The opening plenary of Creating Change 2011 bridged the main conference with its subconference, Practice Spirit, Do Justice. Entitled “Hard work for our common good,” the panel featured four religious leaders with prepared statements: Bishop Yvette Flunder (City of Refuge/UCC), Rev. Elder Nancy Wilson (MCC), Rabbi Joshua Lesser, and Faisal Alam, a Muslim leader.

And while I was prepared for many faith-centric messages, I was not prepared for how erased and marginalized I would feel on the very first day of the conference. Most of the 25 who joined the atheist caucus the following evening expressed similar concerns, as did many CC veterans who could not attend but followed along on Twitter.

As an obvious start, the opening panel did not feature a Humanist, Unitarian, or nonbeliever who could speak for the experiences of those who do not identify with faith. Arguably, plenty of other worldviews also went unrepresented as well. But the language that was used, particularly by Rev. Wilson and Bishop Flunder, not so subtly erased nonbelievers from the LGBT community and movement. And while atheists and agnostics were acknowledged a time or two, we were not represented nor affirmed by the supposedly interfaith panel.

Rev. Rebecca Voelkel opened the session by declaring, “This is where we are as a movement,” celebrating that a panel of faith leaders were opening the conference. Both Rev. Wilson and Rabbi Lesser spoke to the way the LGBT movement has excluded or dismissed faith communities in the past. And then Bishop Flunder pronounced the following:

I’d like to lift up tonight the presence of faith and deep spirituality as the underpinning if most, if not all real, authentic civil rights movements. I believe that the power to endure and be courageous amid continual physical, emotional, and spiritual attack must come from a deep well that is continually filled by the divine of our understanding.

She later invoked the prophet Paul, reminding us, “If God be for us, who would dare be against us,” and then declared “We will get our God back!”

Rev. Wilson added in her follow-up remarks that “Activism, to be sustained, requires faith of some kind, maybe not religious or spiritual, but some kind of sustaining faith.” This was her introduction to her hopes for the nonreligious and religious to work together.

These are just a few of the examples of language that left me incredibly triggered, excluded from the movement and the community. I left the session taking not much else with me. I’m glad the entire video is online, because upon relistening, I found a lot of important and powerful ideas that I could respect and appreciate. I implore you: take 45 minutes and listen for yourself. And yet, the panel still makes me feel incredibly invisible, like I am not welcome to be a part of this movement—that because I do not identify with faith of any kind, I have nothing to contribute towards our queer liberation.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXXfcwJm2zo

The atheist/nonbeliever caucus was a remarkable experience. Not everyone there identified with the a-word. There were Humanists, agnostics, and even some folks of varying degrees of spirituality. But we weren’t there to argue over vocabulary semantics; we were there to affirm each other. And one of the qualities that united most of the 25 individuals in the room was that it was the first time in their lives that they were in a room with that many other nonbelievers and the first time in their lives that they felt affirmed to come out and commune with their fellow nonbelievers.

I had proposed the caucus because I knew there was a need. I had no idea the need was so great.

Historically, there had been visibility for atheists in conferences past, but it has been many years since that was the case. If this year’s atheist caucus was any indication, we are overdue to reverse the trend of that invisibility.

The room was alive and abuzz! We committed most of the hour to creating space for each individual to speak and be affirmed. We could have easily communed and discussed issues for four or more.

In the course of the discussion, we agreed that Practice Spirit, Do Justice was not particularly welcoming or affirming for us. We also acknowledged that the intensity of faith at this year’s conference was likely unique, as Minneapolis is where The Task Force’s faith arm, The Institute for Welcome Resources, operates. Most importantly, everyone was energized to create additional inclusive spaces for atheists in future conferences.

And while I’m committed to that, I also put forth a challenge here and now to the organizers of the conference at large to create a more inclusive space for nonbelievers. Creating Change has been very proactive about offering suggestions for language use regarding other dimensions of identity, including race, gender identity, and ability. It’s time that these efforts be updated to create a truly interfaith space that does not exclude and erase nonbelievers.

In his book, Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe, Greg Epstein offers the following suggestions for fully including Humanists and Atheists in interfaith spaces:

Don’t ask, “Can you be good without God?”

Do ask why we are motivated to be good, or to work with you.

Don’t proselytize to atheists in an interfaith context.

I hope readers can see how some of the assertions made during the plenary about the role of faith in the movement left out the motivations and experiences of those who do not identify with faith.

Do reach out specifically to atheist, secular, and Humanist groups and solicit their participation.

This has not been standard practice for Creating Change. Had I not proactively proposed the atheist caucus, there would have been no actual affirmation of nonbelievers’ contributions to the conference aside from lip service.

Don’t advertise interfaith events as for the religious only or as a way for everyone to unite, despite theological differences, around belief in God.

Practice Spirit, Do Justice and its overwhelming intersections with the conference at large clearly ran into this problem.

Do advertise as religiously pluralistic, including all religions as well as atheists, agnostics, Humanists, and the nonreligious.

To its credit, Creating Change does acknowledge nonbelievers as part of its community.

Use inclusive language: In addition to including us on your usual flyers, posters, or recruiting emails as above, try a special poster or e-mail emphasizing that interfaith includes the nonreligious too.

Include us in programs.

Learn and teach about us.

I was encouraged privately to propose atheist-centered workshops (such as an “Atheist 101″ workshop) as part of the Practice Spirit, Do Justice track, but I will confess that I did not truly feel welcome to do so. This may very well have been a failing on my part, and an opportunity I regret not seizing.

It is an interesting sort of personal irony I recognize.  I wish to counteract the lack of affirmation for nonbelievers, but it’s the very lack of affirmation that inhibits me from taking too bold a step.

Still, there were individuals at our caucus who told me that I was a trailblazer, a compliment I don’t think I earned by simply creating one space. Clearly the work needs to be done, and I do feel affirmed to step up and be a leader for this community of overlapping identities.

Rev. Wilson said, “You need us to beat their agenda.” Bishop Flunder repeated several times that negative religious messages need to be met with positive religious messages. I don’t disagree with either sentiment. Still, our commitment to reclaiming faith for LGBT people should not abandon those who seek not to reclaim faith and who are perhaps quite eager to challenge it. There is a boisterous atheist community chock full of LGBT allies who are just waiting to be invited to the table.

I hope Creating Change 2012 is where we can finally make that invitation and create a balanced space that celebrates all worldviews and lifestances, from the most spiritual to the least. It is certainly my commitment to step up and make it so.

Naturally, Peter and his group were quite put off with some of what they found at Creating Change (which apparently was sponsored by Chili’s? I didn’t realize, but I’ll remember next time I chance to eat there). As my twitter exchange with Peter continues and he prepares to report on more detail about what he and his spies “discovered,” I thought I’d offer an initial response to the complaints he has filed about the conference.

Here are the different ways Peter perceives The Task Force’s “extremist vision” (and why they all sound great to me!):

Taxpayer-financed “sex change” operations for transsexuals (not to do so is “discrimination” against “transgenders”)

Apologies to my transgender friends and allies for his mocking quotes. You deserve to be talked about like the real people you are.

For better or worse, gender identity disorder is a diagnosable condition. It’s been in the DSM for over 30 years. To treat it is a question of health care. Peter seems to have a problem with people getting health care.

Using polling, focus groups and emotional arguments to persuade evangelical Christians to ignore Scripture and accept homosexuality-based “rights”

Evangelical Christians don’t need the influence of the gay agenda to ignore Scripture. They do it all the time. We just want them to ignore the verses they use against us too.

It’s pretty easy to connect the dots between Biblical condemnation and youth suicide, or between international evangelism and legalized anti-LGBT oppression, or between ex-gay therapy and genocide. Given how upset Peter gets that he and his ilk are painted as “hateful,” he should be glad that the gay agenda wants to minimize the infamous correlation between evangelism and discrimination.

Using the tragedy of homosexual youth suicides to shame Christians into stop calling homosexuality sinful

Well, if you tell young people their choices are a life of depression or an after-life of agony, what do you expect to happen? Think about it, Peter. You make them feel so miserable about the lives they might live as gays or lesbians that they would rather send themselves off to Hell than endure the picture you’ve painted for them. If you want to own that, feel free, but I would think true Christians would experience shame for all the judging and first-stone-throwing you promote.

Celebrating sadomasochism (consensual sexual violence and degradation) and “kinky”/fetish sexual behaviors

I don’t really know what’s bad about this. AFTAH bothered to include the word “consensual,” which should make it a non-issue. Live and let live. As we discussed in the Sexual Liberation institute I attended, if there is consent and mutual benefit, everything should be fair game.

I feel bad for those upstanding Christian heterosexual couples who never let themselves get a little nasty! They’re missing out.

Pro-homosexuality lessons for grade school kids (because waiting until middle school is too late to reach them)

Well yeah. There are kindergartners who have same-sex parents. And not just parents who they go home to, but parents who will serve on the PTA and chaperon field trips and volunteer in classrooms. They are families that are part of the community, so yes, for the sake of those children, their families need to be validated, and more importantly, not alienated.

Of course, from the way this is phrased, it is probably meant to imply teaching young children about how to have anal sex, which isn’t really on anyone’s agenda.

Non-judgmental condom advocacy for young men in the name of HIV prevention — and even being non-judgmental in “safe sex” training when it comes to bizarre/disgusting “fetish” behaviors

So what… if people want to get a little nasty, we should not encourage them to still use condoms? I think supporting condom use and safe sex is always a good thing. Why does AFTAH think it’s a bad thing?

Predicting not just a future “gay” president of the United States but also a “bi” and a “transgender” president! (I’ll withhold the jokes…)

I’m pretty sure the Constitution doesn’t mention “heterosexual” or “cisgender” as required qualifications. It sure sounds like Peter/AFTAH aren’t just anti-LGBT, they’re anti-LGBT happiness and anti-LGBT dreams. You don’t have to be cruel to be the opposition. Sheesh.

“[F--k--g] with gender,” and celebrating bisexuality and “genderqueer” lifestyles (see this definition for latter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer)

Gender is fun to play with. This is another one where I don’t even see what could possibly be negative about it. Just let people be who they are. I’m surprised the definition is provided; I am all for people better understanding the diversity around them!

Are anti-LGBT evangelical Christians so insecure that anything that doesn’t resemble Leave It To Beaver completely freaks them out?

Using “gender identity” laws to pressure businesses to bend to the transgender agenda of “Gender-Neutral Restrooms” — to replace the old-fashioned variety with an “M” or an “F” on the door.

Most gender-neutral restrooms are single-use, so I don’t see the problem. Like so many of the others, this sounds like it’s meant to scare and provoke. “BE AFRAID! THINGS MIGHT CHANGE!” Ally McBeal was so far ahead of its time.

So that’s it. For now. Apparently, “there is much, much more” and AFTAH will be reporting on it over the coming weeks.

Honestly, I find this list even less compelling than I did when I first started writing this post. The tantrums of AFTAH over the efforts toward LGBT equality are laughable, and if this is all they have to try to smear the work of NGLTF and the Creating Change conference, it probably won’t be worthwhile to respond to their ensuing posts.

Still, compared to the obvious vitriol documented at AFTAH’s “Truth Academy” this summer, it seems worth a good laugh that this is the best they can do to criticize Creating Change, a conference with 5500% more attendees and 100% less restrictions on who can attend.

Freshly back from Creating Change and AWP, Zack and Peterson are energized to be advocates and writers. This week’s episode focuses on a roundup of news related to the transgender community, including unfunny sketches on Craig Ferguson and SNL, hate crimes, and a big new study that reveals “Injustice at Every Turn” for the trans community. We also share our experiences from our conferences and, of course, an erotic poem!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» This week’s erotic poem: “Song for a Lakota Woman” by Chrystos (Listen to Chrystos read it.)

» Chris Geidner’s report on Craig Ferguson and SNL

» Murders of transgender people in Honduras

» Sentencing of Ashley Santiago’s Murderer

» Autumn Sandeen speaks out about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

» The Task Force and NCTE Study: Injustice at Every Turn

» Peterson’s Post about the Trans-Inclusive Commercial from Argentina

» Robyn Ochs!

» Peterson’s Schedule

» The Trans-Ponder Podcast!

]]> http://zackfordblogs.com/2011/02/queer-and-queerer-ep-39-trans-allies-gone-wild/feed/ 3 http://zackfordblogs.com/2011/02/topsy-turvy-world-my-ongoing-dialogue-with-peter-labarbera/ http://zackfordblogs.com/2011/02/topsy-turvy-world-my-ongoing-dialogue-with-peter-labarbera/#comments Tue, 08 Feb 2011 20:48:32 +0000 ZackFord http://zackfordblogs.com/?p=5784 Some days, you just look around and go… what?

Like the whole GOProud at CPAC thing. The LGBT movement really isn’t too keen on GOProud, gay as they may be. (Here are my reasons.) And the arch-conservatives and tea partiers at CPAC don’t want ANYTHING remotely pro-LGBT at their event. And so, for me personally at least, even though I don’t have much respect for GOProud’s platform, I find myself cheering on the trouble they’re causing in conservative circles. I don’t have to respect GOProud to appreciate differences they might make by subverting the way conservatives dismiss all LGBT issues.

But over the past week, I’ve had my own topsy-turvy experience. I’ve been having a civil and even respectful dialogue (if you ignore the occasional mocking quotes) with Peter LaBarbera on Twitter.

Readers know I use this blog to challenge religious right rhetoric, and I won’t pretend that I didn’t start engaging with Peter LaBarbera with the same motive. But, I’m going to give him a little credit: it’s actually been a constructive and meaningful exchange, as much as one between the two of us possibly could be. I mean, it’s no secret to him that I’m an openly gay atheist, and it’s no secret to me that he orchestrates Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, which promotes a lot of dangerous untruths about LGBT identities.

In fact, Peter LaBarbera has pretty well earned himself the ire of the LGBT community. (I’m still working on a similar reputation among conservatives.) He says a lot of things that are incredibly offensive to us (he tweeted today using the hashtag #trannycare—oy). Over at Pam’s House Blend, he is regularly referred to as “Porno Pete” for the way he always looks for ways to use queer sexuality as a weapon against our community. But in the scheme of things, it works for him, regardless of how much we make fun of him for it. As I just wrote, sexual liberation really freaks out our opponents, and whether or not he has a different motive for pursuing queer sexuality is really just a cheap joke on our parts.

And yet, I’ve found that he can actually engage in civil discourse, a quality that doesn’t apply to many of his anti-LGBT peers. We’ve actually found things we can agree on and jokes we can both laugh at (including GOProud’s Chris Barron’s regular Twitter updates about his workout routines). Today, Peter actually did me a favor. He noticed that I was debating “NGblog” about the merits of Creating Change and pointed out that it’s Nelson Garcia, a fake gay activist with a history of boyloving and pedophilia charges. In fact, Peter went out of his way to call out Garcia’s past on the #cc11 hashtag for all to see. He didn’t have to do that.

None of this changes the fact that Peter LaBarbera and I fundamentally disagree on a lot. I’m eagerly waiting to see what his AFTAH undercover reporters “uncovered” at Creating Change. (Unlike AFTAH’s conference this summer, Creating Change doesn’t limit who can attend, so I don’t know why they had to go undercover to begin with.) [Upon reading this post, Peter informed me he has been escorted out before. I personally expect that protecting the experience of attendees who support LGBT equality is paramount, though I wonder if perhaps a silent observer might be tolerated. There is certainly nothing to hide at CC.] But despite the way that he can trigger me, I feel like there is something profoundly  meaningful about the kind of dialogue we’ve managed to have on Twitter.

I actually asked his permission to preserve our exchange here on the blog, and it seems we’re both interested in continuing the exchange. Below is most of it so far up until today, but it’s still very much underway. I want you all to take a deep breath as you read it because there are certainly a lot of reasons to be frustrated by it, but I am committed to continuing to keep it constructive. I ask that no one disrupt that by resorting to name-calling or mocking (here or on Twitter), as hurt as any of us might be by things he says. Just lift your fingers off the keyboard and let the dialogue continue.

Twitter exchanges are tough to follow, but here is how our conversation has panned out so far. There have been a couple of previous short exchanges between us that I’ve omitted, and there are some loose threads included below as well, but here’s how things have proceeded. (Note: I’ve combined consecutive tweets and sorted some out for ease of reading. Twitter actually does not make this very easy to do!)

February 1, 2011

ZF: If you say gay people should be executed and then gays are executed, how is that not a connection?

PL: sorry lying dude but youve confused Christians (+ me) w/ rad Muslims who say we should push homols off tall bldgs #lgbtliars #tcot

ZF: So it’s more compassionate to just put them in jail for life? You’re the good guys because at least you don’t want death?

…

PL: On radio Gary Glenn listed #christian victims of #lgbt laws: what kind of “civil rights” mvt TAKES AWAY others’ rel + 1st Am rights? #tcot

ZF: Help me understand, dude. What 1st amendment rights do #LGBT laws strip you of?

PL: #LGBT Freedom of association, for starters. Freedom to live out ur rel/moral creed – the Boy Scouts of America almost lost theirs

ZF: Help me understand. I don’t recall any clauses in the laws that prohibit free association. Is discriminating a freedom?

PL: One man’s “discrimination” is another man’s fidelity to his conscience + moral/rel. code. That’s the essence of this battle. #tcot

ZF: I recognize the right of your conscience, but how does that amount to a right to exclude others’ same freedom of conscience?

PL: + btw, Zack, until you apologize for lying that I called for the “execution of gays,” there will be no exchange b/t us. #tcot

ZF: So, @PeterLaBarbera answer me concisely “No” and I will apologize: Do you support the execution, incarceration, or persecution of LGBTs? Honestly, I would love to be able to apologize for that being a mistake. Would love to call you an ally for human rights!

February 2, 2011

ZF: Peter, I’m hoping you can still answer my question so I can offer you the apology you seek.

February 6, 2011

ZF: BTW, I’m still hoping to apologize. Just answer “No”: Do you support the execution, incarceration, or persecution of LGBTs?

PL: Love how u expanded ur ? after ur erroneous claim that I supp the “execution” of #lgbt ppl. We wuld differ on def of “persecution” … Eg, would u consider denial of SSM or laws ag homo’l adoption “persecution”?

ZF: Well, supporting persecution is an invitation for violence. I’d love to hear what kinds of persecution you don’t support. What is your rationale for denying marriage or adoption to same-sex couples?

PL: see what I mean. We cant agree on terms. I bet u also see laws restricting #abortion as “persecution” of women. Hope I’m wrong…

ZF: The only different term I used was “same-sex couple,” which is accurate: not all people in such couples are homosexuals. I would be happy to engage in a debate on abortion at a different time. May we stick to the topic at hand?

PL: don’t twist my words, Zack. I’m not one of ur students. LOL. Denial of SSM is not persec. We have no agreement on terms.

ZF: I didn’t say it was. I asked your rationale so I could offer my perspective in response. I’m trying for legit dialogue here.

February 7, 2011

ZF: If you say, for example, that SSC’s are less effective at raising a child, that’s not factually true, so I’d call that pers. Also, if you say that two people WANTING to commit to marriage somehow hurts marriage, that’s also a demonizing smear.

PL: Ex of “persecution”: govt forcing private bus. owners to subsidize employee “dom partnrships” desp their bel tht homo’y is sinful

ZF: So what I’m understanding is that a religious belief in sin takes precedent over a gov’t definition of discrimination? So, it’s persecution to force someone to be INCLUSIVE, but it’s not persecution to enable someone to be EXCLUSIVE.

PL: my pt is 1 mans “rights” is another man’s “persecution.” U obv’sly define “persecution” acc to ur ideology. Dont assume its true

ZF: Well, my concern is that the 1st Amd says NOT to use laws to protect religion, while the 14th says equal rights for all… But what I hear is that you feel that preserving the religious belief is more important than protecting all people… If you’re not allowed to discriminate based on belief, is that really an infringement of the right to that belief?

PL: First Freedom, Zack. Our nation was founded by ppl fleeing rel persecution. Thank God we have a 1st Amendment. #tcot #christian

ZF: a 1st amendment that ensures our lawmakers cater to all citizens, NOT specific religious beliefs. :-) #tcot #atheist

PL: Youre talking about Govt coming in and forcing citizens to comply w/ ideas that are alien to US’s Jud-Chn heritage, wch = tyranny

ZF: haha, Jud-Chn heritage isn’t part of our Constitution. Equality for all and freedom FROM religion is our heritage!

PL: ur distorting history thru ur atheist glasses. The irony is atheist or ANTI-Ch’n regimes are the most oppressive + murderous #tcot

ZF: No, now you’re just attacking me for being an atheist. Read the Treaty of Tripoli, my friend! Christian-free US govt!

PL: Freedom FROM religion? They sure did a bad job w/ all those g’t prayer proclamations, mentions of God, Moses on Sup Ct walls etc!

ZF: Haha, agreed! If only we just didn’t use fear of communists to enshrine religion in our culture like we did in the 50s!

PL: # 1: Communism should b feared + stalwartly fought b/c its a murderous, anti-liberty system (Stalin, Mao, etc) # 2 follows. #tcot

ZF: Given that atheism in 2011 has NOTHING to do with Communism, I agree entirely with point #1!

PL: # 2: our Christ’y-infused + -informed govt system is our roots + is not a result of 1950s “fear of Communism” #tcot #reagan #gop

ZF: That’s a fair point too. Though it was certainly cemented then. Christianity does not inform our gov’t structure though. Christian principles have often overlapped, but our founding document prohibits infusing them into gov’t. Do you agree?

PL: Founders were more concerned w/ pot. abuses of a State Church – which is in a way what libs like u could win w/ statist secularism

ZF: And you don’t think enshrining discrimination in law is abuse of government by a group of religious believers? (What is “statist” secularism? Did you mean stalinist? Surely you don’t think that’s what any secularist actually wants.)

PL: There’s far deeper + longer history beh Jud-Christ’n (biblical) understand’g of rights than newfangled homo’y-based “rights” #tcot

ZF: That’s true! But don’t we have the potential to learn and grow? Can’t we learn new things, incorporate new understandings? Honestly, Jesus brought many new ideas that were contrary to the Old Testament past. Was that a bad thing too?

PL: Whch is to say “gay rights” are not truly “Western” (civilized) but insted really a corruption of a hist’l understan’g of “rights”

ZF: But isn’t it in civilized countries where gay rights are thriving? What distinguishes your “corruption” from my “progress?”

PL: …This explains why today we see #lgbt “rights” advancing (or being imposed judicially) at the expense of rel liberty #tcot #ocra

ZF: How exactly do #lgbt rights impose on religious liberty? I haven’t seen laws that prevent holding specific beliefs.

PL: Banning the outworking of faith (eg New Mex Ch’n photog sued by lesbians 4 not taking photos at their “commitmnt cerem’ny”) (cont) …IS the imposition of “gay rights” against individ’s “rel liberty,” no? What would u call it? #lgbt #christian #tcot #hhrs #tlot

ZF: Well, it sounds like you see the “right to believe” and the “right to discriminate based on belief” as the same thing, yes?

PL: What if I told u that u could (foolkishly) BELIEVE there’s no Creator but cannot ACT on that belief? #tcot #christian

ZF: I guess I’d be bothered by being called “foolish,” but I guess I’m not sure what that would prevent me from doing? Go on. Btw, I really do find this to be a worthwhile and meaningful exchange and hope it continues. Mind if I blog our thread? Also, I’m looking forward to seeing how your AFTAH undercover reporters’ #cc11 experiences compare to my own! Anyways, tell me more about what it would be like if I could not act on my atheism. What would it prevent me from doing? [He gave his blogging okay via DM.]

PL: so lets say u as a very committed atheist artist r approachd by a Ch’n to paint a giant mural message, “Atheism is evil” (Cont) …Should u be compelled (by the gov’t) to work on that mural – even tho ur an atheist – under, say, a “Christian Rights” law?

ZF: Well, I see where you’re going, but is it the best example? Art is about expression, not belief; artists can’t be compelled. I don’t think an artist of any identity should be compelled to paint a certain view; otherwise it’s no longer art.

PL: Elaine H, #christian photog is an artist w/ a busin. Was it persecut’n 4 her to b forced by NM law to shoot a lesb ceremony? #tcot

ZF: She offered a public service, a business like you said. Her photos are skilled, but do not represent expression. It’s no different than a Christian landlord refusing to rent an apartment to someone openly gay. It’s just discrimination.

PL: Says who? Says Big Brother (or Big Gay Brother) gov’t? #tcot #ocra #christian

ZF: It’s blatantly refusing access because of identity. How is that not discrimination? (See “lunch counters circa 1960.”)

PL: Wait a min: Do I have a “right” 2 rent an apt fr a gay landlord? Or a “right” to b a membr or even a leader at an #lgbt org? #tcot

ZF: I have a right to rent an apartment. It doesn’t matter the landlord’s SO. Everyone is welcome as members of #lgbt orgs. You have a right, just as I do, to NOT be discriminated against for your sexual orientation. Unfortunately, I actually do NOT have that right in many states. I can be fired or refused housing just for being gay.

PL: + I can be hired or not hired for being (too) straight, right? (+ lets face it: there’s no rash of “gay” firings these these days! Sorry, typo: that was supp to be “Fired or not hired [by an #lgbt employer] for being (too) straight”…

ZF: I suppose you could be fired for being straight if the laws aren’t there. Does that mean you’d support SO protections? But gay firing still happen all the time, and are still legal in 34 states.

…

ZF: Let’s face it, discrimination based on race, gender, and religion, and we have protections for those (which I also support). For the record, I would not support an atheist or gay person discriminating against a Christian. The actual numbers: 37% of GL people reported workplace harassment, 12% losing job for SO (2008). http://bit.ly/h8TIAp Also, elderly lesbian couples are TWICE as likely to be living in poverty as elderly op-sex couples. http://bit.ly/ebKKGW

[msvavirgo: I was one of both the 37% and the 12% in case you need to put a face to the statistic]

PL: So wld u supp a Chn taking a lead’p role at your campus atheist club – like #lgbt cases try’g 2 sue way into #christian clubs? … Note: the #lgbt students are “suing” using campus “sexual orientation” nondisc codes… #lgbt #christian

ZF: There is no reported case of infiltration. I agree that all people should be eligible to be members and run for offices. If a group is foolish enough to vote someone into position who doesn’t support the group’s mission, it’s their prob. But a Christian who is committed to the work of an atheist group would be great, just like straight allies in an LGBT group!

PL: No I dont demnd right to b hired by @GOPROUD altho then I could get live daily workout updates fr narcissist @ChrisRBarron :) #gop

ZF: As for the workout updates, there’s another point upon which we very much agree. :-)

…

So that’s where things stand today. Peter informed me that he would be unavailable to tweet much today, but that he is interested in pursuing the conversation. He has also expressed interest in hearing about my coming out experiences (I shared my posts about arriving at “gay” and “atheist” with him and invited questions), as well as having a discussion about what we each consider to be “adult,” i.e. inappropriate for young people to discuss. Certainly, I will have some critical things to say as he starts reporting on Creating Change from the AFTAH perspective, but something about this exchange still seems somehow fruitful.

As the Zeitgeist dwells on the concept of “civility,” I’m kind of proud that Peter and I can demonstrate a civil exchange, despite how profoundly we disagree.

And I’m looking forward to seeing where it goes.

Creating Change offers a huge variety of workshops, academies, and day-long institutes to choose from, which is one of the many reasons it continues to be a rich experience every year. This year, I decided to take a risk by committing to a day-long institute that would be a personal learning opportunity as opposed to just a professional skill-building one.

Geographies of Sex: Mapping our Desire: An Institute for Sexual Liberation

Any time a title has two colons in it, you know it will be intense, and it was, but in really poignant ways.

The goal of the institute was “discovering and reclaiming pivotal experiences that have forged our sexual paths” so that we can map our desire and “move toward a more vibrant, empowered daily expression of our sexualities.” So yes, that meant lots of people talking about their sex lives, and then each of us taking time to reflect on our own sex lives and examine them for themes and understandings of how we think about sex today and make decisions about how to move forward. But no, I’m not going to blog my entire desire map.

Let me start by saying this: sex needs to be demystified. I thought before I attended this institute I had a pretty forward-thinking view on sex (and I certainly haven’t shied away from talking openly about it in positive ways). I was wrong.

Sex is so taboo, and it’s bizarre! We are all sexual beings. We all have sex lives (even abstinent ones). We all have fantasies. We all have desires and our bodies are all capable of experiencing pleasure. And yet conversations about sex have really diminished in our movement.

What’s the one thing that sets apart queer people from the heterosexual/cisgender homogeneity? Our bodies and what we do with them. And as we’ve pushed forward for acceptance, we’ve often done so at the expense of covering up the very things that make us unique.

The problem is that all thoughts related to sex reside in the primal part of our brain. It’s the place where anger and fear are first-responses and it’s quite far removed from our much more evolved intuition and critical thinking skills. So when people are faced with conversations about sex, people go to that very protective place, which makes it difficult to move forward. We’ve moved  toward equality by sacrificing our understanding of our own sexuality.

But honestly… if there is consent and mutual benefit, everything should be fair game.

So let me take my own little step towards a liberated queer community. My name is Zack. I have kinks and fetishes. I am also a romantic and love connecting with sexual partners on deeper levels. And after spending a day examining my sexual history, I realized that I’ve been tentative and insecure with sex in the past. I’ve been afraid of sex, I’ve been afraid of not being desired, and I’ve been afraid to let myself feel pleasure. Moving forward, I am going to try to overcome these insecurities and take a greater ownership of my desires. I’m not ashamed to be a sexual being and I’m not going to let anyone suggest I should be. In fact, I’m going to do my best to encourage others in embracing their own desires as well.

What’s hot for someone is hot for someone.

If shame is in charge, we avoid opportunities for pleasure for ourselves.

If you don’t play out sexual desires, they could take over in other ways.

Those are three quotes from the day. I can’t wait to see how someone tries to use this personal disclosure against me at some point in my life.

Honestly, what I just shared is nothing compared to the kinds of conversations we had at the institute. Here are a few examples of some of the discussions that came up…

It’s not uncommon to have rape fantasies, but what if you’re a rape victim? What kind of sexual paradox is it to still find pleasure in a fantasy that has such a traumatic imprint in your life? I can’t even begin to imagine that conflict, but how liberating it was to have several people in the room who could speak to it. Once you’ve healed, you can play with it. Without undermining the severity of rape, these powerful survivors spoke to reclaiming their sexuality and their desire. How profound to focus on being the survivor instead of always being the victim!

What about consensual incest? I’m talking about two people who have a familial connection but are both capable and willing of giving consent to the other for sexual pleasure. It’s a thought that really racks the brain and makes us think it’s such a horrible thing. What about even just the fantasy of it? What about having a crush on a sibling or a cousin? Given that we’re all sexual beings, don’t we owe it to ourselves to at least consider the question before dismissing it outright for the ick factor it evokes?

Are fantasies in our head meant to stay there or be realized? Sometimes our desires have consequences. Sometimes we spend our whole lives “performing” instead of just “being,” letting go. How do sex workers rediscover what their own sexual desires actually are? How do racial dynamics impact power exchange play? How do we distinguish between our personal sexual feelings and the feelings we have for our partners? How do we ensure that we aren’t just catering to our partner’s desires at the sacrifice of our own?

What is it about monogamy that motivates us to hold it up as an ideal? Is it because we’re just so insecure about expressing our own sexual desires that once we’ve found a single person who pleases us that we aren’t able to trust in an emotional commitment without strict sexual monogamy? I’m asking these questions as someone who identifies quite strongly with monogamy!

One of the panelists discussed a time when he and his partner of then-5 years were having a fight. It had come to light that both of them had had sexual encounters outside of their relationship. But the fight wasn’t working. It was a conditioned response; they weren’t fighting because they actually wanted to fight, but merely because they felt they were supposed to. They soon realized that they were actually both okay with the other’s “indiscretion.” In fact, it kind of made them hot to hear about what each did with the outside person. Eventually their relationship evolved to the point where they could be open and cruise together, and occasionally even welcome a third home with them. They sit on the subway and play the “who would you bang?” game. They are still a committed couple (now 11+ years as I recall), and they are confidently committed enough that they recognize they don’t (and never will) complement each other’s desires perfectly.

I still don’t know if I could ever do that… but how great is that? When we choose to value individuals’ sexuality and desires, it’s not difficult to arrive at a place where his experience with his partner actually sounds quite healthy and vibrant. Still, we have these constructs about what is “right” and “wrong” with sex that are hard to shake. Ultimately, what do we gain from these schemas except limitations to our own sexuality and relationships?

I want to share one more moment of personal learning for me. At one point, I made a comment to the group about how young people (like myself) have absorbed a lot of messages about safe sex that are motivated by fear of HIV and STIs. Later in the day, several different folks in the room disclosed they were HIV+ and that my comment reminded them of the stigma they often face and the way it can really stifle their sexuality. It caused them to shut down a little bit. I had really forgotten about the privilege I have as someone HIV-, and I had indirectly reinforced the stigma against people with HIV. I approached these individuals later to express my regret for the microaggression, and it’s an awareness about creating inclusive spaces that I will carry with me.

So, I hope I’ve given you all something to think about. Much thanks to all the presenters and panelists who helped give me something to think about! Sexual liberation is something I think we all deserve. I know I am nowhere close to being liberated, but engaging in these kinds of ideas has had a profound impact on my thinking. As we move forward in achieving LGBT equality, we have to continue creating space for our sexuality and acknowledge that sex can be a very positive thing. I welcome your thoughts about these important ideas as we all challenge the taboo around sexuality and desire together.

At the end of the intense and emotionally draining day, we were invited to share a next step we were going to take upon leaving the workshop. One young man shared simply, “I intend to fuck soon.” He received a boisterous round of applause.

More about religion later this week.

Every year, I feel compelled to write something during this moment of limbo while I leave behind “homotopia” to return to a world of heterosexual privilege and queer social isolation.

After leaving Denver in 2009, I described the awesome and important new connections I made there. Last year, Dallas left me energized to take action by bringing the energy of of the conference home with me. This year, I feel compelled to just say a few words about family.

It’s not used as often these days, but folks still often use “family” to describe members of the queer community. “Are they family?” It’s a little code to recognize a connection between us all and how our lives in this society are different from the heterosexual and cisgender norms.

But despite its purpose as a codeword, it also carries an underlying depth with it. Creating Change really is a big family reunion in a lot of ways. It’s an ever-growing family, and it’s the perfect opportunity to welcome and engage with new members.

I’m sitting in the airport with a new friend I made as we wait for his flight to leave. He’s someone I didn’t know four days ago and someone I’m now very sad to say goodbye to, one of countless new and old connections from the weekend that fit that description. I can’t imagine not cherishing every last second I have to enjoy such wonderful company. And whether or not any of us keep in touch regularly (we will) or see each other again before CC12 in Baltimore, our lives are different because our paths have crossed.

And as we all depart from the land of lakes, we return to lives where we don’t have this family at our immediate disposal, but we are refreshed and energized. We are reminded that we’re not alone, that our struggles locally are not unique and that we have a family to fall back on.

Most days, being queer is just one small facet of our lives that really doesn’t define us. But some days, we remember that it is still a significant part of who we are, a slice of our identities that connects us to others in a unique way we cannot ever truly lose.

Those of us with the privilege of attending Creating Change have a responsibility to bring back that sense of family to our schools and communities. We’ve touched base with that sense of love, support, and dependence that is at the heart of our queerness, and we owe it to the others in our lives to help them feel the same.

I’m tired and very emotionally drained, so I’ll refrain from babbling much more at this point… but to all you folks out there: you are loved. We are all part of a family, and it’s a family who will always be there waiting when we need it.

Cheers from Minneapolis.

I’m very excited to be here for Creating Change, the National Conference on LGBT Equality. While my experience at CC over the next few days will give me plenty of food for thought, it will keep me from writing much here on the blog.

That’s why you should totally be following me and the conference hashtag on Twitter (#cc11). I will be tweeting up a storm, and you will get a good sense from me and others of all the fabulous things happening here.

As I write this, I’m sitting next to Rikki, a young man who is here for his first-ever Creating Change. He’s not sure what to make of it, but I told him it will be a transformative experience. To exist in a totally queer space for four days is a unique and incomparable experience, and I’m excited and honored to get to experience it again.

With the Creating Change conference as our case study, it seems that the pendulum has not reached its highest point; in fact, this year’s conference unabashedly embraces faith with a whole subconference called Practice Spirit, Do Justice.

The conference’s Spiritual Needs Subcommittee offers a Spiritual Diversity Ethics Statement (p. 20 of the Program Book), suggesting the following principles:

What we can affirm and agree on is:

» The inherent worth of every person; that every person is worthy of respect, support, caring, and invitation.

» The intention to work towards a culture free of discrimination and oppression based on any identity.

» The ethic that everyone is welcome to participate in this conference without the need to become like us in order to be acceptable.

» That the way we behave towards one another is the truest expression of [what] we believe.

I agree with all these principles. Still, the preponderance of religion-focused and faith-centric sessions seems to communicate an expectation that communing with faith is an essential part of LGBT work, which I inherently disagree with. I expect that there will be several occasions this year, as with last, when I will be in a situation when a religious practice is taking place around me.

And while I certainly understand that dealing with religion is an important part of LGBT work, this integration of being religious continues to trouble me. Here’s a look at all of the different sessions related to faith. (See the Program Book in my previous post to see full descriptions.)

First, there are a number of spiritual gatherings (p.25), which I actually appreciate as part of an inclusive conference, including Muslim Friday Prayer, Shabbat Celebration, and a Sunday morning interfaith gathering. The Calling of the Names continues to be part of a plenary session, but as long as it is not dominated by rhetoric like “lifting them up,” I think a group remembrance can be very meaningful for people of any worldview.

Faith in America is holding a reception Friday evening to discuss the way people justify stigma and hostility against the LGBT community (p. 37). I continue to be nonplussed by FIA, an organization that defends and challenges faith at the same time. Members of the Episcopalian, Unitarian, and Metropolitan Community Churches are having receptions as well (p. 38).

The Practice Spirit, Do Justice subconference has its own day-long institute on Thursday to address intersectional movement building for both veterans and newbies of faith organizing and movement building (p. 43). There also several PSDJ sessions as part of the Task Force Academy for Leadership and Action (p. 51).

Here are some of the other workshops that relate to faith or that are part of the Practice Spirit, Do Justice track:

Beyond Transgender Inclusion to Transformation (p. 71)

Faith Based Models that futher Self-determination, Sovereignty and the Preservation of Sacred Sites (p. 72)

Hidden Voices: The Lives of LGBT Muslims (p. 72)

Making the Christian Case for LGBT Equality: Message Training (p. 73)

Join the Movement, Keep the Faith (p. 76)

Messology of the Black Church (p. 77)

The Pulpit of the Press: Making the Religious Case for LGBT Equality (p. 77)

(LGBTQ) Justice, (LGBTQ) Justice Shall You Pursue (p. 78)

Changing Minds of Conservative/Evangelical Christians (p. 79)

Media Savvy for Media Strategies (p. 81)

“God Hates Fags” (p. 82)

Race and Power: An Examination of Intersectionality (p. 84)

Working with Asian & Pacific Islander (A&PI) Congregations to Become Welcoming (p. 85)

API Caucus @ Practice Spirit, Do Justice (p. 86)

Atheist, Free Thinker, Non-Believer Caucus (p. 86)

Homo-Interior: Religious Design for Your Queer Soul (p. 88)

Telling Our Stories (p. 89)

Transgender: A Question of Faith (p. 89)

Lifting As We Climb: An Exercise (therefore you might sweat) In Rethinking How We Do What We Do So We Can Do It Better (p. 89)

Case Studies For Denominational Engagement (p. 89)

Mobilizing Pro-Equality Catholics on LGBT Issues (p. 91)

Of Faith and On-Line: Tools to Get Going (p. 91)

It’s All About The Frame (p. 94)

LGBT Synagogues and Organizations: Surfacing Our Diversity and Fitting the Mosaic Together (p. 94)

Spirit and Desire: Framing a Discussion About Our Spiritual and Erotic Lives (p. 95)

Building the Response to HIV and AIDS Across Communities (p. 97)

Humor, Hospitality, and Heliotropes as Tools for Social Change (p. 97)

Majority Minority – Case Studies in Advancing Equality among People of Color and People of Faith (p. 98)

Strategic Storytelling (p. 99)

Uganda-the Armageddon of the Culture Wars (p. 99)

Building a Statewide Interfaith Network for Equality (p. 101)

Fighting Islamophobia and Homophobia: Building Solidarity in Oppressed Communities (p. 101)

The Possibilities of Faith Work In An Aging LGBTQ Community (p. 103)

Building Bridges to Wholeness – Next Strategies for LGBT Jewish Movement Building (p. 104)

It’s All About Me: Queer Spirituality (p. 105)

Pagan and Queer (p. 106)

Queer Muslim Caucus (p. 106)

Strength for the Journey: A Reflective Workshop (p. 107)

That’s a whole lot of faith.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with any of these workshops. I’ll probably go to some of them. Still, it’s a healthy chunk of the conference dedicated to discussing (and often reinforcing) faith and spirituality. What’s important to note is that such a focus isn’t just unwelcoming of nonbelievers, it can also be contrary to the perspectives many bring to this work.

Certainly, many of these workshops are about working with people of faith or responding to people of faith, which doesn’t necessarily require being one. However, there is only one session at the whole conference that recognizes the existence of nonbelievers or those who might not have the same interest in promoting or reinforcing faith and spirituality.

And guess who’s hosting that atheist caucus Friday night?

Me.

I think this pendulum swing of our movement’s approach to religion is something worth discussing. I hope folks will come to the caucus to have that conversation, because I honestly don’t know how welcome it will be in the sessions I just listed above.

Is religion a good thing?
How do critical dialogues on religion impact efforts for LGBT equality?
What challenges do we face when we come out as atheists?
How can we best utilize the support of LGBT allies who are nonbelievers?
What responsibility does the LGBT community have to be allies to the atheist community?

These are some of the important questions I’m hoping to address this week. Perhaps I should be optimistic that so many other folks are as enthusiastic to discuss religion as I am.

For those attending, take note that I will be hosting a caucus for nonbelievers on Friday evening at 6:30.

Look through the program. There are a LOT of interesting workshops! Then leave a comment letting me know which ones you would want to attend if you could be at the conference!

Also, if you’ve never seen the Creating Change program book before, it’s worth reading through the diversity etiquette sections at the top. I can’t think of any conference that goes to such lengths to make it an inclusive experience for all in attendance.

Creating Change 2011 Program

Alright, so we admit we have an agenda, but what is it? Lots of people, like straight pastors and well-funded Glb(t) political operatives, think they know. Zack and Peterson try to suss out who sets the agenda and what it happens to be today. What are the bars by which we measure the success of the LGBTQ movement? We also talk about folks who are trying to bridge gaps, but might just be helping to maintain them. From Egypt to Hollywood to Washington, D.C., we look at who is shaping the agenda and chime in with our hopes and concerns.

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» This week’s erotic poem: “A Glimpse,” by Walt Whitman.

» HRC’s Trans Job Campaign in Massachusetts

» Egyptian “Gay Rights Activist,” or Ex-Gay Proponent?

» Discussion about Andrew Marin:

Belmont May Change Actions Toward Gay Groups

FriendlyAtheist: “I’m Sorry” Is Not Enough for the Gay Community

» The Second LGBT General Assembly (Facebook Event) – (Saturday, January 20)

» Creating Change in Minneapolis! It’s not too late to register! – (February 2-6)

» A Night with Robyn Ochs at Bucknell University – (Tuesday, February 15)

» See Peterson at Trinity University in San Antonio, TX (February 28-March 1)

…

At the Soulforce Symposium, I asked the panel about what I feel to be conflicting identities, being both gay and atheist. My friend, Cathy Renna, offered that she’s long witnessed a disenchantment with religion in the LGBT community, to the extent that it was once taboo to admit attending services on a Sunday morning. And she’s surely right, and it might only be in recent years that the LGBT community has placed a much greater focus on embracing and reconciling with religion. It could just be a pendulum swinging back towards a pro-religion point of view, but it would only have had to be as recent as the past six years for it to define my whole experience.

Now, let’s face it, it’s no surprise that LGBT folks would feel alienated from religion. After all, arguably all anti-gay and anti-trans sentiments are securely rooted in religious teachings and the willful ignorance that is religious thinking.

But not wanting to practice a religion and being an atheist are two very different things. Just because members of the LGBT community no longer want to be a part of religion doesn’t mean they’ve stopped believing, or stopped being “religious,” at least as I defined it above. It doesn’t make them atheists, and it definitely does not automatically make them welcoming or inclusive of atheists.

The virus of religious thinking does not let go so easily, and the human brain is incredibly adept at functioning under the conditions of cognitive dissonance. A person who believed that homosexuality is a sin that then decided that the Bible was wrong about that could easily never question that the whole rest of the Bible is just as fallible. That person might trust religion less, but never bother to think critically about any of the rest of it, and certainly not abandon it.

But being an atheist? That’s a whole different ballgame.

…

First, you should know that there’s a whole atheist community. It’s true. In fact, just like the LGBTQQIAA community has diversity, we have atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, nonbelievers, skeptics, brights, humanists, and more. There’s a lot of overlap—I identify with at least five of those labels—so we don’t use a a long acronym, just a single scarlet A. We have a coming out process and it can often be as difficult or worse than coming out as gay (and unlike the coming out process for homosexuality, it hasn’t been studied at all). We suffer incredible oppression in the United States; in fact, we are the least trusted minority and our vision of America is the least popular, even compared to Muslims and homosexuals [sic]. We’re also the only minority group for which tolerance has not grown over the past 30 years.

And yet, here we are. We vigilantly disclose our identities specifically so we can create change. We challenge people’s core beliefs and welcome heated debate. And we are a community. We make an active choice to identify openly and we seek each other out. We need each other’s support.

This community is a very different picture than the group of folks who just don’t participate in religion anymore. It’s a whole different identity, a whole different community, and a whole different set of challenges.

And you know what’s great about the atheist community? Even though it is predominantly heterosexual (like the rest of society), it is overwhelmingly supportive and inclusive of LGBT issues. I would go so far as to say that the atheist community understands that anti-gay attitudes are among the most dangerous and unscientific views still held by most of modern society, and they speak out in defense of the LGBT community all the time. The atheist community is by far one of the strongest LGBT allies of any other minority community.

But then I come back over to the gay community and the reverse is not true for me as an atheist. HRC’s putting out a “Clergy Call 2011 for Justice and Equality.” The Task Force has a whole “multi-faith” mini-conference as part of Creating Change this year, as if CC weren’t faith-centric enough. There’s the MCC and UU, Catholics for Equality and Soulforce, and a slew of other pro-religion organizations that work on behalf of LGBT equality. Now, don’t get me wrong, as a gay man, I appreciate those efforts greatly. But as an atheist, they totally alienate me. They make me feel unwelcome because they are antithetical to my point of view. And I seldom see partnerships with the atheist groups eager to help!

As an atheist, I want to dismantle the power that religion has, not reinforce it. I don’t want people to reconcile their homosexuality with their faith; I want them to see that homosexuality is a brilliant example for how flawed and unnecessary faith is. I hate the idea that religions or religious beliefs are something deserving of respect, and I have no intention of respecting them or catering to them in order to achieve legal equality as a gay man. I want to work with other LGBT activists, but I don’t want to have to sit through prayers or endure a faith hegemony to make my difference in the movement. And yet, that is increasingly the environment with which I am faced in the LGBT movement.

…

If you buy into the ex-gay movement even just a little, you are faced with two choices. You can try to change your sexual orientation or you can fail to change your sexual orientation. If you fail, they have nothing left for you, and certainly no validation for embracing an identity other than heterosexuality.

While it’s not as overt, I feel like the LGBT movement similarly offers a kind of non-choice for atheists. I can work with faith and I can work without faith, but there is very little room for me to work against faith. While there may be some who aren’t thrilled with religion, they like holding on to their own faith, nonetheless. Frankly, there is a certain baseline of anti-atheist prejudice (I call it “faithism”) and religious privilege that is just as prevalent in the LGBT community as the rest of society.

Many atheists within the LGBT community struggle to be out (or even come out), recognizing the challenges of openly identifying as atheist within the LGBT community, and particularly of identifying as both atheist and LGBT in greater society. Surely for most, LGBT issues are more salient to them, impacting their relationships, families, housing, and employment. It’s all too easy to subscribe to the silence and invisibility for nonbelievers that is already in place.

Gaytheism is a borderland that is not always fun to live in. On one side of the Venn diagram are the LGBT issues that are so salient and important to me that I am passionately dedicated to addressing, but which is a community that still ostracizes me for my way of thinking. On the other side is the atheist community, a group that completely appreciates who I am and supports my point of view, but who are less organized, less committed to the issues most important to me, and likely not the place I’ll find a life partner or a job in activism or education. And I can’t have it both ways and still maintain my own integrity, because I can’t both disavow faith and simultaneously reinforce it and feel like I’m making any meaning out of my own life.

Given that I am a man of integrity, what choice do I have but to push? Push the LGBT movement to open its eyes not just to the unreligious, but to its atheist subcommunity en masse. I have to encourage other LGBT nonbelievers to come out. I have to try to help organizations understand how their religious messages or strategies can be very exclusive. I have to convince the LGBT movement to accept and welcome the support of the many atheist and humanist organizations eager to be involved with the effort for LGBT equality. Maybe I even have to create one that represents LGBT issues specifically on behalf of nonbelievers.

So, I’m just putting it all out there for you, LGBT movement. I’m going to be a little thorn in your side. I’m going to call you out on your religious privilege. I’m going to cause some consternation for your believers. I’m going to say things that aren’t popular and that aren’t even always welcome. It is very much my intent to push and to change as much it is my intent to support and cooperate. We’re stuck with each other, so we’d best make the most of it.

But if nothing else, remember this: I’m not the only one. I know when prayers and Amens are making me feel uncomfortable and unwelcome; I can identify those triggers, respond to them appropriately, and continue on. But there are a lot of members of our community who aren’t where I am, who feel silenced and alienated by all the attention you pay to religion. I want to create a movement that understands and appreciates their point of view as much as any other, and I want to work together to make that happen.

I hope you do too.

It’s called religious privilege. Religious privilege is what lets bad ideas be considered anyway. I’d rather see all faith-based beliefs dismissed outright for their lack of intellectual foundation. Then, none of the bad ideas could make much impact on society. Unfortunately, the LGBT movement would rather try to benefit from religious privilege. (Even NGLTF has stepped up the “multi-faith” programming this year at Creating Change, “multi-faith” of course still being exclusive of nonbelievers.)

Just think about it for a second, though. Let’s say you’re Catholic. If you want Catholicism to be respected and to have your Catholic beliefs catered to, then you have to also respect the Baptists. And the Methodists. And the Lutherans. And even the Jews, and the Muslims, and the Hindus. And so on. Because your freedom to enjoy the archaic and morbid rituals of Catholicism depends on all beliefs being respected. That’s religious privilege; it cuts across all faiths. It’s catering to faith, respecting beliefs on their face without requiring an explanation beyond “It’s how I was raised” or “The Bible says so.”

Hemant (of Friendly Atheist) wrote something today that I really liked:

When it comes to Christianity’s treatment of homosexuals, I’m not always sure what I want.

Usually, it’s an easy call — I want Christians to accept gay people as they are, without trying to change them, and stop getting in the way of equal rights.

But part of me wants them to keep being intolerant. The more they keep up their bigotry, the easier it is for people to walk away from them.

That’s purely selfish of me, though. For the sake of my gay friends, it’d be much better if anyone claiming to be a Christian did a better job telling other Christians that homosexuality wasn’t a sin, gay people deserve the right to get married, and the church is on the wrong side of this issue.

If they condemned their own church leaders for being bigots and urged others to leave the church as a result, even better.

But I’m not holding out hope that a lot of Christians, even the young ones, will ever get that sort of courage. I know a handful of Christians who are LGBT-friendly and brave enough to speak out publicly on the matter, but they’re a rare breed. They need more Christians to join them.

Even the “non-jerky” Christians seem to have a hard time saying there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality. I’ve talked to two Christians recently who have told me how angry and upset they are about the church’s stance on homosexuality… but when I ask them if they would vote for gay marriage, they go silent.

It’s pathetic.

Here is the worst aspect of this problem: The more we convince religious groups to look supportive, the easier it will be for them to hide their nonsupport. (How do you think they got the horrid idea that “Love the sinner, Hate the sin” was compassionate?) Those Christians who make nice with us homosexuals still don’t want to prosper. And guess what? We can’t ever change Leviticus or Romans, so as long as that book full of wicked stories is “unerrant truth,” it doesn’t matter how many MCC’s or UU’s we have. There are always going to be people (and a lot of them) who can’t think outside a Biblical context, and they are always going to push back against us gays.

Unfortunately, as Hemant points out, these efforts to work with religion will make it harder to identify the individuals who are still working against us! Are people who allow our oppression to persist through inaction less to blame than those who actively perpetuate the oppression? I don’t see much difference. The question shouldn’t be how nice they are about their anti-gay beliefs, but how much power those beliefs have, and if members of our community keep trying to hold onto that same power (religious privilege), it just empowers our oppressors to persist.

In other words, by helping some churches be more LGBT-friendly, we’re just helping other churches continue not to be, and ultimately, our only net gain is the chance to still be spiritual ourselves. Well, I’m certainly not joining that bandwagon. What’s worse is the book still doesn’t change, just which verses you read and how you read them! Talk about cognitive dissonance.

That’s why I so proudly identify as an atheist. I think just about every atheist blog I read covers LGBT issues pretty regularly, and most of the bloggers are straight! There is such a sincerity to their activism and support. It’s unflinching, crystal clear. There is no doubt about the nature of sexual orientation and no hesitancy in supporting the LGBT community. And without a spirituality of their own to try and reconcile, it’s truly selfless support and honest concern.

Meanwhile, I can’t help but feel that there are so many in the LGBT community too eager to still be part of their faith (regardless of how recklessly contradictory it might be). Catholics for Equality. A multi-faith mini-conference at Creating Change. The idea we need to defend Islam. It’s a constant effort to make nice with no effort to educate, no concern for dismantling that religious privilege.

And while they’re busy helping defend the groups that oppress us, they are simultaneously ostracizing people like me.

There’s a sad irony to it. While most religious groups are condemning gay people, many gay people are condemning nonreligious people. Besides being obviously irrational, it’s also just disappointingly selfish.

Faith is irrational. Faith protects homophobia. Therefore, gay people reject embrace faith.

*facepalm*

Name: Tanner Efinger
Age: 26
Hometown: West Hollywood, CA
Occupation: Supervisor of Communications and Social Media, MZA Events
Why I Found Him at Creating Change:

Tanner explains that he “accidentally” fell into activism after the passage of Proposition 8, though that might be a humble interpretation of his efforts since. Before then, being gay had been easy. He came from a liberal family with open, loving parents and never had personally suffered much in the way of homophobia. He explained to me that “everything changed” when Prop 8 passed. It was an eye-opener for him and he saw the need to stand up and not be afraid. After the rallies and protests subsided, he wondered what he could then do?

Tanner started Postcards to the President, encouraging folks all over the country to send postcards to President Obama demanding the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. The project exploded, and over 15,000 postcards have been sent with more on the way.

Through the project, he met many more local activists with a similar desire to help and keep the conversation about these issues going. Soon he met Rick Jacobs, Cleve Jones, and was assuming leadership positions with the National Equality March (now Equality Across America). Tanner is passionate about the sustainability of the grassroots movement. When he asks himself, “What can I do?” he now knows the answer is, as Gandhi said, to be the change.

Through his work and leadership, Tanner has been a part of organizing AIDS Walks, the recent Rock for Equality, and the Harvey Milk Day of Action. He is motivated by this simple maxim:

We deserve better… and we can do better!

What He’d Change in America:

The one thing Tanner would change is the struggle of class oppression that stems from greed. He hopes his efforts help humanity minimize greed, because he sees a connection from all issues back to class.

Though the Rock for Equality already took place, here is its “What Kind of Planet Are We On?” video that won a YouTube Do-Gooder award for Innovation in a video.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoNiZhAUWcg

Guest star Marvin Bloom joins Zack and Peterson this week for a conversation about religion. As a gay Jew-for-Jesus from Long Island (who makes Sarah Palin look like a mainline Presbyterian), Marvin has many questions for Zack about his atheism, and you get to listen in to the hilarity that ensues! At one point, someone IMs Zack, which is exactly what you should do if you have your own questions about atheism or ideas for the podcast! This “Atheism 101″ podcast explores intersections between religion and sexuality, but by no means offers definitive answers to any of life’s questions. We invite you to join the conversation by commenting on the posts or engaging in discussion on the Facebook page!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Read Zack’s recent post about coming out as an atheist.

» Learn more about Russell’s Teapot.

» Check out the Transponder podcast, featuring Moments with Marvin.

» Marvin Bloom’s YouTube Channel.

Name: Jan Griesinger
Age: 67
Hometown: Athens, OH
Occupation: Co-Director of Old Lesbians Organizing for Change (OLOC)
Why I Found Her at Creating Change:

Jan is proud to be old. She might fit AARP’s definition of an “elder” or “senior citizen,” but she is old and don’t try to call her anything else! More on that below.

Creating Change is important for Jan because it’s really the only national organizing conference for activists. And Jan is quite an activist. She’s currently Co-Director of Old Lesbians Organizing for Change, an organization of lesbians over the age of 60 committed to confronting ageism and sharing their “great deal of wisdom, experience, and strength” with the world.

While OLOC might not be as well known as SAGE, it has a 21-year herstory with 14 chapters across the U.S. And why old? They’ll happily tell you:

We refute the lie that it is shameful to be an “Old” woman. We name ourselves “Old Lesbians” because we will no longer accommodate ourselves to language that implies in any way that “Old” means inferior.

We call ourselves OLD with pride. In doing so, we challenge the stereotypes directly. Thus, we empower and change ourselves, each other, and the world.

At a workshop presented by SAGE about the new Movement Advancement Project study on LGBT Elders, an interesting discussion broke out because some members of OLOC in the workshop challenged their language.

Jan is insistent that people need to understand ageism. She’s quite excited about the upcoming OLOC National Gathering, entitled “Old Lesbian Pride: Sharpening the Radical Edge.” She doesn’t like talking about “equality.” Radical change is about liberty, she told me. Liberation movements bring new values to justice.

During the short time I had to speak with Jan, I got really fired up by her energy. I wish more young people had the same passion she had for moving this country forward.

What She’d Change in America:

The best government money can buy. “That’s why Granny D marched!”

Bonus! Creating Change Conference Director Sue Hyde joined us for the photo!

Name: Warren Scherer
Age: 28
Hometown: Milwaukee, WI
Occupation: Program Coordinator, LGBT Resource Center, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Why I Found Him at Creating Change:

Warren is one of my many fabulous colleagues in the Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals. Like the work Terry, Lisa, and Vanessa do with community LGBT centers, professionals connected with the Consortium are LGBT advocates who provide social and educational support for the community, but are employed by colleges and universities. The number of LGBT positions on campuses has grown incredibly over the past decade and the Consortium is growing along with it and becoming a stronger voice in the greater LGBT movement and Higher Education community. A great recent example was the Consortium’s recent response to the Virginia Attorney General regarding university nondiscrimination policies.

Creating Change is an exciting opportunity for the Consortium to come together at our annual conference. Warren told me that he was eager to pick up new ideas and initiatives to take back to Wisconsin with him. He loves that his work focuses on LGBT issues because he himself identifies as a member of the queer community. He was raised to believe that everyone is equal, so it bothers him when people do not actually have equality.

Consider the scope of the kind of work he and his colleague Jennifer Murray due at UW Milwaukee. There are eager outspoken students there (not unlike Urvi), but there are also students just beginning to think about coming out. They have the challenge of creating an environment that is welcoming and inclusive for all members. The Consortium and Creating Change are exciting ways to find ways to reach them all and truly serve the development of the LGBT community.

What He’d Change in America:

Warren has serious concerns about suburban sprawl and the impact on how we use resources. The sprawl leads to a loss of natural resources and an increase in waste production. This, Warren points out, also takes tax dollars away from public transportation and education.

Name: Urvashi “Urvi” Nagrani
Age: 22
Hometown: Los Altos, CA
Occupation: Film & Media Student , University of California, Santa Barbara
Why I Found Her at Creating Change:

Urvi is the quintessential student activist. At UCSB, she serves as the External Coordinator for the university’s Associated Student Queer Commission. As a funded officer, it’s her job to connect UCSB to state and national campaigns for LGBT equality and bring activism knowledge and opportunities to campus. She also serves as the Political Chair of the Queer Student Union. She told me that students want to see “more than bickering between organizations”—that they are working toward real social change and safety for all. Click here to read more about the Queer Bomb campaign.

Groups like those Urvi works with can be found on university campuses across the country. Students are working to educate themselves, their fellow students, and their families and communities about LGBT issues and working to engage them. At present, these college student groups are mostly disassociated. Some regional conferences (like the Midwest Bisexual Lesbian Gay Transgender Ally College Conference (MBLGTACC) as well as the UC LGBTI Association) allow groups to connect regularly, but the student groups themselves still work mostly independently. Though this network of activists remains largely untapped on the national scale, these student groups are responsible for some of the most important education and activism in the queer equality movement.

After being a strong ally of the queer community for seven years, Urvi had her own coming out experience. She had long seen that there was a safety net that was not extended to friends or parents, and she knows her friends could be attacked just for being who they are. She continues doing the work she does because it is essential for the community’s protection to be safe from harm. “Safety for all includes LGBT.”

What She’d Change in America:

Urvi would like to make sustainability part of everyone’s vision for change. To honor a true vision within morality and ethics, she told me, we would need to live in cleaner, safe communities where everyone could be happy. This requires a mental paradigm shift to lasting support.

Name: Vanessa Torres
Age: 29
Hometown: Dallas, TX
Occupation: Admissions Representative, Aviation Institute of Maintenance
Why I Found Her at Creating Change:

Vanessa didn’t travel far to get to Creating Change, but she made up for it by working hard. Vanessa is one of many volunteers for the Dallas LGBT Center who gathered to help with the logistics of Creating Change. She, like her colleagues, was glad to be a part of something big that she could give back to.

For more than 20 years, Resource Center Dallas has been serving the needs of the LGBT Community. From RCD’s website:

More than 1,100 volunteers and a paid staff of 46 make the Resource Center Dallas one of the largest centers of its kind in the United States. More than 50,000 people each year use the Center through its programs and services. From its roots as an advocacy group for civil rights regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, the Center continues its dual mission: to develop programs and offer services for the GLBT community, as well as individuals and families affected by HIV and AIDS.

Vanessa explains that she supports queer equality because she thinks everybody should have the same opportunities she had with her experience as “straight” (in the closet). She wants to work so that future queers have the same experience at 13 she only had passing as straight. She and her colleagues (pictured left) brought a ton of energy to the conference and surely contributed to making the kind of difference she hopes to make.

What She’d Change in America:

Vanessa thinks everyone should have the right and access to healthcare. She points out that some don’t have family support or the necessary financial security to get the same kind of healthcare that others take for granted. On a global scale, this is important because it would help contain diseases.

I hope for Vanessa’s sake and everyone else’s that our government succeeds in passing reform so this becomes more of a reality.

Name: Terry Stone
Age: 59
Hometown: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Occupation: Executive Director, CenterLink
Why I Found Him at Creating Change:

Terry came to Creating Change because it is an opportunity to network with community centers and be a part of a great conference to discuss equality and learn from each other!

Why are community centers important to Terry? Because he serves as Executive Director of CenterLink, which connects the over 168 LGBT Community Centers found throughout 45 of the United States. Half of these centers half budgets under $50,000 with no full-time staff, but many are still the only LGBT presence in many of their regions. Community centers, like Cortland, NY’s run by Lisa Tibbles, connect folks to resources, organize for change, provide support for coming out, provide direct healthcare (40% of centers), and also work to serve the needs of LGBT youth, elders, and people of color.

CenterLink serves two important purposes. First, it helps the centers connect with each other, share ideas and resources, and collaborate regionally. Second, it helps advocate for all community centers nationally. This is essential to the queer equality movement because sometimes a community center is the only visible recruitment center and educational resource for potential activists.

Terry Stone has worked in the movement for over 20 years. He knows that we will see a day when there is no question that we’re all equal. A primary concern for him right now is finding ways for aging couples to access benefits like social security.

What He’d Change in America:

Terry thinks we need to change the focus away from looking at differences and looking at the bigger picture of all the similarities we have. This is true not just with LGBT issues, but in general with all matters of identity like race and gender.

We should always be asking ourselves: “How do our actions influence each other?”

The woman who offered to take our picture was apparently a professional photographer. I think she made us look great!

Name: Lisa Tibbles
Age: 39
Hometown: Cortland, NY
Occupation: Program Coordinator, Cortland LGBT Resource Center
Why I Found Her at Creating Change:

I have to say, as a personal note, that it was pretty awesome that I found Lisa at Creating Change. It was totally a random approach on my part, but it turns out Lisa is a fellow Ithaca College alum (Go Bombers!), so we related very easily! Much of what we discussed was sort of outside the context of my Faces For Equality interview, so I’m intentionally leaving out some of the detail out of respect for that.

Lisa is relatively new to her position as project coordinator at the Cortland LGBT Resource Center in Cortland, NY. For 15 years, she taught physical education in a public school and generally was very unhappy. She had to hide her identity as a lesbian and knew that she was experiencing discrimination and prejudice in her work from individuals who suspected. She found it stifling and knew she could not spend her life in that environment. She just couldn’t stand for that kind of inequality:

I’m a lesbian. My rights are just as important as everyone else’s.

The Cortland LGBT Resource Center is one of many community resource centers across the country. It provides services such as resource referrals to LGBT safe and sensitive services, educational trainings, youth and family support services, support groups, advocacy and legal referrals, collaborations with businesses to create LGBT friendly services, and LGBT community event planning. In places where there is little, if any, visibility and support for LGBT folks (like Cortland, as an example), community centers play a vital role in creating a space for the individuals who live in and near that community. Centers help LGBT citizens feel like they can actually be participants in the community without hiding their identities.

New to the job, Lisa sought the counsel of the LGBT support staff at Ithaca College and Syracuse University (my colleagues Lis Maurer and Adrea Jaehnig!), who both told her she should come to Creating Change for new knowledge. Lisa said she was at the conference to be “a sponge for everything.”

What She’d Change in America:

World peace. There’d be compassion for everyone.

Lisa went on to say that she thinks it important we try to be nonjudgmental.

Life is just one big classroom. We can all be teachers for each other.

Ithaca, Forever, Shine your light on me…

The Friday plenary also included The Calling of the Names, a “lifting up” of those we have lost over the past year. This was probably a fitting end to the morning for those who spent it at the National Religious Leadership Roundtable Meeting. Before the conference was over, there were more than fifteen workshops and academy sessions addressing issues of faith and spirituality. Here is a sampling:

» Adult Faith-Based Organizing for Change in the Church: Building Relationships
» transACTION – A Transgender Curriculum for Churches and Religious Organizations
» “Would Jesus Discriminate?” Shifting the Discourse on Faith-Based Prejudice
» Homophobia in the Black Church
» Mobilizing Catholic Support for LGBTQ Equality
» Spiritual Self-Defense
» Faith and LGBTI Equality: Talking the Talk and Walking the Walk

And of course, the weekend couldn’t have ended without the Sunday-morning interfaith gathering, “Engaging the Spirit.”

Not one event—not even a simple caucus—at Creating Change 2010 mentioned or proactively included atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, brights, antitheists, or nonbelievers.

Contextually, This Makes Some Sense

Long ago, when religious organizations started revving up their epic quest to demonize sexual minorities, they played to the dualistic gullibility of their congregants. If being gay is unChristian, you can’t be gay and Christian. This was conveniently facilitated by the excommunication and expulsion of LGBT folks from these groups. See? They’re not here! What has helped maintain the stigma against the queer community is the popular belief that all queer folks are amoral and against the Church. You still see this in the constant self-victimization of anti-gay religious groups and leaders.

So, honestly, I think it makes perfect sense for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force to be proactive in helping the LGBT community reclaim their faith. Religious organizations continue to be a powerful social force in our nation, and as far as the queer equality movement is concerned, it makes a lot of sense to work towards change from within. Advocates can do their best work when they’re empowered, and I’m sure there are many who feel very empowered by the validation their faith receives at Creating Change and the opportunities they have to engage with others who are faithful.

Atheists Thrown Under The Bus

First, let’s be clear: there are atheists at Creating Change. There are probably a lot of them, actually. I certainly met a few. (And I must again comment here that the atheist community is one of the most supportive allies to the queer equality movement I know.) There are also numerous other religious minorities present that go similarly unrepresented. Speaking for myself alone, I am not a fan of the religious celebrations that take place during the plenary sessions. I think it’s wonderful that we celebrate the cultures of the First Nations Collective, but must the conference open with a prayer? I think it’s important that we remember those we’ve lost and provide strength for each other, but must we do it in such a religious fashion?

For me, these events remind me that I am still subjected to incredible religious privilege. Despite all the efforts of the conference to be inclusive and accessible, these events continue to exclude those like myself who do not subscribe to them. The message I receive is, “This is a religious conference; we are all participating in and supporting religious practice.” That isn’t the intent of the conference, and I know that, but it is a message that very much leaves me feeling ostracized and helps keep atheism in the closet. Here’s what’s really happening:

Rather than resist the religious privilege that was responsible for their persecution, the LGBT community decided to try to access it instead. The consequence is that atheists are “thrown under the bus.”

Nonbelievers continue to suffer the same kind of ostracization as we always have. In fact, the queer community has garnered much more popular favor in our nation than atheists. We continue to be the most distrusted and despised minority in the United States. But the leading torch and pitchfork-holders are the same conservative religious organizations that continue to try to demonize the queer community! It seems the LGBT movement would rather work with the pitchfork-holders than try to deprive them of pitchforks.

Must The Overlap Be Invisible?

I started this blog recognizing that the cultural forces that oppress me as a gay man and an atheist are almost entirely the same. I write about issues relating to both because the overlap is undeniable. Working to dismantle religious privilege and diminish the power that religious organizations have over society benefits both communities. I am an out-and-proud gaytheist because overcoming oppression depends upon my visibility and outspokenness.

It is disappointing that these overlaps are not represented at Creating Change, despite the conference’s concerted efforts toward inclusion. The very thesis of Thomas Saenz’s speech at the opening plenary was recognizing the overlap between the LGBT community and the immigrant community! Why must atheists continue to be marginalized by the queer movement? Is the movement so afraid of religion that they are afraid to ally with the growing nonbeliever community lest they be hit with some of the same stones?

Today I offer this challenge to The Task Force to take a more proactive approach to including nonbelievers at Creating Change and in their other work. Spirituality should not be hegemonically enforced upon the conference participants through plenary sessions. Language should be more inclusive to welcome those who are not just interfaith, but those who are without faith. Workshops and caucuses should be available to create safe spaces for nonbelievers and to provide opportunities to connect and organize.

I commit myself to working towards these changes for Creating Change 2011. Can we create change at Creating Change?

Name: Charlotte Park
Age: 24
Hometown: Boston, MA
Occupation: Engineering Student, Wentworth Institute of Technology
Why I Found Her at Creating Change:

I caught Charlotte just moments after she had finished participating in the queer youth of color panel at the Saturday plenary session at Creating Change. She had been specifically invited to the conference to participate in that panel, and had rearranged her schedule last-minute to be there. (I can only imagine what it’s like for an engineering student to rearrange her schedule last-minute.)

Charlotte was representing BAGLY, the Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth, an organization committed to providing weekly and monthly social activities for people ages 22 and under that has been in existence over 25 years. They also offer HIV, STI, drugs, and alcohol education and prevention programs to help ensure young queer folks can make responsible decisions about their health and get the support they need. BAGLY has also recently started offering leadership development to help foster new generations of queer activists and leaders.

Charlotte got involved with BAGLY because she thought it was important to make time for the community. Even though she doesn’t agree with the entire social movement, she could support youth from BAGLY to network and engage. She hopes to continue doing advocacy work and perhaps do more to support women and queer folks in the sciences, recognizing that both populations are still underrepresented in the research fields.

What She’d Change in America:

Charlotte sees a vital need for a stronger infrastructure supporting disenfranchised youth, including those who are homeless, in foster care, and victims of abuse. If there were less bureaucracy, there would be more money available to support their severely underserved needs.

As Creating Change is a conference for many seasoned activists, the folks I met truly showcase the organizations they represent. I asked them the same simple questions that are the foundation of the project, but in their profiles I will also try to feature some of the work that their organizations do. While the National Equality March collection was about capturing a snapshot of the lives of people affected by inequality, these nine profiles offer a sampling of the kind of work being done across the nation to support the queer community.

I will put the profiles up one at a time over the rest of the month of February. I hope the project continues to illuminate the vast diversity within the queer community and the very hard, but important, work ahead of us to achieve full equality in society.

(I also just want to share that NCLR’s Kate Kendall also interviewed a number of folks at the conference. You should check those out here.)

The main thrust (pun intended, as you’ll see) of the workshop was the way sexuality is so fluid and that the notion that we’re all just gay or straight (or even gay, straight, or bi) is a complete myth. Despite being bright and early Saturday morning, there were a ton of energetic young people there, and it was really great to see them having these conversations about how sexuality changes over time. In particular, it was striking to see the way so many aim for ambiguity, recognizing what they like but not necessarily conforming their identity to match.

I should point out that this phenomenon was evident throughout the conference. More and more people are really moving towards identifying as “queer,” as if to say I’m queer and that’s all you need to know. I kind of wish I’d gone to some of the sexual liberation workshops so I could know more! [Note: I did the following year!]

At any rate, in Robyn’s workshop we did an anonymous survey of how people define their identities, attractions, and behavior over time. After looking at identities and attractions through different lenses, we then juxtaposed those identities with actual behaviors. The results were interesting, because they didn’t always match. Some people reported engaging in sexual behavior that did not reflect their same- or opposite-sex attractions. And in some cases, there was no reported sexual behavior.

It was at this point that Robyn made the poignant point that is the title of this post:

True or false? Society makes you feel guilty for having sex. TRUE.
True or false? Society makes you feel guilty for not having sex. TRUE.

It really is true. All sexual behavior is judged. You either get chided for going for it or for not going for it. There isn’t really a “win-win.”

I don’t know if there’s any more to say about this point than just that, but I still find it amazingly compelling. Just being aware of this point I think lets us think much more openly about sex.

So many of our choices and our “standards” are influenced by the world around us. Just about every single religion has had something to say about the morality of sex, most likely because we’re all sexual beings and it’s a deeply influential method of control. When you really step back and think about it, there really can be no moral question for safe, consensual sex. Yet, we tend to be profoundly self-conscious about our sexual behavior and reputation.

There are some considerations that are important beyond consent. Obviously, sexual contact always include health risks. Trust is also fundamentally important to maintaining the consent and safety of the interaction. And if you value monogamy like I do, it’s important to honor commitments and sexual exclusivity. Lastly, we can’t ignore that for many people, sexual behavior always has an emotional component. Aspects of commitment, dependency, love, and power can affect people well beyond the physical sexual pleasure they experience.

But, if you can account for all of those factors (and I’d personally recommend that you do), is there any good reason to be inhibited as sexual beings? I would say no. This is why I was torn when I was writing that monogamy post a few weeks ago, because even though I value monogamy both sexually and emotionally, I completely understand how and why open couples make their openness work.

Sex is a great thing. I think everyone deserves the opportunity to be sexual beings. I think everyone has the right to explore their sexuality in any way they wish (that honors the values I just discussed). Hell, if we all liked the same things, life would be pretty damn boring! I’ll admit here that I have at least one fetish and that I’m also kink-curious, and honestly, I feel like it takes some courage to put that out there publicly. But really, why should it? Why should I feel embarrassed to say so? Sure, there are probably some of you out there who don’t want to think about Zack Ford as a sexual being, but get over it. You’re a sexual being too, you know.

I think life would be a lot less stressful if society didn’t make us feel so self-conscious about sex. I do think discretion is important, and sexual harassment is a very real and serious concern in our culture. But I don’t think it has to be either-or. I think we can get to a place where we don’t have to be afraid/guilty/ashamed of our sex lives without constantly making overt sexual advancements to every single person we meet. Just as “gay” does not solely define me, I can come out of the closet as “sexual” without letting sexuality control my life.

Why should sex be judged? The young people in Robyn’s session made it very clear that the last thing they want is to be boxed in. Not only do they not want their identities bound by binaries, so too do they want the opportunity to explore their sexuality beyond the “shoulds” and “should nots” that society overwhelms us with.

I feel bad for the people who have been conditioned to be ashamed of sex, one way or another. We only get one chance to explore this thing called humanity, and there seems to be no reason to make the most of it. Thanks, Robyn, and others, for helping me better understand this in my life.

Radical queers are going to fuck shit up!

- Juan Gabriel Padilla

On Saturday, the main feature of the Creating Change plenary session was a panel of queer youth of color. The discussion dealt with the challenges that youth organizing faces, highlighted by a recent report from FIERCE (Fabulous Independent Educated Radicals for Community Empowerment), which you can read below. The report, Coming Out, Stepping Up (embedded below), illuminates many challenges facing youth advocacy, including increased homelessness, insufficient and decreased resources, increased rates of HIV/AIDS and STIs, and strategies that are not effectively utilizing youth leadership.

The general theme that the young folks spoke to was the difference between laws and conditions. This distinction should resonate throughout the entire movement, but often doesn’t. There will be a day when the laws change, and those issues will no longer be of primary concern. There are certain conditions, however, that will persist, and in the interim, they are being totally ignored.

In general, 25-40% of homeless youth are LGBTQ. Some cities might report even higher rates. As social services—like access to health care, clothing, food, and housing—are cut, the situation only worsens for these young people and the centers trying to support them. Add in transphobia and gender-based violence, police harassment and violence, school safety, HIV/AIDS awareness, and personal wellness and mental health, and you see a whole lot of challenge that is often completely unsupported by “the movement.”

What’s worse is that advocacy organizations often take advantage of young people without reciprocating support. There are a lot of opportunities for leadership development available for our queer youth, but after the youth show up for the marriage equality rally, they never hear from the big organizations anymore. More importantly, young people are rarely included as decision makers or organizers. As one of the panelists pointed out (paraphrased):

Adults have to be open to the changes of the next generation. Youth should be empowered and trusted, not just ordered.

Also missing from our movement are organizations that work to support both youth and adults. There are only 101 youth organizing centers across our country attempting to shoulder the entire burden of supporting queer youth, with many states having no such resources whatsoever. There are no organizations that serve the whole community and are inclusive of the unique and vital needs of queer youth.

I was very impressed with the panel that spoke during the plenary. These are amazingly confident and poised leaders who are committed to righting the wrongs of the world. They know the struggle of their peers and will stop at nothing to try to improve the circumstances for queer youth.

Gabriel Padilla was particularly passionate, lighting a fire under the conference’s collective ass by saying that change is going to come because…

Radical queers are going to fuck shit up!

Ash Hammond echoed that energy, solemnly stating:

When I’m sitting in the audience at Creating Change 2020 listening to a panel of youth, I hope they aren’t talking about any of the things I’m talking about today.

Truly, we have to recognize that achieving queer equality means much more than just passing ENDA or overturning DOMA and DADT. If our society cares so much about children (as our opponents often remind us), we owe it to them to prioritize their needs and their struggle.

Read the FIERCE report below and find out what you can do to better support queer youth in our nation:

FIERCE – Coming Out, Stepping Up (2010)