Posts Tagged ‘Social Compact Issues’

Google Steps to the Plate, Now What?

Posted by

Yesterday, Google joined Cisco, Kimpton Hotels and the Gates Foundation in increasing pay to gays and lesbians to make up for the approximately $1,000 difference gay couples pay in domestic partnership taxes in comparison to their heterosexual counterparts.

So… what does this mean? Is this the case study we share with our employers to do the same or to our oppressors to validate our “marriages?” Do we just hang this up on our wall of accomplishments and hope that others follow suit? Just what does it mean that Google has returned one of the best results to its employees?

It means that talented gay and lesbian individuals power one of the most common household names, that the keywords you typed into the Google search bar has been routed to find your #1 response by someone who could be queer. Google is outing itself as a company with approximately 700 gay and lesbian employees and validating their equal rights as citizens of this country. It raises the profile of gays and lesbian in the workforce.

What can these companies do to keep the momentum?

They should continue to promote their policy by seeking opportunities so speak with gay and lesbian media (and general media as well) on the important decision to vouch for progress for the gay and lesbian community. This will create additional loyalty and showcase them as thought-leaders in diversity issues.

They can keep the momentum by encouraging partners and vendors to do the same. Yes, this sounds a bit like advocacy work – which is far off each company’s agenda in terms of gay and lesbian issues – but I am willing to bet each of these company’s LGBT employee groups would be willing to start this conversation.

What would you advise? What would you like to see? All comments are welcome!

| July 2nd, 2010 No Comments »
Tags: · · · · · · · · ·

Transgender Win: American Eagle Updates Corporate Policy

Posted by

Thanks to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and Make the Road New York, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting equity and opportunity for all New Yorkers, retail chain American Eagle has committed to changing its corporate guidelines and employee handbook to include transgender-friendly policies.

The retailer had an anti-LGBT policy on personal appearance for employees, requiring staff to wear gender-specific clothing. While this may not seem like a huge victory, the popular chain employs more than 2,000 people in more than 60 stores across New York State. That means that not only do current transgender employees are now allowed to wear the clothing that best expresses their gender, but that potential recruits will now not be deterred from working at the popular clothing store for fear of gender discrimination.

In addition to allowing workers to wear what they please, American Eagle has also agreed to train its staff on transgender issues, including which pronouns to use when referring to customers and fellow co-workers.

Although the change originated from a lawsuit that American Eagle decided to settle out of court on, an American Eagle company spokeswoman said “We wholeheartedly believe that transgender individuals should be treated equally.”

According to this New York Daily News article, the resulting settlement is “the first crackdown against a retailer under the section of the state's Human Rights Law that bars employers from discriminating against applicants because of their gender identity.” New York State’s Human Rights Law originally passed in 1945 was the first of its kind in the United States, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex or marital status.”

While this is fantastic for transgender persons in New York State, let’s remember that a number of states still do not have any state-level protection for LGBT employees.

Of course, the Family Research Council (see here) has come out (no pun intended) stating that this violates the rights of American Eagle and its employees by imposing “cross-dressing” policies. Bill O’Reilly also covered the American Eagle announcement (see video below), seemingly comparing transgender people to "ewoks," as well as repeatedly asking the question, “So, if your name is Fred, you can dress like Dolly Parton?”

Now I love me some Dolly Parton (ewoks are another story) but comparisons like these only serve to bolster ongoing misconceptions about transgenders, particularly about what it actually means to be a transgender person.

Transgender is the state of one’s gender identify, self-identifying as a woman, man, neither or both. It doesn’t necessarily imply any specific form of sexual orientation. The term “cross-dresser,” while not exactly defined, is a person that identifies with one sex but who wears the clothing of the opposite sex.

It’s factually incorrect to suggest that all transgender are “cross-dressers” or vice versa, and it perpetrates misleading stereotypes about transgender people. This is why the Out Front Blog continues to stress that language matters and that words have power.

| May 20th, 2010 1 Comment »
Tags: · · ·

Gay? King Says Keep It Quiet

Posted by

This week, Iowa Congressman Steve King was a guest on Washington Watch Weekly, the radio program hosted by Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC). George Rekers is one of the FRC’s co-founders…you might be familiar with him.  King offered his thoughts on the upcoming Congressional vote on ENDA, or as the FRC affectionately calls it, “The Cross-Dresser Protection Act.”  King also had some wise words for the LGBT community, stating that if gays weren’t so open about their sexual orientation, they wouldn’t be discriminated against.

A few snippets of the interview, courtesy of a great HuffPo article by Alvin McEwen:

Tony Perkins: Someone could come in dressed one day as a woman or a man, the next day they come in dressed as the opposite sex.

Steve King: I can imagine someone coming in and interviewing one day in man’s clothes and come back the next day and apply for a job in woman’s clothes, and then setting up a lawsuit in a sting operation to harass our religious organizations.

King’s main issue is with people “wearing their sexuality on their sleeve” (Ed. Note –I have yet to see a gay-sleeved shirt). That ultimately leads to “entrapment legalized by ENDA,” violating the individual rights of employers to decide who to hire or fire at their own discretion.

So, clearly the FRC has major problems with ENDA, stating that it grants special rights to homosexuals, while ignoring those of employers. While I could go on for pages about the FRC and ENDA (particularly that the FRC’s assertion that ENDA would mandate the employment of homosexuals in inappropriate occupations…what exactly is an inappropriate occupation, I wonder?), I’d like to point out two of the FRC’s main issues with ENDA:

  • Such legislation affords special protection to a group that is not disadvantaged.
  • The issue is not job discrimination.

Now I don’t mean to get all Webster’s dictionary on you, but one of the definitions of disadvantaged is “lacking.” Can we honestly say that the LGBT community isn’t lacking the same advantages given to its non-LGBT counterparts? The ability to marry? The ability for a lesbian couple to send their child to the school of their choice

And the issue absolutely IS job discrimination. LGBT individuals should be afforded the same rights given to their straight contemporaries when it comes to employment, namely that they should not be denied a job or fired from one solely based on their sexual orientation.

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and subsequent bills) made it illegal to separate school students based on race, was that giving “special” rights to non-whites? What if a teacher didn’t WANT a black student in their classroom? Or how about the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibited wage discrepancies based on sex? What if an employer decided that he/she didn’t want to hire a woman? Based on FRC logic, wouldn’t that fall under “employer hiring discretion?” Yet, I can’t find a darn thing on the FRC website about the Equal Pay Act. Interesting.

While I didn’t mean for this post to focus solely on the FRC and ENDA, I do think that the FRC’s messaging, including King’s comment on being publicly out, continues to further the misconception that sexuality is a preference and that LGBTs are solely identified on the basis of sexual acts or attraction. Fostering the notion that homosexual conduct is harmful to those engaging in it, as well as being associated with negative physical and psychological health, is not only inaccurate – it’s harmful and hateful and strives to keep LGBTs in the proverbial closet.

And because I can’t think of anything better to end this blog with, I shall steal from the ever-wise, previously cited Alvin McEwen, “Closets are for clothes, not people.” 

| May 13th, 2010 1 Comment »
Tags: · · ·

LGBT Seniors Receive More SAGE Wisdom

Posted by

I don’t spend a ton of time thinking about what life will be like when I qualify for an AARP card, although I have given some thought as to what I’ll look like when I’m 60-plus. I’m confident that my senior self will definitely be rocking a fly tracksuit and if I’m lucky, the same white fuzzy hair as my Grandma. One thing I do know (and no, it isn’t the fact that I will most likely NOT be receiving Social Security payments) is that my LGBT counterparts are far more likely to live in poverty and to face social and community isolation. As readers of this blog, you’re aware of the challenges facing the LGBT community today and in the future, but imagine facing those obstacles when you’re in your 60s, 70s, 80s or even 90s?

This week, SAGE (Services & Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders) released a new study titled “Improving the Lives of LGBT Older Adults,” that comprehensively examines issues facing the LGBT senior community.  SAGE is an incredibly organization, and has previously been a featured Q&A on this very blog, and it is the world’s oldest and largest non-profit agency that is dedicated to serving and advocating for LGBT seniors.

Working with the Movement Advancement Project and the American Society on Aging, the National Senior Citizens Law Center and the Center for American Progress, the SAGE report is the first major collaboration between LGBT advocacy organizations and aging organizations that examines issues facing LGBT seniors.  Focusing on three major areas, here are some highlights (or as you read them, I’m tempted to say “lowlights” as some of these findings are heartbreaking…):

  • LGBT elders are less financially secure due to a lifetime of discrimination, as well as laws and programs that fail to offer the protection and support afforded to their heterosexual counterparts.
  • LGBT seniors have a harder time achieving good health and healthcare. The major reasons for this have included nursing home and hospital visitation policies, as well as inhospitable healthcare environments, although the LGBT and ally community received a huge boost from President Obama when he announced new healthcare protections for LGBT citizens and families. 
  • LGBT seniors are more likely to face social isolation. In addition to living alone, older LGBTs tend to feel less-than-welcome in mainstream aging groups and programs, like senior centers.

The report outlines the issues and offers solutions that will help LGBT seniors be treated with the dignity and respect they, and the entire LGBT community, deserve. So, I urge all you FH Out Front readers to stop and think – what if this was your Grandma or Grandpa? How would you want them to be treated?

 

| April 20th, 2010 2 Comments »
Tags: ·

Powerful People

Posted by

As we end yet another week, some powerful people are being recognized for their contributions to the LGBT community and their prominence in the national spotlight. And no, I'm not talking about the return of Glee or the series finale of Ugly Betty, though both merit my praise for raising awareness of our community while being consistently entertaining.

Let's start with Out's "4th Annual Power 50." This list recognizes America's most influential gay men and women. After I didn't find my name on the list (must have been #51), I spent some time reviewing those individuals who earned the spotlight. Among my favorites (with their corresponding Out descriptions):

  • #50: Urvashi Vaid: "In her 25 years as an LGBT rights activist, attorney, and author, Vaid has lead the NGLTF and held positions at the ACLU and the Ford Foundation. Currently the executive director of the Arcus Foundation, a key grant-maker supporting gay rights charities, she was honored in 2009 by the Equality Foundation as an LGBT Icon."
  • #30: Dustin Lance Black (friend of Bryan's): "The Oscar-winning Milk screenwriter came off the award hot last year, finishing his directorial debut, What’s Wrong with Virginia?, which stars Ed Harris and Jennifer Connelly, narrating a documentary about Mormon influence on Prop. 8’s defeat, and writing a screenplay for a biopic of J. Edgar Hoover, which has attracted Ron Howard’s production team, the directorial interest of Clint Eastwood, and, in turn, super-early Oscar buzz."
  • #28: Dan Choi: "With his stirring speech at the National Equality March on Washington in October, discharged Lt. Dan Choi became the face and voice of the rally and underscored the personal aspect of our political fight for gay marriage equality and the repeal of DADT. He clashed with the HRC among other gay groups when he was arrested for chaining himself to the White House gates in March, Choi continues to be the U.S.’s most outspoken serviceman."
  • #24: Anthony Romero: "Under Romero’s fearless leadership, the membership of the ACLU has doubled since he started to serve as executive director in 2001, and the organization has taken to task everyone from the state of California for its ban on gay marriage to President Obama, whose administration the group is urging not to back down from prosecuting the 9/11 terrorist subjects in civilian court."
  • #12: Rich Ross: "Disney reaffirmed its status as an outpost of progressiveness in the movie industry last October by making Rich Ross the first openly gay studio chief in history. Having steered the careers of both Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers as president of Disney Channels Worldwide, Ross has wasted little time in bringing in fresh blood and cutting the number of movies on the slate (C’est la vie, Wild Hogs 2). With Steve Jobs as the studio’s biggest individual investor, expect to see a radical new approach to distribution with Apple’s new iPad."
  • #8: Joe Solmonese: "This year the Human Rights Campaign celebrates its 30th anniversary. As president since 2005, Solmonese oversees the largest LGBT group in the country, numbering more than 750,000 members. Despite criticism because the president does not support gay marriage per se, the HRC hosted Obama at its 2009 annual dinner, which preceded the National Equality March in Washington in October. The event garnered much-needed coverage in mainstream media and momentum and counted Lady Gaga among its guests."

Each one of the 50 individuals recognized give us the opportunity to do what we do every day– to openly advocate for and market to the LGBT community. By using their prominence for the good of the cause, they open doors for us to follow. Their "mainstream" status takes us one step closer to acknowledgement and inclusivity. Who were your favorites on the list?

The other news about a powerful person in our community came last night. In a memo to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, President Obama ordered most hospitals in the country to grant the same visitation rights to gay and lesbian partners that they do to married heterosexual couples. This means that any hospital receiving Medicare and Medicaid money honor all patients' advance directives, including those designating who gets family visitation privileges.

Thank you, Mr. President. I can't imagine what our community has gone through specifically related to this issue– being turned away from visiting the ones we love most in a final hour of need. To know that soon we may have the right to be at the bedside to say goodbye to someone who was our most important hello is a huge step in giving us the rights we deserve.

 

| April 16th, 2010 No Comments »
Tags: · · · · · · ·

« Older Entries