From Info Barrel: http://www.infobarrel.com/Lateral_Hostility_and_the_Transgender_Woman
Mar 1, 2013
Are you a transgender women who has experienced hostility from the transgender community? I would dare to say that a lot of transgender women have been the victim of bullying and pigeonholing into the brutally enforced “hierarchy” of transgender women through cyber-bullying, ostrification and deadly gossip. I use the word deadly because I believe that this behaviour is directly related to the skyrocketing transgender suicide rate. We don’t we just add to the suffering and feeling of isolation that most of us feel. Some of us take their own lives; could this hostility among trans women be a factor? Perhaps something to think about the next time someone is being persecuted by our very own. We are doing it too ourselves people! It has to stop if we are going to get anywhere in society as a group of oppressed people. I asked my doctor about this phenomenon and he simply relied “it’s called lateral violence”; he continued “when a group of people are singled out and ridiculed in society and have no place to put the anger and frustration they feel so they put it on the closest people to them who are on the same social rung as themselves”.
It kind of makes sense to me but it does not explain the competition over hormones, surgery and boob size, etc. Do trans women bring the competitive nature of men with them when they transition? It would appear so. A pecking order does exist and in my experience with trans groups is that most of the time is spent attacking each other. And why no cross talk in trans support groups? Perhaps that would help. There is a rather offensive joke that I have heard about trans women; “you’re not trans unless your insulted five times a day”. I was offended, for the fifth time that day. But then I thought about it I realized that sometimes jokes point out things about ourselves that we don’t like. We are offended, and often. We form little “cliques” and attack other trans women, forcing them out of support groups and ostracizing them even further from any kind of support we may offer as fellow trans women. Its so sad, can you imagine what we could accomplish if we worked together?
Lateral Hostility or violence is a term describing physical, verbal, or emotional abuse of an individual by a person or persons with the intend of doing emotional and mental harm. Backstabbing, scapegoating,verbal attacks or non verbal attacks like rolling your eyes or sopping or spreading unfounded rumours. This happens constantly on the internet and it is a crime called cyber-bullying! How many transgender women have experienced this? Not only lateral hostility in the support groups but over the internet as well.
Why do we do this? Why do we internally proclaim I am “trannier than thou”, and I am going to make you aware of it at all costs. This does not go far enough to explain why so many good heart-ed people end up in brutal fights; e-hair pulling, e-scratching and biting! Forming groups of “she is my friend so go away”, no “she is MY friend so you go AWAY!”, simply by having a difference of opinion over anything even mildly controversial. Everything IS a personal attack. the words “I disagree” is an act of WAR!!. Does the dysphoria make us closed to new ideas and points of view? Does it make it an imperative to be right no matter what the cost in terms of friendships and heartbreak? Could it be the dysphoria which causes us to put each other down over size of body parts and size of shoe? I dress more like a woman than you do, are you on hormones? Are you ..post-op? It’s not a race, it’s not a competition to out transition every other transgender woman you come in contact with. But this seems to be the attitude you run into.
Continue reading at: http://www.infobarrel.com/Lateral_Hostility_and_the_Transgender_Woman
By Scott Kaufman
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
The worldwide boycott of Russian vodka by LGBT activists has had little appreciable effect on official Russian policy toward LGBT people, but according to AMERICAblog‘s John Aravosis, it appears to have had an effect on the parent company of Stolichnaya vodka, SPI Group.
A recent update of its “About” page includes a paragraph in which it claims to be “an equal opportunity employer” that doesn’t discriminate “in employment or personnel practices on the basis of race, sex, age, sexual orientation, handicap, religion, national origin.” While such a change in language is, as Aravosis writes, “laudable,” it is unclear what corporate policies it actually reflects.
It fails to mention whether it offers same-sex partners the same benefits as their straight coworkers, for example, and offers no indication as to the protection it does or doesn’t offer transgender employees. The Advocate‘s Daniel Reynolds quotes an open letter by SPI Group’s CEO, Val Mendeleev, in which he claims that “[i]n the past decade, SPI has been actively advocating in favor of freedom, tolerance and openness in society, standing very passionately on the side of the LGBT community and will continue to support any effective initiative in that direction.”
The newly disclosed nondiscrimination policy contains, as Aravois notes, no “definitive answers.” It does, however, indicate the potential effectiveness of online boycotts. Prior to the July 22nd boycott, SPI Group thought it unnecessary to even address the issue of sexual orientation on its “About” page; now, it has done so and it has the opportunity to make a bold statement about the rights of transgender employees at a time and in a country when merely acknowledging the existence of any sexual minority could result in criminal action.
From Ring Of Fire Radio: http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2013/08/wal-mart-women-denied-class-status-by-california-court/
A California court has shown, yet again, that it’s in the service of big business this past week when it decided that California Wal-Mart employees cannot sue for sex-based discrimination as a group. The court cited that the women did not have enough in common to establish a class certification.
In 2001, a group of women from various Wal-Mart stores filed a claim in San Francisco claiming that they had been denied promotion and pay. The lawsuit alleged that the retail giant’s employment policies created a structure that made the disparate treatment of women systemic.
Unfortunately, the actions of the California court seem to be establishing a precedent for courts across the country. A claim in Texas was recently dismissed that alleged similar facts.
“Companies, like Wal-Mart, are encouraged to discriminate against their employees because individualized lawsuits are much less costly than paying a fair or non-discriminatory wage,” commented James Kauffman, an attorney with the Securities and Business Litigation Department at Levin, Papantonio, “Unfortunately, rulings that strike down class treatment leave the victims with no access to a realistic or effective means to make companies accountable for their misconduct.”
Individual proceedings still pend in many states. The dismissal of the California and Texas courts did not pass judgment on the women’s claims that they were discriminated against. The decision set forth only that women failed to meet the requirements necessary to establish a class.
The ability to establish a class for the purpose of litigation is powerful as it can unify discovery efforts. The court’s decision to deny the women the establishment of the class in this case denies them the ability to enjoy those benefits.
The allegations of unfair labor practices on the part of Wal-Mart are not uncommon. Earlier this year Wal-Mart threatened to stop plans to build 3 stores in Washington D.C. because the city was considering a bill that would have forced the retailer to pay slightly above minimum wage.
By Joan Walsh
Tuesday, Aug 6, 2013
Erick Erickson is the insecure frat-boy id of the Republican Party. Oh, sure, party leaders wring their hands about their problem with women voters, but deep down, we’re all “Abortion Barbie” to a whole lot of them. Only Erickson is creepy enough to say so.
In case you missed it: Erickson — last seen freaking out over women as breadwinners, and being schooled by Fox host Megyn Kelly — apparently had a panic attack today over Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis, and decided to call her “Abortion Barbie.” That’s clever, and likely to do his party as much good with women as when Rush Limbaugh decided to call Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute.”
But Erickson’s outburst comes in a week when Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus melted down over CNN and NBC plans for a Hillary Clinton miniseries, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell got so rattled by Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes that he disrespected her by attacking her dad, as though the girl in the race didn’t matter enough to engage directly.
Psychologically a lot of Republicans seem to have problems with women, with our real and imagined power. The conservative project of controlling us is coming undone, and their fear is showing. But politically, they’ve got even bigger problems, with women’s genuine and growing political power. From Wendy Davis to Alison Grimes to Michelle Nunn in Georgia (she’s leading all her GOP Senate rivals in the latest PPP poll), female candidates are giving Red State Democrats some hope that they may win more statewide power sooner rather than later.
So Mr. RedState.com let loose another well-timed slur to give us a window onto his fear and loathing.
Reince Priebus has so many fears: He of course fears Hillary Clinton, since the GOP doesn’t have a candidate who could win a primary who could beat her if she runs. He fears his party’s likely 2016 roster, which may not be as chock-full of wacko birds as the Michele Bachmann-Herman Cain 2012 slate, but will still have plenty of characters to scare moderate voters. He fears a rerun of the grueling 2012 debate schedule, where said wacko birds had more than enough time to hang themselves with their own words.
Continue reading at: http://www.salon.com/2013/08/06/revenge_of_the_abortion_barbies/