![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jun. 24th, 2011 10:45 pmI am now proud to say I am from both NY and MA. Anyone interested in the gay pride parade in NYC on Sunday? I'm busy much of the day, but going to try and make at least part of it.
Amazon.com delists books on homosexuality
Apr. 12th, 2009 09:08 pmTime to boycott Amazon.com . They've decided to delist factual and useful books on homosexuality from their internal search engine, calling them "adult themed," so that "ex-gay" books show up on searches before other books on homosexuality. For example, the book "Heather Has Two Mommies" does exist on Amazon.com in both the original edition and the 10th anniversary edition, however it does not show up when you search all of Amazon on the title and only the 10th anniversary edition shows when you search on the title under Books only. You also will not find the book's sales rank anywhere on either edition's page (do a Find on the page for "rank" or "sales rank"), as opposed to on the page for another random book.
More details and about what's going on, including an explanation of how the sales rank is being misrepresented or deleted entirely, are on![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
rosefox's blog linky linky here. And just to clarify, Amazon does say it is their own choice to filter on "adult themes", not the choice of some database they are buying into.
Edit: I have submitted the following letter (identifying information redacted) to Amazon.com's Customer Service online, and will be looking up their mailing address and sending another copy on school stationary. Feel free to copy or modify for your own letter.
Edit: According to Publisher's Weekly, Amazon is backpedaling and claiming it's all just a glitch, but they do not appear to be making any efforts to fix said glitch. Searching on Heather Has Two Mommies still doesn't turn up the book, the book itself still has no rank listed, and a site-wide search on "homosexuality" still turns up ex-gay propaganda bullshit. I also haven't seen anything about Amazon's comment elsewhere - like on Amazon. I'll start listening to Amazon's comments when they start actually doing something about them.
Edit: Amazon is emailing everyone who emailed them to say it's an error.
From Amazon:
I clicked on "No, it's not resolved" and wrote:
More details and about what's going on, including an explanation of how the sales rank is being misrepresented or deleted entirely, are on
rosefox's blog linky linky here. And just to clarify, Amazon does say it is their own choice to filter on "adult themes", not the choice of some database they are buying into.Edit: I have submitted the following letter (identifying information redacted) to Amazon.com's Customer Service online, and will be looking up their mailing address and sending another copy on school stationary. Feel free to copy or modify for your own letter.
I recently heard about Amazon's policy to derank books on homosexuality and remove them from the search results. I am very disappointed in this policy and will no longer be purchasing from Amazon, unless this policy is revoked. In addition, my influence extends beyond my own dollar, as I am informing my friends and family of this new hateful policy.
I am also a faculty at a community college (subject, school, and location redacted). Every year I have hundreds of students, and in the past I have recommend that they can purchase their textbooks for cheaper than the college bookstore by buying them on Amazon.com. Some of the goals of a college education is for students to broaden their horizons, and to learn to see the world from different points of view. In order to achieve this goal, we must all have access to as much information as possible. Amazon's policy to selectively blacklist certain topics that one portion of the population finds offensive is in direct opposition to the goals of a college education. Therefore I cannot in good conscience recommend Amazon to my college students as a source for textbooks. Until Amazon changes this policy, I will no longer be recommending Amazon to my students but instead will recommend competitors BN.com and Powells.com .
Edit: According to Publisher's Weekly, Amazon is backpedaling and claiming it's all just a glitch, but they do not appear to be making any efforts to fix said glitch. Searching on Heather Has Two Mommies still doesn't turn up the book, the book itself still has no rank listed, and a site-wide search on "homosexuality" still turns up ex-gay propaganda bullshit. I also haven't seen anything about Amazon's comment elsewhere - like on Amazon. I'll start listening to Amazon's comments when they start actually doing something about them.
Edit: Amazon is emailing everyone who emailed them to say it's an error.
From Amazon:
Amazon.com Customer Service to me
2:05 AM (4 hours ago)
Hello,
Thanks for contacting us. We recently discovered a glitch in our systems and it's being fixed.
Thanks again for contacting us. We hope to see you again soon.
Please let us know if this e-mail resolved your question:
If yes, click here:
If not, click here:
Please note: this e-mail was sent from an address that cannot accept incoming e-mail.
To contact us about an unrelated issue, please visit the Help section of our web site.
Best regards,
Mehul Damera
Amazon.com
We're Building Earth's Most Customer-Centric Company
[link removed, I don't want to give them traffic right now]
I clicked on "No, it's not resolved" and wrote:
Sending an email to say "we're working on fixing this problem" without providing any evidence of said work is frustrating. I hope that I am informed when this is actually fixed, because it is not fixed as of yet and I still intend to boycott Amazon until it is.
Also, you have lost a lot of reputation from this supposed glitch. I do not see how this could be just a glitch, and I feel that you simply are not owning up to a deliberate bias that turned out to cost the company money, so instead you're pretending it never happened. Fess up, get a press release out, and spend a week featuring books on homosexuality on the front page: that would build good will in the LGBT/ally community and show that it really was in error.
Homosexuality and choice
Oct. 29th, 2008 07:22 amFrom the same place as I got that video on same-sex/interracial marriage comes the following comment.
Never looked at it that way, it's an excellent point.
I’m always puzzled when people bring up choice when it comes to equal rights for homosexuals. It’s not at all clear that homosexuality is a choice. But assume for a minute it is 100% choice, completely. So what? We don’t get to discriminate against people for choices they make unless they are breaking the law. You can’t refuse to hire someone, for example, because they are a parent–clearly it is extremely likely that they CHOSE to be a parent. You can’t legally discriminate against someone based on their religion, whether or not they CHOSE to convert to that religion at some point.
Never looked at it that way, it's an excellent point.
Civil Rights
Oct. 28th, 2008 03:49 pmA nice "doctored" video about civil rights. California is facing a ballot question that would make gay marriage illegal, Question 8. The Yes on 8 people put out a video w/ people talking about what's wrong w/ gay marriage, yadda yadda. And then someone took that video and replaced every mention of "same-sex" with "interracial," and "gay" with "black," even re-recording the vocal track.
( Check it )
I am multi-racial, and I approve.
( Check it )
I am multi-racial, and I approve.
Q of the Day
Apr. 2nd, 2007 09:43 pmWhat is the most anti-LGBT encounter/interaction you’ve ever had?
Whether you're straight, gay, ally, queer, heteronormative, whatever, I'm curious what you've experienced. You're [always] welcome to do it anonymously if you don't want your name on it.
I haven't experienced/witnessed any physical violence. Besides being glad it hasn't happened, I'm glad for my own safety. I really hate anger in other people, and I can't stand losing my temper, and what makes me do it is biases against my people. I may not be LGBT myself, but I'm an ally and I've enough peeps who are that it would make me snap.
Students of mine use "that's so gay" all the time, and I usually make it a point to comment that it's not appropriate to say things like that, use the term in that manner, just like I would if someone used the N-word in my class, or if they called someone girly. Worst is when I had a coworker tell me when I was arguing for LGBT rights that we had more important issues to be fighting for. The individual in question is heteronormative rather than outright heterosexist I believe. It's frustrating. Blinders for their specific bias/diversity issues.
Thanks to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif)
xtina_rss for the meme.
Whether you're straight, gay, ally, queer, heteronormative, whatever, I'm curious what you've experienced. You're [always] welcome to do it anonymously if you don't want your name on it.
I haven't experienced/witnessed any physical violence. Besides being glad it hasn't happened, I'm glad for my own safety. I really hate anger in other people, and I can't stand losing my temper, and what makes me do it is biases against my people. I may not be LGBT myself, but I'm an ally and I've enough peeps who are that it would make me snap.
Students of mine use "that's so gay" all the time, and I usually make it a point to comment that it's not appropriate to say things like that, use the term in that manner, just like I would if someone used the N-word in my class, or if they called someone girly. Worst is when I had a coworker tell me when I was arguing for LGBT rights that we had more important issues to be fighting for. The individual in question is heteronormative rather than outright heterosexist I believe. It's frustrating. Blinders for their specific bias/diversity issues.
Thanks to
xtina_rss for the meme.Gay Marriage vote
Jan. 2nd, 2007 11:35 pmWell this one slipped in under my radar. The MA state legislature has voted to work on a State Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. They still have to write it, vote for the wording next year, and then have the people vote for it as well, all by the end of 2008, but until then here's some steps you can take.
( To Sentors AGAINST Gay Marriage (Y vote) )
( To Sentors FOR Gay Marriage (N vote) )
- Look up your MA legislators.
- Look up how they voted.
- A Y means "Yes, I support bigotry." N means "No, I think homosexuals are human too."
- Write a letter with the appropriate sentiments to your legislators. Models below. Physical letters may have more impact, but I've had decent luck with emails personally.
( To Sentors AGAINST Gay Marriage (Y vote) )
( To Sentors FOR Gay Marriage (N vote) )
And so it begins...
Nov. 22nd, 2006 04:19 pmTwo women married in MA have filed for divorce in RI. This is the first gay divorce I have heard of, and it's the first one the RI courts have seen. Their laws are silent on gay marriage and the issue hasn't been forced yet, so this now *is* the first test of their laws. I'm not holding my breath - that is, while I am hopeful RI will do the right thing, it's not clear to me what the right thing even *is* here, nor do I think it'll happen quickly.
If I'm reading this correctly, AZ peeps are voting AGAINST Prop 107, 107 would amend their constitution to ban gay marriage/unions, so they're voting FOR gay marriages/unions. This looks promising. It's 57% No, 43% Yes.
(no subject)
Oct. 20th, 2006 07:08 pmI am NOT happy with Foley's gay pedophelia priest abuse claims, despite the fact that they appear to be true. The Republicans are going to blame Foley's gay near-pedophelia upon someone else inflicting it upon him in childhood, absolving Foley of any blame, and implying the only way people can be gay is if they're also pedophiles and sexual abusers. And alcoholics. And of course, all of those are diseases needing treatment. *grumble*
The only possible upside to this is more evidence that not all who aregodly Christian are good, and even the Republicans will have to admit it. There's no other way this defense of Foley will work.
The only possible upside to this is more evidence that not all who are
I don't know whether this is an awesome idea, or a horrible one. According to The Stranger, you can go to Focus on the Family's website and order free crap from pamphlets on how to stop homosexuality, to copies of the Narnia DVD - just click on the "Resources" button above the Search box in the left bar. Although there's suggested donations, apparently you don't actually have to pay.
The dilemma I have now is, do I try and bankrupt them, or do I inadvertantly support them by doing so?
Yoinked fromkadath
The dilemma I have now is, do I try and bankrupt them, or do I inadvertantly support them by doing so?
Yoinked from
kadathIs this true?
The "Federal Marriage Amendment" also going by the name "Anti-Gay Marriage Amendement."
Dear Senator Frist,
You have stated the Senate will vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment during the week of June 5th. I urge you to reconsider this decision. This divisive and unnecessary amendment, would undermine the Constitution and has overwhelmingly failed each time the Senate has voted on it. The last thing the American people want is Congress reaching into a family's private life.
The Senate should be working on real issues – not writing discrimination into the Constitution.
The "Federal Marriage Amendment" also going by the name "Anti-Gay Marriage Amendement."
Homophobia?
Apr. 17th, 2006 09:09 amIs there another word stronger than "homophobia," that specifically means hatred of homosexuals?
MA rules non-MA gays can't marry
Mar. 30th, 2006 10:05 pmThe same Massachusetts court that ruled that gay marriage was legal under the state constitution, has unfortunately limited it in accordance with a 1913 (miscegenation?) law forbidding marriage to out-of-staters if the marriage would be illegal in their home state.
While I disagree with the law, the little bit I know does make it seem that the ruling is correct under that law. What I would like to see happen is instead they can get married in MA but the marriages are only legal within the state and others that honor gay marriages. Similarly, I hope that MA will honor gay marriages and unions made in other states and countries, but I haven't heard anything about it yet.
While I disagree with the law, the little bit I know does make it seem that the ruling is correct under that law. What I would like to see happen is instead they can get married in MA but the marriages are only legal within the state and others that honor gay marriages. Similarly, I hope that MA will honor gay marriages and unions made in other states and countries, but I haven't heard anything about it yet.
Catholic adptions in MA to cease
Mar. 10th, 2006 11:41 pmThe Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because state law allows gays and lesbians to adopt children.
The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese has provided adoption services for the state for about two decades, but said it would discontinue once it completes its current state contract. It said that the state law allowing gays to adopt runs counter to church teachings on homosexuality.
--Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press/Boston Globe
I don't get it. The Catholic church refuses to adopt babies to homosexuals because the Church is against the sin of homosexuality. But they're also against other sins, so they shouldn't adopt babies out to people who covet their neighbor's posessions, or have had premarital sex, or who've taken the Lord's name in vain or spoken back to their parents. Do they question potential parential candidates about all their other sins? Why don't they make a big deal about those in the press?
Within an hour of Catholic Charities' announcement, Gov. Mitt Romney said he planned to file a bill that would allow religious organizations to seek an exemption from the state's anti-discrimination laws to provide adoption services.
So does that mean that any organization that wants to start discriminatory practices only has to become a recognized religion? Well then, let's make Wal-Mart a religion, and they can ignore the MA law requiring them to stock emergency contraception!
Frist a bigoted asshole
Feb. 13th, 2006 10:09 pmFrist's decided he wants to put discrimination in the Constitution on the Senate agenda for a vote by June 5. That really boils my blood.
Homophobia vs. Heteronormativity
Jan. 31st, 2006 08:15 pmI was in another discussion where I realized that not everyone defines "homophobia" the same way (cross-posted with modifications).
Merriam-Webster defines homophobia as an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." I suspect most people would agree that hate crimes and hate speech (gay-bashing) are firmly within the realm of "irrational fear of," and "aversion to." I can see where there could be differing opinions on whether "disallowing homosexuals" falls under "aversion to, or discrimination against," though I personally think so.
I take a broad view of the word "homophobic," using it to mean any person or action intentionally treating homosexuals or homosexual behavior differently from heterosexuals or heterosexual behavior, though I definitely feel that hate crimes and speech are of a much more serious order than "mere" exclusionary practices. I use the term "homophobia" the same way as I use the term "racism" or "sexism." While it is definitely less severe to keep women out of golf clubs than it is to rape women, I would classify both as sexism. Similarly, it is less severe to keep homosexuals out of the BSA than to beat them, but I still classify both as homophobia. My classification is based upon tangible actions, rather than morals. If I were to base my definitions upon morals, it would not be considered racist if a group decided to disallow black people based upon the group's belief that there was something morally abhorrent about black people (e.g., neo-Nazis).
Unintentionally treating homosexuals differently I would classify as "heteronormativity" - assuming that heterosexual is "normal" and forgetting that others exist.
I am curious as to what others think, and how you define the terms "homophobia" and "heteronormativity." I expect that there will primarily be agreement with my usage, as I've obviously got a SLOP (self-selected opinion poll) here, but I'm still curious. Maybe if you've heard others' definitions you could share those too.
Merriam-Webster defines homophobia as an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." I suspect most people would agree that hate crimes and hate speech (gay-bashing) are firmly within the realm of "irrational fear of," and "aversion to." I can see where there could be differing opinions on whether "disallowing homosexuals" falls under "aversion to, or discrimination against," though I personally think so.
I take a broad view of the word "homophobic," using it to mean any person or action intentionally treating homosexuals or homosexual behavior differently from heterosexuals or heterosexual behavior, though I definitely feel that hate crimes and speech are of a much more serious order than "mere" exclusionary practices. I use the term "homophobia" the same way as I use the term "racism" or "sexism." While it is definitely less severe to keep women out of golf clubs than it is to rape women, I would classify both as sexism. Similarly, it is less severe to keep homosexuals out of the BSA than to beat them, but I still classify both as homophobia. My classification is based upon tangible actions, rather than morals. If I were to base my definitions upon morals, it would not be considered racist if a group decided to disallow black people based upon the group's belief that there was something morally abhorrent about black people (e.g., neo-Nazis).
Unintentionally treating homosexuals differently I would classify as "heteronormativity" - assuming that heterosexual is "normal" and forgetting that others exist.
I am curious as to what others think, and how you define the terms "homophobia" and "heteronormativity." I expect that there will primarily be agreement with my usage, as I've obviously got a SLOP (self-selected opinion poll) here, but I'm still curious. Maybe if you've heard others' definitions you could share those too.
