Connect with us

News

Out son of new Argentinian president represents with Pride Flag at father’s inauguration

Published

on

Estanislao Fernández (Image via Twitter)

The son of new Argentinian president Alberto Fernández attended his father’s inauguration ceremony this week wearing a Pride flag.

Estanislao Fernández, who is known in Argentina as a popular drag performer and cosplayer by the name of Dyhzy, made headlines last month when he participated in the Buenos Aires 28th annual Pride celebration, locally known as Marcha de Orgullo, which had an estimated attendance of 300,000 people.

The 24-year-old Fernández showed up at his father’s inauguration wearing a rainbow-colored pocket square, which he wore in official photos for the event. To make sure there was no doubt about the statement, he later posted a video on his Instagram stories revealing that the pocket square was a folded Pride flag. The video was reposted by multiple followers on social media.

His father, who defeated conservative incumbent President Mauricio Macri in October, is a liberal Peronist who has spoken in support of LGBTQ rights. He has expressed his pride and support for his out LGBTQ son on multiple occasions, such as in a June radio interview in which he said, “I would worry if my son was a criminal, but he is a great man.”

Estanislao Fernández as his drag persona, Dyzhy, at Buenos Aires Pride in November (Image via Instagram)

Argentina is known for progressive LGBTQ rights. Same-sex sexual activity was made legal in the South American country in 1887, it has recognized same-sex marriage since 2010, and it has one of best track records in the world on trans rights.

Nevertheless, conservatives there and throughout Latin America have been persistent in their efforts to bully and ridicule the younger Fernández since his father announced his candidacy in May. Eduardo Bolsonaro, the son of conservative Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, responded to news of Alberto Fernández’ victory by posting a re-tweet of a photo of himself holding a gun, comparing himself with a photo of Estanislao dressed in a Pikachu costume and commenting, “This is not a meme.”

Estanislao’s response, posted in Portuguese (the official language of Brazil), was the comment, “Brazilian brothers, we are in this fight together. I love you.”

Later, he followed up with a tweet in Spanish on his own Twitter account, to say, “Many people from Brazil began to follow me and I want to tell the LGBTTTIQQA + community and allies of Brazil that we are together in this fight. Remember that love always conquers hatred and among us, we must always take care of ourselves.”

Estanoslao has identified as bisexual.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

California

Newsom expands drought emergency urges Californians to conserve water

California is experiencing its worst drought since the late 1800s. August 2021 was driest & hottest August on record since reporting began

Published

on

California Governor Gavin Newsom (Blade file photo credit: Office of the Governor)

SACRAMENTO – Following the second driest year on record and with near record low storage in California’s largest reservoirs, Governor Gavin Newsom today issued a proclamation extending the drought emergency statewide and further urging Californians to step up their water conservation efforts as the western U.S. faces a potential third dry year.

Bolstering conservation efforts, the proclamation enables the State Water Resources Control Board to ban wasteful water practices, including the use of potable water for washing sidewalks and driveways. The Governor issued an executive order in July calling on Californians to voluntarily reduce water use by 15 percent compared to 2020 to protect water reserves and complement local conservation mandates. The Governor’s action today comes as the Board reports that in August, California reduced urban water use by 5 percent compared to 2020.

“As the western U.S. faces a potential third year of drought, it’s critical that Californians across the state redouble our efforts to save water in every way possible,” said Governor Newsom. “With historic investments and urgent action, the state is moving to protect our communities, businesses and ecosystems from the immediate impacts of the drought emergency while building long-term water resilience to help the state meet the challenge of climate change impacts making droughts more common and more severe.”

The proclamation notes that the State Water Resources Control Board may adopt emergency regulations to prohibit wasting water, such as hosing down sidewalks or driveways, allowing drinking water to flood gutters or streets, or washing a car without a shut-off nozzle.

The proclamation adds the eight counties not previously included in the drought state of emergency: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco and Ventura. In addition, the proclamation requires local water suppliers to implement water shortage contingency plans that are responsive to local conditions and prepare for the possibility of a third dry year.

Expanding the Save Our Water initiative, a critical resource during the last drought, California has launched robust water conservation public education campaigns in partnership with stakeholders, including public water agencies. Statewide per capita residential water use declined 21 percent between 2013 and 2016 and as of 2020, the urban sector is using approximately 16 percent less on average statewide than in 2013. The Administration will continue to monitor the evolving drought conditions and evaluate all tools available to respond in real-time. 

California is experiencing its worst drought since the late 1800s, as measured by both lack of precipitation and high temperatures. August 2021 was the driest and hottest August on record since reporting began and the water year that ended last month was the second driest on record. Today’s proclamation authorizes the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to provide assistance and funding under the California Disaster Assistance Act to support the emergency response and delivery of drinking water and water for public health and safety.

The Governor’s California Comeback Plan invests $5.2 billion over three years to support immediate drought response and long-term water resilience, including $815 million for emergency drought relief projects to secure and expand water supplies, drought contingency planning and multi-benefit land repurposing projects; support for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, with a focus on small and disadvantaged communities; Sustainable Groundwater Management Act implementation to improve water supply security and quality; and projects to support wildlife and habitat restoration efforts, among other nature-based solutions.

A copy of today’s proclamation can be found here.

More information on the state’s response to the drought and informational resources available to the public are available at https://drought.ca.gov/

Continue Reading

News Analysis

Right-wing media blame trans-inclusive policy for Virginia sexual assault

[…] In reality, the Loudoun County Schools policy was not in effect when the reported sexual assault occurred

Published

on

Graphic via Media Matters for America

By Brennan Suen | WASHINGTON – Right-wing media have seized on a report of a sexual assault at a high school in Loudoun County, Virginia, to attack trans-inclusive bathrooms, often suggesting that a policy in the school district opened the door to predators in girls’ bathrooms. In reality, the policy was not in effect when the reported sexual assault occurred, and it is always illegal to assault or harass someone.

On October 11, right-wing outlet The Daily Wire published a story about the reported assault and interviewed Scott Smith, the victim’s father, who was arrested at a June 22 school board meeting after an altercation. 

In the article, Smith seemed to acknowledge that the suspect might not have been affected by the district’s trans-inclusive policy, which allows students to use facilities that align with their gender identity. He said, “The person that attacked our daughter is apparently bisexual and occasionally wears dresses because he likes them. So this kid is technically not what the school board was fighting about.” However, he then seemed to blame the policy, saying, “The point is kids are using it as an advantage to get into the bathrooms.”

However, the policy was passed by the school board on August 11 — months after May 28, when the assault was reported to have taken place, making it impossible for the suspect to have used the protections “as an advantage to get into the bathrooms.” 

The myth that trans-inclusive bathrooms allow predators to attack women has been repeatedly debunked; additionally, assaults and harassment are already illegal regardless of whether bathrooms allow trans people. In fact, the suspect was later charged in a second assault in Loudoun County that was reported to have taken place in “an empty classroom.” The suspect has now been arrested and detained in juvenile detention.

The Washington Post has noted that authorities have not confirmed the gender identity of the suspect or that they were wearing a dress but identified as a boy. It also noted that “at the time of the alleged assault involving [Smith’s] daughter, that rule was not in effect”:

The parents she is representing have spoken out this week, often in interviews with conservative news outlets, to assert that the charged youth is “gender fluid” and that the assault took place in a girls bathroom. Those details have not been confirmed by authorities. The parents have also denounced a policy put in place by Loudoun’s school board in August that lets students use bathrooms matching their gender identities. At the time of the alleged assault involving their daughter, that rule was not in effect.

Nevertheless, right-wing media have quickly spread the story, frequently citing the alleged gender identity of the suspect and the school’s trans-inclusive policy — which they often falsely suggested was to blame for the reported assault. 

For instance, the Heritage Foundation’s outlet, The Daily Signal, published a report that quoted anti-trans advocate Lauren Adams, who said, “Assaults like these are the natural result of transgender bathroom policies, which allow boys to freely enter girls’ spaces and erode boundaries.” 

In an op-ed in The Washington Times, columnist Robert Knight suggested Virginia may once again give us an “American Revolution,” in part due to backlash over the case. Knight lied that the suspect “was allowed into the girl’s room because of the idiotic transgender mandate.”

The Daily Mail wrote, “Smith says the boy took advantage of the school’s trans policies to get into the girls’ bathrooms and assault her.” 

The New York Post also repeated this claim, writing: “Smith told the Daily Wire that his daughter was attacked at Stone Bridge High School on May 28 by a boy ‘wearing in a skirt’ who took advantage of transgender rules ‘to get into the bathrooms.’”

Unfortunately, right-wing media have once again perpetuated the debunked bathroom predator myth and ignored the facts in order to attack trans people.

********************

Brennan Suen is the LGBTQ program director at Media Matters, where he has worked since July 2015. He has a bachelor’s degree from Northwestern University, and he formerly interned at the Human Rights Campaign and SKDKnickerbocker.

The preceding article was previously published by Media Matters for America and is republished by permission.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

U.S. Justice Dept. seeks Supreme Court review on Texas abortion ban

“Women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution”

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

WASHINGTON – U.S. Justice Department lawyers filed an emergency appeal Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court after the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined a lower court ruling that blocked enforcement of the Texas anti-abortion law.

The Justice Department is seeking the high court’s review in order to block the law while legal litigation continues over the controversial law that bans abortion after six weeks, a point at which many women are unaware they are pregnant.

The Biden administration wants to block the law’s enforcement while a lower Federal court in Austin, Texas, addresses the underlying constitutional questions raised in the challenge to the law.

Last week in a late night filing the Justice Department petitioned the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse its ruling that allows the controversial Texas abortion ban law known as SB8 temporarily reinstated.

In its brief Justice Department attorneys argued that if the law is upheld, states could violate any right provided they left enforcement up to private citizens and not the state itself. “If Texas’s scheme is permissible, no constitutional right is safe from state-sanctioned sabotage of this kind,” the Justice Department stated then added, “A stay would prolong [the law’s] substantial harm to the United States’ sovereign interests and would disserve the public interest.”

In a late Friday evening ruling two weeks ago, a three Judge panel of the U. S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily overturned an injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman that had blocked Senate Bill 8, the Texas abortion ban, from being enforced.

A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit released a one-paragraph order last Thursday allowing the law to remain in effect after the appeal by the Justice Department.

In its appeal the lawyers for the Justice Department argued that the law “is plainly unconstitutional under this court’s precedents […] And Texas’s insistence that no party can bring a suit challenging S.B. 8 amounts to an assertion that the federal courts are powerless to halt the state’s ongoing nullification of federal law. That proposition is as breathtaking as it is dangerous.”

Because the case was filed on the high court’s emergency docket, the justices are likely to move swiftly legal experts say – possibly within a matter of days – to take it up. 

Writing in his 113 page order, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman, who blocked enforcement of S.B. 8 labeled the law an “offensive deprivation of such an important right” referring to women’s reproductive rights then added;

“A person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established,” Pitman wrote. “Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, (Texas) contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that.”

Pitman also took aim at the provisions in the law that allows any private individual to sue abortion providers or those who aid and abet procedures that violate the law. Successful litigants can collect $10,000 under the law’s provisions.

“The State created a private cause of action by which individuals with no personal interest in, or connection to, a person seeking an abortion would be incentivized to use the state’s judicial system, judges, and court officials to interfere with the right to an abortion,” he wrote.

Pitman then called out the Republican lawmakers who drafted the measure: “There can be no doubt that S.B. 8 was a deliberate attempt by lawmakers, notably its author, State Senator Bryan Hughes, to “find another way” around resistance to enforcement of laws criminalizing abortion.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @LosAngelesBlade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular