Who will stand up for LGBTQ+ Diversity?

The only thing that has surprised me about Donald Trump’s assault on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is the speed with which he has imposed his bigotry on individuals and federal institutions. The first step came within hours of the Felon-in-Chief assuming office with an Executive Order intended to dismantle crucial protections for transgender people and deny the validity of gender identity itself. The new order withdraws a range of executive orders issued by Joe Biden, including those allowing transgender people to serve in the military, advancing the health and well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth, and interpreting federal sex discrimination protections in domains like education, housing, and immigration to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. And this is just the start, and I don’t think it will be confined to the USA for very long.

The attack on LGBTQ+ rights is part of a wider assault on the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies intended to create a level playing field for women and minorities. The intention is to turn the Federal government into a system of oppression operated by people of Trump’s hate-filled mindset that diversity is a threat to white male privilege and must be crushed. He and his crony Elon Musk got where they are not by merit but through inherited wealth. It’s no surprise that they wish to deny others the chance to succeed.

I have addressed the question “why should we care about diversity?” many times on this blog in many contexts, though usually in science and usually in reference to LGBTQ+ rights. The obvious answer _ think – is based on notions of fairness: we should do everything we can to ensure that people have equal opportunity to advance their career in whatever direction appeals to them. But I’m painfully aware that there are some people for whom arguments based on fairness simply don’t wash. Trumpists, for example. For them there’s another argument that should work better. As scientists whose goal is – or should be – the advancement of knowledge, the message is that we should strive as hard as possible to recruit the brightest and most creative brains into our subject. That means ensuring that the pool from which we recruit is as large and as diverse as possible. In large and complex research collaborations, such as the Euclid Consortium (of which I am a member), the range of ideas and perspectives is a real asset when it comes to solving problems. The problem is that this argument doesn’t work either as they are driven purely by mean-spirited ideology and the desire to fill the institutions of state with those of a similar ilk.

The effects of the latest reactionary steps are already starting to show in the area of astronomy. The Diversity and LGBT+ channels on the Vera Rubin-LSST Slack (which is a Federal project, funded by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy) have already been deleted. A similar fate has befallen the Space Telescope Science Institute (funded by NASA). It seems to me unlikely that NASA itself will survive long as Musk will have his eyes on dismantling it and using its resources for his own vanity projects.

Over the past year I have given a few talks about my own career in research as an LGBTQ+ person; see for example here. In giving these talks I tried to strike a relatively positive tone, showing how LGBTQ+ rights have improved over the 40 years or so I’ve been involved in cosmological research since I started my graduate studies in 1985. I have, however, ended with a warning that the forces of reaction were gathering, and all the progress we have made could easily be put into reverse. That is exactly what is happening now in the USA.

The question in my mind is who will stand up for diversity? I can quote examples from my own life that prove that some individual institutions have never really taken LGBTQ+ bullying and discrimination seriously. Others may be genuinely supportive, but perhaps that is wishful thinking. It is notable how enthusiastically some US organizations have preemptivly cooperated with Trump’s edicts, even when paused through legal challenge. I grew up in the 1980s when the climate was filled with homophobic hate. It is naive to imagination that all that hate simply disappeared. We will find out very soon whether our self-styled “allies” have only ever been fair weather friends who will happily abandon us when we become politically inconvenient.

Mark Zuckerberg, Trump y la controversia sobre los tampones en baños masculinos

Mark Zuckerberg, director ejecutivo de Meta, está nuevamente en el centro de la polémica. La decisión de retirar tampones de los baños masculinos en las oficinas de la compañía ha causado indignación, especialmente entre la comunidad LGBTQ+. Este acto afecta directamente a los hombres trans que menstrúan y ha sido señalado como un retroceso en los esfuerzos por promover la inclusión. Sin embargo, el contexto político detrás de estas decisiones amplifica aún más las críticas. 

Cambios en Meta tras la reunión con Trump 

Según un artículo del *New York Times*, Zuckerberg adoptó un enfoque más conservador luego de visitar a Donald Trump en Mar-a-Lago durante el Día de Acción de Gracias. Tras esta reunión, convocó a un reducido grupo de altos ejecutivos para discutir un cambio radical en las políticas de la empresa, particularmente en cuanto a la expresión en línea. Posteriormente, ordenó que estas ideas se convirtieran en políticas oficiales. 

Pero la controversia no termina ahí. El artículo también menciona que Meta está eliminando iniciativas clave relacionadas con la diversidad, equidad e inclusión (DEI). La empresa informó a sus empleados que: 
– Eliminaría el puesto de director de diversidad. 
– Pondría fin a sus objetivos de contratación de mujeres y minorías. 
– Dejaría de priorizar a empresas propiedad de minorías al contratar proveedores. 

¿Un retroceso en inclusión? 

Estas acciones, sumadas al retiro de tampones en baños masculinos, representan un giro preocupante en los valores de Meta. Para muchas personas, estas decisiones reflejan un desinterés por las comunidades vulnerables y una alineación con políticas conservadoras que limitan derechos y refuerzan desigualdades. 

¿Neutralidad o inclinación política? 

Meta es una de las empresas tecnológicas más influyentes del mundo, y decisiones como estas no solo afectan su imagen, sino también la percepción de neutralidad en sus plataformas. Si dos de las principales redes sociales (Facebook e Instagram) adoptan ideologías percibidas como excluyentes, se corre el riesgo de alienar a millones de usuarios que esperan espacios seguros y diversos. 

Empatía más allá de la comunidad 

Es importante entender que, aunque las decisiones de Zuckerberg puedan ser celebradas por personas con pensamientos homofóbicos o conservadores, retirar medidas de protección para cualquier población vulnerable no es adecuado. No se necesita ser parte de una comunidad para sentir empatía. Al igual que no necesitamos ser palestinos para sentir empatía con ellos, o ser judíos para entender la gravedad de la persecución que vivieron durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, no es necesario ser parte de la comunidad LGBTQ+ para apoyar su derecho a vivir de manera segura y respetada. 

Zuckerberg y Musk: Los magnates de las redes sociales 

Con las recientes decisiones de Zuckerberg, ya sería el segundo magnate dueño de una red social de gran influencia que está tomando medidas alineadas con políticas conservadoras. El primero fue Elon Musk, quien adquirió Twitter (ahora X) y también ha implementado cambios significativos que algunos consideran contrarios a la diversidad e inclusión. Este fenómeno plantea la pregunta de si estamos viendo una tendencia entre los líderes de las grandes plataformas sociales de alejarse de la neutralidad en favor de posturas más ideológicas.

Reflexión final 

El reporte del New York Times revela una transformación profunda en Meta que afecta tanto a sus empleados como a sus usuarios. Estas decisiones no son solo temas internos, sino acciones que impactan directamente a comunidades enteras y envían un mensaje sobre los valores que la empresa prioriza. 

¿Estamos viendo el comienzo de un Meta más conservador y alineado con políticas MAGA? Solo el tiempo lo dirá, pero lo cierto es que estas decisiones han dejado a muchas comunidades sintiéndose ignoradas y vulnerables. 

Too often in rock history, male drummers have received the spotlight. Well, listed below are my favorite women and non-binary drummers of today’s modern rock music. Each musician brings something special to their band from vocals, to lyrics, to other instruments being played, to being the very beating heart of each song as expressed through their drumming. These talented artists represent multiple nations (Canada, Ireland, the UK, and the USA)

Please consider giving each band a listen and see if you agree with me. Peace and rock on!

_______

Karah James of Valley

_______

Laila Wayans – Been Stellar

_______

Eliza Enman-McDaniel of The Beaches

_______

Rachel Lyons – Pillow Queens

_______

Ciara Doran – Pale Waves

_______

Danielle Haim of Haim

https://panethos.wordpress.com/2024/09/23/todays-amazing-women-and-non-binary-rock-drummers/

A topic that shouldn’t be all that controversial, but is, anyway. The topic of whether the act of having kinks, or sharing them in an event typically revolving around the LGBTQ+ community (that is going to be shamed and persecuted no matter what, anyway, until our society gets to grips with the fact that people are unique), is good or bad. A lot of talking points that sound like common sense on the surface, but are really just the talking points of people who would seek to eradicate the aforementioned community, at all costs.

There was a time that, I too, thought that it was just total common sense that you shouldn’t have your schlong whipping around on all fours at a public pride event, and then later, as I learned, and got a little bit older, and smarter, I realized that this is just a straw man. And even if it were something that was happening, who the hell cares?

Obviously, I have numerous claims of agency that allow me to speak on this topic, and if you doubt that agency, I would suggest that you follow me, my thoughts, and the way I’ve experienced my life just a little bit closer. But I’m not here to talk about myself. I do that enough on Mastodon.

Our society is riddled with sex-negativity, and it’s bursting at the seams. People are using it for engagement on social media, and they’re using it as talking points to run for political office. In a society, like America, where sex is a bestseller, it’s also a subject of constant shame, because we’re ridiculous like that, right? People have sex! Oh, SHIT!

But this entire debate, that goes on and on like clockwork, every year, every pride, is about respectability politics, as summarized by this Vox article.

One of the things that LGBTQ people quickly learn when they come out is that the “sex and respectability at Pride” discourse is like the villain in a horror movie who is never, ever truly defeated, even if you burn the bones.

Alex Abad-Santos, Vox

What are “respectability politics,” though?

The idea that you must act a certain way in order to be accepted, otherwise you’re tarnishing the fight for equality. Which, for real, is an extremely flawed point of view. As presented at the beginning of this post, people who want to persecute LGBTQ+ people are going to do so no matter how you act. Presenting to these types of people that you’re “one of the good ones,” will only ensure that you’re burned at the stake last.

Side-tracking to myself for a split second, I can say this fully wholeheartedly is true, because those who toy with respectability politics were instrumental in my eventual removal from the Twitter-Synthwave community. As detailed in a recent post, because I stood up for myself against transphobia.

Back to the topic of kink, though, you might be wondering, “Does this mean Quentin Tarantino is LGBTQ+-aligned, just because he likes suckin’ toes?”

No, obviously not, unless there are things about him that I’m unaware of. I’m pretty sure he’s just a straight guy.

The idea that kink belongs at pride, or that it’s an essential part of pride, is because it is something that has been part of people who belong to this community for more years than I can count, more years than I can currently fathom with my burned-out brain-juice. Because sex is part of being gay, or being lesbian, or bisexual, or trans, or pansexual, and even asexual (lack of interest in sex is still an attachment to sex). It’s a part of all of these identities just as much as it’s a part of being straight. I mean, isn’t that obvious? Do ya watch TV? Movies? Are we hollering about saving the kids from the evils of watching Pulp Fiction in front of them by accident?

Oh, no?

Okay, so then it just boils down to an obvious hate for the overall LGBTQ+ community, and a talking point that’s really easy to use to get those who do hate, riled up. That’s all it is. And there are definitely well-meaning people who latch onto these talking points, thinking that it’s all just common sense.

But it’s not.

It’s a psy-op, orchestrated by homophobes and transphobes, and hate-mongers. It’s about dividing and conquering, a strategy as old as time itself. And in the year of our pizza, 2024, I think it’s time to start breaking old habits, and getting smarter about this stuff.

Okay?

https://cmdr-nova.online/2024/06/10/does-kink-belong-at-pride/