Queer Issue: Politifacts' Rating System is a Lie (By Their Own Standards)

In an interview with CBS Face the Nation, Martina Navratilova made the claim that "In 29 states in this country you can still get fired for not just being gay, but if your employer thinks you are gay."

In response, Politifact rated the claim as being half true.

To justify their claim, Politifact points out that while 29 states do not have legislation at the state level to protect against discrimination, there are exceptions, such as those that exist for government employees, or in local municipalities that have passed anti-discrimation laws, in addition to specific employers which may also have anti-discrimination protections in place.

Politifact also points out that according to the deputy director of Lambda Legal, Hayley Gorenberg, a 1989 Supreme Court Case based around Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins) *might* have set a precedent that could bar discrimination based upon an employer believing an employee is uh... "gay" (more on the word choice in the article here later).

So Politifacts' arguments boil down to two main points. One is that exceptions exist within the 29 states that do not have legislation at the state level to offer protection against discrimination based upon sexual orientation. The second point revolves around the possibility (offered up by Gorenberg) that the Civil Rights Act might bar discrimination based upon an employer merely believing an employee is uh... "gay".

The first part of Politifact's argument holds some water. Even though Navratilove never said that "no protections exist" in 29 states, the fact that a certain number of protections do exist for certain uh... "gays" might have justified rating Navratilove's claim as "Mostly True" rather than "True".

However, the second part is complete horseshit. There has never been an actual case before a court in which an individual has successfully used the precedent set by Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins to argue against discrimination based upon an employer's belief that an employee was/is uh... "gay". So any lawyer who argues that it might be *possible* that such protections exist is simply offering up an opinion on what *might* happen if a fired employee were to use it in a court trial.

This is but the first error that Politifact makes in their use of Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins. In their article, Politifact states:

Hayley Gorenberg, deputy legal director of Lambda Legal, cited the 1989 Supreme Court case Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins. In that case, a woman sued the accounting firm where she worked because she was not offered a promotion after a senior manager told her she should "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry." The plaintiff convinced the court that sex stereotyping constitutes sex discrimination, Gorenberg said. This precedent could protect a straight person who appeared to an employer to be "gay" and suffered discrimination as a result.

Let's break this down:
1) Navratilove used the term gay in her original claim, which is problematic in it's own right since it ignores transgender and transsexual identities (along with lesbian, bi, pan, etc...)

2) However, the number of states that do not offer up legislation that protect specifically against discrimination based upon gender identity is much larger than the number of states that protect based upon sexual orientation. Which means that to acknowledge gender identity would require a much wider analysis than what Politifact offers here.

3) I have seen it argued in the past that anti-discrimination laws for sex/gender might also apply to gender identity.

4) Since Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins dealt with discrimination based upon gender stereotypes (not on sexuality) it seems like it would be the sort of test case one might use to expand protection against discrimination based upon sex/gender to discrimination based upon gender identity.

5) It is therefore possible that this is what Gorenberg was refering to when she cited Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins as a precedent that might offer some protections to those who are uh... "gay".

6) Gorenberg, being deputy director of Lambda Legal should know the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity.

This all leads to the conclusion that Politifact, in order to apply Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins to Navratiloves' claim, deliberately conflated sexual orientation with gender identity. I'd also like to point out the fact that while Politifact does not quote Gorenberg directly when they say "This precedent could protect a straight person who appeared to an employer to be "gay" and suffered discrimination" they do put the word "gay" in scare quotes.

In any case, this all makes Politifacts' arguments here really, really screwy. Navratilove makes a claim that applies solely to sexual orientation. In analyzing it, Politifact brings in a case that might apply to gender identity, yet continues to use the term "gay" for unknown reasons. Furthermore, Politifact makes *no* mention of the current state of anti-discrimination laws based upon gender identity, which have a completely different status from those that apply to sexual orientation.

This is a *gargantuan* omission. One which makes Politifact's use of the sin of omission against Navratilove extremely hypocritical.

However, even if they are correctly representing Gorenberg's citation of Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins, Politifact is still relying on an expert opinion (which they have done in the past) as a key part of their ratings process. So even if they are correctly citing Gorenberg, they are still committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority in order to justify their rating of Navratilove's claim.

In the grand scheme of things, I have no problem with Politifact or any organization wishing to present contrary opinions to publicly made claims. But in attempting to clarify the situation in this case, Politifact only managed to further muddy the waters. Combine this with their repeated use of the appeal to authority fallacy and it becomes clear that it is Politifact and their rating system which is misrepresenting the truth.

Queer Issue: Why the BSA's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy Matters

Everybody should know by now of the homophobic "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy held by the Boy Scouts of America, so I won't spend time rehashing the history. Today the BSA put out a press release, describing a secret committee that they put together for the purpose of "evaluating" said policy. In short, the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is here to stay.

There are those, such as Alvin McEwen, who will argue that the policy does not matter, that it is not worth the LGBTQ community fighting. To this I must strongly disagree. The BSA's policy does matter and it does have a negative impact on the LGBTQ community, particularly the youth.

I was a member of the Scouting movement until I turned 18. I came within a few merit badges short of earning the rank of Eagle Scout, which less than 2 percent of all scouts who enrolled in the program complete. In Troop 16 I eventually ended up serving as Senior Patrol Leader, which is essentially the youth leader of the troop. I was also inducted into the Order of the Arrow, Boy Scouts honor society.

Even though as a youth I had known for years about my sexual orientation, I stayed in the closet until I turned 18. My reasoning for doing so had a great deal to do with the Boy Scout's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Hiding ones identity always comes with a cost. During my senior year of high school, I worked diligently on completing the final requirements for the rank of Eagle Scout. Deep down, part of me wanted to spite the BSA. To say, "Ha, Ha, you're wrong, we are just as good as you."

It was during my senior year of high school that the hiding took it's toll. The mental dissonance that comes from being told a constant message of "you are inferior, get lost freak" from all authorities wore at me until I finally broke.

While I was in the middle of working on my Eagle Scout Project (which consisted of repairing an old storage shed at the Methodist Church I attended) I attempted to commit suicide.

On the second day of the project, while my mom went to church, I played hookie so I could have some time alone. I got a knife from the kitchen and attempted to slice my wrists.

If there is one thing I am really grateful for being lousy at, it is committing suicide. My mom came home to find me on the kitchen floor, knife in hand. I ended up wearing a baggy long sleeved shirt to cover up the scratches I had made on my wrist. Somehow I managed to complete the Eagle Project, although I would later be unable to finish the requirements for the Eagle Rank itself.

Which brings me to the crux of the matter. No one can tell me that the BSA's policy is not harmful to LGBTQ youth. No one can claim that the message it sends is not without consequences.

While there are signs that things may actually be getting better, LGBTQ youth continue to face bullying and harrassment based upon their sexual orientation. There is no doubt in my mind that the BSA's policy encourages and empowers the bullies in these situations.

Consider as well, the influence the BSA holds in rural areas (such as Upstate New York where I grew up) where LGBTQ organizations are going to be few and far between. It is vital that LGBTQ youth have access to organizations that do tell them that they matter, that their lives are no less than those of their straight counterparts.

When an organization as influential as the BSA tells LGBTQ youth the opposite, that their lives mean less and that it is okay to discriminate based upon sexual orientation, something has to be done.

I'm not going to argue that the LGBTQ community should work towards repealing the BSA "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. That's not the issue I want to bring up. But we cannot allow the BSA to go unchallenged in this issue. Whether this means transforming the BSA into an organization that does not discriminate or by providing viable alternatives in every community across the nation, is another matter.

What does matter is that the BSA's policy exacts a steep price and it is the youth of our community who pay it.