Shakesville

SCOTUS' Terrible Voting Rights Ruling

[Content Note: Racism; classism.]

I don't fucking even with this Court and its garbage majority:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, ruling that Congress had not provided adequate justification for subjecting nine states, mostly in the South, to federal oversight.

"In 1965, the states could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. "Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were."

Chief Justice Roberts said that Congress remained free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk, but must do so based on contemporary data. When the law was last renewed, in 2006, Congress relied on data from decades before. The chances that the current Congress could reach agreement on where federal oversight is required are small, most analysts say.

...The majority held that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and most recently updated by Congress in 1975, was unconstitutional. The section determines which states must receive preclearance from the federal authorities.

The court did not strike down Section 5, which sets out the pre-clearance requirement itself. But without Section 4, which determines which states are covered, Section 5 is without significance — unless Congress chooses to pass a new bill for determining which states would be covered.

Emphasis mine.

I don't guess I need to point out that Congress will do shit. Especially the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, since the majority party has a vested (and explicit) interest in making sure that poor black USians don't vote. Otherwise known as: The very thing the Voting Rights Act was devised to address.

UPDATE: And here is a summary of their also terrible decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl.

The Latest from Texas

[Content Note: Rape, Reproductive Coercion]

The majority of Texans oppose the abortion ban that Wendy Davis is attempting to filibuster today.

A minority do not.

A minority do not care that the ban will require, among other things, people with uteri to bear their rapist's child. A minority do not care that many states in the US allow rapists to sue for visitation and custody rights in an attempt to further harass and control their victim. A minority do not care that by preventing abortions in the case of rape, they are guaranteeing that many wanted babies will never be born because some will decide never to get off their birth control if it means risking forced impregnation or death.

This minority view wrecks all my shit.

We should not, in the year of our fjord 2013, have to justify our decision if we choose not to bear our rapist's child. That is a monstrous bullshit position, and one which seeks to completely remove the agency of Texans. And yet I have had long twitter conversations (including one yesterday) with self-identified pro-life activists who (a) neither understand nor care that this legislation with stop many from conceiving wanted pregnancies because they are adamantly unwilling to carry to term any pregnancy that is the result of rape, and who (b) neither understand nor care that this legislation will result in forced pregnancies and mandatory deaths of people who were denied access to birth control prior to rape or whose wanted pregnancy resulted in unforeseen dangerous complications.

That's not a pro-life position, this position which seeks to minimize the number of wanted births and which counts as acceptable "casualties" the unnecessary deaths of people with uteri.

This legislation seeks to shut down 37 of 42 clinics in the state, not only to prevent access to abortions, but also to prevent access to birth control of any kind. In the place of these closed clinics will spring up more and more "crisis pregnancy centers", designed to disseminate false information to people seeking abortions and/or genuine information on family planning. This legislation seeks to make it increasingly more difficult for poor people to access birth control and abortion, by forcing them to travel farther and in a narrower time frame to access these services. This legislation seeks to make it harder for all people with uteri to exercise agency over their reproduction and to protect their health and their lives from government interference.

teaspoon icon If you have the ability to share, Wendy Davis is accepting personal stories (with a 500-word max limit) for her filibuster here. You can also find valuable information in Jess Luther's What You Can Do Today To Help Stop #SB5 In #TXlege No Matter Where You Live post.

Angelina Jolie at the UN with a Giant Teaspoon

[Content Note: Descriptions of sexual violence.]

Yesterday, Angelina Jolie, a special envoy for the UN Refugee Agency, spoke before the UN Security Council, urging them to prioritize addressing war zone rape as she shared survivors' stories. Here is AP video of part of her testimony:

I will never forget the survivors I've met, or what they told me. The mother in Goma, whose five-year-old daughter had been raped outside a police station in plain view. Or the Syrian woman I met in Jordan last week, who asked I hide her name and face, because she knew that if she spoke out against the crimes against her, she would be attacked and possibly killed.

Rape is a tool of war. It is an act of aggression and a crime against humanity. The numbers are so vast, and the numbers so painful, that we often have to stop to remember that, behind each number is someone with a name, a personality, a story, and dreams no different from ours and those of our children.

I understand that there are many things that are difficult for the UN Security Council to agree on, but sexual violence in conflict should not be one of them. That it is a crime to rape young children is not something I imagine anyone in this room would not be able to agree on.

The rights and wrongs of this issue are straightforward, and the actions that need to be taken have been identified. What is needed is political will. And that is what is being asked of your countries today: To act on the knowledge of what is right and what is unjust, and to show the determination to do something about it.

Reuters: "After Jolie spoke—along with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Ban's special envoy on sexual violence in conflict, Zainab Bangura—the 15-member Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution recognizing that rape can exacerbate conflicts and impeded the restoration of peace and security. The resolution 'encourages members states to include the full range of crimes of sexual violence in national penal legislation to enable prosecution for such acts.'"

This is an important start in addressing a vast and difficult problem.

SCOTUS' Terrible Harassment Ruling

[Content Note: Sexual harassment.]

Ian Millhiser at Think Progress: The Scariest Supreme Court Case That You've Probably Never Heard Of.

The law provides very robust protections to employees who are harassed by their supervisors, but it is drastically more difficult for an employee to win a racial or sexual harassment lawsuit if they have only been harassed by coworkers. In the later case the worker must show that their employer has "been negligent either in discovering or remedying the harassment." For this reason, it matters a great deal who qualifies as a "supervisor" for purposes of sexual harassment law. If the word is defined too narrowly, it could encompass employees who have the power to intimidate their victims into keeping their harassment secret.

That's more or less what the lower court did in Vance v. Ball State University... According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, a "supervisor" is someone whose authority "primarily consists of the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline an employee." Employees who can assign tasks to other workers, or even those who direct their day to day activity, don't count.

...At oral argument, Justice Elena Kagan raised the hypothetical of a secretary who works for a professor, and the professor "subjects that secretary to living hell, complete hostile work environment on the basis of sex." Under the Seventh Circuit's rule, this professor nonetheless does not qualify as a "supervisor" if the secretary can only be fired by a bureaucrat with the job title "Head of Secretarial Services," even if the professor directs every minute of the secretary's day.

There was an awful lot at stake: "If the justices side with the Chamber in this case, it could drastically impede workers' ability to stand up to harassment. A woman's boss could grope her, make sexist jokes, and assign her to demeaning tasks, and her employer could nonetheless be immune from suit if the only person who can technically fire her is some unknown official in the company's HR department."

And so came the ruling: "The opinion is out, and it is as bad as it can possibly be. The Seventh Circuit's rule is affirmed in a 5-4 decision by Justice Alito."

Ha ha for a moment I almost forgot that the Supreme Court works for corporations, not for the people. Now I remember, and it all makes terrible sense.

[H/T to Eastsidekate and Misty.]

UPDATE: And, via Garrett Epps at The Atlantic, a report of Justice Samuel Alito behaving like a petulant child while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read her dissents from the bench on both the above case and the affirmative action case (edit: the gif is from a State of the Union, where he was pulling the same shit):

gif of Alito making his face and mouthing the word 'no'

gif of Alito making his face and mouthing the word 'no'

At this point, Alito pursed his lips, rolled his eyes to the ceiling, and shook his head "no." He looked for all the world like Sean Penn as Jeff Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, signaling to the homies his contempt for Ray Walston as the bothersome history teacher, Mr. Hand.

The offense against decorum is greater when the object of scorn is a woman 17 years his senior, one who is acknowledged even by most of her critics to have spent a distinguished career selflessly pursuing justice in the precise area of her dissent--gender equality in society in general and the workplace in particular. Her words are as worthy of respectful attention as were his.

...A Justice of the Court lives his life in a swaddle of deference most of us cannot imagine. It is not too much to ask that, in return for this power and privilege, he or she should act like an adult.

Open Thread

Hosted by a quince.

Question of the Day

What is something you regularly do that people might consider "old fashioned?"

This was originally posted by Spudsy (and I'm reposting it with his permission). His answer was:

I know many friends of mine consider simply cooking a meal "old fashioned," but I'm talking about every day activities you do that someone might consider unusual.

For example, I use a shaving brush and shaving soap in a tube. I haven't quite gone to a straight razor yet, but I may get there if Gillette ever drops the Sensor 3 blade. (I won't use Mach 3, thank you very much.) Sure, it may not be as "convenient" as using a shaving gel, but when you have a really tough beard like mine, it's the best shave you can get. I'd love to find a barber that still gives a shave with my haircut!

...Another "old fashioned" example I could add to this is that I still listen to actual records. And not just 33 1/3 LP's; I actually own a cabinet-style Victrola that only plays 78's, and I still listen to records on it on a regular basis.

As for me, I still totes play my Atari 2600. For a long time, I was just super uncool. Now I'm a "retro gamer." LOL.

FYI

image of Martha and the Vandellas with text reading: 'Martha Reeves & The Vandellas would like to give you a heads-up that, as summer is here and the time is right, there will be dancing in the streets. Please note: There will definitely be dancing in Chicago, down in New Orleans, in New York City, in Philadelphia, PA, in Baltimore and DC now, can't forget the Motor City, and way down in LA. But be advised, anywhere there are streets around the world, there will be dancing. It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there. Form a big strong line, and get in time.'

[Previous FYI: Rick Astley; Eddie Murphy; The Eurythmics; Eddie Rabbit; Sinéad O'Connor; Was (Not Was); Bon Jovi; Kenny Rogers; Bobby McFerrin; Starship; Dead or Alive; Right Said Fred; Edie Brickell and the New Bohemians; Salt n Pepa; Nelson; The Cure; The Soup Dragons; Europe/BushCo; Elton John; Eddie Money; Human League; Glenn Frey; Van Halen; Alanis Morissette; Depeche Mode; The Beatles; The Proclaimers; Bruce Springsteen; Meat Loaf; Cyndi Lauper; Cole Porter; Tina Turner; The Jets; Starland Vocal Band; Kenny Loggins; Gloria Estefan. Hint: They're better if you click 'em!]

A Couple of Observations

[Content Note: Fat bias.]

It's interesting, ahem, how often "I would like fat people to be more visible in media" gets misrepresented as "I demand to see fat people in every piece of media ever produced."

Obviously that happens because arguing against the former is a lot harder than arguing against the latter, which is seen to be totally unreasonable.

It is funny, though, how it is considered unreasonable to want to see fat people everywhere, even though we are everywhere. We're so the fuck everywhere that we are epidemic.

There are so many of us that we are going to ruin the entire healthcare system and the entire economy, but so few of us that we needn't expect to see ourselves on TV.

Living With Fear In Texas

[Content Note: Infertility, Reproductive Coercion, Disability, Rape]

I don't use birth control.

I don't use birth control because I'm in a relationship with a man, and we would like to become pregnant. Two years ago, we spent a lot of time and money and tears trying to become pregnant through IVF -- a step we thought was necessary due to low sperm count after a vasectomy and vasectomy reversal -- but we didn't succeed. We didn't succeed because all the embryos we created ended up failing to thrive due to genetic abnormalities; the doctors decided that my husband and I were genetically incompatible to create healthy babies. And we decided that maybe this was for the best, since no one has ever been confident that my disabled body could handle a full-term pregnancy without serious risks to my health and possibly even my life.

But we still hope. And so we don't use birth control, because there's always that chance, that very slight possibility for a miracle, that somehow one sperm might make it out and that one sperm might meet an egg and they might make a healthy baby against all the odds.

We don't really believe it will ever happen. But it's easier to hope than to use birth control (much of which conflicts with my disability medication) or to permanently sterilize one or both of us and admit for certain that a child will never happen to us. Hope is easier for us than certainty.

As of this morning, the Texas legislature has effectively banned abortion past the 20th week of pregnancy, with no exception for rape and no known exception that I can find for the health or life of the pregnant person. The bill has moved on to the Texas senate, where Republican senators are trying to use the absence of a Democratic senator -- a senator who is attending her father's funeral today -- to attempt to change the rules and force the bill's passage. If the bill passes the senate, it will move to the governor's desk to sign; Gov. Rick Perry will almost certainly be happy to do so.

As of this morning, I have to decide whether or not to give up my hope for conceiving a wanted child.

If I am raped, I don't know that I will have access to emergency contraception. (The proposed bill attempts to limit the usage of "abortion-inducing drug[s]", which in itself is an unclear statement, considering the anti-choice position on hormonal birth control.) Even if I had access to the pill after my hypothetical rape, would I take it or would I want to wait and see if any pregnancy that developed was the product of my husband or of my rapist? I haven't found good information on when it's possible to determine the paternity of a fetus; I can't believe that I'm even being forced to consider this right now as a preemptive act of self-protection against my state.

If I were pregnant with my husband's child, would we be able to determine before the 20th week cutoff whether the fetus had dangerous genetic abnormalities (as our embryos did) or whether the pregnancy would pose a serious risk to my health and my life? It's very possible that we wouldn't be able to tell in time -- but even if we could, would that information do us any good when this bill also intends to shut down 37 of the remaining 42 clinics in the state? Would I have to drive to Oklahoma to get my abortion? Fly to New York? Would my husband be legally culpable for transporting me across state lines to get my abortion? Would I need to go alone? Which state can I flee to, if my life is in danger from a wanted pregnancy?

I don't use birth control because I would dearly like a baby. But I don't want one so badly that I want to die. Or to be disabled for life even worse than I already am. Or to bear one that has no chance at life, and is doomed only to a short, painful death. Or to bear a potential rapist's child just because he didn't wear a condom and I found out too late that the pregnancy wasn't a result of my and my husband's attempts at conception.

Now today, thanks to the Republicans in the Texas legislature and senate, I have to make a decision. I have to decide whether the hope I've been clinging to is worth more than the fear they've imposed on me. And if I decide that I can't live with the fear, then I have to figure out how to become sterilized, how to convince doctors to let me do so despite my relatively young age, how to get my insurance to cover the procedure, how to pursue sterilization in ways that don't conflict with my current disability or my medications.

And I have to give up my hope.

I love Texas with all my heart. It's my home. It's where I wanted to raise my child. But today, Texas doesn't love me back. Texas, or rather the people who run it, are content with knowing that I (and people like me) must live with fear in Texas.

Twitter tags for following this issue: #SB5, #HB60, #TXlege.
Recommended background reading: A Sunday at the Capitol by Dan Solomon

2FA, #22

comic of Deeky and I having the following conversation: Deeks: Just FYI butthole is saved in my phone as a real word now. Liss: As well it should be. How does that not come standard in the dictionary? Come on. Deeks: Right? This phone is a homophobe! Liss: It's also a misogynist! I had to add cunt, cooter, and queef! Also: dildobrainz and annoyfuck! Deeks: LOLOLOL. So many great words in my dictionary! Liss: Totes! Significant improvements.

From an actual text conversation this weekend.
Of course we were being funny (at least to ourselves, heh), but it has been very interesting to see which words are recognized in my new phone and which ones aren't, even with the "Don't Recognize Naughty Words" function (not its actual name) turned off.

Monday Blogaround

This blogaround brought to you by Paul Giamatti's career.

Recommended Reading:

Julianne: Supreme Court Issues Big Non-Decision on Affirmative Action

Andy: Obama Says He'll Address Climate Change in Major Speech

BYP: Community Members, Union Leaders, Gang Members Unite to Protest Closing of South Side Hospital in Chicago

Trudy: In Grades K-12, Race and Racism Are Not Discussed in Any Meaningful Way [Content Note: The post at this link includes discussion of racism and white supremacy.]

Veronica: The Student Loan Crisis May Bust Us for Good

wundergeek: An Interview with Jim Sterling about Sexism in Game Culture [Content Note: The post at this link includes discussion of misogyny, anti-feminism, and harassment; it also includes disablist language at its end.]

Echidne: Lou Dobbs with a Blackboard: On Oppressed Men [Content Note: The post at this link includes discussion of misogyny.]

Jess: Power Forward Podcast: Episode 5—Grunting on the Tennis Court

Leave your links and recommendations in comments...

Daily Dose of Cute

Matilda the blue-eyed, long-haired, sealpoint cat sits on the arm of the couch looking super fuzzy and giving me A Look

"No, YOU'RE fuzzy!"
And here's video of Matilda just being cute and Matilda-y, earlier today:

Video Description: Matilda the blue-eyed, long-haired, sealpoint cat sits on a chair in my office, rubbing her face on the chair and flopping around and purring, while I pet her.

* * *

As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Annie Lennox: "Walking On Broken Glass"

Quote of the Day

[Content Note: Hostility to agency; rape culture.]

"In the emergency room they have what's called rape kits where a woman can get cleaned out."—Republican Texas state legislator Jody Laubenberg, conflating the collection of evidence after a sexual assault to an abortion, in defense of her position that rape exceptions to abortion restrictions aren't necessary.

Rape kits do not have anything to do with terminating or preventing pregnancy. Emergency contraception is often administered (where allowed) as part of any post-assault hospital visit which should, contingent on the survivor's consent, also include a rape kit, but they are two entirely separate things.

The people responsible for legislating reproductive law in this country don't know shit about reproductive issues. That's a problem.

[H/T to Shaker westsidebecca.]

The Apologetics Begin

[Content Note: Racism.]

As Deeks mentioned In The News, the Food Network has fired Paula Deen—er, won't be renewing her contract, ahem—and may be losing her contracts with QVC and other retailers, too. Naturally, the apologetics for her rank racism have already begun. In Time, John McWhorter, a professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University and author of What Language Is (and What It Isn't and What It Could Be), argues that the Food Network should give back her job, on the basis that she's a "white Southerner of a certain age" who "has been a normal person of her time and place."

Let me say plainly that I believe McWhorter is entitled to his opinion. He is a black man, and I am not in the business of telling black people how they should respond to racism directed at them.

But I do have a problem with this argument:

So yes, she just might pop out with the N-word in private in a heated moment. And yes, a certain part of her will see something vaguely nostalgic in the sight of black men as waiters. In this, she represents a transitional stage between the then and the now. Deen was already a twenty-something when the old racist order broke down; her world view had pretty much jelled. How could she have a perfectly egalitarian take on race growing up when and where she did?

And the reason I have a problem with this argument is because I don't see where we are meant to draw the line on where "white people can't help being racists because they were raised as racists" ends as a viable excuse.

I am 39 years old, raised in the very north of a northern state, and I was socialized as a racist.

Yes, I had the benefit of some things that Paula Deen did not. There were certainly more positive images of people of color in popular media when I was growing up, starting with my earliest television experiences on PBS, e.g. Sesame Street. Racial epithets were not used in my home. I may have grown up in a more integrated community than Paula Deen did: I had friends and classmates and neighbors who were not white. (Although none of my peers were black until I reached high school.)

But I heard the same racial epithets used in friends' homes. I heard the sneering about neighboring Gary, which has the highest percentage (85%) of black residents in a US city with a population of 100,000+. I consumed a metric fuckton of media that upheld my white privilege and communicated to me that black people are less than. A thing I hear, now, is that the part of town in which I live is getting "darker." And that's obviously supposed to be a bad thing.

The "old racist order" just got replaced with a "new racist order," in which I became fluent just like everyone else, of any race, in my generation.

In 20 years, when some white dipshit in my cohort uses a racial slur, will people still be defending it on the basis that zie is merely a product of hir environment? Probably—if we continue to allow that white people don't have some individual responsibility in not letting their "world view" calcify as hardened prejudice because stepping outside the boundaries of their privileged socialization is too much work.

Maybe it's time to expect more. Maybe it's time to set higher expectations, and challenge white people to live up to them. I don't think we need to achieve "perfect egalitarianism" in order to not use the n-word and romanticize plantations.

Otherwise, we'll always live in a world in which being socialized as a racist gives you a pass on expressing racism. Whoops.

In The News

[Content note: Racism, homophobia, Christian supremacy, natural disaster]

New News This Week:

Former South African President Nelson Mandela is now in critical condition.

The Equality House, the rainbow-colored house across the street from the Westboro Baptist Church, hosted its first same-sex wedding Saturday. Awesome. Totally awesome.

This story makes me giggle and I don't know why.

Half of Americans say they would personally vote for a law that establishes government funding of federal campaigns.

The Food Network will not renew Paula Deen's contract when it expires at the end of the month.

Surprise! Joe Klein is a lying douch. (You were not surprised.)

Research suggests that religious individuals and political conservatives think about moral issues in a fundamentally different way than liberals. Huh.

Flash floods and landslides in northern India have killed at least 1,000 people in the Himalayan state of Uttarakhand in the past week.

I Write Letters

by Shaker Moderator aforalpha

[Content Note: Fat bias.]

Dear Professor Harris-Perry,

It is no secret around here that I think you're great. A significant proportion of my conversations with my mother start with one of us asking, "Did you watch MHP?"

It's amazing to be able to turn on the TV every weekend and see a brilliant, progressive, all-around awesome professor lead discussions about vitally important topics that are too often ignored. I don't quite know how to put into words what it means to me that the brilliant, progressive, all-around awesome professor looks like me. I think...I think you know. I think you know because you've had Dominique Dawes as a guest. And Kerry Washington. And Gabrielle Douglas. And Misty Copeland. (Oh my god, Misty Copeland! When I was a kid I got a dancewear catalog with a picture of her on the cover and I saved until I left for college.) You've had amazing conversations about black film and theater and visibility in media.

And I think you know what it means not just to have people who look like you in arts, sports, and entertainment. I think you know what it means to have representation in public discourse. One of the things I most love about your show is that you let people tell their stories.

Yesterday, you had four black men talking about the challenges facing black men. You've had someone whose home was destroyed by Hurricane Sandy, young people with student loan debt, people who use SNAP, people who have college degrees and live in poverty. As much as possible, you try to let people talk rather than being a show where people talk about others. I think that is truly your show's greatest strength. I can go anywhere and find white people talking about black issues, wealthy people talking about poverty, adults talking about school closures far less intelligently than Asean Johnson does.

So, Professor, what the hell? Why is it that you were able to find four black men to talk about the issues directly affecting black men, yet when it came time to talk about the AMA's decision to classify "obesity" as a disease, you had a panel of four thin people? There are fat doctors, professors, dieticians, activists, and other individuals who have relevant professional expertise and personal experience. Why don't they get a platform?

And why don't your fat viewers get to experience the same feelings of validation and recognition at having their stories told by people who look like them that I as a thin black woman do when I watch your show? Why isn't nerdland a place where the demeaning representations of fat people in much of media are counteracted by simply letting fat people speak for themselves?

Every group of people you have on your show is far more complex than the narratives about them are. Today when you asked the black men on your panel what popped into their heads when you said "fathers" you got both absent AND awesome. It's dangerous to let the only story we hear about a group be one told by outsiders. We would never hear about the awesome black fathers. We would never hear about the junior whose high school is facing closure but who desperately wants to go to college.

Similarly we never hear about the fat Olympians and marathoners and dance champions, the fat nutritionists, the fat people who are fat and healthy, the fat people who are fat and happy. We never hear that there are multiple reasons for being fat, or see meaningful explorations of the intersection of fat and disability, or fat and poverty. We never hear that there's not actually consensus in the field of obesity science.

I realize that one of your panelists runs a weightloss blog and has experienced significant weightloss. Still, the egregious "headless fatties" phenomenon isn't the only way to devalue the intellect of fat people--excluding the voices of any currently fat people, even from conversations about them is a damn good way to signal that fat people don't have anything worthwhile to contribute. There is no reason you cannot find four fat people to talk about issues affecting them. I would like to see you have a panel where you invite fat acceptance activists and Health At Every Size experts to talk about the wide reaching effects of fat hatred. As far as I'm concerned, calling in thin people to talk about "obesity" is a fundamental break from the standards you have endeavored to set for other marginalized populations.

Oh and Professor? And I have no words strong enough to express the depth of my disappointment at hearing you take a dig at Paula Deen's cooking and her decision to keep her personal health information private. I have a disability that I do not disclose in all situations, because stigma and discrimination exist. Once again: Paula Deen's food never used racial epithets. Her pancreas never told homophobic jokes. Please leave them out of this.

You are in a unique position to bring visibility to lots of marginalized people and issues. You can do better than this. 'Cause this? This left me saying, "Wow…seriously?"

Sincerely,
aforalpha

P.S. Kate217 has a letter for you, too.

P.P.S. Related Reading: Aphra Writes Letters; the entirety of the Fatsronauts 101 Series.

Here Is Some Good News!

[Content Note: Transphobia.]

Six-year-old Coy Mathis started identifying as a girl just a few years after she was born. When she started kindergarten, her parents told the school "that their child identified as a girl and should be treated as one. Initially, the school, just south of Colorado Springs, agreed. But a few months into first grade, the district barred Coy from using the girls' bathroom, telling her parents that as she grew older and developed, some students and parents would likely become uncomfortable. It was best that Coy use staff bathrooms or a gender-neutral one in the school's health office, the district officials decided."

I love (don't love) the idea that Coy's fellow classmates would have "become uncomfortable" with a peer they had always known as a girl using the girl's bathroom, but not by their peer having to go see the school nurse every time she needs to take a piss. Children don't work like that—and no one knows (or should know) that better than school administrators, but it's just so gosh darn convenient to use children as scapegoats for the prejudices that they have to be taught by their parents and (some of) their schoolteachers and the judgmental culturein which we live.

Anyway. Coy's parents pulled her out of school and, with the help of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, filed a complaint with Colorado's civil rights division, "claiming the district had violated Colorado's 2008 antidiscrimination statute, which expanded provisions for transgender people." And here comes the good news:

After an investigation, the division, which enforces Colorado's antidiscrimination laws, agreed. It noted that while Coy's birth certificate stated she was male — an argument made by the school district — more recent medical and legal documents identified her as female.

It was clear, the state said, that Coy had completely integrated into society as a girl — wearing girls' clothing, standing in the girls' line at school and choosing to play with girls.

But the state's ruling went even further, saying that evolving research on transgender development showed that "compartmentalizing a child as a boy or a girl solely based on their visible anatomy, is a simplistic approach to a difficult and complex issue."

Depriving Coy of the acceptance that students need to succeed in school, [Steven Chavez, the division director, wrote in the decision], "creates a barrier where none should exist, and entirely disregards the charging party's gender identity."

..."We knew that this was discrimination. So it was validating to get the state to say 'Yes, it is very clearly harassment,' and they were doing something they shouldn't have been doing," said Kathryn Mathis, Coy's mother.

"When I told Coy we won, she got this giant smile and her eyes bugged out. She said, 'So I can go to school and make friends?'"

All the blubs.

Open Thread

Hosted by Quarks.

Sunday Shuffle

Lindsey Stirling and Pentatonix, Radioactive (Imagine Dragons cover)
How about you?