Women aren't violent and don't sexually assault anyone... apparently

Take Back The Night, an organization attempting to make cities safe spaces free of violence and sexual violence for women, has a women only march tonight in one of the least safe neighborhoods of my city. On the surface its a good idea, but it really doesn't make sense to discriminate against men insofar as indirectly stating that it is only men who assault and sexually assault women. The possibility of a man being assaulted by a woman or man, or a woman by a woman, sexually or otherwise, is then denied.

I really do believe in and advocate women's rights. But if anyone wants equitable treatment, it won't be attained by redirecting discrimination. We need to step back from our day to day experiences with discrimination and attempt to understand how things can be changed without the subjugation of any other parties. Its too easy to place the blame on someone else.

I would have marched tonight as I too don't always feel safe at night, especially in that neighborhood--being a sexual minority can make me a target. Yet I am not allowed to participate in advocating a safe environment for everyone because I have a penis.

My blood and organs are too gay for you, sorry you may die because of homophobia

In 1983 the Red Cross, who was governing blood donations in Canada until the Canadian Blood Service took over shortly thereafter, decided to prevent men who have sex with men (MSM) from donating blood (as well as organs). The rationale is that MSM have higher prevalence of HIV/AIDS and its merely a measure to protect people who receive blood and organs.

The problem though is there are many men who will not admit to having sex with other men; these men may then have sex with women who would then be just as exposed to HIV as the MSM man. It is common knowledge for social researchers that people are rarely truthful in reporting their sexual activities and preferences, its something that is very private and with homophobia (e.g. Canadian Blood Service) some people feel forced to keep their sexual orientation and activities private. Also, should a gay man decide to deny his homosexuality or ever having sex with another man, he could donate blood, although "illegally." It is a very flawed and homophobic system.

Recent advancements in technology have enabled HIV, other viruses, and diseases in blood to be detected within weeks, not months. Blood is immediately tested and held for an incubation period if there is ANY risk of HIV, other viruses, or diseases, after which they will become easily detectable. If blood regulating authorities can detect HIV, other viruses, or diseases, then there is really no reason to deny MSM.

The Red Cross in the United States does its own screening processes for blood which no longer includes a lifetime ban on "gay blood," but rather a one year period from the last act of intercourse with another man [correction/reword: the American Red Cross recommends this and wishes to follow it in their practices, see the website I found the information on]. They have even recommended the same to the Food and Drug Administration. However, the FDA and Canadian Blood Service who also accepts blood donations still maintains the life time ban.

Of course there has been much activism and protestation against these homophobic policies, but, we need to do more! If the Canadian Blood Service and FDA are allowed to discriminate against gay men/MSM then who else will be able to enact similar policies?

On a personal note, I simply feel heart broken that I may not be able to give my mom a part of my liver, she may need it soon.

The Power of Pride

I get asked quite often why I wear pride paraphernalia. Its never a simple explanation, so quite often I simply reply "because I'm proud of who I am." But, I'm usually accused of flaunting my (homo)sexuality.

I have put a lot of thought into why I wear the pride colors on a regular basis and what it means to me. When someone publicly wears the pride colors it doesn't necessarily mean they're gay; on the contrary, it can mean that they may support equality, are open minded (at least in some respect), or they might also be gay, lesbian, bi, trans, or queer.

Publicly showing your pride changes the workings of power in any given situation, both on the micro level of everyday interactions and on macro level of the larger picture. It disarms the homophobe so s/he gains less with the use of homophobic/heterosexist speech and behavior. When other people see me wearing the pride colors, if they are GLBTQ it can offer them a sense of belonging and community by showing that there are other people like them in their community.

Visibility and solidarity are important for any group to gain acceptance and understanding. Its pretty well common knowledge in much of the GLBTQ community that the more people who come out and show their pride the better off we all are. When people who are not GLBTQ see more and more people wearing pride colors, it creates a presence and understanding that we indeed do exist and can positively change our image. In a sense then, the pride flag/colors can cause people to think about why someone might be wearing it, it can even encourage people to not assume heterosexuality.

For the record, I haven't experienced any negativity while wearing pride colors :).

Prop 8

The California Supreme Court's signal Thursday that it would uphold Proposition 8 but still recognize 18,000 existing same-sex marriages raised questions and concerns about the prospect of being a minority within a minority -- part of an exclusive club whose doors have been closed to others. (source: LA Times)

That's nice. But what about the "exclusive club"? How does it make any sense to have what appears to be partial rights? I mean, I'm really happy that the 18,000 same sex married couples aren't being forcibly divorced, but obviously there's still so far to go.

If the fetus you save is gay, will you still fight for its rights?

While dying of extreme boredom in English today I noticed a white board "ad" for "Life Week" at my University. When it comes to the pro life/pro choice debate, I can see valid points on both sides of the argument. But, I realize by being pro life, that is a definite stance with no room for change; whereas, pro choice still leaves the choice of life or not. And I feel women should have the right to their own bodies, including their fetus.

Its really troubling when pro life groups advocate the human rights of the fetus. Logically they should advocate total/complete human rights, but its not always the case. Too often the pro lifers are not for GLBTQ rights. So what happens when that fetus whose rights were fought for are then ignored because s/he grows up to have same sex attraction and relationships? The fight for human rights, by the pro lifers, is therefore conditional.

I am Atheist, therefore I think

It really frustrates me to no end how many religious groups condemn homosexuals and wish to deny us rights. You would be very hard pressed to find a group of homosexuals making condemning religious groups their mission.

Many faiths/religions preach things such as peace and love thy neighbour: bullshit. There are far too many people who become indoctrinated by their faith and lose all ability to think rationally. It's just so convenient to have many of life's problems neatly spelled out in a book written millennia ago then in turn use this book as a form of rationality to commit mass murder and subjugate entire populations.

In short, the world would be a much better place in the absence of religion. Many people would no longer bear the minority status and its non-benefits, we would be far more advanced in many disciplines, and countless armed conflicts would not have happened and could be avoided, just to name a few.

“It is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are atheists and were religion not inculcated into their minds, they would remain so”- Ernestine Rose