Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Schwarzenegger Creates Harvey Milk Day While Rejecting Trans Rights

Posted by Cara, Feministe at 9:30 AM on October 16, 2009.


The CA governor is putting symbolism over substance.
gaycali

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Rights and Liberties in your
mailbox!

 

You may have heard that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed into law a bill that will create a Harvey Milk Day, honoring the slain gay politician and icon. It’s the first time that any LGBT person has been honored in such a way, so obviously people are excited about the symbolism.

What has been receiving some blog coverage but little mainstream media attention, however, is the fact that at the same time Schwarzenegger signed this bill, he vetoed a couple of others -- one which would have made it easier for transgender people born in California to correct their birth certificates to the proper gender and name, and another which would have helped to combat sexual violence against LGBT prisoners.

With regards to the former, a birth certificate is probably the most important piece of identification that any of us have. While it's not used on a daily basis, it's often the document on which our other pieces of identification are based, though most of us who are cis have the privilege and luxury of not thinking about it. When a trans person's identification does not match their identity, it sets them up for being outed against their will -- and subsequently creates a large risk of them being accused of fraud, harassed, denied basic services and care, and/or violently attacked. The bill would have made the difficult process of correcting the document just a tiny bit easier -- and by the way, wouldn’t have cost taxpayers anything.

The latter piece of vetoed legislation, Schwarzenegger called "unnecessary." But unnecessary to whom? It's really rather well known that LGBT prisoners face hugely disproportionate sexual violence in prisons, a place where rape already runs rampant. This is especially so for cis gay and bisexual men, who are regularly targeted for prison rape, and for trans women, who are often placed wrongly in men's prisons and thus put at extreme risk for sexual violence from cis inmates. The only way the governor does not know this is if he's willfully ignorant on matters over which he's supposed to be governing. And so to say that it's unnecessary for sexual orientation and gender identity to be taken into account when deciding how to safely house prisoners is outrageously callous, and a massive slap across the face to those LGBT inmates who have been or will be sexually assaulted by assailants targeting them for their identities.

I'd also say that it’s an additional slap that he chose to veto these two pieces of legislation on the same day that he signed the bill creating Harvey Milk Day. Yes, it's true that he also signed two important pieces of legislation -- one recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages in California, and one increasing resources for LGBT victims of domestic violence. And I also fully support a Harvey Milk Day. But signing that bill while rejecting these others, and especially at the same time, seems a pretty clear message that Schwarzenegger values symbolism over substantial change. One bill might possibly change the curriculum in certain classrooms for a single day each year, and the others would have helped to remove some of the most marginalized people that day is supposed to honor from particularly dangerous situations. There has been a clear designation of priorities, here -- and it has apparently been decided, horrifically if not surprisingly, that the particularly vulnerable groups of LGBT prisoners and transgender people in general don't really count.

I honestly don't know enough about Harvey Milk to say with certainty, but from what I do know, I'd at least like to think that he'd be deeply offended. And regardless of what he would have thought, disgust and outrage are clearly in order from the rest of us.

Digg!

Tagged as: arnold schwarzenegger, lgbt rights, harvey milk day

Cara blogs regularly at The Curvature and Feministe.


Utah Lawmaker: I Don't Mind "the Gays," but "I Don’t Want ‘Em Stuffing it Down My Throat all the Time"
"Certainly not in my kid's face."
Post by Zaid Jilani. November 20, 2009.
Hmmm ... Why Do So Many Wingnuts Have Such an Obsessive Fear of Being Raped?
It's all they can talk about in the right-wing media.
Post by Staff. November 20, 2009.
No Stupak Language in Senate Bill; Boxer "Couldn't Be Happier," Hatch Promises "Holy War"
Women's rights advocates have been holding their collective breath as the Senate hammered out its bill. So far, so good.
Post by Adele Stan. November 19, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Shame of Intolerance
Posted by: samd11 on Oct 16, 2009 10:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that Harvey Milk would be upset with the half-hearted attempt at trying for political correctness. He was proud and confrontational. Mr. Schwartzenegger is fighting for his political life, not for the rights of ALL his citizens. I hope the day will come when we recognize all humans as just that....human. Until then, we need more Harvey Milks and fewer Arnolds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is "cis"?
Posted by: Amy27605 on Oct 16, 2009 11:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"most of us who are cis"
"This is especially so for cis gay and bisexual men"
"sexual violence from cis inmates"

What is "cis"?

It's a basic editorial rule, not to mention a simple courtesy, to identify an abbreviation at its first occurrence in a piece. Not everybody who is interested in the story is an insider. I've been following LGBT issues for a long time, have never seen this abbreviation, and can make no sense of it from the contexts.

Peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What is "cis"? Posted by: pandagenma
» RE: What is "cis"? Posted by: rosborne@weenet.com
The reality
Posted by: slater619 on Oct 16, 2009 4:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although the governor vetoed these two important bills, his veto message on both bills is accurate. The CDCR does take sexual orientation into account already when housing prisoners. I can attest to this personally. Also a court already ruled that a transgender individual has the right to petition a court to have his/her name changed on b/c. So it is law made by court ruling. I agree it would have been nice to have it codified in statute, the reality is that in practice, these protections are already in place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The reality Posted by: kimberlydeann
Cis
Posted by: jamesryan87 on Oct 17, 2009 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cis means a person who identifies as their biological sex (or the sex they were as). I.e. bio man still identifies as male and the same for females.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Give me a friggin' BREAK!!!!
Posted by: jaglover on Oct 19, 2009 5:35 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you're so jacked up in the head that you have to PAY someone to MUTILATE your body, I'm sorry, you have NO leg to stand on the the SANITY argument let alone any RIGHTS arguments. Just because you cut up your junk doesn't mean you get some damn special treatment. Hell if that were the case anybody and everybody who came up with some ridiculous shit would have their own special rights too. The line has to be drawn somewhere. I could care less about Harvey friggin' Milk or anybody else. The constitution is complicated enough without you trying to add yet another category to the mix.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]