Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Read Today

Tamryn from ShoeDazzle I had no idea that some places require sterilization before a person can legally change his/her sex, but I found out all about it in Ann Tornkvist's article "Sweden’s shameful transgender sterilization rule" that appeared on Salon today.

And it’s not only in Sweden…

“'Forcible sterilization' [before SRS] has been quietly practiced for decades in countries typically cast as progressive on LGBT rights: France, the Netherlands, Australia and a number of U.S. states still require it. Italy and Germany have just recently overturned similar legislation."

"Although Swedish leaders have been talking for months about repealing the sterilization law…"  "…the conservative Christian Democrats have doggedly opposed the repeal, arguing that sex reassignment surgery is a threat to traditional social roles."

You can read all about the government's robbery of a fundamental human right --- procreation --- here on Salon.

Over at The Huffington Post, Rebecca Juro takes MSNBC's Ed Schultz to task for guesting a gay man to discuss the Chaz Bono Dancing with the Stars controversy.

"The first concern is also the most obvious. Given that Chaz Bono is a female-to-male transsexual man, one has to wonder why Ed Schultz invited a gay man and not an actual transgender person to appear on his show to speak on the topic.It's kind of like hosting a discussion on issues faced by African Americans with a white person presented as an expert, and makes just about as much sense.

"The second problem is more difficult to recognize unless the viewer is already familiar with Chaz Bono himself. Bono is a man who is in a serious romantic relationship with a woman. He is therefore heterosexual, not gay. By asking Mike Rogers if the media attacks on Bono lead to gay bashing, Ed Schultz revealed his clear lack of understanding of what a transgender person is, as well as his ignorance of the difference between sexual orientation, the gender of the person one is sexually and romantically attracted to, and gender identity, whether an individual personally sees themselves as male, female, or something else entirely, a gender identity that doesn't fit neatly into either of those socially constructed boxes."

You can read the entire story here on The Huffington Post.

Finally, if you are a fashionista (guilty) with a penchant for high heel footwear (guilty again), you must read Dr. Steve Rosenberg's "Help... Is It a Shoe Problem or a Foot Problem?" also on The Huffington Post.

In the article, the good doctor describes how you can become your own foot doctor. This is a recommended read for girls like us who consider 4-inch high heel pumps to be our preferred daily footwear.


  1. I do like DWTS and have seem most episodes.
    Ed Schultz and Mike Rogers totally missed the mark in their spin to use Chaz as a lynchpin to attack any negative media coverage of gay issues. They were both clueless as to any of the TG issues that relate to Chaz.
    The Huff Post and its writer, as did much of the media, tore into Dr. Kieth Ablow for his discussion of Chaz on FNY. His initial dust up with Megyn Kelly seemed like two people seeking the same goal but not understanding the path chosen by the other. His later interviews on FNY made it clear that unlike the critique of Ablow offered by the Huff Post, he was not at all adverse to Chaz. He was very understanding and empathetic of TGs in general and Chaz in particular.
    Ablow was gang tackled and accused of being anti gay and/or anti TG because he had a issue with the pre-show media hype about Chaz being TG and with the fact that DWTS is on at 8 PM and has a reasonable number of young people in the audience. His concern was that the TG issues relating to Chaz would not be properly communicated to the young people in the audience and that there were some viewers in the audience at 8 PM who were simply to young to be able to grasp Chaz being TG.
    DWTS, for its part, tended to treat Chaz like any other dancer and they did not make a big deal out of his gender status.
    PS:I am old enough to rememeber the cute little Chastity on the old Sonny & Cher show.

  2. I completely agree, it was ludicrous to have a representative from the gay community explain/represent the trans community! the analogy, 'is' like having a white person explaining how people of any ethnicity feel. I completely devalue any "fact" they may have tried to explain but, appreciate the empathy, but really?

    So now, though I'm sure you and I admonish and work against much of religions opposition, especially Catholicism, (I would also add Muslim fundamentalism with the same disdain) but, and it's a big but. We all have a right to political and legal challenges. They (fundamentalists), have a right to make their point. I disdain the manner we often and typically see with the demonizing of "Catholic values". It is a kin to saying that they have no right to stand for and be politically active in the changes taking place in the world. Yes, change is needed for our peace and pursuit of happiness.. but as many may believe they ("religions") are wrong in their dogma, they also believe we are wrong in our dogma, and they have every right to counter any movement we push on them.. Our duty, is not to change their world, but to show them, we are not a threat to any world. Peace and compassion, begin at home, and beget the same from others. Fight the good fight, but always respect your opposition. You may find that you are not that different.

  3. It's more like having a discussion of African Americans, and asking a dwarf for his take on it. The black-and-white analogy implies opposites. What they did (equate gender with sex) is just weird. It's like bringing in an economist to discuss rabies. He should stick to what he knows. If he wants to misinform, well, there's a whole "news" network for that.

    [rant off] and I want to say that Maja is proof that you have gg readers!

  4. I love DWTS, and by and large they did well. But Ed Schultz's asking Mike Rogers to comment was like asking a fish to comment on bicycles ... Rogers has a completely different context.

    And I applaud Joan for a thoughtful, modulated view on religionists.