From the glaad website - http://www.glaad.org/blog/facebook-introduces-custom-gender-field-allow-users-more-accurately-reflect-who-they-are
Facebook introduces custom gender field to allow users to more accurately reflect who they are
Facebook announced today that it will now offer a custom gender field for transgender and gender nonconforming people. The new feature, which GLAAD helped develop, enables users to select a custom gender option, indicate preferred pronouns and adjust privacy settings for the custom gender field. It will be available to those who use Facebook in U.S. English.
“This new feature is a step forward in recognizing transgender people and allows them to tell their authentic story in their own words,” said GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis. “Once again, Facebook is on the forefront of ensuring that the platform is safe and accessible to all of its LGBT users.”
Previously, Facebook users were required to select either “male” or “female” in the gender identification field. Users now the option to select “Custom.” Once users select custom, they will have the ability to enter up to ten identification terms (e.g., transgender, androgynous, genderqueer, etc.) to better express their gender identities. Users who use the new custom gender options will also have the ability to choose the pronoun they’d like to be referred to publicly and select which groups of their Facebook friends they feel safe sharing their gender field with.
“Facebook users from across the country have been asking for the ability to reflect their gender accurately, and today Facebook showed they have been listening,” said Allison Palmer, GLAAD’s former Vice President of Campaigns & Programs who worked on the project with Facebook and current GLAAD staff. “Facebook’s new gender options will make a difference to many transgender and gender nonconforming users, who are now empowered to accurately describe their own identities on the platform.”
In the summer of 2012, Sister Simone Campbell and a group of fellow Roman Catholic nuns toured parts of the country to rally support against Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget, a plan that cut vital social programs for the hurting poor and the struggling middle class.
Prayer groups turned into rallies and small town meetings became national media events. Sister Simone became a galvanizing force for progressives of all stripes and remains a driving force for programs and policies that support faith, family, and fairness.
Rooted in a deep spirituality of compassion and service, Sister Simone gives voice to the hunger, isolation, and fear that so many people in America are feeling right now and shows us how we can create real transformation in our communities and in our own hearts through the contemplative life of prayer.
Powerful, inspiring stories from the Nuns on the Bus tour and from Sister Simone’s own life offer readers a fresh vision for a lived spirituality that is at the heart of today’s progressive Christian movements working for change. http://www.networklobby.org/BookOrder
Fairfield University’s signature lecture series, Open VISIONS Forum, presents “An Evening with Isabel Wilkerson” with best-selling author Isabel Wilkerson, the first black woman to win a Pulitzer Prize in journalism. In her presentation, Ms. Wilkerson will discuss “The Warmth of Other Suns,” her award-winning work of narrative nonfiction that tells the epic story of three people who made the decision of their lives in what came to be known as the Great Migration. “The Warmth of Other Suns” became a national best-selling book, a National Book Critics Circle Award Winner and a New York Times, USA Today, and Oprah Magazine Top 10 Best Book of the Year winner.
Introducing Isabel Wilkerson will be Fairfield University student Janice Herbert ’15. Following Ms. Wilkerson’s presentation, there will be an informal conversation and discussion with Yohuru Williams, Ph.D, Chair Department of History and Director of Black Studies, Elizabeth Hohl, Ph.D, history lecturer, and Philip Eliasoph, Ph.D, professor of art history and founder/moderator of Open VISIONS Forum. This program is made possible in part by the generous support of Sheaffer, CT Humanities, and Pequot Library. Moffly Media is the exclusive magazine sponsor for the 2013-14 Open VISIONS Forum series.
It’s a cultural marker of sorts when a major Hollywood studio buys the film rights to a self-help book, in this case Sheryl Sandberg’s bestseller Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. Sony Pictures (SNE) has hired a screenwriter to fictionalize Sandberg’s tale of the lessons she learned adapting to the male-dominated world of Silicon Valley, where she’s risen to chief operating officer at Facebook (FB). The central message is an uplifting one: A killer work ethic and unflagging drive can lead to success, even if men still set the rules of engagement in the corporate world.
A less empowering, but arguably more realistic, view comes from Anne-Marie Slaughter, an international lawyer, ex-State Department official, and former dean of Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. No stranger to navigating ultracompetitive work environments, Slaughter argues that women, even when they adhere to Sandberg’s advice, have a difficult time finding a balance between home and the office. The lucky few who scale the peaks of professional stature are wealthy, superhuman, or self-employed. The economic and cultural obstacles standing in the way of equal treatment for women in the workforce are formidable, in her view.
So who’s right? Both arguments are thought-provoking, yet they’re not based on hard data. The current debate over the career challenges facing women is understandably passionate and sometimes ideologically charged. Yet maybe it’s time for data analytics and rigorous social science to play a more prominent role in the conversation.
One data point everyone agrees on is that women and men face huge disparities at the office. In the U.S., female workers are still paid only 77¢ for every dollar their male colleagues make. A mere 4.2 percent of chief executive officers at Fortune 500 companies are women. To my mind, there are several possible explanations for this persistent divide.
The traditional theory about workplace inequality focuses on biology—childbearing, maternity leave, and child care hold women back. Then there are the deeply ingrained cognitive biases that rig the game in favor of men. One of Sandberg’s most interesting observations is that women and men work and collaborate differently, causing variations in career outcomes. These obstacles can be overcome, but doing so will require great effort.
To get a better read on the contrasting styles of men and women in the workplace, I’ve set out over the past year to analyze behavior and career outcomes at three different U.S. companies: a banking call center (more than 10,000 employees), an office products manufacturer (about 10,000), and a pharmaceutical company (about 1,000). A study by my data analytics firm, Sociometric Solutions, measured how people actually collaborate using sensor ID badges. The badges detect conversations and speech patterns using a combination of infrared, Bluetooth, and microphone data. (We ignored the actual content of conversations to protect privacy.) They also contain accelerometers, sensors that monitor physical movement. This data was collected on an opt-in basis and individual information was not shared. All of it was wirelessly transmitted to a base station and then on to our servers for processing.
The tags, worn for at least six weeks by each participant, tracked who interacted with whom. We also looked at e-mail, instant message, and phone call data to get a holistic view of how people were engaging with co-workers. Sociometrics is all about analyzing the patterns of relationships that connect people. In the workplace, interacting with the right people in the right way is vital. That’s why we measure social engagement, or how much people participate in a tight-knit group, and exploration, or how much people interact with different social groups. Admittedly, our three businesses do not constitute an exhaustive sample of U.S. workplaces. And the companies didn’t reveal compensation data about individual employees, though men do dominate their senior ranks. To my knowledge, however, this is the first attempt to analyze behavioral differences between men and women at different organizations using hard behavioral data.
At the call center, the one company where we have quantifiable productivity metrics, women were more productive than men, completing calls on average 24 seconds more quickly. Twenty-four seconds might not seem like much, but that adds up to a 9 percent difference in productivity. No differences in workplace performance or collaborative styles were observed at the company to support the idea that men and women perform or interact differently. Nonetheless, women were disadvantaged when it came to winning promotions and reaching the upper echelons of management.
At the pharmaceutical company my team researched, we were able to model how likely people were to get promoted based on their “exploration” scores. Once again, we found little evidence of contrasting work styles between men and women. When we examined the probability of promotion based on traits such as the ability to interact and lead other groups, there was again no significant difference between men and women. Well, to be precise, women were fractionally (0.2 percent) more likely to be promoted than men based on our model. Yet only 13 percent of top executives at the company are female despite a 50-50 gender split in the overall workforce. Lean In strategies may be great for a Harvard-educated high achiever like Sandberg; they don’t necessarily apply to all women.
What about the “maternity leave” theory? Various studies show that married and single women without children also lag behind male colleagues when it comes to pay and career advancement.
For working mothers, gender bias in hiring and recruitment exacerbates the special challenges they already face. In a 2007 study, Cornell University researchers submitted 1,276 fake résumés for real jobs listed in the classified section of a local newspaper. The résumés were equivalent when it came to educational credentials and work experience, but they varied in personal details about gender and whether or not the candidate had children.
The faux male candidates with kids were the most hirable, according to the study. Next came men and women without kids. The least desirable were women with children. Among job interviewers in the study, women were consciously (or subconsciously) punished for having a family. Subjects told researchers they viewed women as more likely than men to sacrifice work duties for family commitments. At the same time, male candidates with kids were viewed as more responsible and hence more desirable job candidates.
None of this means that Sandberg isn’t right about “leaning in” or that more equitable parental leave policies shouldn’t be encouraged. They’re clearly important to continuing the advancement of women in the workplace. But the cognitive bias is the far greater challenge. Attitudes hard-wired into the minds of men (and women) are very difficult to change. Characteristics admired in alpha male executives—boldness, decisiveness, and intensity—aren’t always valued in female ones. Conflicting attitudes about the primacy of a mother’s role in raising children complicate a woman’s career in ways most men need not worry about.
Business leaders can’t wave a magic wand and suddenly reduce societal bias. Subtle cues such as gender roles in TV shows and films will need to change. Even the language we use makes a difference. Top-Toy, the Swedish licensee of the Toys “R” Us brand, has released gender-neutral toy catalogs including such stereotype-busting examples as boys playing with ironing boards and girls having fun with gigantic Nerf guns. The state of Washington recently started rewriting laws using gender-free vocabulary, replacing “fisherman,” for example, with “fisher.”
Such efforts might seem like amusing cases of political correctness run amok or government overreach. But here’s something not so amusing: Do we really want to tolerate a business culture in which men get bonus points for being fathers and women are penalized for being mothers? Eliminating gender inequality in the workplace will require a sustained and generational effort, not unlike other civil rights movements in U.S. history. It’s all in the data.
Which countries have laws preventing violence? Which legislate for gender equality? And which countries allow abortion? Using World Bank and UN data we offer a snapshot of women’s rights across the globe. Select a region and hover over a country to see how it has legislated for violence, harassment, abortion, property and employment rights, discrimination and equality. Country data can be viewed in relation to its population size and those of its neighboring states.
Check it out here: http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/ng-interactive/2014/feb/04/womens-rights-country-by-country-interactive
The Winter Games are serving as a barometer for the international politics of LGBT rights.
In August 1982, 1,350 athletes from 12 countries gathered in San Francisco for the first-ever Gay Games. The Stonewall riots were more than a decade in the past; a year earlier, reports had surfaced about rare pneumonia and cancer afflicting homosexuals in New York and California—the first glimmers of what would later be called AIDS. Tom Waddell, a gay Olympian who would die of AIDS five years later, told The New York Times that he had organized the athletic competition to “pull the gay community together globally.”
At the time, that gay community found itself in vastly different circumstances around the world. As the activist Greg Day wrote in the program for the inaugural Gay Games, the U.S. had “much to learn from Holland, Norway and France where there are national laws protecting the rights of Gay and Lesbian citizens.” “Direct contact” with athletes from these nations, Day argued, would be enlightening for Americans living in a country where international visitors were often denied entry because of their sexual orientation.
Three decades later, sports are once again stirring us to take stock of gay rights around the world. Controversy over recent restrictions on sexual minorities in Russia—along with threats of terror attacks, concerns about environmental degradation, and protests by the Circassian diaspora—have arguably made the Sochi Winter Olympics the most geopolitically charged Games since the Soviet-boycotted 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. Ultimately, the costliest Olympics in history may be remembered for marking a period in which gay rights aren’t so much advancing globally as expanding in certain parts of the world while regressing or languishing in others.
As 6,000 athletes from 85 countries gather in Sochi, the global gay-rights divide will be unmistakable.
“The status of LGBT rights globally is schizophrenic,” Jessica Stern, executive director of the New York-based International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, tells me. “You don’t see a single trend anywhere you look.”
When Russia was awarded the Sochi Games, in 2007, the environmental and security concerns that still plague the $51-billion project swiftly cropped up. But gay rights only came to the fore in the summer of 2013, when the Russian government, which decriminalized homosexuality in 1993, banned the dissemination of “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” around children—making it more difficult for gay activists to operate and, rights groups allege, fueling a rise in anti-gay violence in the country. Around the same time, President Vladimir Putin signed another law prohibiting gay and lesbian couples in foreign countries from adopting Russian children. Putin has since declared that gays attending the Olympics should feel “at ease” (so long as they “leave the children in peace”), but that’s done little to prevent Sochi from becoming a battleground for gay rights. The mayor of Sochi saying there were no gay people in his city didn’t help, either.
In perhaps the most provocative rebuke to Russia’s limits on LGBT rights, President Obama has included three openly gay athletes—Billie Jean King, Caitlin Cahow, and Brian Boitano—in the U.S. Olympic delegation, while skipping the Games himself. Gay Olympic athletes have expressed outrage as well; the Australian snowboarder Belle Brockhoff, for instance, has vowed to “rip on [Putin’s] ass” after competing and possibly flash an oblique six-finger salute in reference to “Principle Six,” an anti-discrimination clause in the Olympic Charter. In this climate, and in light of the International Olympic Committee’s prohibition against political statements, everything from American Apparel hoodies to the soundtrack at speed-skating competitions could serve as platforms for subtle protest. Then there’s the solution proposed by Saturday Night Live: an all-heterosexual Team USA figure-skating squad:
The laws against homosexuality that have recently made international headlines aren’t necessarily new, Stern says, but they are “getting more attention today because of the level of progress that we’ve seen in other parts of the world.”
“What’s unique about this moment,” she adds, “is the convergence of court decisions and proposed legislation that go above and beyond in their efforts to repress LGBT people and LGBT-rights activism.”
The Sochi Olympics come during a dizzying period in the history of the global gay-rights movement. Last year witnessed several significant advances for activists. In the U.S., nine states legalized same-sex marriage and the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. Brazil, Britain, France, New Zealand, and Uruguay all legalized gay marriage as well (just this week, Northern Cyprus repealed Europe’s last sodomy law). Questioned about gay priests, Pope Francis famously asked, “Who am I to judge?” It was enough for one activist to dub 2013 “the gayest year in gay history”—or, as Radio Free Europe/Radio Libertyput it, “the year LGBT rights went global.”
But going global hasn’t necessarily meant going in the direction gay-rights advocates would like. In recent months, India’s Supreme Court has reinstated a ban on gay sex (in one fell swoop doubling, by one estimate, the number of gay people in the world who can be imprisoned for their sexuality) and Australia’s High Court has overturned gay-marriage legislation. In Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, the authorities have reportedly begun arresting people under a new law that outlaws gay advocacy and punishes gay marriage with up to 14 years in prison. In Uganda, President Yoweri Museveni has expressed opposition to a proposed bill meting out life imprisonment for gays—only to characterize homosexuality as an “abnormality” and lesbianism as a product of “sexual starvation.” We know the story in Russia, where Vladimir Putin has anointed himself the leader of an international conservative counteroffensive against the West’s “genderless and infertile” liberalism.
As the Brussels-based International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) noted in its latest report on “state-sponsored homophobia,” “little has changed in the proportion between countries criminalizing same-sex sexual acts between consenting adults and those which do not, i.e., respectively, 76 (roughly 40% of UN Members) versus 114 (roughly 60% of UN Members).”
The “current division of the world—from the point of view of legislation—into an LGBTI-friendly field and an LGBTI-unfriendly field is the result of different cultural, social and political processes rooted in the histories of the countries and the history of their relations with one another,” the study added.
Here’s how that divided world looked as of May 2013, when ILGA came out with its report (click on the map to expand):
In a June report titled “The Global Divide on Homosexuality,” the Pew Research Center arrived at similar conclusions, finding “broad acceptance of homosexuality in North America, the European Union, and much of Latin America, but equally widespread rejection in predominantly Muslim nations and in Africa, as well as in parts of Asia and in Russia.”
Pew reported that attitudes about homosexuality “have been fairly stable in recent years” save for in Canada, South Korea, and the U.S., where public support has grown significantly, and that “acceptance of homosexuality is particularly widespread in countries where religion is less central in people’s lives”—nations that also tend to be the wealthiest in the world. Exceptions include Russia and China, where levels of religiosity and tolerance for homosexuality are both low.
Here are the percentages of respondents in the 39 countries Pew surveyed who said society should accept homosexuality. Except in South Africa, where gay marriage is legal but only 32 percent accept homosexuality, same-sex marriage has, not surprisingly, advanced the most in countries where support of homosexuality is highest.
Religion undoubtedly informs opinions on LGBT rights—a dynamic reinforced by the recent trend of globetrotting American evangelicals, stymied at home, crafting and promoting restrictions on homosexuality in foreign capitals—but it’s not the only factor at play. India and several countries in sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, are implementing gay-sex bans with roots in British colonialism.
Then there’s domestic politics and geopolitics. Vladimir Putin, ILGA Executive Director Renato Sabbadini argues, sees anti-gay legislation as a means of placating the powerful Russian Orthodox Church and defending ‘traditional values’ in opposition to the West, where LGBT rights are generally advancing. But Putin knows that as a member of the Council of Europe, a human-rights organization, Russia cannot recriminalize homosexuality. Hence the country’s roundabout propaganda and adoption laws.
Stern and Sabbadini emphasize that legislation is only one means of assessing the state of the global LGBT community. The growth of gay activism, even in countries where the legal climate for homosexuals is repressive, is another. Stern points to the Kampala-based Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law’s outspoken opposition to Uganda’s anti-gay bill, while Sabbadini cites how Indian gay-rights activists swiftly mobilized to protest the restoration of the country’s ban on homosexual acts. Sabbadini adds that his organization is trying to determine how to track another measure: levels of anti-gay violence across countries.
“The picture on the ground may be very different from one country to the other, and not always in direct correlation with the legislation they have,” Sabbadini tells me. “You may have a country which has adopted progressive legislation and, at the same time, in the same country, you might have an increase in attacks against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity.” In Brazil, for example, same-sex marriage is legal, but more transgender people are murdered than anywhere else in the world.
Stern also takes issue with the notion that Sochi is simply a dramatization of today’s global gay-rights divide. “I don’t think you can reduce it to a symbol, because the anti-gay laws are so far-reaching and egregious,” she says. “The fear I have is that the day after the Olympics concludes, the global attention will move on from Russia. And the laws are still in place, and people are still unsafe.”