Connect with us

Local

Firefighters oppose ‘FEMS’ logo on shirts and jackets

D.C. fire chief postpones order for design change

Published

on

Almost no one has talked about it in public, including the news media and the union representing D.C. firefighters.

But in response to inquiries from the Washington Blade, D.C. Fire Chief Kenneth Ellerbe acknowledged that his decision to postpone an order that firefighters place the initials “FEMS” on the shirts and jackets they wear while on duty was based, in part, on that acronym’s perception as a possible derogatory reference to gay men.

FEMS stands for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, the name the city adopted more than a decade ago to replace the name D.C. Fire Department. Officials said the name change was aimed at better reflecting the important role members of the EMS, or Emergency Medical Services unit, play within a department better known for putting out fires.

Openly gay D.C. firefighter Tim Bennett said gay and straight firefighters know that the term “fem” has long been used as a derogatory reference to effeminate men or gays. He said he and some of his fellow firefighters expect the FEMS logo prominently displayed on the back of their jackets and shirts will subject them to ridicule.

“I was speaking to another member,” Bennett told the Blade. “I’m not sure if he knows I’m gay or not, but he was just relating a story. He didn’t mean any offense by it, but he was saying how his grandmother heard about this and her quote was, ‘FEMS? What’s that sound like, a bunch of faggots?’”

“And I think that’s the kind of terms and judgments it will elicit,” said Bennett. “In the perfect world, that wouldn’t be the case, but unfortunately we’re not in a perfect world yet.”

Although the name change has long since been in effect, department officials allowed firefighters and other department personnel to continue to use the longstanding logo “DCFD” on their shirts and jackets.

That policy changed earlier this year when Ellerbe issued an order requiring firefighters to replace all garments bearing the DCFD logo with the department’s officially designated logo or insignia “FEMS.”

Ellerbe told the Blade on Tuesday that he placed his order on hold for 120 days in response to concern over the FEMS logo. He said most of the concern was about the desire to retain the tradition-bound “DCFD” logo. The department and the firefighters’ union are in discussions over a possible compromise logo that will continue to reflect the important role that the EMS plays in the department.

“We are preparing a proposal to address the issues of sensitivity in our community,” he said, in referring to concerns similar to those expressed by Bennett.

“I’m from Washington, D.C. and I have members of my family who walk in all types of communities in this city and the metropolitan area, which heightened my awareness and my opinion and my sensitivity to how people are treated,” Ellerbe said.

“I’m proud to be a D.C. fireman,” said Bennett, who noted that he has been out as gay during most of his 18 years at the department. He said his fellow firefighters have treated him with respect and he has never encountered discriminatory treatment or negative comments, even when he brings his partner to social events among firefighters.

“But I can say the whole FEMS thing is a pretty poor choice of an acronym,” he said. “I just think it invites distasteful comments, even if unintentional.”

Bennett said that while he and many of his firefighter colleagues, both gay and straight, are troubled over the FEMS logo, they join the firefighters’ union president, Ed Smith, in citing two other reasons why the FEMS logo is a mistake.

The most frequently cited reason, Smith has points out, is that the logo DCFD has a long and esteemed tradition in the city and has become a well-known “brand” for the department. The other reason cited by Smith and others in favor of retaining the DCFD logo is that FEMS is often confused with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which coordinates the federal government’s disaster relief programs.

“The union’s concern is what’s recognized, and we believe that FEMS would lead to confusion about who we really are,” Smith said.

D.C. Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) agrees with the union’s position and introduced a bill last month called the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Logo Clarification Act of 2011.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the official logo of the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department shall remain DCFD,” the bill states.

As of this week, Evans’ bill had no co-sponsors. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At-Large), who chairs the committee with jurisdiction over the bill, has said he opposes the measure and had no plans for holding a hearing on the bill.

Smith said his union, Local 36 of the International Association of Firefighters, has been aware of the possible gay-related connotation of the FEMS logo and the concerns firefighters have about it. He said he has been reluctant to discuss that concern in public because it could be offensive to the LGBT community.

“I’ve encouraged those members with concerns about this to discuss it with representatives of their community,” Smith said.

LGBT activists had mixed views on the issue when contacted about it this week.

“FEMS has nothing to do with gay people,” said gay activist Bob Summersgill, who added that he doesn’t consider the term “fem” a negative reference to gay people “unless you consider women to be inferior. I do not.”

Gay activist Peter Rosenstein said there were “many reasons to debate the use of the acronym FEMS for the Fire Department but I don’t think anyone would see it as applicable to a member of the department,” gay or straight.

“The last thing anyone thinks of when they think of a firefighter is a person that is effeminate,” Rosenstein said.

Lesbian activist Barbara Helmick said the firefighters should be allowed to pick the acronym they like best.

“While there may be in our community some history of how the word fem is used, it’s really irrelevant,” she said. “I think this is an issue of what’s best for the firefighters and the public, and I have to side with the union on this one.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

D.C. Council gives first approval to amended PrEP insurance bill

Removes weakening language after concerns raised by AIDS group

Published

on

‘This is a win in the fight against HIV/AIDS,’ said Council member Zachary Parker. (File photo courtesy of Earline Budd)

The D.C. Council voted unanimously on Feb. 3 to approve a bill on its first of two required votes that requires health insurance companies to cover the costs of HIV prevention or PrEP drugs for D.C. residents at risk for HIV infection.

 The vote to approve the PrEP D.C. Amendment Act came immediately after the 13-member Council voted unanimously again to approve an amendment that removed language in the bill added last month by the Council’s Committee on Health that would require insurers to fully cover only one PrEP drug.

The amendment, introduced jointly by Council members Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5), who first introduced the bill in February 2025, and Christina Henderson (I-At-Large), who serves as chair of the Health Committee, requires insurers to cover all U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved PrEP drugs.  

Under its rules, the D.C. Council must vote twice to approve all legislation, which must be signed by the D.C. mayor and undergo a 30-day review by Congress before it takes effect as a D.C. law.

Given its unanimous “first reading” vote of approval on Feb. 3, Parker told the Washington Blade he was certain the Council would approve the bill on its second and final vote expected in about two weeks.

Among those who raised concerns about the earlier version of the bill was Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, who sent messages to all 13 Council members urging them to remove the language added by the Committee on Health requiring insurers to cover just one PrEP drug.

The change made by the committee, Schmid told Council members, “would actually reduce PrEP options for D.C. residents that are required by current federal law, limit patient choice, and place D.C. behind states that have enacted HIV prevention policies designed to remain in effect regardless of any federal changes.”

Schmid told the Washington Blade that although coverage requirements for insurers are currently provided through coverage standards recommended in the U.S. Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, AIDS advocacy organizations have called on D.C. and states to pass their own legislation requiring insurance coverage of PrEP in the event that the federal policies are weakened or removed by the Trump administration, which has already reduced or ended federal funding for HIV/AIDS-related programs.

“The sticking point was the language in the markup that insurers only had to cover one regimen of PrEP,” Parker told the Blade in a phone interview the night before the Council vote. “And advocates thought that moved the needle back in terms of coverage access, and I agree with them,” he said.

In anticipation that the Council would vote to approve the amendment and the underlying bill, Parker, the Council’s only gay member, added, “I think this is a win for our community. And this is a win in the fight against HIV/AIDS.”

During the Feb. 3 Council session, Henderson called on her fellow Council members to approve both the amendment she and Parker had introduced and the bill itself. But she did not say why her committee approved the changes that advocates say weakened the bill and that her and Parker’s amendment would undo. Schmid speculated that pressure from insurance companies may have played a role in the committee change requiring coverage of only one PrEP drug. 

“My goal for advancing the ‘PrEP DC Amendment Act’ is to ensure that the District is building on the progress made in reducing new HIV infections every year,” Henderson said in a statement released after the Council vote. “On Friday, my office received concerns from advocates and community leaders about language regarding PrEP coverage,” she said.

“My team and I worked with Council member Parker, community leaders, including the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute and Whitman-Walker, and the Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking, to craft a solution that clarifies our intent and provides greater access to these life-saving drugs for District residents by reducing consumer costs for any PrEP drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” her statement concludes.

In his own statement following the Council vote, Schmid thanked Henderson and Parker for initiating the amendment to improve the bill. “This will provide PrEP users with the opportunity to choose the best drug that meets their needs,” he said. “We look forward to the bill’s final reading and implementation.”

Continue Reading

Maryland

4th Circuit dismisses lawsuit against Montgomery County schools’ pronoun policy

Substitute teacher Kimberly Polk challenged regulation in 2024

Published

on

(Photo by Sergei Gnatuk via Bigstock)

A federal appeals court has ruled Montgomery County Public Schools did not violate a substitute teacher’s constitutional rights when it required her to use students’ preferred pronouns in the classroom.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision it released on Jan. 28 ruled against Kimberly Polk.

The policy states that “all students have the right to be referred to by their identified name and/or pronoun.”

“School staff members should address students by the name and pronoun corresponding to the gender identity that is consistently asserted at school,” it reads. “Students are not required to change their permanent student records as described in the next section (e.g., obtain a court-ordered name and/or new birth certificate) as a prerequisite to being addressed by the name and pronoun that corresponds to their identified name. To the extent possible, and consistent with these guidelines, school personnel will make efforts to maintain the confidentiality of the student’s transgender status.”

The Washington Post reported Polk, who became a substitute teacher in Montgomery County in 2021, in November 2022 requested a “religious accommodation, claiming that the policy went against her ‘sincerely held religious beliefs,’ which are ‘based on her understanding of her Christian religion and the Holy Bible.’”

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in January 2025 dismissed Polk’s lawsuit that she filed in federal court in Beltsville. Polk appealed the decision to the 4th Circuit.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Norton hailed as champion of LGBTQ rights

D.C. congressional delegate to retire after 36 years in U.S. House

Published

on

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton announced she will not seek re-election; her term ends January 2027. (Washington Blade file photo by Drew Brown)

LGBTQ rights advocates reflected on D.C. Congressional Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton’s longstanding advocacy and support for LGBTQ rights in Congress following her decision last month not to run for re-election this year. 

Upon completing her current term in office in January 2027, Norton, a Democrat, will have served 18 two-year terms and 36 years in her role as the city’s non-voting delegate to the U.S. House.

LGBTQ advocates have joined city officials and community leaders in describing Norton as a highly effective advocate for D.C. under the city’s limited representation in Congress where she could not vote on the House floor but stood out in her work on House committees and moving, powerful speeches on the House floor.

 “During her more than three decades in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton has been a champion for the District of Columbia and the LGBTQ+ community,” said David Stacy, vice president of government affairs for the Human Rights Campaign, the D.C.-based national LGBTQ advocacy organization.

“When Congress blocked implementation of D.C.’s domestic partnership registry, Norton led the fight to allow it to go into effect,” Stacey said. “When President Bush tried to ban marriage equality in every state and the District, Norton again stood up in opposition. And when Congress blocked HIV prevention efforts, Norton worked to end that interference in local control,” he said.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) (Washington Blade photo by Jeff Surprenant)

In reflecting the sentiment of many local and national LGBTQ advocates familiar with Norton’s work, Stacy added, “We have been lucky to have such an incredible champion. As her time in Congress comes to an end, we honor her extraordinary impact in the nation’s capital and beyond by standing together in pride and gratitude.”

Norton has been among the lead co-sponsors and outspoken supporters of LGBTQ rights legislation introduced in Congress since first taking office, including the currently pending Equality Act, which would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. 

Activists familiar with Norton’s work also point out that she has played a lead role in opposing and helping to defeat anti-LGBTQ legislation. In 2018, Norton helped lead an effort to defeat a bill called the First Amendment Defense Act introduced by U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), which Norton said included language that could “gut” D.C.’s Human Rights Act’s provisions banning LGBTQ discrimination.

Norton pointed to a provision in the bill not immediately noticed by LGBTQ rights organizations that would define D.C.’s local government as a federal government entity and allow potential discrimination against LGBTQ people based on a “sincerely held religious belief.”

“This bill is the latest outrageous Republican attack on the District, focusing particularly on our LGBT community and the District’s right to self-government,” Norton said shortly after the bill was introduced. “We will not allow Republicans to discriminate against the LGBT community under the guise of religious liberty,” she said. Records show supporters have not secured the votes to pass it in several congressional sessions.

In 2011, Norton was credited with lining up sufficient opposition to plans by some Republican lawmakers to attempt to overturn D.C.’s same-sex marriage law, that the Council passed and the mayor signed in 2010.   

In 2015, Norton also played a lead role opposing attempts by GOP members of  Congress to overturn another D.C. law protecting LGBTQ students at religious schools, including the city’s Catholic University, from discrimination such as the denial of providing meeting space for an LGBTQ organization.

More recently, in 2024 Norton again led efforts to defeat an attempt by Republican House members to amend the D.C. budget bill that Congress must pass to eliminate funding for the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs and to prohibit the city from using its funds to enforce the D.C. Human Rights Act in cases of discrimination against transgender people.

“The Republican amendment that would prohibit funds from being used to enforce anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination regulations and the amendment to defund the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ+ Affairs are disgraceful attempts, in themselves, to discriminate against D.C.’s LGBTQ+ community while denying D.C. residents the limited governance over their local affairs to which they are entitled,” Norton told the Washington Blade.

In addition to pushing for LGBTQ supportive laws and opposing anti-LGBTQ measures Norton has spoken out against anti-LGBTQ hate crimes and called on the office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. in 2020 to more aggressively prosecute anti-LGBTQ hate crimes.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton marches in the 1995 AIDS Walk. (Washington Blade archive photo by Clint Steib)

“There is so much to be thankful for Eleanor Holmes Norton’s many years of service to all the citizens and residents of the District of Columbia,” said John Klenert, a member of the board of the LGBTQ Victory Fund. “Whether it was supporting its LGBTQ+ people for equal rights, HIV health issues, home rule protection, statehood for all 700,000 people, we could depend on her,” he said.

Ryan Bos, executive director of Capital Pride Alliance, the group that organizes D.C.’s annual LGBTQ Pride events, called Norton a “staunch” LGBTQ community ally and champion for LGBTQ supportive legislation in Congress.

“For decades, Congresswoman Norton has marched in the annual Capital Pride Parade, showing her pride and using her platform to bring voice and visibility in our fight to advance civil rights, end discrimination, and affirm the dignity of all LGBTQ+ people” Bos said. “We will be forever grateful for her ongoing advocacy and contributions to the LGBTQ+ movement.”

Howard Garrett, president of D.C.’s Capital Stonewall Democrats, called Norton a “consistent and principled advocate” for equality throughout her career. “She supported LGBTQ rights long before it was politically popular, advancing nondiscrimination protections and equal protection under the law,” he said.

“Eleanor was smart, tough, and did not suffer fools gladly,” said Rick Rosendall, former president of the D.C. Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance. “But unlike many Democratic politicians a few decades ago who were not reliable on LGBTQ issues, she was always right there with us,” he said. “We didn’t have to explain our cause to her.”

Longtime D.C. gay Democratic activist Peter Rosenstein said he first met Norton when she served as chair of the New York City Human Rights Commission. “She got her start in the civil rights movement and has always been a brilliant advocate for equality,” Rosenstein said.

“She fought for women and for the LGBTQ community,” he said. “She always stood strong with us in all the battles the LGBTQ community had to fight in Congress. I have been honored to know her, thank her for her lifetime of service, and wish her only the best in a hard-earned retirement.”

Continue Reading

Popular