I won’t lie – I pride myself on my pro-feminist ideology, further extended and nuanced through a black queer lens through which to view the world.  I spend a considerable amount of time agonizing over the privileges that have been bestowed upon me because of what is assumed to be between my legs and its extension into my self-presentation to the world.  I am aware that, even with a genderqueer identity, my masculine gender expression, especially in terms of clothing and name, grants me an indefinite number of conveniences, leg-ups, head-starts, and other forms of unfairly distributed advantages that are denied to women and transpeople.  But, no matter how hard I work to recognize and reject my male privilege, there will always be a block of privileges that are unknown to or unseen by me; hence, this is how privilege sustains itself – it is invisible to its beneficiaries, even those who fight to challenge inequality.

Again, another admission: I wish I could dress and behave in ways that more accurately express my genderqueer identity.  But, I’m both too comfortable in boys’ clothing and too afraid/unmotivated to deal with the expected harassment, violence, outcasting, and discrimination that I would face if I were to stop...

Now 42 years ago, the United States Supreme Court struck down any remaining anti-miscegenation laws in the case Loving vs. Virginia, Mildred and Richard Loving’s challenge to the state of Virginia’s ban on the marriage between people of different races.  But, a recent Justice of the Peace’s denial of a Louisiana couple’s application for a marriage license indicates that the debates over interracial marriage are hardly over.

Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana justice of the peace, denied Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay, an interracial couple, a marriage license citing concerns for their children.  The couple does not currently have children, so the justice is operating under the assumption that, once married, the couple would seek to have children, presumably through conception rather than adoption. ...

Before I dive into what can quickly an essay on the social, not biological, construction of “sex”, I have to give credit to Professor Martin Weinberg, with whom I have taken the course Constructing Sexuality and will hopefully work with more throughout my graduate training.  My undergraduate training in sociology and gender and women’s studies provided me the skills to articulate the perspective that gender is not natural, rather it is a social construct; we as humans come up with the categories of “woman” and “man”, determine the criteria for appropriately falling into either category, and have in place a number of consequences for failing to be a woman or a man.  But, I must say, I was at first confused by Martin’s scheduled lecture on “the social construction of sex.”  At that point, I thought we had given sex over to biology and would settle for the nagging reminder that there’s not just male and female – there’s also intersexed.

I can relate to some of the disappointment with either the inaction, slow action, or counteraction of the Obama administration regarding sexual and gender equality.  Over a year ago, then-candidate Barack Obama made a number of promises that he, now as President, has either backed down from, disregarded, or moved in the opposite direction (like on the Defense of Marriage Act).  While it’s nice to have a friend in the White House, we need not forget that much of the work it will take to realize full equality in a legal, social, and cultural sense will be our own doing.  Though my generation was not around for the Stonewall riots and gay liberation, and was too young to understand any of the emergence of AIDS and the mobilization for better treatment and prevention options, we have to remember the power we hold as people to create change for ourselves.

My concern is that we’ve become increasingly obsessed with making changes...

Michelle Chen, among a few others, wrote recently about the opposition among LGBT and queer people, particularly those of color, to the further expansion of US hate crimes laws: http://www.racewire.org/archives/2009/08/do_unto_others_the_moral_slope.html.  To quickly summarize their argument… given the unequal application of the law, namely the racial inequality in the criminal justice and legal systems, why should we further contribute to the power the law has in terms of incarceration.  Furthermore, given our increasing awareness of the physical, emotional, and sexual violence that transgender people face in prisons, why would we want to put more transphobic in prison for longer periods of time.  Just for clarity sake, I should note that the recent discussion in Congress is about the Matthew Shepard act, which would expand federal hate crime laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.

Chen et al.’s argument is not to be taken lightly.  Like with...

Our work on sexuality, as researchers, educators, therapists, and advocates, has everything to do with race, ethnicity, gender, class, ability, age, spirituality, and nationality.  If NSRC's most recent summer institute, Race, Gender, and Sexuality, wasn't evidence enough, the continued inequalities in sexual and reproductive health should be.  See, for example, Michelle Chen's recent post on RaceWire: http://www.racewire.org/archives/2009/07/culture_wars_killing_reproduct.html 

For those who are hip to black feminism, womanism, third world feminism, and/or other strands of feminism that emerged to challenge the exclusive, narrow focus of white, middle-class, heterosexual feminists of the West, I am not suggesting anything new.  Audre Lorde and other feminist scholars have argued that all forms of oppression intersect, and thus efforts to eradicate one form of oppression must seek to eradicate them all.  Sexuality, certainly, is included in this; homophobia, heterosexism, sexual violence, human trafficking, and sexual inequality generally all intersect with racism, xenophobia, nationalism, sexism, transphobia, ableism, ageism, religious intolerance, and classism.

Throughout the year I served as the chair of the Campus Coalition for Sexual Literacy at Indiana University,...

Earlier this week, Megan Rauscher reported the findings of a recent study on race/ethnicity among MSMs, or men who have sex with men, in San Francisco: http://in.reuters.com/article/health/idINTRE5654MK20090706  In the study, published in the June 2009 issue of AIDS Behavior, a scholarly journal devoted to research on AIDS, researchers Raymond and McFarland seek to explore a paradox found in recent research on AIDS among MSMs: HIV/AIDS rates are much higher among Black men who have sex with men, but they are no more likely to engage in “risky” sexual practices (e.g., sex without condoms, sex under the influence of drugs and alcohol). 

Like previous research, they found that Black MSMs are more likely to have partners of the same race.  It’s the rest of the research that turns this seemingly innocent same-race preference into something much more disgusting: among their Asian, Latino, and white participants, Black men were consistently rated as the least desirable among these four racial/ethnic groups and perceived as the greatest risk for HIV/AIDS infection.  Even among their Black participants, they found that Black men were not their top...

On The Root, Cord Jefferson raised the commonly asked question: if lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people want to gain the acceptance of the heterosexual majority, why do they dress and behave in ways considered unacceptable, far-fetched, and hypersexual?  http://theroot.com/views/where-s-pride-pride-parades  This question holds considerable weight, whereas LGBT and queer people continue to fight the stereotypes of being consumed by sex, as well as more damaging stereotypes (e.g., pedophilia).  Jefferson makes allusions to the images of Black Civil Rights activists wearing suits and skirts, making clear their message that Blacks, just like any other race of people, are good, moral, upstanding people who deserve the same shot at success and happiness. 

What Jefferson probably doesn’t know is that gay activists have taken on that approach before – Homophile activists in the 1950s.  Recall the activists in front of the White House, dressing...

Who knew that a college could suspend its students for their actions outside of the university - actions that are not illegal or harmful to onself or others.  Recently, John Gechter was suspended from Grove City College for starring in gay pornographic films: http://www.sharon-herald.com/local/local_story_129223109.html?keyword=topstory

Gechter noted that he does such films and other forms of modeling to pay for his education.  Certainly, other students are doing the same thing - but maybe in other jobs and professions.  What's the difference?

A friend just emailed me a recently released commecial by the National Organization for Marriage calling for greater opposition to the legalization of same-gender marriage:

. 

The group, founded in 2007, seeks to combate marriage equality initiatives at the local, state, and national level.  In addition to their anti-same-gender marriage commercial, they are also leading a "BUYcott" to counteract the boycott that LGBT people are leading in California against those businesses that contributed to the pro-Proposition 8 push (the side that successfully outlawed same-sex marriage in the state).  You can see more about the National Organization for Marriage on their website.

Besides the obvious, the organizations plight to strip away the rights of an already marginalized group, I am disgusted by the group's use of diversity rhetoric to garner greater support.  In their commercial, one person even notes that they are a "rainbow coalition" of people from all different racial and ethnic backgrounds.  The irony of the "rainbow coalition" language is that the Rainbow Coalition, led by Jesse Jackson, sought to include LGBT people and advocate for sexual equality, as well as gender, race, ethnicity, religion, and class.  NOM is using liberal rhetoric of diversity and inclusion in their fight to marginalize...

Only a few days after the Iowan state supreme court found legal limits on marriage to heterosexual couples unconstitutional, the Vermont state congress overrode the state's governor, Jim Douglas, to legalize same-sex marriage.  See the full story here: http://www.365gay.com/news/gay-marriage-legal-in-vermont/

This now brings the total count to Vermont, Iowa, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.  Of course, bills are being considered elsewhere, including New Hampshire and Maine, and the constitutionality of Prop 8 is being challenged in courts currently in California.  We're beginning to see progress for the "Six by Twelve" campaign for marriage equality in the New England region (a goal set for 2012).  Woo hoo!

Update (1:15pm EST): As of today, Washington, DC recognizes same-gender marriages from other states.  See here for the full story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040702200.html?hpid=topnews

No April fools here today.  IU’s Campus Coalition for Sexual Literacy pulled off its first major event today: Sexual Literacy Fair.  With 50 or so attendees and 15 on- and off-campus groups represented, I’d say the day was quite a success.  Attendees had a chance to find out more about CCSL and the sexual literacy movement, as well as about information on sexuality research, education, advocacy, and resources and services at Indiana University, as well as in the city of Bloomington.  A number of attendees were students who attended for extra credit in one of their courses, many who had questions about the paths they should follow to realize their dream of making a difference in the world and/or individuals’ lives with respect to sexuality.

And, without skipping a beat, we’re now turning our attention to our April 27th regional training: Transcending Boundaries in Sexuality Research: Bridging Disciplines & Communities - http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/article/nsrc_regional_training  I recall a certain post back in January that is filled with pessimism.  Now, we’ve really gained momentum! Up until today, I’ve been concerned about the sustainability of the group, but I discovered today a number of...

Quite an interesting article on the science of sexual identity in Mother Jones. 

I’m a little disappointed that I’m just now seeing this article, but the timing is great – I just found out that I’ll be teaching Sexual Diversity in the fall!  The article, a little long and slow to load, is well worth the read.  It speaks to the ambivalence I believe many sexuality scholars, advocates, and just everyday people have about our understanding about the origins of sexual orientation.  We have moved away from “sexual preference”, dismissing any allusions to choice, toward “sexual orientation”.  We’ve all heard the anti-choice argument: “Why would anyone choose to be gay, putting up with all of the homophobia and other nonsense.”  It’s a valid point: most of us are simply “oriented” toward certain people romantically and/or sexually.

However, there are some competing claims that we must reconcile.  Sexuality is fluid.  Sexuality is innate.  Sexuality is socially constructed.  Before the creation of the “homosexual” and “heterosexual”...

Although we can count the number of states that grant legal marriage to same-gender couples on one hand and still have fingers left over, legal marriage between people of the same gender exists in the US.  However, the US Census has announced that, for the 2010 census, it will list all same-sex couples as "unmarried partners" regardless of their marital status.

The justification for continuing to make same-sex marriages invisible is the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (signed by then-President Clinton) that allows, or really mandates that the federal government ignores same-sex marriages sanctioned by states.  Can you believe this political discrimination has continued for 13 years now?  Well, considering Clinton signed it in, and then we had 8 years of Bush, I suppose that's not really all that surprising.

Visibility or invisibility in the Census has great political and social consequences.  For example, the 2000 census has made visible the large number of people that are multiracial/ethnic - a known fact, but the statistics of just how many people identify as such is powerful.  Although the count of the number of same-gender partnerships is helpful, namely for LGBT groups like HRC and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, as well as for research...

Obma Administration to Support UN declaration decriminalizing homosexuality. 

Today, news was released that the United States would join 66 other countries in signing a United Nations declaration to decriminalize homosexuality.  This declaration goes further to endorse support for human rights protections along the lines of sexual orientation and gender identity. 

This declaration was proposed in December 2008, but, at that time we were still under the Bush Administration.  Not surprisingly, the US withheld its endorsement of this declaration; Bush indicated that he opposes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but felt that the declaration would interfere with states laws.  Oddly enough, Obama fully endorsed the declaration, noting that this policy would not actually change any laws in the US.  (Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 already overturned sodomy laws in the United States.) 

I am very enthusiastic about this move and see this as a sign of genuineness of Obama’s promises to support and protect human and civil rights for all.  But, I am concerned about the number of counties that refuse to sign on – using excuses...

This is a response to an article posted on Washington Post.com.

Pope Benedict XVI, during today's visit to Africa, announced that condoms are not the answer for containing the global HIV/AIDS crisis, particularly in Africa, and they actually make the situation worse.  It is assumed that his suggestion is similar to that of his predecessor, Pope John Paul II; to avoid risk of HIV/AIDS transmission, abstinence is offered as the best solution: “the pope said a responsible and moral attitude toward sex would help fight the disease.”

This position is not new – it is simply a reiteration of the abstinence stance and now an explicit opposition to condoms as a strategy to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS.  I must say, I am not surprised by this position, but I’m aggravated that religious dogma that has devastating effects is still being pushed around the world, particularly in areas where few alternative messages are pushed.  Beyond the rigidity of the Church’s position on condom use, I see a number of very problematic flaws with its stance.

Condoms make the situation worse:  The rationale for this statement is the assumption that condoms give a false sense of security and that they are ineffective against the transmission of...

Last night, Jessica Valenti, founder of feministing.com, graced Indiana University with her presence giving a brief talk about her two books, and the third, forthcoming book The Purity Myth.  To an almost-full auditorium of young people of all genders, races, ethnicities, and sexualities, Jessica offered her take on the continued importance of feminism, especially among our youth.  Although rather subtle, one key point of her talk was that today’s feminists must continue to fight the same issues of their foremothers – sexual double standards, misogynistic representations of women, perpetual exotification and infantilizing of women of all ages, etc, etc.  But, these old issues (and many new) are tackled with new strategies – blogging.  Her website, feministing.com, has grown from a individually-led project to a blogosphere community of young feminists.  Again, though not an explicit point, Jessica highlighted that blogging and other advances of today are great ways for our rising generation to educate others and themselves and to create change.  Given the depressing decline of feminism in the US, or at least the number of people willing to identify themselves as feminists without the fear of being labeled a hairy, man-hating lesbian communist (what labels are there for men who identify as feminists?),...

The expression "what a difference a day makes" comes to mind when I think about the progress the Campus Coalition for Sexual Literacy at Indiana University has made since the last time I blogged about our CCSL chapter.  Feeling pessimistic, disappointed, and filled with doubt and confusion, I had little hope for the progress that our CCSL chapter could make.  But, many steps have been made sense the start of this semester, including the actively planning for our Sexual Literacy Fair and the initial planning for our upcoming Regional Training.

In early January, as suggested by our chapter’s advisor, we held a CCSL Representatives Lunch, where we invited members of various sexuality-related organizations and departments to hear about sexual literacy and to take part in our group’s work.  All but a few organizations attended, and most of those representatives have continued to be involved in CCSL since our lunch.  At the lunch, a number of ideas were suggested, including a Sexual Literacy Fair, sexuality-related leadership training for undergraduate students, and putting together a sexual literacy panel for classes, among others.  Soon after our lunch, we held the first planning meeting for our Sexual Literacy Fair.

After a somewhat frustrating back-and-forth with the room reservation office, we...

Proposition 8 passed in California on November 4th, 2008 and The Advocate released its issue #1021 in December 2008, featuring the text "Gay is the New Black" on its cover ... and I'm just now blogging about this all on February 16, 2009.  The issue remains: race and racism must be addressed among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer communalities, sexuality and heterosexism must be addressed among communities of color, and the relationship between LGBTQ and communities of color must be assessed and improved.

I'm sure most people know the story by now: immediately following the November 4th election in the US, statistics were released indicating the passage of Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in the state of California.  Included in these numbers were breakdowns by a variety of sociodemographic variables.  The number that caused quite a stir: an overwhelming majority of Black voters in CA approved the proposition.  These numbers were taken out of context, leading to an explicit blame for the proposition's passage on Black Americans.  Although later reports, including one from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, report a much lower percentage of Black voters who supported the proposition, the issue remains: racial hostility among LGBTQ people reared its ugly head.  Even today, with a much lower number of Blacks favoring the proposition's passage, critiques of...

In the mid-1990s, the international conventions on sexuality shifted to discuss sexuality as a human right.  The specific details of such a claim are unknown to me, but that is a powerful statement: sexuality is a human right.  Unfortunately, looking in the US, we can see that certain opportunities are constructed as unalienable rights, yet there exists an entire system that unevenly distributes access to such rights - some do not even have access to those rights.  I will use suffrage as an example: in theory, all US citizens have the right to vote.  In practice, there are barriers in place that make that right less accessible for some (new identification guidelines, etc) and inaccessible to others (many ex-felons have lost their right to vote). 

It is my intention here to raise the following question about sexuality: though we may construct it as a human right, even a human need that must be satisfied, is it really a privilege that some enjoy and others don't?  For several reasons, I would say it is a privilege.  Pulling from the notion of intersectionality (the interlocking of systems of oppression, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexuality, class, age, ability), I would argue that there are many who are free to enjoy and explore their sexual selves without (many) limitations, while there are others who face many limitations, and others are completely robbed of free...

This weekend, Bloomington, Indiana celebrated its sixth annual http://pridefilmfestival.org/.  I had the pleasure of attending, now for the second year in a row.  Besides seeing great films, both short and full-length, mainstream and indie, the festival reminds me that Bloomington is as gay-friendly as many of its members claims it to be.  Without seeing a mass of fellow queer people, I often forget, namely because I am surrounded by heterosexuals during the week.  But I digress.

The shorts are usually cute or arouse a chuckle, but it is the feature films that really move me.  This year's "moving" films include XXY, La Nouveau Monde, and Were the World Mine.  The first deals with the troubles faced by a young intersexed girl, particularly surrounding her choice or her parents' choice regarding the gender she would live in for the rest of her life.  The second addresses some of the concerns that arise for same-gender couples that become parents, namely the contradiction they face between their own family and the biological-link required of families in mainstream discourse of family.  These a good films!

But, what most moved me was Were the World...

What an honor!  This summer, I was one of four students selected to serve as campus leaders of the new Campus Coalition for Sexual Literacy project of the NSRC.  Before I even left the NSRC Summer Institute I was sending out enthusiastic emails to get the CCSL chapter started at Indiana University.  A number of students shared my excitment - some feeling relieved that a group that supports their interests now exists.  And, with ease, I gained the support of the Center for Sexual Health Promotion at IU: http://www.sexualhealth.indiana.edu/.

As with any student organization, I followed the path to gaining official recognition from the university - tabled at the incoming student fair, attended student organization training, etc.  And, with financial support coming from NSRC, I began the process of creating a bank account for my CCSL chapter.  With a decent turn out at our first monthly meeting and a high level of excitment about getting the group running, it seemed that things were headed in the right direction.

The month of October and beyond seemed to prove otherwise.  I would say that my first mistake was encouraging an active component of membership, including projects that small groups of members would pursue to push our mission of sexual literacy on campus.  While this seemed to be ideal for our coalition model, it seemed to scare members away after the first meeting.  It's quite disappointing for me to see...