The following positions are available

-Gender Diversity and Awareness

-Off Campus Events

-On Campus Events

-Affiliate Outreach

-Pride Programming

-First Year and O-Week Activities

-Create Your Own!

We want the best team ever so apply today!

Right Here!

Please note that unlike our regular discussion groups, this will be student lead.

Application have been opened for Coordinator and Commissioner proposals for 2012/2013.  They can be found here.  Applications will are due April 9th, 2012 at 4:00pm.  For more details, please click here.

Tuesday March 13th: “From Closet to Gay Activitist” -A Talk with Artist Bruce Flowers at Huron University College Great Hall from 8:00-10:00pm.

Q&A and refreshments after the lecture!

Wednesday March 14th: “Married in Canada” -A showing of a Documentary about Same-Sex Marriage followed by a discussion with director Arianne Robinson at Brescia Univeristy College’s Auditorium from 1:30-4:00pm. Food and refreshments will be provided!

Thursday March 15th: “Dare to be Bold Day” -HBK and main campus students are encouraged to dress in bright colours and wear their free “Gay OK!” pins provided by PrideWestern at booths which will be set up at each affiliate during the week! Give us a visit! We hope to see you all at these awesome and FREE events! Happy Pride!

For More info check out the Facebook Event

CREATOR OF THE ‘IT GETS BETTER’ PROJECT AND ‘SAVAGE LOVE’ COLUMN

DAN SAVAGE GREW UP IN “A LOUD, ARGUMENTATIVE, AND VERY CATHOLIC” FAMILY, AND CAME OUT AS GAY AS FRUIT COCKTAIL.

ORIGINALLY KNOWN AS A GAY-SEX COLUMNIST, HE IS NOW A HOUSEHOLD NAME THANKS TO HIS IT GETS BETTER VIDEO PROJECT ON YOUTUBE. THE PROJECT, WHICH HAS GAINED IMMENSE POPULARITY SINCE ITS CREATION IN MID SEPTEMBER 2010, ASKS PEOPLE TO MAKE AND UPLOAD SHORT POSITIVE VIDEOS ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCES ABOUT THE LGBT COMMUNITY. MILLIONS HAVE VIEWED THE VIDEOS AND PARTICIPATED SO FAR, INCLUDING PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA AND ENTERTAINER JANET JACKSON. ADVERTISING AGE HAS CALLED IT GETS BETTER ONE OF THE TOP SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGNS OF 2010. HIS NEW BOOK IS TITLED, IT GETS BETTER: COMING OUT, OVERCOMING BULLYING AND CREATING A LIFE WORTH LIVING.

IN JUNE 2011, SAVAGE WON A WEBBY SPECIAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARD FROM THE INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF DIGITAL ARTS AND SCIENCES FOR THE PROJECT. A MONTH LATER, SAVAGE WAS NAMED ONE OF THE 2011 “POWER 50” AS WELL AS THE “OUT 100” BY OUT MAGAZINE FOR THE CAMPAIGN’S TREMENDOUS IMPACT ON THE LGBT COMMUNITY AND WAS ALSO SELECTED FOR O, THE OPRAH MAGAZINE’S 2011 O WOW! LIST OF BREAKTHROUGH ACHIEVERS.

IN 1991 HE WAS THE NIGHT MANAGER AT AN INDEPENDENT VIDEO STORE IN MADISON, WISCONSIN, WHEN A CO-WORKER TOLD HIM HE WAS PLANNING TO MOVE TO SEATTLE AND START A NEW ALTERNATIVE NEWSPAPER. SAVAGE, A SELF-DESCRIBED “PUSHY BUSYBODY,” REPLIED, “YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN ADVICE COLUMN. EVERYBODY HATES THEM, BUT EVERYBODY READS THEM.” AND SUDDENTY SAVAGE, WHO’D NEVER CONSIDERED HIMSELF A WRITER BEFORE, WAS A SNARKY “DEAR ABBY” FOR THE SEXUALLY ACTIVE.

SAVAGE’S COLUMN, “SAVAGE LOVE,” FIRST APPEARED IN 1991, IN THE FIRST ISSUE OF THE STRANGER. READERS OF ANY SEXUAL PERSUASION WERE INVITED TO SEEK SAVAGE’S PITHY ADVICE WITH THE SALUTATION “HEY FAGGOT,” AN ATTEMPT BY SAVAGE TO MAKE THE WORD MORE SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE. IN 1999, SAVAGE ANNOUNCED HE’D GROWN WEARY OF “HEY FAGGOT,” POSSIBLY BECAUSE A LOT OF READERS THOUGHT “HEY FAGGOT” NOT “SAVAGE LOVE” WAS THE NAME OF THE COLUMN.

THE ONCE-A-WEEK COLUMN IS FUNNY, INFORMATIVE, OUTRAGEOUS, NON-JUDGMENTAL (ABOUT CONSENTING SEX ACTS), AND VERY JUDGMENTAL (ABOUT MORONIC LETTER-WRITERS). “SAVAGE LOVE” IS NOW SYNDICATED TO BETTER ALTERNATIVE WEEKLIES ACROSS AMERICA.

SAVAGE IS THE AUTHOR OF THE COMMITMENT: LOVE, SEX, MARRIAGE, AND MY FAMILY, SKIPPING TOWARDS GOMORRAH: THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS IN AMERICA’S MOST POPULAR SEX COLUMNIST, AND THE KID: WHAT HAPPENED AFTER MY BOYFRIEND AND I DECIDED TO GO PREGNANT. THE LATTER BOOK TELLS HOW SAVAGE AND HIS BOYFRIEND ADOPTED THEIR SON FROM HIS WILLING MOTHER, A “SPARE-CHANGING GUTTER PUNK.” IT IS ALSO THE INSPIRATION FOR THE UPCOMING MUSICAL FROM THE PRODUCERS OF AVENUE Q, WHICH WILL HAVE ITS DEBUT IN THE 2009-2010 SEASON FOR THE NEW YORK-BASED NEW GROUP THEATER COMPANY.

“IF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT REALLY WANTED TO STOP GAY SEX … THEY SHOULD GET BEHIND GAY PEOPLE ADOPTING, BECAUSE NOTHING PUTS A STOP TO GAY SEX FASTER.”

IN ADDITION TO WRITING HIS COLUMN, SAVAGE IS NOW THE EDITOR OF THE STRANGER. HE’S ALSO ACTIVE IN THE THEATRE, DIRECTING QUEER PLAYS AS KEENAN HOLLAHAN. KEENAN IS SAVAGE’S MIDDLE NAME, AND HOLLAHAN IS HIS GRANDMOTHER’S MAIDEN NAME.

Click here for more information and links to the It Gets Better Project Homepage

I shall endeavor to write this article without making it sound too much like a formal philosophy essay. This means I may not give as much support or background for the claims I will set forth. My goal is to make this article easy to read and understand, and even though those reading it may not necessarily agree with my arguments, I hope it at least serves to spark a further interest in philosophy and/or some key LGBTQ issues- particularly the issue of same-sex marriage. 

WIth that being said, let’s start with the basics. There are a variety of modes of reasoning that we, as human beings, use to think, rationalize, and form judgements on and about a variety of different issues. When it comes to practical reasoning, that is, reasoning about how we should act, one of the most widespread and accepted modes of reasoning is called “apodictic reasoning”. Apodictic reasoning, although originally a term in Aristotelian logic, has its origins in the thought of early modern philosophers, such as Descartes and Locke, whose views were more or less a response to the scientific revolution. Without going into too much detail, apodictic reasoning essentially follows the following format: you start with an incontestable claim/axiom as your starting point, make inferences from that starting point, and insofar as those inferences follow logically, whatever conclusions that are drawn from them will be incontestable as well. For example, if I start with the claim that all mammals are animals (starting point), infer that cats are mammals (inference), then the incontestable conclusion that would follow would be that all cats are animals. It’s fairly simple.

Noting that the persuasive force behind this apodictic mode of reasoning relies on the incontestable starting point/claim, we can see that this mode of reasoning works perfectly for many, if not all, scientific arguments, which are based on observation of the external world. Since we, as humans, all perceive the external world in a similar way, we can usually agree on these scientific claims concerning the nature of the external world, which, since they are indeed scientific, necessarily rely on observation. But what about claims that do not, and cannot, rely on observations of the external world, such as claims about morality, i.e. principles that we should rely on to guide our behaviour/actions? Usually these claims are much more controversial, and thus do not have as much persuasive force when the apodictic mode of reasoning is used to draw conclusions from them. For example, if I state that killing is wrong (starting point), and infer that eating meat requires one to kill an animal (whether or not they were the one that killed it) (inference), then eating meat is also wrong (conclusion). Here, the starting point is not incontestable- many may not agree that killing is wrong. Some may say that killing those who deserve it is right, some may say that only killing humans is wrong (exempting animals), and some may even be fine with the whole notion of killing.

This possibility of variance in opinion here fuels moral skepticism, which is an attitude that claims we can’t get at or agree on principles of morality due to the wide variety of beliefs that people have. This indeed seems true when considered in the context of apodictic reasoning, which itself relies on incontestable beliefs as its starting point. Thus, many philosophers have proposed that we use alternative modes of reasoning to think about morality. But the problem is that those who have not studied philosophy tend to rely on apodictic reasoning for most of their arguments, including arguments about science and morality. This is why it is always controversial to claim that something- be it an action, a policy, or a belief- is right or wrong, for as long as we rely on apodictic reasoning, it is going to difficult to find any common ground for which to base a sound argument on.

Of course, my response would be to suggest that people take philosophy so that they can learn about different modes of reasoning/logic or about different ways of grounding moral claims, but it is a fact that not everyone will do so. This is why reason  sometimes seems powerless in the face of moral disagreement, and that even if we use it correctly in our arguments, there will always be some people who are going to remain unconvinced by our claims. This is true for the claim that same-sex marriage should be legal, and even that it is NOT morally wrong/bad. This claim rests on the foundational belief in the equality of civil rights. However, we note that this claim in itself is not 100% accurate, as the complete equality of civil rights would cause some fairly significant problem and impose heavy burdens on society, such as making allowances for hate speech under freedom of expression. Therefore, we find ourselves more inclined to believe in the equality of civil rights subject to reasonable constraints. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself recognizes this claim under Section 1: ”The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. This is what gives us the authority to condemn things like hate speech since even though it may be a civil right, it causes obvious harm to those whom it is directed toward as it is an expression of an intense emotion that does nothing except to vilify or detest people.

By adding this clause of reasonable constraints, the persuasive force behind the arguments based on this claim are somewhat undermined if we are to think in terms of strict apodictic reasoning. If we take a belief in equal civil rights subject to reasonable constraints as our foundational claim, there are going to be many objections and debate as to what constitutes a reasonable constraint in that case, which means that are starting point is, in essence, not incontestable. Therefore, arguments that rest on that claim are going to fuel much debate and controversy. Of course, we can still do our best to reason with and persuade people that certain things are right or wrong on the basis of this claim, or else we could never come to any sort of agreement in law or in simple conversations/arguments with others. Certainly, it is my view that, insofar as what qualifies as a reasonable constraint is constituted by the fact that something causes direct harm or imposes undue hardship on any member of a given society, same-sex marriage does not cause any such harm and nor does it impose any such hardship. Therefore, it should be granted and legalized not only in Canada (which it thankfully has), but also in all other countries whose constitutional beliefs rest upon this claim that equal civil rights subject to reasonable constraints (which thus includes the USA). Of course, this will seem (hopefully) obvious to many people reading this- my point in writing this article is just to point out why skepticism about the issue of same-sex marriage (and other constitutional, legal, and moral claims) exists and why it is more common than skepticism about scientific knowledge.

So the next time you get into an argument with somebody over same-sex marriage and it looks like the argument has indeed come to a standstill, one possible solution to that problem would be to suggest that your opponent take a philosophy class in logic or ethics, for as long as they base their argument in the common mode of apodictic reasoning, it is going to be quite difficult to persuade them to change their opinion… or perhaps that’s just my biased opinion as a philosophy major

While in the LGBT community the term “heteronormativity” is spoken often, we must remember that it is not a commonly used term in the workplace or classroom (unless you’re studying women’s studies or queer studies).  It is also not uncommon for you to hear aunts, cousins, or elderly people talking to young girls and teasingly asking “so, have you got a boyfriend yet?” and it’s often difficult in the workplace or classroom to speak up when someone says something about advertising to “women looking for a man” or things like that.

So what can we do in times these situations? Do we speak up and out ourselves in a potentially non-queer friendly environment, or do we stay quiet and allow the teacher to keep speaking about “traditional” heterosexual sex and relations?

It’s important to also remember that just because a teacher doesn’t know about heteronormativity that that doesn’t necessarily mean they are not queer friendly. I wrote a paper for an assignment that included the word heteronormativity as an example – and when I got the marked essay back the professor had written “Is this a word?” Many people are not regularly educated on queer issues or studies and terms that affect the queer community. It’s very possible that this idea had never been presented to my professor, and I have decided that it is an important role that I get to play in helping to develop someone’s education in LGBT issues.

When faced with a professor or employer that often uses heteronormative terms, ideas and examples if you feel that it is giving the topic a closed-minded approach, consider talking to them. You’d be surprised how many people hadn’t heard of the term, nor thought about the idea of including other sexual orientations in their language choice. Many people may not realize that by using heteronormative language, they are excluding a growing population of people and further encouraging the idea of “preferred sexual orientations.”

If you’re worried about a teacher grading you, or treating you unfairly based on your concerns – consider an anonymous letter dropped off at their office with a respectful definition of heteronormative language and its effects. If the problem seems to be a persistent one that cannot be solved by talking to them, try going higher and talking to their supervisor if you really think it is affecting the way you’re learning, or approaching a subject.

Inclusive and politically correct language is becoming more and more important in society, and we’ve already begun changing our word choices so that they’re gender neutral (actor/actress= actor, policeman=police officer, waiter/waitress=server, stewardess=flight attendant, and even manhole cover=maintenance hatch). It is not a far stretch to start trying to use orientation neutral language, and by educating others we are progressing society and the people around us to be aware of this issue.

John, like Steven, has also been happily married for over 10 years; however, John is unlike Steven in that he is fully committed in a monogamous relationship. Yet, there’s one other way Steven and John differ: Canadian Blood Services will accept a donation of Steven’s blood, yet, they’ll actively ban John from donating blood.

You see, despite John’s monogamy and marriage, he is married to another man. John is in the category of, what Canadian Blood Services calls, MSM (men who have sex with men). Currently, even healthy men, who’ve been in monogamous relationships with another male for years, are banned from donating blood to Canadian Blood Services. Although Steven and John are fictitious, this scenario is truth for all the Stevens and Johns in Canada.

Science, not pressure from gay lobby groups, should determine whether Canadians can give blood. At the least, healthy men who have sex with men, who practice monogamy, should be exempt from the blood ban, just as healthy heterosexual men and women in monogamous relationships are exempt from the ban. More importantly, all blood donations collected by CBS are tested for not only the HIV/AIDS virus, but Hepatitis B and C, syphilis, HTLV virus, West Nile virus, and more. This means that blood from all eligible Canadian donors should be collectible.

Now, in all this, what’s in it for you? Imagine a room filled with 100 Canadians; only 3.5 of those 100 Canadians are eligible to donate 1 unit of blood, each. This is a frightening figure if you or a loved one is ever involved in a medical crisis. Hospitals are always in shortage of blood supplies. Canadians need to somehow raise the number of eligible donors, while keeping potential HIV infections from blood donations at an absolute minimum.

From the views of CBS, their reasoning is sound in that they are merely banning a group (the MSM group) known to have the highest risk for new HIV/AIDS infections (as supported by public health data collected from Canadians).

However, an interesting trend is on the rise: new HIV diagnoses among women are increasing. Yet, CBS does not actively ban women from donating. CBS’s current donor screening methods discriminate against even healthy men in monogamous relationships with other men, this is discrimination based on sexuality, not sexual behaviour. All at the expense of blood donations that can save Canadian lives, during a time where we simply can’t afford to turn away eligible blood donors. We are denying hospitals clean, healthy blood.

All promiscuous donors with multiple sexual partners, whether they be straight, gay, bisexual, transgendered, etc., shouldn’t be allowed to donate blood, period. STDs don’t discriminate against sexuality: instead, they discriminate against dangerous sexual habits. Regardless of whether two penises are involved, or two vaginas, or a penis and a vagina, or some wicked multiple combination of the two, sexual habits determine HIV risks, not sexuality.

Keeping in mind that the number of Canadians who need blood donations show no signs of decreasing, we must increase the number of eligible donors, immediately. The best way to increase the number of eligible donors is to uplift the blood ban on men who have sex with men.

Fact: Every time you donate one unit of blood through Canadian Blood Services, you donate 450 mL (approximately the volume of a disposable, plastic water bottle). 2,000 units of blood are needed, daily, across Canadian hospitals. One unit of blood saves up to 3 Canadian lives.

Armed with these statistics, let’s revisit that room of 100 Canadians, where only 3.5 Canadians are each eligible to donate 1 unit of blood: convincing those 3.5 eligible blood donors to donate is a challenge in itself. But, let’s say we do find those 3.5 Canadians, and they decide to donate. Then, and only then, will hospitals receive their 3.5 units of blood. However, we’re still not out of the woods: on average, one hospital patient needs 4.6 blood units. This means that, even with the collective effort of 100 Canadians, a patient will still need 1.1 more blood units.

Donors are scarce in Canada.

Blood is scarce in Canada.

The purpose of this column is not to encourage you to picket Canadian Blood Services. By all means, if you’re an eligible donor, donate blood immediately, today. However, changes in CBS’s donor screening policies cannot happen without Canadians understanding that the ban on even healthy men who have sex with men is illogical.

Five years ago, my little sister was suffering excruciating stomach pains; she was rushed to the hospital and placed in urgent care. Within several hours, a senior surgeon was removing her close-to-rupturing appendix. Her successful appendectomy required 17 units of blood. That day, 17 Canadians unknowingly saved my sister’s life. Both she and I don’t care whether that blood came from men who have sex with women, or men who have sex with men, provided that the blood was both screened for HIV and deemed safe.

Disagreements with the opinions of this post are welcome. Comment freely.

Purpose and Objectives of Western’s Out in the Office:

• Work with London-based industry and community partners, Western faculty, staff and students, and LGBT professionals to offer a series of events for students from Western and London’s other educational institutions
• Provide educational seminars and workshops that relate to education and career exploration
• Promote embracing one’s authentic self by providing examples of individuals who have found success
• Allow students access to a network of LGBT professionals for possible mentorship and future career contacts
• Provide high school students an opportunity to visit Western and hear from staff, students and faculty about the programs at Western that promote a safe and inclusive environment

Schedule of Events:

Monday, January 30, 2012
4:30pm – 6:30pm
David SH. Chu International Student Centre LGBT Professionals Panel and Networking Event – A Career Week event, this panel will feature LGBT professionals who are “out” in the office and will allow you to learn about their career paths. Representatives from the business, law, education, medical and nonprofit sectors will be present to share their stories and take your questions. Stay after the panel to network with the panelists and many more community members who have found success in their career paths as their authentic selves.
Registration: Registration is open on Career Central (https://careercentral.uwo.ca/) – look for the events starting with “Career Week” to find this event.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
11:30am – 4:00pm
Western Student Services Building
Room 3130 High School Transition Conference
Students interested in pursuing post-secondary school have many questions and are often seeking guidance from both staff and current students to make this very important decision. Our transition conference will focus on topics like: Residence, A Panel with current Students and Student Services Professionals and a campus-wide Amazing Race activity to provide participants more exposure to campus and the services provided.

A resource package will be provided to each participant and will include information for both Western and Fanshawe College.

Invitations will be sent to local GSA Representatives and students must register no later than Thursday March 1st. The registration form will be available shortly. Please complete and email it to: lgloor@uwo.ca

Friday, March 23, 2012
Time TBA
USC Council Chambers Guest Speaker – Shaun Proulx
Television and podcast host, publisher, writer and speaker leading Law of Attraction workshops, Shaun Proulx heads Shaun Proulx Media, producing uplifting, leading-edge new media with a focus on personal alignment and empowerment for his core audience of gay men and the women who love them.

Stay tuned for more details and learn more about Shaun at http://shaunproulxmedia.com/
Date TBA
Time TBA
Location TBA Educational Session About Making Western a Safe and Inclusive Environment
This educational session is designed to bring awareness about sexual orientation and gender expression/identity. Topics also covered are discrimination, inclusivity, safe spaces, and diversity. More details to follow.

Date TBA
Time TBA
Location TBA “Out in Graduate School”
This session is targeted towards current and future graduate students and Postdoctoral Scholars. Topics of discussion will include the importance of being your authentic self, discrimination, inclusivity, and diversity in the post-undergraduate world.