April 30, 2017

100 Gay GOP Meet in NYC to Criticize Other Gays and Make Fun of Transgender's

A forum at the Metropolitan Republican Club in New York City on Thursday night was billed as an "all-star" collection of activists in the "new gay movement in the Republican Party." And indeed, panelists inside the tony brownstone on Manhattan's Upper East Side were among the country’s most notable conservative gay-rights activists.
But rather than detail how they were building a new movement — or discuss their influence in the nascent Trump administration — the gay men on stage spent most of two hours ridiculing the left while peppering their speeches with cheap cracks about transgender people.
They mocked President Obama’s LGBT liaison as "the most unattractive tranny," joked that Caitlyn Jenner hadn't had "the operation," and said Obama-era rules to protect transgender students were “horrifying.”
People of color and women fared little better with the all-white, five-member panel. One claimed the gender wage gap was "a total fucking myth," while another opined that black people don't face oppression because they aren't enslaved. Then he laughed about adopted Asian babies.
Above it all, the panelists — who ranged from journalists to political operatives — chastised a culture of political correctness and “fetishizing” identity, arguing that liberals have cried wolf at the Trump administration and lost credibility. They praised a clear cultural shift among conservatives to be more tolerant of LGBT people. And while they shrugged off legal protections for transgender people, they were confident guys like them are at home in the Republican fold.
Over the past year, BuzzFeed News has chronicled the rise of gay conservatives, from a frenzy during the Trump campaign to their cocky attitudes during the transition. They clinked champagne glasses at a “Gays for Trump DeploraBall” on Inauguration Day. They were faithful Trump, who has both supported and opposed marriage equality, could lay out a welcome mat for gay Republicans unlike any president before.
This week, nearly 100 days into Trump’s term, these gay Republican activists had a chance to assess their success.
Or they could make fun of people. 
Jeff Goolsby, the forum’s moderator and the secretary of the Metropolitan Republican Club, kicked off the night with a few jokes. “Some people might say, 'Hey, you have four white, maybe rich, guys on your panel,'” he said. “Listen, I am not going to assume any of their genders. Just kidding.”
“Caitlyn Jenner said she can’t do it until after the operation,” he continued, to hoots of laughter.
To illustrate the left’s knee-jerk histrionics over Trump, Lucian Wintrich, who led a project during the campaign called Twinks for Trump, blasted Obama's LGBT liaison — a transgender woman named Raffi Freedman-Gurspan.
“Begrudgingly, I’ll say ‘she,’” said Wintrich, implying that he didn’t consider her a woman. He went on to call her “the most unattractive tranny," a line that cast the packed room of Republicans into guffaws under golden chandeliers and star-spangled bunting.
His point was that Freedman-Gurspan only held the position for a few months, he said, so progressives were overreacting when Trump didn’t appoint a replacement liaison. “A lot of people will say, 'I guess we had this bureaucrat who was fighting for a couple weeks before Obama left office.'”
But Wintrich, who is also a White House correspondent for the alt-right site Gateway Pundit, neglected to mention that Obama actually had an LGBT liaison since 2014 — which undermines his claim the position had only been around “a couple weeks.”
“Now we have to talk about trans bathrooms,” jumped in Chadwick Moore, a former writer for Out magazine who was excoriated online for writing a soft-focus profile about Milo Yiannopoulos last year. Afterward, he came out as a Republican in the New York Post.
Moore said guidance to protect transgender students issued by the Obama administration was “horrifying” because, he claimed, “it turned every bathroom and every locker room in the country gender-neutral.”
“So of course Donald Trump took that away,” said Moore, lauding the president for reversing the policy. “It shouldn’t be there. We’re going have trans kids taking dumps in the streets? What were they doing before Obama did this?”
Rather than criticize the president — as groups on the left did when he withdrew the transgender guidance — the men argued that Trump has been a paragon for LGBT rights, in large part because he carried a pride flag on the campaign trail and said after the election that marriage equality is settled law.
Gregory T. Angelo, the head of the venerable Log Cabin Republicans, sought to demonstrate that he was a Republican above all else by condemning “radical Islamic terrorism” and Obamacare.
“Who told gay people that the only issues you can care about are marriage and LGBT nondiscrimination laws?” he said, pivoting to his political priorities. “If you are a gay individual, you should be very concerned about the Second Amendment rights to protect yourself by bearing firearms. Be concerned about radical Islamic terrorism and the threat that it poses to LGBT individuals…and Democrats ignore that.” Angelo smiled through much of the panel, yet he sat stoically amid the anti-transgender comments, but he never condemned them. However, he also boasted that Trump has given license for Republicans to speak more freely.
“We have Donald Trump to thank for eviscerating this politically correct culture,” he said. The Republican Party — not Democrats — “value people of all sexual orientations and gender identity.”
Wintrich added, “Islam inherently hates gay people. They hate Christians. They hate Western culture. They don’t understand why every woman in here isn’t wearing a polyester blanket.”
Sweeping criticism of Islam is familiar ground for gay Republicans, including Peter Boykin, the head of Gays for Trump, which tweeted recently that gay men should abandon transgender people politically and that “Islam is a cancerous cult of murder.”
 Yet the panelists didn’t bring up examples of Trump or the Republican-controlled Congress making strides on LGBT rights this year, nor did they cite making inroads with Trump’s team. Angelo briefly mentioned he was trying to meet with Trump, an acknowledgment that he's been unsuccessful so far.
“That request is already in to the White House, so stay tuned,” he said.
Nor did they explain an emerging strategy for this all-star gay movement or what, exactly, they were moving toward. Lacking those elements for discussion, they instead framed their conversation around the donkey in the room.
The Democratic Party lost Moore when he “started looking into the gender wage gap,” which he said is a key plank for Democrats. “I started realizing this is complete bullshit. The gender wage gap is a total fucking myth.”
On race, Wintrich blamed Democrats for trying to “segregate” people. “They are saying, ‘Black people, even though slavery is over, you’re oppressed. Vote for us. Or, gays, the right hates you.’”
“None of that is true,” he countered. “We are battling against a party that functions on lies and has no grasp of true reality.”
They repeatedly derided identity politics, which Wintrich mocked by describing his own identity — a gay man with a small bladder.
The underlying theme seemed to say: If these gay men, as ambassadors for a gay minority, could speak this way, their fellow Republicans in the room could also abandon political correctness on LGBT issues.
“I don’t give a shit about gay marriage,” said Wintrich, who contended that legal marriage made gay couples behave like nuclear families in the 1950s. “We want to adopt, maybe Asian children — that’s popular now. And the entire thing is just so ridiculous. It’s a side conversation.”
The most reserved, moderate panelist was Fred Karger, who has worked on numerous Republican campaigns, including for President Reagan, and made a longshot presidential bid himself. He argued that the left should try to embrace Trump on LGBT issues, rather than antagonize him.
“We need to cozy up and work with him, and meet with him, and get him on our side,” he said. “Get on the bandwagon, because Republicans are running the show right now.”
“The Republican Party is going to come back like gangbusters with the younger community,” he said before fawning over the rest of the panel. “Chad, Lucian, Gregory, and the kind of people coming to Log Cabin — I am forever impressed with the caliber.”
BuzzFeed News followed up with Karger about whether anti-transgender slurs and comments from other panelists would actually entice young voters to the party.
Karger said he’d tuned out those comments.
Dominic Holden
Dominic Holden

Do LGBT Relationships Deserve Full Genetic Children?

The possibility of creating synthetic gametes (eggs from male stem cells, sperm from female stem cells) raises some interesting ethical issues. LGBT couples currently depend upon a third party to contribute opposite-sex gametes. This means that their children will never be fully genetically related and that their relationship depends on outside intervention.

But even for LGBT couples, a genetic relationship with a child is the “cultural gold standard” for reproduction, Timothy Murphy points out in the Journal of Medical Ethics. If this is the case, then LBGT couples should be able to have it as well.

After all, if that kind of relatedness is socioculturally and psychologically important enough to override searching questions about the ethics of fertility medicine in general, then it would seem to be important enough to theorise in relation to same-sex couples' inability to secure it for their families.

Settling for less than the gold standard is inequitable, Murphy argues. In the near future, LGBT couples won’t have to. They will no longer be “inherently infertile”. Rather, they will only be “situationally infertile” in relation to each other – something which can be solved with the help of reproductive technology.

Perhaps LGBT couples, he argues, should even be prioritised in research to help infertile couples conceive and have children:

 it's unclear why—as a matter of moral theory—same-sex couples should have to ‘settle for’ anything less than the same shared genetics in their children as is available to opposite-sex couples. It's plausible in some ways that opposite-sex couples are owed research priority towards securing shared genetics in their children simply as a matter of access and equity and also—more searchingly—as a matter of compensatory justice, for past road blocks imposed against having children. As it often does, biology might stand in the way of human hopes, but then again we won't know for sure unless we test it against our moral ambitions.

This article is written by Michael Cook and BioEdge 

Study:Top/Bottom Not A Preference but An Orientation

 While a single factor (the elusive “gay gene,” for example) has yet to emerge in the ongoing scientific investigation of what determines sexuality, there are a host of theories. Genetic factorshormonal factorsimmunological factors, and more have been posited as possible biological causes. However, many experts argue that it’s most likely a confluence of factors, as Barbara L. Frankowski and Committee on Adolescence did in a 2004 article in Pediatrics: “Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.”
Regardless of how wide-ranging these studies are, they tend to have one thing in common: they treat gay men as a monolithic group. But now a research team out of the University of Toronto Mississauga (Ashlyn Swift-Gallant, Lindsay A. Coome, D. Ashley Monks, and Doug P. VanderLaan) has investigated variation within the population of gay men based on their anal-sex roles (that is bottom, or receptive, top, or penetrative, and versatile, or both receptive and penetrative depending on circumstance). The results of two of their studies suggest there very well could be biological subgroups of gay men, which is to say that one’s biological makeup could possibly (and most likely, indirectly) influence whether or not he likes to fuck or get fucked (or both).
When it has been studied, anal-sex role has been viewed as a result of social factors (more on that in a minute). Despite every study I’ve read that asks about the anal-sex role of its respondents has found that the majority men who have sex with men identify as versatile (including the two studies at hand from the University of Toronto team) as well as my own anecdotal experience suggesting as much, the top/bottom binary persists in gay culture. It comes with predictable cultural baggage for those who firmly fit on either pole (pun intended—but only for the bottoms). Tops are stereotyped as masculine, taking up the male tradition of putting their dicks in things, while bottoms are regarded as more feminine (despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary in porn, and the preponderance of self-identified “masc bottoms” in sex-app profiles). And with the assumptions of femininity in men come insults (“bottom” as a pejorative amongst gay men) and with those come a specific kind of shame in addition to the shame many gay men already experience merely living in a heterosexual world.
But perhaps if the variation among gay men has biological basis, it could help make one’s desires, not to mention those of others, less fraught or intimidating, for one thing. 
“What’s interesting about this work is even among a group of individuals who are pretty similar in terms of their sexual preference—that is, gay men preferring men—there could be a diverse set of processes that lead them to exhibit that same sexual orientation outcome,” explained VanderLaan, an assistant professor in the University of Toronto Mississauga’s Department of Psychology, and the senior author on two recent papers: “Handedness is a biomarker of variation in anal sex role behavior and Recalled Childhood Gender Nonconformity among gay men,” published on PLOS One, and “Gender Nonconformity and Birth Order in Relation to Anal Sex Role Among Gay Men,” published in Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Both studies built on previous research suggesting that gay men are more likely to be gender-nonconforming (“less interested in, say, male-typical activities...and [exhibiting] less masculine personality characteristics,” said VanderLaan), are more likely to be non-right handed than their straight counterparts, and are more likely to have older brothers (in what’s known as the fraternal birth order effect, which technically posits that the more older brothers a man has from the same mother, the more likely he is to be gay). The University of Toronto team contacted what would become their sample of men during the 2015 Toronto Pride festivities and asked them to fill out online surveys regarding their sexual positioning (both in preference and behavior—there was discernible variation between the two), their recalled childhood gender nonconformity (which was assigned a number through a regularly used 23-item questionnaire The Recalled Childhood Gender Identity/Gender Role Questionnaire, which asks questions like “As a child my best or closest friend was 1-always a boy, to 5-always a girl,” and “In fantasy or pretend play, I took the role 1-only of boys or men, to 5-only of girls or women), their handedness, and their amount of siblings (the samples of the two studies were almost identical, with 91 straight men surveyed in both studies, and 242 gay men in the handedness study versus the 243 men of the birth order study).
“One thing about handedness is we know it’s related to brain organization and we know that it takes place really early,” said VanderLaan. “People very early in life—infants and children—will show hand preference for activities. That’s what makes handedness such a valuable marker is that it tells us about a particular developmental window.”
The team’s ultimate findings pointed to statistically significant variation amongst the gay men, with bottoms being more likely within the sampled populations to be gender-nonconforming (Table 1) and non-right handed (Table 2), as well as to have a higher proportion of older brothers (Table 3):
Table 1 (Graph: Lindsay Coome)
Table 2 (Graph: Lindsay Coome)
Table 3 (Graph: Lindsay Coome)
Table 4 (Graph: Lindsay Coome)
Note that the handedness study found the strongest links in terms of behavior (i.e. what actually happens during sex) as opposed to preference (i.e. what would ideally happen during sex), whereas the fraternal birth order study found statistical significance in terms of preference (and additionally, it found a correlation between between being versatile and having older sisters). (Contrast Table 3 with Table 4.) 
“That was an interesting discrepancy,” said VanderLaan. “Behavior is generally more constrained by what your partner is willing to do with you. Whereas attraction is a more personal aspect of sexuality. You can have a fantasy about whoever you like. This is part of the reason why I feel like there probably isn’t a direct relationship between these early-life developmental biological developmental experiences and these later-life sex role behaviors. There’s probably some set of circumstances that these biological factors are having an indirect effect on anal sex role behavior.”
Additionally, bottoms and versatiles were so similar in terms of reported childhood gender nonconformity as well as handedness that they were grouped together in that study; they differed in terms of birth order, though (bottoms had more older brothers; versatiles had more older sisters) so in that study they were not grouped together.
VanderLaan said that he’d like to see if these studies could be replicated, as they’re the first to look at biomarkers differing between anal sex groups. As with all self-reported studies, this one had its limitations (we can never ignore how sex-based shame may color some gay men’s responses regarding their sexual interests and practices, for example). And VanderLaan concedes that it wasn’t necessarily representative of the entire population as it wasn’t a national probability sample, and it certainly seems that way: The respondents were overwhelmingly white with 301 in the handedness study identifying as such and 302 in the birth order. (Of the remaining 32 in each study, one identified as black, two as Chinese, eight as Asian, two as aboriginal, three as Latin American, 15 as “other,” and one declined to answer.) Additionally, what’s entirely missing from the conversation these studies are attempting to start is why such variation may be occurring.
“Sex role identity development is a complex process that unfolds over decades, so the idea that some early life developmental experience that happened in the womb has a direct impact on someone’s sex role behavior decades later,” VanderLaan explains, “that seems potentially a little too simplistic and we certainly don’t have demonstrative evidence that that sort of scenario is indeed the case.” Nothing about these findings is meant to be all-encompassing; indeed, this very post has been written by a right-handed gay man with only younger sisters and who identifies as militantly versatile. And I still find it to be interesting as hell.
Instead, though, VanderLaan and his team are looking to biomarkers to get a broader picture of people’s decision-making and that complex process of identity formation. Until now, the vast majority of the research regarding the development anal sex roles in gay and bisexual men has focused on social factors. For example, in a fascinating paper from January’s Archives of Sexual Behavior, “Recognition and Construction of Top, Bottom, and Versatile Orientations in Gay/Bisexual Men,” Northwestern University’s David A. Moskowitz and Northwestern University’s Michael E. Roloff, examined a variety of factors including “attitudinal constructs suggested by previous literature as important” and found that “sexual position self-label was learned over a 15-year timespan.” The attitudinal constructs investigated were: finding bottoming pleasurable, sexual anxiety when bottoming, sexual anxiety when topping, strength/control of a partner, gender typicality of a partner, penis size as a factor, and race/ethnicity of partner as impactful. Though a number of indirect connections were postulated after examining the results, “finding bottoming to be pleasurable and the importance of sexual control dynamics were the only two direct predictors,” according to the paper’s abstract.
I reached out to Moskowitz, whose work has captivated me for years, to ask if the University of Toronto’s biological findings necessarily opposed that of his social-based research or if they could operate in conversation. He emailed back this response:
I specifically conducted [the “Recognition and Construction of Top, Bottom, and Versatile Orientations in Gay/Bisexual Men”] study to try to prove that anal penetrative role was far more innate than ever thought. We wanted to suggest that role, not unlike sexual orientation, was predetermined by biological factors. People could be born a top or a bottom, and that was that. However, we found both in the chronology of gay and bisexual men’s self-labeling of their penetrative roles and in their attitudinal measures, evidence to suggest that understanding and assigning a role developed over time. Role orientation was essentially socialized by reactions to sexual trials, with adjustments made in label according to positive and negative outcome efficacies. Put simply, the more good or bad sexual experiences, over time, lead people to a role.
But despite my study, I am convinced that it is more complicated than that, as the authors of the University of Toronto study suggest. Our studies don’t rule each other out. I still ardently believe that biology plays a vital role in predisposing individuals towards more of a bottom or top orientation, with social maturation and sexual experience accrual potentially doing the rest… shaping the inherently sociopolitical process of self-assignment of a label in a community that LOVES labels.
And that, perhaps, is why Moskowitz (who considers VanderLaan a “great colleague and friend”) is so enthusiastic about the University of Toronto team’s work. “The study is pretty ground-breaking in that no studies to-date have looked at actual biological determinants of penetrative sex roles,” he writes. “For years now, we have anecdotally and empirically understood that some association roughly exists between gender typicality and anal sex roles. Most of us in the field have scrambled to understand the underlying influences of that relationship. The authors of the article provide some well-needed insight into the more innate characteristics that lead to top or bottoming behaviors.”
Additionally, VanderLaan says that his research provides a window into the formation of the nervous system, and that it starts to help answer the question that many queer people ask of themselves: “How did I come to be the way that I am?”

The10 Commandments AntiGay Ousted Judge Wants Session Senate Seat

 Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, under suspension for opposing a federal court order on same-sex "marriage," is running for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
“I know I share the vision of our President Donald Trump to make America great again," the 70-year-old conservative said. But "before we can make America great again, we’ve got to make America good again.”
The outspoken Christian is pro-life and opposes "socialized medicine" in general and the Obama Health and Human Services abortion coverage mandate in particular. But he is most famous for his public stand against homosexual "marriage."  
“The foundations of the fabric of our country are being shaken tremendously,” Moore said at a press conference. “Our families are being crippled by divorce and abortion. Our sacred institution of marriage has been destroyed by the Supreme Court, and our rights and liberties are in jeopardy.”
Moore has also criticized “gender identity” theory and "Common Core" liberal values in public schools.
When Sessions joined President Trump's cabinet, his senate seat was given to former state attorney general Luther Strange, who has thrown his hat into the primary. Others vying for the position include state Rep. Ed Henry, R-Hartselle, and the Christian Coalition of Alabama's Randy Brinson.
“As United States senator, I will continue to stand for the rights and liberties not only of (the people of) this state but of (the) people (of this nation) as well ... so help me God," Moore pledged.
Last year, Moore's service as the state Supreme Court Chief Justice was suspended because he advised probate judges to follow state law banning homosexual "marriage" while his court reviewed the conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision. Immediately, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Human Rights Campaign, and other liberal groups began an intense campaign against him.
Moore countered that he was only clearing up confusion among probate judges over conflicting state and federal orders.
More than a decade ago, Moore opined, "The homosexual conduct of a parent" is "sufficient justification for denying that parent custody of his or her own children or prohibiting the adoption of the children of others."
In 2003, Moore refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments at the Alabama Judicial Building despite orders to do so from a federal judge and was removed as Chief Justice.
After his removal, Moore sought political office but lost in the Republican 2006 and 2010 gubernatorial primaries. He then was elected back into the office of Alabama Chief Justice in 2012.
Gov. Kay Ivey has set the date of the Republican primary for August 15.  Whoever is chosen by registered Republicans will face a Democratic challenger on December 12.

April 29, 2017

Last 100 Days for LGBT with Trump

 It’s been no piece of cake. Gays belonging to the top really don’t care since
 they are the ones ripping benefits and uneducated gays which will find any condition good as long
as they keep getting what ever it is that makes them live another day and their man is on top.
In Nov. the economy was bad but in January it was good.

 Even before US President Donald Trump took office, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans feared his administration would roll back gains they made in the Obama administration.
Now, 100 days into Trump's presidency, advocacy groups say their concerns have been realized through Cabinet appointments and policy decisions that undermine civil rights for LGBT Americans. 
Here's a timeline of key actions affecting LGBT Americans from the first 100 days.
Reversing course
February 10: In the first sign of a new Justice Department with different priorities, the agency dropped its defense of Obama-era protections for transgender students in a key lawsuit.
After the departments of Education and Justice issued joint guidance in May 2016 directing schools to let transgender students use facilities that correspond with their gender identity, officials in a dozen states sued to block their implementation.
A federal judge in Texas granted the states' request for a nationwide injunction to halt the guidelines' enforcement. The Obama administration's Justice Department appealed to reduce the injunction's scope to states involved in the lawsuit while the case was alive.
Then, the day after Attorney General Jeff Sessions was sworn in, the Justice Department said it withdrew its appeal so it could decide how to "best proceed" with the lawsuit. 
February 22: A few weeks later, the Trump administration withdrew the guidelines entirely, in a joint decision from the departments of Justice and Education.
March 27: Trump signed an executive order that nullified an Obama administration initiative to ensure that federal contractors complied with labor and civil rights laws forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. 
March 28: Meanwhile, the Obama administration's efforts to collect data on LGBT Americans had begun to unravel. 
Advocates have long pushed for the government to gather data on LGBT Americans, including how numerous they are. There's no official national count of gay, bisexual or transgender Americans. Therefore, advocates welcomed the inclusion of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in the Census Bureau's road map for 2020 data collection. But celebrations were premature. The agency later said it found "no need" to collect the data. 
The reversal came days after Secretary Tom Price's Department of Health and Human Services eliminated questions about about sexual orientation and gender identity in proposed versions of two critical health-care surveys addressing the needs of the elderly and the disabled.
Advocates said their inclusion in surveys helps assess needs within the LGBT community and collect data to support policy changes.
April 14: After North Carolina repealed and replaced its so-called bathroom bill with another measure that prevents cities from passing anti-discrimination ordinances, the Justice Department halted its litigation related to the laws. 
Meanwhile, a handful of state and district courts have sided with transgender students in lawsuits against schools. And, observers are waiting to see what's next for transgender teen Gavin Grimm's lawsuit against the Gloucester County School Board in Virginia. The withdrawal of the guidance led the Supreme Court to return the case to a lower court to consider whether anti-discrimination protections extend to gender identity. 
Trump's appointments
Presidential appointments speak volumes about what an administration will stand for, said Sharon McGowan, director of strategy at legal aid group Lambda Legal. 
LGBT advocacy groups opposed the nominations of then-US Sen. Jeff Sessions and then-US Rep. Tom Price to head the Justice Department and Department of Health and Human Services based on their legislative track records on gay rights issues.
As lawmakers, both supported a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in 2006, though Sessions promised in his confirmation hearings that he would follow the Supreme Court's decision on marriage equality. It didn't come up in Price's hearings, and observers are waiting to see whether he upholds anti-discimination measures in the Affordable Health Care Act that protect LGBT Americans. 
When in Congress, Sessions and Price co-sponsored the First Amendment Defense Act, the so-called religious liberty bill preventing the federal government from punishing businesses for denying services to same-sex couples. They voted against expanding federal hate crime statutes to include sexual orientation, gender and disability. They condemned the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," the policy that forbade gay and lesbian service members from serving openly.
LGBT advocates are concerned about the White House appointment of former Heritage Foundation employee Roger Severino to lead the Health and Human Services civil rights office. He came out against a provision of the Affordable Care Act banning discrimination against transgender patients, saying the rule would "threaten the religious liberty, freedom of conscience, and independent medical judgment of health care professionals." 
The road ahead
From the President to the attorney general to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, the administration has said it's trying to balance civil rights with states' right to set their own policies.
But advocacy groups say the administration's actions are efforts to erase them from America narrative. 
"One hundred days of Trump translates into 100 days of erasure for the LGBTQ community," said Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of advocacy group GLAAD.
"From the census exclusion, to rescinding Obama's guidance for trans youth in schools, and lack of any LGBTQ mentions on the White House website, he has spent the early days of his administration trying to remove us from the very fabric of this country, and we must resist."
By Emanuella Grinberg CNN 

Barbaric Treatment of Gays is Not Just Chechnya but Also Turkey

 Plainclothes police officers detain LGBT rights activists as they try to gather for a pride parade, which was banned by the governorship, in Istanbul, Turkey, June 26, 2016.
In June, Istanbul police banned LGBT parades after Islamist and nationalist groups threatened that they would not allow "degenerates" to hold events on Turkish soil. Turkish police fired tear gas to disperse a gay rally in defiance of the ban.
In International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association report on LGBT rights in 49 European countries says Turkey was number 46 on the list. Rankings are based on how the laws and policies of each country impact the lives of LGBT people

PERSECUTION of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual (LGBT) people in Chechnya and other parts of Eastern Europe has been branded “barbaric” by Newport West MP Paul Flynn.

Reports of LGBT people being arrested or otherwise persecuted in Chechnya, which is formally a republic of Russia, have been widespread, although unconfirmed, for a number of years.

And, speaking during a debate on the issue in Parliament last week, Labour MP Mr Flynn said he was concerned human rights abuses such as this were also taking place elsewhere.

“We entirely support the opposition, which should be worldwide, but we should reflect on the fact that this terrible activity is spreading,” he said.

“One reason for that is the fact that there is now less pressure on countries to improve their human rights, because they do not have the incentive of joining the European Union, which demands high standards.

“We are, sadly, going back to barbaric treatment not just in Chechnya but in many other countries, including Turkey.”

And his party colleague for Torfaen Nick Thomas-Symonds said the Russian government “have been found wanting when it comes to human rights”.

“They need to be constantly reminded that they should honour their international human rights obligations,” he said.

“How can we ensure that other countries are similarly robust in explaining that to the Russian government, not least because those members of the LGBT community in Chechnya must be feeling so insecure at the moment?”

Conservative MP for Rutland and Melton Sir Alan Duncan, who led the debate, replied: “We work through all collective European and other organisations, and, of course, through the United Nations more widely.

“Because we speak frankly, we have had a rather scratchy relationship with the Russians recently.

“But we will not shy away from raising these issues both frankly and forcefully.

“I can assure the honorable gentleman that we will maintain a policy of robust engagement with the Russians, and that it will include matters of this sort.”


April 28, 2017

Continued: Zeke Thomas Rape

Page 2

15% are under the age of 12
29% are age 12–17[57]
44% are under age 18
80% are under age 30
12–34 are the highest risk years
Girls ages 16–19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.[58]
By gender

A study from 1998 finds that,

88.7% of rape victims are women, the other 11.3% being men
17.6% of women have been victims of attempted (2.8%) or completed (14.8%) rape during their lifetime
3% of men have been victims of attempted or completed rape during their lifetime
17.7 million women have been victims of attempted or completed rape during their lifetime
2.78 million men have been victims of attempted or completed rape during their lifetime.[58]

LGBT identifying individuals, with the exception of lesbian women, are more likely to experience sexual assault on college campuses than heterosexual individuals.[59]

1 in 8 lesbian women and nearly 50% of bisexual women and men experience sexual assault in their lifetime.
Nearly 4 in 10 gay men experience sexual violence in their lifetime.
64% of transgender people have experienced sexual assault in their lifetime.[60]

3 times more likely to suffer from depression
6 times more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder
13 times more likely to abuse alcohol
26 times more likely to abuse drugs
4 times more likely to contemplate suicide[58]
The reporting of sexual assault:

on average 68% of sexual assaults go unreported[57]
98% of rapists will not spend time in jail
The assailants:
According to the U.S. Department of Justice 1997 Sex Offenses and Offenders Study,

A rapist's age on average is 31 years old
52% of offenders are white
22% of rapists imprisoned report that they are married
Juveniles accounted for 16% of forcible rape arrestees in 1995 and 17% of those arrested for other sex offenses
In 2001,

11% of rapes involved the use of a weapon
3% used a gun
6% used a knife
2% used another form of weapon
84% of victims reported the use of physical force only[61]
According to the U.S. Department of Justice 2005 National Crime Victimization Study

About 2/3 of rapes were committed by someone known to the victim
73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger
38% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance
28% are an intimate
7% are a relative [61]

In the United States, several studies since 1987 have indicated that one in four college women have experienced rape or attempted rape at some point in their lifetime. These studies are based on anonymous surveys of college women, not reports to the police, and the results are disputed.[62] In the documentary The Hunting Ground, the prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses is brought to attention. The schools poor judicial systems are scrutinized for not helping the victims and trying to keep these issues from the public.[63]

In 2015, Texas A&M University professor Jason Lindo and his colleagues analyzed over two decades worth of FBI data, noting that reports of rape increased 15-57% around the times of major American Football games at Division 1 schools while attempting to find a link between campus rape and alcohol.[64]

A 2006 report from the U.S. Department of Justice titled "The Sexual Victimization of College Women" reports that 3.1% of undergraduates survived rape or attempted rape during a 6–7 month academic year with an additional 10.1% surviving rape prior to college and an additional 10.9% surviving attempted rape prior to college. With no overlap between these groups, these percentages add to 24.1%, or "One in Four".[65]

Koss, Gidycz & Wisniewski published a study in 1987 where they interviewed approximately 6,000 college students on 32 college campuses nationwide. They asked several questions covering a wide range of behaviors. From this study 15% of college women answered "yes" to questions about whether they experienced something that met the definition of rape. An additional 12% of women answered "yes" to questions about whether they experienced something that met the definition of attempted rape, thus the statistic One in Four.[66]

A point of contention lies in the leading nature of the questions in the study conducted by Koss, Gidycz & Wisniewski. Koss herself later admitted that the question that had garnered the largest "rape" result was flawed and ultimately rendered the study invalid. Most prominently the problem was that many respondents who had answered yes to several questions had their responses treated as having been raped. The issue being that these same respondents did not feel they had been victimized and never sought redress for grievances. The resultant change shows a prevalence of only 1 in 22 college women having been raped or attempted to be raped during their time at college.[62]

In 1995, the CDC replicated part of this study, however they examined rape only, and did not look at attempted rape. They used a two-stage cluster sample design to produce a nationally representative sample of undergraduate college students aged greater than or equal to 18 years. The first-stage sampling frame contained 2,919 primary sampling units (PSUs), consisting of 2- and 4-year colleges and universities. The second sampling stage consisted of a random sample drawn from the primary sample unit frame enrolled in the 136 participating colleges and universities to increase the sample size to 4,609 undergraduate college students aged greater than or equal to 18 years old with a representative sample demographic matching the national demographic. Differential sampling rates of the PSU were used to ensure sufficient numbers of male and female, black and Hispanic students in the total sample population. After differential sample weighting, female students represented 55.5% of the sample; white students represented 72.8% of the sample, black students 10.3%, Hispanic students 7.1%, and 9.9% were other.[67] It was determined that nationwide, 13.1% of college students reported that they had been forced to have sexual intercourse against their will during their lifetime. Female students were significantly more likely than male students to report they had ever been forced to have sexual intercourse; 20% of approximately 2500 females (55% of 4,609 samples) and 3.9% of males reported experiencing rape thus far in the course of their lifetime.[68]

Other studies concerning the annual incidence of rape, some studies conclude an occurrence of 5%. The National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence found that in the 2013–2014 academic year, 4.6% of girls ages 14 – 17 experienced sexual assault or sexual abuse.[69] In another study, Mohler-Kuo, Dowdall, Koss & Weschler (2004)[70] found in a study of approximately 25,000 college women nationwide that 4.7% experienced rape or attempted rape during a single academic year. This study did not measure lifetime incidence of rape or attempted rape. Similarly, Kilpatrick, Resnick, Ruggiero, Conoscenti, & McCauley (2007) found in a study of 2,000 college women nationwide that 5.2% experienced rape every year.[71]


Other research has found that about 80,000 American children are sexually abused each year.[72] It has been estimated that one in six American women has been or will be sexually assaulted during her life.[73] Largely because of child and prison rape, approximately ten percent of reported rape victims are male.[74]

How About .50cents Every Month

Is that too much? We need it, IF everyone reading the blog will give us a dollar or less every few months and become our members You, they will save us.

Featured Posts

Visible First Time}} Gay Athletes Take Over in Waves on The Olympics

  By  JOHN LEICESTER Associated Press   TOKYO -- When Olympic diver Tom Daley announced in 2013 that he was dating a man and “couldn...

Most Popular Posts