Pride & Opinions

Today, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, is Blog for Choice Day, and I can’t think of a more fitting way of recognizing the day than participating by answering the question of why it’s important to vote pro-choice.

In some ways, abortion and reproductive rights are the most important issue to me when faced with the choice of choosing between candidates, and as I get older, the reasons that I support reproductive freedom get broader rather than narrower. I don’t just support the right to choose because of its fundamental connection to bodily autonomy, or to privacy. It’s also about poverty, and health care, and control over medical decision-making. And though many may not think it’s true directly, reproductive choice is definitely tied in with supporting GLBT causes of all sorts. As Mombian explains,

Coming out, far from reducing my concern with matters of male-female reproduction, only increased it. Being a lesbian is no guarantee against rape, or, more positively, the occasional consensual fling with a man. Even if lesbians were immune from such worries, however, I would be pro-choice because I think it boils down exactly that—choice.

No, sexual orientation is not a choice. We do choose, however, whether to live openly and honestly about our orientations. It’s a very fine line between limiting people’s choices about what they can do with their bodies reproductively and what they can do with them sexually. I can’t support choice in one without the other.

As family situations become more and more diverse, and as people seek to make more choices that are both mainstream but shunned, the prospect of reproductive choice becomes more and more important. As Mombian concludes, “There’s something wrong with an administration that wants to say I must carry a fetus to term if I conceive, but will not give me permission or wherewithal to raise that child in a legal relationship with the person I want, whom I know will be a responsible, loving parent. That’s why I vote pro-choice. Choice to love honestly; choice to bear willingly.”

Definitely true. And voting pro-choice is a necessary strategy to making sure that everyone gets to make that choice.

Blog for Choice, GLBT Rights, Roe v. Wade

Blog for Choice, GLBT Rights, Roe v. Wade

I am fascinated by the process through which language operates, especially language related to oppressed groups. Most of the time, I come down on the side of not using words designed to denigrate others - you won’t hear me say the word b**** to describe women, or those who are whiny or subservient or too agressive regardless of their biological sex, because it seems clear to me that the comparison is necessarily steeped in the idea that women, or attributes typically assigned to them, are lesser. Also, as the people I come into contact with change their language, it becomes sort of an interesting thought experiment to try to come up with epithets (to yell at other bad drivers, for instance) that aren’t derogatory to some group, which is actually relatively difficult.

The word “queer” provides an interesting counterpoint to this general proposition of mine, though. For fans of the reclamation of language, it’s the prime example of how language can come to mean different things than originally intended. The GLBT group at my alma mater is ‘Queer Union.’ Almost no one uses the word queer as a derogatory slur any longer, so does that get rid of the historical baggage? Not necessarily. As Ramone Johnson explains in “The Power of the ‘F’ Word,”

In a sense you could claim that the amelioration of the word queer, to opponents’ dismay, hadn’t been a failed experiment at all. At the time of my queer-is-ok spot, the word had been watered down into a sip of insignificance. Although some still find offense to the word, the overall impact is like being struck with a feather boa instead of a leather lash.
Yet, the regurgitation of a historically offensive word has not washed away the original offense (or the offender). Today, the bayonet called queer has just been replaced by another weapon of choice, the semi-automated fag. So, must the F-bomb be ameliorated as well? And what then will the run of the mill bigot conjure up to sling?

The idea that words cause backlash and a race to other, sometimes even more derogatory, terms, gives me pause. I’m not sure what the intrinsic value is to saying derogatory things about others. I understand the problems with censorship, but is it censorship to say that I choose not to use those words, and hope others will do the same? I’m certainly not going to argue for laws to ban them, but that’s not the only option. As Ramone concludes, in response to a question about whether someone should reclaim racial and gay slurs,

But now, as we speak, though not in person and despite our virtual distance as strangers, the possibility of you identifying as a “queer ni**ah” cripples my amiable pen—one that I’ve learned must change, must be an example, a mentor and a role model. My hope is that your identity rests as a “beautiful gay African-American man.” A man that has little use for ameliorated words. A man is so confident and so strong and so incredibly actualized that even the original offense of those ameliorated word have little impact. So, I say don’t ameliorate the words for use as your identity, let them burn in the char of hatred in which they were created.

I like that answer. The whole article is good.

Here are some articles I found interesting this week that you might want to take a look at, even though it’s not a full post here:

* Queercents: “How to REALLY Reduce the Expense and Environmental Impact of Parenting,” - I especially liked the discussion of how parenting co-ops both save money and ensure a GLBT-friendly learning environment for your child.
* Mombian: “That’s not a Grinch, It’s a Stressed Out Lesbian,” - A little older, but I thought the note that being a lesbian might exacerbate tensions during the holiday season was interesting.
* Republic of T: “The DOMA Test,” - Now that the New Hampshire primary is over, are there litmus test issues for the GLBT community?
* Feministe: “Minorities within Minorities within Minorities,” - a good roundup of intersectional perspectives on feminism, racism, and GLBT rights.

Have a good weekend!

GLBT, parenting, holidays, DOMA, primaries, politics, intersectionality

GLBT, parenting, holidays, DOMA, primaries, politics, intersectionality

Last night, I was talking with my sister about health care and such - she goes to law school with a scholarship, and has little to no money, which means that figuring out health care is a gigantic pain. She gets dental care through her girlfriend, but the premiums on the health insurance proper are too high to be anywhere near feasible. We were talking about her need for a physical but lack of desire to pay for one out of pocket, and I mentioned that she might want to go to the local community/women’s clinic and get at least the ob/gyn part of the physical part done on a sliding scale, and ask if they had an opinion on where one might get a low-cost cholesterol test. Going to those kinds of places was a staple for me in college and just beyond, because, like a lot of health places, you have to have a gynecological visit every year in order to continue receiving birth control, and places like Family Tree are the cheapest place to do it when you don’t have money or health insurance.

But my sister? Hadn’t thought of this option. Because she doesn’t need to take birth control pills. DUH.

This conversation reminded me of a long-standing thought I have about the relationship between GLBT communities and reproductive rights communities, which is the way that traditional discussions of feminism and abortion politics are sort of necessarily heterosexist, insofar as they assume a biological role of reproduction that doesn’t happen if you’re not having heterosexual sex. The first Pro-Choice carnival, for example, while featuring a collection of excellent posts on abortion and politics and feminism, doesn’t contain anything explicitly about non-heterosexual folks and their relationships to abortion.

But then I think about abortion, and about how popular imagination constructs it as an aberration brought on by irresponsibility on the part of women, rather than a medical fact more often initiated by women in monogamous relationships, or for medical reasons. Throughout my current pregnancy, we have been faced with tests and information, all of which, if particularly horrible, might necessitate termination. For a wanted, planned pregnancy. The facts and necessity of abortion do not lie in their necessity for just unplanned pregnancies, but to deal with the fact that all pregnancies don’t go the way we might like, and even a lesbian couple with a planned pregnancy might be forced by medical circumstance to do something they might wish desperately to avoid.

Luckily, as Jill at Feministe puts it in a post about anti-choice bloggers ‘not getting it,’ reproductive rights aren’t just about the termination of pregnancy, which is what I should have figured out above:

All of this should make one thing clear: Infringements on reproductive freedom are not just about abortion. Reproductive freedom is about the right to be pregnant as much as the right to not be. This is what Jill Stanek and other anti-choicers overlook or outright ignore — Stanek goes so far as to say that forced sterilization “was long ago outlawed and has nothing to do with abortion.” I would argue that forced sterilization has everything to do with abortion, as it’s impossible to separate abortion rights from other rights to sexual autonomy.

Just because people have different relationships to abortion and birth and pregnancy and reproduction in their lives doesn’t mean that we can’t all stand in solidarity with each other about all of them. After all, intrusion into one area certainly justifies intrusion into others, and my stance that pregnancy and parenthood ought to be a choice, freely and non-coercively entered, extends to all people. This stance, I think, is much more likely to offer the possibility for expanded rights than alternate ones.

GLBT, GLBT and feminism, reproductive rights, abortion

GLBT, GLBT and feminism, reproductive rights, abortion

One of the most obnoxious but predictable effects of GLBT bias is the way that it often intersects with other forms of oppresion (racial, gender, class-based, religious, disability, etc) to make every situation worse. Nina at Queercents comments on one manifestation of this- how gender discrimination against women in the workplace can be especially problematic for lesbians and other queer females, because it multiplies the effects of both. First, there’s the issue of being female, which Nina says makes figuring out - and planning for - the amount of money needed for retirement harder to accomplish:

For many people, contemplating retirement can trigger anxiety about having enough money. There are gobs of books one might read to make sure the magic number has been saved. There are worksheets and online calculators that can help determine the amount. While it’s a highly personal calculation, figuring out the number is usually the easy part.
Establishing the plan to reach the number is typically the bigger challenge. Women have a harder time than men with closing the retirement savings gap. We live longer and make less. This isn’t an astounding revelation.

The challenges that face women in the workplace are a combination of factors - women may take more time out to raise family, or care for elderly family members, household tasks that sterotypically fall to women. Add in the fact that women still don’t make as much money for their work as men, through both pay discrimination and the fact that a lot of the jobs typically done by women are assigned less value by the economy. But add in LGBT status and, though you might not make any less money (though you totally might, since discrimination based on sexual or affinity orientation is completely legal in the US and most states), you’ll have less options for making up the gap.

Why is this? Well, as Nina explains, a lot of the ways that women are encouraged to make up the difference, especially if they leave the workforce for awhile to take care of others, are things like spousal IRAs or taking advantage of tax loopholes based on one’s partners. And as she notes, “Unfortunately, this doesn’t apply to the LGBT community. You have to be married for a Spousal IRA to be available to you as a stay-at-home parent. This puts queers at a further disadvantage.”

THIS is what gay marriage is about for me, a lot of the time.

Link via Queercents

GLBT, lesbian, gay marriage, financial advice, intersectionality

GLBT, lesbian, gay marriage, financial advice, intersectionality

This subject is kind of an ongoing process of understanding for me, because terminology is word choice is always incredibly important when talking about identity politics. For example, the GLBT moniker is inclusive, but does it include everyone? I’ve also heard GLBTQ, GLBTI, GLBTT, etc. I’m fine with whatever one, though my sister sometimes worries about the length. In general, my policy is that I respect what folks want to be called, because it’s not a question of politics but rather politeness. If someone tells you they don’t like their name and would prefer to be called something else, it’s pretty rude to just refuse to acknowledge that (unless you’re the person in question’s mother, I guess, but I think you know what I mean). Why would it matter what gender stereotype is typically assigned to that name? It seems to me that it only gets political when folks REFUSE to call people what they wish, because that involves “taking a stand” or some other such nonsense.

In this case, the naming phenomenon I’m talking about, though, is group based rather than personal. Basically, what does it mean to be “gay”? Who gets to call themselves “gay”? In general, I think that most folks in the mainstream would consider gay to be the header for GLBTQI (and any other letters) that is most umbrella like in its inclusiveness. But sometimes, that’s just not true, and gay is code for “gay man.” or “gay person engaging in sexual behavior I don’t like.” (Seems like we very rarely discuss the morality of lesbian sexual positions, eh?) Is this always bad?

Take, for example, the Gay Bloggies. Good concept, right? But on this website, gay does not equal GLBTQI. It equals Gay Dude. The Gay Bloggies is a contest between 12 gay men to determine which is the best blogger. The entries are interesting, and the challenges are a good way to let the bloggers flex their writing talent and tell readers more about themselves. So why call it the “Gay Bloggies”? Or is it really not that big of a deal?

What do you all think? Does the word gay always have to be all-inclusive, or can it sometimes just mean boys who are gay?

Link via After Elton.

GLBT, gay, language, gay men

GLBT, gay, language, gay men

One of the things I find most fascinating about the intersection between traditional feminist politics and GLBT issues is the way that issues that are of supreme importance to one group (for example, heterosexual women) may hold importance for another group in an entirely different way. Don’t know what I mean by “traditional feminist politics”? That’s okay, neither do I most of the time. The example I’m thinking of at the moment, though, is the act of changing your name when you get married or make a lifelong committment to another person.

When heterosexual women talk about changing their names, it causes a predictable firestorm of comments, with folks on all sides arguing over what it is that women should be doing and why. I personally think the conversation should be less about what women should be doing and more about why the conversation is never about men and what they should do, but that’s just me. Both my husband and I hyphenated our last names when we got married, and have been happy with that decision. Honestly, what other people do is pretty irrelevant to me, though it does bother me when people make poor arguments in favor of their choices, but that might be because I teach folks how to make arguments for a living. Regardless, the issues center around individual choices, career advancement, patrilineality, etc. While there’s the occasional argument about the woman who doesn’t change her name, and then has children with a different last name, most of the arguments are ideological, not practical.

Then take the case of Rosie O’Donnell. When she and partner Kelli Carpenter got married in San Francisco in 2004 (which has since been rescinded by the state of California), there wasn’t much discussion of the traditional naming question. Media outlets continued to report her name as Kelli Carpenter, and then all of a sudden switched to Kelli O’Donnell. Why, you ask? Well, according to Rosie, in snippets in her blog question forum, has explained that it was for an intensely practical reason: when one of their children got sick and went to the hospital with Kelli, the hospital refused to believe that Kelli was their parent and there was quite the scuffle to have her get access to authorize treatment. All of their children call Kelli and Rosie by their first names, or with “Mama” before that first name, and since many don’t see families as working that way, the non-traditional arrangement stood in the way of real medical care. As a result, Kelli changed her last name to O’Donnell, to make such issues less complicated.

My point is not that the two sets of issues are diametrically opposed to each other - the quotidian certainly influences the ideological and vice versa - but rather, that assuming that the reason that one identity group has a vested interest in inclusion, and in allowing families to define themselves rather than be defined by some predetermined notion of what constitutes a “real family,” can be both complementary and contradictory. I think this is good, that it reflects the diversity of perspectives and voices available on all fronts, and proves that folks should be encouraged to do what works for their family, in their circumstances, rather than just following what they perceive as the “right” thing to do.

Image via China Daily, link via Faux Real Tho.

GLBT, marriage, name changes, Rosie O’Donnell, Kelli Carpenter, Kelli O’Donnell

GLBT, marriage, name changes, Rosie O’Donnell, Kelli Carpenter, Kelli O’Donnell