I’ll just let you guys read this and come to your own conclusions…
Sandra Fluke, Gender Reassignment, And Health Insurance
In a funny way, I actually appreciate these idiots bringing attention to this fact. Since we already know Ms. Fluke’s detractors have no idea what they’re talking about when it comes to contraception, maybe this will help people who support Ms. Fluke, but don’t yet see the parallels between attempting to limit women’s reproduction and medical choices and the denial of trans people’s choices about their bodies, understand how these issues intersect, and why it is important to defend the right of every human being to have access to appropriate medical care and a range of options, even if it involves girly hormones and icky lady parts.
The College Politico is almost a parody of the right-wing conspiracy nut.
Huh! Well, then, Sandra Fluke goes from thumbs up to thumbs up with both hands.
inorite?!?
My thoughts exactly. “Holy shit, I thought she was cool before, but now, she is extra fantastic!”
Oh dear. Shall I get the College Politico a fainting couch?
Sandra Fluke’s awesome goes without saying at this point, but this makes it even better.
I’ve seen this stuff popping up in my trans feeds. I used it as an excuse to go on a small rant about why it’s important to cover transgender care. It was a nice little rant.
But Sandra Fluke’s just getting more and more awesome in my book. 😀
Sandra Fluke just keeps getting better!
The religious right has always been all about denying people the opportunity to choose what to do with their bodies. It seems to come from the idea that god created our bodies, and that god’s creation is perfect and altering it in any way is a form of sacrilege. Altering the body implies that god made a mistake (a pretty big mistake too, in cases where “god” assigned someone a body of the wrong sex), and that means that god is not infallible. If they admitted that it would mean everything they believe is open to question, and the beliefs of the religious right don’t stand up well to questioning.
I’ve never understood why the fundies insist that trans people can’t exist because God doesn’t make mistakes. Yes, trans people may be born into a body that isn’t in line with their true sex, but anencephalic babies are born into a body with no freaking brain. Are anencephalic babies non-existant, too, because God doesn’t make mistakes? Because “doesn’t have a brain” seems to really out-mistake “doesn’t have the right physical sexual characteristics.”
PSSSSSSH.
It’s a consequence of the fall. And LGBTQ people are extra loved by God, hence given an extra helping of suffering for Christ. Because it is only through suffering that we can convert people and save them from Hell.
This means, of course, the LGBTQ people are only good if they deny who they are and suffer accordingly. The hope of transition, for instance, is something held up by the Devil to tempt trans people away from the Lord. If they’re not suffering anymore, how can they bring people to Christ?
How do people get so “into”/blinded by their faith that they see suffering as a good, even glorious, thing? Most efforts by charities and individuals which are judged good and worthy by the world at large aim to *end* suffering, not continue it.
I really struggle to understand…some of my friends who I think of as otherwise intelligent people are strongly religious. It scares me that it’s possible to cultivate such a massive blind spot because I wonder where everyone else’s (including mine) is. You can’t see it yourself of course… 😉
I see it that they are choosing to suffer, making it so much more ‘noble’ and Valued By God ™.
It is the suffering that isn’t by choice they are trying to end. Or perhaps they are just making sure the people that are suffering know that they are suffering and that they are doing it so they are also Valued By God.
Insert side reference to Mother Teresa and question was the work she did to end suffering or to glorify and continue the suffering because it was noble?
They feel they have to justify suffering because it calls the idea of an omnipotent, benevolent deity into question.
There’s some special kind of hilarity in reading an article like this. “You thought John Smith was just great, didn’t you? Well, did you know that he regularly volunteers time to read to the elderly? And worse: He donates to UNICEF, the bastard!”
yep 😀
I wonder if that site appreciates the irony of having their primary symbol be a large chain.
I’d call it transparent if unintentional symbolism, but I suppose it also falls under the category of dramatic irony, yeah.
(IRONy, lol. #youcanshootmenow)
as a side note, why do these conservatives all claim that people were pretending that Fluke was “a random co-ed* from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war”? I’m pretty sure her involvement in reproductive justice was a large part of what was considered to qualify her to testify on the subject. Certainly, I don’t remember anyone hiding that fact.
Anyway, if she’s this supportive of trans rights to their healthcare, that indeed makes her even more awesome than I thought 🙂
– – – – –
*as I mentioned recently on twitter, anyone who still uses “co-ed” as a word for a female student can automatically be assumed to have nothing of value to say about the lives of modern women, this not being the 1960’s anymore
I’ve always found that odd, shouldn’t co-ed just mean ‘person from an co-educational school’. Shouldn’t men who attend schools with women be equally co-edy?
well, in a non-stupid world, that’s how it would work. in this patriarchal world however, male students are students, and female students are what makes it co-educational. girls are, as always, the variant from the norm.
seriously though, that terminology has been outdated for decades. it’s right up there with “illegitimate” children
I’m a bastard! Literally. I was born out of wedlock. Mine parents never married. This is probably irrelevant to any discussion at hand, but I do so enjoy saying it.
In more on-topic news. I too think Ms Fluke is a concentrated source of pure awesomeness. The misanthrope in me thinks it’s too bad people (in the USA, in aggregate) will totally forget about her soon and the status quo will be back with a vengeance.
In New Zealand the term “co-ed” is only ever applied to schools (ones that take boys and girls) and never to people. I found the American usage very confusing when first I heard it.
I don’t know when the last time I saw the word Co-ed used to describe a person outside of porn websites was.
trans people’s rights. sorry, typing too fast
also, what’s with the “she’s not really a real Georgetown student, but an activist trying to take the school down” meme? is she fake-studying law, or what? if not, how does it make sense to say that she “just” went there to destroy their precious precious Catholic-ness? (instead of maybe because it had a good law school?)
Tracked back a couple links, and I think I found how it came about as an astonishing misrepresentation. To me, the quote from an Ezra Klein (on Washington Post blogs) article means “she came to the university knowing it had bad healthcare, and came anyway, and lobbied for coverage.” The actual quote reads:
Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.
(misrepresentation is at http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/ , and they link to the Ezra Klein article)
So seeking out injustice and attempting to rectify it is now a *bad* thing?? Head, meet desk.
Only if it limits what men can control about women’s bodies with religion.
What the fuck at the comments on the linked article. I really wish I hadn’t clicked through.
It’s almost funny, though, in a pathetic kind of way that they’re lambasting her for saying sensible things, and for actually being more qualified than they previously thought to comment on the issues. I think it’s genuinely hilarious that they’re accusing her of being a mole for caring about the issues and having actual expertise and knowledge.
Well, it’s totally unfair competition; their side can never muster anyone with actual expertise or knowledge, so how come we’re allowed to? Note that however stupid and ignorant the conservative politicians and professional talking heads sound, whenever someone who wasn’t handpicked by the propaganda machine gets the mic they make the Limbaughs and Santorums look like Macarthur Grant recipients.
I bet it’s all ’cause she’s pretty and polite. Of course it is her own fault that some people assumed she was a Beautiful Helpless Victim! Women who actually *do* things aren’t good enough to represent other women, didn’t you know that?
I read the article but couln’t bring myself to look at the comments. I was sure they’d be worse. And thanks to Mcbender, I know they were.
The whole thing is a hatchet job on that uppity female who stood up to the men who know better. Fluke just gets better and better in my opinion.
I *was* mentally cheering when I heard her say “[‘slut’] is the kind of language that has historically been used to silence women”, in an interview. It’s awesome to hear this. I hope you’re right that more people will therefore learn about healthcare issues for trans people.
The best part of that post is the incongruity of “Hey everyone, I just learned about health insurance for trans people, did you know this?” combined with the scare-quotes around “ignorance and bias”. Apparently not knowing something doesn’t make one ignorant, if they say it doesn’t!
I’m sorry, you seem to have got some sarcasm on my keyboard. Anyway, I commented about that, but I doubt it’ll get through.
…that’s some high-octane crazy on that site there.
A large majority of the comments just seemed to be excerpts from the posting. – maybe it’s showing up weird cause I run a no-script plugin, but I wasn’t about to enable any of the dozen or so scripts on that page to see what kinds of hate and crazy I was missing.
And, yeah, I didn’t know much about Fluke before hand, but I think quite a bit more of her now. 🙂
The funny thing is: most people wouldn’t have heard anything about this if that rightwingnut slimeball didn’t just spend 3 days calling her a slut and a whore. – only a small group of people would have noticed, and all the vast-left-wing’s conspiratorial planning and scheming would have been wasted…
I have an question.
I support gender reassignment largely because I see it as a mental health issue. It’s something that would improve one’s mental health, and as such that is a good thing. Is that the best way to look at it? Is there a better way to look at it?
You can just as easily look at it as a physical health issue. That it’s not a “problem” with a man having a female brain, but that it’s a “problem” with a woman having a male body.
You know that feeling when you pick up a box that is 10 times heavier than you thought? Rush should feel like that now.
The story is also an interesting variant of the Streisand effect. Had nobody really reacted to her she would have been out of the news the day after her appearance.
Sandra Fluke for president! She”s be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than Romney or Santorum. Y’know, she actually learns about things before she starts giving her opinion.
She’s going to have to wait at least 5 years. But that’s OK, because:
Elizabeth Warren in 2016!
Gaaahh! I can’t tell if my headache is from the stupid at The College Politico, or their damned white text-on-black background. Curse web designers who do that!
Haha, now that you mention it that’s the only thing I actually like about this blog. Less light is easier on my eyes. But thanks to a blogger (radtransfem) who does that light-on-dark thing, I now know zapping colors, so you can change it for yourself if you want!
http://www.russellbeattie.com/blog/the-zap-colors-bookmarklet
I like dark background blogs, too. I really like the design at both Radical Trans-Feminist (Lisa Millibank etc.) and Cisnormativity (Patience Newbury, Monica Maldonado, etc.)
One of my favourite designs though is the “minimalist” theme on WordPress. Just a white background and simple black text. I think it’s used on “Yo, Is This Racist?” and Anthropology Fox.
While generally speaking I think FTB is a much much better fit for me than Skepchick, I do miss Skepchick’s design. I thought it was a much more visually enjoyable blog. Finding Featured Images (and little images to scatter through the longer posts) was a bit of a pain, but still… it was altogether a bit more “fun” to read, visually-speaking.
Fortunately, though, the FTB redesign is launching very soon. I don’t know quite what it’s going to look like, but I expect it will be an improvement. I do worry a bit about whether the new colours will clash with the pink/blue trans-pride-flag theme of my banner and avatar, though.
I love how they made a big deal out of the fact that some reporter said she was 23, but she’s actually 30, as if it was some… conspiracy? I don’t really get it.
Ok, so she enrolled in the school specifically to help make a change. Not the most noble of reasons to enroll in a school, but certainly not a crime.
I guess they just need someone to vilify.