The other day, an article in our local newspaper caught our attention. The article discussed how a Swedish trans woman filed a claim of discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
The trans woman was, on two separate occasions, not allowed to use the women’s restroom after she was told by a “restroom host” that she was in fact a man. Despite explaining her transgender identity and her gender belonging, the woman was not allowed into the restroom.
A recent article in our local Swedish feminist online paper, Feministiskt Perspektiv, discussed the fact that childless lesbian couples in some Swedish 
counties have to pay considerably more for artificial insemination than straight couples. While heterosexual couples usually turn to artificial insemination when they can’t conceive, lesbian couples are not seen as suffering from any diseases or disorders that would prevent them from conceiving, carrying, or giving birth to a child.
The reasoning behind such a decision displays a presumed heteronormativity where having children is inherently depicted as a privilege shared between a man and a woman only. Being a lesbian couple, and wanting a child, is consequently treated as a lifestyle choice: lesbian couples could find other ways to have a child, compared to heterosexual couples where artificial insemination is the last step before adoption or remaining childless. [Read more...]
Earlier this 
year we reported on a case in which the attempted rape of a trans woman was not treated as such because the victim has a penis and not a vagina. Despite the fact that the attacker intended to rape the woman, the perpetrator was acquitted on the basis that the rape could never have been completed (if one bases his/her assumptions about sexual assault or rape on traditional vaginal intercourse which is heterosexist). The case received attention because it clearly discriminated against trans women by making the direct claim that a trans woman could not be raped or experience an attempted rape if her transition was not “completed”. Thereby, sexual violence against trans women was classified as something that is unlikely to happen.
We are however glad to report that the court has now changed its verdict. The Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights (RFSL) writes in an article that the court came to the conclusion that the perpetrator intended to rape his victim and there was nothing holding him back. Even if this man did not “complete” the assault, his intention was in fact to rape, thereby he is being charged with attempted rape.
Feminist Conversations is a regular series here at Feminists For Choice. We 
spotlight feminists from across the interwebs to find out what feminism means to them. Today we are talking with blogger and activist Helen. Helen writes and blogs for sites such as Bird of Paradox and the leading British feminist site The F-Word, where she is the Events Editor.
1. When did you first consider yourself a feminist, and what about the feminist movement appealed to you?
I’d been aware of the inequalities faced by women for a long time, probably since the 1970s, but didn’t really call myself a feminist until I began my transition. At that point, beginning to experience at first-hand the discrimination and prejudice and sexism that women face every day, it was more a question of, ‘how can women *not* call themselves feminists?’
It’s often been said that we only become politicised when we are directly affected by something happening to us, and so it was for me and feminism.
2. You have mentioned that discrimination against the trans community can be common within the feminist movement. What are some common forms of discrimination?
I’ve noticed many improvements, even in the 5/6 years since I began my transition, and many feminists now are well-informed about trans politics and are very good allies to trans people. The most obvious exceptions are those who call themselves ‘radical feminists’ but who cling to an ideology with its roots in the last century. These women seem to have the most hatred for trans women, even going so far as to demand that we be ‘morally mandated out of existence.’ Others will demand that we be refused access to essential medical care; that we be refused access to ‘their’ spaces, and so on. They will misgender us, publish our personal details on the internet, run blogs and forums that are nothing but transphobic hate speech, and so on. That branch of the women’s movement has no place in any contemporary feminism, I think. Thankfully, it seems to have little influence on a majority of feminists these days and I hope it will soon become no more than a footnote in academic textbooks.
3. You often discuss the violence that the trans community and especially transwomen face. How common is violence and how do you think we can minimize it?
Even though I blog very little any more, I do maintain a page called “A selection of published statistics of violence against trans people”, which lists links to various reports and websites where information about anti-trans violence is documented. I would especially recommend spending a little time at the TvT Project website; they have an update from March 2012 here.
These statistics are only the tip of the iceberg, for various reasons; this page talks about why.
Of course, we must not overlook the effects of the intersectionality of oppressions – I may suffer certain problems as a woman who is also transsexual, but I also benefit from such things as white privilege, class privilege, and so on. A trans woman of color who lives in poverty suffers many more oppressions and, statistically, is much more likely to be a victim of transphobic violence than me.
It has been said many times that ‘women are second-class citizens but trans women are second-class women’ and I think that is quite true. Really, only a change in attitudes amongst mainstream cis society is going to lead to full acceptance and equality. And although things are slowly improving, there is still a very long way to go – and I don’t honestly think I will see that day during my lifetime.
4. The language used to refer to LGBTQ concerns and different identities seems ever changing. What language/words are most important to know and be aware of?
I’m always concerned about the way trans people are pushed under the umbrella of ‘LGBTQ.’ I understand that it is important for oppressed minorities to form coalitions and alliances, to work together towards our common causes, but it seems that trans voices are often lost in the noise made by other larger and more powerful groups. So, although we may be preoccupied with equal marriage (and it is important to many trans people), other trans-specific issues (access to healthcare and employment, for example) are often sidelined.
The language is definitely in a state of flux; part of the problem is, I think, that trans people are (historically) defined by cis society’s perceptions of us, particularly by the medical profession. We are pathologised, stigmatised and demonised; objectified, fetishised, and generally treated as figures of fun. Moving away from the language of our oppressors is a good step forward towards being able to identify ourselves on our own terms. But it isn’t easy; there is much debate about what is and what isn’t acceptable language even withing trans communities (see the debates that go on around the use of the word ‘tranny,’ for example). And, of course, the power base held by our oppressors resents and fights our attempts at defining ourselves in our own right (see the hatred that some feminists have for being called ‘cis’, for example – even as they continue to call us ‘trans’ – are we not all ‘women’, when everything’s said and done?).
5. When discussing reproductive issues and rights, what rights do you wish to see for the trans community in the future?
The freedom to make informed choices, bodily autonomy, the removal of medical pathologisation without affecting our rights to access relevant healthcare… But all these things are, I think, preconditions of our being fully accepted by mainstream society for who we are (not who people think we are, or would like us to be).
After reading articles with titles such as “The web presents deaf and disabled people with a digital glass wall” and “Hate crimes against disabled people soar to a record level,” we thought back to an article from earlier this year that reported on Facebook’s massively inappropriate and discriminatory treatment of a child born with a birth defect.
A recent article in the NY Daily News reported how an American mom who posted photographs of her son born with anencephaly (a neural tube birth defect in which a baby is born without parts of the brain and skull) was reprimanded by Facebook as the photographs of her son were removed from the site. After reposting the photographs of her son she was banned from usage for 24 hours. According to Facebook, the reason for removing the photographs was said to be because of their content. The social network site later apologized and said that removing the photographs was a mistake. [Read more...]
Bullied for her sexual 
orientation, a lesbian teen was told by school officials that she needed to tone down her “gayness” because she was scaring and confusing other students. School officials stated that the girl was to blame for flaunting her same sex attraction and thereby provoking other students to commit violence against her.
The school is assuming that heterosexual students have the right to express their sexuality and sexual orientation without being the victims of bullying or violence, but did not extend the same courtesy to the girl since she identifies as lesbian. She was thereby clearly being treated differently by the school because of her sexual orientation. Sadly, the girl left school after being physically abused and threatened. The high school did not follow protocol as they did not report the violence committed against the student, even though the school is required to report such incidences. When the teen confronted the school she was told that it was her responsibility to report the assault, thereby completely denying her rights as a student while simultaneously denying the discrimination, violence and bullying she endured. [Read more...]
I reported some fantastic news last week that the Minnesota house approved death rights for gay and lesbian couples. Unfortunately, homophobic Minnesota Governor, Tim Pawlenty, vetoed the bill on Saturday. His justification: to protect “traditional” marriage. According to Pawlenty, gay and lesbian couples shouldn’t have the same rights as married spouses.
Under Minnesota law, only married surviving spouses can decide what to do with the remains of a loved one. The bill would have extended such rights to domestic partners. It would have also allowed a partner the right to sue to recover funeral and hospital costs in the event of a wrongful death.
In vetoing the bill, Pawlenty, a Republican, said the bill “addresses a nonexistent problem” because gay and lesbian couples have the option of drawing up a living will. [Read more...]
The United States Senate today passed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for 2010, including an amendment that will significantly increase the involvement of U.S. embassies in monitoring and intervening in acts of anti-LGBT violence and discrimination. Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill played a major role in influencing the creation and implementation of this amendment.
An amendment that successfully passed as part of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s State Department authorization bill would increase U.S. monitoring of international violence and other discrimination relating to sexual orientation or gender identity.
With some Republican support, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, April 27, accepted the amendment, sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) and co-sponsored by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), on a roll call vote of 12-7. Later in the committee’s session on Tuesday, the entire Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2010-11 was passed on a voice vote. [Read more...]
Some like to call it an amendment goof. I prefer to call it irony at its best. Thanks to the investigative work of Democratic attorney general candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky, we can all see exactly how a constitutional disenfranchisement of gay and lesbian couples can backfire. The irony is just far too delicious to resist. According to David Montgomery,
Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.
The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:
“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively “eliminates marriage in Texas,” including common-law marriages.
Yes, I said it. A national priority. For far too long we have had to sit back, waiting around for the president to get the courage to act righteously, while his administration works to acquiesce the LGBT community with tokenist attempts to include a “gay” agenda. Since 1993, when Clinton’s good intention manifested itself into a destructive policy known as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ roughly 13,500 U.S. citizens serving in the armed forces have been discharged. Professional, courageous, committed, intelligent, service members with merit and passion are being turned away because of who they choose to love and who they choose to sleep with. Nearly $363 million dollars have been waisted within the span of 16 years, to enforce a policy that tells people they are less then human if they are gay, lesbian, trans, or bisexual.
According to a 2008 Washington Post-ABC news poll, 75 percent of Americans believe openly gay people should be allowed to serve. Right now there are roughly 65,000 homosexuals serving in the U.S. military, along with one million gay veterans. This is not a debate about a couple LGBT identified soldiers wanting access to the armed forces, and even if it were, it doesn’t change the truth about how net-detrimental DADT is to every person in our country. [Read more...]
