitive, so people with insurance will end up with the shittiest care.
And like: Fuck the insurance companies. They've made enough money hurting and killing and ruining the lives of Americans already.
After months of collaboration on President Obama's attempt to overhaul the nation's health-care system, the insurance industry plans to strike out against the effort on Monday with a report warning that the typical family premium in 2019 could cost $4,000 more than projected.
The critique, coming one day before a critical Senate committee vote on the legislation, sparked a sharp response from the Obama administration. It also signaled an end to the fragile detente between two central players in this year's health-care reform drama.
Industry officials said they intend to circulate the report prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers on Capitol Hill and promote it in new advertisements. That could complicate Democratic hopes for action on the legislation this week.
Administration officials, who spent much of the spring and summer wooing the insurers, questioned the timing and authorship of the report, which was paid for by America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), an industry trade group.
Huh. Well, maybe those administration officials should get their heads out of their asses and spend "much of" the autumn and winter and however many seasons are necessary listening to the American people and giving them what they need, since this administration was elected to serve them and all.
Steve dispatches with the veracity of the report, but that's not really the point: Of course the insurance industry is a bunch of mendacious wankers. That's exactly why they should have been left out of the reform effort all along.
by Shaker TheDeviantE, a queer, poly, atheist genderqueer trans boy, who is: very infrequently writing a blog about "normal" society, becoming a social worker, making music, and otherwise trying to muddle on through.
As far as I know, there isn't a comprehensive list out there for people trying to make their workplaces/organizations trans*-friendly. So I sent out a call last night to my friends asking for trans* individuals and allies to add to my germ (as in seed) of a set of guidelines. As with any community, there was some disagreement about how best to change the systems we deal with. I hope this will be viewed as a jumping off point for people, rather than an ending point. So! for all you shakers who are interested, I present ways to make your organization welcoming to trans* individuals!
• Always include "preferred pronoun" on intake forms.
• Don't include gender markers on forms if they're not necessary.
• Consider asking which services a person would benefit from (i.e. "prostate health____ pelvic exam____") instead of zir gender. If you need people to specify gender/sex on a form, be sure you know what you need (is it gender or sex?) and ask for the appropriate one.
• Consider including both gender and sex markers separately (a section for sex which would have boxes such as "male" "female" "intersex" "transsexual" and a section for gender which would include "male" "female" "transgender" "MtF" "FtM" "genderqueer" "other" etc.)
• If possible, let people write-in what they feel is most appropriate in all instances.
• Never force an individual to identify as trans* if ze does not wish to.
• If you use intake forms that include sexual history, make sure that categories will actually work for people who have genderqueer partners – i.e. don't ask "do you have sex with men, women, or both?"
• Always ask for a person's "preferred name." If you require legal names, ask those after preferred name, it will help establish that you respect the person's identity first and foremost. If legal and preferred names differ, make sure to use legal names in only those situations where it is necessary.
• Ask for preferred pronouns, even if you think you know what someone would like you to use. Don't just ask people who you think "look" trans.
• Make sure that any automated phone calls or mail that go out have the appropriate name. For each individual, find out whether that would be legal or preferred name. If a trans* individual is not living full time as zir identified gender, it may put zir in danger to send out material to zir preferred name, if ze is being gendered correctly in the community, a legal name may put zir in danger.
• If you are cis* and someone asks you what pronouns you prefer, don't say "I don't care" – many trans* people regularly have to defend their gender and pronouns and treating pronouns use as something that doesn't matter trivializes trans people's experiences.
• If you have a front office or area where you leave information for clients, put out something that shows that you are aware of trans* issues and are trans* friendly.
• Make policies regarding how to treat trans* clients and staff. Since our society is transphobic, not having trans*-inclusive policies is often the same as having transphobic ones.
• If there's a dress-code, make sure it does not have gender-dependent requirements or require dress conforming to legal sex.
• Have bathrooms on the premise that are single stall and/or gender neutral. Many trans* individuals are not comfortable in male or female multi-stalled bathrooms. Whether or not there is a single-stall option, trans* people need access to whatever multi-stall facilities are available. The single deciding factor in what bathroom a person uses should be zir gender identity and comfort level. It's important that staff and security be trained to protect trans* people if their use of a restroom is questioned.
• If you're in a position to make decisions about health benefits, make sure that the insurance doesn't have trans exclusion – many insurance policies explicitly won't cover anything for trans people whether or not it's related to transitioning – and that it's accepted by trans*-competent providers.
• Make sure your staff are educated on cisgender privilege and "Trans 101" material (appropriate terminology and challenges that trans* populations often face).
• Know which organizations that you direct clients to are explicitly trans* friendly/inclusive.
• If your organization/agency makes referrals or placements to "sex segregated" programs, always find out if the program is accepting of trans* individuals. ALWAYS refer or place an individual in a program that ze would feel most comfortable in (ask zir).
• Explicitly include trans* status in your non-discrimination policy and in documentation you give to clients/staff. While some people assume that gender non-discrimination policies cover individuals who are trans*, courts in some states have ruled that is not the case.
• Don't assume that all sexually active women require birth control (due to trans* status, sexuality, or other factors, many women do not have penile-vaginal penetrative sex and as such are not at risk for pregnancy); be sure to give appropriate information depending on a person's actual sexual behaviors.
• Educate yourself about cis* privilege and how it perpetuates transphobia. Don't expect trans* people to educate you or feel comfortable discussing their trans status with you.
• Don't ever reveal someone's trans* status to others without zir permission.
• Keep in mind that being gay-friendly is not the same as being trans*-friendly.
• While for some individuals, their trans* status is an extremely salient aspect of their identity, for many others, it is not. Do not assume that all trans* clients view being trans* as important to their everyday lives or will want to identify as it all the time.
• Make sure to defend trans* clients in all situations where it is necessary without the prompting or initiation of the individual, i.e. if a trans* person prefers a certain pronoun and is being misgendered, correct the offending person yourself, don't wait for the offended person to do it. It is intimidating, alienating, and often unsafe for a trans* person to have to defend zirself alone.
Do these things even if you don't currently knowingly have a trans* client or worker.
These are guidelines. Societal transphobia is very complex and not all situations can be planned for. If an individual indicates that one of these guidelines conflicts with zir needs, zir needs should always trump the guidelines.
In that speech, to the Human Rights Campaign at their National Dinner in D.C., he promised, yet again to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell—and then failed utterly to offer a time table, a strategy, or any other details that differentiated the promise this time from any of the other times he's made it before.
Pam Spaulding says, "the low expectations I had regarding LGBT policy were unfortunately met," and Andrew Sullivan describes the speech as "much worse than I expected."
And then there was this: After promising the LGBTQI community in his speech "I'm here with a simple message: I'm here with you in that fight," it was reported by CNBC's Chief Washington Correspondent John Harwood that a White House adviser told him that consternation with the failure of movement on LGBTQI rights issues is viewed by the White House with utter contempt: "Barack Obama is doing well with 90 percent or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the 'Internet left fringe,' Lester. And for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn’t take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult."
Welcome to Shakesville, a progressive feminist blog about politics, culture, social justice, cute things, and all that is in between. Please note that the commenting policy and the Feminism 101 section, conveniently linked at the top of the page, are required reading before commenting.
World's Tiniest Violin Award
Action Item
Feel the Homomentum!
