Page 356 of 400
1 354 355 356 357 358 400

La Declaración política de las Naciones Unidas de 2016 pone en buen camino al mundo para acelerar el objetivo de poner fin a la epidemia del sida para el año 2030

Estado Unidos, Ginebra/ 09 junio 2016/Fuente: ONUSIDA

ONUSIDA la da bienvenida a las nuevas metas, objetivos y compromisos adoptados en la Declaración política del 2016 celebrada durante la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas para poner fin al sida. Los países han acordado una agenda urgente sin precedentes para acelerar los esfuerzos que nos permitan poner fin a la epidemia del sida para el año 2030. Esta Declaración política proporciona un mandato mundial para acelerar la respuesta al sida durante los próximos cinco años.

Los líderes mundiales han reconocido que ningún país ha conseguido poner fin al sida y que ninguno puede permitirse rezagarse en la respuesta al sida. Además de la implementación de la Agenda de 2030 para el desarrollo sostenible por parte de los estados miembros, se admitió que poner fin a la epidemia del sida para el 2030 solo sería posible si se alcanzan los objetivos acelerados para el 2020.

En la Declaración política para poner fin al sida: acelerar la respuesta al sida para una rápida acción contra la epidemia del sida y su erradicación en el año 2030, se adoptaron una serie de objetivos y compromisos que guiarán al mundo en la gestión de la crítica relación entre la salud, el desarrollo, la injusticia, la desigualdad, la pobreza y el conflicto.

Una visión común

La Declaración política de 2010 hace un llamamiento a nivel mundial para la consecución de las siguientes metas como forma de respaldar la Agenda de 2030 para el desarrollo sostenible:

  1. Reducir las nuevas infecciones de VIH a un número inferior a 500.000 en todo el mundo para el año 2020.
  2. Reducir las muertes relacionadas con el sida a un número inferior a 500.000 en todo el mundo para el año 2020.
  3. Eliminar el estigma y la discriminación relacionada con el sida para el año 2020.

La Declaración política afirma que estas metas solo pueden alcanzarse a través de un liderazgo sólido y de la participación de las tanto de las personas que viven con el VIH como de las comunidades y de la sociedad civil.

Doblar el número de personas en tratamiento

A finales del año 2015, el número de personas en tratamiento para el VIH alcanzó los 17 millones, lo cual superó la meta establecida para ese mismo año de 15 millones. Los líderes se comprometieron a asegurar que el 90% de las personas que viven con VIH (niños, adolescentes y adultos) conozcan su estado serológico, a que el 90% de las personas que sí lo conocen reciban tratamiento y a que el 90% de las personas que ya lo reciben supriman la carga viral.

Los países han expresado también su compromiso para tratar urgentemente las bajas tasas de cobertura entre los niños que viven con VIH.

  1. Implementar el objetivo de tratamiento 90–90–90 para asegurar que los 30 millones de personas que viven con VIH tengan acceso a tratamiento para el año 2020.
  2. Asegurar que el 1,6 millón de niños que viven con VIH tengan acceso a tratamiento para el año 2018.

Acelerar el alcance de la prevención

Los objetivos de prevención del VIH animan a los países a promover el acceso a servicios de VIH completos y adecuados tanto para las mujeres adultas como para las adolescentes, las niñas, así como también a las poblaciones clave: trabajadoras sexuales, hombres que mantienen relaciones sexuales con otros hombres, usuarios de drogas inyectables, personas transgénero y convictos. Se procurará por todos los medios intensificar el alcance de los servicios de prevención en aquellos lugares con mayor tasa de trasmisión de VIH, lugares en los que la población cuenta con un mayor riesgo de contagio.

La Declaración política reconoce la importancia de la localización y la población, ya que la epidemia no es igual en todos los países y en todas las regiones, motivo por el que anima a que las regiones actúen y establezcan objetivos regionales para prevenir y tratar a niños, jóvenes y adultos. Estos objetivos incluyen:

  1. Proporcionar servicios de prevención completos, entre los que se incluye la reducción de daño, a chicas adolescentes y las poblaciones clave para el año 2020.
  2. Proporcionar a los 3 millones de personas que tienen mayor riesgo tratamiento de profilaxis pre-exposición para el año 2020.
  3. Proporcionar circuncisión voluntaria a los 25 millones de hombres jóvenes que viven en áreas con alto porcentaje de VIH, así como proporcionar a los países de rentas bajas y medias 20.000 millones de condones para el año 2020.

La Declaración política, a pesar de todo, no logra darles la visibilidad necesaria a las poblaciones clave más afectadas de las distintas regiones.

Detener las nuevas infecciones entre niños

El compromiso a eliminar las nuevas infecciones entre niños, y a asegurar la salud y el bien estar de sus madres es una promesa renovada en la nueva Declaración política. Se subraya la importancia de asegurar que las madres tienen acceso inmediato a terapia antirretrovírica de por vida.

  1. Eliminar las nuevas infecciones de VIH entre niños mediante la reducción de dichas infecciones en un 9% en cada región para el año 2020.

Nuevo enfoque para las mujeres, adolescentes, muchachas y la igualdad de género

Dos mil nuevas infecciones tienen lugar todos los días entre los jóvenes, lo cual supone un tercio de todas ellas, pero solo el 28% de las mujeres jóvenes tienen información precisa acerca del VIH. Los líderes se han comprometido a apoyar y empoderar a los jóvenes para que desempeñen un papel crítico en cuanto al liderazgo de la respuesta al sida mediante la promoción de sus derechos a la sanidad y a una educación sexual completa que incluya la educación reproductiva y la prevención del virus. La Declaración política también reconoce la importancia del acceso universal a la salud reproductiva, así como a sus derechos.

Los líderes han hecho especial hincapié en tratar los inmensos obstáculos relacionados con la epidemia del sida y las mujeres, especialmente las jóvenes y adolescentes del África subsahariana.

La Declaración política se compromete a alcanzar la igualdad de género, a invertir en el liderazgo de las mujeres y a poner fin a toda forma de violencia y discriminación contra las mujeres y jóvenes como manera de incrementar su capacidad para protegerse del VIH. Para ello, es indispensable la participación tanto de hombres adultos como de jóvenes.

  1. Reducir por debajo de 100.000 el número anual de chicas adolescentes y jóvenes de entre 15 y 24 años que se contagian al año en todo el mundo para el año 2020.
  2. Eliminar las desigualdades, violencia y abuso de género.
  3. Poner fin a todo tipo de violencia y discriminación contra mujeres y niñas, como la violencia doméstica o el abuso sexual, entre los que se incluye un marco de actuación humanitario efectivo durante y después del conflicto.
  4. Promover y apoyar el liderazgo de los jóvenes, y fomentar una educación sexual completa sobre la salud reproductiva que proteja sus derechos humanos.

La Declaración política, no obstante, ha dejado (en cierta manera) de incluir objetivos explícitos para dicha educación sexual completa, a pesar de que la principal forma de trasmisión del virus es sexual. En el África subsahariana, más del 98% de las nuevas infecciones son por trasmisión sexual. La Declaración política excluye los derechos sexuales, incluye el derecho a la información, a la autonomía, al consentimiento y a la no discriminación, lo cual es un pilar esencial para una efectiva respuesta al sida.

El derecho a la salud, un derecho para todos en todos lados

La Declaración reconoce que el progreso en cuanto a la protección y promoción de los derechos humanos de las personas que viven con VIH o que tienen riesgo de contagio ha estado lejos de ser adecuado, y que la violación de los derechos humanos todavía es un gran obstáculo en la respuesta al sida. Los estados miembros se han comprometido a revisar y reformar la legislación que pueda generar barreras o reforzar el estigma y la discriminación, así como a promover el acceso a servicios sanitarnos libres de discriminación, especialmente para las poblaciones con mayor riesgo de contagio (trabajadores sexuales, hombres que mantienen relaciones sexuales con otros hombres, usuarios de drogas inyectables, personas transgénero y convictos).

  1. Revisar y reformar aquellas leyes que refuercen el estigma y la discriminación, restrinjan el acceso a los servicios y a la movilidad, la comprobación obligatoria del estado serológico y las leyes penales relacionadas con la confidencialidad del VIH, su exposición y trasmisión para el año 2020.
  2. Eliminar las barreras (incluido el estigma y la discriminación) en los entornos sanitarios para el año 2020.
  3. Reforzar los sistemas de protección social nacional para niños con el fin de asegurar que, para el año 2020, el 75% de las personas que viven con el VIH, tienen riesgo de contagio o se ven afectadas por él pueden beneficiarse de protección social a este respecto.

Sacar al sida del aislamiento

La Declaración política afirma que la respuesta al sida incentivará el progreso a lo largo de toda la Agenda de 2030 por el desarrollo sostenible. Hace un llamamiento universal para la cobertura sanitaria y el acceso a la protección social. Al adoptar objetivos que van más allá del VIH, los estados miembros enfatizan en la importancia continua de integrar un enfoque amplio que contemple diversas cuestiones sanitarias como la tuberculosis, la hepatitis B y C, el cáncer de útero, el papiloma humano, las enfermedades no transmitibles y aquellas enfermedades que estén volviendo a brotar.

  1. Reducir el número de muertes relacionadas con el sida y la tuberculosis en un 75% para el año 2020.
  2. Proporcionar tratamiento al 90% de las personas que padecen tuberculosis (entre las que se incluye el 90% de las poblaciones que tienen mayor riesgo de contagio) y alcanzar una tasa de éxito de tratamiento de al menos un 90% para el año 2020.
  3. Reducir en un 30% los nuevos casos de hepatitis crónica viral B y C para el año 2020.
  4. Proporcionar tratamiento para los 5 millones de personas que tienen hepatitis B y a los 3 millones de personas que tienen hepatitis C crónica para el año 2020.

Financiar el fin del sida

Para asegurar que se alcanzan todos estos objetivos, los líderes han adoptado compromisos ambiciosos y concretos para una financiación y asignación efectiva de la implementación de la respuesta al sida acelerada. Los estados miembros también pidieron 13.000 millones de dólares estadounidenses para la reconstitución del Fondo mundial de lucha contra el sida, la tuberculosis y el paludismo. Los estados miembros también arengaron a un mayor compromiso estratégico por parte del sector privado para que apoye a los países mediante inversiones y prestación de servicios con el fin de reforzar la cadena de proveedores, las iniciativas de trabajo, la mercadotecnia social de productos sanitarios y el cambio de actitud.

  1. Incrementar las inversiones anticipadas para aminorar las diferencias de recursos mediante la inversión anual mínima de 26.000 millones de dólares estadounidenses para la respuesta al sida para 2020.
  2. Invertir al menos un cuarto del gasto capital de ONUSIDA en la prevención del VIH y dedicar como mínimo el 6% de los recursos totales en actores sociales (entre los que se incluyen abogacía, movilización política y de comunidades, control comunitario, programas de alcance y comunicación pública) para el año 2020, así como asegurar que al menos el 30% de toda la prestación de servicios está gestionada por las comunidades para el año 2020.
  3. Abordar las regulaciones, políticas y prácticas que impidan el acceso al diagnóstico, tratamiento y tecnologías sanitarias asequibles y de calidad (de entre las que se incluyen el uso íntegro de las flexibilidades del Acuerdo sobre los Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual relacionados con el Comercio (ADPIC), y también reforzar la capacidad local y regional de desarrollo, manufacturación y entrega de productos sanitarios asequibles.

Responsabilidad y sostenibilidad

Los miembros estado han adoptado una serie de compromisos con el objetivo de mejorar el control y la responsabilidad para, de esta manera, conseguir una participación más activa de las personas que viven con el VIH, están afectadas por él o tienen riesgo de contagio. Dichos compromisos apelan a la Secretaría general de las Naciones Unidas —junto con el apoyo de ONUSIDA— a que continúen proporcionando revisiones anuales a la Asamblea general. Así pues, se ha decidido que se reunirán en la Reunión de alto nivel para poner fin al sida para comprobar el progreso de la respuesta al sida con respecto a sus dimensiones sociales, económicas y políticas. La Declaración política también apela a los estados miembros para asegurar que las Naciones Unidas y ONUSIDA reúnen los requisitos para cumplir con la Agenda de 2030 por el desarrollo sostenible.

Además, se ha animado también a las partes interesadas de ONUSIDA a que aumenten la presión para solventar los obstáculos más arraigados y a que aseguren que la Declaración política puede cumplir con su papel como instrumento para la dignidad y la justicia social.

Fuente noticia:

http://www.unaids.org/es/resources/presscentre/pressreleaseandstatementarchive/2016/june/20160608_PS_HLM_PoliticalDeclaration

Fuente imagen:

http://tn.com.ar/salud/actitud/en-argentina-el-30-de-las-personas-con-vih-desconocen-el-diagnostico_679166

 

Comparte este contenido:

Anti-Politics and the Plague of Disorientation: Welcome to the Age of Trump

«Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have.»
— James Baldwin

The Greek chorus has finally been heard in that both the left and right are now calling Donald Trump a fascist or neo-fascist. Pundits and journals across the ideological spectrum now compare Trump to Hitler and Mussolini or state he is an unbridled tyrant. For example, the liberal magazine Slate finds common ground with the conservative journal National Review in denouncing Trump as a tyrant, while liberals such as former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and the actor George Clooney join hands with conservatives such as Andrew Sullivan and Robert Kagan in arguing that Trump represents a loud echo if not a strong register of a fascist past, updated to correlate with the age of reality TV and a fatuous celebrity culture. While such condemnations contain a shred of truth, they only scratch the surface of the conditions that have produced the existing political landscape. Such arguments too often ignore the latent authoritarian and anti-democratic forces that have a long legacy in US politics and society.

For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election section, «Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016.»

Unfortunately, recognizing that the United States is about to tip over the edge into the abyss of authoritarianism is not enough. There is a need to understand the context — historical, cultural, political and economic — that has created this moment in US society in which fascism becomes an endpoint. Trump is only symptomatic of the problem, and condemning him exclusively does nothing to contain it. Moreover, such arguments often ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton is the underside of the new neoliberal oligarchy, which indulges some progressive issues but is indebted ideologically and politically to a criminogenic culture of finance, racism and war. Put differently, she represents a less obscene, less in-your-face form of authoritarianism — hardly a viable alternative to Trump.

Capitalism, racism, consumerism and patriarchy feed off each other and are mobilized largely through a notion of common sense.

Maybe this is all understandable in a corporate-controlled neoliberal society that uses new communication technologies that erase history by producing a notion of time wedded to a culture of immediacy, speed, simultaneity and endless flows of fragmented knowledge. As Manuel Castells writes in Communication Power, this is a form of «digital-time» in which everything that happens only takes place in the present, a time that «has no past and no future.» Time is accelerated in this new information-saturated culture, and it also flattens out «experience, competence, and knowledge,» and the capacity for informed judgment. Time has thus been transformed to provide the ideological support that neoliberal values and a fast-food, temp-worker economy require to survive.

A Culture of Forgetting and Lies

Language has also been transformed to produce and legitimate a culture of forgetting that relishes in a flight from responsibility. Capitalism, racism, consumerism and patriarchy feed off each other and are mobilized largely through a notion of common sense, which while being contested as a site of ideological struggle shows little sign of losing its power as a pedagogical force. As a result, we are living through an ongoing crisis of democracy in which both the agents and institutions necessary for such social order are being dismantled at an accelerating rate in the face of a massive assault by predatory capitalism, even while there is growing resistance to the impending authoritarianism. It gets worse.

We live in a moment of political change in which democratic public spheres are disappearing before our eyes.

We live in a moment of political change in which democratic public spheres are disappearing before our eyes, language is turned into a weapon and ideology is transformed into an act of hate, fear, racism and destruction — all of which is informed by a dark history of political intolerance and ethnic cleansing. The war on democracy has produced both widespread misery and suffering and finds its ideological counterpart in a culture of cruelty that has become normalized.

To read more articles by Henry A. Giroux and other authors in the Public Intellectual Project, click here.

The bankers, hedge fund managers, financial elite and CEOs who rule the United States’ commanding institutions have become the modern version of Mr. Kurtz in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. As Hannah Arendt describes them in The Origins of Totalitarianism, citing Conrad: «‘these men were hollow to the core, reckless without hardihood, greedy without audacity and cruel without courage …’ the only talent that could possibly burgeon in their hollow souls was the gift of fascination which makes a splendid leader of an extreme party.»

In the age of Trump, anticipation no longer imagines a better world but seems mired in a dystopian dread, mimicking the restlessness, chaos and uncertainty that precedes a historical moment no longer able to deal with its horrors and on the verge of a terrible catastrophe. We now live in a time in which mainstream politics sheds its ideals and falls prey to choices that resemble a stacked deck of cards and mimic the values of an authoritarian society. All the while politics is being hollowed out as lawlessness and misdirected rage, while a loss of faith in electoral politics has given rise to a right-wing populism that is more than willing to dispense with democracy itself.

Demands to support Hillary Clinton as a lesser evil compared to Trump refuse to acknowledge that such mandates keep existing relations of power intact. Such actions represent more than a hollowing out of politics — they represent a refusal of the affirmative nature of political struggle. They also represent the surrender of any hope of moving beyond the enveloping fog of authoritarianism and a broken political system. Put bluntly, such choices sabotage any real hope for developing a new politics and a radical democracy. These limited choices also undermine the need to develop a broader vision of struggle, a comprehensive politics and the need to engage multiple publics in the quest to rethink the political terrain outside of a neoliberal notion of the future. At issue here is the moral blight that permeates the United States: a politics of the lowest expectations, one saturated in lies, deceptions and acts of bad faith.

Historical memory is saturated with the lies of mainstream politicians. The list is too lengthy to develop but extends from the Gulf of Tonkin falsehoods that led to the Vietnam War to the lies that produced the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, which have left 1.3 million dead. As documented by Elizabeth Hinton in From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America, the politics of lying by politicians and their intellectual collaborators fueled a regressive neoliberal war on poverty and crime that morphed into a racist war on the poor and helped produce the carceral state under Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Clinton.

We now are approaching a moment in US history in which truth is either viewed as a liability or ignored.

In addition, during the Obama administration, the politics of hope quickly became a politics without hope, functioning to legitimate and accelerate a flight from social responsibility that provided a blank check for Obama’s refusal to prosecute government officials who engaged in egregious acts of torture, to conduct immoral drone attacks, to expand the nuclear arsenal and to display a cold indifference to the criminal environment of Wall Street. All of this adds up to a notion of politics partly driven by a culture of ignorance and lying that has surpassed previous historical eras, marking an entry into what Toronto Star reporter Olivia Ward calls a «post-truth universe.» In this instance, the politics of performance denigrates language and shamelessly indulges a culture in which the truth is sacrificed to shouting, dirty tricks and spin doctors.

We now are approaching a moment in US history in which truth is either viewed as a liability or ignored; at the same time, lies become more plausible, because as Hannah Arendt argued in Crises of the Republic, «the liar has the great advantage of knowing beforehand what the audience wishes or expects to hear.» Lying is now the currency of mainstream politicians and finds its counterpart in the Wild West of talk radio, cable television and the mainstream media. Under such conditions, referentiality and truth disappear along with contexts, causes, evidence and informed judgment. A manufactured ignorance and the terrifying power and infusion of money in politics and society have corrupted democratic principles and civic life. A combination of arrogance, power and deceit among the financial elite is exemplified by Donald Trump, who has repeatedly lied about his business transactions, his former misdeeds with the media, the number of Latinos who support him and the claim he personally hired instructors for Trump University.

Desperation among many segments of the American public has become personal, furthering a generalized anger ripe for right-wing populism or worse. One consequence is that xenophobia and economic insecurity couple with ignorance and a collective rage to breed the conditions for symbolic and real violence, as we have seen at many Trump rallies. When language is emptied of any substance and politics loses its ability to hold power accountable, the stage is set for a social order that allows poor Black and Brown youth to continue to be objects of domestic terrorism, and provides a cover for corporate and political criminals to ravage the earth and loot the public treasury. In the age of Trump, truth becomes the enemy of governance and politics tips over into a deadly malignancy.

One thing about the political impasse facing the American public is that it finds itself in a historical moment in which language is losing its potential for imagining the unimaginable, confronting words, images and power relations that are in the service of violence, hatred and racism — this is the moment in which meaning slips into slogans, thought is emptied of substance and ideas descend into platitudes and sound bites. This is an instant in which the only choices are between political narratives that represent the hard and soft versions of authoritarianism — narratives that embrace neo-fascism on the one side and a warmongering neoliberal worldview on the other.

This is the age of a savage capitalism, one that the director Ken Loach insists produces a «conscious cruelty.» The evidence is everywhere, not only in the vulgar blustering of Donald Trump and Fox News, but also in the language of the corporate-controlled media apparatuses that demonize and prey on the vulnerable and proclaim the primacy of self-interest over the common good, reinforce a pathological individualism, enrich themselves in ratings rooted in a never-ending spectacle of violence and legitimate a notion of freedom that collapses into the scourge of privatization and atomization.

A New Language of Liberation

The left and other progressives need a new language to enable us to rethink politics, develop a militant sense of hope, embrace an empowering sense of solidarity and engage a willingness to think outside of established political orthodoxies that serve the global financial elite. We need a new vocabulary that refuses to be commodified, and declines to look away — a language that as the brilliant writer Maaza Mengiste argues «will take us from shock and stunned silence toward a coherent, visceral speech, one as strong as the force that is charging at us.»

In the age of Trump, truth becomes the enemy of governance and politics tips over into a deadly malignancy.

Progressives need a vocabulary that moves people, allows them to feel compassion for the other and gives them the courage to talk back. We need a vocabulary that enables us to confront a sense of responsibility in the face of the unspeakable, and do so with a sense of dignity, self-reflection and the courage to act in the service of a radical democracy. We need a vocabulary that allows us to recognize ourselves as agents, not victims, in the discourse of radical democratic politics. Of course, there is more at stake here than a struggle over meaning; there is also the struggle over power, over the need to create a formative culture that will produce new modes of critical agency and contribute to a broad social movement that will translate meaning into a fierce struggle for economic, political and social justice.

What happens to language when it is reduced to a vehicle for violence? What does it take for a society to strip language of its emancipatory power and reduce it, as Mengiste states, to «a rhetoric of desperation and devastation molded into the incomprehensible, then vomited out in images and words that we cannot ignore though we have tried»? What does it mean to define language as a tool — rather than a weapon of domination — in the service of economic and political justice? What institutions do we need to sustain and create to make sure that in the face of the unspeakable we can resist and hold power accountable? Language is part of public memory, informed, in part, by «traces» that allow oppressed people to narrate themselves as part of a broad collective struggle, as we see happening with the Black Lives Matter movement, among other emerging social movements. That is, suppressed histories of violence become visible in such stories and form part of a genealogy that puts current acts of violence in perspective. For instance, capital punishment is framed within the historical context of slavery, lynchings and the emerging violence of a police state.

Domination in the Age of Trump

The hate-filled, xenophobic and racist dialectic among language, images and the stories produced in the age of Trump constitutes one of the most pernicious forms of domination because it takes as its object subjectivity itself: This dialectic empties subjectivity of any sense of critical agency, turning people into spectators, customers and consumers. Identities have become commodities, and agency an object of struggle by the advertising and the corporate elite. After 50 years of a neoliberal culture of taking, unbridled individualism, militaristic violence and a self-righteous indifference to the common good, the demands of citizenship have not merely weakened, but they have been practically obliterated. In their book Babel, Zygmunt Bauman and Ezio Mauro speak to the denigration of politics and citizen rights in an age of generalized rage and emerging right-wing populism. They write:

The «culture of taking,» divorced from all rights-duties of giving and of contributing positively, is not merely a reduction of citizenship relations to a bare minimum: it is actually perfectly instrumental to a populist and charismatic simplification of politics and leadership, or rather a post-modern interpretation of a right-wing tradition, in which the leader is the demiurge who can work out public issues by himself, freeing citi­zens from the burden of their general civic duties, and leaving them to the solitary sovereignty of their privacy, spurring them to participate not in national political events but in single outbursts of collective emotional reaction, triggered by the oversimplification of love and hate on which populism feeds.

The fusion of culture, power and politics has produced a society marked by a flight from political and social responsibility. In an age in which five or six corporations dominate the media landscape and produce the stories that shape our lives, the democratic fabric of trust evaporates, public virtues give way to a predatory form of casino capitalism and thought is limited to a culture of the immediate. Politics is now performance, a kind of anti-politics wedded to the spectacle.

As Mark Danner points out in The New York Review of Books, much of Trump’s success and image stems from his highly successful role on The Apprentice as «the business magus, the grand vizier of capitalism, the wise man of the boardroom, a living confection whose every step and word bespoke gravitas and experience and power and authority and … money. Endless amounts of money.» Not only did The Apprentice at its height in 2004 have an audience of 20.7 million, catapulting Trump into reality TV stardom, but Trump’s fame played a large role in attracting 24 million people to tune in and watch him in his initial debate with a host of largely unheard of Republican politicians.

Corporate media love Donald Trump. He is the perfect embodiment of the spectacle that drives up their ratings. Danner observes that Trump is «a ratings extravaganza» capable of delivering «audiences as no other candidate ever has or could.» A point that is well taken given «that the networks have lavished upon him $2 billion worth of airtime.» According to Danner, Trump’s willingness to embrace ignorance over critical reasoning offers him an opportunity not to «let ‘political correctness’ prevent him [from] making sexist and bigoted remarks, … [while reveling in and reinforcing] his fans’ euphoric enjoyment of their hero’s reveling in the pleasures of free speech,» and his addiction to lying as an established part of the anti-politics of performance and showmanship.

Beyond a «Lesser of Two Evils» Political Framework

The American left and progressives have no future if they cannot imagine a new language that moves beyond the dead-end politics of the two-party system and explores how to build a broad-based social movement to challenge it. One fruitful beginning would be to confront the fact that our society is burdened not only by the violence of neoliberalism but also by the myth that capitalism and democracy are the same thing. Capitalism cannot rectify wage stagnation among large segments of the population, the growing destruction of the ecosystem, the defunding of public and higher education, the decline in life expectancy among the poor and middle classes, police violence against Black youth, the rise of the punishing state, the role of money in corrupting politics, and the widening gap in income and wealth between the very rich and everyone else.

If some elements of the left and progressives are to shift the terms of the debate that shape US politics, they will also have to challenge much of what passes for neoliberal common sense. That means challenging the anti-government rhetoric and the notion that citizens are simply consumers, that freedom is largely defined through self-interest and that the market should govern all of social life. It means challenging the celebration of the possessive individual and atomized self, and debunking the claim that inequality is intrinsic to society, among others. And this is just a beginning.

Politics is now performance, a kind of anti-politics wedded to the spectacle.

When the discourse of politics amounts to a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, we enter a world in which the language of fundamental, radical, democratic, social and economic change disappears. What liberals and others trapped in a lesser-of-two-evils politics forget is that elections no longer capture the popular imagination, because they are rigged and driven by the wealth of the financial elite. Elections bear no relationship to real change and offer instead the mirage or swindle of real choice. Moreover, changing governments results in very little real change when it comes to the concentration of power and the decimation of the commons and public good. At the same time, politicians in the age of reality TV embody Neil Postman’s statement inAmusing Ourselves to Death that «cosmetics has replaced ideology» and has helped to usher in the age of authoritarianism. Power hides in the dictates of common sense and wields destruction and misery through the «innocent criminals» who produce austerity policies and delight in a global social order dominated by precarity, fear, anxiety and isolation.

What happens when politics turns into a form of entertainment that washes out all that matters? What happens to mainstream society when the dominant and more visible avenues of communication encourage and legitimate a mode of infantilism that becomes the modus operandi of newscasters, and trivia becomes the only acceptable mode of narration? What happens when compassion is treated as a pathology and the culture of cruelty becomes a source of humor and an object of veneration? What happens to a democracy when it loses all semblance of public memory and the welfare state and social contract are abandoned in order to fill the coffers of bankers, hedge fund managers and the corporate elite? What are the consequences of turning higher education into an «assets to debt swapping regime» that will burden students with paying back loans in many cases until they are in their 40s and 50s? What happens when disposable populations are brushed clean from our collective conscience, and are the object of unchecked humiliation and disdain by the financial elite? As Zygmunt Bauman points out in Babel: «How much capitalism can a democracy endure?»

What language and public spheres do we need to make hope realistic and a new politics possible? What will it take for progressives to move beyond a deep sense of political disorientation? What does politics mean in the face of an impending authoritarianism when the conversation among many liberals and some conservatives is dominated by a call to avoid electing an upfront demagogue by voting instead for Hillary Clinton, a warmonger and neoliberal hawk who denounces political authoritarianism while supporting a regime of financial tyranny? What does resistance mean when it is reduced to a call to participate in rigged elections that reproduce a descent into an updated form of oligarchy, and condemns millions to misery and no future, all the while emptying out politics of any substance?

Instead of tying the fortunes of democracy to rigged elections we need nonviolent, massive forms of civil disobedience. We need to read Howard Zinn, among others, once again to remind ourselves where change comes from, making clear that it does not come from the top but from organized social formations and collective struggles. It emerges out of an outrage that is organized, collective, fierce, embattled and willing to fight for a society that is never just enough. The established financial elites who control both parties have been exposed and the biggest problem Americans face is that the crisis of ideas needs to be matched by an informed politics that refuses the old orthodoxies, thinks outside of the box, and learns to act individually and collectively in ways that address the unthinkable, the improbable, the impossible — a new future.

As politics is reduced to a carnival of unbridled narcissism, deception, spectacle and overloaded sensation, an anti-politics emerges that unburdens people of any responsibility to challenge the fundamental precepts of a society drenched in corruption, inequality, racism and violence. This anti-politics also removes many individuals from the most relevant social, moral and political bonds. This is especially tragic at a historical moment marked by an endless chain of horrors and a kind of rootlessness that undermines all foundations and creates an uncertainty of unprecedented scale. Fear, insecurity and precarity now govern our lives, rendering even more widespread feelings of loneliness, powerlessness and existential dread.

Instead of tying the fortunes of democracy to rigged elections we need nonviolent, massive forms of civil disobedience.

Under such circumstances, established politics offers nothing but scorn, if not an immense disregard for the destruction of all viable bonds of solidarity, and the misery that accompanies such devastation. Zygmunt Bauman and Ezio Mauro are right in arguing, in their book Babel, that we live at a time in which feeling no responsibility means rejecting any sense of critical agency and refusing to recognize the bonds we have with others. Time is running out, and more progressives and people on the left need to wake up to the discourse of refusal, and join those who are advocating for radical social and structural transformation. This is not merely an empty abstraction, because it means thinking politics anew with young people, diverse social movements, unions, educators, environmentalists and others concerned about the fate of humanity.

It is crucial to acknowledge that we live in a historical conjuncture in which the present obliterates the past and can only think about the future in dystopian terms. It is time to unpack the ideological and structural mechanisms that keep the war machine of capitalism functioning. It is also time to recognize that there are no shortcuts to addressing the anti-democratic forces now wrecking havoc on US society. The ideologies, grammar and structures of domination can only be addressed as part of a long-term collective struggle.

The good news is that the contradictions and brutality of casino capitalism are no longer invisible, a new language about inequality is being popularized, poor Black and Brown youth are battling against state violence, and people are waking up to the danger of ecological devastation and the increased potential for a nuclear apocalypse. What is needed is a new democratic vision, a radical imaginary, short-term and long-term strategies, and a broad-based social movement to act on such a vision.

Such a vision is already being articulated in a variety of ways: Michael Lerner’s call for a new Marshall Plan; Stanley Aronowitz’s call for reviving a radical labor movement; my call for making education central to politics and the development of a broad-based social movement; Angela Davis’ call for abolishing capital punishment and the mass incarceration system; Nancy Fraser and Wendy Brown’s important work on dismantling neoliberalism; the ongoing work of Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi of the Black Lives Matter movement to develop a comprehensive politics that connects police violence with other forms of state violence; Gene Sharp’s strategies for civil disobedience against authoritarian states; and the progressive agendas for a radical democracy developed by Salvatore Babones are just a few of the theoretical and practical resources available to galvanize a new understanding of politics and collective resistance.

In light of the terror looming on the political horizon, let’s hope that radical thought and action will live up to their potential and not be reduced to a regressive and pale debate over electoral politics. Hope means living without illusions and being fully aware of the practical difficulties and risks involved in meaningful struggles for real change, while at the same time being radically optimistic.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

HENRY A. GIROUX

Henry A. Giroux currently is the McMaster University Professor for Scholarship in the Public Interest and The Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical Pedagogy. He also is a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Ryerson University. His most recent books include The Violence of Organized Forgetting (City Lights, 2014), Dangerous Thinking in the Age of the New Authoritarianism (Routledge, 2015) and  coauthored with Brad Evans, Disposable Futures: The Seduction of Violence in the Age of Spectacle (City Lights, 2015). Giroux is also a member of Truthout’s Board of Directors. His website is www.henryagiroux.com.

Comparte este contenido:

Estados Unidos: Escuelas y política armamentista

Estados Unidos/ 08 junio 2016/Autor: Normand García/Fuente:El Sol de Yakima

Un mayor número de centros educativos están permitiendo que sus empleados enseñen armados como medida adicional de seguridad. La polémica “medida armamentista” busca ser la primera fuente de respuesta ante un ataque armado y neutralizar al agresor para salvaguardar la vida de los estudiantes, el personal académico y administrativo. Sin embargo, siguen existiendo dudas sobre la eficacia de esta extrema medida.

En septiembre de 2014, el Distrito Escolar de Toppenish se convirtió en el primero del Condado de Yakima en adoptar un régimen armamentista, luego de permitir a 12 de sus empleados académicos poder portar armas de fuego ocultas en sus prendas de vestir. Ahora, la cifra es 18, incluyendo al superintendente escolar John Cerna.

A fines de abril, Perry Technical Institute, un plantel de educación superior técnico, conocido popularmente como “Perry Tech”, adoptó la misma disposición. Asimismo, otros tres distritos escolares del valle están evaluando seguir el mismo camino.

El Distrito Escolar de Naches Valley, el Distrito Escolar de Granger y La Salle High School, en Union Gap, han expresado interés por estudiar los pros y contras de armar a sus educadores.

El debate sobre la política armamentista en centros de enseñanza surgió después de dos trágicos hechos que conmocionaron —y enlutaron— a todo el país.

El 14 de diciembre de 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School, en Newtown, Connecticut, fue el epicentro de un lamentable ataque bélico que les costó la vida a 20 niños y seis adultos. El asesino, Adam Lanza, era un desequilibrado mental que terminó matándose después del atentado.

El 16 de abril de 2007, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, conocido como Virginia Tech, también fue escenario de una masacre. Aquella tarde de primavera, un estudiante surcoreano, Seung-Hui Cho, asesinó a sangre fría a 32 personas para luego quitarse la vida.

Es entendible que los centros de enseñanza, observando las trágicas circunstancias que han sembrado terror y muertes en el país en los últimos años, busquen mejorar sus sistemas de seguridad. Pero ¿es correcto armar a los educadores como un esfuerzo por evitar este tipo de tragedias?.

Los simpatizantes de la medida de Toppenish argumentan que en el supuesto caso de un ataque a sus centros educativos, la respuesta de la policía podría tardar porque se encuentran ubicadas en áreas rurales, y ese tiempo perdido podría costar vidas. En ese caso, los administradores y educadores armados podrían ser la primera fuente de repeler el ataque hasta la llegada de la policía.

Los ataques en las escuelas son una preocupación nacional que debe resolverse incrementando el presupuesto en los estándares de seguridad, monitoreo y vigilancia. Algunas escuelas necesitarán contratar más guardias de seguridad armados e instalar detectores de metales en las entradas.

Los profesores, por el contrario, deben estar armados con conocimiento y listos para disparar una ráfaga de intelecto, creatividad y afecto a sus estudiantes.

Fuente noticia:

http://elsoldeyakima.com/

Fuente imagen:

http://www.impactony.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/gun10f.jpg

 

Comparte este contenido:

Estados Unidos: Black students in US nearly four times as likely to be suspended as white students

Estados Unidos/08 de Junio de 2016/The Guardian

Resumen: Los estudiantes negros son casi cuatro veces más probabilidades de ser suspendidos que blancos, según los nuevos datos federales . La encuesta bianual de barrido de más de 50 millones de estudiantes por el Departamento de Educación de Estados Unidos encontró que las suspensiones en general han disminuido drásticamente en casi un 20 % entre las 2011-12 y 2013-14 años escolares .

Chronic absenteeism reduces the likelihood of reading on a grade level by third grade, said Robert Balfanz, director of the Everyone Graduates Center at Johns Hopkins University. Photograph: Alamy

Black students are nearly four times as likely to be suspended as white students, according to new federal data.

The sweeping bi-annual survey of more than 50 million students by the US Department of Education found that suspensions overall have dramatically decreased by nearly 20% between the 2011-12 and 2013-14 school years.

But the data revealed a discrepancy between suspension rates across demographics. As early as preschool, black children are 3.6 times as likely to receive one or more suspensions as white children. According to the data, black girls represent 20% of female preschool enrollment, but account for 54% of preschool children suspensions. Black students were also twice as likely to be expelled as white students.

Liz King, director of education policy at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said the findings on discipline for black preschool children were “disturbing”.

“We wonder what message that sends to those four-year-olds about their value in the school,” King said.

The new data collection highlighted issues not covered in previous years by the education department, including chronic student absenteeism and the lack of resource officers in some schools.

Though 95% of high school students have access to at least one school counselor, the data found more than 20% of schools have none. What’s more, 1.6 million students attend a school with a police officer but no school counselor.

King said the lack of counselors reinforces the fact that inequities exist across public schools. “Schools should be equalizers of opportunity but instead we’re seeing them reinforce inequity.”

The federal government has collected and published findings on civil rights data from schools since 1968. As it did for 2011-12, the data collection covered more than 50 students enrolled from nearly every school across the US.

The findings came ahead of initiatives from the US education and housing and urban development departments to boost diversity in schools. The agencies on Wednesday will host an educational policy session.

Related:New report is ‘huge warning sign’ that desegregation has failed in US schools

“Diversity benefits all students in schools,” John King Jr, the US education secretary, said in a statement. “Our schools, as well as our communities, should reflect the increasing diversity in our nation.”

The education department’s new data also for the first time shed light on chronic absenteeism among students and teachers. In the 2013-14 school year, 6.5 million students – or 13% of all students – were chronically absent, meaning they missed 15 or more school days. The data found 3.5 million elementary school students are chronically absent, as well.

Chronic absenteeism is particularly common for minorities in schools where their teachers also miss class, according to the findings. Black students represent 15% of all students in the US, but account for 21% of chronically absent students in schools where more than 50% of teachers were absent for at least 10 days.

Robert Balfanz, director of the Everyone Graduates Center at Johns Hopkins University, said chronic absenteeism plays a significant impact in school achievement and advancement. It reduces the likelihood of reading on grade level by third grade, he said, and for teenagers, “it’s a better predictor of dropping out than test scores”.

“Its impact is greatest on high-poverty students, the very students who benefit most from being in school on a regular basis,” he said. “This undercuts the impact of school reform, as many of the students who the reforms are designed for are not there on a regular basis to receive them.”

Nationwide, access to advanced courses isn’t universal – and again, racial disparities were prevalent.

Only 48% of high schools in the US offer calculus, according to the data, while roughly three-quarters offer chemistry and algebra II. The data showed black and Latino students accounted for 38% of student population at high schools with advanced placement (AP) courses, but only 29% enrolled in at least one AP class.

In a press call with reporters ahead of the data’s release this week, King, the education secretary, said the new data suggests more work needs to be done to ensure children in the US receive an adequate education.

“Our systemic failure to educate some groups of children, as well others, tears at the moral fabric of the nation,” King said. “What sets the US apart from any other country in the idea that opportunity is universal. These data show that we still fall far short of that ideal.”

Fuente: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jun/08/us-education-survey-race-student-suspensions-absenteeism

Comparte este contenido:

EEUU: Chicagoans Not Amused at Gov. Rauner’s Comment Comparing Schools to ‘Prisons’

Fuente: edweek.org  /8 de junio de 2016

Bruce Rauner said on Monday that some Chicago Public Schools resembled «crumbling prisons.» And people in Chicago were not amused.

The school district called on Rauner to apologize. Mayor Rahm Emanuel accused Rauner of auditioning to be the running mate of presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump.

And CPS parents, teachers, principals, and others took to social media to blast the governor over his language. With the hashtag #NotAPrison, they rebutted the governor’s claims.

Link original: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/District_Dossier/2016/06/chicagoans_not_amused_by_gov_r.html?cmp=soc-edit-tw

 

 

 

Comparte este contenido:

Artículo: Scientists aren’t superheroes – failure is a valid result

El artículo nos ayuda a desmitificar la representación del científico, o la científica, como un ser infalible, perfecto y siempre obligado a aportar soluciones inequívocas ante cualquier problema planteado. Esta circunstancia, sólo emulable por los superhéroes, es la que nos revela Andrew Gelman como una muy alejada de la realidad cotidiana de quien se enfrenta a investigaciones científicas día a día. De los fallos, también en ciencia, siempre se aprende.

Source: Scientists aren’t superheroes – failure is a valid result Publicado el 8 de junio

The widely reported finding that ‘power poses’ offer a hormonal boost could not be replicated in follow-up studies. Photograph: Alamy

Concern has been growing in the past decade about published scientific claims that other laboratories can’t successfully replicate. Some of these studies are pretty silly – for example, the claim that women’s political preferences change by 20 percentage points depending on the time of the month. Others were potentially useful but didn’t work out, like the one which says that holding your body in a “power pose” gives you a hormonal boost.

Related:Study delivers bleak verdict on validity of psychology experiment results

Then there are claims which may have policy relevance, such as the study that says early childhood interventions could increase young adults’ earnings by 40%. The claim came from a longitudinal study which would require at least 20 years to replicate, but, on the basis of statistics alone, we have good reason to be sceptical about the findings.

This replication problem has become a crisis in the sense that researchers, ordinary citizens and policymakers no longer know what or whom to trust. Even the most prestigious scientific journals are publishing papers that fail to replicate and which, in retrospect, are simply ridiculous.

One notorious example is a 2014 paper from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Pnas), comparing the damage done by hurricanes with male or female names. The research was based on historical data and so could not be replicated, but featured the same sort of statistical errors that commonly appear in any work that fails the replication test.

And it’s not just journals that get sucked in. Some of our most trusted explainers and interpreters of science have been fooled by work with fatal statistical flaws. Science writer Malcolm Gladwell fell for a mathematician’s claim to be able to predict divorces with 94% accuracy and the Freakonomics team fell for the erroneous claim that beautiful parents are more likely than ordinary-looking parents to have female babies.

Statistical errors are unfortunate but unavoidable. Science is open to all, and we wouldn’t want strict gatekeeping even if it were possible. Speculative (even completely misguided) work can still indirectly advance scientific understanding. The problems come when entire fields are so shaky that outsiders – and even insiders – don’t know what to believe. This is the replication crisis, and we need to do something about it.

The problems come when entire fields are so shaky that outsiders, even insiders, don’t know what to believe

For starters, researchers need to stop making excuses and address attitudes that are getting in the way of progress. By progress, I mean moving towards a future where there are clearer links between research designs, data, analyses, criticisms and replications. The goal is not the elimination of errors, but a system with better feedback, so that dubious claims can be disputed and discussed at the point of publication, not years later when the findings have been used in news articles, TED talks, radio features and beyond.

So what’s getting in the way? Sunk cost fallacy – the error of throwing good money (or, in this case, scientific resources) after bad – certainly plays a role.

An example of this can be found in a recent New York Times op-ed by psychologist Jay Van Bavel, entitled Why Do So Many Studies Fail to Replicate?. Bavel doesn’t dodge the bad news that only 39 percent of the 100 psychological studies used had been successfully replicated – but he moves quickly to the position that the studies failed to replicate because it was difficult to recreate the exact conditions of the original.

Context certainly matters, but we should also be aware that a lot of published work is just noise. It’s always worth considering the possibility that a published finding was real and that it failed to replicate because of changing conditions, but that should not be the default assumption.

It’s natural to want to spare the feelings and reputations of hardworking researchers and it’s horrible to think that there could be hundreds of papers, published in leading journals, that are nothing but dead ends. I can see the appeal in trying to preserve some value in this mountain of published work. A paper can be seriously flawed and fail to replicate but still contain valuable insight. But our starting point has to be that any given finding can be spurious.

Related:Academics: you are going to fail, so learn how to do it better

Replications are often controlled, meaning that the researchers have chosen their data selection and analysis rules ahead of time. But published findings are almost always uncontrolled, meaning that researchers have degrees of freedom to come up with statistically significant findings. When a well-publicised study fails to replicate, this is typically consistent with a model in which the first study was merely capitalising on chance.

So how can we do better? As scientists, we have to recognise sunk cost fallacy. We need to be willing to cut our losses and accept when a research programme has not advanced, rather than grasping to explain variations that can easily be understood as mere chance.

Researchers should, of course, feel free to explore speculative routes. But we must also accept that failure is an option.

La imagen destacada es tomada de: http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2016/jun/08/scientists-arent-superheroes-failure-is-a-valid-result#img-1

Professor Gelman is giving the keynote lecture at the ESRC Research Methods Festival

Join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered. And if you have an idea for a story, please read ourguidelines and email your pitch to us athighereducationnetwork@theguardian.com

Comparte este contenido:

EEUU: Parents wrote about their transgender five-year-old, and readers had strong reactions

EEUU/8 junio 2016/Fuente: Whashinton 

Resumen:

Ron y Vanessa Ford son los padres de un niño transgénero 5 años de edad, y recientemente escribió para The Washington Post acerca de por qué ellos aprecian y apoyan la directiva de la administración de Obama a las escuelas sobre la acogida de los estudiantes transgénero. La directiva ha provocado una reacción de las autoridades locales y estatales que lo consideran extralimitación federal, y que sobre todo oponerse a la exigencia de que las escuelas permiten a los estudiantes transgénero a utilizar baños que corresponden a su identidad de género.

————————————————————————————-

Ron and Vanessa Ford are the parents of a 5-year-old transgender child, and they recently wrote for The Washington Post about why they appreciate and support the Obama administration’s directive to schools on accommodating transgender students. The directive has spurred a backlash from local and state authorities who call it federal overreach, and who particularly object to the requirement that schools allow transgender students to use bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity.
During a town hall event on June 1, President Obama said his decision to direct public schools to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms of their choice was based on the law and is intended to keep children out of «a vulnerable situation.» (Reuters)
For the Fords, the debate about bathroom access is really a debate about discrimination, and about whether the government will or will not sanction discrimination against their child.

“We are an interracial couple,” they wrote. “Fifty years ago, in many places across the country, it would have been legal to discriminate against us because, many people said, a fundamental part of who we are was somehow offensive and perverse. Our daughter is transgender. In many places across the country, it is legal to discriminate against her because, many people say, a fundamental part of who she is somehow offensive and perverse.”

We asked readers to weigh in on how the bathroom debate compares to earlier civil rights debates. There were many responses, representing the wide range of views and strong feelings that have characterized the discussion about transgender rights in America.

We heard from people who believe that the fight for transgender rights is akin to the civil rights battles of the Jim Crow era, and others who believe it is insulting to compare the two.

We heard from Christians who said that people should live according to their biological sex because God doesn’t make mistakes, and we heard from Christians who said their faith calls for loving and respecting all people, regardless of gender identity.

We heard from transgender adults who praised the Fords for giving their daughter the gift of unconditional love, and from parents of transgender children who said they appreciated the Fords’ courage in speaking publicly.
Others said they believe the Fords are encouraging a child’s delusion, and they questioned whether such a young child is capable of deciding that her gender doesn’t match the sex she was assigned at birth. How do the Fords know that their daughter isn’t going to change her mind?

Vanessa Ford pointed to an emerging body of research on transgender children who are supported and affirmed by their families — a population that has been difficult to study until now because the acceptance of transgender children is a relatively recent phenomenon.

One recent study from the University of Washington — published in Psychological Science in 2015, and part of a longer longitudinal study of transgender children younger than 12 — suggested that transgender children’s gender identity is real, and not the result of confusion or acting. Another, published in February in Pediatrics, showed that transgender children who are supported by their families have the same rates of anxiety and depression as children who are not transgender — and they have much lower rates of anxiety and depression than gender-nonconforming children in earlier studies.

Ford said that people who want to know more about their decision to support their child’s gender identity can read the letter they sent to family and friends, which appears in full below.
Here are a selection of responses The Post received from readers to the Fords’ original essay, who wrote about how the debate about transgender rights compares to past civil rights battles. Some have been edited for length and clarity.

“Being transgender myself, I spent my childhood, youth and most of my adult life in denial and hiding my true self”
I fully agree with the article and the notion it expresses. Being transgender myself, I spent my childhood, youth and most of my adult life in denial and hiding my true self, resulting in self-loathing, self-harm and two suicide attempts. (Thank the Lord, also in a 30+3 year marriage — yes, three years already as wife and wife — and with two open-minded children.) No kid, no youth, no adult who happen to be trans should be discriminated against. Bathroom bills aren’t about bathrooms, aren’t about safety, they are about discrimination. 70 years ago, the marriage of my mother and my father would have been illegal, I would have been sent to a concentration camp (probably right into the gas chambers) which is why I am very sensitive to discrimination and do advocate for equal rights for any human being no matter age, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, whatever.
— 55 years old, Germany
“People who are transgender/non-conforming need protection”
Bless you for having the courage to share your family’s story. Your children are both fortunate to have you as parents.
Since your story was personal, I wanted to add a comment to readers who worry that pedophiles will use this legal protection as a means to abuse children in public bathrooms. We can protect children from abuse only if we adults move beyond fear and learn facts. Pedophilia is not characterized by random — or public — crimes. (Consider wrenching stories of well-hidden clergy abuse.) The truth is, people who are transgender/non-conforming need protection from others wishing to harm them.
— 53 years old, Silver Spring, Md.

“God bless parents like yourselves”
I am a transgender woman, now aged 71, who grew up in fear of being locked up and the key thrown away, so I tried to conform but I was bullied at school, called names and “rechristened” a girl’s name by the boys because of how I was. I tried to transition in 1962 when I was 17, but I didn’t have supportive parents or support groups, and the Internet was not even dreamt about at that time. So I thrust it deep, lost myself in studies and got innumerable degrees — and also became borderline alcoholic in a desperate attempt to numb my mind. A failed suicide attempt at the age of 27 led me to seek help from a medical professional. I transitioned in the early 1970s and have had a wonderful, fulfilling life for almost half a century now. God bless parents like yourselves who by accepting their child as they are, can avoid the fear, trauma and pain of trying to be somebody that you are not.
— 71 years old, United Kingdom

“I wish we could change our society”
Instead of changing bodies, I wish we could change our society to one that accepted feminine boys and men and masculine girls and women so that no one felt compelled to expose themselves to the risks of life-long hormone administration or the removal of healthy organs.
— 50 years old, Philadelphia

“I was so close to suicide so many times I have lost count”
Having lived through the civil rights movement since the 1950s, I see little difference in the nasty justifications to discriminate based on race or gender identity. Among certain people there still seems a deep seated need to identify those who are different and exclude them from society and to limit their rights. I am a transgendered woman and the discrimination kept me in the closet from about age 8 until my transition this year at the age of 67. What was it like to live a restricted, unauthentic life for 6 decades? I really can’t put it into words and when I try all that comes is tears. It is a miracle that I am still here today to enjoy my newfound life as myself. I was so close to suicide so many times I have lost count. I am only here because my sense of duty towards family kept me tied to this life. This long, long lonely sojourn was not because there was anything wrong, perverse or abnormal about me, but was entirely the result of a cruel and uncaring society that promised the complete destruction of my life and the lives of those I held dear should I ever express my true self. When I realized my difference in 1957 we were living north of Atlanta and I still can see in my mind the towering figures in white satin robes manning their KKK Labor Day roadside coffee stops to disseminate hate under the pretense of performing a civic service. Human cruelty seems to have no limits. I think we can win the fight this time, but it is very hard. I cannot bear the thought of children like Ellie experiencing any of what I had to endure. People who support these laws have not the slightest concept of the suffering and damage they are attempting to inflict on the transgender community and its children. The human heart still has an infinite capacity for ignorance and cruelty.
— 67 years old, Sequim, Wash.

“This boy is not and never can be a girl”
This is outrageous! These “feel good” articles are deceiving and totally evil. This is nothing more than social engineering! Any parent who allows this “transgender” fantasy is guilty of child abuse! This boy is not and never can be a girl because his sex is defined in his DNA and CANNOT BE CHANGED! STOP THE MADNESS! Children who act this way need help, not pandering to their delusional fantasies! As for bathrooms, people need to go to the one according to their biological sex! Period!
— 70 years old, Orlando, Florida
“You are made to feel you are not wanted”
I wish you all the best with your transgender child. It is a rough life as most are not accepting. I transitioned almost twenty years ago so I have seen the storms directly. Looking just for bathroom rights is probably one of the more minor issues – not that it is not important. Being able to secure work, housing and overall life opportunities are far more critical. As a transgender person, there is a pressure everywhere that is forcing you out of society. You are made to feel you are not wanted and are not accepted as you are. Anyone can deal with such attitudes in the short term, but in the long-term it is easy to just give up. Your skills do not mean anything, because any potential employer just looks at your transgenderism and decides not to hire. That is the killer!
— 48 years old, Reno, Nev.

“It is extremely insulting to compare trans rights with the struggle that black people have faced”
It doesn’t compare at all because they’re two completely different situations in different time periods affecting two different types of people. It is extremely insulting to compare trans rights with the struggle that black people have faced ever since they came to America. Until trans people are lynched, getting bit by police dogs, hosed with hard pressured water, and treated like actual second class citizens then the comparison is extremely silly!
— 23 years old, Houston, Texas

“Get over it, people. It’s no one’s business what’s in someone’s pants.”
This issue pisses me off. Let a person use the bathroom that they want to use. People are afraid there will be “men” in the ladies room, while the person next to you checking their makeup may have a penis, they think of it as a mistake because they have a woman’s brain. Transgender people have been around since the dawn of time and have been using public restrooms since their invention. Sex reassignment surgery has been done since the 1930’s (Google it). Get over it, people. It’s no one’s business what’s in someone’s pants when it comes to marriage or bathrooms. If we would all treat each other with the love and respect they deserve as a human being the world would be a much nicer place, and just maybe “officials” would be free to tackle the important issues.
— 53 years old, Washington, Pa.

“A child of 4 or 5 cannot and should not make a decision like that”
It is a parent’s job to guide the child in the right direction, and a child of 4 or 5 cannot and should not make a decision like that. If their “daughter” shows her penis in any bathroom I’m in, HE will be told he’s a BOY and told to get out of the LADY’S ROOM!!!
— 60 years old, Seattle, Wash.

“No child should have to grow up that way”
My daughter claimed her identity as female at age eight. Before that time she lived in constant stress. She was constantly forced to use the wrong restroom. The boys’ room was a foreign and unsafe space for her. She was bullied there. She knew it wasn’t the right place for her, and consequently she stopped going. She developed a bowel disorder that could plague her for the rest of her life. Even though we live in a relatively accepting community, she still faces a lot of pressure from a society that does not completely accept transgender children. No child should have to grow up that way. There is an immediate and direct connection with previous civil rights struggles. It’s the same phenomenon cloaked in different labels.
— 52 years old, Boulder, Colo.
“We are becoming too permissive with our children”
As a Catholic, and a Christian, I believe we are becoming too permissive with our children. I remember when my sister and I were growing up, we were allowed to play as we wanted. We hung out with boys and dressed in boyish clothes. We played with toys meant for boys. We never doubted the fact that we were girls. Until we come to terms with the fact that a person’s gender cannot completely be changed, nobody will be happy. As for the bathroom, a lady should never be forced to share a bathroom with a man.
— 44 years old, Lubbock, Tex.

“This push towards transgender acceptance is very dangerous”
How did this turn into a civil rights movement? Because it shouldn’t be, it should be about teaching your child right from wrong and ignoring those who would disturb morality. The bathroom and transgender rights would not be a problem if people understood that it is harmful to allow one to identify as the opposite gender. Transgenders have a 41 percent chance of committing suicide. In what way is allowing children to do the same a positive thing? You can google transgender violence or bullying and it’s common. This push towards transgender acceptance is very dangerous. It’s a safety issue that should have been addressed before experts decided that kids should transition. The best way to protect your child is to let them know they need to follow what their parents say instead of the child doing what they want. Parents need to teach kids right from wrong.
— 25 years old, Chicago, Ill.

“Christians should act like Christians and embrace the diversity of humankind”
My husband and I have been foster parents for 30 years to children from many backgrounds and inclinations. Our role as adults is to do all we can to make a child feel included. Fear is what creates stupid laws and an atmosphere of paranoia. Remember the mean girls in the high school bathrooms? Those were the people I feared. Haven’t had an issue with a restroom since then. Do we start challenging people who do not fit the model of femininity, masculinity and become the bathroom police of who can enter? Anyone with evil intent can always find a way. Christians should act like Christians and embrace the diversity of humankind.
— 76 years old, Kensington, Md.

“Students are much more accepting than their parents”
I think state bathroom laws regarding transgender students IS the new civil rights debate. I am a teacher at a public school and I can tell you that students are much more accepting than their parents, so there is hope in the next generation for all civil rights issues. I agree with the rights of all humans and agree with the Dept. of Justice and the federal government withholding money from states that discriminate.
— 58 years old, Bowie, Md.

“Separate but equal”
To those who want to compare sex-segregated facilities to race-segregated facilities, I would only ask this: if requiring people to use facilities that match their sex regardless of their gender identification is the same as prohibiting people of different races from using the same facilities, what possible moral or legal justification can there be for “separate but equal” facilities for different sexes — or for different genders, for that matter?
— 62 years old, Arlington, Va.

“This controversy is about fear”
Oh, I don’t think it is even about civil rights. This controversy is about fear. All of a sudden we are concerned about predators accosting our women in public restrooms. There has never been a law to prevent men from entering a women’s room in the first place, but now, men or even worse, boys, are going to pretend they are female to enter a restroom to attack women?? Who thinks like this? Most people do not flash their private parts in public restrooms. I don’t have any personal experience with transgenders that I know of, but I have always had gay friends or co-workers. I never thought I would see the progress we have achieved in the last few years. It’s about time, and now we have another hurdle. Can’t we just accept them as people?
— 58 years old, Crownsville, Md.

“I’m afraid they’re making a terrible mistake”
A 5-year-old transgender?! At 5, I wanted to be a boy. I’m so glad my mother didn’t indulge that. I’d be so screwed up if she had. I’m now a happy healthy adult heterosexual female who is still a bit of a tomboy. Just do gender neutral activities and buy gender neutral clothes until the kid finds out who s/he is. These parents think they’re doing a good thing, but I’m afraid they’re making a terrible mistake.
— 32 years old, Los Angeles

“I too worry about what would happen if society turns against my child”
Vanessa, I am so proud of you and Ellie and your entire family. Your words are powerful. As the parent of another transgender 5-year-old, I too worry about what would happen if society turns against my child and discrimination were to be legislated on the basis of fear and falsehood. I start too many days reading missives filled with fear and anguish from parents whose children are not affirmed in their communities, and who hang in the balance between life and death. I urge people to listen to your words carefully, and to allow you to be the bridge by which they cross over and experience for a moment, the life of the “other.” Love to you and your family.
— 39 years old, Melrose, Mass.

“Last time I checked, restrooms had private stalls”
I really don’t understand all this fear of ‘perverts’ in the bathrooms. As far as I can tell there has never been a reported case of a transgender person ‘misbehaving’ in a restroom. Although there are now many cases of cis-gendered persons being harassed because they don’t look ‘male’ or ‘female’ enough in some people’s eyes to be using the restroom of their sex. Last time I checked, restrooms had private stalls – if we could all just respect that privacy – this would be a non-issue.
— 64 years old, Reston, Va.

“My daughter is also transgender”
My daughter is also transgender. I fear for her safety because she is living in an area where politicians are actively advocating laws to discriminate against her. The least-informed people are spreading fear and hatred against some of the most wonderful, caring people I know. I know I will never fully know the pain and suffering of those who struggled with racial discrimination, but having a transgender daughter has opened my eyes to how heartbreaking it can be to parent an innocent child who is targeted by those who know nothing about her.
— 54 years old, Houston area

“I salute these kids for their courage and strength”
I find it totally fascinating that kids at 4 and 5 are now confident enough to in essence come out and express who they are and how they feel. Just as a parent, I find it amazing. (It also shows that even at early ages kids listen and form their own ideas and actions.) My kids are not transgender, but I deal with issues of self-image, self-confidence, anxiety and depression. From that perspective alone I salute these kids for their courage and strength at any age and the parents that provide and support them!
— 50 years old, Washington, D.C.

“I am the father of a gender non-conforming daughter”
I am the father of a gender non-conforming daughter. At age 5 she refused to wear dresses. She sometimes said that she wanted to be a boy and periodically asked to be called by a boy’s name. She often refers to herself as “he” in her various imaginary games. At age 6, she started asking for “fancy” clothes, i.e., boys’ suits, which she loves wearing. That being said, she has never complained about using a girls’ bathroom, has never said she wished she had a penis and refers to herself as our daughter. Her teachers have been incredibly understanding and supportive, and her fellow elementary school students appear to treat her just like anyone else. I confess that I don’t understand all of her preferences but what I do understand is that she’s my child and deserving of my unconditional love, support and acceptance. My daughter is a remarkably happy, easygoing child and we attribute that, in part, to the casual acceptance of those around her. Of course I have no idea what path my daughter will take through life but I know that the objective of all parents is to help their children become the best versions of themselves that they can be. It baffles and infuriates me that some people might stand in my way to do that.
— 56 years old, Bethesda, Md.

“As a Christian this deeply disturbs me!”
I find it outrageous. As a Christian this deeply disturbs me! It has gotten progressively worse. My daughters are grown but I won’t subject my 3 yr old gbaby to such foolishness. She should never have to worry about who’s in the bathroom with her. The problem with this is it will open the door to perverts and that IS the problem. As far as the little boy wanting to be a little girl, I wont even comment but to say, Puhlease, God makes NO mistakes!
— 48, Waldorf, Md.

“I have a few questions”
This is a good article. I support people being who ever they are. I also believe that this is a civil rights issue. Bathrooms should be built that are unisex so this does not continue to be a real issue. However, I have a few questions as I am trying to learn more about transgender people. Is this a chromosome issue? What happens when this child starts to grow facial hair? Will she have some kind of surgery to deal with genitalia? What about her voice? Will she take hormones? Will these hormones stunt her growth? Does she get psychological counseling? Sometimes people fear other people who are different because they lack information. Just like racism, sexism, ageism etc.
— 58, Washington D.C.
The Ford family’s letter to family and friends about their child’s coming out as transgender:

Dear Friends,

For a long time, we said, “Our son likes dresses but also ninjas” to describe our child to others. However, we, and a number of experts and specialists, don’t feel that’s a fair description of our child anymore. Our child insists every day, in many ways that they are a girl and has for a long time. Our child has asked for us to call them her/she/sister and Ellie is a name she chose once she realized people would think she was a boy with her birth name.

Starting around age 4, Ellie has consistently and persistently told us she is a girl in many ways. The most clear have been “I’m not a boy. I am a girl.” “I’m a girl in my heart and my brain.” Most times when she says these things, she says them without prompting or questioning. She draws herself as a stick figure girl, says she’s a girl — often many times a day when playing (“I’m the girl power ranger, I’m Wonderwoman/SpiderGirl/BatGirl etc). We purchased a whole “girl” wardrobe after a tantrum one morning about having to wear “boy” underwear. Since that point, our daughter has truly emerged. She has blossomed, is happier and just seems more herself. It’s hard to explain. (Ellie chose her new name by the way. It’s the name of her lovey and it means “shining light”!)

We haven’t seen that she’s experienced a lot of the distress (dysphoria) that often appears in transgender children but we have seen some, and it’s been concerning. For example, we’ve heard her talking in her room late at night pointing and poking at her chest saying “Boy! Boy! Boy! I am a boy! I like power rangers!” It was unsettling and her tone was worrisome. That was the last time she ever mentioned being a boy and we soon got her the clothes to match who she said she really was. This has helped. Another example was when we didn’t have a “girl” swimsuit and she had a rash guard that said “surfer girl” on it. Twice she threw a tantrum having to put on a life jacket. We didn’t know why but eventually she said, “It will make me a boy! It covers my girl words. People will think I’m a boy and I’m not!” So we got her a “girl” suit and she is much happier… and safer in the water!

When a person is transgender, their brain doesn’t match their body and we are going to work to ensure we can do whatever we can to affirm our child so she doesn’t feel the conflict between how she feels inside and how she is seen on the outside.
We thought about waiting with the name and pronouns… seeing how this played out over time. But the reality is, the risks are too high for us to ignore her true self as she tells us, and has been telling us. If, later in her life, she tells us differently, we will listen then too. Over 50% of transgender teens attempt suicide, even higher for teens of color like Ellie. Ron and I are going to do every single thing we can so our child knows they are loved for whoever they tell us they are. And our child tells us she is Ellie.

Finally, and very importantly, we don’t see anything “wrong” with our daughter. This is the way our child was born and we love her… and hope the community around her in school, playgroups etc. will do so too. 
All experts say how important it is for parents and other important people to be knowledgeable about this all and that acceptance and support of the child is the #1 predictor of the child’s health and safety (especially when it comes to that horrific statistic above). The leading groups around all of this are here in DC so that’s good. Ultimately we don’t care at all about the label, only about the well-being and happiness of our child.

If you have more questions, or want to learn more, we have listed some resources below . Thank you so much for your support!
8 Great Children’s books
Lots of great resources for families here
PFLAG has a great new resource guide for families of transgender or gender-expansive children. Childhood focus starts on page 16.
Human Rights Campaign
Children’s National Medical Center

Fuente de la Noticia:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/06/08/parents-wrote-about-their-transgender-five-year-old-and-readers-had-strong-reactions/?wprss=rss_Copy%20of%20local-alexandria-social&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Comparte este contenido:
Page 356 of 400
1 354 355 356 357 358 400