Politics | my sociology

Protecting Science From Harm, Protecting Against Harmful Science

2 05 2013

The activists are coming! And, so they should. A supposedly “debunked” study by Mark Regnerus that does not employ valid measures of lesbian couples worked its way right into a US Supreme Court case on marriage equality.

We, as sociologists, did all that we could: 1) petitioned the journal in which it was published, Social Science Research, 2) published critiques of his and Loren Marks‘s studies in the journal, 3) wrote to the media to point out the study’s flaws, 4) offered extensive methodological critiques (e.g., blogs), 5), petitioned the leadership of the American Sociological Association (ASA) to make a public statement against the Regnerus study, 6) conducted an internal audit of the peer review process, and 7) submitted a brief to the Supreme Court as a discipline to make clear no evidence exists to worry about LGBT families. And, there may have been other efforts of which I am unaware.

But it wasn’t enough. Regnerus and other conservative scholars submitted their own amicus brief to the Court. And, somehow, this one study counters all of the other studies enough that Supreme Court Justice Scalia noted:

If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must — you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s – there’s considerable disagreement among — among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a — in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some States do not — do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.

Aftershocks

The American Sociological Association released another statement thereafter to clarify that Regnerus’s study was flawed. While imperfect, every other study suggests no evidence that children of same-gender families are worse off in terms of health, adjustment, academic performance, etc. And, the Department of Sociology at the University of Texas-Austin held a mini-conference on LGBT families last week, featuring Gary Gates and other big names in LGBT research. I assume this was part of the department’s effort (which started as soon as Regnerus’s study was published) to show that others in the department are doing great, pro-LGBT work.

But, it is too late. We do not yet know the outcome of the Supreme Court cases. And, it is unclear whether Regernus’s “debunked” study will be cited by other researchers, politicians, or in other court cases. These are, indeed, real possibilities because his study has been “debunked,” but not retracted. That means it still stands as a peer-reviewed, published academic article — albeit critiqued and discounted.

The lengths that these activists are going makes sense. Though we got to the point where we felt comfortable with the “debunked” status of Regnerus’s paper, it still caused damage — on our watch. Despite our intentions and efforts as a discipline, we did not do enough to prevent this study from having an impact in the fate of LGBT rights (in this case, marriage equality). Whether it comes from religion, science, politics, education, or some other institution, threats to your rights are just that, so who wouldn’t shift into self-defense mode?

Protecting Against Harmful Science

My primary concern, which I have voiced in the discussions among sociologists, is what are we doing to prevent further harm to the community that has been affected by this study? On our watch, a study that should never have reached publication ended up reaching the Supreme Court. We alerted others, “watch out!”; we critiqued Regnerus’s actions, “he’s not even measuring it right!; and even issued a formal statement saying, “we’re not with this guy, he’s crazy.” But, all while we watched Regnerus set up a very calculated assault on LGBT Americans. Since fellow sociologists have so vehemently opposed releasing the names of the peer reviewers of the study, and do not feel compelled to push for retraction, I continue to ask, so now what?

I cannot believe I have to raise this question. But, it seems some are more concerned about protecting science than protecting people from science. There are general principles regarding ethical scientific practice (including discipline specific guidelines), and the universality of Institutional Review Boards to ensure researchers at universities are not causing harm to their participants. Unfortunately, these guidelines were developed as a response to very unethical and harmful research in the past:

During the Holocaust, the Nazis conducted many experiments on Jews (including children)
The “Tuskegee syphilis experiment” (1932-1972), in which poor African American men were infected with syphilis without their knowledge nor with treatment: “The 40-year study was controversial for reasons related to ethical standards; primarily because researchers knowingly failed to treat patients appropriately after the 1940s validation of penicillin as an effective cure for the disease they were studying.”
Similar experiments were conducted in Guatemala from 1946-1948. Over 80 people died as a result.
The use of Henrietta Lacks‘s cells without her or her family’s permission or knowledge in 1951.
Stanley Milgram’s 1961 psychological experiments on obedience, in which he deceived subjects into thinking they were delivering shocks (sometimes deadly) as punishment to a person completing a faux task. Ethical concerns have been raised about the Stanford prison experiment, as well.
Tearoom Trade (1970) — Laud Humphreys’s study of same-sex sexual encounters in public spaces without their knowledge or consent; after observing the men, he used their license plate numbers on their cars to track down their home addresses to interview them (sometimes in front of their families).

For all of the positive things that have come from science (even from some of the awful exploitative, dangerous experiments above), science is sometimes used for evil. Too often, marginalized communities are the targets of harmful science. Of course, in this case, Regnerus and his colleagues did not have any direct contact with their participants; and, there is little reason to suspect that Knowledge Networks (which carried out the survey) caused any harm.

However, I argue that we have an obligation to ensure that harm is not caused in the activities that come after research is conducted: how the research is used and for what purposes. Some argue that, even when studies are carried out for good, we owe it to our participants to give something in return — immediate and tangible, not just “thanks for advancing science!” — for opening up about their experiences, backgrounds, thoughts, opinions, and feelings.

So, now what are we doing to protect this marginalized community that has been further harmed by science? What can we do? Below are some things that have been suggested, and my thoughts on them.

Speaking Out, In General

It is important that we speak out about this scandal, in general. Unfortunately, it feels as though some sociologists feel they have done all that they could and just want this to go away already.

But, who speaks for us? I may be wrong, but many of those — “some sociologists” — do not appear to either be LGBT themselves nor do they study LGBT communities (I’m including here bloggers and those who have left comments). So, maybe it is simple to walk away from this when you can return home to your legally-recognized spouse after a day’s work. Unfortunately, it appears that the sociology bloggers at orgtheory and scatterplot are serving as The Voice for the entire discipline, and the LGBT activists are in direct dialogue with them. I wonder what LGBT sociologists and sociologist of sexualities have to say about this scandal, and whether they feel that we have done enough.

I worry, as I have before: who gets to speak? The subfield of sexualities in sociology is relatively new and disproportionately young. We must tread lightly. And, it is likely that many have remained silent on this issue because they are soon to be or are currently on the job market; or, they are on the tenure-track; or, even with tenure, they are at the margins of their department and the discipline as a whole. Or, just like other fields, maybe some sexualities scholars see their work as irrelevant to activism. And, even for those of us who do pursue activism, we risk professional consequences. But, even those who are not explicitly involved in activism may be the target of political witch hunts or other external threats, or lack of support from the academy to do our research.

Retract It Already

The retraction of published studies is more common than I realized. But, it looks like there is no movement to retract the Regnerus study. There is a lot of shadiness, omission of important details, and conflict of interest sprinkled throughout this entire scandal. But, within conservative standards of “when to retract,” Regnerus’s study is safe. It was the peer review process that is problematic. Specifically:

[T]he paper was submitted for publication 20 days before the end of the data collection, and 23 days before the data were delivered to the University of Texas! That’s fast.

There must be some post-hoc excuse Regnerus or the journal could give to clear this up.

That is in addition to the serious methodological problems that the reviewers should have caught. That is more than enough for some to call for the study’s retraction. Okay, so, since this is not Regnerus’s fault, per se (short of questionable political motivations and funding sources), retract the study and then invite him to go through the peer review process again — this time with different reviewers who are not his colleagues.

“Out The Reviewers!”

LGBT activist John M. Becker has moved forward in demanding records from Social Science Research, namely to out the reviewers of the Regnerus study. Some of my fellow sociologists have been talking about this — I’m sure informally, but in this case publicly on blogs. Some have taken issue with Becker’s efforts, suggesting that it subverts the sanctity of the peer review system for academic publishing; to reveal the identities of anonymous reviewers is a threat to the entire scientific enterprise. Oh, and does it get ugly when sociologists and activists go head to head. But, understandably, when outside forces threaten science (e.g., forced oversight, taking away funding), we necessarily lash out in self-defense.

But, I wonder what would happen if we did reveal the names of those scholars who reviewed Regnerus’s study. Recently, while reading one article about the source of whites’ attitudes toward race-based attitudes, I noticed that the reviewers were explicitly named, right on the first page:

Editor’s note: The reviewers were Lawrence Bobo, Warren E. Miller, David O. Sears, and Susan Welch (p.723).

I decided to search Google for “editor’s note: the reviewers” to see if this was a fluke. I came across two other journals that have, or at least used to, explicitly name the reviewers of a published article, Teaching Sociology and Sociological Inquiry. In the case of the former, I thought maybe as it has become more popular, and moved toward publishing more empirically-based articles, the editorial board might have dropped this practice along the way. But, even a recent article, by sociologist Janice McCabe, dawns the editor’s note, naming each reviewer. It looks as though Sociological Inquiry published the names of authors just for a few years in the early 1990s. These are not the top journals of the discipline, but this discovery leaves me wondering what the harm would be to reveal the names of the publishers in this instance — in this case in which the peer review system was abused, misused, or underused (depending on your perspective).

This is not a question of whether sociology or any other academic discipline should maintain anonymous peer review for publishing. While imperfect, it strengthens science and minimizes (some) concerns about bias. If anything, I see room to strengthen the peer-review system further. And, let’s set aside the potential harms of the overwhelming pressure to publish for jobs, tenure, promotion, etc. as well. The question here is what harm would be caused to the peer review system, or even the entire scientific enterprise, if the reviewers of this one “debunked” study were revealed?

That some journals have revealed the names of reviewers — including articles that are ethically and politically sound — leads me to suggest that the sky will not fall if Becker is successful in his demand for the SSR records. Science will still exist the following day. But, I do agree that this may not actually get us any further in squashing Regnerus’s study or the harm caused by it.

Fight Fire With Fire: More Research!

As Fabio Rojas suggested in response to my plea to do something to take this study down, another possibility is to simply beat Regnerus at his own game. Do more, better research. Indeed, sociologists Andrew Perrin, Philip Cohen, and Neal Caren have done just that in a forthcoming article in Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health — even using the New Family Structures Study data. (Of course, they find that Regnerus’s conclusions were bogus and methodologically flawed.) I do hope, however, that awareness of their new study spreads, as JGLMH is a psychiatry journal and has a so-so impact factor. But, Perrin makes clear that this journal was chosen because of the speedy turn around, and it actually sent out a call for papers to address the Regnerus scandal.

As Michael Bader notes, this scandal has sparked even better work, and maybe science will be even stronger in the first place. But, shouldn’t we be getting it right the first time? Isn’t that what peer review is for? Sure, with time, maybe we will set the record straight. But, for now, the damage has been done for LGBT people. With so much that we have yet to study about LGBT families, it also warrants asking whether we should be worried about having to spend time, energy, and resource on redoing research.

Other Suggestions

Fabio also suggested:

[Realize] that that history is on our side. Increasingly, public opinion polls show greater and greater majorities favor LBGT equality. So if we are winning already, I wouldn’t go and ruin one of academia’s most valuable assets – blind review.
[R]elentlessly critique garbage and draw attention to the body of research.
I would engage the other side with sincerity and fervor. I would show people how to maintain the high ground.

In other words, don’t worry, keep blogging, and be the bigger person. As gay people, my partner and I still cannot get married, not in the state in which we currently live nor the one we are moving to this summer. I am pretty worried about the outcome of the Supreme Court case. And, I am worried how easily this one study breezed through the peer review process, to publication, to press, to the courts. Shouldn’t more sociologists be worried about this, too? And, I am not sure what to say about maintaining “the high ground”. It seems, for the oppressed, playing nice and playing by the rules does little to protect your rights being debated and denied on a daily basis — and my colleagues seem less concerned with my well-being as a human than with the well-being of science.

A Final Plea

“You don’t know what the heck you’re talking about!” Exactly. I am just days away from receiving my PhD, and have little experience publishing and providing reviews for journals compared to the sociologists at the fore of these debates. What do I know?

That is a problem, in my opinion. A systemic problem. With a few research scandals going on these days, I am surprised that my colleagues and I are not in dialogue about science and research ethics. In fact, all that I recall is one week in my research methods course devoted to ethics. We read ASA’s code of ethics, Van Maanen’s (1983) “The Moral Fix: On the Ethics of Fieldwork,” Allen’s (1997) “Spies Like Us: When Sociologists Deceive their Subjects,” and Simonds’s (2001) “Talking with Strangers: A Researcher’s Tale.”

I read Tearoom Trade for another course, though we did not discuss Humprhey’s unethical methods. My knowledge of the Milgram experiment comes from a brief coverage of ethics in my undergraduate psychology and sociology methods courses. And, much of my knowledge about eugenics, the Tuskegee experiments, and other exploitative practices on communities of color comes from my knowledge of Black history rather than science.

In speaking with other LGBT sociologists, I know that I am not alone in my anger, disappointment, and frustration — and, my ignorance about what I can do. This is partly due to our relative lack of power, as a subfield in general (soc of sexualities) and as individuals (pre-tenure). But, it is also due to our lack of access to memories of prior scandals of this sort. For example, while I did read Richard Udry’s “Biological Limits of Gender Construction” (ASR 2000), and even Barbara Risman’s and others‘ critical responses in a class, we never talked about the broader context. What happened after the article and the responses were published?

Why don’t we talk about these types of events in our graduate courses? Why does our training on research ethics only cover the stages leading to submitting an article for publication, ignoring ethical and professional practices that follow publication? In general, I think we could benefit from a bit more reflection on science as an institution. It would be nice (I would even say crucial) to discuss the contexts behind published articles and books. A sociology of sociology, if you will. Why are the authors in certain journals overwhelmingly women, while the top sociology journals are about two-thirds men authors, and the most male-dominated journals are on methods and mathematics? Why are broken barriers in publishing somehow undermined as “affirmative action in publishing” or “trendy, but not really important” (yes, I have heard scholars say this).

If anything, I ask that we stop trying to make this scandal go away in hopes that history will stop repeating itself. Just 12 years after the scandal surrounding Udry’s study, we are faced with a similar problem. And, my generation of sociologists barely knows about it. How can we learn from the mistakes of our discipline if we are not teaching new members about them — what happened and how we resolved it? C’mon colleagues — we have got to do better, for the future of our discipline, but also for society as a whole.

–

UPDATE (05/02/13): And, now we have an example of the potential impact Regnerus’s study can have outside of the courtroom: the everyday harassment of LGBT people.

Comments : 8 Comments »
Tags: Academia, activists, American Sociological Association, bias, bisexual, blogging, consequences, conservatives, Education, ethics, eugenics, experiments, exploitation, fabio rojas, family, gay, graduate school, harm, History, Homophobia, human subjects, ideology, Inequality, Institutional Review Board, intellectual activism, journals, lesbian, LGBT, LGBT activists, LGBT families, Mark Regnerus, Marriage Equality, methodology, peer review, People of Color, Politics, publishing, Racism, research, researchers, same-sex marriage, science, scientists, social change, social impact, social science, Social Science Research, sociologists, Sociology, Supreme Court, Texas, trans, transparency, universities
Categories : Academia, Activism, Advocacy, American Sociological Association, Bias, Black Communities, Black People, Blogging, Congress, Courts, Dialogue, Education, Equality, Faculty, Fear, Government, Graduate School, Heterosexual Privilege, Heterosexuals, Higher Education, History, Homophobia, Inequality, Injustice, Intellectual Activism, Justice, Lesbians, LGBT Communities, LGBT Health, LGBT People, LGBT Rights, Marginalized Groups, Marriage, Marriage Equality, Me, Media, Minorities, Oppression, People of Color, Politicians, Politics, Power, Prejudice, Public Sociology, Publishing, Racism, Research, Research Methods, Retaliation, Science, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Social Change, Social Institutions, Social Science, Society, Sociology, Teaching, Trans*, Universities, US Supreme Court, Violence Against People of Color, Violence Against Queer People

Racism vs. Homophobia: Why No One Wins the Oppression Olympics

8 03 2013

I suppose I should not be surprised that even in 2013 we are still hearing debates that compare racism, the lives of people of color, and the Civil Rights Movement with homophobia, the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people (LGBT), and the modern LGBT movement.

It is somewhat ironic that the efforts of President Barack Obama – our first (half) Black president and the first sitting-President to support same-gender marriage – have sparked such debate about race versus sexuality. Back in 2007, he won my support over my initial favorite candidate, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, because he addressed anti-racist advocacy, anti-homophobia advocacy, and the need to heal the wounds between Black and LGBT communities. Wow!

Since the historical 2008 election, we have seen variations on the debate that compares racism and homophobia, civil rights and LGBT rights, and people of color and LGBT people. As recent as January, we still see the strange question, “is gay the new black?” And, on a recent CNN panel, various commentators and political leaders were asked, “are gay rights the same thing as civil rights?” Fortunately, the first two panelists to respond, LZ Granderson and Roland Martin, noted that, of course, the LGBT rights movement is not the same as the Civil Rights movement; but, “civil rights” refer to the equal rights and status of all people, not just people of color.

No One Wins The Oppression Olympics

Comparing these two communities and their past and contemporary movements for equal rights do many a disservice for a at least three reasons. First, no one wins the “Oppression Olympics.” Taking the time to decide whether people of color have it “worse” than LGBT people is futile. With both groups facing prejudice, discrimination, and violence throughout history and today, what difference does it make whether one group faces “more,” or faced it for a longer period of time? It would be impossible to measure oppression in the first place.

Second, participating in the “black vs. gay” and similar debates gives more weight to the efforts of groups that are both racist and homophobic (and sexist, and classist, and transphobic, etc.) who intentionally attempt to “divide and conquer” various marginalized groups. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), an organization at the forefront of efforts to prevent marriage equality, has actively fanned the flames of resentment within Black and Latina/o communities toward LGBT people. Then, a double standard for homophobia, such that “black homophobia” is used as evidence that Black people are behind-the-times or even un-evolved, while persistent homophobia in white communities goes unnoticed. In fact, conservatives have been (successfully) pitting minority communities against one another for decades.

Third, “black vs. gay” continues to mask that there are a significant number of people who are Black and gay, Latina and lesbian, Asian American and bisexual, and American Indiana and two-spirit. Whereas some members of communities of color are LGBT, efforts to secure the civil rights of Blacks, Latina/os, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and American Indians necessarily implicate LGBT rights. All people of color are not treated equally if our LGBT relatives and friends are prevented from marrying their same-gender partner, are vulnerable to discrimination in the workplace and housing, and so on. Similarly, the efforts of LGBT activists cannot stop at legalizing same-gender marriage, for too many LGBT people of color are disproportionately affected by poverty, ongoing racial discrimination, and the resultant mental health problems.

And, a quick history lesson: the earliest efforts for LGBT rights in the US date back to the 1950s. While Civil Rights activists were beginning their efforts that evolved into a national movement, so too were Homophile activists. When the more radical efforts of the Black Panthers emerged in the late 1960s, so too did those of gay liberation activists leading up to and then taking off with the Stonewall Riots in 1969 (which were led by Black and Latina/o transpeople and drag queens). Gay cannot be the “new Black” because LGBT activism is far from new; and, neither being Black nor the racist oppression that Black people still face has become old or a thing of the past.

But, the supposed black-versus-gay divide is old, and frankly a little tired.

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Activism, African Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, Barack Obama, bisexual, Black, black communities, black vs. lgbt, Civil Rights, civil rights movement, CNN, coalitions, communities, conservatives, divide and conquer, elections, Ethnicity, gay, heterosexism, Hillary Clinton, History, Homophobia, Latina/os, lesbian, LGBT, lgbt communities, LGBT rights, LZ Granderson, marginalized groups, Marriage Equality, Media, minorities, oppression olympics, People of Color, Politics, Popular Culture, Race, Racism, Roland Martin, Social Movements, Stonewall Riots, trans, Transgender, transpeople
Categories : "Post-Racial", Activism, Allies, Black Communities, Black People, Civil Rights, Coalitions, Discrimination, Divide & Conquer, Elections, Equality, Ethnicity, History, Homophobia, Identity, Inequality, Injustice, Justice, Latina/o People, LGBT Communities, LGBT People, LGBT Rights, Marginalized Groups, Marriage Equality, Media, Minorities, Oppression, People of Color, Politics, Popular Culture, Queer, Queer People of Color, Race, Racial Identity, Racism, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Social Movements, Trans*, Transgender, Transpeople of Color, Transphobia

Oppression As Terrorism

7 03 2013

What image comes to mind when you hear the term “terrorist“? I can imagine most Americans think of something like the images that a quick Google search yields:

Right now, these are the kinds of images that predominate US discourse on terrorism, particularly after the terrorists attacks in NYC, DC, and PA on September 11, 2001. Before that, this was the image of terrorism, at least in my mind:

That of domestic terrorist, Timothy McVeigh – a white supremacists. As a nation, we are more fixated on the threat posed by those pictured in the first image — those people in that country. Our fear of terrorism is used as justification for our xenophobic prejudice toward nations outside of the West. Arguably, it also undergirds the vehement anti-immigration sentiment, now that “immigrant” has become synonymous with “Hispanic,” “Latino,” “Mexican,” and “illegal.”

For the oppressed members of the US — people of color, women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans* (LGBT) people, religious minorities, and immigrants in particular — terrorism exists daily within our borders. Defining terrorism simply as a systematic effort to evoke fear and terror in another group, oppressed groups experience both violence and the threat of violence (i.e., terrorism). In addition to the daily microaggressions and discrimination, these marginalized groups are kept in “their place” through violence and terrorism.

Power And Defining Violence

Continuing to gobble up every idea in sociologist Patricia Hill Collins‘s book, On Intellectual Activism, I got the encouragement I needed to write this post, which I have been contemplating for some time. She has a chapter, “The Ethos of Violence,” in which she argues that violence is not a given phenomenon. Rather, it is socially constructed, wherein its meaning is taken from its historical and social context. But, as I usually do when drawing upon a social constructionist perspective, I echo her argument that the power to define socially is not shared equally. Rather, dominant social groups hold the power to define violence. Whites, the middle- and upper-classes, men, heterosexuals, US-born citizens, and so on define violence.

Take the unfortunate example of the shooting in an elementary school in Connecticut. It would be unimaginable to think anyone would dispute that this was a tragedy — yes, even one that warrants the overdue changes to gun control laws in the US. But, as some pointed out, that kind of rare tragedy in middle-class white America garners great national attention, while everyday violence in urban, poor, and Black and Latin/o neighborhoods rarely get attention. As Collins’s points out, these events, though more common, are not treated as noteworthy violence because they do not directly affect the privileged members of America. In fact, such violence is treated as something to be routinely expected of the inferior classes of people who are stereotyped as natural savages.

Look at the intense political battles against protections from discrimination and violence for women, trans* people, people of color, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. It is difficult to fathom how one could oppose protection from violence. But, men, cisgender people, heterosexuals, the wealthy, and whites are shielded from violence. As a part of their privilege, they neither witness nor experience violence enacted toward them because of their status.

Oppression As Terrorism

Collins also notes that, in addition to the violence enacted against oppressed people, they are also terrorized by the threat of such violence.

The routine nature of violence is highly significant in maintaining the social control needed for social inequalities to be seen as natural, normal, and inevitable. The significance of violence goes much deeper than the small number of visible violent acts that actually occur in relation to the size of the American population as well as the interpretive climate needed to define it. Rather, the threat of violence constitutes a powerful tool of social control. For example, women who monitor what they wear, where they walk and with whom, and the time of day they appear in public places adjust their behavior in response to the fear of violence against them. Women do not have total access to the streets because these spaces remain coded as male spaces, at least most of the time. A particular woman need not be raped to know that some streets are always dangerous or that all streets are sometimes dangerous. The fear of physical and sexual assault is sufficient to keep her in her place.

In the above quote, Collins points out that, while at least one-quarter of women experience actual sexual violence, they and the remaining 75 percent of women are plagued by the threat of sexual (and other forms of) violence. That sexual violence affects women such that they live in fear and adjust their behaviors to minimize their vulnerability and this fear constitutes a form of terrorism. And, that seemingly isolated acts serve to threaten and disempower an entire marginalized group (women), rape and sexual assault constitutes a type of hate crime.

In a forthcoming article in Journal of Homosexuality, considering the intersections among race and ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, Doug Meyer and I found that white men and heterosexual men (the sample was too small to consider all three identities simultaneously) were the only groups wherein fewer than half (~30 percent) reported being afraid to walk alone at night within 1 mile of their own homes. All women, regardless of race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, Black and Latino men, and sexual minority men had comparable percentages of those who said they felt such fear (between 70-80 percent). These patterns held even as we accounted for their prior experiences of robbery or other crimes.

Marginalized groups have real reason to live in fear. The rates of documented acts of violence are high — just imagine what the rates would look like if most acts of violence were actually reported. And, think about the costs of the fear that most members of marginalized groups experience. This fear and the efforts one may take to protect oneself from violence can mean watching every aspect of your behavior, remaining vigilant and in a heightened state of arousal when walking alone, being wary of strangers of privileged groups, staying away from certain parts of town, or forgoing certain activities all together. For myself, as my partner and I visit Richmond next week to search for a place to live, I have such concerns weighing on my mind; where will we feel safe as an interracial queer couple?

Given their privilege, whites, men, cisgender people, heterosexuals, those born in the US, and the wealthy do not have to experience nor think about violence and the fear of violence. Beyond that, they do not have to acknowledge or validate the fear experienced by members of oppressed groups. Further, they have the power to subvert our claims of violence, either as isolated acts that are not motivated by hate (rather than systemic violence and terrorism) or even as something victims brought on themselves. Maybe it was the short skirt she was wearing. Maybe it was the hoodie he was wearing. Maybe he flirted with the guy. Maybe she “lied” about her sex-assigned-at-birth.

Terrorism And The State

What complicates this further is that the state, which proclaims to protect all Americans, is implicated in violence against the oppressed. Laws on the books are either selectively or weakly enforced. Proposed laws to protect marginalized groups from violence are somehow characterized as a threat to privileged groups. And, too often, the state itself enacts violence (e.g., police brutality, injustice in the criminal justice system, forced sterilization, interment, enslavement, raids). Who protects us when even our protectors enact violence against us or fails to intervene when others attack us?

How quickly we developed national efforts to guard against terrorism (and protect our national borders from “illegals“) — of course, that is when dominant groups come under threat. There has never been a Homeland Security to protect against racism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism. The oppressed are on their own for that. Ironically, it seems that when the state moves to protect all Americans, the oppressed become suspects. Anyone with brown skin can be searched and demanded for their “papers.” Transgender and gender non-conforming people are subjected to additional screening through TSA security checks at airports. But, c’mon — this is in the name of security for all!

Another Irony Of Oppression

Something akin to the “double bind” or “dual-edged sword” that oppressed people face — the sense that you are “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” — is a sense of irony about systems of oppression. A good example of the “double bind” for women is the reality that they are penalized for being feminine in a masculinist society, but then punished if they are “too masculine” — something that, in overly simplistic pragmatic terms — would make sense to get ahead in life. But, what I find more ironic is a twist on certain aspects of oppression.

In particular, I find it ironic that members of oppressed groups face everyday threats of violence, discrimination, and subtler expressions of hatred, yet are characterized as a threat to dominant society. People of color are subject to violence by, yet are portrayed as violent to, white America. Gay men, in particular, are frequent targets of homophobic violence and discrimination by, yet are characterized as threatening to, heterosexual men. Women, if given the power to control anything (even their own bodies!), are seen as a threat to the livelihood of the nation.

There is an exchange in the 2007 movie version of the play, Hairspray, that sticks out in my memory:

Seaweed: “And this young lady right here is Penny Pingleton.”
Penny: “I’m very pleased and scared to be here.”
Motormouth Maybelle: “Now, honey, we got more reason to be scared on your street.”

Concluding Thoughts

I suppose the take-away points of this post could be: 1) calling for better attention to collective understandings of violence and terrorism, which erase the ways in which oppressed people are attacked and terrorized daily; and 2) calling for real, sustained efforts to account for, outlaw, and remedy the vast amount of violence that routinely occurs against marginalized groups.

This should entail, as Collins points out, better understanding violence at the intersection of systems of oppression, including the heightened risk of violence among those who belong to multiple oppressed groups (especially women and LGBT people of color and poor LGBT people and women). For, even within our own communities, we face violence. Yet, for some reason, many members of privileged groups continue to dismiss our efforts protect ourselves from discrimination and violence — basic, fundamental rights — as “special rights.”

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: 9/11 attacks, Academia, America, bias, bisexual, black feminism, Bodies, cisgender people, cissexism, Classism, context, disadvantage, discrimination, domestic violence, double bind, Doug Meyer, DV, Ethnicity, fear, femininity, gay, Gender, gender expression, google, harassment, hate, Hate Crimes, heterosexism, heterosexuals, History, Homeland Security, Homophobia, immigration, injustice, intellectual activism, Intersectionality, Intimate Partner Violence, IPV, irony, Latina/os, laws, lesbian, lgbt people of color, marginalization, marginalized groups, masculinity, matrix of domination, Men, middle-class, minorities, night, oppressed groups, oppression, patricia hill collins, Politics, prejudice, privilege, Queer, Race, Racism, Rape, safety, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Sexism, Sexual Assault, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Social Constructionism, Society, special rights, street harassment, the state, threats, Timothy McVeigh, trans, Transgender, Transphobia, Trayvon Martin, TSA, US, victim-blaming, Violence, Women, women of color, Xenophobia
Categories : Academia, Activism, America, American Indians, Asians and Asian Americans, Black Communities, Black Feminism, Black People, Black Women, Bodies, Bullying, Cisgender People, Cisgender Privilege, Cissexism, Classism, Congress, Crime, Dating Violence, Discrimination, Domestic Violence, Ethnicity, Fear, Gay Men, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Gender Non-Conformity, Government, Hate Crimes, Health, Heterosexism, Heterosexual Privilege, Heterosexuals, History, Homophobia, Hypervigiliance, Immigration, Injustice, Intellectual Activism, Interracial, Intersectionality, Intimate Partner Violence, Invisibility, Irony, Latina/o People, Law, LGBT Communities, LGBT People, Male Privilege, Marginalized Groups, Me, Men, Microaggressions, Middle-Class, Middle-Class Privilege, Minorities, Minority Stress, Oppression, People of Color, Politicians, Politics, Poverty, Power, Prejudice, Privilege, Queer, Queer People of Color, Race, Racism, Rape, Reproductive Health, Research, Secondary Marginalization, Sex, Sexism, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Silence, Social Constructionism, Social Science, Society, Sociology, Stereotypes, The Body, The State, Trans*, Transgender, Transpeople of Color, Victim-Blaming, Violence, Violence Against People of Color, Violence Against Queer People, Violence Against Trans* People, Violence Against Women, White People, White Privilege, Women, Women of Color, Xenophobia

In Defense Of Femininities — All Of Them

1 03 2013

Happy Women’s, Womyn’s, Womanist Herstory Month! Yep, it is March already. A time the US has set aside for obligatory celebration of girls and women and their contributions to the world. Sadly, there is a sense of obligation, with the whisperings of “do we still need this?”

Comprehensive Gender Equality

Yes, we do still need these 31 days — barely 10 percent of the entire year — to reflect on girls, women, feminism, sexism and patriarchy, and gender. By no means have we achieved gender equality. And, we are overdue for broadening our vision of gender and equality.

Some time ago, I blogged about the narrow definition of “gender equality.” In this limited, traditional sense, we are referring to the the equal status and treatment of women and men, still recognized by their gender and presumed sex. This is certainly the dominant vision of mainstream feminism, or was at least in the days of second wave feminism.

There are at least three aspects of gender inequality that remain in this limited view of gender and gender equality. First, this vision reinforces the treatment of “woman” as a singular status and “women” as a monolithic group. The unique experiences and needs of women who are also of color, poor, disabled, lesbian, bisexual, queer, older, immigrant, and so on are overlooked. Second, this focus fails to address the marginalization of transwomen, and transgender and gender non-conforming people in general. Finally, while aiming to free women from oppression, certain gender identities and expressions — namely femininities — remain stigmatized and invisible.

Gender Diversity

There is a great deal of gender diversity that is too often overlooked within our society that continues to treat sex and gender as binaries: females and males, women and men.

Women, as a group, come from diverse backgrounds: race, ethnicity, social class, sexual identity, nativity, body size and shape, religion, region, and ability. It is unsurprising, then, that various branches of feminism — or, more accurately, various feminisms — emerged to counter the exclusive focus of mainstream (second wave) feminism to the lives of US-born white middle-class heterosexual cisgender women. Some of the prominent feminisms in both activism and academia include Black feminism, Womanism, Chicana feminism, multiracial feminism, Third World feminism, lesbian feminism, and working-class feminism. Today, feminist advocacy and organizations are now more inclusive, but there is still a strong tendency to slip into “single issue” politics.

Related to this diversity among women is the variation within the category of “woman.” Just as thinking of gender in binary terms, women and men, a singular view of women misses the existence of trans* and gender non-conforming people, particularly transwomen. Unfortunately, feminist advocacy and organizations have even excluded transwomen in the past, and many wrestle today with deciding how far their inclusivity should extend (e.g., should women’s organizations serve transmen?).

Beyond diversity in terms of gender identity is the recognition of diverse gender expressions. In reality, there is no universal femininity. Rather, there are multiple femininities. Because of the conflation of sex and gender, we tend to assume that femininity = woman; so the reality that femininity can be expressed through any body, regardless of sex and gender identity, is actively resisted and suppressed. This means we also overlook the hierarchy of femininities, wherein hyperfemininity in female-bodied individuals is rewarded and valued over other expressions of femininity and its expression in other bodies.

Just to make sure the above discussion is clear, I stress that there is a great deal of gender diversity that is too often ignored or erased. “Woman” does not imply white, US-born, able-bodied, heterosexual (or even sexual), cisgender, feminine, middle-class, Christian, and thin. There is no singular status or identity of woman. As a consequence of overlooking this gender diversity, we also miss the inequality that persists among women and among femininities.

In Defense Of Femininities

Despite the many gains that (cis)women have made, and increasing attention to the lives of transwomen, femininity itself remains stigmatized and devalued. In fact, I would argue that some of the gains made toward gender equality have come at the expense of femininity. Indeed, early on, some feminists expressed concern that the elevation of women’s status to that of men’s would largely men that women become men. You can join the old boys club on the condition that you become a boy.

My discipline (sociology) recently tipped over the threshold of gender parity to become a predominantly-female field. Though the “glass ceiling” has been cracked, if not completely shattered, in some of the field’s top-departments and leadership positions, feminist sociologists continue to struggle to gain legitimacy in mainstream sociology.

Further, we continue to prioritize and reward masculine (or even masculinist) presentations of self. On two occasions, I witnessed a woman professor scold women students (in front of a mixed-audience) for appearing to lack confidence and aggressiveness: “don’t do that, that’s girly!” I, too, was discouraged by a (man) professor from being a “shy guy” during an upcoming talk, which, upon comparing notes with another student, realized was the softened version of “man up!” (I suppose I was assumed too sensitive or critical for the more direct assault on my gendered presentation of self.)

These interpersonal constraints are compounded by those at the institutional level. In particular, academic institutions continue to evaluate scholars, particularly for tenure, using standards of the days where (white) male scholars had stay-at-home wives to take care of house and home. Women who become parents face great professional costs, while women who forgo parenthood are rewarded. Of course, an ironic twist to this aspect of sexism is that fathers receive a slight boost.

Liberating Femininities

As an optimist, I see liberating girls, women, as well as femininity as beneficial to all members of society, no matter their sex, gender identity, and gender expression. As a critical scholar, I see this liberation as inherently tied to the liberation of all oppressed groups. Sexism is linked to transphobia is linked to heterosexism is linked to classism is linked to racism is linked to xenophobia is linked to ableism is linked to ageism and so on.

For example, two groups of oppressed men — Black men and trans, bisexual, and gay men — stand to benefit from the liberation of femininity. Just as a hierarchy exists for femininities, one exists for the diverse expressions of masculinity, with that of US-born white middle-class able-bodied heterosexual men as the most valued. Thus, Black masculinity and queer masculinity are devalued, stereotyped, and simultaneously threatened and treated as a threat. As a result, many queer and Black men devalue femininity in society and particularly among themselves. (Some rationalize this by asking, “why would you want to be further stigmatized?”) True racial and sexual equality cannot exist if these men’s gender expressions remain constrained and policed.

It is time, then, to update our feminist vision of the future. Feminism cannot be limited to the goal of liberating (a “narrow” category of) women. We must liberate all women, regardless of their sex assigned at birth, race, age, ethnicity, ability, nativity, religion, body size and shape, and social class. And, we must liberate all expressions of gender, particularly femininities. For women will never be truly free in a society that oppresses femininity.

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Academia, Activism, bisexual, Bodies, discrimination, Ethnicity, Feminism, gay, Gender, gender expression, heterosexuals, Inequality, Intersectionality, justice, lesbian, LGBT, liberation, Men, motherhood, parenthood, patriarchy, Politics, prejudice, Progress, Queer, Race, Sex, Sexism, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Sociology, stigma, Transgender, Women, social change, social class, masculinity, gender non-conformity, gender equality, trans, jobs, institutional discrimination, injustice, Women's History Month, transwomen, transmen, gender identitiy, gender inequality, ability, black feminimism, lesbian feminism, equaliy, hegemonic femininitiy, women of color, females, males, advocacy, glass ceiling, institutional sexism, familes, fatherhood, interpersonal sexism, interpersonal discrimination
Categories : Ability, Academia, Activism, Age, Black People, Bodies, Class, Classism, Education, Equality, Ethnicity, Feminism, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Genderqueer, Higher Education, Homophobia, Inequality, Intersectionality, Latina/o People, LGBT People, Men, People of Color, Progress, Queer, Race, Racism, Religion, Sex, Sexism, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexuality, Social Movements, Society, The Body, Transgender, Transphobia, White People, Women, Institutional Change, Social Change, Discrimination, Prejudice, Gender Non-Conformity, Heterosexism, Assimilation, Stereotypes, Oppression, Irony, Cisgender People, Marginalized Groups, Black Women, Women of Color, Me, History, Stigma, Injustice, Justice, Heterosexuality, Secondary Marginalization, Invisibility, Black Men, Gay Men, Black Communities, LGBT Communities, Heterosexuals, America, Protests, Faculty, Attitudes, Institutional Discrimination, Interpersonal Discrimination, Allies, Anti-Sexism, Middle-Class, Institutional Sexism, Interpersonal Sexism, GBT Men, LBT Women, Lesbians, Structural Sexism

The Curious Case Of “Evolving” On LGBT Rights

11 01 2013

Outside of conversations about science and technology, we rarely make reference to something or someone “evolving.” So, it struck me as odd when we celebrated that President Barack Obama’s views on same-gender marriage were “evolving” last summer. I thought this might be the product of odd phrasing, and decide to focus on the significance of his support rather than the language used.

I have since seen this phrasing a few more times, including an article posted yesterday at The Advocate magazine about Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed. He has been criticized for “flip-flopping” in his views on marriage equality; but, the Mayor insists that he has actually “evolved.” That leaves me to wonder why such language is used, and what is actually meant by “evolving” on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. I propose three possibilities:

Change: To “evolve” on LGBT rights simply means to change. I suppose saying that attitudes “shift” leaves too much possibility for them to shift back; for them to “evolve” may imply a shift that is permanent or at least very difficult to undo.
Slow change: For some, particularly politicians, “evolving” on LGBT rights is a way to signal change that will occur slowly and incrementally. It may be politically unwise to create drastic changes overnight, especially for an issue as divisive and contentious as LGBT equality. For President Obama, his evolution may be promising enough to pro-LGBT voters and donors, yet slow and incremental enough to avoid losing anti-LGBT voters and donors. Indeed, he was successfully re-elected this past November.
Advancing: Finally, some may use the term “evolve” to reference a shift to a more advanced state of being. To support LGBT rights, particularly marriage equality, is to be an enlightened individual that believes in equality, civil liberties, and democracy.

Ironically, less than half of adults in the US believe in the theory of evolution; so I hesitate to believe that most who allude to evolution imply the third meaning when speaking about LGBT rights. However, for some time, Black Americans have been stereotyped as conservative, maybe even “unevolved,” on LGBT rights. This seemed especially heightened after the split in America over same-gender marriage shifted to majority support. Thus, despite the persistence of homophobia in America, opposition to LGBT rights is deemed as a primitive position.

Of course, I am not arguing that this terminology — evolved, evolving, and evolution — is exclusively used in reference to LGBT rights. But, I have observed a consistent, frequent use of the term over the past few years. Unfortunately, I do not have more to offer beyond this anecdote!

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: African Americans, attitudes, bisexual, blacks, evolution, gay, Homophobia, language, lesbian, LGBT, LGBT rights, Marriage, Marriage Equality, politicians, Politics, prejudice, President Barack Obama, Sexual Identity, Sexuality, social change, Transgender, voting
Categories : America, Attitudes, Black Communities, Black Women, Civil Rights, Equality, Gay Men, Heterosexuals, Inequality, Law, LGBT Communities, LGBT People, Marriage, Marriage Equality, Media, People of Color, Politicians, Politics, Prejudice, Race, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexuality, Social Change, Society, Voting

“Stop-And-Frisk”: Legalized Racist, Homophobic, And Transphobic Discrimination

10 01 2013

New York City’s unpopular, but supposedly “effective” crime-reducing program, “Stop, Question, and Frisk” or (“Stop-and-Frisk” for short), was ruled unconstitutional on Tuesday. The program entails the following: “a police officer who reasonably suspects a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a Penal Law misdemeanor, stops and questions that person, and, if the officer reasonably suspects he or she is in danger of physical injury, frisks the person stopped for weapons.”

The judge, Shira A. Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan, ruled that NYC police officers were systematically stopping people with little cause for suspicion. (In this particular case, police officers were stopping individuals thought to be trespassing on a Bronx apartment complex property.) In reviewing police training, she further noted that this evidence “strengthens the conclusion that the N.Y.P.D.’s inaccurate training has taught officers the following lesson: Stop and question first, develop reasonable suspicion later.”

“Because any member of the public could conceivably find herself outside a TAP building in the Bronx, the public at large has a liberty and dignity interest in bringing an end to the practice of unconstitutional stops at issue in this case,” the judge wrote.

In a way, this is exactly what NYC major Michael Bloomberg and other advocates of the “stop-and-frisk” program call for. In exchange for the universal possibility of being stopped by a police officer, residents of NYC see a significant reduction in crime and gun possession. While there have been notable declines in the crime rate (but few seizures of guns), many have argued that this purported exchange is not enjoyed universally. Rather, an overwhelming majority of those stopped by police over the past two years were Black and Latino men. Judge Scheindlin took note of one role of race (and racism) in her decision:

As a person exits a building, the ruling said, “the police suddenly materialize, stop the person, demand identification, and question the person about where he or she is coming from and what he or she is doing.”

The decision continued: “Attempts at explanation are met with hostility; especially if the person is a young black man, he is frisked, which often involves an invasive search of his pockets; in some cases the officers then detain the person in a police van.”

Legalized Racism

Many civil rights and anti-racist activists have criticized the “stop-and-frisk” program due to the overrepresentation of men of color in police stops. Indeed, in practice, the program is a form of institutional discrimination — in this case, as disparate impact discrimination. That is, while the program does not target a particular disadvantaged group — men of color — by design, it does, in practice, disproportionately burden them.

Typically, disparate impact discrimination is deemed otherwise innocent in terms of intention or bias; these are merely programs or policies that have been unfair in practice. Yet “stop-and-frisk” actually operates as a legal door for racial profiling by both those unintentionally and those intentionally targeting Black and Latino men. Some say the racial and ethnic imbalance is merely a product of geography: greater surveillance of predominantly black and brown areas of the city (this, of course, is problematic, too!). In light of stories of being stopped many times in one’s life, others suggest the “stop-and-frisk” program legally allows police to use one’s blackness/brownness as suspect. “You’re Black/Latino, so you must be up to no good!”

Even if police stops were equally burdensome for every racial group (and police were evenly hostile to “suspicious” people), the experience of being stopped, questioned, and searched by police is fundamentally racialized. Given the history of racism, including racist violence and harassment by police or by others yet ignored by police, no white person can ever fully experience the feelings of anger, humiliation, and powerlessness that follow being targeted by police as a person of color.

Further, programs like this one, Arizona’s “show-me-your-papers” law that unfairly targets Latina/o people, among others are just the tip of the racist iceberg of the US criminal justice system. From interaction with the police, to arrest, to court, to prison, racial inequality exists at every step and every facet of law enforcement and criminal justice. Unfortunately, the narrow view of the law cannot handle the reality that racism shapes the core and operation of every social system and institution, including law enforcement.

Legalized Homophobia And Transphobia

It may have come as a surprise to some that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) groups joined the chorus of anti-racist and civil rights organizations that rallied against the “stop-and-frisk” program. Beyond advocating for racial equality, these groups took issue with the disproportionate number of LGBT people of color who have been stopped by police. Often, young Black and Latino LGBT people are stopped as suspects for sexual crimes (e.g., public sex, sex work). In these stops, many are sexually harassed or assaulted by police.

Parallel to blackness and brownness as suspect, LGBT people are legally targeted through the “stop-and-frisk” program often because of their gender expression. LGBT people, especially transgender and gender non-conforming people, are deemed suspicious because their “appearance transgresses gender norms embraced by mainstream society.” It turns out that stops based on suspicion of sexual crimes has already been deemed illegal, again by the same judge:

In 2010, in a decision dripping with outrage, US District Judge Shira Scheindlin held New York City in contempt for failing to end enforcement of loitering laws held unconstitutional decades before. One of the laws at issue was the “loitering for sex” statute that Lambda Legal had succeeded in getting struck down in 1983 by New York’s highest court, shortly after it threw out the state’s sodomy law.

“The human toll, of course, has been borne by the tens of thousands of individuals who have, at once, had their constitutional rights violated and been swept into the penal system,” Scheindlin wrote. “More disturbing still, it appears that the laws — which target panhandling, remaining in a bus or train station, and ‘cruising’ for sex — have been enforced particularly against the poor and gay men.”

Missing The Complex Reality Of Discrimination Today

The above discussion points to the inability for the law, in its present state, to fully appreciate the complex reality of discrimination today. One challenge is to prove that a law or program — instances of institutional discrimination — disproportionately affect a particular group (without just cause). This sidesteps the matter of proving biased or prejudiced intentions, a matter central to cases of unfair treatment; however, the narrow view of the law fails to account for the systemic, wide-reaching influence of systems of oppression such as racism, homophobia, and transphobia. Indeed, it can be argued that discrimination within one institution (e.g., criminal justice) mutually reinforces discrimination in other systems (e.g., education). The true challenge, then, is proving when discrimination is not at play, at least indirectly.

The other important matter that is systematically overlooked is the simultaneous, interconnected operation of multiple systems of oppression. “Stop-and-frisk” reflects the practice of both racism and homophobia/transphobia by police and the criminal justice system. What, on the surface, appears to be a matter of racial inequality has turned out to disproportionately affect Black and Latina/o queer people. Another instance of legalized discrimination, the US military’s “Don’ Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, had its greatest effect on Black women. And, given the greater number of Black same-gender couples who have children, Black LGBT people hold a greater share of the burden created by laws that prohibit or hinder same-gender marriage and adoption.

Of course, greater attention should be paid to the reality that some people are victimized by multiple forms of discrimination (e.g., racist and sexist discrimination). Yet, discrimination cases that pursue such claims are ultimately less successful in court, probably because the court is unable to apprehend this level of complexity.

The days of explicit, unapologetic racist discrimination are (mostly) gone, and great progress has been made toward equality for LGBT people. Yet, the task remains to better understand prejudice and discrimination in the new millennium. There is a great deal of complexity to discrimination that we consistently miss when attending to the discriminatory actions of a few bigoted apples. We will never achieve full equality, whether in opportunities or outcomes, without an appropriately comprehensive understanding of what discrimination is, how it operates, and how to prevent it.

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: African Americans, bisexual, blacks, courts, crime, criminal justice, discrimination, gay, Gender, gender expression, gender identity, gender non-conformity, Homophobia, institutional discrimination, Latina/os, Law, law enforcement, lesbian, LGBT, lgbt people of color, multiple forms of discrimination, New York, oppression, People of Color, police, Politics, prejudice, Race, racial identity, Racism, Sexism, Sexual Identity, Transgender, Transphobia
Categories : Activism, America, Biphobia, Black Communities, Black Men, Black People, Bodies, Civil Rights, Coalitions, Crime, Criminal Justice, Discrimination, Equality, Ethnicity, Gay Men, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Gender Non-Conformity, Government, Homophobia, Inequality, Injustice, Justice, Latina/o People, Law, LGBT Communities, LGBT People, LGBT Youth, Marginalized Groups, Marriage Equality, Men, Minorities, Oppression, People of Color, Politics, Poverty, Prejudice, Queer, Queer People of Color, Race, Racial Identity, Racism, Sex, Sex Work, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Stereotypes, Transgender, Transpeople of Color, Transphobia, Youth

[kinsey] Who Are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Americans?

5 11 2012

LGBT Americans.

This was originally posted at Kinsey Confidential.

Over the past few years, we have been hearing new estimates of the number of adults in the United States who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. It seems the number came down from the 10 percent figure from the work of Alfred Kinsey, to 8 percent with the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, to 3.8 percent in a report from the Williams Institute (UCLA). The latest estimate from a Gallup poll last month suggests that 3.4 percent of Americans identify as LGBT.

Only 3.4 Percent?!

The size of a minority group — in this case, LGBT people — is important for numerous political and social reasons. So, it is understandable that some were initially panicked when the commonly-cited figure of “one-in-ten” seemed to drop to a low of 3-4 percent.

Why was there such a drop in estimates of the size of the LGBT population in the US? The primary reason for what appears to be a drop is how we have counted LGBT people. When Dr. Kinsey conducted his major studies in the 1940s-1950s on the sexual behaviors of women and men in America, he asked them about sexual encounters with individuals of their same gender. In fact, when measured this way, even 2008 estimates come close to 10 percent of adults who have engaged in same-gender sexuality. But, the majority of those adults identify as heterosexual — that is because, while they are related, sexual behavior, sexual orientation, and sexual identity are distinct aspects of our lives.

In addition, as Indiana University professor Brian Powell points out, these are estimates — 3.4 percent — of those who are “out,” or at least willing to tell a researcher that they are LGBT.

You may be thinking, “3.4 percent? That’s pretty small no matter how you measure it!” Generously rounding to 4 percent, that is the equivalent of one LGBT person in every twenty-five people. At approximately ten million people of the 315 million people in the US, that places the size of the LGBT population between the state populations of Michigan (9.8 million) and Ohio (11.7 million).

Who Are LGBT People?

There has been a great deal of attention over the past decade on the relationships and families of LGBT people. But, since researchers are just now beginning to collect national data on sexual identity, we know still do not know a great deal about who LGBT people are. With recent research, including last month’s Gallup/Williams Institute poll, we can begin painting a picture of the sociodemographic and political profile of LGBT Americans:

Race: There is notable racial and ethnic diversity among LGBT people, with 3.2 percent of white Americans identifying as LGBT, while over 4 percent of Black, Latina/o, and Asian American adults self-identify as LGBT. As the report suggests, “Overall, a third of LGBT-identifiers are nonwhite (33 percent), compared with 27 percent of non-LGBT individuals.”
Gender: There is a slightly larger percentage of women (3.6 percent) who identify as LGBT, compared to men (3.3 percent).
Age: LGBT identification appears to be skewed toward younger populations, with slightly more than six percent of 18-29 year olds identifying as LGBT, compared 30-49 year olds (3.2 percent), 50-64 year olds (2.6 percent), and adults 65 and older (1.9 percent).
Socioeconomic Status: Contrary to the stereotype of wealthy LGBT people (gay men, in particular), the greatest percentage of LGBT adults has completed only some college (but no degree), followed by having a high school diploma or less education. Also, LGBT people are skewed toward lower levels of income ($60,000 or less, but especially under $24,000).
Relationship Status: About 20 percent of LGBT people report that they are married, and 18 percent are either in a domestic partnership or living with a partner, while 48 percent are currently single. This compares to 54 percent of heterosexuals who are married, and 23 percent who are single.
Parental Status: Equal percentages of heterosexual and LGBT women have children under the age of 18 (32 percent for each). But, 16 percent of LGBT men have young children in the home compared to 31 percent of heterosexual men. Interestingly, Latina/o, Black, and Asian American LGBT adults are more likely than white LGBT individuals to be parents.
Region: LGBT people make-up similar percentages of each region of the country, though the numbers are slightly higher for the East (3.7 percent) and West (3.6 percent) coasts, compared to the South (3.2 percent) and Midwest (3.4 percent). Indeed, LGBT people and same-gender couples live in just about every part of the country.
Political Views: LGBT Americans are generally more liberal, and more likely to identify as (or at least with) the Democratic political party, than heterosexuals. Also, the majority favor President Barack Obama over presidential contender Mitt Romney, while heterosexuals appear more evenly split between the candidates.

Beyond Sexual Identity

The biggest caveat for these results is that LGBT adults were examined as a singular group, so we do not know how these characteristics vary among lesbian women, bisexual women and men, and gay men. And, more importantly, the unique profile and experiences of transgender people cannot be distinguished, either.

Also, while LGBT people differ somewhat from the general, predominantly-heterosexual (and cisgender) population, they are not a homogenous group. There is a great deal of diversity within LGBT communities, namely in terms of race and ethnicity, gender identity and expression, social class, relationship and family structure, and so forth. As such, it is important to think about the many identities and statuses individuals LGBT hold — not just sexual and gender identity. For example, in pushing for greater visibility, support, and equality for LGBT families, it is crucial to acknowledge that LGBT people of color and LGBT women are more likely to have kids, and face the additional burdens of racial and gender inequality. LGBT families are just as much an LGBT issue as they are about race, ethnicity, gender, class, immigration, etc.

As I concluded in my last post on the size of the LGBT population, we still need more research to capture the profile and experiences of LGBT people in the US and worldwide. Indeed, sexual and gender identities are a core part of who we are as people — not just in the bedroom, or in our private lives, but also for our experiences in and view of the world!

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: alfred kinsey, bisexual, bisexuality, cisgender, Class, demography, family, gay, Gender, gender expression, gender identity, heterosexuality, heterosexuals, homosexuality, Intersectionality, lesbian, Men, minorities, People of Color, Politics, Queer, Race, Relationships, research, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Transgender, United States, whites, Women
Categories : Age, Cisgender People, Civil Rights, Class, Coming Out, Community, Equality, Gay Men, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Heterosexuality, Heterosexuals, History, Inequality, Intersectionality, Invisibility, Kinsey Confidential, Latina/o People, LGBT Communities, LGBT People, Marginalized Groups, Marriage Equality, Minorities, People of Color, Queer People of Color, Race, Research, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Social Change, Society, Sociology, Transgender, Visibility

How To Derail The Push For Equal Rights: Talk About Sex!

4 11 2012

Man entering women’s restroom.

“We just plain don’t like ‘em!” would be a difficult argument to sell as grounds to oppose equal rights and protection under the law for a marginalized group — and, this especially true in this era of supposed “political correctness,” “color-blindness,” and “post-racial”ness. As such, opponents of equality must find more palpable reasons to either prevent the enshrining of equality into law or to strip away existing civil rights laws.

A few anti-equality strategies have existed for what seems forever:

Spread prejudice like a contagious virus! Essentially — in the example of race — convince the white majority that people of color are inferior, whether it be due to biology, education, or culture, thus deeming them worthy of unequal treatment.
Selectively cite passages from the Bible! Whether you want to justify the continuance of enslaving an entire race of people, or oppose interracial marriage or same-gender marriage, or maintain arbitrary restrictions on when and who can have sex, simply flip through the Bible (note: other religious texts do not seem to carry the same weight) until you find a passage that can be interpreted to support the status quo. Or, if you are really gutsy, you can just make something up, like blaming lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people for natural disasters that affect everyone, including heterosexuals and cisgender people!
Pit marginalized groups against one another! Want to really distract the majority from the problematic position of opposing equal rights? One sure way to mix things up is to pretend to care about the well-being of a minority group, and suggest that granting more, “special” (i.e., undeserved) rights to one marginalized group threatens those of another. A great example is the on-going effort to demonize Black Americans as a bigoted, uneducated mass that blindly follows religion in opposing the legalization of same-gender marriage. Clearly, they are so behind the times, in this overwhelmingly LGBT-friendly nation! This strategy is great because you can restrict the rights of one group while demonizing the other, or even convince the majority that the latter group has achieved full equality.

Scare Them With Sex

Hope is a great way to motivate and inspire a mass. It worked for gay activist Harvey Milk, and it sure seemed to work to elect President Barack Obama. Arguably, on the other side of the coin of hope is fear. What better way is there to get people stirred up about something than to make them feel threatened. And, if you really want to stall social progress, toss in some element of sex: promiscuity, teen pregnancies, sexual violence, pedophilia, pre- or extra-marital sex, sex work, etc.

Scholars who study how some matter related to sex is used as a fear tactic have called this “sex panic.” That is, some sexual issue is argued to threaten the smooth functioning of society. In many ways, the issue — say, comprehensive sexuality education in public schools — is intentionally shrouded by myths, stereotypes, biased or falsified research, and is often used to oppose or at least stall movement on a particular social or political issue. Sometimes, the sexual issue is not even centrally related to the key issue being debated. Here is a recent example:

Beware: Male Rapists Pretending To Be Transwomen!

Do you oppose the legal protection of transgender individuals from discrimination? Hmm, well — one potential distraction is to draw on the cisgender majority’s fears of (cis)women helplessly being raped, and occasionally toss in some panic about pedophilia and threats to children’s sexual virtue. Ongoing at Evergreen College:

“The decision to allow a transgender 45-year-old college student who identifies as a woman but has male genitalia to use the women’s locker room has raised a fracas among parents and faith-based organizations, who say children as young as 6 years old use the locker room.”

This also has an element of pitting groups against one another. Do we want to protect transpeople from discrimination, or do we want to protect (cis)women and children from sexual violence?

There are so many problems with this logic… where do I begin? First, I will note that it is interesting that we go from protecting transpeople from discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and so forth, to concerns about the bathroom, nudity, and sex. This stems from the real concerns that transpeople are frequently subject to discrimination, harassment, and violence — even in the bathroom! Yet, ironically, the debates have flipped concern for the well-being of a marginalized group to concern for the protection of the privileged majority from the minority group. The threatened has become a threat; the victim has become the victimizer. This makes me think of one of my favorite lines from the 2007 remake of Hairspray:

Penny Pingleton, a young white girl (Amanda Bynes): I’m very pleased and scared to be here.

Motormouth Maybell, a middle-aged Black woman (Queen Latifah): Now, honey, we got more reason to be scared on your street.

Second, there is some effort to confuse the boundaries of who falls into the minority group, and who to the majority group. Despite the challenges around accepting one’s (trans)gender identity, and to publicly acknowledging one’s identity, gender identity is talked about as an elective, easily moveable boundary. So simple, a man could dress in feminine attire and freely use women’s facilities. Somehow, transmen are erased from the conversation, and we reinforce the notion of males as natural rapist and females as natural victims. And, transwomen continue to remain outside of the category of women; when we speak of concerns about women being raped in the bathroom, we only mean “real,” cisgender women.

Third, the rhetoric of rapists posing as women perpetuates the myth of the stranger lurking behind the bush, waiting to leap out and assault a helpless, unsuspecting victim. Though most survivors of sexual violence know the perpetrator as romantic partners, relatives, friends, coworkers, etc., many carry an image of a mysterious, masked perpetrator, in this case, going to the lengths of dressing in feminine attire to prey on girls and women.

Fourth, bodies are conflated with sex, and sex is perpetually conflated with risk and danger. In this case of the locker room at Evergreen College, complaints were made that girls saw a transwoman’s penis. Okay? And, I am sure they also see other women’s genitals, as well. They have also seen women’s — cis and trans included — feet, hair, backs, arms, faces, and so on. Clearly, genitals stand out as especially sexualized and provocative. And, because we are talking about sex, we are worried about the harm it may cause — even outside of sexual violence.

Of course, sex panics are not limited to efforts to oppose equal rights and protections for transgender and genderqueer people. The supposed concerns of gay men raping heterosexual men were often raised, or at least alluded to, from those who opposed repealing the US military’s ban on open LGBT servicepeople. There is a long history of painting Black men as sexual predators who threaten the well-being and sexual virtue of white women — a viscous myth used to justify segregation, banning interracial marriage, and grounds to execute Black men through lynching based on lies or questionable evidence of a crime. And, we continue to see myths shroud effective discussions about reproductive rights (especially abortion) and sexuality education in schools, namely by drawing forward concerns of sexual “irresponsibility” (i.e., promiscuity, unintended pregnancies, teen mothers).

Moving Forward: Education And Accountability

I will not attempt to provide a solution for ceasing the effective use of sex panics to derail equality. But, there are some things that would be extremely helpful to move in that direction. First, it is important that we take responsibility for educating ourselves. This means taking the time to learn about the issue at hand in full. In less than 24 hours, many voters around the country will be deciding whether to legalize same-gender marriage, bar public funding for abortion services, and eliminate Affirmative Action policies.

Rather than only hearing some of the overly-dramatic, often bigoted perspectives that call to deny marriage equality or rollback government initiatives to support women’s reproductive health and the equal opportunities for people of color, I would encourage taking a moment to find out what is really at stake. Whether or not same-gender couples can get legally married has no bearing on the lives and relationships of heterosexual people — so, what will opposing it do? Defunding Planned Parenthood would severely constrict its abortion services, but it also will constrain its resources and services for other aspects of sexual and reproductive health; further, only a small portion of PP’s budget goes to abortion services. And, the sad reality is that doing away with abortion all together will not eliminate abortion — just access to safe, legal abortion services. Affirmative Action — a policy that aims to redress the history of racist and sexist oppression in the US and promote equal opportunities — in its current, scaled down form, primarily serves to make hiring and admissions practices transparent and highlight the importance of taking into consideration a candidate’s background. Doing away with the policy eliminates what little inequality-conscious practices exist in jobs and education.

I would also suggest that we must do a better job holding politicians, religious leaders, celebrities, and so forth accountable for the tactics they use to advocate certain causes. It almost appears that little recourse exists, besides talk, for advancing lies, myths, stereotypes, and bigotry. Though, for example, the Republican party may be slightly hurt in terms of votes and donations by their ongoing War on Women, many like Todd Akin continue on in their position. It seems it is only when they are the subject of sex panics (i.e., sex scandals) that they are either forced out of their position or voluntarily step down from it. Or, as many say, “no one died when Clinton lied,” referencing former President Bill Clinton’s extramarital affairs, leading to a Republican-led effort to impeach him from office. Yet, his successor, George W. Bush, attempted to enshrine homophobic discrimination into the US Constitution, and failed to provide urgent aid following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita because of the large disadvantaged Black population in affected areas. So long as we vote for and financially support leaders who lie and recycle tired stereotypes and myths, they stay in power.

Other than self-education and holding leaders accountable — Vote! And, please keep these things in mind when you do.

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: abortion, Affirmative Action, bigotry, bisexual, boys, Children, discrimination, Education, election, Equality, Ethnicity, gay, Gender, girls, lesbian, LGBT, lies, Men, moral panics, myths, pedophilia, Politics, prejudice, Race, Racism, Rape, Reproductive Health, reproductive rights, republicans, Sex, sex panics, Sexism, Sexual Health, Sexual Violence, Society, stereotypes, Transgender, violence against women, voting, Women
Categories : Abortion, Activism, Affirmative Action, Black People, Bodies, Children, Cisgender People, Civil Rights, Criminal Justice, Discrimination, Divide & Conquer, Education, Elections, Equality, Gay Men, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Gender Non-Conformity, Genderqueer, Hate Crimes, Heterosexuals, History, Human Rights, Inequality, Injustice, Interracial, Irony, Justice, LGBT People, Marginalized Groups, Marriage Equality, Men, Minorities, Moral Panics, Morality, Oppression, People of Color, Politics, Power, Prejudice, Progress, Queer, Race, Racism, Rape, Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights, Sex, Sexism, Sexual Assault, Sexual Health, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Social Change, Social Movements, Society, Stereotypes, The Body, Transgender, Transphobia, Violence, Voting, Women, Youth

LZ Granderson TEDx Talk On The “Gay Agenda” – Agenda Item #1, Equality!

23 07 2012

Earlier this summer, sports columnist and LGBT activist, LZ Granderson, gave a lecture for TEDx on the myth of a “gay agenda.”

Though he starts his talk with humor, primarily to lighten the mood, he addresses this serious issue. Today, the majority of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans are not protected from discrimination in housing, employment, education, health care, and other important institutions and opportunities. That is, without consequence, most LGBT can legally be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. Though the battle for legalizing same-sex marriage is an important one, the heavy focus on this one issue glosses over the numerous other ways in which LGBT people’s lives are constrained. The map below demonstrates that only 21 states protect citizens from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, including 5 that extent protections from discrimination to transgender people, as well.

LGBT-Inclusive Nondiscrimination Laws

One point is clear from Granderson’s talk: there is no “gay agenda” beyond the fight to be treated equally as a citizen of the United States (and of the world!) regardless of one’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: bisexual, discrimination, Equality, gay, gay agenda, Gender, gender expression, gender identity, lesbian, LGBT, LZ Granderson, Politics, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, TEDx Talks, Transgender
Categories : Academia, Activism, Civil Rights, Discrimination, Equality, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Homophobia, Human Rights, Injustice, Justice, Law, LGBT People, Marriage Equality, Oppression, Prejudice, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexuality, Society, Stereotypes, Transgender

The (Michelle) Obama Factor – The US Just Now Realizes Black Women Exist

2 02 2012

Happy Black Herstory Month!

A few days ago, my mother sent me a neat Washington Post article about Michelle Obama. Building off of recent news about a national survey that highlights the lives, experiences, and values of Black women, the article discusses the significance of the Obamas being the First Family, especially Michelle Obama as the nation’s First Lady. The article is decent enough, pointing to concerns about racism, harsh criticism that Michelle Obama has faced (some likely nothing more than a double standard relative to previous First Ladies), and how meaningful it is for Black women (and other people of color) to see someone like them occupying such an important position.

Toward the end of the article, I started skimming, feeling as though I had already gotten the point. Yes, yes — I feel tingles every time I see Michelle Obama on television, as well. She is simply phenomenal. And, though others aim for politeness in denying that the Obamas’ racial identities matter to them or in general (for better or worse), I admit that I am more interested in the Obama family because they are of color. After over two centuries of white men in office, it is exciting to see a (mostly) Black family in the White House.

Though I appreciate the article, I was left wondering, “why now?“ Michelle Obama has been First Lady since the start of 2009. The attention to her racial and gender identities is, well, a tad late. But, wait! Why are we just now interested in the lives of Black women after centuries in this country? The survey, while important and interesting, leaves something to be desired, as well. Fortunately, I found that another blogger shared my discontent with the media’s new found interest in Black women in the US:

When faced with earnest but confusing efforts like the Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation’s survey and interviews with 800 black women, I find myself getting all Etta James, righteously nasty. Frankly, I’m sick of using my brain cells and laptop-worn vision to parse out the latest examination of the rare species Blackus Womanamina Americanus.

First, the media attention to the survey speaks about Black women’s lives as though they exist in an ahistorical, racism- and sexism-free vacuum:

This is a nifty, irritating trick because it absolves the very institutions that have consistently denied or marginalized black women’s voices. While the article briefly covers underemployment, tokenism and the stereotype of the “welfare queen,” it doesn’t dig into structural racism past or present. We don’t get how and why reductive ideas of black womanhood have been created, manipulated and consistently sold by mass media. This is an article about black women and stereotypes that doesn’t mention pesky ills like slavery, Jim Crow, reproductive injustice and mass incarceration but name-checks “Basketball Wives.” Without proper context, the black women respondents become self-sacrificing victims who haven’t learned to define themselves, shadowboxing with mysterious ghosts.

Second, the media attention emphasizes the importance of these findings in relation to white women and men, and Black men, as if they are not important in their own right:

And when media don’t listen, they publish black-women centered surveys that compare our responses to those of white women, black men and white men, as if there are no other groups of people in this damn country who help shape our collective experiences. They ask by-the-numbers questions about fundamental aspects of human life through the lens of race without interrogating why one would even need to ask these questions.

Despite Black women’s existence from the beginning of US history, we are just now beginning to see greater representation of Black women in mainstream media. Though this representation has improved in some ways, others argue we still have a ways to go. Let’s hope that this sudden attention to Black women will be sustained, no matter the race or ethnicity of whoever our First Lady is in 2013.

Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: Barack Obama, black women, blacks, Gender, herstory, History, Hollywood, Media, Michelle Obama, Politics, Race, Racism, research, Sexism, Washington Post, Women
Categories : Black People, Black Women, Ethnicity, Gender, Intersectionality, Media, Michelle Obama, Multiracial People, Oppression, People of Color, Politics, Popular Culture, Progress, Race, Racial Identity, Racism, Research, Sexism, Social Change, Stereotypes, White People, Women, Women of Color

my sociology

“Stop-And-Frisk”: Legalized Racist, Homophobic, And Transphobic Discrimination

Legalized Racism

Legalized Homophobia And Transphobia

Missing The Complex Reality Of Discrimination Today

LZ Granderson TEDx Talk On The “Gay Agenda” – Agenda Item #1, Equality!

Search

Site Visits

Recent Posts