# data[].attributes.body
The women I guess didn’t Mulan( I made it verb) but she put down a name to run in the all male race. Men attacked her but she kept going!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In secret, an imposter signs up for Boston Marathon... when a race official finds out he immediately attacks. Feel free to pass this on! ❤️

# data[].attributes.body
This one just kinda tackles the experiences of non binary actors and what its like with casting and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Erin Shea Brady

Theater is a vehicle for change. Our product is empathy and human connection. Through narrative and representation, we have the power to humanize experiences that may be misunderstood; to redefine one person's perception of another; to explode, explore and challenge boxes that go unquestioned, boxes which allow us to sort each other into comfortable classifications that diminish our individuality and contribute to the erasure of entire communities which are otherwise thriving.

The genderqueer community boasts some of the most exciting artists that this industry has to offer. Beyond type, beyond look, beyond boxes to check, we look to actors as passionate communicators with something to say. Our world, which still largely operates within a binary understanding of gender, aggressively erases people who find themselves elsewhere on the gender spectrum. While plays like Taylor Mac's "Hir" are starting the conversation and opening up opportunities for non-binary folx, these actors are still at war for visibility, for the chance to show up, not as a statement, but as themselves, on and offstage.

I went into this exchange with casting director Catherine Miller and actors Avi Roque and Emilie Modaff hoping to walk away with an understanding of expectations, of what's okay and what's not okay when working with non-binary actors and a new list of best practices to guide us through the challenges of a new communication standard. What roles should we call them in for? What language is preferred? How do we move forward, into uncharted waters, while keeping spaces safe?

What I found was a deeply profound call to discomfort and progress, to shift our approach to story away from type and toward individuality as well as a conversation that cannot be summed up in a thousand words.

Or can it? As Emilie Modaff says succinctly, "Discomfort is better than oppression."

Actors want to work, and a large portion of plays and musicals produced are revivals. With so few existing non-binary characters, I wondered: are gender non-conforming folx comfortable playing roles that are gendered?

The answer: it depends on the person, and when in doubt, ask. Ask respectfully. Ask from an educated point of view. But transparency in communication is vital if we are going to learn.

"I'm no longer interested in playing roles listed or posted as 'Female' 'Girl' and 'Woman', but I am now finding myself wanting to play roles listed or posted as 'Male' 'Boy' and 'Man,' depending on the specific character and the script," says Avi Roque, though they pointed out that, in these instances, they are still being asked to choose a binary identity. For Roque, comfort is largely about whether or not they are being tokenized: whether the request to work on a project is based on what they, as an individual, can bring to the table, rather than being "plugged into" a role to fill a diversity quota.

Modaff, at this point in their life and career, is comfortable being considered for femme roles. However, the goal is to reframe all existing narratives in a less gendered way.

"Queer people have been around," says Modaff.

Being non-binary is not new and it is not a trend. Often, companies and directors offer up the dramaturgy argument for keeping characters in strict gender roles. Dramaturgically, the erasure of genderqueer people is by narrative, which we have a powerful opportunity to correct. More stories than we recognize can be just as truthful and resonant, likely even more so, without being aggressively gendered.

Roque tells me about their experience booking an industrial. The original sides (the script excerpts used in auditions) had gendered pronouns, but once an offer was made, pronouns were changed to they/them/theirs, which didn't change or compromise the integrity of the work.

Roque was also clear to stress the importance of developing new work ("Grooming writers who are not cisgender") that gives further visibility to genderqueer actors and playwrights.

Roque and Modaff were careful to point out that visibility doesn't mean producing issue plays about the gender binary though communicating these stories to an audience is still important. Nonbinary stories exist beyond issue plays and genderqueer actors are versatile. They have myriad stories to tell.

"We are people. We are talented people. We can tell a story," says Modaff.

These artists are on the front lines of this conversation. They bear the brunt of the burden to educate, "not because I'm an expert, but because I exist in the world as a person who cares," Roque points out. They often make difficult decisions about whether to negotiate their ideals and wellbeing in order to get work. It is our collective responsibility to lift this burden where we're able and that starts with changing the way we talk about actors, broadly.

"As a non-binary casting director, I feel like I'm an advocate in every space I enter," says Catherine Miller, who spoke of being a liaison in the casting process and a champion of transparent communication. "We need to make space for actors to say 'No' without the fear of a bridge being burned."

It is beaten into the brains of actors that they are replaceable. There is a clear difference between demanding a high standard of professionalism and cultivating an environment where actors are afraid to ask for what they need, leveraging a competitive artistic environment in service of staying comfortable. If we educate ourselves, there are needs we can anticipate, small ways in which to unburden these actors and let them know that they are valued, in addition to engaging in larger conversation about the future of storytelling in our field:

Include preferred pronouns in your introductions. List them in your email signature and on your company website. If someone-relative, friend, colleague-asks why, educate them about the gender binary. This will also allow non-binary actors to give pronouns without feeling called out.

Leave a blank line on audition sheets so that actors may list their preferred pronouns. Not all non-binary actors use they/them.

Be thoughtful about language in casting breakdowns. Is it crucial to the plot that the characters be gendered? Is there an opportunity to tell a more inclusive story?

If you're working with an actor who has changed their name, don't ask what their name was before their transition. If at any point they'd like to share that information with you, they will. Your curiosity is not worth their retraumatization.

If you aren't a person with a lot of non-binary people in your life, using they/them in place of she/her or he/him will likely feel weird grammatically. Before you point this out to your non-binary friends, please consider that your status as a grammar nerd is not more important than the support and affirmation of the human being standing in front of you. The grammar argument is an easy way to tell a person that your temporary comfort is of higher priority than their journey, progress and identity.

If you're in a leadership role and an actor is misgendered, check in with them privately and ask them how they would like to handle the situation. Sometimes, they'll want you to step in. Sometimes, they'll want to handle it themselves. Sometimes, it's worth a quick email, reminding the group that respect for pronouns is standard and non-negotiable. Sometimes, the situation is more serious and real intervention is required. In all of these cases, the misgendered actor is most directly affected and should therefore be involved in the conversation.

This list is a place to start and will continue to grow and deepen as will the conversation. This conversation will be vulnerable. It will be uncomfortable. It also affords us the opportunity to open ourselves to an extraordinary community of individuals who are working for the growth and progress of our industry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Discomfort Over Oppression: A Conversation On Non-Binary Inclusion with Emilie Modaff, Avi Roque and Catherine Miller | Newcity Stage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Emilie Modaff/Photo: Alexus McLane Photography By Erin Shea Brady Theater is a vehicle for change. Our product is empathy and human connection.

# data[].attributes.body
This is my best friend and I at the women's march last year! the fight for equality for everyone is still in progress.

# data[].attributes.body
She just went through a horrible situation. and because someones views didn't Aline she was left without something she needed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After receiving word that her unborn baby no longer had a heartbeat, it was hard to imagine how things could get worse for Nicole Arteaga, until they did.

The Arizona mother is speaking out after she said a Walgreens pharmacist refused to provide her with a prescription drug that would help her miscarry her deceased fetus, telling her that providing it would violate his personal beliefs. The company said on Sunday it is investigating the incident.

"I experienced something no women should ever have to go [through], especially under these circumstances," Arteaga posted on Facebook Friday.

The 35-year-old said the pharmacist's refusal at a Walgreens location in Peoria, Arizona, on Thursday came one day after her doctor informed her during a 10-week pregnancy checkup that her baby no longer had a heartbeat and had stopped developing, she told The Arizona Republic.

The doctor had given her two options, she said: Either undergo a hospital procedure that would remove the fetus or take Misoprostol, a prescription drug that would help her body miscarry the fetus. After giving it a day of thought, Arteaga said, she decided on the drug and took her 7-year-old with her to the store to pick up the medication. Instead, the pharmacist refused to hand it to her.

"He had it in his hand and refrained from giving it to me," Arteaga told WTSP, adding: "I was completely shocked. I couldn't believe what was happening."

Arteaga said she explained her situation to the man behind the counter, explaining that her unborn baby no longer had a heartbeat and that the prescription wasn't anything she actually wanted to take.

"This is something I have zero control over," she posted on Facebook. "He has no idea what [it's] like to want nothing more than to carry a child to full term and be unable to do so. If you have gone [through] a miscarriage you know the pain and emotional roller [coaster] it can be."

She said there were two other people working behind the counter, one of whom was overseeing prescriptions at the drive-thru window. She asked if someone else could help her, but the employee said no and suggested that she come back the next evening.

He has no idea what [it's] like to want nothing more than to carry a child to full term and be unable to do so.

"It's not OK to do that to someone," she told Arizona Central. "Help them or pass [the prescription] on to somebody next to you."

A representative for Walgreens appeared to agree.

Though the stores' employees are allowed to opt out of fulfilling prescriptions that they have a moral objection to, they are required to hand the order off to someone else to fill, the company said in a statement obtained by HuffPost.

"After learning what happened, we reached out to the patient and apologized for how the situation was handled," the company stated. "We are looking into the matter to ensure that our patients' needs are handled properly."

Walgreens' policy lines up with an Arizona state law that similarly allows a pharmacy, hospital or health professional not to participate in providing abortion medication, emergency contraception or any medication or device that would prevent fertilization. Should a pharmacist choose not to administer the prescription, they must return the patient's written prescription order.

After leaving the store in tears, Arteaga said she received an email informing her that the pharmacist had sent her prescription to another Walgreens store nearby.

She ultimately received the prescription on Friday, after contacting her doctor for added assistance, but the experience left her embarrassed, humiliated and wondering what other drugs ― such as birth control and morning-after pills ― this pharmacist has denied to people, she said.

"I share this story because I wish no other women have to go [through] something like this at time when you are vulnerable and already suffering," she wrote.

HuffPost could not immediately reach Arteaga or the Walgreens pharmacist she identified on Facebook for comment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Walgreens Pharmacist Denies Woman Miscarriage Drug Over Personal Morals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After receiving word that her unborn baby no longer had a heartbeat, it was hard to imagine how things could get worse for Nicole Arteaga, until they did. The Arizona mother is speaking out after she said a Walgreens pharmacist refused to provide her with a prescription drug that would help her miscarry her deceased fetus, telling her that providing it would violate his personal beliefs.

# data[].attributes.body
Im a nerd, I love marvel. Well basically the article is a conversation of why it is believed that Loki is bisexual and gender fluid!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article was originally published on ilikecomicstoo.com and has been reposted with permission. It was written in 2013, prior to the release of Loki: Agent of Asgard, and discusses writer Al Ewing's stated plan for that series and the character's background in Marvel lore up to that point. Here's a blast from comics history past.
Is Loki batting for both teams (or all of the teams)? Wasn't he married? Did he really turn into a lady once-twice-many times? These answers and more in this brief history lesson/discussion about our favorite god of mischief.

Right! So, before you read the following or watch the video above, please note that there will be spoilers for Marvel's Siege, Journey into Mystery, and Young Avengers. If you haven't caught up, I'll give you some time to navigate away and look up funny cat montages.

Still with me? O-K!

Loki is to become the star of his very own book, titled Loki: Agent of Asgard. That's pretty exciting, but what really seemed to stir up fans recently was this bit of news from the book's writer, Al Ewing:

Yes, Loki is bi and I'll be touching on that. He'll shift between genders occasionally as well.

Fans seem to have split into three camps on this:

1. No, Loki has always been straight! Do not want.

2. Oh, snap, we knew he was bisexual all along! Do want.

3. This feels like a cheap plot device and ill representation of bisexuality and possibly gender fluidity. Not sure if want.

Let's pick apart the arguments and learn a little about our favorite god of mischief along the way, shall we?

1. "Loki has always been completely straight." Well, yes and no. While all of Loki's relationships that we know of have up until now been with women, he's not exactly Captain America whitebread dunked in vanilla in terms of sexuality. Let me explain:

Loki is, in Marvel comics, the biological father to Fenrir (a giant wolf) and Jordmungand (a giant snake). He had these children with a shapeshifter like himself, but Valhalla knows what form he must have taken in order to conceive these creatures. Similarly, in the Norse myth that inspires much of Marvel Loki's history, he shapeshifted into a female horse in order to produce Odin's eight-legged mount, Sleipnir. I am absolutely not suggesting that these facts imply bisexuality, but considering his out-of-the-box inclinations and abilities, it seems kind of silly to get upset over the idea that Loki just might not be interested in women exclusively. He's a pretty open-minded dude.

At the same time, Loki is a character who uses sex more as a weapon than as something for enjoyment, which means it's difficult to even place him anywhere on the Kinsey scale. Did you know he was married? Yeah, married! Of course, he tricked the goddess Sigyn into marrying him and could care less about her now. No, seriously, he was handcuffed to her as a punishment once. She's never really mentioned in the comics these days ... even after Ragnarok, in which we assume she went kaput. Loki does not make a caring husband.

He also doesn't maintain contact with the mothers of his kids. In fact, the only reason he even had those kids was to forge power alliances with their moms. The one child he does occasionally contact is Hela, and that's because she's the queen of Hel and can pull strings for him. His children were conceived for convenience, probably not as products of affection or lust. Loki's fondness for women, therefore, isn't exactly a sure thing. In fact, his fondness for any sex isn't a sure thing. He could even be considered asexual at some points.

2. "Loki has been bisexual all along." I was in this camp at first ... But Loki having always been obviously bisexual is a little difficult to say, too. His interests aren't exactly plain, yes (he put Thor in a dress once and kind of ... flirted with him?). Such tastes don't equate to bisexuality either, though. The guy also has a real penchant for turning into ladies, a notable example of which was when he borrowed-all right, stole-Sif's body. He's also assumed the Scarlet Witch's form and kissed a man, etc. etc. You would think these examples hint at gender fluidity, but in these cases he changed his sex (the physical outside bits) not necessarily his gender (what he feels like inside), and the only reason he did so was to manipulate others. I like to think the fact he does it so much means part of him must enjoy it, but that's impossible to say for sure. I guess we'll be learning more from Ewing's run.

Perhaps the strongest argument for Loki having always having encompassed some degree of queerness is the fact that he comes from a world that does not, for all we know, impose the same heteronormative standards as earth. He's a god/alien/what-have-you from an entirely different plane of existence. I don't recall coming across evidence suggesting Asgardians were especially closed off to the idea of batting for a variety of teams, so it's possible he's open to doing so.

3. "This is a cheap marketing ploy and/or misrepresenting bisexuals and/or gender fluid individuals." In terms of misrepresenting a real population or turning Loki into some kind of "evil queer" trope, especially with how he's used the female form as a tool just to mess with folks in the past ... Well, I completely understand wanting to avoid connecting gender fluidity and bisexuality, two underrepresented facets in this medium, with misogyny, manipulation and a number of gross things. But even if Loki is bisexual and gender fluid, which we can't assume, that's not necessarily awful. We know that this fictional godlike character does not represent a real group of people.

There can be heterosexuals who do bad things (see the abusive Hank Pym), there can be homosexuals who do bad things (see Amazon/Man-Killer-or don't, because her characterization is ridiculous), there can be bisexuals who do bad things (see Daken) ... alternatively, there can be heterosexuals (on the surface, at least) who do good things (see Superman), homosexuals who do good things (see Northstar), bisexuals who do good things (see Prodigy). I don't necessarily think it's unhealthy to be offered this diversity in comics, though of course it should strive to be even on both sides, with both "bad" characters and "good" characters of all orientations. And that doesn't always happen.

Now, you just learned a whole lot about Loki, but all of it referred to the character from much older comics. The specific version that Al Ewing is referring to, the one he's writing as bisexual, is the Loki presently featured in Young Avengers. Let me recap the story thus far so you know who I'm talking about, here.

Loki was kind of a douche during Siege. He did some pretty Bad Things. Towards the end, however, he repented and helped the good guys. Unfortunately, he still died.

But he came back somehow, because that's what Loki does! He reincarnated as a little kid with very little memory of the man he once was in Journey into Mystery. He was a new person and strove to make better choices. He didn't want to become the Loki everyone hated before. This was the "new Loki personality."

Of course, more stuff happened and the "old Loki personality"-from before Siege-took over kid Loki's body, erasing the "new Loki personality" that we had just started to root for. So now, it's old Loki in a new body... though "new Loki personality" still pops up occasionally as a sort of conscience-ghost.

Theoretically, that sounds terrible, but Loki's actually doing well so far! He seems to feel guilt and some degree of sympathy. He helps his friends even when there is little in it for him. He's part of a team that strives to do good.

He's also surrounded by queer teammates (Wiccan, Hulkling, Prodigy, America), so any hesitation he did feel about experimenting with or expressing his own sexuality might be eased. He wants, on some level, to change and grow, which opens up the opportunity for writers to introduce elements of his persona (including his sexuality) that we never saw before in an organic (rather than forced) way. It's less a marketing tactic and more character development.

Being gay is not a plot point. It's not a token that you can say, 'Look, we have a gay character! Isn't that great? Aren't we awesome?' It's part of a person and therefore it should be treated as such. It should be one facet of a character rather than the defining description of that character. And I hope that we have, through the writing and the performance of it, we have kind of struck that balance, where the audience learns something more about [our characters], not dependent on their sexuality, but in addition to their sexuality.

So, hey, as long as it's done right-then I figure ... why not?

Big, huge, special thanks to the following people for helping me expand my thoughts about this topic in a constructive way:

Until next time, stay mischievous!
[Editor's note: in the years since this article was written, Marvel announced an upcoming YA novel starring Loki. Its author, Mackenzie Lee, tweeted in 2017 that Loki is "a canonically pansexual and gender fluid character." We've also received more storylines and panels with input from Loki-especially on the subject of gender fluidity.]
(images: Marvel Comics)
Marlene, better known by her web moniker "ilikecomicstoo," is a YouTube Partner and blogger with a penchant for-you guessed it-comics. Her day job involves milling around Tumblr HQ but she wears a number of hats, including editor-in-chief of comics.tumblr. Want more stories like this? Become a subscriber and support the site! -The Mary Sue has a strict comment policy that forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults toward anyone, hate speech, and trolling.-

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Loki's Sexuality and Gender Fluidity in Comics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article was originally published on ilikecomicstoo.com and has been reposted with permission. It was written in 2013, prior to the release of Loki: Agent of Asgard, and discusses writer Al Ewing's stated plan for that series and the character's background in Marvel lore up to that point.

# data[].attributes.body
Its is very common for ads to have women showing more skin or being there for the lust aspect to make you want to buy stuff.

# data[].attributes.body
I am getting a little political. Now no matter what side you are on with this, these people are scared. They not only might get ripped from their homes at any moment but also half the country dehumanizes them. She has to chose between an abusive relationship or possibly being killed in another country.

# data[].attributes.body
Theatre is a ver demanding profession

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the fight for diversity, equity, and inclusion, creating platforms that give voice to the nuanced experience of all parents will identify how the theatre culture at large can act to make better pathways back in for those left out of the discussion, thus directly affecting the pipeline, content, and population of our craft. The Parent Artist Advocacy League for the Performing Arts (PAAL) is a national resource hub and all-parent, all-discipline league advocating for a national standard of best practices for parents in the performing arts. This HowlRound series builds on the work of PAAL and will cover challenges faced by parent artists and offer some solutions and advice.-Rachel Spencer Hewitt, series curator.
As women, in general, we are discriminated against. On top of that, to be a mother is to be discriminated against further, since women and parents of all genders face major disadvantages in our society. As women, we struggle with the ludicrous notion that to be successful in this man's world is to embrace the valuable qualities of men: strength, loyalty, toughness, stamina. Why are we shocked and horrified when Lady M pleads "unsex me"-when most of us do this on a daily basis? We hold our tongues, or stop short of rocking the boat, or carefully, thoughtfully exert our authority, pull punches, or do what is not in our better nature, when we actually wish we were on even ground.

When a woman becomes a mother in theatre, it's a wonderful, universal work of nature and love, but congratulations often come with unspoken condolences-"Poor thing, how will she get cast? What will she do when she's nauseous? How will she fit into her costume? How can she call a show if she's throwing up? It'll be years before she can get back on her feet again. So sad, she was so good."

Carmelita preparing for the first day of tech with her daughter, Lilly.
Photo by James Cuthrell.

I work at a university with fearless students who are amazing-and now, as a mother, it pains me a bit to see that the idea of having a child strikes a paralyzing fear into them. Student creative artists are terrified at the thought of this ultimate creation, which they perceive as a disadvantage.

In fact, though, motherhood provides a superhero skill set: stamina of steel, mighty powers of observation, incredible strength, and unbreakable will. So why doesn't anyone else recognize this? Mothers are the exact opposite of helpless-they bear and raise the entire world-so why do we turn a blind eye toward these new "powers"? Is this strictly a theatre culture thing? Is it an American culture thing? Where is the culture that says "Women who have children are now masters of something"? The culture where motherhood means something more-not less? We should change or value system; we must recognize and acknowledge and embrace that about ourselves as mothers-we are masters.

By my account, becoming a mother felt as if I shattered any professional foothold I was looking forward to. Changing my complete focus from a full career in theatre to having a family caused me to feel "reduced" in theatre. My feelings toward my career had only gotten stronger, but I felt my strengths as a stage manager slipping away while my new mother skills were rapidly developing. I wonder if there's a difference between playwrights, directors, actors, designers, and technicians who become mothers versus stage managers who tend to be twenty-four/seven workhorses? I know that I wish for people to say: "Oh my god, you're a stage manager and a mother of four-year-old twins? Let me snap you up right now!" Instead, I have to admit I have a "restriction"-I have to make negotiations-can I bring them? Is that ok? No, I can't this time because I have to travel-negotiations at every point-and that's hard.

Professionally, as a stage manager, I'm expected (and praised!) to take care of other people (the cast, the director, etc.), yet I get little consideration in my personal life when needing to take care of my own-whether it's a sick child or an ailing parent. As someone said to me: "You can't SM if you can't be available twenty-four/seven." That hits me the hardest-I am fully capable, but unwilling (not "unable") to work unhealthy hours. Regardless of how I function in the room, people often see me as just a facilitator. But I'm a creative artist, fully invested in each project, whether you care to see it or not.

I have to fight for creative, collaborative recognition as a woman. I have to fight for it as a mother. And I also have to fight for it as a person of color. As a black stage manager and mother, the struggle against being the kind, hard-working Mammy in the room who takes care of everything is real. I have been put on the "black shows" and the shows with black people in them, with an unspoken understanding that I'll "take care of everything," either to act as a cultural "translator" or to keep the white theatre organization's hands clean and unbothered.

With great, current trends encouraging diversity and inclusion in theatre, I can't help but wonder what these platitudes actionably mean at most institutions. Who is enforcing these statements? And who, exactly, are they "including"? Words ring hollow when there are no actions to substantiate them.

Theatre, our storytelling nature, is like church: theatre isn't the building or the space, it's the people. I will fight for the rights and dignity of other people. I will always fight for devising and maintaining "creative playgrounds" conducive for other people to make theatre. I have never felt that someone has fought the same for stage managers, nor-until very recently-for mothers.

Who's going to step up to the challenge to be inclusive? Who will truly embrace and encourage mothers to make theatre and take care of their needs? When will women truly take their place as master storytellers in theatre? Who will accept that a stage manager, and a woman of color, can be a creative collaborator?

Who will fight for me?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fighting for Gender, Race, and Motherhood in Theatre

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the fight for diversity, equity, and inclusion, creating platforms that give voice to the nuanced experience of all parents will identify how the theatre culture at large can act to make better pathways back in for those left out of the discussion, thus directly affecting the pipeline, content, and population of our craft.

# data[].attributes.body
People are so awful to trans people in general, but when it comes to the bathroom people are terrible. They assume because someone was born a man and are going into their preferred female based bathroom they are going to do something to the women in it. Super ignorant people, don't look at the comments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CNN 9 hrs ago By Jessica Campisi and Emily Smith, CNN

When a transgender woman got up to use the woman's bathroom at a restaurant, she said she was asked to show her ID.

And when she refused, she said she got kicked out.

Charlotte Clymer, who identifies as female, works for the Human Rights Campaign. She said she was at Cuba Libre Restaurant and Rum Bar in Washington on Friday with a group of friends for a bachelorette party.

Clymer wrote on Twitter that the group was having a good time. But things shifted when she and a friend went to use the bathroom.

On her way there, an attendant at the restaurant asked Clymer for her ID, she wrote. But, she said, he didn't ask anyone else for theirs.

So she asked him why it was necessary.

The attendant told her that her ID needed to say "female" on it for her to use the women's bathroom, according to her account. She told him "that's nonsense" and kept walking.

Clymer said she then went into a stall. The attendant followed her into the bathroom but later left, she wrote.

But after she left the bathroom, Clymer said the attendant and the manager were waiting for her.

According to Washington law, they said, you have to have "female" on your ID to use the women's bathroom.

That's not true.

The law says that if someone identifies as a woman, they're allowed to use a women's bathroom, and refusing to let someone use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender is discrimination.

When the manager insisted she show him her ID, Clymer said she told him "that's not happening." She asked him to tell her what city law he was referencing.

According to Clymer, he said: "You being in there will make women uncomfortable."

"He humiliated me intentionally," Clymer told CNN affiliate WJLA.

Clymer pulled up the actual laws on her phone and told the manager that what he was doing was illegal. He said she was wrong and threatened to call the police.

"I told him he should absolutely call the cops. Please do," she wrote.

That's when he told her to leave. A bouncer backed him up, grabbed Clymer's arm and pushed her out of Cuba Libre, she wrote.

Clymer called local police, and the officers who responded told her she was right about the law.

Cuba Libre apologized about the incident on Twitter.

"As a rule, we support safe bathrooms and welcome guests of all gender identifications," the statement says.

It added: "It is particularly disappointing that this has occurred during Pride month when we're undertaking efforts & events to support the LGBTQ community."

Cuba Libre tweeted that it will re-train its entire staff to make sure something like this doesn't happen in the future. Its CEO has also reached out to Clymer and asked to speak with her, the statement said.

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser also tweeted an apology to Clymer.

"It's not just illegal, it's against all we stand for," she wrote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This transgender woman was kicked out of a restaurant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CNN 9 hrs ago By Jessica Campisi and Emily Smith, CNN When a transgender woman got up to use the woman's bathroom at a restaurant, she said she was asked to show her ID. And when she refused, she said she got kicked out. Charlotte Clymer, who identifies as female, works for the Human Rights Campaign.

# data[].attributes.body
People don't understand what it is.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Saying 'I'm Not A Feminist' Really Means

# data[].attributes.body
All the things that make you, you. Its talking about most the big tackles and that they still deserve love.

# data[].attributes.body
Our country was created on activists. Some people get so man but if we didnt have activism and marches and protests then we would be so much further than we are now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The world won't change because we wish it to. We'll have to work to make it happen. Check out more awesome videos at BuzzFeedYellow! http://bit.ly/YTbuzzfeedyellow MUSIC STARGAZE Licensed via AUDIO NETWORK Made by BFMP www.buzzfeed.com/videoteam + Deray McKesson @deray Johnetta Elzie @Nettaaaaaaaa GET MORE BUZZFEED www.buzzfeed.com/videoteam www.facebook.com/buzzfeedvideo www.instagram.com/buzzfeedvideo www.buzzfeed.com/video www.youtube.com/buzzfeedvideo www.youtube.com/buzzfeedyellow www.youtube.com/buzzfeedblue www.youtube.com/buzzfeedviolet BUZZFEED YELLOW More fun, inspiring, interesting videos from the BuzzFeed crew.

# data[].attributes.body
The many ways women are seen in media.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gender Stereotyping of Women in the Media

# data[].attributes.body
Black women receive the least amount for the same work.

# data[].attributes.body
We are the people.  The people united will never be divided

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By the numbers: The issue has struck a nerve with women voters. Women (as well as voters under 40 and black voters) are the most likely to think the Trump administration is too aggressive when it comes to stopping illegal immigrants from entering the country, according to a late June Rasmussen Reports survey. Men and voters over 40 are more likely to blame the parents when families are separated after attempting to enter the U.S. illegally, per the survey.

In Texas, 64% of women voters and 50% of men voters oppose the separation practice, according to a June University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll.

Among Texas Republican women voters, 42% oppose the practice and 37% support it. Among Texas Republican men voters, 30% oppose it and 56% support it, per the poll.

Driving the news

Women are taking their children to demonstrations outside Immigration and Custom Enforcement offices, are scheduling "playdate protests," and "nurse-ins," per Yahoo.

Three women from Delaware who'd never led a protest before each decided to create and organize three events to oppose the separation policy, the Delaware News Journal reports.

Seventy-five women faith leaders rallied in Columbus, Ohio in the last week of June.

About 11,000 signatures, including more than 20 organizations, were delivered to congressmen in all 50 states by Lawyer Moms of America demanding U.S. Congress to sign a better immigration solution into law.

Democrat Veronica Escobar, who won her primary in TX-16 back in March, helped organize a march in West Texas a few weeks back. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)was one of the hundreds of women arrested last week at the Hart Senate Building during a march that protested the zero tolerance policy.

Women chefs, including Jamie Leeds and Amy Brandwein, from Washington D.C. hosted a benefit to help immigrants' rights at the border.

A mother from Kansas City, Missouri asked friends on Facebook to protest the policy at Republican Sen. Roy Blunt's office - 100 people showed up, The Kansas City Star reports.

What's happening

Social media, online fundraising platforms and email groups have helped connect like-minded women - many of them mothers - to organize and share resources. For example:

Natalie Roisman, 43, a member and part of the leadership at Lawyer Moms of America and mother of three children, said social media allowed the group to form and grow to 16,000 supporters in just a few weeks. Last Friday, the group organized a rally in Washington, and women in all 50 states visited local members of Congress.

Sarah Feinberg, 40, a consultant, mother, and former official in the Obama administration, found herself consumed by the news coming from the border and started an email thread with a few friends. Within days, the list grew to include other women who work in tech, politics, and communications looking to lend a hand. "In particular, I think women and mothers are really struggling with this," she said.

Brooke Oberwetter, 39, mother of three and a public policy manager at Facebook, flew from D.C. to McAllen, Tex., in late June to volunteer at the Humanitarian Respite Center, part of Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley. She also created a Facebook group to match donated funds to cover costs with those volunteering and buying supplies at the border.

Rebecca Bell Wilson, 43, mother of three and and a management consultant in Dallas, started a GoFundMe campaign and raised $5,000 in a few days to help people at the border. She and two other Dallas moms drove nine hours to McAllen to volunteer - helping families just released from detention centers to shower, eat and rest before being bused elsewhere. She plans to return in a few weeks.

"You pay attention to what breaks your heart in the world and that's where you do your good deeds and service. We were there without judgement - to give them dignity for a few hours."

What's next

After rallies and protests, many are asking "what's next?"

Though many efforts are urging Congress to act, legislation is not moving.

Organizers say they are concerned about striking the balance between making the movement inclusive of issues without diluting the message on family separation, Roisman says, as well as the balance between finding more for volunteers to do without exhausting them on an emotionally charged issue.
Go deeper:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Go deeper: The women leading immigration-policy activism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By the numbers: The issue has struck a nerve with women voters. Women (as well as voters under 40 and black voters) are the most likely to think the Trump administration is too aggressive when it comes to stopping illegal immigrants from entering the country, according to a late June Rasmussen Reports survey.

# data[].attributes.body
Planned parenthood is very helpful for a lot of things

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our society has a set of ideas about how we expect men and women to dress, behave, and present themselves.

What are gender roles?

Gender roles in society means how we're expected to act, speak, dress, groom, and conduct ourselves based upon our assigned sex. For example, girls and women are generally expected to dress in typically feminine ways and be polite, accommodating, and nurturing. Men are generally expected to be strong, aggressive, and bold.

Every society, ethnic group, and culture has gender role expectations, but they can be very different from group to group. They can also change in the same society over time. For example, pink used to be considered a masculine color in the U.S. while blue was considered feminine.

How do gender stereotypes affect people?

A stereotype is a widely accepted judgment or bias about a person or group - even though it's overly simplified and not always accurate. Stereotypes about gender can cause unequal and unfair treatment because of a person's gender. This is called sexism.

There are four basic kinds of gender stereotypes:

Personality traits - For example, women are often expected to be accommodating and emotional, while men are usually expected to be self-confident and aggressive.

Domestic behaviors - For example, some people expect that women will take care of the children, cook, and clean the home, while men take care of finances, work on the car, and do the home repairs.

Occupations - Some people are quick to assume that teachers and nurses are women, and that pilots, doctors, and engineers are men.

Physical appearance - For example, women are expected to be thin and graceful, while men are expected to be tall and muscular. Men and women are also expected to dress and groom in ways that are stereotypical to their gender (men wearing pants and short hairstyles, women wearing dresses and make-up.

Hyperfemininity is the exaggeration of stereotyped behavior that's believed to be feminine. Hyperfeminine folks exaggerate the qualities they believe to be feminine. This may include being passive, naive, sexually inexperienced, soft, flirtatious, graceful, nurturing, and accepting.

Hypermasculinity is the exaggeration of stereotyped behavior that's believed to be masculine. Hypermasculine folks exaggerate the qualities they believe to be masculine. They believe they're supposed to compete with other men and dominate feminine folks by being aggressive, worldly, sexually experienced, insensitive, physically imposing, ambitious, and demanding.

These exaggerated gender stereotypes can make relationships between people difficult. Hyperfeminine folks are more likely to endure physical and emotional abuse from their partners. Hypermasculine folks are more likely to be physically and emotionally abusive to their partners.

Extreme gender stereotypes are harmful because they don't allow people to fully express themselves and their emotions. For example, it's harmful to masculine folks to feel that they're not allowed to cry or express sensitive emotions. And it's harmful to feminine folks to feel that they're not allowed to be independent, smart or assertive. Breaking down gender stereotypes allows everyone to be their best selves.

How can I fight gender stereotypes?

You probably see gender stereotypes all around you. You might also have seen or experienced sexism, or discrimination based on gender. There are ways to challenge these stereotypes to help everyone - no matter their gender or gender identity - feel equal and valued as people.

Point it out - Magazines, TV, film, and the Internet are full of negative gender stereotypes. Sometimes these stereotypes are hard for people to see unless they're pointed out. Be that person! Talk with friends and family members about the stereotypes you see and help others understand how sexism and gender stereotypes can be hurtful.

Be a living example - Be a role model for your friends and family. Respect people regardless of their gender identity. Create a safe space for people to express themselves and their true qualities regardless of what society's gender stereotypes and expectations are.

Speak up - If someone is making sexist jokes and comments, whether online or in person, challenge them.

Give it a try - If you want to do something that's not normally associated with your gender, think about whether you'll be safe doing it. If you think you will, give it a try. People will learn from your example.

If you've been struggling with gender or gender identity and expectations, you're not alone. It may help you to talk to a trusted parent, friend, family member, teacher, or counselor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gender Identity & Roles | Feminine Traits & Stereotypes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our society has a set of ideas about how we expect men and women to dress, behave, and present themselves. Gender roles in society means how we're expected to act, speak, dress, groom, and conduct ourselves based upon our assigned sex.

# data[].attributes.body
Muslim women do it because they want to, and they want to follow their religion not because they are oppressed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While some women are forced to cover, there are millions who choose to do so, and it's important to know why
In an era that saw the Free the Nipple Movement rise alongside a broader fight for male and female equality, it's disheartening to witness continued attacks against Muslim women for what they choose to wear.

A lot of people have opinions on hijabs. Whether these opinions are positive or negative ones, they're arguably irrelevant. The most important opinion is that of Muslim women - after all, they're the ones actually wearing the hijabs.

Before I continue, it's important to distinguish the various forms in which Muslim women cover themselves. The burka and niqab are separate from the hijab; the burka covers the entirety of the face, whereas the niqab covers most of the face but leaves slits for the eyes. The hijab only covers the hair, sometimes fully, sometimes not, depending how the wearer chooses to style it. I must confess that I find the niqab and burka oppressive as they take away from an individual's identity. For me, however, the same cannot be said of the hijab.

It's no secret that there are Muslim women who are forced to wear the hijab. In Saudi Arabia and Iran, for example, it's compulsory that women wear the hijab in public. Aside from government-led imposition of the hijab, there are also members of the Muslim community who force the hijab upon their daughters, wives and sisters. In these cases, the hijab is a tool utilized for the oppression of women; forcing the hijab ("forcing" includes any form of coercion, undue encouragement or guilting) infringes upon a woman's freedom to make choices, and therefore, is oppressive. That being said, there are many - indeed, millions - of Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab. It's important to understand not only the fact that some women freely choose to wear it but also why they choose to do so. Establishing these understandings can serve to invalidate generalizations and stereotypes.

For some women, the hijab affords recognition for who they are, not what they look like. This isn't about a safeguard against the lusts of men - it's about the right to assert one's body and spirituality as a woman sees fit. In defense of her own hijab, Ayesha Nusrat put it best when she : "I control what you see, how is that not empowering?" A lot of covered women believe that the media, marketers and a number of others have worked to sexualize and objectify women's bodies. By choosing to wear the hijab, they feel they are actively combatting this by asserting their own will over what others get to see. Modesty has a beauty of its own, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Some people regard covered women as lacking the intellect and bravery to advocate for their rights. In light of this, many Muslim women wearing the hijab have felt inspired to contest these stereotypes. Wanting to be who you are without having to choose between your religion and your rights is undeniably reasonable. The ability to be who you are without reservation, in all facets of life, is empowering. Some women feel most empowered when expressing their faith or exerting control over their own bodies - if the hijab allows for this empowerment, why doubt its validity?

The hijab, for many women who choose to wear it, expresses spirituality along with a personal bond with God. For many covered women, faith is an integral part of their identity that they choose to openly declare through their wardrobe, much like nuns, many Orthodox Jewish women and Greek Orthodox women. Many Muslim women face obstacles when deciding to wear the hijab - specifically, judgment. If it was a tool for oppression, then women wouldn't choose to wear it or subject themselves to the scrutiny, and sometimes violent reactions, from those who would assume those women are oppressed. For the sake of logical consistency, if you don't have a problem with the attire of other religious women who chose to cover, then you shouldn't have a problem with hijab-clad Muslims either.

Muslim women aren't collectively being forced to wear the hijab. My mother considers herself a religious woman, yet my mother and the majority of her family do not choose to cover. That being said, the word "choice" is the paramount term when discussing hijabs. Oppression occurs when an individual's rights and freedom to make choices are taken away. If a woman chooses to wear the hijab for the reasons that covered women are arguing (expressing faith and control over one's own body), you cannot argue that the hijab is oppressing them. That's just illogical. Making the assumption that all covered women are oppressed disparages the women who choose to wear it by belittling the fact that it was a choice, which perpetuates an unjust stereotype regarding Muslim women. If the concern about covered women is oppression, then they should be brought into the conversation when discussing hijabs - their voices should be heard louder than any other voices on this topic.

Muslim women are left vulnerable to oppression by both Muslims and non-Muslims. If the concern is the oppression of Muslim women, non-Muslims shouldn't express this by ridiculing the hijab or ripping it off Muslim women's heads ( frequently ), as this behavior does exactly what was trying to be combated. If you're going to fight for the right of any woman to reveal as much as she wants, then you should also fight for their right to cover as they see fit. As writer Hanna Yusuf has , "There's nothing inherently liberating in covering up, just as there's nothing inherently liberating in wearing next to nothing. But the liberation lies in the choice."
Written by: Hanadi Jordan - hajordan@ucdavis.edu
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
For millions of covered women, the hijab isn't a tool for oppression - The Aggie

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While some women are forced to cover, there are millions who choose to do so, and it's important to know why In an era that saw the Free the Nipple Movement rise alongside a broader fight for male and female equality, it's disheartening to witness continued attacks against Muslim women for what they choose to wear.

# data[].attributes.body
The political activism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What "feminising politics" means has been largely written and discussed in Spain over the past couple of years. The debate, which is still developing, has some axes that can help us understand the difficulties of introducing feminism into politics without first transforming the political institutions and movements themselves from the inside through daily feminist actions in both public and domestic spaces. The level in which women involve and participate in political debates connects with their historical underrepresentation in the public spaces. But what is the scenario like in different parts of Europe? How are the debates around the concepts of 'feminising' or 'feministing politics' and the gender-transformative policies in countries like Spain and Romania? Oana Băluță and Carmen Castro Garcia bring some insights on the topic from two sides of Europe.
European Alternatives: What does feminising politics mean to you?
Oana Băluță: The notion covers both descriptive and substantive gender representation. Feminising descriptive representation means increasing women's presence in decision making while feminising substantive representation strengthens the need to develop a gender inclusive political agenda that will advance women or gender friendly public policies. These approaches should be clearly understood as two ways of feminising politics that can work hand in hand or independently. There have been wide debates concerning the topic, I do not want to add more important nuances now, just to acknowledge their presence either in the academia or political praxis. In my opinion both dimensions are important. Women's descriptive representation needs to increase in politics because women should make decisions that concern their own life and the life of their communities and countries. When women make political decisions they may also advance policies in some fields that concern especially women: gender based violence, work-life balance, sexual and reproductive rights etc. This does not mean that only women can support these types of policies or that only these fields are important for women. I believe there is no need for me to argue how important green policies, measures to fight poverty and to increase employment are for women. At the same time, I want to strengthen a fact grounded in the political experience of my country. When you analyse who have been the proponents of legislative changes in the field of gender violence, we notice that most of them have been women MPs and that advanced the most important changes. The theoretical nuances and the political praxis tells us that it is an ongoing debate that needs to be understood and situated in various country contexts to better reflect on the shape it takes.

When women make political decisions they may also advance policies in some fields that concern especially women: gender based violence, work-life balance, sexual and reproductive rights etc.

European Alternatives: The concept (feminisation of politics) is often misunderstood as quotas for women in political representation rather than a symbolic and cultural transformation of the nature itself of political organising (with a focus, for example, on care work as basis of the production system, on welfare, on organising practices, on language...) What are the main directions that a feminisation of politics should take?
Feminising politics cannot be reduced only to formal politics, but also to activism and community mobilisation. Activists have their own ways and strategies to support representation and the development of an inclusive agenda. To resume, I correlate feminising politics to descriptive and substantive representation, to formal and institutional politics and activism.

Carmen Castro Garcia: In my opinion, the concept itself refers to the result of a higher presence and participation of women in politics. Obviously, when the participation ratio gets even and the representation is increasingly gender-equal, more elements will contribute to the political debate, and practical needs associated to gender roles (and not addressed in the androcentric culture of political organizations) will be brought up. However, thinking that said process will automatically mean a transformation of politics is more a projection of the 'feminist desideratum' than an immediate possibility.

Oana Băluță: Quotas for women address descriptive representation. They are an answer to one problem: gender imbalance in politics or the descriptive masculinisation of politics. Quotas are not a miraculous instrument; they are not a panacea for each and every problem concerning women or gender or the world that we live in. If feminisation of politics means both the political inclusion of women and the inclusion of their interests/needs and perspectives, quotas address the first criteria.
European Alternatives: In what way does feminising politics mean a step towards more justice and inclusion of other oppressed subjects and collectives?

It is reductionist to consider that quotas stand as the ultimate example for the feminisation of politics

It is reductionist to consider that quotas stand as the ultimate example for the feminisation of politics. It is an answer to one problem, and an important one if carefully implemented. Nevertheless, quotas are sometimes used as an instrument by political parties to tackle gender equality while ignoring other demands correlated to gender public policies. I will give you one example, a party may support descriptive representation, and it can embrace a conservative understanding of gender roles and identities. At the same time, it often happens that those opposing quotas focus more on the need to change gender policies, and almost not at all on the gender of representatives. A wide number of studies show the two are correlated in the sense that the gender of representatives does matter in regards to what policies are present on the agenda. We see again how challenging is the relationship between descriptive and substantive representation both on normative grounds, but also in the political life. In my opinion, both approaches that I briefly referred to fail to understand the role of quotas.

Feminisation of politics should address three layers: who makes decisions, policies that are shaped and the political praxis that should value more cooperation, participation and less the confrontational and competitive aspects of politics. The last layer is debatable since critics may argue that women may also be competitive and confrontational. Still, whether it is a feminisation of politics or not or just an outcome of more reasonability, decision makers need to also consider cooperation and solidarity as two landmarks of democracy.

Carmen Castro Garcia: Even though the issue of 'feminizing' politics seems to be activating a very interesting and necessary debate, I argue that for it to be more than a pose, it needs to come with real proposals to depatriarchalize the structure , politics, power, and society. To insist on the idea that by increasing the presence of women in the public sphere and assuming the 'ethics of care' in the functioning of structures we will gain the necessary potential to trigger a real change in them, is to engage on a discursive illusion.
European Alternatives: The Feminisation of politics is definitely a tenet of the change that many "rebel cities" are bringing forward throughout Europe, especially in Spain. In what way the "new municipalities" or local politics are translating or should translate the concept of feminisation of politics into practice?
Oana Băluță: If feminising politics means more than descriptive representation and if the demands of activists become part of the formal political agenda, the answer is yes. Feminists have addressed diversity issues for a number of decades. Feminist ideas/ theoretical approaches and feminist community activism are dedicated to promoting social justice and inclusion not only of women, but also of other vulnerable persons. Think about feminists supporting green causes or fighting poverty or feminists that have been allies of the LGBTQ community. The unity principles of Women's March from 2017 are a good example to understand that feminism is inclusive and nowadays it visibly and publicly addresses different subjects and collectives. These principles address: LGBTQIA+ rights, workers' rights, disability rights, immigrant rights, environmental justice, etc. Show me another ideology or movement that is so inclusive and aware of other oppressed subjects and collectives...

Carmen Castro Garcia: Paritary democracy is necessary for the normalization of democracy, and for social justice. As parity increases, we widen the diversity in politics and rise the possibility of including those who are further from hegemonic masculinity, and have historically been excluded.
Oana Băluță is an Associate Professor on the Faculty of Journalism and Communication Studies at the University of Bucharest and member of the new Initiative Group Demos in Romania. Carmen Castro Garcia holds a PhD in Economics, specialised in Policies and in birth permit systems. She reflect about it in her last book "Políticas de igualdad. Permisos por nacimiento y transformación de los rol This article was first published in the journal of TRANSEUROPA Festival. es de género". You can follow her on Twitter @sinGENEROdDUDAS and on her website http://singenerodedudas.com
European Alternatives: " Feminising" can be a debatable term to define this change in priorities as it may be accused of implying an "essentialised" notion of female characteristics. What's your take on this?

Oana Băluță: The concept of strategic essentialism was introduced in the 1980s by Gayatri Spivak. It is a political tactic that helps, for instance, minority groups, ethnic groups to mobilise on the basis of shared gendered, cultural or political identity. It is sometimes important from a strategic viewpoint to mobilise starting from some "essentialised" features to advance your interests and redesign the political agenda. This does not mean that those shared features define all aspects of the individuals. It is important to be aware of the fact that intersectionality, the term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, is again a very powerful and vivid concept that provoked universalism, racism and sexism. Coming back to the essentialised perception of female characteristics, when I argue that kindergartens and crèches need to be among policy priorities or that women must have access to reproductive rights, I do not believe that women are their bodies or that gender roles are static. Women and men have different gender roles in real lived life (we know about gender socialisation that teaches boys and girls about "their place"). If some roles generate inequality, I think it is our responsibility to advance those policies that will either reduce or eliminate inequality. These policies also reflect a change in priorities towards a "feminised agenda". If I argue for access to safe abortion, this does not mean that giving birth is women's duty. It is a choice and when materialised, I consider it a political responsibility to make sure women have access to safe public maternities. Romania has the highest morality rate in Europe due to cervical cancer. Policies to address the incredibly high mortality rate due to breast cancer or cervical cancer ought to be a priority. Does this mean feminising healthcare policies? It might, but the honest truth is I do not care. I only care for the development of a responsive health strategy that also includes the problems, needs and interests of women.

Carmen Castro Garcia: I don't think the debate should be focused in the idea of 'feminization of politics' because, despite the good intentions, there is a high risk of it being used as an ploy to distract, to reinforce the stereotypically gendered system through the symbolic value of labeling certain skills -desirable in politics- as 'feminine".

We need to directly address the specific inequalities that take place within the political structure, the subtle and not-so-subtle violence mechanisms that are always present, or the playing down of feminists in politics. There has to be zero tolerance to mansplaining in left-wing organizations, to the resistance to direct the public budget to gender equality, and an eradication of femicide, with the active implication of the whole political structure. These are just some aspects of the whole process of de-patriarchalization .

Carmen Castro Garcia: I firmly believe that it is necessary to insist in a change of the symbolic imaginary. Leaderships like Ada Colau's (Barcelona), Manuela Carmena (Madrid), or Mónica Oltra (País Valencià) encourage another way of making politics, closer to everyday life concerns, explicitly dealing with social care; it has to do with the advocacy of public services, such as aid for dependent people, nursery school, nursing homes, and the prevention of male violence. It is obvious that these leaderships encourage a willingness towards these issues, but they do not guarantee that the patriarchal and heteronormative structures will start questioning male privilege, developing feminist politics, or creating a real change in the order of their priorities.

***

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What "feminising politics" means has been largely written and discussed in Spain over the past couple of years. The debate, which is still developing, has some axes that can help us understand the difficulties of introducing feminism into politics without first transforming the political institutions and movements themselves from the inside through daily feminist actions in both public and domestic spaces.

# data[].attributes.body
Its going to be a long road. The progress we make seems to always take steps back.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Roe v. Wade is doomed. So says Washington's latest conventional wisdom. Given the likelihood that President Donald Trump will complete the most conservative Supreme Court majority in generations with his choice to succeed retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, the forecast makes sense.

But conventional wisdom is so frequently wrong (remember Election Day 2016?) that every eruption is worth a second look. As usual, there's plenty to see.

A right-wing majority that goes looking to kill Roe will discover that the landmark decision has been all but dead for years. Roe was never a robust creature; published in 1973 by a 7-to-2 majority, it was more interested in the rights of doctors than the privacy of pregnant women, and it limped along on a frail skeleton of first, second and third trimesters. Its author, Justice Harry Blackmun, could hardly have sketched a more ungainly beast. Roe was to constitutional law what the duck-billed platypus is to evolution.

Roe's weakness was well understood in constitutional circles. So in 1992, three centrist justices performed a sort of taxidermy in a case called Planned Parenthood v. Casey. To preserve the essence of Roe, they replaced its guts with sturdier material.

Casey situated abortion rights more clearly within the broad stream of 14th Amendment protections that cover romantic, family and sexual autonomy. It scrapped Blackmun's trimesters in favor of infant viability outside the womb. It dialed down reverence for doctors while dialing up awareness of burdens placed on women.

In the process, the Casey majority - which included authors personally opposed to abortion - did something rare in Supreme Court rulings. Rather than simply cite the earlier decision as a precedent, Casey put Roe v. Wade on trial, weighing in detail the arguments for and against overturning the ruling.
Column: With Anthony Kennedy retiring, the fate of abortion rights lies with John Roberts " Trump to interview more Supreme Court candidates. Who are the contenders he has met so far? "
After closely examining Roe's constitutional strengths and vulnerabilities, Casey reaffirmed its core holding. Namely: There are limits on the government's power to compel a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. In the early days of a pregnancy, the limits are severe, but the government's power grows as the fetus becomes a viable child. "The woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before viability is ... a rule of law and a component of liberty we cannot renounce," the Casey court held. "On the other side of the equation is the interest of the State in the protection of potential life."

By remodeling and reaffirming Roe, the Casey court raised the stakes for a future majority opposed to abortion rights. Any court cherishing hopes that its own opinions will long endure must pay due respect to the decisions of the past. Casey dug a second trench around the conditional right to abortion. Ever since, justices wishing to attack Roe must go through Casey, too. And "there is a limit to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior Courts," the Casey justices wrote.

To reject the judgments of not one but two past majorities, fully briefed and separated by many years, would undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, Casey argues, reducing the rule of law to little more than the comings and goings of court personnel.

The controlling opinion in Casey is not light reading, but it is lucid, and anyone who reads it carefully will be struck by the difficulty of separating the limited right to an abortion from other zones of individual privacy recognized by the court over the decades. A future majority intent on overturning Roe and Casey will have to confront the logic that led those earlier courts to the hard decisions they reached - reluctantly, in a number of cases. If Americans have rights to choose their romantic and sexual partners and rights to control when and how often they have children, by what Constitutional principles do those rights abruptly end in the moment that a sperm cell fertilizes an egg?

I'm not saying that no such principles can be found, only that the search has flummoxed a majority of justices in the past and won't be easier in the future.

Extracting pre-viability abortion from the fabric of 14th Amendment protections is like extracting one can from the middle of a grocery store pyramid.

Casey also poses the question: To what end? Overturning these precedents would not halt the practice of abortion in the United States. Abortion was legal, and controversial, in many states before 1973, and it would continue to be legal, and controversial, in many states after the Great Reversal. Nothing would be gained in terms of civic unity. But much would be risked in terms of the court's perceived independence from the elected branches of government. The only thing to be gained is a point for one side in the long debate over the proper role of the judiciary.

Will a new majority decide to chalk up that point? Perhaps - but Casey won't make it easy for them.
First published in The Washington Post.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Attacking Roe v. Wade means going through Planned Parenthood v. Casey, too

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Roe v. Wade is doomed. So says Washington's latest conventional wisdom. Given the likelihood that President Donald Trump will complete the most conservative Supreme Court majority in generations with his choice to succeed retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, the forecast makes sense. But conventional wisdom is so frequently wrong (remember Election Day 2016?)