Jordan Rubenstein reports on the Gay Rights blog that Yust, a transgender woman, was getting her name changed on her driver’s license in a San Francisco DMV. Actually, that official part of the visit went pretty smoothly: she came prepared with a court order for the change, and went home with her shiny new license.

Soon after, she received a letter at her home. It contained all the typical hateful rhetoric: that she was going to Hell (one similar to the DMV?), that she was an abominated, that she had done an evil thing. The letter was festively decorated with Biblical quotes being used to back up the vocal transphobia.

The DMV employee who helped Yust committed a severe breach of security by taking the woman’s private information and used it to send a harassing and hate-filled letter. People shouldn’t have to fear that providing personal information to government employees will give somebody the power to harass and threaten them.

The California DMV must hold the employee responsible accountable, investigate this case, and assure its customers that this kind of breach of trust is not standard practice at the Department Motor Vehicles.

Photo credit: Chris Harrison

Transgender Woman Harassed by DMV Employee

No thanks, buddy.

The upcoming election has brought us some seriously sexist shit, and it looks like the trend is continuing. GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck didn’t say those exact words, but he came close. Buck is in a bit of a pickle over his refusal as a Weld County District Attorney to prosecute an obvious rape case in 2006, along with offensive comments he made about the victim.

The victim had asked a former lover over to her apartment because she was intoxicated and scared. He arrived and raped her while she, slipping in and out of consciousness, said “no” and tried pushing him away. Despite the fact that both the victim and suspect agree upon what happened and police recommended prosecution, Buck publicly called the case facts “pitiful” and claimed that, due to their consensual sexual encounters over a year prior, reasonable juries would see this as a case of “buyer’s remorse.” In a private meeting with the victim, Buck lays blame squarely on her shoulders, telling her, “It would appear to me that you invited him over to have sex with him. Whether that you, at that time, were conscious enough to say yes or no … the appearance is of consent.”

Buck voices his suspicion that the woman had an ulterior motive fueled by a previous pregnancy with the suspect, which she either aborted (his story) or miscarried (her story). What’s interesting to me is that Buck believes it’s entirely possible the woman fabricated a rape because she had an abortion (which she denies), yet doesn’t consider the equally-if-not-more plausible possibility that the suspect raped the victim out of revenge and resentment.

The theory that once a woman has said yes to sex, she has relinquished her right to revoke consent, is one of the most insidious and common types of victim blaming. Another is the refusal to acknowledge that it’s still rape if a woman is drunk and/or knows her attacker. Worse yet is the belief that if you don’t specifically say “no” forcefully and repeatedly, you’ve effectively said “yes,” even if you’re unconscious. And then there’s my personal favorite, the revenge fantasy: the pervasive notion that hundreds of spiteful women, drunk with feminine power, run around filing false police reports and launching an all-out legal war on dudes they consensually but regretfully boned.

Ken Buck managed to combine all of these dehumanizing fallacies into one dazzling rape apologist shitshow, while simultaneously blaming his Neanderthalian attitude on unsympathetic juries. It’d almost be impressive if it weren’t so infuriating. It appears that, for Ken Buck, rape isn’t about the actual crime, it’s about the woman’s ability to be a true victim.

Even though this incident occurred five years ago and Buck apparently “learned” from it (soon after, he helped implement a sexual assault team to better handle future cases), it matters in this election because the comments speak to his overarching view of women and their right to bodily autonomy. He opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest. He initially supported Prop 62, a Personhood Amendment that would criminalize abortion and common forms of birth control. And now, it appears he believes it’s reasonable to treat “certain” survivors of sexual assault with distrust and skepticism. Can those of us who might not pass Buck’s rape victim litmus test count on him to fairly represent us in office, or will voters have a case of … buyer’s remorse?

Photo Credit: Adsworth

GOP Candidate Ken Buck’s Dismissal of Rape Victim Reveals Further Evidence of a Pattern of Misogyny

Republican Linda McMahon is running for the US Senate, and she’s funding her race with the millions she earned peddling the “entertainment” you just watched. Sadly, McMahon is not alone on the GOP ticket:

Sharron Angle, running for Senate in Nevada, suggested that women who are raped – including teenage incest victims – shouldn’t be allowed to consider an abortion. Instead, they should just turn “a lemon situation into lemonade.” Outrageous.

As a district attorney, Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck refused to prosecute a rape even though the accused rapist admitted to police that the woman said no multiple times. He said a jury could think she just had “a case of buyer’s remorse.”

Republicans are running candidates who have an utter lack of respect for women. Urge RNC Chairman Michael Steele and his party to start respecting women and women’s issues!
Republicans: Start Respecting Women!

At case here is a provision in the pending reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, which expires September 30th.  WIC, which provides formula and healthy food vouchers to low-income mothers with small children, is part of the Act. As reported on The Hill, the Senate passed a version of the Act in August, but it didn’t include a very important measure: establishing a science-based process for assesing whether WIC should offer foods that contain functional ingredients.

You’ve no doubt seen the names of these functional ingredients splashed across the front of food packages: probiotics, DHA, lycopene, omega-3s and other intriguing-sounding additives. Included in yogurt, eggs, cereals, and other products, they are also becoming ubiquitous in infant formula. But their addition isn’t necessarily a good thing. Not only does the formula with additives cost more, they are also touted as providing nutritional or other health benefits, without much science to support their claims. Enfamil’s proprietary ingredient LIPIL, for instance, contains DHA and ARA designed to “support baby’s brain and eye development.” Their Dual Prebiotics suggest it will “support babies’ own defenses.”

For WIC, increased expenditure on additive-laden foods means fewer women are able to enroll in the program — the more money it spends on food, the fewer number of enrollees. According to the Economic Research Service, part of the USDA, functional ingredients in infant formula cost WIC up to $90 million a year. Yet there is no scientific consensus showing that the added ingredients impart any health benefits.

As the largest purchaser of formula in the country, the WIC decision has  huge potential impact for the formula makers. They’re lobbying hard to keep their functional ingredients away from scrutiny, lest they be challenged to prove their efficacy and lower their costs. Currently, the FDA has to ensure that the additives are safe, but not effective. Unchecked, there’s no reason not to make grand health claims about the products.

At issue also is the idea that formula can somehow reach the nutritional prowess of breast milk — though experts all agree “breast is best,” many of the formula makers make claims the products are just as good as breast milk or can match its nutritional make-up. As public health experts and nutritionists make strides to increase the percentage of women exclusively breastfeeding, the formula makers give away product to new moms and heavily market their ever-improving elixir.

For those following the debate, it’s more than just crying over spilled milk. As Laurie Trus, Executive Director of the California WIC Association writes, “the story of WIC and functional ingredients could turn out to be yet another well-known Washington narrative — powerful, wealthy corporations fighting straightforward, evidence-based policymaking.”

Photo credit: nerissa’s ring

Milkin’ It: Formula Industry Bilks Low-Income Program

But if you have a Wonder Woman costume left over from last year that you thought you’d don again this October, be warned that you’ll be woefully out of date, as DC Comics is presenting a Wonder Woman for the 21st century. In celebration of reaching issue number 600 of the Wonder Woman comic series, the superwoman is finally getting some pants.

That’s right: pants. (Well, leggings, if you want to get technical.) The traditional Wonder Woman, who debuted in 1941, fights crime in a leotard and legs that are bare except for high red boots. The new-and-improved Wonder Woman gets to wear black leggings and a rad motorcycle jacket (check out a drawing of her new ensemble here). Basically, she’s going to be a lot warmer during the winter months (as will be those who choose to dress up as her to go Trick-or-Treating).

She also looks a lot more like the kind of superhero who demands respect and can kick butt in the name of justice, rather than somebody who belongs in the Miss America swimsuit line-up. This is a refreshing update, even if Wonder Woman writer Jodi Picoult couldn’t convince DC Comics to ditch the bustier, of which she complained, “as a woman, I know you wouldn’t fight crime in a bustier.” While we’ll have to see how the new Wonder Woman’s sales go (and there are tales of a movie in the works), tuning in to female preferences for an empowered 21st century image might prove to be a big win for DC’s marketing plan.

Photo credit: Loren Javier

It’s About Time for Wonder Woman to Wear the Pants

But if you have a Wonder Woman costume left over from last year that you thought you’d don again this October, be warned that you’ll be woefully out of date, as DC Comics is presenting a Wonder Woman for the 21st century. In celebration of reaching issue number 600 of the Wonder Woman comic series, the superwoman is finally getting some pants.

That’s right: pants. (Well, leggings, if you want to get technical.) The traditional Wonder Woman, who debuted in 1941, fights crime in a leotard and legs that are bare except for high red boots. The new-and-improved Wonder Woman gets to wear black leggings and a rad motorcycle jacket (check out a drawing of her new ensemble here). Basically, she’s going to be a lot warmer during the winter months (as will be those who choose to dress up as her to go Trick-or-Treating).

She also looks a lot more like the kind of superhero who demands respect and can kick butt in the name of justice, rather than somebody who belongs in the Miss America swimsuit line-up. This is a refreshing update, even if Wonder Woman writer Jodi Picoult couldn’t convince DC Comics to ditch the bustier, of which she complained, “as a woman, I know you wouldn’t fight crime in a bustier.” While we’ll have to see how the new Wonder Woman’s sales go (and there are tales of a movie in the works), tuning in to female preferences for an empowered 21st century image might prove to be a big win for DC’s marketing plan.

Photo credit: Loren Javier

It’s About Time for Wonder Woman to Wear the Pants