The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has announced a final rule that codifies discrimination against transgender people. The rule implements the widespread use of body-scan technology which requires a TSA agent to choose a pink or blue button based on the perceived gender of the person traveling through U.S. airports. Transgender people, as a result of the policy’s gender bias, are stopped by TSA agents and forced to undergo pat downs and inspections of genital areas and chests.
“Transgender people are regularly harassed and humiliated by current screening procedures, which treats transgender people’s bodies as ‘alarms’ and thus subjecting them to physical and emotional mistreatment. Current policies create a situation where transgender people are dehumanized and placed in harm’s way by constantly outing them and forcing them to disclose their personal lives with TSA agents in front of everyone in order to travel by airplane,” said Victoria Rodriguez-Roldan, Trans/Gender Non-Conforming Justice Project Director, National LGBTQ Task Force.
Last year, the National LGBTQ Task Force met with TSA’s executive, Administrator Peter Neffinger, alongside coalition partners urging the agency to adopt non-discriminatory policies relating to transgender people. The Task Force has also called TSA’s civil liberties office attention to known civil rights violations against transgender people.
“TSA needs to institute screening algorithms in their scanners that are universal instead of relying on stereotypical notions of what a person of one gender or another must look like. We will continue pushing TSA to implement policies that ensures the dignity, safety, and respect of each traveler, including transgender people,” said Rodriguez-Roldan.
In at least nine countries and 15 U.S. states, you can find the Eagle.
In Montreal, it’s called L’Aigle Noir; in Minneapolis, it’s the Eagle Bolt Bar; in New Orleans, it’s a room above another bird bar. But all of these places are unmistakably the Eagle: A family of gay bars with no formal relationship.
Think black walls, Bud Light, bearded men and perhaps a large wooden cross with cuffs dangling off.
It’s the closest thing gay men have to a global franchise. You can walk into one in many cities and know what you’re in for, like a gay McDonalds.
“I would call the Eagle an idea. A concept that has spread,” said Dan Henders, general manager of the Eagle Portland.
Over the years, he told me, he has become more curious of the history behind the name.
Curious myself, I set off to catalog every outpost I could find, and to try and make sense of this ad-hoc network of bars.
The first came in 1970, right after the Stonewall riots, when a longshoreman’s pub on Manhattan’s far west side was transformed from the Eagle Open Kitchen into a leather and cruising bar called the Eagle’s Nest.
A year after its New York founding, an outpost opened in Washington, DC. By 1981, not only had the bars moved west to California and Washington, they popped up in Munich and Amsterdam.
Over time, independent Eagle-branded bars opened in at least 59 cities. When one closes — or burns down — a new one frequently takes its place in the same city. In at least five instances, when one closed, a bar called The Eagle in Exile popped up to fill the void, itself a small tradition.
Most have evolved from a leather crowd to something more akin to a cruisy sports bar — though you probably won’t find sports on the TV. You can still find men strutting around in a harness and chaps, but you’ll more likely come across people in jeans and a t-shirt.
A selection of similarly themed posters from Eagles around the U.S.
What’s in a name?
So why propagate the Eagle name specifically?
“It’s an interesting question, but a tough one to answer,” said Gayle Rubin, Assosciate Professor of Anthropology and Women’s Studies at the University of Michigan.
“Eagles are the biggest diurnal predatory birds, and all that power and deadly equipment is easy to absorb into the semiotics of potency, strength and domination,” she said.
When I asked Alan Kachin, owner of the former Eagle bar in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., why he chose the name, he told me it was because of the manly connotation.
“Eagle Bars were and still are remembered as masculine meeting places. Therefore, Fort Lauderdale Eagle,” he said.
However, its history is diffuse, a casualty of its nature. Pegging the locations involved hunting down liquor licenses, emailing owners and comparing websites, which frequently list the locations of sister bars.
Going online
Unsurprisingly, gay bars were early adopters of the Internet, and some Eagle websites go back to 1998. With the help of the WayBackMachine, I was able to peer back at parties, messages, drink specials and a lot of low-resolution flesh.
Many of the sites served, like the bars themselves, as community hubs. More than one hosted a guestbook where people chatted and left reviews. One site hosted photos of the patrons’ pets — among them cats and dogs named Foo Foo, Argus and Titan.
When the Eagle in Charlotte, N.C., shut down, the bar posted an outpouring of messages from regulars. “I can’t begin to tell you how many people I now know because of visiting the Eagle,” said one man. “Thank you for some of the best years of my life.”
I put together an exhaustive list of cities, dates and names of Eagle bars. Each row has the date the first opened its doors to the date the last one turned out the lights, as well as the different names the bars went by.
Here all the cities that have current and former Eagles. How many have you been to? Do you spot a missing city? A wrong date? Please let me know: ken@thethrust.net.
The Thrust’s Eagle Atlas
Check off all of the Eagles you’ve visited to show off.
City
Bar names
Years with active bar
Amsterdam
Eagle Amsterdam
1979
Today
Atlanta
Atlanta Eagle
1988
Today
Auckland
Eagle Bar
Today
Benidorm
Eagle Bar Benidorm
2011
Today
Boston
Boston Eagle
1976
Today
Cardiff
Eagle Cardiff
2012
Today
Dallas
Eagle Dallas
1995
Today
Denver
Denver Eagle
2007
Today
Houston
Eagle Houston
Today
Indianapolis
501 Eagle
1993
Today
Las Vegas
Las Vegas Eagle
1988
Today
London
Eagle London
2004
Today
Long Island
Long Island Eagle, Veranda at The Long Island Eagle
1992
Today
Los Angeles
Eagle LA
1980
Today
Malaga
Free Eagle
Today
Manchester
Eagle Manchester
2010
Today
Minneapolis
Minneapolis Eagle, Eagle BOLT Bar
1998
Today
Montreal
L’Aigle Noir, Black Eagle
Today
New Orleans
Eagle
1994
Today
New York
Eagle NYC, The Eagle’s Nest
1970
Today
Nice
Eagle Nice
2005
Today
Portland
Eagle Portland, Eagle PDX, Eagle Bar
1986
Today
Providence
Providence Eagle
1995
Today
Salzburg
Dark Eagle
Today
San Diego
San Diego Eagle, Eagle in Exile, Golden Eagle
1980
Today
San Francisco
SF Eagle, Eagle Tavern, Eagle in Exile
1981
Today
Seattle
Seattle Eagle
1980
Today
Stuttgart
Eagle Stuttgart
2000
Today
Toronto
Black Eagle
1994
Today
Tulsa
Tulsa Eagle
Today
Vienna
Eagle Vienna
1990
Today
Washington
DC Eagle, Eagle in Exile
1971
Today
City
Bar names
Years with active bar
Baltimore
Baltimore Eagle
1991
2012
Barcelona
Eagle Barcelona
1998
2007
Calgary
Calgary Eagle
2002
2012
Canton
540 Eagle
1976
2005
Charlotte
Charlotte Eagle
2001
2009
Chicago
Chicago Eagle
1993
2008
Cocoa Beach
Space Coast Eagle
—
2003
Columbus
Columbus Eagle, Eagle Tavern, Eagle in Exile
1975
2009
Detroit
Detroit Eagle
1984
2010
Fort Lauderdale
Fort Lauderdale Eagle, The Eagle in Exile, Eagle at Large
1991
2011
Grand Rapids
Eagle’s Nest
2004
2008
Guernville
Russian River Eagle
—
2005
Hartford
Hartford Eagle
2000
2014
Madrid
Eagle Madrid
1995
2013
Miami
Eagle in Miami
1995
2002
Milwaukee
Milwaukee Eagle
1997
2001
Munich
Eagle Munich
1974
2009
Orlando
Orlando Eagle
1992
1996
Paris
Paris Eagle
2008
2012
Phoenix
Eagle Phoenix
—
2008
Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh Eagle
—
2012
San Antonio
Eagle San Antonio
San Juan
San Juan Eagle
2010
2013
St. Louis
St. Louis Eagle, Eagle in Exile
1994
2006
St. Petersburg
Suncoast Eagle
1998
2007
Tampa
Ybor Eagle, Tampa Eagle, The Eagle
1997
2010
Waterbury
Brass City Eagle
2003
2005
Random Eagle facts
The Eagle Amsterdam claims to be in the city’s oldest building. The wooden skeleton apparently dates to 1485.
The Long Island Eagle has rebranded to “The Veranda at The Long Island Eagle,” touting its serene deck in lieu of its previously “dark and seedy patio.” In spite of this, I’ve kept it marked as open.
At least four have been gutted by fire. The 501 Eagle in Indianaoplis, Ind., posted on their website that “the men are as hot as the bar.” The Houston Eagle was the most recent to burn, forcing it from its home in early 2016.
The Boston Eagle is the oldest one in continuous operation. It’s been at the same location for 40 years.
Florida has had an outpoust in at least six cities — Tampa, St. Petersburg, Orlando, Cocoa Beach, Fort Lauderdale and Miami — the most of any state, yet none remain open.
As for the original building, the Eagle’s Nest on 11th Ave? Like all things in New York, it’s been knocked down to make way for condos. But don’t worry: you can get a beer at the Eagle NYC, just 7 blocks north on 28th St.
Much as I’m reluctant to further any infighting within the transgender and gender nonconforming community, I also have a responsibility to speak truth to power. Your visibility has gone from mildly annoying, to problematic, to atrocious, to outright detrimental, and so I ask you, politely:
Stop trying to help though the media and public appearances. Please. Stop.
Caitlyn, our trans sister, we were openhearted when you came out. We embraced you, offering support and resources. We respected what you were feeling; so many of us have suffered our own similar dysphoria and torment.
Our community watched nervously as you sat with Diane Sawyer and we recognized it was merely an initial place of naiveté. We forgave the melodrama and the missteps. Again, we were all at the beginning once.
Time went on. Your ongoing statements left us anxious, but each time we made allowances. With increasingly gritted teeth.
We were terrified when word came of the reality show. We clung desperately to the chance that perhaps through all your then-upcoming experiences — at first we were teased with previews of you interacting with trans youth, trans men, genderqueer people, trans people of color, trans people rejected by their families, trans people who were desperate and had few choices other than sex work (not to suggest sex work is inherently bad), and the full diversity of the trans community — that maybe you might gain a deeper understanding of who we are (yourself included) and that just possibly the rest of the world could be educated vicariously through you.
Instead we witnessed a continuation of the Kardashian circus: a party bus stocked with handlers, stylists, producers, coaches and crew while you paraded as a Barbie more obsessed with footwear than inequity, all the while surrounded by endless sensationalism, overt product placements, contrived warmth and the enormous privilege you carry every moment. You expected us to rally behind you, but your producers fundamentally misunderstood the trans community you purport to represent:
Trans people are not Kardashian wannabes. That is not a lifestyle we aspire to; that is a lifestyle that has kept us oppressed. (And the Lamborghini was a bit much.)
Now we are both saddened and furious. Here again you had privilege: the best tutors we could have hoped for in Jenny Boylan, Kate Bornstien and Jenn Richards. All leaders, a bit homogeneous, perhaps, but if you had any chance of learning it was from them. Though clearly unsettled by your antics, they persevered to help you recognize your position and the social justice needs of our community.
Despite their best efforts, you haven’t grown. At least, not much.
More recently, since I Am Cait, Season One, every word you utter makes evident your lack of awareness. Season Two thus far demonstrates that your mindset remains rooted in in the same shallow perspectives and that you are resistant, perhaps even incapable, of change.
Additionally, according to numerous articles reporting your support of Ted Cruz, you said: “[…once Ted Cruz becomes president, I will] have all my girls on a trans issues board to advise him on making decisions when it comes to trans issues. Isn’t that a good idea?”
(Also, stop calling them ‘girls.’ And they’re hardly yours.)
In aligning yourself with a politician and a party that espouse discrimination and violence (subtle and overt) at a time when transgender people are still vulnerable, you have scorned the majority of your community. (See HERE and HERE, though there are countless more.) Do you genuinely believe any of your tourbus ‘friends’ will join behind hatemongering bigots who would eagerly eliminate services, marginalize all ‘others,’ and impose ‘religious freedoms’ to force our return to the shadows? That Ted Cruz will suddenly be sympathetic to the needs of an inner-city, African-American, trans sex worker because you are in his life?
The notion that Ted Cruz would offer his ear because he was ‘nice’ to you pretransition is absurd. You were a cisgender, privileged, white male athletic superhero then. Please heed this lesson, since you have not already: things are different for you now.
(By the way: let us know how your experiences go using the Mens’ Room due to one of the many ‘trans people have to use the restroom associated with their biological gender’ bills making their way through several Republican controlled legislatures.)
And what you represent today: media stories in which many are calling the trans community hypocritical for confronting you have propagated throughout the religious right wing. These pieces only make those who are resistant even less open to us as human beings, and ultimately damage our community. No, we do not need to be homogenous. Yes, there is space for informed, thoughtful conservative transgender people beneath our umbrella. But we would appreciate it if you were the slightest bit sensitive to the importance of your role. You have become a pawn to be used against your own.
—-
We beg you, or at least *I* beg you: just stop trying to help through visibility. Put your efforts behind the scenes. Be a TransFairy Godmother and donate to the countless organizations that are desperate for resources to help those with less access.
I still welcome you as part of our community, and underneath our umbrella, but I’ll ask you once again to stop putting yourself forward as someone who represents us.
At this point, what we most need from you is silence.
Laura A. Jacobs, LCSW-R Trans* and GenderQueer-identified psychotherapist in the NYC area working with sexual/gender minority populations. www.LauraAJacobs.com
Members of the Amnesty International LGBTIQ network march during the MidSumma festival Pride march in Australia, calling for marriage equality
Reuters Health – People who are transgender may have difficulty finding endocrinologists who feel comfortable and competent in providing needed care, according to a new survey of physicians.
Endocrinologists are often key healthcare providers for people who are transgender. But about a third of endocrinologists are unwilling to care for patients who are transgender, and less than half say they feel at least somewhat competent in providing that care, said Dr. Michael Irwig, who surveyed the doctors at an endocrinology meeting last year.
“There is still a big access problem,” said Irwig, associate professor of medicine at the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences in Washington, D.C. “The fact that 30 percent won’t see transgender patients wouldn’t happen with any other diagnosis.”
“Basically, nobody had really done a similar survey before,” said Irwig, who is also director of the Andrology Center at GW Medical Faculty Associates.
He asked 80 endocrinology providers from Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and Washington, D.C. to answer a 19-item survey. About 80 percent answered the survey.
Overall, 15 percent said they were not at all comfortable discussing gender identity, and another 34 percent said they were only slightly comfortable discussing the subject, according to the study online now in Endocrine Practice.
Fifty-eight percent reported being less comfortable with transgender patients than with non-transgender patients.
Fellowship training on transgender care was uncommon, reported by less than one-third of the doctors overall and by 58 percent of those ages 25 to 39.
Only 41 percent of participants felt at least somewhat competent in providing care to transgender people.
And only 63 percent said transgender patients could be seen at their practice. Irwig said he asked participants to explain why such patients couldn’t be seen, “but a lot of them didn’t fill in that open-ended question.”
He told Reuters Health there could be a number of reasons for doctors refusing to see transgender patients, including prejudice, lack of understanding and not feeling competent in providing the needed care.
More training and experience may help improve healthcare access, said Irwig.
The Endocrine Society is updating its 2009 guidelines for caring for people who are transgender. The guidelines provide guidance and legitimacy, said Dr. Josh Safer, who is working on the update.
“The guidelines are an evidence-based, thoughtful approach from the ultimate mainstream endocrinology professional society and that is very strong for those needing reliable sources,” said Safer, of the Boston University School of Medicine, in an email to Reuters Health.
The updated guidelines include changes to terminology, new practices on how to care for transgender adolescents and how transgender care fits within the larger medical community, he added in a phone interview.
Irwig said transgender people likely know healthcare access is an issue. To find endocrinologists who can provide culturally competent care, he suggests that patients calling doctors’ offices “ask their staff how many transgender patients are seen in the practice, because that will give them a good idea.”
Safer said he considers it a priority to train endocrinologists in transgender medical care. He is educating his own trainees on the subject.
A Democratic US Senator has introduced a bill that would deny visas to foreigners complicit in the persecution of LGBT people.
Jeanne Shaheen, the Senator for New Hampshire and a close ally of Hillary Clinton, introduced the Global Respect Act in the Senate this week.
The LGBT rights bill takes aim at people who have been complicit in homophobic killings, violence or persecution across the world, creating a list of extreme homophobes and placing them on a no-entry list.
It would specifically target “foreign persons responsible for, complicit in, or who incited extrajudicial killing, torture, or other gross violations of human rights based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity”.The law would not target home-grown homophobes such as extremist pastor Scott Lively – who has supported anti-gay laws around the world – but would place an emphasis on LGBT international human rights within the State Department.
The Human Rights Campaign explained: “This would send a signal to world leaders and officials that they cannot persecute LGBT people, seek to travel to the US and expect to be welcomed here.”
The bill was previously introduced in the House, where it 26 cosponsors.
Senators Ed Markey (D-MA), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) have supported the bill along with Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen said: “While we’ve seen tremendous progress towards equality in the United States, the fact remains that the LGBT community is still under threat both here at home and around the world.
“No one should live in fear of physical violence or oppression because of their sexual orientation or sexual identity.
“The Global Respect Act would send a strong message to the international community and a stern warning to those who persecute LGBT individuals that the United States will continue to defend human rights.”
HRC President Chad Griffin said: “Millions of LGBT people around the world continue to suffer unimaginable violence and discrimination under oppressive laws and regimes.
“The Global Respect Act sends a clear message to political leaders of these countries that when they violate the human rights of LGBT people, the U.S. government will hold them accountable.
“This legislation also sends a message to LGBT people worldwide that the U.S. is an ally willing to defend their fundamental human rights. We are proud to endorse the work of Senator Shaheen and the other champions of this important bill.”
Today Lambda Legal announced the resolution of its lawsuit against the Social Security Administration (SSA) brought on behalf of Kathy Murphy, a Texas widow denied spousal benefits after the death of her wife, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (the National Committee).
“The Social Security Administration has finally adjusted Kathy’s monthly SSA benefit to recognize the reality that she was married to her wife Sara and is a widow entitled to the same treatment as other survivors. We are also pleased to announce that the SSA has finally updated its instructions to its staff in accordance with the historic Obergefell v. Hodges ruling last June,” said Susan Sommer, National Director of Constitutional Litigation at Lambda Legal.
“SSA has also issued other guidance to staff to manage claims from the LGBT community. With this good news, including SSA’s long-awaited changes to its policies to conform to Obergefell, we are hopeful that LGBT widows, widowers and retirees, wherever they live, will be able to receive the Social Security spousal benefits to which they are entitled.
“LGBT people, who earned benefits through years of hard work, deserve to receive them without further delay and at long last to have their relationships treated with dignity by the federal government. Although SSA still needs to update some of its instructions and practices to fully recognize LGBT families and their rights to benefits, these recent developments come as a very welcome step. We call on the SSA to prioritize awarding benefits to the many LGBT people who were unfairly denied them in the past.”
For more than 30 years, Texas residents Kathy Murphy and Sara Barker shared their lives together. Three decades after they first met, Kathy and Sara legally married in Massachusetts in 2010. Like other married couples, they hoped to grow old together and to live out their retirement years in safety, security and dignity.
Tragically, Sara lost her battle with cancer in March 2012 at age 62, leaving Kathy a widow. Because the couple lived in Texas, which refused to recognize their marriage at the time of Sara’s death, SSA also wouldn’t recognize the marriage, denying Kathy spousal survivor’s benefits earned by Sara over a lifetime of work.
America is getting angrier, according to one watchdog.
For the first time in five years, the number of hate groups in the United States rose in 2015, according to a new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a legal and advocacy organization known among other things for monitoring extremist activity.
The number of such groups spiked 14 percent in 2015, a year characterized by levels of polarization and anger perhaps unmatched since the political turmoil of 1968, the center said in the report on hate and extremism released exclusively to The Washington Post on Wednesday.
Swelling numbers of Ku Klux Klan chapters and black separatist groups drove last year’s surge, though organizations classified as anti-gay, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim saw small increases, too.
“It was a year marked by very high levels of political violence, enormous rage in the electorate and a real significant growth in hate groups,” said Mark Potok, author of the report.
The center credits a number of factors for inciting that anger, including shifting demographics that largely favor non-whites; immigration; legalized same-sex marriage; the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement; and the all-too-real atrocities carried out by Islamic terrorists.
A creeping rhetoric of intolerance among politicians helped to normalize hate, the center argued. And while it singled out other presidential contenders, too, the center—which conservatives criticize for casting too wide a net—stated that Donald Trump had “electrified the radical right.”
“Hate in the mainstream had absorbed some of the hate on the fringes,” the group wrote in the report, which is published in a magazine whose cover prominently features Trump alongside domestic terrorists.
The Intelligence Report’s spring cover features Donald Trump front and center—alongside several domestic terrorists. (SPLC)
Racist extremists were responsible for the spike last year, SPLC found.
The number of KKK chapters in America more than doubled from 2014 to 2015, rising from 72 to 190, according to the report. That growth was “invigorated” by several hundred pro-Confederate flag rallies, which largely channeled white anger over the group’s declining demographic and economic position, the group said.
Black separatist groups also multiplied, rising from 113 in 2014 to 180 last year, “pretty much as a direct result of the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement,” Potok said.
But unlike the members of that movement, the separatist groups represented an extreme position that “demonized” whites, gays and Jews.
The number of black separatist groups was the highest of any year since at least 2000, according to SPLC data. The number of Klan chapters was the highest of all but one year — 2010 — during that time period. Those numbers exclude white nationalist and racist skinhead groups.
For all of its effort at documenting hateful association in the United States, the SPLC noted that its 2015 count was likely an underestimate, as extremists increasingly turn to the Internet to congregate anonymously.
Critics have suggested the opposite—that SPLC overestimates the number of hate groups. A broad definition of “hate” leads the SPLC to cast too wide a net, unfairly ensnaring groups simply for having strong conservative views on topics such as abortion or illegal immigration, the organization’s detractors have argued.
Hate groups aside, the SPLC also documented a 14 percent swell in anti-government “patriot” groups — militias and others motivated by conspiracy theories. Those “patriot” groups are not necessarily violent or racist, but rather tend to fear and oppose a “New World Order” and be staunchly anti-government.
The number of such groups — counted separately from hate groups — rose from 874 in 2014 to 998 last year. The groups were emboldened, SPLC said, by Cliven Bundy’s 2014 standoff, in which he was joined by armed ranchers in facing down federal authorities over a dispute related to land rights.
As to what the future holds, SPLC’s Potok notes that FBI data shows hate crimes last year rose for just one group: Muslims.
“I think that gives an indication of what’s coming,” he said.
Twenty-one percent of transgender women have spent time in prison or jail, versus 5 percent of all people in general.
The number of people in prison or jail who identify as LGBTQ is roughly twice that of their general population. And whereas about 8 percent of all youth identify as LGBTQ or gender non-conforming, 20 percent of youth in several juvenile detention sites across the country identified that way, including 40 percent of girls.
All these findings are included in a new report from the Center for American Progress and the Movement Advancement Project called Unjust: How the Broken Criminal Justice System Fails LGBT People. The report details how LGBT people of color are particularly affected.
According to the report, LGBT people are more likely to interact with law enforcement and enter a criminal justice system where they are treated unfairly and more likely to be locked up and to face abuse once there. They also face additional challenges upon leaving incarceration and trying to rebuild their lives.
The report frames the issue in the broader context of a criminal justice system that is more likely to seek out and punish people of color, particularly African Americans. It also highlights individual stories, such as that of a gay youth mistreated by the child welfare system who spent time on the streets; several accounts from transgender people in prison; and a black gay man’s ongoing consequences of being convicted under an HIV criminalization statue in Louisiana.
A comprehensive, 10-year study of Fortune 500 companies has conclude that greater gender diversity at boardroom level makes for a far more inclusive workplace for LGBT people.
The study has been published by SAGE in the journal of Human Relations, in partnership with The Tavistock Institute.
The report’s authors note that non-discrimination policies and domestic partner health insurance benefits are implemented only with the support of top leadership.
They looked at whether the gender of the CEO influenced the likelihood of a company having LGBT inclusive policies, and then at the gender diversity of that company’s board. On both counts, it looked at the years 2001-2010.
It concluded that although the gender of a company’s CEO had an influence on its LGBT-friendly credentials, that influence was far more pronounced if there was diversity across the whole boardroom.
‘While women CEOs are vital for advancing a company’s commitment to domestic partnership benefits and gender identity non-discrimination polices, diverse boards are associated with the full range of LGBT-inclusive policies and practices,’ the author’s concluded.
‘Firms with a higher percentage of women on the board and those with influential women board members are more likely than other firms to adopt a broad range of LGBT- friendly policies and practices.’
‘Our study suggests that diversity advocates committed to advancing inclusive policies – including but perhaps not limited to policies related to sexual orientation and gender identity – should prioritize board diversity.’
In a press statement, one of the report’s co-authors, Alison Cook, Associate Professor at Utah State University, commented, ‘Our study is important because it shows that leadership diversity can significantly influence a company’ likelihood of adopting inclusive polices.
‘Gender diversity in the boardroom is key; women directors increase a company’s commitment to equity and fairness and advance firms’ strategic goals.’
In terms of measuring a company’s LGBT-inclusiveness, the author’s made use of Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index – a ranking of US corporations based on their policies regarding gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender staff.
Deena Fidas, head of HRC’s Workplace Equality Program, and co-author of the HRC Foundation’s Corporate Equality Index, told Gay Star Business, ‘Corporate LGBT inclusion is inextricably linked to race, gender and other salient attributes in the workplace. It’s not surprising then, that corporate boards with greater gender diversity reflect corporations that also value and engage LGBT diversity.’
The report was welcomed by others working in the field of LGBTI diversity and inclusion. Selisse Berry, CEO of Out & Equal Workplace Advocates, said, ‘It’s empowering to see that companies with a diverse board of directors are more likely to foster open and inclusive workplaces for LGBT employees and it’s not surprising that women understand the value of diversity and are willing to invest in developing it.
‘We all have attributes, skills and life experiences that contribute to the success of our work environment – LGBT employees are no different. Having a diverse board of directors that understands this helps bring together varied perspectives and ideas while also sending a strong message to LGBT employees that they are respected and valued.’
‘We strongly believe that increasing diversity within corporate governance structures has important direct and indirect impacts on company cultures and bottom-lines,’ said Juan Herrera, Director of Talent Initiatives at Out Leadership.
‘Our initiative Quorum, dedicated to increasing representation of LGBT directors on corporate boards, is particularly focused on the way that the intersectional nature of the LGBT community creates the opportunity for businesses to diversify their boards in more than one way at a time.’
The potent protection from HIV afforded by Truvada as PrEP allows men to have sex with less worry and fear of HIV. But some worry that the inclusion of PrEP as a public health strategy will lead people to abandon condoms—which still have a role to play in further reducing risk of HIV and other STIs. In San Francisco—even before PrEP’s availability in 2012—rates of STIs among men who have sex with men have been steadily increasing and rates of condom use have gone down.
BETA wanted to know—what do PrEP providers think? How do these practitioners, who see clients every three months for sexual health screenings and STI testing, talk to their clients about condom use, STIs and navigating the complicated landscape of protected, or safer, sex?
To find out, BETA talked to Stefan Rowniak, MSN, PhD, a PrEP provider and nurse practitioner at San Francisco City Clinic and researcher and assistant professor at University of San Francisco; Pierre-Cédric Crouch, PhD, ANP-BC, the nursing director at the San Francisco AIDS Foundation health and wellness center Strut; Robert Blue, a PrEP program coordinator for San Francisco City Clinic; and Hyman Scott, MD, who leads the Ward 86 PrEP Clinic at San Francisco General Hospital.
Here’s what they said.
The rates of gonorrhea, chlamydia and early syphilis infection have been on the rise in recent years in San Francisco. Do you see this as a major problem?
Pierre-Cédric Crouch, PhD, ANP-BC
Pierre-Cédric Crouch, PhD, ANP-BC: Obviously nobody wants to get gonorrhea, chlamydia, or syphilis, but these are risks that we have from living. The only way to completely avoid them is to not have sex at all and that’s not who we are as humans. You can also get the flu from having sex, or strep throat. People die from the flu. People don’t die from gonorrhea, but there’s more stigma attached to gonorrhea than the flu. The levels of STIs are going up in San Francisco—and have been since before PrEP was available here—but they’re nowhere close to what they were in the 70s and 80s.
Stefan Rowniak, MSN, PhD
Stefan Rowniak, MSN, PhD: That’s a very difficult question—but one the community is going to have to answer. If people suddenly find themselves saying, ‘My god, this is the third time I’ve gotten gonorrhea in three months,’ they may think, ‘What can we do about this?’ It’s going to take people realizing that they don’t want to get gonorrhea over and over again every time they have a new sex partner. Health providers will be there to help the discussion along—but we’re not the sex police. We are there to inform and help people make those decisions themselves.
Since gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis can all be treated, how do you talk to clients about the potential harms associated with these STIs?
Hyman Scott, MD
Hyman Scott, MD: At this time, these STIs are all treatable with antibiotics, but just because they are treatable do not mean that they are benign. What is a concern is that we are seeing rising rates of drug-resistant gonorrhea, and we shouldn’t forget that gonorrhea can cause sterility. And while syphilis is still treatable with penicillin, with the increase in total cases, we’re seeing more of the complications that come along with syphilis such as neurosyphilis, vision impairment, and vision loss. Giving people the full picture is important—not to spread fear, because we want to have a sex-positive approach when we’re talking about sex—but so that people have the information they need to make decisions about their sexual health.
Some people worry that PrEP is, or will, cause people to abandon condoms. Are your clients changing their condom use now that they’re on PrEP?
Robert Blue
Robert Blue: Yes and no. There are some people who start taking PrEP and they actually start thinking more about their sexual health. Their thought seems to be, ‘Well, I’m taking PrEP for my sexual health, why would I then go out and not use condoms?’ There are people who didn’t use condoms before PrEP, and that doesn’t change. And there are some people who, once they started taking PrEP decided to stop using condoms.
Crouch: We haven’t seen much change, but it’s difficult to measure. Some people will come in and report that they used condoms all the time before they started PrEP. But when you ask a few more questions, you find out that there were exemptions to it—the person didn’t use condoms with their main partner or those few times with their fuck buddy. So it wasn’t really 100% condom use to begin with.
Scott: I think for some clients, there is a change in the way that they decide to use condoms [on PrEP], but there’s a lot of variability. Some people may change their condom use with certain partners, but not others. With the rise in STIs and increased uptake of PrEP, there is a real desire of some to make that linkage and say that one is causal to the other. We have seen a rise in STIs before the increased uptake of PrEP. Studies that have systematically looked at this haven’t found much of an overall change in the level of condom use among PrEP users, but it will also be important to monitor as PrEP roll-out expands in more real-world settings. Anecdotally, we’ve had people who don’t change their condom use at all. It’s definitely something we need to keep track of, but at this point we don’t have data to say that initiating PrEP is the reason people change their condom use, if they change it.
Do condoms still have a role to play in gay men’s sexual health alongside PrEP?
Crouch: Condoms still have value. They do a good job of reducing transmission of gonorrhea and chlamydia—less so for syphilis. They don’t provide 100% protection, but they do have value. All in all, we don’t know five years from know how people will use condoms when they’re on PrEP. I could see it being similar to what happened for oral sex—in the 90s, when people thought you could get HIV from oral sex, there was a big push for people to use condoms for oral sex. I don’t know if that’s what people really did, but now that we know the risk of HIV transmission from oral sex is so rare, I think people in general gave up on feeling like they should use condoms for oral sex. Of course there’s still a risk of getting or transmitting other STIs but the risk of HIV is so slight with oral sex. It’s the same way for anal sex if you’re on PrEP.
Rowniak: I don’t believe people will completely abandon condoms in favor of PrEP. Rather, I think people will use condoms with some partners and in some instances and not in others. I think people feel, to a certain extent, a little frightened after spending years and years using condoms, and all of a sudden not using them at all. So the pendulum might swing back and forth until it reaches a place to settle.
Blue: We know that while PrEP is highly effective in preventing HIV transmission, it is not 100%. Many people still feel more comfortable using condoms while taking PrEP. We also know that PrEP doesn’t prevent the transmission of other STIs and that condoms can be an effective STI-prevention strategy.
Scott: Condoms absolutely have a role to play. One thing to remember is that we’ve never studied PrEP versus condoms—PrEP has always been inclusive of condoms. The package that includes PrEP is not just one pill per day. It’s about condom promotion, too. There are a variety of ways that people can have protected or safer sex, and we want to give people the tools that fit within their sex lives and support them with all of these options.
Do you advise your clients to use condoms? And if so, how do you have those conversations?
Blue: Yes, we do. Ultimately, we want people to think logically or rationally about their sex lives (acknowledging that sex is not often our most rational form of self-expression!). We want people to be able to evaluate their risk of HIV and STIs and decide on what prevention strategies make sense for them.
Rowniak: I make a point to talk with clients about when it might be appropriate to use condoms—and when it might make sense to reintroduce condoms back into sex. These conversations help get people to think about using condoms, and that’s really the first step. Introducing this new thought about condoms helps people think about ways they might like to be a little more circumspect.
Crouch: Our job is to provide education and have the client come up with their own informed sexual health plan. We tell clients that PrEP isn’t 100% effective at preventing HIV infection, even though we haven’t had any infections on PrEP yet—because nothing in life is 100%. Condoms provide extra protection against gonorrhea and chlamydia. We frame it as, ‘Using condoms with PrEP is your best overall protection.’ But we don’t lecture anyone to do, or not do, anything. We’re here to inform and help support people in whatever they decide to do. If condoms haven’t been a problem for a client, they should definitely continue to use them—though condoms aren’t always easy for people to use. They can break. Some people tell us they have trouble maintaining an erection with them. Some say condoms reduce intimacy in relationships. It’s ultimately an individual decision. There is no right or wrong answer.
Scott: I’m humble enough to know that I only get the opportunity to spend 30 minutes, maybe an hour, talking with patients about a variety of medical conditions including their sexual health, which is balanced with all the other needs and considerations in their daily lives. I give them guidance and recommendations but I don’t try to convince them to use condoms if they’ve already made up their mind about condom use. I meet my patients where they’re at and see how open they are to exploring condom use. Recently, I saw someone who was diagnosed with early syphilis. We started treatment [for syphilis] but then also talked about why he didn’t use a condom with this new partner, despite his ‘rule’ to use condoms with new partners. His response that, ‘The guy was just my type’ was incredibly insightful and understandable. So there was something powerful about desire and passion, and wanting to make a connection with his partner that influenced his decision making. So I explore the barriers and facilitators people may have for condom use, but never pass judgment on their decision.
For more information about PrEP services at the gay men’s health and wellness center in the Castro, Strut, visit www.strutsf.org. Find out more about the Ward 86 PrEP Clinic at San Francisco General Hospital. Continue learning more about PrEP at www.prepfacts.org or on BETA.