France: For a feminist and trans alliance

September 22
Originally published by the New Anti-Capitalist Party

Following the publication by Planned Parenthood of a poster for trans men in the context of their pregnancies, activists opposing the rights of trans people in the name of feminism signed on August 22, an open letter addressed to the Prime Minister, Élisabeth Borne, in the weekly Marianne.

We feminists reject this instrumentalisation of women's rights, fight against any opposition between feminism and trans struggles and condemn without appeal these discourses that are part of a reactionary offensive.

The use of fallacious arguments
Anti-trans activists denounce an essentialization of women by a so-called "transactivism", while reducing women to their mere genitals. This definition contradicts the majority of feminist writings produced since the 1960s. You are not born a woman, you become one. Similarly, what is referred to as sex covers a set of factors that go beyond the binarity imposed for centuries.

Being a woman does not stem from the mere sexual assignment, but from an exploitation that takes several forms: economic, domestic, sexual. Thus, contrary to what anti-trans activists claim, trans women are also exposed to these exploitations and to gender-based and sexual violence. There is no universal condition of "women" but a set of diverse experiences according to the social positions of each.

By basing their argument on the general public's ignorance of the struggles and experiences of trans people, anti-trans activists demonize transition paths. They show intellectual dishonesty playing on fear of trans children. Gender dysphoria would then become a mental disorder, operations, mutilations, and support from medical staff and the trans community, conversion therapies. As with marriage equality, the protection of children becomes a false nose behind which they hide to weigh in the public debate against trans people.

Trans rights are inseparable from women's rights
The current political period is seeing a violent backlash on women's rights, as the French government retains ministers accused of rape. Elsewhere in the world, the right to abortion is being violated, particularly in Poland and the United States. With 89 RN (National Rally) deputies in the National Assembly, we are not exempt from an attack of such magnitude. It is more important than ever not to get the fight wrong.

In the United States, the attack on abortion rights was preceded by numerous anti-trans laws: in Ohio, the Save Women's Sports Act provides that if a student's gender is in doubt, the student must undergo an intrusive examination to prove their gender. In all these cases, it is an attack on people's right to control their bodies. The arrival of similar attacks on trans people in France suggests a fate similar to that of the United States.

The essentialist view of women promoted by anti-trans activists is shared by reactionary theorists and masculinists. It is no surprise that these two groups have cooperated and that the far right is the first relay of anti-trans publications.

What are the prospects for the feminist and trans movements? Regardless of whether transitions seem incomprehensible or abstract, trans people are not a thought exercise meant to question what defines male and female roles.

The current political situation is forcing the feminist movement to position itself in support of trans people's demands. Attending without taking sides is not an option. Not claiming to be anti-trans is not enough, we must actively demand with trans people and with feminists, trans emancipation.

We demand the autonomy of transition pathways, the simplification of access to administrative procedures, the training of health personnel, access to transitional care and full reimbursement.

We call for the real opening of medically assisted procreation to trans people and the facilitation of administrative filiation for trans parents.

We call for massive support for associations helping trans people and an increase in subsidies to ensure the sustainability of their actions.

We defend a materialistic approach to trans issues, that is, one that is not entangled in an essentialist approach to femininity, based on the experiences of trans people and not on what reactionaries fantasize about it.

We demand that the press and media take responsibility for how they represent and disseminate discourse about trans people.

We demand clear, economic and institutional support from political actors for trans people and their rights.

We stand against the instrumentalisation by anti-trans interest of the journeys of lesbians and people who have detransitioned.

We oppose the discord that some are trying to push between feminism and trans rights.

We call for the active support of all forces claiming feminism towards trans people.

first signatories:
Organizations
Commission Proud and Revolutionaries of the Communist Party of France; Bread and Roses (Permanent Revolution); Europe Ecology The Greens (EELV); Homosexuality and Socialism (Party of the Radical Left); New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA); Libertarian Communist Union; Student Union Federation; National High School Movement; Student Solidarity - Unions of Struggle; Sex Workers Union; Video Game Workers Union; Trade Union Solidarity; The High School Student Voice.

Individuals
Ségolène Amiot, France Unbowed MP (LFI); Pénélope Bagieu, author; Alexandre Baril, Associate Professor, University of Ottawa; Marc-Antoine Bartoli, Prevention Coordinator of Act Up-Paris; Lauren Bastide, journalist; Amal Bentounsi; Alix Béranger, feminist, clinical psychologist; Marilou Berry, actress and director; Olivier Besancenot, spokesperson and former NPA presidential candidate; Agnès Bihl, singer; Pauline Bock, journalist with Freeze-frame; Billie Brelok, rapper; Barbara Butch, DJ; Marie Cau, only trans mayor in France; Magyd Cherfi, author, former singer of the group Zebda; Aya Cissoko, boxing champion and author; Clarika, singer; Pauline Clochec, lecturer in philosophy at the University of Picardy; Maëlle Le Corre, journalist and author; Margot De Re, Belgian ecologist and feminist MP; Virginie Despentes, author; Rokhaya Diallo, journalist, author and director; Karine Espineira, sociologist, Paris 8 University; Casey Fabries, co-secretary general of Act Up-Paris; Éric Fassin, sociologist, Paris 8 University; Julie Ferrua, national secretary of the Trade Union Solidarity; Amandine Gay, director and author; Murielle Guilbert, co-delegate of the Trade Union Solidarity; Adèle Haenel, actress; Andy Kerbrat, LFI MP; Aurore Koechlin, Collective Feminist Revolutionary and sociologist, Paris 1 University; Sarah Legrain, LFI MP; Mademoiselle K, singer; Tal Madesta, journalist and author; Alex Mahoudeau, author of "The Panic Woke"; Mirion Malle, author; Florie Marie, spokesperson of the Pirate Party; Jul' Maroh, transfeminist artist; Daria Marx, feminist activist; Corinne Masiero, actressChristophe Martet, editor-in-chief of Komitid (LGBT+ news website); Cloé Mehdi, author; Guillaume Meurice, comedian and radio journalist; Liza Monet, rapper artist; Yolande Moreau, actress; Danièle Obono, LFI MP; Ocean, director and actor; Paloma (Hugo Bardin), drag queen; Eric Piolle, EELV mayor of Grenoble; Jüne Plã, author of Enjoyment Club; Pomme, singer; Christine Poupin, NPA spokesperson; Philippe Poutou, spokesperson and former NPA presidential candidate; Paul B. Preciado, philosopher; Eddy de Pretto, singer; Charlie Rano, actress and director; Giovanna Rincon, director of Acceptess-T; Élisa Rojas, lawyer and activist; Mathieu Rigouste, Social scientist; Marina Rollman, humorist; Sandrine Rousseau, EELV MP; Olivia Ruiz, singer; Tahnee, lesbian Afro-feminist comedian; Maud-Yeuse Thomas, co-founder Observatory of Transidentities; Assa Traoré, anti-racist activist; Valérie Rey-Robert, author and feminist; Fiona Schmidt, author and feminist activist; Danielle Simonnet, LFI MP for Paris; Marie Slavicek, journalist at Le Monde; Kiddy Smile, artist; Saïdou, artist (Sidi Wacho); Shirley Souagnon, comedian; Louis-Georges Tin, founder of the World Day against Homophobia, Homophobia, and Transphobia; Usul, videographer and streamer; Mélanie Vogel, Senator EELV; Rebeka Warrior, artist; Dr. Imam Ludovic-Mohamed Zahed, CALEM Institute (Marseille).

Associations
Acceptess-T; Act-Up Paris; AIDES; Bi'Cause; CIA – Intersex Activist Collective; Collectives of Femicide Collages Paris; Feminicide Coordination; The national coordination of the collective #NousToutes (All of US); David & Jonathan; EFiGiES – students, doctoral students and young researchers in Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies; Red Umbrella Federation; Fransgendre; Inter-LGBT; Lesbian Liberation; MAG Young LGBT+; Organisation of Trans Solidarity; West Trans; OUTrans; Family Planning; Pride of the Suburbs; The Trans Health Network; RITA ; Les Séropotes; SOS Homophia; Toutes des femmes.

Media, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses Éditions Cases Rebelles; Éditions Hors d’atteinte; Éditions Les Grillages, maison d’édition trans et féministe; Éditions Libertalia; Friction Magazine; Revue GLAD! (review on language, gendre and sexualités); Gusoma, media afro-LGBT; Madame Rap, the first media dedicated to women and LGBT+ in rap; Manifesto XXI, média; PD La Revue; Revue Trou Noir; Women Who Do Stuff.

Read more...

Why a Yes response in the survey is not enough

Lisbeth Latham

Ever since it was announced, the federal government’s postal survey on marriage equality has been met with responses questioning both the legitimacy of the survey and demonstrating support for marriage equality — responses that have been vital for the confidence and morale of members of the LGBTIQ community.

Despite this, the right, particularly the Christian right, has demonstrated its determination to defeat the push for marriage equality through the mobilisation of homophobic and transphobic hatred and disinformation.

This opposition and the desire by significant sections of the Liberal and National parties to avoid legislating for marriage equality suggests that a clear and decisive response to the survey in support of marriage equality may be insufficient in itself to achieve that goal. We will need to build the strongest movement in the streets not just for marriage equality but in support of the broader rights of the LGBTIQ community.

The survey has been widely denounced by supporters of marriage equality. There are currently two High Court challenges to the constitutionality of the survey. These cases are scheduled for September 6, just six days before the surveys are due to be mailed out. Tasmanian independent MP Andrew Wilkie, who is one of the High Court litigants, has described the survey as a “sham” and argued that the government is “exceeding its powers and acting illegally”.

Despite this opposition to the idea of the survey, there is a widespread understanding that if it goes ahead, it is important that people engage in the survey in support of marriage equality.

Alex Greenwich from Australian Marriage Equality told ABC News on August 11: “Should we have to deal with a postal vote plebiscite being inflicted upon us, we have a duty of care and responsibility to make sure we campaign for marriage equality, to make sure we campaign Yes for marriage equality.”

This determination to engage with the survey is also reflected in changes in electoral enrolments since the survey was announced. Guardian Australia reported on August 24 that 90,000 young people had enrolled to vote for the first time, along with 675,000 people updating their details. At that time, a further 165,000 forms were still to be processed.

While some of these interactions with the Australian Electoral Commission would include opponents of marriage equality, the latest Newspoll on support for marriage equality indicates that 67% of those polled support marriage equality.

This support has also been reflected in and reinforced by the 20,000 people who rallied for marriage equality in Melbourne on August 26. Protests in support also occurred on August 26 in Perth and August 27 in Wollongong and further mobilisations are planned across Australia over the coming weeks.

The focus of the campaign has been on maximising both participation in the survey and the number of people who respond in support of marriage equality. Achieving a strong response in support of equality will put pressure on the government to introduce a bill to parliament and encourage its members to vote for that bill, but it may not be sufficient to secure marriage equality.

Despite this broad support, and to some extent because of it, the level of homophobic and transphobic rhetoric from opponents of marriage equality has increased.

Homophobia rising
The clearest example of this has been the appearance of homophobic posters distributed by neo-Nazi organisations in Melbourne and Sydney which have linked equal marriage with child abuse and paedophilia.

The posters drew widespread condemnation from across the community, including forcing sections of the religious right to seek to distance themselves from the posters. Lyle Sheldon, the head of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), did so by arguing the posters were part of a conspiracy by supporters of marriage equality to call into question the legitimacy of the survey. The ACL is seeking to paint the survey as a threat to marriage generally and an assault on religious freedom, with some of its more feverish supporters online suggesting that marriage equality would lead to the need to establish “underground churches”.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has sought to normalise this hatred by saying that it is part of democratic discussion around the survey and that people were likely to say things that are “hurtful, unfair and sometimes cruel” but, rather than stifle free speech, Australians should stand up for any friends and loved ones feeling distressed “at this challenging time”.

Turnbull also said: “You cannot ask for respect from the No case if you’re not prepared to give respect to the No case. The vast majority of people who do not agree with same-sex marriage are not homophobic and do not denigrate gay people.” This makes how the community has responded to homophobic attacks the problem, rather than the attacks themselves.

The reliance of the right on hatred and fear to mobilise its base is not just upsetting. It is potentially dangerous both in the lead up to the survey and in the wake of any legislation being passed.

In both the US and France, the final pushes towards marriage equality were responded to by the right escalating violence against the LGBTIQ community. This violence did not drop to the earlier lower, but still unacceptable, levels in the immediate wake of achieving formal marriage equality.

In both countries the right have continued to use marriage equality as a basis to mobilise their base to attempt to not only wind back marriage equality but also other rights that have been won by the LGBTIQ community and to block further gains. The clearest example of this push has been the growth, after the US Supreme Court’s decision in favour of marriage equality, of legislative efforts to block trans people from accessing the toilets of their affirmed gender.

The Christian Right and far-right are not as large or energetic here as those in the US and France. But we can see evidence of the right attempting to energise their base through hypocritical and hyperbolic attempts to convince themselves and their supporters that the survey and Safe Schools programs are existential threats to families and particularly children. These attempts have the potential to create a desperate desire not only to maintain the right’s rage against marriage equality but also to increase the physical threat towards visible members of the LGBTIQ community.

Need for mobilisations
This situation makes ongoing mobilisation during and after the announcement of the survey result central to maximising any result. It will also help maintain morale within the LGBTIQ community. Mobilisations will raise the pressure on the government — particularly those concerned that opposition to marriage equality is a vote loser — to push for marriage equality legislation to be passed.

Equally importantly, ongoing large mobilisations will help to create an atmosphere where homophobia and transphobia are not tolerated in our society. As part of our efforts to build mobilisations in support of marriage equality and against homophobia, it is important we build empathy and support for issues facing the broader LGBTIQ community.

We must support efforts to enable trans people to achieve gender recognition, combat broader discrimination against the community, particularly the religious exemptions from the anti-discrimination acts, and actively combat the Australian government’s ongoing racist policies targeting refugees, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

[Lisbeth Latham is a trans woman and a member of the Socialist Alliance. This article was originally published in Green Left Weekly #1151

Read more...

Trump’s transgender military ban: how should the left respond?

Lisbeth Latham

Donald Trump announced a ban on transgender people serving in the US armed forces via Twitter on July 26. The ban reverses a series of orders made by the Barack Obama administration to explore the integration of transgender service personnel into the military — and for any costs associated with gender affirmation medical technology to be covered.

The ban has re-raised questions about what attitude left-wing forces should take to questions of discrimination in the armed forces of imperialist countries. Should such discrimination be opposed and on what basis should you do so?

Trump’s ban appears to have had two primary motivations — appeasing the president’s transphobic base and addressing concerns from conservative Republicans over the cost of providing gender affirming medical technology to trans military personnel.

Missouri Republican Vicky Hartzler has been pushing since June to pass an amendment to the defence budget that would bar the US military from funding gender affirmation surgery and hormone therapy. Despite having wide support in the Republican caucus, this effort has been frustrated by an alliance of Democrats and 24 “moderate” Republicans.

Trump’s ban is also seen as a mechanism via which resistance from conservative Republicans to appropriations for Trump's southern wall can be overcome. However, the total ban goes beyond what many of the conservative Republicans were seeking. It is apparently not supported by any significant layers among senior levels of the US military apparatus.

This lack of broader support is not generally driven by opposition to transphobia. Rather, there are pragmatic concerns that a total ban will raise the risk of attempts at civilian legal intervention.

If successful, this would mean the courts would potentially limit the control that senior military and civilian administration would have over the integration of trans military personnel.

Opposing discrimination So what attitude should the left take to the ban? It is easy to say that the US military is a reactionary institution and the participation of oppressed minorities in it is not a liberating experience — and thus take an indifferent or hostile attitude to the question.

But such approaches are fundamentally wrong. The character of the US military is irrelevant as to whether US military personnel should have protections from discrimination.

This ban will do very little to stop trans people from serving in the military. It is estimated there are already between 2500 and 15,000 trans personnel in all branches of the US armed forces. The ban will simply impact negatively on the lives of these people — and undermine their ability to affirm their gender without serious consequences.

Some of these individuals may be out and out reactionaries — a fact which is irrelevant to the question of whether they deserve to be discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity. However, a large numbers of trans people, like tens of thousands of members of other marginalised communities who are members of the US military, are in the military as a consequence of the “poverty draft” operating in the US.

Opposition to minorities serving in the US military is not just meaningless (because participation is primarily driven by economic needs), it is paternalistic. It positions the left as supporting reactionary forces that seek to exclude oppressed groups from social life.

If we say it is okay to discriminate against people in certain parts of social life, it strengthens discriminatory attitudes throughout social life.

If our concern is dismantling reactionary institutions such as the US military, then the best approach is to demand maximum democratic rights both within and outside such institutions. Within the context of the military, this should include the right of soldiers to elect officers and to collectively refuse orders.

It is important to note that a significant factor in the breakdown of the US military as a functioning force during the Vietnam War was — on top of the heroic resistance of the Vietnamese people and global anti-war movement — the resistance within the US armed forces by soldiers. The great mass of soldiers decided, by and large, that staying alive was more important than the imperialist objectives of the US government and its officer corp.

Opposition to Trump’s ban should not just be limited to opposition to discrimination and violence against trans individuals within the US armed forces. It should include supporting the right to have access, with costs covered, to gender affirming medical technology.

Our arguments should not focus on how much these technologies cost — even though at an estimated US$8 million a year it is a drop in the ocean of the US government’s $611 billion defence budget — but because access to medical treatment is a right that should not be limited by costs or attitudes of those in power.

Broader impacts Accepting the right of the US government to exclude transgender affirmation surgery costs for military personnel would recreate space where other services can be cut off because of discrimination. It also puts at risk funding for trans prisoners to access publicly funded gender affirmation technology.

It strengthens the arguments in favour of the supposed “right” of private businesses and insurance companies to refuse coverage for procedures and medical technology that they are opposed to, such as access to contraceptive pills, gender affirmation surgery and hormones.

A fight against attacks on medical funding for trans military personal can, if argued effectively, lend itself to arguing for publicly funded universal health care — which is desperately needed in the US.

The ending of discrimination within the armed forces is not liberatory, but is an essential part of combating discrimination in broader society.

On the other hand, supporting the continued existence of discriminatory practices in the hope it might discourage people from joining up does nothing to disrupt the military.

However, it does help make the lives of minorities within the military hellish — an impact that will last throughout their lives — and helps enable and justify discriminatory behaviour outside the military.

Opposing pinkwashing At the same time, opponents of imperialism should not fall into the trap of glorifying either trans service personnel or lend ourselves to the pinkwashing of reactionary institutions.

There has been prominent sharing of images of Kristin Beck, a trans woman and former US Navy Seal, on social media. These memes promote the idea that trans service personnel are “defending the rights of US citizens”. The reality is that the deployment of the US military is not aimed at defending the rights of US citizens or progressive values of any form. The US military aims to extend US corporate interests and maintain US imperial hegemony.

There should be no ban on the involvement of trans personnel within the US military and US military personnel should be able to express their gender in whichever way they choose. This should be the case, despite the fact that the ability to do so will not change the US imperialist war machine — or lessen our opposition to its crimes.

[Lisbeth Latham is a trans woman. They are a long-term opponent of US imperialist adventures and a member of the Socialist Alliance in Australia.]

Originally published in Green Left Weekly #1148

Read more...

France: For equality now, against discrimination all the time!

The French National Assembly began debating a Bill on marriage equality on January 29. The proposed legislation was announced on November 7 2012. The introduction of the Bill has sharpened the debate within French society around the rights of LGBT people. LGBT organisations and supporters have escalated the movement for equality, pushing for President François Hollande and the government of Jean-Marc Ayrault to go further with the legislation in addressing discrimination against the LGBT community more broadly. This is response is important in the context of criticisms that have been made against the movements for marriage equality in the US and Australia. Specifically thatthese movements promote the campaign for marriage equality while ignoring the other oppression and discrimination experienced by the LGBT community.

Below is a rough translation of the call for the Demonstration for Equality held on December 16. The call was initiated by the interassociation LGBT which brings together 58 LGBT organisations across France. The original in French is available here. Organisers estimated that 150, 000 people attended the December 16 mobilisation (the police estimated 50, 000 participants).

I'll be posting more material about the campaign in France soon. 

Call - Demonstration for Equality on December 16 in Paris 

For equality now, against discrimination all the time!

On November 7, the Bill on the opening of marriage to same-sex couples and the recognition of homosexual parents was presented to the Council of Ministers. Parliamentary hearings started the next day in the French National Assembly. Fourteen years after the passing of Civil Solidarity Pacts (pacte civil de solidarité - Pacs[1]), the legislative march towards Equality for all resumes at last.

France designates lesbian, gay, bi and the trans (LGBT) citizens as second-class citizens in refusing their equal access to rights - and the only reason is their sexual orientation or their gender identity. Eleven countries have opened the right to the marriage for same-sex couples, including six member states of the European Union. The only consequence was equal rights.

Opening marriage, and allowing these couples to adopt, as the bill in its current form envisages, is a step towards the lifting of some of the forms of discrimination which the LGBT community is subjected to today. It is a progress but we cannot be satisfied.

We claim that all of the measures which François Hollande proposed during his election campaign belong in this Bill. This law should not be circumscribed with a law on the marriage: it must make it possible for LGBT people to be regarded as full citizens on a purely individual basis, in couple, within their family and in the whole company. The members of Parliament must open medically assisted procreation (PMA) to all women, the access to adoption for non-married couples, and give to same-sex couples the possibility of creating a bond of filiation with their children which are the same  as those available to heterosexual couples, whether they are in or out of marriage, today. We also ask for a reform of the division of parental authority so that all children are protected and all parents recognized whatever the family structure.

François Hollande was committed to respecting the basic rights of the Trans people with a legislative reform allowing them to have identity papers that conform with their affirmed gender without having to undergo sterilization or medical treatment. We remind him of it’s urgency and necessity.

The law will put to an end institutional discrimination that victimises LGBT people and protects today all the remarks and behaviours of lesbophobes, homophobes, biphobes and transphobes. We do not forget that this daily discrimination is a factor of discomfort, in particular for young people who record high rates of suicide attempts, risk taking and HIV infection. Since the debate is in the public square, the most defamatory remarks on behalf of the opponents to this Bill is being brought to our attention. Those who rise against this social project are the same ones as those which were opposed yesterday to access abortion, the right to contraception, the recognition of the divorce and to Pacs.

This is why we will protest on December 16 for quality, for social progress but also against all discrimination, all hate speech and all the forms of obscurantism.

* * * First signatories: Inter-LGBT / Coordination Lesbienne en France / SOS-Homophobie / Centre LGBT Paris-IDF / ACTHE / ID-Trans’/ AIDES / Collectif Oui oui oui / Les Enfants d’Arc-en-ciel / APGL / ADFH / Homoboulot / ALGO / Embrayage / HomoSfèRe / Mobilisnoo / Comin-G / Gare ! / Flag ! / Popingays / Les Panthères Roses / La Nef des Fiertés / Les Enfants de Cambacéres / MAG-Jeunes LGBT / Les Effronté-e-s / Osez le Féminisme / Cadac / Collectif National Droits des Femmes / Ardhis / David et Jonathan / Beit Haverim / Carrefour des Chrétiens Inclusifs / Appel pour le Christianisme Social / Fédération l’Autre Cercle / Contact Paris-IDF / Association Equal / Bi-Cause / Collectif LGBT ADFE – Français du monde / GLUP / LGBT Nord-IDF / Dures à Queer / Gouines Comme un Camion / Caélif / Melting-Pomme Caen / LGP Lyon / LGP Montpellier-LR / LGP Bordeaux / Centre LGBT Normandie / AEC Toulouse / Les Bascos – Boarritz / LGP Lille / LGP Marseille / Coordination InterPride France / SOS-Racisme / LMDE / UFAL / CNAFAL / FIDL / UNL / UNEF / FSU / Union syndicale Solidaires / EELV / Jeunes Ecologistes / Jeunes Radicaux de Gauche / Centr’égaux / GayLib / La Diagonale / Jeunes Socialistes / HES / Collectif Fier-e-s et Révolutionnaires / Front de Gauche (PCF, Parti de Gauche, Gauche unitaire, Fase, Convergences et alternative, République et Socialisme, Gauche anticapitaliste) / NPA

Not-signatories but supporting and calling with the demonstration: FSGL / ASMF / Les Oublié-e-s de la Mémoire / Syndicat de la Magistrature / LDH / UNSA / SE-UNSA / UNSA-Education / CGT / Parti Socialiste / PRG

*******************
[1] Pacs are a form of civil union that was established under law in November 1999 which confers onto participants some of the legal rights granted under marriage including filing joint income tax returns and the impôt sur la fortune (wealth tax) being applied to the joint assests of couple. From it’s inception, Pacs have been accessed by larger numbers of opposite sex couples than same-sex couples, as of 2010 there were 9, 143 same-sex couples in a Pac, compared to 196, 415 opposite sex couples in a Pac.

Read more...