TheRaven7 wrote:I understand the purpose of Gay Pride and coming out parties and all the other pomp and circumstance, but if people aren't careful this could work against us.
TheRaven7 wrote:The problem is the Gay Identity. Rather than combat heteronormativity, the "Gay Community" has become identified as a class of people with distinct culture, lifestyle (I hate this word), and traditions. One shouldn't have to identify as a "gay person". One should be able to simply be homosexual and not "a homosexual".
Of course this is mostly the consequence of the heteronormativity, because it was the only way for gays to come out and make their presence known. I understand the purpose of Gay Pride and coming out parties and all the other pomp and circumstance, but if people aren't careful this could work against us. Too many people seem to hold on to their Stonewall mindset of fighting back. We should no longer be on the defensive. We should be pushing forward instead of fighting back. Gay Pride parades in SanFran or Folsom St are about as effective as protesting sugar on a corn farm.
This nation needs another sexual revolution, but it needs to be taken seriously this time instead of letting our generation do a face heel turn at middle age like the boomers did. Instead of acid tabs, hand out condoms. Instead of hippie crap, try pragmatism.
Oppressed minorities have a history of creating their own culture because they are excluded from the culture of the majority. Just look at African-American culture. While it'd be nice if everyone was just okay with everything, that's not the world, and it's not reasonable to expect. The sense of lost identity and shame and anger of being different, being spat upon and discriminated against, is healed in that Gay Community you speak about while knowing little about it. Creating and belong to an identity is necessary for most people to lead a healthy functional life.
Lastly, I'm not even sure what this paragraph was about. We're a nation founded by puritans and frequently swamped with religious fervor in our poorer less educated regions. We could use a sexual revolution, but... acid tabs? Hippies? What?
Following up on a March announcement from the Department of Health and Human Services, the June meeting of the Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability ''will hear presentations and engage in deliberations'' on the Food and Drug Administration policy, in place in its current form since September 1985, prohibiting men who have had sex with another man ''even one time since 1977'' from donating blood.
Officials at HHS and advocacy groups said that no decision on the specifics of any change – or if there even would be any change – has been made. Unlike the FDA reviews of the policy in 2000 and 2006, however, the Advisory Committee will be free to consider non-scientific factors – like societal issues and cost-benefit analysis – in its review.
The meeting, formally announced in the Federal Register on Thursday, May 20, is to take place June 10-11 at The Universities at Shady Grove in Rockville, Maryland.
Jerry A. Holmberg, the executive secretary of the Advisory Committee, said on Thursday, ''The decision has been to review the issue. The Assistant Secretary of Health wants this to be discussed in an open forum.''
The Human Rights Campaign announced in a release that the organization will offer testimony at the meeting. Spokesman Michael Cole spoke to the additional work needed to effect any policy change, saying, ''This is a long-standing policy that will take a great deal of education to help change.''
Cole noted ''the FDA's paramount responsibility is to ensure the safety of the blood supply.'' Regarding HRC and other advocates of changing the policy, Cole said, ''We must continue working to demonstrate that broadly excluding all gay and bisexual donors for life, particularly in light of tremendous advances in HIV science since the ban was adopted, does not serve that important goal.''
The lifetime ban – called a lifetime deferral by the FDA policy – often has sparked the ire of LGBT advocates in the past and also is opposed by the three main blood donations organizations – the AABB, America's Blood Centers (ABC) and the American Red Cross.
In a 2006 statement, the three groups stated that the lifetime ban is ''medically and scientifically unwarranted.'' It should be noted, however, that they ''recommend that deferral criteria be modified and made comparable with criteria for other groups at increased risk for sexual transmission of transfusion-transmitted infections,'' which would be a one-year deferral. The recommendation, if implemented, would mean that only those men who have not had sex with another man for more than a year would be eligible to donate blood.
The meeting notice states that the topics to be addressed include: ''what are the most important factors (e.g. societal, scientific, and economic) to consider in making a policy change; is the currently available scientific information including risk assessments sufficient to support a policy change at this time; what studies, if any, are needed before implementing a policy change; what monitoring tools or surveillance activities would need to be in place before implementing a policy change; what additional safety measures, if any, are needed to assure blood safety under a revised deferral policy?''
The notice includes additional information, including a note that ''screening tests can be falsely negative during the 'window period,' defined as the interval between the time when an infected individual may transmit the disease and the time when screening tests become positive.'' In agreement with the AABB, ABC and Red Cross statement, the notice states, ''A period of deferral is needed after high-risk exposure to prevent false negative tests from 'window period' collections.''
TheRaven7 wrote:Gay Pride parades in SanFran or Folsom St are about as effective as protesting sugar on a corn farm.
Stonewall wrote:Consensual acts between same-sex adults are criminalised in 80 member states of the United Nations and homosexuality results in the death penalty in six of these countries. In many countries lesbian, gay and bisexual people face execution, torture, rape and murder from people in their own community or from their government....
People who face the threat of this type of persecution can seek sanctuary in the UK but many are not granted protection because of fundamental errors of judgement and presumptions made by UK Border Agency (UKBA) staff and judges about sexual orientation.
Stonewall has published the report No going back: Lesbian and gay people and the asylum system (2010), which is based on interviews with asylum-seekers and UK Border Agency decision-makers. It found almost systemic homophobia in our asylum system resulting in legitimate lesbian, gay and bisexual asylum seekers regularly being refused sanctuary.
The report revealed that officials rely on inaccurate information and outdated ideas about gay people and admit that they don’t know how to question them appropriately. As a result lesbians and gay men who’ve been raped, tortured and threatened with death are being returned to their countries – in many cases to face further persecution.
The report details how lesbian, gay and bisexual people seeking asylum experience significant and specific disadvantages as a direct consequence of their sexual orientation. In summary:
* Lesbian and gay asylum-seekers feel a deep sense of shame and stigma about being gay and have rarely, if ever, spoken openly about it for fear of persecution. They also have a profound fear of authority figures because of the persecution they face in their home countries.
* UKBA staff are trained to look for inconsistencies in the stories of claimants. This approach disproportionately affects lesbian and gay people who struggle to talk about the persecution that they see as being ‘caused’ by their sexual orientation. The trauma they’ve experienced affects the way they remember and recount details of what has happened to them.
* The UKBA penalises gay people if they are not immediately open about their sexual orientation. If a case reaches the appeal court, judges are also reluctant to accept that individuals have found it difficult to disclose at the first opportunity why they are seeking asylum.
* UKBA staff and judges often assume that a person can only be lesbian or gay if they have engaged consistently and exclusively in same-sex sexual activity. Questions focus on sexual activity and asylum-seekers are expected to share explicit sexual experiences.
* Officials ignore the fact that many lesbian and gay people are persecuted because they are perceived to be ‘different’, not because they have engaged openly in explicit homosexual activity. They lack confidence and knowledge on issues relating to sexual orientation and so fail to enable lesbian and gay people to talk about their experiences.
* UKBA staff and judges often conclude that gay people can return to their home country and no longer be at risk if they are ‘discreet’ about their sexual activity or identity. This approach has been condemned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
* Gay applicants are often refused asylum because UKBA policy and guidance and case law are incorrectly applied. This leads to legitimate applications failing.
* UKBA staff rely on guidance and reports which are factually incorrect. A lack of information about what it is like to be gay in some countries is erroneously taken as evidence that gay people do not face persecution in those countries.
* UKBA staff do not have access to information on the experiences of lesbians. Issues concerning forced marriage, honour killings and marital rape are not acknowledged to be relevant to lesbians.
* Many lesbian and gay asylum-seekers are ‘fast-tracked’, meaning that they are detained and their case determined quickly. Often they are incarcerated in hostile and homophobic environments, significantly increasing the barriers they already face in talking about their experiences.
* UKBA staff are under great pressure to meet demanding targets and heavy caseloads and this disproportionately impacts on complex gay cases. Shorter timescales for a case make it less likely that gay people will be able to talk openly, leading to incorrect decisions being made.
Myth wrote:Melli, I have something I really want to throw down with you about, but I'm afraid if I continue to do this something bad will happen to our eLationship. But I really want to bring it up, so may I do so safely, without having to worry about weird hostility?
Cassiel wrote:The word "gay" is an insult. So is the word "dick." That doesn't mean that if I call someone a dick I'm dickaphobic.
Cassiel wrote:I don't really care what you expect. You're wrong, and this misguided and hilariously superficial crusade is getting old.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest