Connect with us

Op-Ed

Terrible excuses for Pacquiao’s common sense

Peter Jones Dela Cruz: “I’ve had my share of slurs sent in my direction as I tried to criticize Manny Pacquiao’s views. But I didn’t complain. You know why? I’m used to these abusive tactics. They bother me, but they don’t hurt me anymore. But it’s funny when you cry foul when you get a dose of your own medicine.”

Published

on

You may think you can excuse the boxing champ for his remarks about homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Let me tell you why I think you should reevaluate your excuses.

He was just stating his opinion.

Of course. But what if I told you you’re a disgusting critter, and then I said it was just an opinion? Does the excuse cut it? What if I told you you shouldn’t eat shrimp because I was allergic to it? Does saying it’s just my opinion excuse me from being a meddlesome despot?

People use this notorious excuse to block criticism. It’s not a good excuse. Put opinion out there, and it’s free for public consumption and criticism.

Everyone can make an opinion. But the question is, whose opinion makes sense? We can’t just sit down and accept any opinion thrown at us. We respect opinions that have basis. Manny’s opinion was neither factual nor reasonable. He got it wrong when he said there were no male to male or female to female animal partnerships in the first place.

He already apologized.

If I told you – as in anyone who’s reading this – your mother looked like a whore and said I was sorry, but maintained she looked like a whore, is that an apology?

Apologies constitute admitting one’s mistake and putting forth the right or better words to say. Manny did nothing of these to appease the aggrieved community. He maintained he was only invoking the Bible, including the verses that include killing gay people. These verses are the reason a lot of gay people in different parts of the world are persecuted. This fundamentalism spawns the worst cases of homophobia. No fundie has ever said sorry for all the victims of antigay oppression.

Is there a way we could shed reason to fundamentalism? Sometimes I wonder how we should deal with this issue. When you step back to see the bigger picture, you see Manny as the tiny dot among the swarm of people in a dogmatic culture. That’s scarier than his unscientific version of common sense, and that’s something an insincere apology cannot fix.

He brought honor to the country.

Of course, we know that. However, that’s not the point. His grand achievements in the world of boxing has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is the intolerance and gross ignorance of the marriage equality advocacy.

It’s also unfair when people think we’re being unfair to someone who has put the Philippines in the pedestal in the field of boxing. Suddenly, the issue turned into shaming the LGBT advocates for bullying him and his family online.

Just because he brought honor to the country doesn’t mean he can say anything stupid and get away with it. In addition, someone vying for a position in the senate should have been more responsible in his opinions.

He was only quoting the Bible.

When Manny asked for an apology, he quoted 1 Corinthians 6:9 and then included Leviticus 20:13 in his Instagram post, which he afterwards deleted.

Anyone can take refuge in the Bible because this old collection of stories and cryptic passages is interpreted in different ways. Liberal and conservative Christians take them differently. But as expected, the fundamentalists take the Leviticus 18:22 or Romans 1:26-27 as antigay passages.

It’s hard to challenge the Bible because challenging it means offending people who adhere to it and take it as the source of their moral code. But there’s something to say about literalists who take these unfriendly passages selectively and use them to debase a group of people.

READ:  5 Ways to #ResistTogether after #Pride

Sometimes I wonder what the problem is. Is it the people who use the Bible to oppress and ridicule people? Or is it the Bible, which offers egomaniacs the tools to use for their bigotry.

The average Christian doesn’t know or doesn’t care about the historical and semantic context of everything that’s written in the Bible. Thus, many seemingly cruel and inhuman passages go ignored, but a few of these are used against a group of people, the LGBT people in this case.

In addition, a thorough examination reveals the cultural influence on the books of the Bible, depicting how the writers would have wanted people to live their lives then. That’s why I ask, what is the practical significance of Biblical dogma in today’s time? Should we treat the Bible as the source of our moral code today? Or should we just treat it as a literary reference whose moral correctness is arbitrary and therefore not absolute?

A public servant invoking the Bible does disservice to people who don’t adhere to it, which by the way include a lot of Christians. Besides, what is the practical value of quoting Leviticus passages? What message does that send to young LGBT people, that some Bible fanatic out there could be murdering gay people in the name of his faith?

He was right.

Before you can claim all he said was right, you have to ask the following questions:

Is his claim based on facts?

Is his claim reasonable?

Is his claim consistent with other claims?

Is he saying an absolute truth?

What are the practical implications of his claims?

Which part of his statements were right? First, his claim that homosexuality doesn’t exist in animals is wrong.

Second, does saying that same-sex marriage is wrong because the Bible says it’s wrong reasonable? Does the Bible say it’s wrong? He invoked Leviticus, for instance. To whom was the Book of Leviticus written? Does he know what the passages actually meant or he just interpreted it based on his bias?

Third, is there a consensus among scholars regarding the interpretation of these passages? If none, then whose “truth” do we go with? In addition, supposing for purposes of argument we say the Bible says it’s wrong, why then does it say it’s wrong?

Fourth, does the claim that same-sex relationship is wrong and immoral remain true in all situations? Suppose we discuss the topic outside the fringes of religion, does it remain wrong and immoral?

Then there’s the scary part, the practical implications of an opinion. Look at how LGBT people are treated in deeply religious countries and you see the implications of these deeply held religious teachings unchallenged by the scared and oppressed minority and encouraged by the status quo.

He was misquoted.

Does it matter?

Is there is any real difference between saying that gays are worse than animals and saying that people are worse than animals if they allowed gay marriage? The first one is blatantly homophobic. The second one remains homophobic but has added coercive undertones. It’s like saying we shouldn’t allow gay marriage because we’re better than animals. Besides, the vagueness of his opinion lends itself to either interpretations.

READ:  Can we cancel Pride?

Either way we go, it doesn’t sound like a well thought out claim because it was anchored in his baseless “common sense” that animals do not practice homosexuality. Either way, it is offensive. Either has bad implications for gay and lesbian people.

He can’t be antigay because he has gay friends.

“I have a lot of gay friends…” is a common and tired rhetoric to rationalize antigay remarks. It’s also dishonest. How can you stay friends with gay people when deep inside you don’t hold them in the same regard as your straight friends? So you’re saying you like your gay friends, but you don’t like seeing them get married with their partners and you don’t like them to enjoy the same rights you do.

Claiming you have gay friends is different from actually supporting their struggle and regarding them to be your equal in terms of rights and social privileges. How can you stay friends with them if you think their plight is irrelevant and their “lifestyle,” base?

Okay, so you actually have friends who are alcoholics or drug addicts, but you hate alcoholism and drug addiction? Great! But that’s a bad analogy. Or you can show me how drug addiction, for instance, is equivalent to same-sex romance.

Vice Ganda is a hypocrite. Boy Abunda, too emotional.

I lament that the LGBT response to Rep. Pacquiao’s stance was reduced to Vice Ganda’s and Boy Abunda’s responses. You have leveraged the comedian’s crude retorts to fuel your subservience to dogma. You have disparaged our plight because you think the popular members of our community were unable to handle the issue with sophistication. But were your remarks sophisticated?

These people, though popular and respected in their fields, do not speak for the entire community. Their responses are their responses alone, and I am not going to say they’re wrong. I can’t take away their freedom to express their ire. The outrage was expected. What did you expect, all smiles after an inhuman remark? In an article entitled “World-Class Asshole,” Teddy Locsin, Jr. said, “I was not surprised when gays in showbiz gave it to him. I was surprised that some of them forgave him.”

I have to remind you that like any community, the LGBT community is filled with people of different personalities and intellectual capacities. I, for instance, have no control over what people in this community will say. But while many of us resort to acerbic rants – just like a lot of you on that side hurl your slurs in this direction – many of us, too, are trying our best to put the discourse on a rational level devoid of expletives and cuss words. So if you want this to be a rational battle and you’re looking at Vice Ganda’s quips, then you’re barking up the wrong tree.

However, the most important thing you have to remember in dealing with this issue is that Vice Ganda’s hypocrisy and Boy Abunda’s manner of expressing their indignation are not the issue. By resorting to this trick, you are trying to divert the issue from Manny’s lack of understanding of the LGBT rights and secularism to the responses of certain people, which are after all expected. This is a lame tactic to take naive people away from what should be discussed.

READ:  Outragemag.com launches #ByaheLGBT

Moreover, these two celebrities are not after a seat in the senate, where people draft laws that affect your lives.

The LGBT people are bullying Manny.

Bullying actually went both ways. So what’s the point? Manny made a statement. The LGBT people and their allies got angry and reacted. Then the minions from the offending camp retaliated. Zoom out to get a God’s eye view of the scene and you’ll see how much the religious bullies vastly outnumber the pro-LGBT bullies.

I’ve seen some of the vilest retorts from the meanest of your camp. I’ve had my share of slurs sent in my direction as I tried to criticize Manny Pacquiao’s views. But I didn’t complain. You know why? I’m used to these abusive tactics. They bother me, but they don’t hurt me anymore. But it’s funny when you cry foul when you get a dose of your own medicine.

Also, let’s be realistic and look at the implications of both types of bullying. I have yet to hear anti-LGBT folks succumbing to depression and suicidal thoughts because of LGBT rights movement. However, I’ve read a lot of stories of people getting killed, committing suicide, or suffering from depression because of religious dogma, stuff that most anti-LGBT people live and swear by, albeit selectively.

Jose Rizal also compared people to animals.

“Ang taong di marunong magmahal sa sariling wika ay daig pa ang hayop at malansang isda.” – Jose P. Rizal (They who do not love their own language are worse than animals and putrid fish.)

I have to admit this was a clever quip, except that people ignored an important difference between Rizal’s famous line and Manny’s infamous remark. Whereas Manny was talking about same-sex relationships, Rizal was talking about lack of patriotism. If there is any equivalence between same-sex relationships and lack of patriotism, I’d like to know.

There are more important issues.

So your issues are irrelevant because the are people in worse situations? Maybe you shouldn’t complain about the mold in the kitchen because there are homeless kids, for example. Is that fair?

The “not as bad as” fallacy is the common rhetoric of the discrimination enablers (and climate change deniers). It’s true that poverty affects more people. It affects more people than antigay bigotry. But is it impossible to be indignant at poverty and anti-LGBT hate at the same time?

Waiting for poverty or territorial disputes to be resolved before attending to other problems solves nothing. If solutions are within reach for “smaller problems,” why not employ them? Moreover, poverty and gay rights are two separate issues that should be discussed independently.

Anyway, if there’s one thing I have to thank Manny Pacquiao for, it’s the chance he gave us to talk about same-sex marriage and to explain to people what it is and what it is not. The controversy gave us an opportunity to educate people.

Issues like this help us identify who our allies are and who among our friends secretly find our identities and romantic lives disgusting. It makes me realize where we are in terms of LGBT acceptance and how vastly uneducated and cruel a lot of people in this country are.

Peter Jones Dela Cruz is a gay demiguy, a heretic, and someone who believes popular opinion and norms should be challenged if they are devoid of reason. He yearns for a future wherein everyone is treated equally regardless of who they love or what they wear ― a future where labels no longer matter. Apart from ranting for LGBTQ rights, he also likes to snap pictures and sing covers.

Op-Ed

Tulungan ang bawat isa na magmulat at mas mamulat pa

Pastor Carleen Nomorosa: “Tulungan natin ang bawat isa na magmulat at mas mamulat pa. Huwag tayong mapako sa mga sarili lamang nating pagdurusa, magsama-sama tayo at magtulungan. Huwag din tayong malunod sa mga pribilehiyong tinatamasa dahil marami padin ang hindi ligtas.”

Published

on

By Carleen Nomorosa
Program Coordinator, National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP)

Isa sa mahal ko sa buhay, na-rape. Ng paulit-ulit.

Sabi ng isang ahensya ng gobyerno noon sa amin nung nagpapatulong kami: Mabuti nga at nakauwi pa ng buhay ang nanay mo.”

Wala pa akong sampung taong gulang noon, seven years old pa lang ako, panganay. Probinsyana. Walang alam sa siyudad. Litong-lito ako bakit ganoon.

Kaya umuwi na kami, at sinubukang hilumin ang lahat ng pait na pinagdanan, hindi lamang ng aking ina, kundi ng buong pamilya.

Ang lupit ng lipunang ito, sa mga mahihirap at walang kakayanan.

Sana tulungan nyo ang mga katulad namin, para lumaban at makapag patuloy sa paglaban.

Tulungan natin ang mga magulang nila Eileen at Allan, hindi lang para panatilihin ang sentensya ni Antonio Sanchez.

Kundi imulat din ang henerasyong ito sa kalagayan ng bayan. Huwag nating hayaang gawin tayong manhid sa lahat ng pagpatay sa mga dukha at maralita. Huwag nating hayaang magdiwang ang mga panginoong maylupa na nagpapahirap sa magsasaka. Huwag nating hayaan na manatiling kontrakwal ang mga ordinaryong manggagawa. Huwag nating hayaang may inaaping sektor dahil minorya sila. Huwag nating hayaang marami ang nagkakasakit ngunit hindi makapag pa-ospital.

Tulungan natin ang bawat isa na magmulat at mas mamulat pa. Huwag tayong mapako sa mga sarili lamang nating pagdurusa, magsama-sama tayo at magtulungan. Huwag din tayong malunod sa mga pribilehiyong tinatamasa dahil marami padin ang hindi ligtas.

Wala na tayong ibang aatrasan, kundi ang paglaban. Sana bukas wala ng rape. Wala ng papatayin. Wala ng gutom. Magtulungan tayo.

Ang pananampalatayang napapako na lamang sa pag-pikit, pagluhod o pagtaas ng kamay sa pananalangin ay hindi makakabangon sa ikatlong araw. Walang resureksyon and ganitong pananampalataya.

Continue Reading

From the Editor

3 HIV-related questions (plus sub-questions) to ask re the PhilHealth scam

Every PLHIV is allocated P30,000 per year. As of April 2019, 37,091 PLHIVs are on treatment. Multiply that by P30,000 per person (per OHAT Package/coverage), and the amount involved here is P1,112,730,000. Too much money involved for us not to ask how the money is getting spent.

Published

on

Here are the facts:

  • As early as last year, two former employees of WellMed Dialysis Center already reported that it has been forging signatures of patients who have long died to file claims from the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) from 2016-2018.
  • Typical in the Philippines (e.g. think of Napoles, PDAF, fertilizer scandal, et cetera), this was soon “forgotten” (or at least not as widely covered anymore particularly by mainstream media, so not gaining traction with the public). That is, until June, when the Philippine Daily Inquirer detailed the scam (again) via an investigative report.
  • Still in June, President Rodrigo Duterte said he would “reorganize” PhilHealth after the agency lost some P154 billion to “ghost” patients and deliveries.
  • WellMed Dialysis Center’s accreditation was (finally) withdrawn in June. But in a privilege speech, Sen. Panfilo Lacson alleged that PhilHealth continued to pay WellMed Dialysis Center even after its accreditation was suspended because of its involvement in a scam.
  • A hearing was started by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee (chaired by Richard Gordon) to look at the allegations of corruption in the Department of Health (DoH), and – yes – PhilHealth.

Now why is this issue important to PLHIVs and those in the HIV advocacy in the Philippines?

Aside from the fact that there may be LGBTQIA Filipinos who may also be needing dialysis, the money that actually pays for the “free” treatment and antiretroviral medicines of Filipinos living with HIV come from PhilHealth.

No, darling, you don’t get “free” meds; a PLHIV is expected to enroll in PhilHealth before he/she can access the treatment. Meaning, YOU are paying for your treatment via your P2,400 (if voluntary) PhilHealth contribution. Anyone who tells you the meds are “free” is hiding the truth from you, or is outright lying to you.

READ:  Ormoc hosts 7th Rainbow Friendship Games 2017

And so the talk about stealing P154 billion should be an issue to PLHIVs and those serving them; particularly since it is not rare to encounter service providers who say that they can only offer shitty (and often lacking) TCS (treatment, care and support) services because there’s no money available (DUH!).

Every PLHIV is allocated P30,000 per year. As of April 2019, 37,091 PLHIVs are on treatment. Multiply that by P30,000 per person (per OHAT Package/coverage), and the amount involved here is P1,112,730,000.

Now off my head, here are a few questions that should also be asked as we tackle the PhilHealth scam (and questions that particularly touch on HIV in the Philippines).

1. Does PhilHealth monitor the use of the OHAT package, or they solely rely on reports that can – apparently, as the case of WellMed Dialysis Center highlighted – be faked/made up? Can individuals access the individual reports filed for them (on the use of their OHAT package)? If there’s none, why not? If these can be accessed, are there mechanisms to question the same?

These questions have to do with whether a PLHIV actually uses his/her allocation.

The Outpatient HIV/AIDS Treatment (OHAT) Package covers: drugs and medications; laboratory examinations based on the specific treatment guideline including Cluster of Differentiation 4 (CD4) level determination test, viral load (if warranted), and test for monitoring anti-retroviral (ARV) drugs toxicity; and professional fees of providers.

But in 2015, when interviewed by Outrage Magazine, PhilHealth’s Medical Specialist III and Millennium Development Goals Benefit Products Team Head Dr. Mary Antoinette Remonte said that “it has come to our attention that some treatment hubs charge for some laboratory tests, even after the release of the OHAT Package circular.” And so while the circular may specifically mention covered items, the same circular should not be taken too literally.

READ:  UP Lipad: Soaring for equality in UP Visayas

For instance, VL is not included in the circular, but if a PLHIV needs “viral load, if it’s really needed, they can still charge it on the OHAT package. Any laboratory tests related to ART treatment, they can use the OHAT Package for it.” For Remonte, “even if viral load testing was not written in the first circular, it was already included in the coverage.”

2. The baseline tests are still not specified in the circular/OHAT Package. This is why many PLHIVs are lost to TCS – i.e. they are told to pay for their own tests (e.g. chest X-ray, CBC) before they can get their hands on the life-saving meds (the ARVs). Why is this idiotically still not included in the OHAT Package, and even knowing that (many) PLHIVs won’t end up consuming the P30,000 allocated them anyway?

3. Do they also withdraw the accreditation of treatment hubs/clinics/satellite clinics that claim the P30,000 even if they did not actually use the entire amount for the use of the PLHIV? Has there ever been a service provider that lost its accreditation because of non-delivery of services?

We have spoken with PLHIVs who were told to get lab tests outside of their treatment hubs (e.g. chest X-ray, VL, CD4 count); they were told to pay for the same. No, they may NOT use their OHAT Package for the same, a handful of them were told. They have to shell out their OWN money.

READ:  Picking a fight for the rainbow…

The thing is, if these are already supposedly covered by PhilHealth, why the additional expenses? Who then benefits from the OHAT Package? The service providers not offering the services and yet getting the money? Isn’t this theft? And if one thinks so, what are the mechanisms for complaining? Are there any at all?

Let’s be blunt here: If these are not answered, here’s another avenue where profiteering is happening via PhilHealth, and at the expense of PLHIVs.

To end, let me state this to stress this: Every PLHIV is allocated P30,000 per year. As of April 2019, 37,091 PLHIVs are on treatment. Multiply that by P30,000 per person (per OHAT Package/coverage), and the amount involved here is P1,112,730,000.

Too much money involved and yet service providers still often saying “there’s no money” to help PLHIVs…

Continue Reading

Op-Ed

Looking beyond the ‘banyo’

With Gretchen Diez – after only a few days in the limelight – now claiming to be the “face of the LGBT movement”, Posit Bo says her narrative needs to be revisited. Particularly since, while there were procedural lapses, verbal abuse and negligence, he asks: Was there really discrimination if we try to look into the facts?

Published

on

Photo by @curology from Unsplash.com

In Toledo v. Hydenu (652 PHIL 70), the court stated that: He who comes into equity must come with a clean hands.

You have heard the word “discrimination” this week more than you may usually have heard it, at least in the previous months; that is, if  you fortunately haven’t experienced being discriminated. But what do  you know about discrimination?

The term is not exclusive to a particular: race, gender, religion, nor age. It is all encompassing. Discrimination does not discriminate. This is the very reason that necessitates the legislation of a more specific Anti-Discrimination Policy. A policy that should look and go beyond how it is being highlighted today, an issue of restroom usage.

When one person is rejected for employment by reason of SOGIE, that is discrimination in the workplace. When one is barred from enjoying a service by reason of SOGIE, that is discrimination in providing goods or rendering services. When one is prohibited from learning in a nonsectarian academic institution, that is discrimination in education. But when one is barred by reason of SOGIE in entering the female restroom, that is a multifaceted discussion.

While, every single public hearings and consultations can be attributed to the banyo incident, the debates have been constrained in the hallowed halls of Farmers Plaza restroom. There are more pressing issues related to SOGIE Equality Bill that is negligently missed amidst this discussion.

In using a specific individual as the face of SOGIE Equality Bill, the discussion hasn’t been substantiated by the pivotal provisions of the proposed law. The ‘star’ has been branded as your “Banyo Queen” since day one; but that’s on her, as she herself failed to elevate the discourse by repetitively echoing inequality in bathroom usage.

Be that as it may, let us thoroughly consider the facts of the matter, whether or not the banyo incident can be “the face of the LGBTQIA+ movement”.

You may see that this is a clear case of discrimination based on SOGIE in consideration of the given narrative by the complainant. Yes, there was a violation of the Gender Fair Ordinance of Quezon City as admitted by Farmers Plaza Management. The violation being their failure to provide a gender neutral restroom as required by the City Ordinance.

READ:  College-age males at bars, parties more likely to be sexually aggressive

But was there a discrimination based on SOGIE by verbal, nonverbal ridicule, and vilification or in rendering services?

First, the janitress is employed by an independent contractor and not by Farmers Plaza. There exist no relationship between the janitress and Farmers Plaza. Thus, the janitress is personally accountable for her actions;

Second, the janitress acted upon an aggression which was made and documented by the complainant herself but later deleted to better fit her narrative of an outright discrimination by the janitress. In the now deleted first Facebook live video, the complainant was nicely asked by the janitress to do two things, namely: (a) to use the male restroom instead of the female restroom acting upon an alleged complaint of female customers of Farmers Plaza, and (2)  to cease from the unauthorized recording of the janitress in doing her job in assisting mall clients on queue towards the restroom;

Third, the Facebook live videos while taken in plain sight of the public, it was still taken inside a privately owned vicinity which could be well regulated by policies of the owner and management e.g. video recording private individuals in the performance of their private employment; and

Fourth; in the deleted first Facebook live, the complainant voluntarily heeded by saying “ahh hmmm okay” in going to the security office with the janitress upon prior warning that she’ll be brought in the office for refusal to cease from the unauthorized documentation.

The complainant was brought into the security office not by reason of her SOGIE. She was escorted to the security office for failure to cease from her unauthorized recording. The verbal abuse as seen on the viral Facebook live was a retaliatory attack by the janitress after the complainant pried into the privacy of the former. Yes, the attack made by the janitress is inexcusable, but this wasn’t said and done on the basis of the complainant’s SOGIE.

If there wasn’t anything to hide, why was there a first Facebook live video deliberately deleted by the complainant? Why did the complainant only retain two videos that would fit her narrative of SOGIE-related discrimination? Why, Miss Complainant?

READ:  Can we cancel Pride?

The apprehension of the complainant by police officers from QCPD station 7 was an arrest made based on their knowledge of a crime which has been committed by the complainant. The complaint charged and that was latter dropped was unjust vexation against the janitress. Again, the arrest was not by reason of the complainant’s SOGIE but by her actions after she was reprimanded by the janitress outside the CR. This does not, however, excuse the police officers from their failure to take the complainant’s statements immediately after her apprehension.

When the community came to rescue Miss Complainant from being locked behind bars, the charges for unjust vexation against her were dropped by the janitress; because at that time, she had an instantaneous realization that her actions were inexcusable. A settlement was made, that was what they said. But three days later, on the day Miss Complainant filed her case against Farmers Plaza, she mentioned about the possible filing of appropriate charges against the janitress. Apparently, the settlement was onerous for the janitress rather than being reciprocal for both parties. This scenario speak volumes of the status quo of our human rights in the Philippines.

Certainly, there were procedural lapses, verbal abuse, and negligence; but there wasn’t any form of discrimination, only if we try to look into the matter of facts. The complainant, janitress, and QCPD Station 7 are all accountable for their action or inaction. This is a story which must be appreciated fully by examining all the possible sides without favoring one over another because of our personal biases. This must be a learning experience for all the parties that are involved. But must not be used to advance one interest at the expense of another.

Posit Bo: “The LGBTQIA+ community does not need a face that epitomizes lack of knowledge and understanding of the cause. The community does not need to represented by an individual who anchors her cause in magnifying her story alone; because this movement is more than one story, that transcends from one generation to another.”

After the incident, you have seen traditional politicians rallying behind the complainant, as she declares, LGBTQIA+ rights as human rights. The public had to unconsciously endure the pain of seeing supporters of a human rights violator rally behind Miss Complainant. LGBTQIA+ rights and human rights are not mutually exclusive. While supporting LGBTQIA+ rights as human rights, these politicians should know that they must concede in supporting the call against the lowering of criminal liability and the re-imposition of death penalty; because, these two issues are also human rights-related.

READ:  Kris Aquino and this 'me, me, me first' way of living...

There are other mechanisms that will advance and promote the discussion of SOGIE in the country without the need of being used by different organizations and political parties. This is a nonpolitical issue that needs to be dealt through an appropriate social legislation rather than by politicking. Using the LGBTQIA+ community in politicizing our own cause must, at all cost, end now! This community is more than your number of votes that you use at your convenience. The LGBTQIA+ community should refuse being treated as dispensables, simply because we are not!

The LGBTQIA+ community does not need a face that epitomizes lack of knowledge and understanding of the cause. The community does not need to represented by an individual who anchors her cause in magnifying her story alone; because this movement is more than one story, that transcends from one generation to another.

The true face of the LGBTQIA+ community is more than one individual; because, you are not alone. No, not one individual and organization can take credit of the cause. After-all, this is the LGBTQIA+ COMMUNITY, no one should be left behind neither should anyone be one step ahead of everyone. There may be several groups with different perspective; but bound by a single community sharing a communal interest that is the SOGIE Equality Bill.

People should start learning how to dissociate their self-vested interest from the advocacy. While one voice can be used to uproar the passing of SOGIE Equality Bill, the voice must also be admonished if it doesn’t reflect the majority of the community. The voice must be silenced when it still continues to purvey false advocacy. If this is not done, the noble cause will be tainted. SOGIE Equality Bill must not in anyway be used to place one person on the spotlight for all the wrong reasons; let us not tolerate.

While the discussion has been fueled by the banyo incident, this urgently needs to get out of the banyo before it even stinks and splatters at the expense of the LGBTQIA+ advocacy. It is time that we hear the genuine and unheard stories of SOGIE-based discrimination.

Continue Reading

Op-Ed

Your discomfort over our human rights?

Naomi Fontanos tackles the othering of members of the LGBTQIA community, often justified with making prejudiced/bigoted people more “comfortable”.

Published

on

Photo by Cody Chan from Unsplash.com

By Naomi Fontanos

Ang ipilit na ang di pagiging komportable ng mga kababaihan (o kalalakihan man) sa presensya ng mga trans woman sa loob ng pampublikong palikuran para sa babae ang kailangang manaig sa usapin na ito ay isang uri ng diskriminasyon.

Lahat ng uri ng diskriminasyon ay nag-uugat sa ganitong pag-iisip: di-komportable ang mga puti sa mga itim o kayumanggi ang balat, kaya’t ang karapatan ay para lamang sa mga puti; di-komportable ang mga walang kapansanan sa mga may kapansanan, kaya’t ang karapatan ay para lamang sa mga walang kapansanan; di-komportable ang mga mayayaman sa mahihirap, kaya’t ang karapatan ay para lamang sa mga mayayaman; di-komportable ang mga kristiyano sa mga di-kristiyano, kaya’t ang karapatan ay para lamang sa mga kristiyano, at noong sinaunang panahaon, di-komportable ang mga lalaki sa mga babae, kaya’t ang mga karapatan ay para lamang sa mga lalaki.

Nguni’t nagbabago ang lipunan kasama ng pag-uunawa ng tao na hindi wasto na sabihing di tayo komportable kaya’t tama lang na walang karapatan ang mga di puti ang balat, mga may kapansanan, mahihirap, di-kristiyano at kababaihan.

Sa gitna ng usaping ito ay ang prehudisyo/prehuwisyo o ang di-makatwirang paniniwala tungkol sa mga taong LGBTIQ+ na nag-dudulot ng sistematiko at istruktural na pang-iiba at pang-mamata at di-pantay na pagtrato sa atin.

Ang akusahan ang mga trans woman na manyak, namboboso, nambabastos, at gagawa ng karahasang sekswal laban sa mga kababaihan sa loob ng palikuran ay manipestasyon ng prehuwisyong ito.

At ito ang dapat nating tutulan at i-wasto bilang basehan ng pampublikong patakaran o ng pakikitungo natin sa isa’t isa bilang tao.

Naomi Fontanos heads Gender and Development Advocates (GANDA) FIlipinas, a human rights organization that promotes the dignity and equality of transgender people in the Philippines and beyond.

READ:  India’s Supreme Court strikes down 157-year-old law criminalizing consensual adult gay sex

Continue Reading

Op-Ed

Why sex segregated toilets don’t make sense

We don’t sex segregate bathrooms at home, we shouldn’t need to anywhere else. Toilets can be safe for everybody as long as they are in a well-lit public location.

Published

on

By Chase Tolentino

This article first appeared in Transgender Philippines; published with permission from the author.

You may have heard about Gretchen Diez, a trans woman, who was barred from entering the women’s restroom at Farmers Plaza, Araneta Center, Cubao last August 13, 2019. The janitor at the mall illegally detained, physically and verbally abused, and humiliated her all because she wanted to exercise a very basic human right – to relieve herself in the toilet.

These issues could have been diminished by the SOGIE Equality Bills filed in the Senate and House of Representatives by Risa Hontiveros and Geraldine Roman, respectively.

Why do we sex segregate toilets?

People usually state safety, cleanliness, and myths as reasons. But let’s be real.

It can’t be to prevent men from looking at women’s genitals and to prevent women from looking at men’s genitals because no one is looking at genitals in the restroom. And even if someone was, stalls prevent you from seeing people go about their business. The purpose is certainly not to prevent predators from entering the restroom because no unlocked door and sex symbol stamped on that door is going to prevent a sexual pervert from entering.

And men aren’t inherently dirty, but we as a society allow them to be because we think it’s normal. Men can be as clean as women if we taught boys to be as conscious about cleanliness as we do girls. Men can see the mess – they just aren’t judged as harshly for it as women are.

READ:  The lazy ladies and gents guide to getting fit

To the uneducated, there’s also the myth that since sperm come out with men’s urine, if a man urinates on a toilet seat and a woman sits on it, she will surely get pregnant. This is a myth that just won’t die.

We don’t sex segregate bathrooms at home, we shouldn’t need to anywhere else. Toilets can be safe for everybody as long as they are in a well-lit public location.

Problems created by sex segregated toilets

  • It causes businesses more money to build and maintain than all user toilets
  • Promulgates irrational fears and labels men as predatory by nature
  • It prevents parents with opposite sex children from entering a restroom comfortably with their child (I have seen women berating mothers with male children for bringing them into the women’s restroom.)
  • It prevents carers and their opposite sex patients from entering a restroom comfortably
  • It prevents transgender people from entering a restroom without fear of discrimination and humiliation
  • It prevents intersex people with sex characteristics that differ from the binary from entering a restroom without fear of discrimination and humiliation

Why we should have all user toilets

  • It costs less to build for businesses
  • It’s friendly for parents with opposite sex children
  • It’s friendly for carers and their patients
  • It’s friendly for transgender people
  • It’s friendly for intersex people
  • Actually it’s just friendly for everybody!

Now the issue businesses may have when they already have sex segregated toilets is that they would have to spend to renovate their bathrooms or to build a gender neutral bathroom but there are actually many solutions where the only cost is a few new signs.

  • Designating all sex segregated restrooms as all user restrooms
  • Designating some sex segregated restrooms as all user restrooms
  • Designating restrooms as “Restrooms with urinals” and “Restrooms with stalls”
READ:  College-age males at bars, parties more likely to be sexually aggressive

And let’s not forget that there should always be a restroom for PWDs and senior citizens.

This will work

Many places have adopted all user toilets and while there is an initial shock for first time users from areas without them, they have been generally accepted without major incident.

Continue Reading

Editor's Picks

5 Ways to #ResistTogether after #Pride

Be constantly reminded that #Pride is never (just) about partying. It’s about the ongoing struggle for the human rights of LGBTQIA people (no mater what sector they may be part of).

Published

on

ALL PHOTOS TAKEN DURING METRO MANILA PRIDE PARADE 2019

A few days into July, after the June Pride month, I was chatting with someone from Grindr; he boasted that he was at the “essence of pride: the Pride parade” (his words, not mine). The chat revolved around shaming, particularly of other LGBTQIA people; that now that the one-day celebration is over, things (including his way of “booking”) are “just back to normal.”

See… right after the “very proud” placement of the #ResistTogether hashtag in his pick-up account (particularly while he was in Marikina City), it has been refreshed, reverting back to claiming “NO chubs; NO oldies; NO femmes. Don’t dare me, I have unliblock.”

This got me thinking about this “brand” of exclusivist #Pride; and how we should instead be making (and continuing to make) it inclusive…

And so – off my head – here are five ways to #ResistTogether after the #Pride parade…

1. Stop the shaming from within the LGBTQIA community.

Change should start from within our community; and this can happen if our community members become more aware that – frequently – hatred starts from within.

Stop shaming the “oldies”; we’d all grow old.

Stop shaming the “chubs”; ALL bodies are beautiful.

Stop hating on the femmes; every gender expression is VALID.

Stop discriminating against sex workers; there is no shame in trying to make a living.

Our community is minority, as it is. Stop creating more minorities from within our community with your biases.

2. Donate… not just because you want merchs.

I get this concept of “what’s in it for me?”. This is the “driver” of so many of our actions – e.g. if companies give money to “support” Pride, they expect to get media mileage from it; and if we give money to “make Pride happen”, we may as well have that sticker (or whatever) to prove that… yes, we gave money.

READ:  Outragemag.com launches #ByaheLGBT

But helping should be done not because of any return; it should be done because it’s the right thing to do.

And so if/when someone asked you to donate (however small the amount may be) to help establish an actual home for senior LGBTQIA Filipinos, give.

If someone asked you to chip in (no matter how small the amount you can give) to help pay for the PhilHealth of a person living with HIV, give.

And if someone asked you to donate (whatever amount) to help finance the picket line of LGBTQIA workers who were illegally dismissed from their jobs after they (rightfully) asked to be made regular employees, give.

LGBTQIA-related issues happen EVERY DAY of the year, not just in June. So if you’re willing to cough up cash to look glamorous/fab ONLY in June, you should also be willing to do so the rest of the year…

3. Be the voice of other minorities.

This shouldn’t be a divisive issue, but it is becoming that – i.e. the supposed “hijacking of commies of Pride month” by highlighting other issues that those who complain say have nothing to do with the LGBTQIA community.

These issues include: contractualization, wage hike, extra-judicial killings, war on drugs, and so on.

Here’s the BASIC thing though: LGBTQIA people do not live in a vacuum. Some of us are contractual workers (e.g. LGBTQIA people working for – say – Zagu, or Jollibbee, or the baggers in department stores). Many of us LGBTQIA people do not get the wages we deserve (e.g. LGBTQIA people who are also nurses and teachers). There are LGBTQIA people also killed because they were allegedly involved in the drug trade; and this is even if the claim may be true or not.

READ:  Kris Aquino and this 'me, me, me first' way of living...

We say that LGBTQIA people are EVERYWHERE. Well, WE ARE; including among other minority sectors.

So that we can’t separate THEIR issues from OUR issues.

4. Be seen the rest of the year.

You, like many others, helped create the noise for LGBTQIA issues during Pride month. That’s all good (and thank you, truly, for this). But please, please don’t disappear after June (or worse, don’t be the source of discrimination after June – as noted in #1).

If you can’t be bothered leaving your desk, that’s your call; but continue making noise for the LGBTQIA community.

But if/when you are able to/you are keen to, join the ongoing struggle for our total liberation – e.g. join the call for rally for the anti-discrimination bill, attend gatherings pushing for marriage equality, attend events of LGBTQIA-related NGOs (including HIV-related events), physically support LGBTQIA-related shows/productions/et cetera.

Just BE SEEN BEYOND JUNE; it matters a lot.

5. Go back to the streets… and not just to party.

So you had fun attending the parade; perhaps even more so when you attended the after-parade party/ies. That’s all good. Not one to miss out on fun, I am one with you here…

BUT be reminded that #Pride is never (just) about partying. It’s about the ongoing struggle for the human rights of LGBTQIA people (no mater what sector they may be part of).

After almost 20 (THAT’S 20!) years, the anti-discrimination bill is still languishing in Congress.
Over 80% of the new HIV cases in the Philippines affect members of the LGBTQIA community (particularly gay, bi and trans people).

READ:  Can I change the schedule of my ARV intake?

Schools (including State-owned/run) still discriminate against LGBTQIA students; a handful of them barring LGBTQIA students from enroling/attending classes because of some bloody haircut or because of what they are wearing.

Because of their HIV status, people living with HIV (many of them LGBTQIA) are: still fired from work; kicked out of their homes; or not given access to life-saving HIV medicines.

LGBTQIA informal settlers – along with hetero-identifying informal settlers – are kicked out of their homes.

LGBTQIA contractual workers are still not regularized.

So – let’s state this – IF THERE IS A CALL TO RALLY FOR OUR RIGHTS, not just a call to parade and party, TAKE HEED. If 70,000+++ people can gather to parade and party, surely the same number (if not more) should also be able to gather when a call is made for us to rise again together to push for equality.

Yes, we have taken progressive steps (corporations are even considering how to profit off us now); but so much still needs to be done. And – to stress- we need to always show our force; to always take to the streets to highlight our issues.

So party on, yes; but never stop fighting as one. This is how we continue to truly #ResistTogether.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Most Popular