Divorcing equality

Let's say a newspaper writes a beat up story about a flat advert about a household asking for heterosexual people not to apply.  The article subtly ridicules all the ways the flatmates self-described themselves through the liberal use of quote marks:

It was for a four-bedroom house in the suburb of Newtown, which the existing flatmates described as a "queer, transgender, vegetarian household".
They described themselves as two "feminist/politically switched on adults"......

The Human Rights Commission gets the chance to respond.  It's not unreasonable to expect they might raise the persistent discrimination sexuality and gender diverse people experience in housing.  Like the facts around how vulnerable our young people are, when families reject our sexual or gender identity, and we have to find housing before we're actually ready to be independent.  Or the complete lack of safety for anyone who isn't a cis man in our homeless shelters - we have too few options for homeless women, queer or not, and no options for people who don't fit gender norms/are non-binary. 

Or what happens to us when we rock up to apply for a flat, and the person renting it realises we are not straight, or we are trans, and suddenly the room or house isn't available anymore.  Add being Maori or from any visible ethnic minority to that and you've got an even smaller pool to choose from.

Or what about when we find a flat, and it's ok, they even know we're queer - but then we get a similar gender lover, and suddenly people don't actually talk to us properly anymore? 

These are all overtish - rarely will we be told any of this is about being queer or trans or brown - but we know.  There's also all the covert stuff when you live with homophobic, biphobic or transphobic people.  The inability to have ordinary conversations about your experiences, because those people don't want to hear or don't understand or when you try talking, they are glazed over, bored, because it's not their experience and they don't really care.  The failure to acknowledge significant pain points, like the way your family treat you at Christmas or the hoops you have to jump through to get the hormones or medication you need to be recognised as who you are.

See, I EXPECT our Human Rights Commission to have heard those stories, because they monitor discrimination in this country.  They held a Transgender Inquiry in 2008 which said about housing:

"The Inquiry heard that finding a home was not always easy for trans people.  Those who transitioned as young adults were usually dependent on shared rental accomodation, particularly in flatting situations.  Social marginalisation and negative attitudes towards transpeople affects access to shared accomodation.  A trans woman told of being offered a room in a flat but was later turned away when the other tenants realised she was trans.  One trans man described the stress of boarding in a large house where flatmates continually harassed him by referring to him as "she"."

But instead the Human Rights Commission gave a weak waffling response about how we didn't want to live in a country with prejudice, whether that was saying "No straight people" or "No gay people".

The fact the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION doesn't understand structural discrimination is terrifying.  Because guess what - straight people can live everywhere else in the whole world almost - the fact that a couple of queer trans peeps in the lovely suburb of Newtown want to feel safe at home doesn't restrict straight people's housing options.

It kind of gets worse, with once again, our more mainstream Rainbow community organisations not knowing how to deal with talking about marginalisation, safety and discrimination.  There is no story here apart from the fact that queer and trans people must have the right, in an incredibly discriminatory housing context in Aotearoa New Zealand, to develop homes which feel safe for us.  And the Human Rights Commission and every single Rainbow organisation commenting on this should be saying that.

Because home is where we go to recover from the world.  It's where we most need to feel safe, to feel seen, to know how we are is just fine.  It's where, if we're talking psychologically, we need to be able to sleep without fear and rest from how we are treated on the streets, at work, in study, whenever we try to access anything we need.  All of those experiences can be more difficult for trans and queer people.

Marriage equality has dulled our senses, drugged our supposed protections, shifted the focus from most queer and trans people's experiences - particularly those of us who are poor, not white, disabled and/or less able or have less desire to fit in.  Expect no less than rage from those of us who never wanted to get married in the first place - it's time for the Rainbow community to divorce this unhealthy relationship with "equality" and start dating around.

Collins' cronyism - not just Oravida, remember

(Content warning: not obviously feminist ;-)  )

There has been some excellent blogging about the recent Oravida scandal in which senior Cabinet Minister Judith Collins is currently embroiled.  She's taking some leave to get disentangled, if not in fact then by the passage of time, and I thought it might be timely to reflect on some not so recent incidents.  There is a strong theme of Collins not understanding, or not caring, about conflicts of interest, and/or correct process.

Arranging for Dr Wayne Mapp to be appointed to the Law Commission in 2012 - some people may recall Mapp was a National MP (Shadow Minister of Eradication of Political Correctness under Brash iirc?).  He was also a law lecturer prior to entering Parliament, and was not well served by Collins' interference.

Overruling independent selection panel to appoint close friend of her husband to Director of Human Rights Proceedings, 2013 - a position that must be independent and seen to be independent from the government of the day as they are often taking cases against the government.

Dodgy "celebrity" appointment of Dame Susan Devoy as the new Race Relations Commissioner, 2013 - many people questioned whether Devoy was a good fit for this role and with some digging it became clear that Collins had skewed the process in her favour.

Very dodgy appointment of Dr Jackie Blue as the new EEO Commissioner, 2013 - which was a shame because Blue was a strong candidate and is now, from reports I hear and my own observations, doing a good job, but will now always be tainted by this.

Then we come to this year and the Oravida Justice trip to China - this is still very much alive.  This started with concerns that Collins had effectively endorsed Oravida's products and business, but has since evolved significantly.  For me the biggest problem with all this so far has been Key's statements to the House that it was a Justice focused trip and the Oravida bits were add-ons, when, as Rob Salmond has shown at Polity, actually Collins had Justice-related appointments to be cancelled to do Oravida bits.

Collins fundamentally does not seem to understand, and does not want to understand, that the role of Minister comes with some hefty rules and expectations around not interfering in a way that favours your mates.  I come across it all the time in local government - people ask me about this job or that contract and you have to be Very Very Careful, maintain a distance, declare interests pro-actively, and sometimes rudely interrupt people to say "I CANNOT talk about this with you."

Remember Collins has not apologised or accepted that she did anything wrong with any of the instances above.  Which means she is very likely to do it again.

Stamping out human rights

When I was training to be a journo, the Sri Lankan Embassy wrote an official complaint about one of my articles on the human rights abuses of Tamil people in Sri Lanka.  I've visited Sri Lanka, and though there was much to enjoy, the Tamil ghettos which every Sinhalese person I spoke to could not even see feel burned in my mind.

So on the surface, Canadian complaints about Sri Lanka hosting a Commonwealth event because of their ongoing and recent human rights abuses of Tamil people makes sense to me.

Until you think about the Commonwealth.  The countries colonised by England.   Leaving aside Africa, divided up by Europeans drawing lines on a map to make stealing resources easier, and British behaviour in India and surrounding countries, let's focus on Canada and white settler behaviour just for a moment.

Canada is the home of ongoing alienation of indigenous Canadians' rights.  Here are a list of the current bills which First Nations Canadians object to:

• Bill C-38 Budget Omnibus #1; 
• Bill C-45 Budget Omnibus Bill #2; 
• Bill C-27 First Nations Financial  Transparency Act; 
• The First Nations Private Property Ownership Act (Proposed); 
• Bill S-2 Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Interests or Right Act; 
• Bill S-6 First Nations Elections Act; 
• Bill S-8 Safe Drinking Water for First  Nations Act; 
• Bill C-428 Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act; 
• Bill S-207 An Act to amend the Interpretation Act; and
• Bill S-212 First Nations Self-Government  Recognition Bill.

Then there are the residential schools in Canada, boarding schools for kidnapped children.  The last one closed in 1996, and you can see how many existed around the country here.  More than 150,000 First Nations children were forcibly removed from their families and fed into an educational system which told them everything about them was inferior.

The schools were hotbeds for physical, mental and sexual abuse.  Children killed themselves, or died trying to escape.  After going through these schools themselves, First Nations parents then had to watch while the same thing was done to their children.

This is not a radical interpretation.  This is how the members of parliament in Canada described these schools, in 2008, when a cross party apology described this racism of trying to "stamp the Indian out of the child."

So Canada, quite frankly, fuck off.  The arrogance of white supremacy, our colonial inheritance for those of us of British descent, makes me feel sick.  Aotearoa has this too, of course, in spades.  What happened and is happening to Tamil people in Sri Lanka is obscene.  But the impacts of colonisation on Maori, on First Nations Canadians, on Aboriginal peoples in Australia are no less a scar on humanity.   News articles which position us white folk as arbiters of justice, fairness and human rights - ignoring colonisation - just perpetuate that white arrogance and invisibilise that white privilege.

We can't really afford that, if we want to live in a world which respects the human rights of others.  White privilege is so damn slippery anyway.

Moving beyond Marriage Equality

Three events in Wellington this week of interest to the queer and trans* communities in moving beyond Marriage Equality.

Firstly, tonight, Wellington Gay Welfare Group is hosting an event exploring "Suicidality, Our Communities and Authorities Response".  More details here.  We know the rates of self-harm and suicide are higher for queer and gender diverse people, and it's time our systems of response both paid attention to that, and set about demanding a social environment which would prevent it in the first place.  Which means queering our schools, which means removing discrimination, which means representations of queer and gender diverse people everywhere, which means a whole bunch of education.  Ending homophobia, biphobia and transphobia, embedded in systems of sexism and cis-sexism which promote harmful, unrealistic gender norms.

Second event on Thursday 18th April, post Marriage Equality passing (and yep, I'll be partying) is hosted by the Human Rights Commission, "Human Rights priorities for intersex, trans and queer people."  Details for the Wellington event here but you can join in from other parts of the country too.  This event will discuss key issues for our communities, with a view to bringing them forward to the UN Universal Periodic Review.

And finally, from Wednesday 17th April, if you'd like the chance to become street theatre while dressed in a donated wedding dress, come be part of Brides - particularly open to queer and gender diverse peeps.  This is a Barbarian Productions event which the organisers describe as:

Bearing in mind the current passage of the Marriage Equality Bill through parliament, Brides asks visitors to come inside and watch / speak / sing / share in a free-wheeling public discussion on the meaning, relevance, and experience of marriage: the ritual, the institution, the dress.

It's going to be a queer old week in Wellie :-)

Advance fair New Zealand

21st March 2013 - Race Relations Day

New Race Relations Commissioner Susan Devoy may not be starting until the 1st April 2013, but she has hit the ground running in her role with the Human Rights Commission.

Today is Race Relations Day, marking the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and Ms Devoy has some innovative ideas she's launching to "encourage harmonious relations between the diverse peoples of New Zealand by encouraging respect for human dignity and the realisation of the human rights of all people in New Zealand."

"We only need to look across the Tasman to witness how Australians celebrate their day," says Ms Devoy, calling for a brand new national day.  "They may be our arch-enemy on the sports field, but you do have to admire the way they celebrate their national day with a great showing of patriotism."

Ms Devoy is concerned about Waitangi Day having lost it's way as a time for New Zealanders to have a "good ol Kiwi barbecue."  So she's keen to reframe it, in line with the lead on racism shown by Australia, and set up a completely new opportunity.  "Waitangi has been hijacked and if it can never be really seen as a day of national celebration then perhaps the time has come to choose another true New Zealand day.  We deserve a day of true celebration and pride."

So this Race Relations Day, the new Commissioner is launching a new slogan:

"Advance fair New Zealand!" 

Ms Devoy is hoping all New Zealanders will rally behind her cry to be more like Australia when it comes to race and diversity.  The Human Rights Commission is very proud of the leadership Ms Devoy is showing before her role has even officially begun.

Ends 

Marriage equality talk at university of Auckland 24th August 2012

(Apologies for the lateness of this being posted, I've been sick.)

I left Louisa Wall’s talk at the University of Auckland with some serious warm fuzzies. Within the room there had been a myriad of people, religions, and ages, all united in one single cause. The cessation of separation of human rights related to gender and sexuality.

Had we all gone to a café after and tried to have a conversation about any other topic, we would have struggled to include everyone without some serious bickering but in marriage equality, we were united.

Louisa spoke passionately and without notes. She spoke of her personal history, the history of rainbow rights in NZ and around the world, and she spoke about what this bill will mean.

If you want to hear the basics from her mouth, take a look at her speach today at parliament house.

If you would like to hear a more in depth discussion about what the bill means to NZ, including a very clear discussion on what it will mean for NZ churches (spoiler alert – NOTHING), take a peek here.

If you want to watch Colin Craig get OWNED on public television, check this out. *snort*

I’m just briefly going to give an insight into the questions session of the day, because that is the one thing you won’t see elsewhere.

In the questions.

A woman stepped forward and spoke about marrying into an interracial relationship only one year after Loving vs Virginia, and the hate that continued after that point.

She and her daughter pointed out the similarities in argument the social right use against gay marriage and against mixed race marriage. The fact we have grown past the latter, doesn’t mean the stupid arguments wont be re-used to hurt a new minority group.

They spoke of evolution and the fact both sides survived the revolution and they will both survive this one, but we need to ignore the bigots and keep fighting for what is right.

Aaron raised the fact that the media, and this includes the rainbow media, keeps calling the bill the “gay marriage bill”, the frustration was evident from his passion, when speaking about the fact that trans people are even more marginalised than the cis-gay community.

Louisa spoke compassionately to this point and clarified that this is why this is the bill is called the “definition of marriage amendment bill”.

She got a laugh from the group when she said

“this bill couldn’t BE ANY STRAIGHTER” and I know it wasn’t just me that choked up when she followed on

“It isn’t about being gay, or straight, or what your gender identity, it’s about being EQUAL.”

Section 32 will be highlighted when she speaks on Wednesday, and I for one will be watching.

Soraiya Daud stood “It’s been a long time since I sat in a room and been moved by a labour mp, and I’m IN the labour party.” Cue raucous laughter from the room!

“I hope that you can be an example to the rest of our MPs”

Finally Nathan, a Christian who has recently joined the salvation army stood up. He had a loud voice and after overhearing conversations from before we started I was terrified of what he was going to say. So much positivity was bouncing around the room, and I was so scared we were going to end on a downer.

He told a story about a Friend who texted him- “I’m gay, does Jesus love me?”

He said he thought about it, and said “Jesus does love you because you are made in his image”. He quoted “Come now for it is time to worship, come as you are.”

He said that his friend replied

“Thank you, I was on the edge of a bridge, and I have gotten off”

The room audibly sighed. To hear of people working within organisations who are in support of this cause was wonderful, and someone in the crowd shouted "Kia-Ora Nathan”.

He Pointed out that there ARE Christians out there who agree, but want to work within their groups, churches, leadership, they want to make their own boundaries.

Louisa nodded in agreement, and reiterated her points about the fact that this bill doesn’t change what the church can or has to do.

“Churches continue to be able to discriminate based on religious belief.”

What this bill will do is open bigger spaces for churches to have their own discussions, and this is already happening.

The discussion was thrilling, and I think most people wished they could raise their hand just to shout THANK YOU, but there wasn’t enough time.

I was there because the Marriage equality bill is in front of parliament Wednesday the 29^th August.

I sincerely hope that this law is changed through this process. Partly because I honestly can’t see why it hasn’t been already, and partly because I don’t want any future generations to have to fight this rubbish. We should be raising our young people in spaces safe for all genders and sexualities. People should feel safe as they are, with who they love.

So as a person who feels passionately about this bill, and hopes that THIS will be the time for change, I want to soak everything up, be part of it, support those putting themselves out there, enable safe spaces for open conversation and remember this.

Because one day I want to tell my nieces and nephews, or kids, that I was there, I was part of this, I helped the change.

I don’t want to tell them I went out for dinner and don’t remember the specifics.

Because this… this is important people.

Sit up, take notice, write letters, talk to your family, talk to your friends, talk to your leaders, religious groups, community groups. Raise this issue.

Most hate is driven by ignorance, and change is hindered by apathy. So if you think you can’t make a difference, you can. 

It will be our generation who makes the difference, because WE are the ones who overwhelmingly support this bill. It is us who needs to raise its profile and put a loving face on the front of it.

Go to it people.

Yes, this happened in Aotearoa New Zealand

Thanks to Women's Health Action Trust for allowing me to re-publish this media release here.  It refers to this case in the media last week.


Criminisalising pregnancy no solution

‘Jailing women in the interests of foetal protection cannot be justified on either human rights nor public health grounds and sets a dangerous precedent’ says Christy Parker, Senior Policy Analyst of Women’s Health Action Trust.

Ms Parker was responding to reports this morning of the jailing of a New Plymouth woman in the interests of protecting her ‘unborn baby’ from harm.

‘Women’s Health Action strongly supports steps being taken to ensure good outcomes for women and their babies when they are risk of harm. However the criminalisation of conduct during pregnancy has not been shown to improve outcomes and has been condemned within international human rights forums’ Ms Parker states.

‘Making women fear prosecution for various types of behaviour during pregnancy has been shown
to be a barrier to accessing health and social services that support women to improve outcomes for
themselves and their families. This has recently been highlighted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to health, Anand Grover, in his report to the United Nations. Mr Grover states in his report, ‘it has been well documented that the public health goals are not realised through criminalistion; rather they are often undermined by it’. In addition, States are obligated to ensure that interests in protecting prenatal life are consistent with the fundamental human rights of women and do not perpetuate discrimination against women’ states Ms Parker.

‘The issue here is not about the details of this particular case but rather a trend towards foetal
protection and the criminalisation of pregnancy in Aotearoa New Zealand. As interest grows in the
outcomes of the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children, we need to be thinking carefully about how
to best support good outcomes for women and their babies. Punitive measures that further isolate
women and that risk undermining their human rights should be treated with caution’.

More on Women's Health Action Trust can be found at their website.

It's time

Well actually, it's past time.  But now is still good.

If you want to vote on this poll, (screenshot above taken at 11am) it's at this Stuff article.

Your morality is in the way of my rights.

One of the key arguments that are being thrown at me about abortion is that it "isn’t just about me".

No, it isn’t. However I cannot think of anyone other than me who should have the decision making ability in this situation. The choice to carry, birth and raise an entire human IS MY CHOICE and it should not be illegal, or unsafe to terminate, if I should choose to, just because YOU don’t like it.








I'm well aware that some of these comparisons will piss people from both sides of the debate off. It is meant to make you think.

Let it.

***


This is part of a week of Pro-Choice Postings hosted here at The Hand Mirror starting on Friday 28th October 2011.  For an index of all the posts, being updated as they go up, please check the Pro-Choice Postings index.  And if you'd like to submit a post for cross-posting, guest posting or linking to please email thehandmirror@gmail.com. 

GUEST POST: Gender based violence and the Pacific Island Forum

On the outskirts of Honiara, quite a drive off the main road, through abandoned cacao plantations and out by the ocean sits the Christian Care Centre; the Solomon Islands’ only refuge for women and children who have experienced violence.

It’s a small facility, run on the smell of an ocean-soaked rag by the formidable Sister Doreen, and staffed by volunteers. It offers women and children who are survivors of physical and sexual violence a place and space to be. The Christian Care Centre works closely with the Family Support Centre and the police to provide legal support; that is, when there is a law to support them. There are no specific domestic violence laws in the Solomons, and gaping holes in other laws which could be used to help protect against violence.

In a country where 64% of women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence,* the Christian Care Centre provides an essential service and is always full to capacity. Sister Doreen shared her concern about the inevitability of having to ‘move people on’, only to find them returning a few months later – often following worse injuries.

I spent a day at the Christian Care Centre during a recent visit to Honiara. Sister Doreen and Annie – the Chair of the Centre, and a regular volunteer – showed us around the complex, the main building of which was opened by Dame Silvia Cartwright in 2004.

The grounds were welcoming, the people generous, and I was surprised by the amount of time we spent laughing (though I get the feeling Sister Doreen, Annie and everyone else at the centre laugh a lot). They laughed at me not knowing that pineapples grew on bushes; we laughed as they reenacted Mr Bean sketches – the favourite DVD to play during the hour a day the generator is on; we laughed at the people with good intentions who had sent them the washing machine and dryer that were still in their packaging in a corner of the ‘classroom’ (clearly they’d not understood the limitations of generator power and a lack of running water).

There are a lot of children at the centre. Some of them are there with their mothers; others are there independently, as survivors of violence and sexual abuse. The majority of the time the classroom lacks a teacher. There’s currently a high school teacher who is at the Centre for the second time – she’s just had the stitches taken out of her forehead where her husband hit her so hard it split the skin – and she has been helping in the classroom occasionally.

As the grown-ups talk I’m laughing again, playing air guitar with a boy across the garden who’s rocking out on the casing for a puzzle which has lost its pieces. Soon we’re sitting on the floor and I’m reading a dull book about a worm that eventually figures out the scarf he’s carrying around belongs to him. Before long all the children, and some of the adults, are listening. They are gripped. Another book is brought for me to read, a tatty ‘Life of Winston Churchill’. Followed by ‘Tales of New Zealanders in WWII’, the Jurassic Park movie book, and finally a story about an English woman who went to Africa in the olden days and met cannibals. That’s the whole library.

Later, after the hilarity and the reading, once they’d sussed me out a bit, I hear story after story of violence, rape, and abuses of power.

The only woman at the Centre who hasn’t experienced violence is Sister Doreen. When asked whether any security arrangements are needed for the centre, or if she’s ever been threatened, she cackles ‘Ha! I’m a nun! Nobody would dare.’

I won’t recount the personal stories, or the complex system of compensation (one of the women at the centre was forced to pay compensation for the shame she brought upon her brother-in-law when she refused to have sex with him). Ahead of the 2011 Pacific Island Forum this week, I wanted to use this post to highlight, and possibly remind leaders of the promise they made at the 2009 Pacific Island Forum in Cairns.

In the Cairns Communiqué Pacific leaders acknowledged the high rates of gender-based violence in the region, and committed to eradicating sexual and gender based violence, ensuring that all individuals have equal protection and access to justice. It was the first time the Pacific Island Forum declared sexual and gender-based violence a risk to human security.

Let’s remind them of the commitment they have made. Let’s remind them of the legal reforms necessary to ensure all individuals have equal protection and access to justice. Let’s remind them to develop legislation that works and ensure it’s implemented.

I have also resolved to get some more books for the Christian Care Centre library. I’m thinking Hairy Maclary would be a good start; it’s hard to be worse than Winston Churchill and cannibals.

Branwen Millar works for Family Planning International

* SPC (2009) Solomon Islands Family Health and Safety Study, SPC, Noumea.

It's the putting right which counts

I went to Camp Betty a while back now, and have been meaning to blog about it since. Billed as a "three-day festival celebrating and unpacking sex, sexuality & gender against a backdrop of radical politics and DIY action," Betty wasn't all that for me, but I loved the "Intersex 101" workshop run by some intersex activists from Australia and beyond.

I loved the fact feminism was regularly mentioned as part of the ways in which gender oppression (against intersex people) might be challenged. I loved it because I learnt lots, being woefully ignorant about the kinds of experiences intersex people have in the world, and I felt humbled because it was probably the only workshop I went to where I discovered a new to me way of treating other human beings with the utmost disdain.

By that I don't mean I'm some sort of pain groupie - I'm not, these revelations made me cry - but that I'm pretty familiar with most of the ways gender and sexuality oppression happens. So workshops about trans hatred and same-sex domestic violence, for example, were awful, but not really new to me.

Anyway, the Intersex workshop, and a definition:

Intersex people are people who, as individuals, have congenital genetic, hormonal and physical features that may be thought to be typical of both male and female at once. That is, we may be thought of as being male with female features, female with male features, or indeed we may have no clearly defined sexual features at all.

Basically, intersex people confuse our binary world - not with behaviour, though perhaps that too - but with anatomical differences from medical ideals of female and male. Their very existence proves that our binary world view is flawed. But this flaw has, increasingly since the 1950's, been "put right" by medical professionals with cosmetic surgery and treatments designed to make sure all the external bits of children and infants "look right."

Many believe such medical response should not be performed on children and infants, due to the psychological and physical damage such treatments cause. Since the 1990s, hundreds of intersex people all over the world have come forward to say these treatments should be stopped until intersex people are old enough to come to an informed decision.

What I found even more disturbing though, were some medical interventions being trialled here and now in Cornell University by Professor Dix Poppas. Professor Poppas cuts off bits of little girl's clitorises which are "too big." Then, in front of their parents, he engages in "follow-up clitoral sensory testing" - he uses a vibrator on girls as young as six to see if they still have any feeling in their butchered clitoris. Of course, if they don't it's a little late, but that doesn't seem to worry the medical profession, as he's one of New York Magazine's Doctors of the Year for 2011.

Let me be very plain about this. This is sexual abuse. It should be being shouted from the rooftops by those who care about sexual violence. How this procedure was ever ethically approved is completely beyond me. And the idea that a clitoris can be too big? Sounds like binary-supporting, woman-hating, pleasure-phobic nonsense to me.

If, like me, you find this completely repulsive, feel free to join intersex activists in telling Cornell University.

Then there is the dexamethasone controversy. Dex is being given, now, to pregnant women in US, to make sure their daughters, if they have congenital adrenal hyperplasia, do not develop "ambiguous genitalia." It's not being given to mothers of sons with CAH, because it does nothing to impact on the other characteristics of CAH - it just makes girls "ambiguous genitalia" nice and womanly.

These treatments haven't been medically approved. In fact, there's some ethical concerns because giving dex to pregnant animals leads to birth defects. Early studies with people show brain cell death.

Dr Maria New is one of the world's experts in CAH apparently, and the most enthusiastic cheerleader for pregnant women being given dex. Turns out she also writes papers on women with CAH, not only about "ambiguous genitalia," but on them finding other women sexy in higher numbers than average. One of her collaborators also talks about CAH girls not being interested enough in getting married or playing with dolls. Hell, why wouldn't you prescribe something which might cause brain damage if it's going to result in fewer queers/unnatural women, right?

Pre-natal dex is opposed by intersex activists, endocrinologists and bioethicists.

These are human rights issues beyond doubt. "Intersex 101" was open in it's invitation for non-intersex people to support the struggles for intersex people to have autonomy over their bodies.

And I love their slogan "Everybody equal, nobody left behind."

The support we choose.

Cross posted from my usual spot...

The case of children /young women using their school councillors as a resource to source options for an unwanted pregnancy has had a lot of time in the media. One of the trends in comments from pro-choice and pro “support in schools for all options” has been the concept that teens use the school because home is not a safe environment.
I balked at that, because my own experience of using school support networks was in preference to admitting to my parents that I was not coping. It was my first experience with depression and the first thing the councillor did was hold my hand while I called my mother and admitted I couldn’t do this alone.
I still count my blessings that my parents’ response was one of support, and my family stood by me while I made decisions around staying in school or not, remaining a prefect or not, continuing competitive activities or not.
So while I realise that many, many young people struggle to find safe places and supportive people in their lives, withholding information is not necessarily a sign of dysfunction or abuse.

So when we discuss children requiring the notification of parents before accessing an abortion I have to ask...
Why?
If it is so the parents can have a say, then no. No, no, NO!
I say no for so many reasons, and most of them have been expressed beautifully elsewhere.

Take a peek at Boganette

Or Anthea

Or Luddite journo

Or Ideologically impure


Or over on life is a feminist issue

There is a lot of murmur on the blogosphere around this topic and I don’t need to rehash it.

The other logical (and not unreasonable) reason is that young people going through an experience like pregnancy/ abortion/ adoption should have support.
This I support, but not in the form of “concern trolling” where people act like they are being concerned about someone’s well being in order to maintain control (would any one like to quote some patronising pro-slavery quotes here?).

If taken at face value the key element of support can be provided by any adult in a child’s life.
I’m a support to several young people who are family friends and I really hope that they would feel safe and free from risk of judgement if they came to me.

So why not require an adult (by all means legislate the age if needed) chosen BY THE YOUNG PERSON to be notified? (Not the sexual partner of the youth if under age).
This seems to fulfil all the needs of the group.
The young person is able to access all healthcare options available.
They have a support person to assist them through the process.
There is an adult in this process.

There are SO MANY massive issues with this.
Young people may not choose the most ‘responsible’ person around.
That person may not have the young person’s best interests at heart.
That person may be involved in the relationship that led to the pregnancy.
The person may be covering for a rape that occurred.
The person may use their influence to pressure the youth to make a decision that the youth is not fully comfortable with.

Like I said; a lot of issues.
The problem is that all of the above issues apply to parents as well.

So we are back to square one...

Anyone got any good ideas?

I'm not just a vagina who likes men.

Cross posted from Well behaved women rarely make history

My name is Scuba. Danger. Nurse. – yes my middle name is danger. I am THAT awesome!!
I was born with a fully formed vagina.
As a child I self identified as female with occasional yearnings to be a boy, when I realised I couldn’t climb trees that well.
As an adolescent I developed late at around 16, with acceptable female hormone levels and a socially acceptable female mammarys.
I became attracted to men once the hormones kicked in. Previous to that they were there to take me for bike rides and make dinner (dad) or fight (every other boy).
I occasionally feel that being a lesbian would be an acceptable choice for me when I see a petite masculine featured woman, but don’t really feel like the sex stuff with them, which makes it all a bit half hearted really.
I am in a long term, committed relationship with a man, and if the cysts on my ovaries are not an impediment I would like to one day become a mother by means of sexual male-female reproduction.

Are you confused about why I shared all of this?
It all seems a bit freaking pointless really, since it tells you exactly jack about who I actually am.
It tells you nothing about my hopes, dreams, personality, ethics, morals, lifestyle, and sense of humour, strengths or weaknesses (unless you count climbing trees).

So why do people who are Gay/lesbian/bisexual/trans have to explain every facet of their lives?
Why, when someone comes out as Trans, do people feel an explanation is due as to what “level/stage” they are at?
Why do people feel that if someone is not straight, they can quiz someone on when, where, how and what they like as if they should validate what they feel?

People are people, no matter who they love, and what their junk is.
Let people tell you who they are, in their way, on their terms.
Find out the usual way, by leering at strangers in bars, and comparing notes on your favourite films.
Because my vagina and sexuality tell you zilch about which film stars turn me on, and whether I want kids or can have them, or what I want to do with my life.

Judge people by the sum of their parts. Not their parts, or who they bump parts with.
(sorry had to do it!)

GUEST POST: NZ Aid Programme Risks Harming Women

Sarah nursed her daughter’s child on an empty breast as we sat together in a grubby hospital consulting room. Her daughter looked on with expressionless eyes, unable to comprehend quite what we were talking about. Sarah talks about her life. She struggles to provide for a family of seven: her blind husband and five children. Now she has an extra mouth to feed. Her daughter watching us had been raped repeatedly by a village man and became pregnant with a child she cannot care for: she is fourteen years old with an intellectual disability.

Across the Pacific, women like Sarah and her daughter endure the same sort of discrimination and poverty as women across the globe. In recognition of this fact, earlier this year the United Nations launched a new agency, UN Women, which embodies global commitment to give greater attention to the needs of women and girls.

Our NZ government aid programme is heading in the opposite direction. When asked about how he ensures women’s rights are paid due attention in our aid programme, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully replied that women’s rights are “not the preoccupation I bring to the projects that come to me”. Meanwhile John Hayes, the Associate spokesperson for Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Select Committee, responded to a question late last year about the importance of addressing violence against women in the Pacific by implying it isn’t worth investing in because “it is in their culture".

Indifferent and ignorant, these statements tell us that the men tasked with oversight and leadership of NZ’s aid to developing countries do not concern themselves with the reality that women have different needs and priorities to men. Presumably the Minister and his Associate believe their emphasis on economic development in the aid programme doesn’t require attention to women’s rights. Right?

Wrong. For argument’s sake, let’s put aside the unquestionable moral and human rights reasons for our aid programme to invest in women’s well-being and security. Let’s focus on how wrong Minister McCully and his Associate are to dismiss women’s rights in their efforts for economic development.

Under Minister McCully and the National Government, the NZ aid programme is now moving to invest heavily in areas such as agriculture, fisheries and infrastructure. All these areas involve and impact upon women in different ways to that of men. Ignoring the specific needs and skills of women will undermine the effectiveness and efficiency of our aid programme. It may also harm women, particularly women like Sarah, who are the very people an aid programme does not want to hurt.

Let’s return to Sarah. Like many women across the Pacific she juggles a myriad of activities everyday, trying to run a household, care for her children and husband, gain a cash income and produce food for her family. She will garden and fish for her family’s subsistence needs. Some days, in the small hours of the morning, she will leave her family with her sister-in-law and travel several hours to market, to sell homemade food and surplus from her garden. Once at market, she will sit, all day long, with the other women, until all her produce has been sold. Then she will make the long trip home again.

In efforts to expand incomes from agriculture or fishing, or to build infrastructure to support economic activities, the people who must be considered first by the NZ aid programme are women like Sarah. Sarah has significant skills in agricultural production yet she also needs specific assistance to increase her gain from the time and resources she invests in her garden. Investments by NZ in agriculture need to take into account Sarah’s knowledge and needs. In relation to fisheries, the NZ aid programme must ensure that any investments it makes do not undermine the ability of women like Sarah to feed their families. Women working in the informal sector, such as local markets, need infrastructure that supports their particular transportation needs and working conditions.

These are all issues that will be neglected in the NZ government aid programme because the Minister and his Associate do not believe that women’s concerns are important enough for them to think about in efforts to expand Pacific economic growth. In response to this criticism, they will argue otherwise. Don’t be fooled by their spin. None of these arguments are relevant when we have a Minister who puts his “own ruler over the projects that are coming before” him yet does not preoccupy himself with women’s rights.

This leaves the NZ government aid programme out of step globally and at risk of doing harm to women like Sarah and her daughter – the very people whose lives our aid programme should be working hard to improve.

Jo Spratt of NZ Aid and Development Dialogues (NZADDs)

in support of exclusion

as i mentioned on my own blog a couple of days ago, i've been busy this week doing the taku manawa human rights facilitation programme. one effect is that i'm away from the internet all day & am so busy in the evenings trying to catch up with various things that i don't have time to engage on the blog.

i've been reading what maia has written regarding the wellington young feminists' collective and the various (and often angry) responses to that. i'm sorry that i haven't been able to support her in that discussion, and honestly feel a litte initimidated and nervous about treading into that territory. however, as part of the course, i have to give a 3-5 minute speech tomorrow (huge challenge for me in keeping it that short!) on an aspect of human rights, and this whole issue maia raised & the discussion around it has been churning in my mind all day.

so i'm going to be talking tomorrow about inclusion and exclusion, because i think we don't have enough decent conversations around that. and when we do try to have those discussions, it becomes quite distraught and pretty emotional very quickly. which is not a bad thing. emotion is important, the way people feel about an issue is important, and the fact they are moved to anger or hurt or frustration - well, that needs to be expressed.

but most importantly, disagreement (or maybe dissension is a better word) is a healthy thing. i was concerned by many commenters on maia's thread dismissing the issue she raised as trivial, unnecessarily disruptive & causing feminists to nitpick with each other. i have a very different view - i think that it is in the discussions around small things that the big issues get raised. the raising of the seemingly trivial or minute actually opens the door into things that have major implications, and it allows us to explore our own assumption and the way we are interacting. despite all the anger and some nastiness on that thread, i found so much of value, so much to think about and it made me challenge my thinking about something that i would otherwise have passed by without even noticing. i really don't see how that can be a bad thing.

i know that it's difficult, when there's a group that thinks it has a shared understanding, to dissent or disagree on something, knowing that by doing so you are disrupting that sense of common purpose. and it is highly likely that those with the most power within the group will feel attacked by the challenge. how they responsd is critical: to dismiss the dissent is actually dangerous to the group. it stifles the expansion of thought and the exploration of ideas. it teaches individuals to keep silent when they feel hurt or excluded, and so those individuals disengage from the group and something valuable is lost.

however, there is another side this notion of being inclusive versus feeling excluded, and this is what i'll speak about tomorrow. a lot of the field of human rights is about inclusion (and i don't claim to be any kind of expert in this area, 3 days of training so far can only give me a very shallow overview). it's about behaving in a way that makes others feel welcomed and valued, makes them feel part of the group.

but that very notion, the notion of being inclusive, actually excludes some people. it excludes the people who don't want to be inclusive, who want to stick to their prejudices and who want to make moral & ethical judgements based on the characteristics of another. so, in other words, we are actually not being inclusive when we take a rights-based approach - we can't be if we are to protect those very rights. if we are totally inclusive, then we in fact say that human rights don't matter.

the problem then comes down to who we exclude and how we exclude them. who decides? how do we draw our boundaries so that each individual can clearly determine whether or not they fall within them?

the problem becomes even more difficult when various rights compete against one another. we see that most clearly on this blog at the intersection of ethnicity/race and gender. some of the discussions we've had around the te papa memo on menstruation, for example, or on discussions about the burqa. to generalise, there are times when a person's right to practice their own religion or cultural traditions will clash with the right to not be discriminated on the basis of gender.

i can't find the post now [ETA: ok, i've finally found it], but i do recall writing one where i argued that the wearing the burqa was not a feminist act, even though it is a valid choice for women to make. in that case, i'm excluding women who wear the burqa from the tent of feminism, even though i totally accept that they themselves may believe they have made the choice to wear it from a position of strength and empowerment, and even though they may come under the tent on many other issues. so one person can be both in and out, can be a feminist on some issues and not on others. similarly, i believe that the whole boobquake thing was not a feminist event, even though the majority of those who took part thought of their own participation as an act of empowerment. (i won't go through all the arguments regarding my position on that, as it was very fraught at the time, and i'm only raising it as an example of drawing boundaries.)

but again, we come back to the basic question: who decides? and on what basis?

for many of these issues, the community or the group has to decide. it decides based on debates on a variety of forums, and through these, coming to a shared agreement. of course, there are plenty of times when agreement doesn't happen, when a whole subset feel excluded and rejected, and might leave the group to form another. or the whole group just collapses because no resolution can be achieved.

that is the reality and messiness of human interaction. but just because the end result is often negative (eg a split or collapse of the group or a failure to come to any kind of understanding), it doesn't mean that exclusion is bad, or that discussions about what should be excluded should be off the table. i think, in fact, that we don't have enough discussions about what should be excluded. we don't spend enough time at the edges, trying to determine where the boundary might actually fall. often, we're too afraid to have that discussion, and i know i've chickened out many a time because i just don't feel safe enough and strong enough to fight my point.

that's why i really admire maia (even though i've had my disagreements with her). she has done exactly that: challenged a particular boundary and stated why she thinks a particular post on a facebook group falls outside the boundary of feminism. having read through all the comments, i believe that her arguments are valid, though i might not agree with her solution & prefer alison's instead.

to conclude a rather long & rambling post, what i'm trying to say is that not only is it ok to exclude some things, it is actually crucial to do so. i'm saying it's important to have those difficult discussions about where the boundaries lie. and it doesn't really matter if we can't come to a consensus, because there are some principles that should never be compromised and people should stand their ground and fight for those. to take any other approach is to expect easy answers to difficult solutions, and is often to silence those who are feeling marginalised or hurting.

facilitating human rights

well, i've got an interesting opportunity coming up next year. i'm going to be doing a human rights facilitators course, which will take 7 days. i'm actually really looking forward to this, not only because i get to meet some interesting people, but because i'm really looking forward to developing some skills to become a human rights facilitator.

i see the need for advocacy in various ways. there's the aspect relating to religion, and the need to work on increasing understanding & reducing discrimination, particularly for muslim women & particularly in the area of employment. but also in terms of their ability to go about their day-to-day lives, and the normal interactions they have with the health system, the education system, the local shopping centre staff & so on.

there are the gender aspects as well. the need to teach young women the skills to negotiate better outcomes for themselves from within the family and within the community, especially when they face barriers that prevent them from taking up opportunities. it's a difficult situation, because on the one hand she doesn't want to be alienated from her family but on the other hand she shouldn't have to give up on her dreams. so much activism happens at the personal level, in the every day battles we face in the home. things like negotiating the sharing of unpaid work & child-rearing, or ensuring that there is enough support at home so that she can take up a promotion. i'm hoping that the course will give me something in that area which i can pass on to others.

then there is the whole area of institutional power structures, and how to negotiate to ensure women have access to those and have the ability to effectively participate in making decisions that effect the whole community. this is the toughest battle ground, where people with entrenched views resist any attempt at change and have the power to ensure their resistance is pretty effective. i'm not sure that the course will help in this area, but i'm definitely hoping.

it's only 7 days, so can only cover so much. and as for me, i hate studying & assignments and the like. i somehow managed to complete a masters degree but hated every single minute of it. even the fourth year of my bachelor's degree was a struggle. so, even though i know the answer is to take some longer-term training to really gain the skills i need. i'm just not ready for that. i can, however, cope with 7 days and whatever i learn won't go to waste. i totally want to thank those who have given me the opportunity to do this.

on the factory floor

i'm not into reality tv shows. i've managed to avoid all the survivor thingies, and anything that involves gordon ramsey. i've never been interested fear factors or amazing races, can't be bothered with runways or top models. on the other hand, i do love master chef, and managed to sit through bits of american idol this year (never again, though).

but i've found another reality show that i think i'm going to be watching regularly. i really liked "undercover boss" last night on tv1 which, if you have somehow missed the promos, is about CEOs of major corporations going undercover and doing entry level jobs within their own companies. this first episode had the CEO of waste management do various jobs, from cleaning toilets, picking up rubbish, sorting rubbish & the like.

ok, i know it's a straight advertising for these companies. i know the majority of the negative stuff is cut out, and only the bits that put the CEO, the company and/or employees in a good light are retained. obviously none of these companies would have agreed to take part if that wasn't the case. and i also know that any changes made to company policies to deal with the issues raised are likely to be short-lived and met with resistance by many in top & middle management.

but even knowing all of that, i still found it refreshing to watch a show that focused on the real experiences of working people, that showed (a small part of) the reality of their lives and struggles, at least in a lot more detail than what we usually get to see. i see this programme as one that brings something positive to the fight for workers' rights.

it'll be interesting to see how it the series continues. next week they're apparently looking at the hooters chain. hmm.


in other news, an update to an earlier post on chinese workers at foxconn, larvateus prodeo reports:

As this BBC news article discusses, after changes to working conditions and salaries at Foxconn, it seems that other workers have started going on strike in factories across China, also winning substantial pay rises. But, interestingly, some workers are also demanding the right to elect their own union officials...

Workers at foreign-owned firms, from the reporting, seem more likely to strike, undoubtedly because they believe that the foreign-owned firms are more susceptible to pressure on this front; it’s also possibly due to the fact that foreign-owned companies tend to attract better-educated and higher-skilled workers. And the strikes are furtive, fearful affairs.

But, still, the consequences of these strikes could be extremely interesting. In the short term, it means a bit better life for millions of Chinese factory workers.

let's hope so, and wishing them all well in their efforts to organise collectively.

human rights review tribunal appointments

the human rights commission is a body that is close to my heart. this is the organisation that enforces my daughters' rights to wear hijab with their school uniform, along with long skirts or trousers underneath the skirt. this is the organisation that gives me the strength to insist that my girls can play any sport they like in full trackpants and hijab. this is the organisation that stands between me and a legal headscarf ban such as the ones they have in france and turkey.

so it pains me to hear that the human rights review tribunal, which is part of the process of enforcing human rights in this country, has had people appointed to it without due process. I/S first highlighted the issue:

Firstly, it confirms that the cronies were appointed without any interview or formal process. They were "well known to Ministers" who were "satisfied as to their suitability for appointment". And that, apparently, was the end of the matter. There was no examination of qualifications beyond a standardised curriculum vitae form, and certainly no formal test of their ability to contribute meaningfully to the work of the Tribunal as recommended by its chair. They were "well known to Ministers", and so they were in. Whether this is a suitable appointments process for a quasi-constitutional body with power to overturn legislation such as the HRRT is left as an exercise for the reader.

To add insult to injury, the nomination of these cronies displaced more qualified candidates. Power had initially proposed the reappointment of eight existing, experienced members of the HRRT. Four of them were dumped to make room for these cronies. These included all three legal practitioners, who the chair had specifically requested be retained to provide a core of legal capability "to ensure continuity in the decision-making process of the Tribunal". Faced with a choice between an effective human rights body, and jobs for their mates, National chose the latter.

it has also been highlighted by tumeke, who highlights the fact that this issue has failed to hit the news headlines. at all.

for me it's personal. these are the people who will make a decision if i take a case like this to it (and mediation has failed):

Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN), one of two Muslims in Congress, reported that protesters chanted "the N-word, the N-word, 15 times" as he left the Cannon House Office Building with Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a leader of the civil rights movement. Protesters also spat on and shouted bigoted slurs at other lawmakers.

it bothers me that there would be people making a decision who don't have the legal expertise to support them, and who don't think human rights are particularly important. it bothers me that these appointments have happened under the radar, without any media scrutiny at all. actually, it doesn't just bother me. it makes me feel less safe.