I Hate to Support the Ex-Gay Movement on Anything...

But I can't in good conscience support the petition demanding that Apple remove an app by Exodus International for its anti-gay content.

Exodus is one of the leading ex-gay Christian organizations in the country, and, as you might expect, their propaganda, on their website and on their app, is profoundly misleading and hateful.  But it's not any worse than what you're likely to find on the Exodus website, which is accessible through the Safari browser on your iPhone.  Why is it unacceptable for them to promote the same hurtful message through an app, if it's perfectly all right for them run a similar website.

I suspect many of the signatories to the petition don't see a qualitative difference between app content and web content. The only real distinction is that, here, there's a censor to appeal to.  Apple wants to act as a gatekeeper for content and is committed to removing apps which are "offensive to large groups of people."  That's not an approach I want to endorse.

People with smartphones paid for memory storage.  They should be able to keep any kind of content saved to their device, whether or not I find it offensive.  Apple has a history of infantilizing and abusing its app store customers by withdrawing any app that musters a vocal opposition.   Among the deleted: an app criticizing Mohammed and the Koran, a saucy satirist, and anything that might boost Apple's rivals.  Apple's power to censor needs to be curbed, not expanded.

If you want to attack the app, feel free to leave a negative reviews, as many already have.  The app evaluation system means you've got a much better chance to present your argument to people who may be wavering; after all, most websites don't let you critique their content on their homepage.  This is the appropriate response to the Exodus app and all other offensive apps.  The gay rights movement can't let our legitimate outrage with Exodus be used to help Apple legitimize its terrible approach to content and the rights of the tech user.

UPDATE: Apple pulled the app.

Be Chary with Your Charity

Reading the Friendly Atheist blog, I found Hermant Mehta's endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign's Valentine's Day fundraiser.  Here's HRC's pitch:

Instead of wasting that money on one day’s worth of superficial gestures, we are pledging to donate the amount we would have spent to achieving lasting equality for everyone.

We are choosing to donate to the Human Rights Campaign. From their website: “HRC seeks to improve the lives of LGBT Americans by advocating for equal rights and benefits in the workplace, ensuring families are treated equally under the law and increasing public support among all Americans through innovative advocacy, education and outreach programs.”

Sounds good? It gets better!

"For $35, your special someone will receive a cuddly, Rainbow Equality Bear."

I'm going to assume those bears are bought cheaper wholesale, but that's still a non-negligible portion of my donation that's being spent not on activism and advocacy, but on the chintzy, superficial gestures I was trying to avoid.  And that's on top of any normal overhead costs.

A lot of charities and advocacy groups get slammed for the small proportion of donations that go to support the cause.  According to leaked internal documents, HRC spent only five percent of its budget on lobbying efforts, and, in the eyes of gay Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan, that lobbying left a lot to be desired.

Supporting the movement is great, but it's important to make sure the money you give goes as far as possible. We have to do due diligence on the priorities and practices of the advocacy groups we support.  HRC gets a lot of coverage, but their 'activism' tends towards merchandising and parties for Democrats who aren't really scared they're going to lose the gay vote any time soon.  If you want your money to do good, give it to state campaigns for referenda get out the vote in the style of Maine's No on Prop 1 or help fund the groups funding gay rights lawsuits (and don't forget that that includes the ACLU!)

So next time you reach for your wallet. skip HRC and donate to Lambda Legal.

Why NOT to Queer the Census

Today is Census Day at Yale!

You've probably noticed the flyers put up by the small army of Census volunteers, but the added PSAs from Fierce Advocates telling you to 'Queer the Census' may leave you wondering what to do today. Fierce Advocates, in partnership with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, is asking students to paste stickers asking the Census to add a question about sexual orientation to the next iteration of the form.

Don't.

The Queer the Census campaign is misguided. Although, as a social science nerd, and 538 afficionado, I am always sympathetic to the lust for more statistical data, but the Census is not the right way to collect this information. And, even if the question were added, it is unlikely to result in a PR coup for the gay rights movement.

The Census is the Wrong Instrument

You won't notice many personal questions on the Census (aside from race, which was included from the first census, when it was important to know whether a subject was black or white, since blacks counted as 3/5 for redistricting). We don't rely on the Census to take a complete snapshot of the nation every ten years. The Census is necessarily short, since every additional question increases the odds that it won't be returned. The Census an essentially simple purpose: tallying the number of residents to guide redistricting and disbursement of per capita funds. A queer tally is not relevant to these goals.

This cycle, the government eliminated the long form of the census, preferring to rely on the work done by the American Community Survey, which surveys samples of the country every year. If we want to ask questions about queers, this is the place to do it. In fact, the ACS already tallies the number of gay committed partnerships nationwide.

The Census would Undercount

Even if the census asked about sexual orientation, it would be likely to produce a massive, but official looking, undercount of American queers. Although the Census counts every individual, it is filled out by household, and I have a tough time believing that most high schoolers or other young people living at home are likely to see the Census questionnaire as the appropriate segue into coming out.

In addition, the question as proposed would be likely to undercount younger people who would identify as queer or questioning and might hesitate to commit to a stigmatized category like gay.

The Count Doesn't Count for Much

Mere evidence that gay people are everywhere will not result in the rolling back of discriminatory laws. The American Community Survey has already shown that gay couples exist in 99% of counties nationwide. It is wrong to claim, as a Daily Princetonian op-ed did, that demonstrating that single gays are equally ubiquitous will force bigoted legislators to clean up their act. Progress for the LGBT movement has come not through numbers but through stories. The entire point of "We're Here, We're Queer" was to turn the frightening spectre of 'a gay' into the familiar face of a friend or neighbor.

We Can Do Better

Instead of trying to up the numbers of queers who might be eligible for hypothetical government programs, let's do more to expand those programs. Today, take the time you would have spent on stickers doing something for Lambda Legal (still my fav LGBT activist group).

If you really want to do good work to reform the Census, join the movement to count prisoners in the districts they're from, rather than using them to boost the numbers of the richer neighborhoods where they're imprisoned.

The latest battleground for hearts and minds

We in the gay rights movement like to say (and are probably right) that time is on our side. (My favorite formulation of this idea remains: "Everytime you see an ambulance, it's either an opponent of gay rights dying or a supporter being born") However, it's important to remember that this trend is result of constant pressure and education for our side. A big part of the change in attitudes is the result of younger people knowing actual queer people PERSONALLY rather than in the abstract, but it is also the result of how the narrative of women's rights and civil rights is viewed as a part of American history.

On this front, Texas just took a big step backwards.

For full details, check out this excellent NYT Magazine feature. It's well worth the full read. The Texas Board of Ed just approved their new social studies curriculum, which will be taught in almost the entire country. Texas is the nation's largest textbook market, so their decisions set the standard for books used in approximately 47 states.For a quicker look, try this article from yesterday's NYT.

Mr. Bradley won approval for an amendment saying students should study “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation. He also won approval for an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians as well as Japanese were interned in the United States during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism.

...

Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons “the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.”

It was defeated on a party-line vote.

After the vote, Ms. Knight said, “The social conservatives have perverted accurate history to fulfill their own agenda.”

It's inaccurate to say that the conservatives on the Texas Board of Ed want to take us back to an earlier time. The narrow-minded, bile-ridden country they conceive of has never truly existed. Let's not give them free rein to change our future by rewriting our past.