Now You Don't Need Surgery To Change Your Birth Certificate (At Least, Here In NYC)

I have some good news today:  Here in New York City, a person won't need to have gender-reassignment surgery to have the gender changed on his or her birth certificate.

Yesterday, the City Council voted 39-5 (with three abstensions) to pass a bill which does away with the requirement for surgery.  Now, all a trans person needs is for one of a long list of health- and social-service providers to certify that he or she identifies with a gender other than the one on his or her birth certificate.  This policy is said to be one of the most liberal in the United States.

What makes this particularly good news here in NYC is that we have a large (or, at least, larger than just about anywhere else) population of poor and homeless trans people, especially youths, who need the services provided by city and state agencies, not to mention medical care.  Too often, they can't access those services because their IDs (which usually indicate the same gender and name as their birth certificates) don't match up with what is seen by the receptionist, clerk or other person to whom that ID is presented.  Or, too often, such trans folk (again, especially youths) don't have ID at all.

Also, most people don't realize that our ID dilemma makes us more vulnerable to identity theft and other kinds of fraud committed in our name.  Nobody seems to have statistics on this matter, but I would venture that it happens to us more often than most people realize--and, contrary to a common perception, far more often than we commit fraud to get ID with our true genders and the names by which we identify ourselves.

I think most of us knew that, sooner or later, the surgery requirement would be scrapped.  What made the process perhaps a bit longer and more arduous than it is in some other places is that here in NYC, birth certificates are issued by the Department of Health and Mental Hygeine.  It's a bit more difficult to pass legislation that mandates their policies than it is to tell a court or department of vital records (the entities that issue birth certificates in most places) what to do.

Out Of The Mists Of The Past

 This may not seem related to gender or LGBT issues, let alone my experience with them.  However, it has to do with the city I have called home for so long and whose history has always fascinated me..

Also, urban mass transportation systems have always interested me. Perhaps those are the reasons I found this photo irresistible and was thinking of an excuse to post it here:

This train is entering the New Lots Avenue station on the Canarsie Line (now the "L" train) of the New York City subway system.  From the light and the condition of the trees, I'd guess it's from early spring.  And, from the style of train cars, I can tell you that this undated photo was probably taken some time before the early 1970's, as these cars were "retired" by that time.

You can find this photo, and more, on www.nycsubway.org. (Note:  The site is not affiliated with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.)

Always The Same: Revelations And Changes

Parisians and psychotherapists disappear for the month of August.  Sometimes I think of myself as a Parisian in spirit,even though I haven't been in eight years, but I have no illusions of being a psychotherapist.  So what's my excuse for being somewhat conspicuously absent this month?

Well, I've managed to be busy with other things, including writing projects.  Hopefully they'll remunerate me; for now I find them rewarding.  And, frankly, when I haven't been doing those things--or riding or playing with my cats--I've felt drained, spiritually and emotionally exhausted.  The pastor of the church I started attending a few months ago says I'm healing. She's right.

Still, I've managed, in the past week, to ride to Point Lookout (Nothing like a few hours riding Arielle to make me feel lithe!) and to take a few shorter rides--and to record a few things along the way.

I'll start with something I saw on my way home from some volunteer work:

Sometimes I think archaeology is the step between destruction and forgetfulness.  At least, that's how things seem to work in New York. Sometimes, when a building is torn down, a long-concealed sign,  like the one in the photo, is revealed.  

What particularly intrigued me was the bottom inscription:  "Separate Waiting room for women."  Talk about a relic!  My undergraduate college went co-ed only four years before I enrolled in it.  And, boys and girls entered my Catholic elementary school through separate entrances:  a practice that was abandoned a couple of years after my family moved away.

Given that I lived as a male until ten years ago, it's hard for me not to wonder and imagine what my life would have been like had I entered through the girls' and women's doors.  Of course, had I lived in such a world, I would not have attended the college from which I graduated.  In fact, I might not have attended any college at all.

In those times, I probably would not have witnessed this:

The stretch of Brooklyn waterfront between the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges has been turned into a lovely park.  Not long ago, it was off-limits, as the neighborhood around it--DUMBO--still consisted of functioning and recently-ceased manufacturing and warehousing.  This stretch of waterfront, like so much of the rest of New York's shorelines, was used in various ways by those industries.  In fact, most New Yorkers had little or no inclination to spend any time by the water, as it was associated with rough trades and characters.  Fifth Avenue became Manhattan's most-desired address in part because, of all of the island's avenues, it is furthest from the East and Hudson Rivers.

Ah, but some things don't change:

That's one reason why I--and Arielle and, on occasion, Tosca--like to take a spin to Point Lookout.

Will GENDA Pass This Time?

Ten years ago, New York City amended its Human Rights Law with language to forbid discrimination in housing, employment and city services on the basis of gender identity and expression.  At that time, seventy-four jurisdictions had such laws.

Now, New York State is considering something similar.  Sixteen other states and 143 cities and counties--in all parts of the country--have such laws.  Lest you think that Empire State lawmakers have suddenly been enlightened, think again.  The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act  (GENDA) has been up for vote for years now.  It usually passes in the State Assembly, in which Democrats have long dominated, but fails in the State Senate.  At various times, the Senate has had Republican majorities, but even when that party didn't have the numbers, it had influential leaders, like Joseph Bruno, from conservative upstate areas.


After Bruno chose not to seek re-election in 2008, many of us thought the Act had a greater chance of becoming law.  Our optimism was further stoked by the "tipping" of the Senate to a Democratic majority, however slight it may be.  Plus, in Andrew Cuomo, we now have a governor who's willing to sign the Act into law.  


What disheartens us, though, is that the State continues to be "late to the party."  In the same year the City amended its human rights laws to protect transgender people, the State finally passed the Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Act.  Insiders say that it passed only because the provisions encoded in GENDA were left out of it.  It seems that, as distasteful as gay rights may have been to some conservatives, lesbians and gays had become too large a voting bloc to ignore.  (They tend to vote at higher rates than the population in general.)  On the other hand, the numbers of transgender people are much smaller, and we tend to be poorer than gay men and, to a lesser extent, lesbians.  Plus, the fact that so many of us--especially our young--are unemployed, or even homeless, makes it harder for us to organize campaigns.


I hope that the State finally does what sixteen others have already done--and what it should have done ten years ago, when the City recognized gender identity and expression in its human rights laws.

 

Same-Sex Marriage in New York: Where Next?

Tonight, the New York State Senate voted, by a 33 to 29 margin, to legalize same-sex marriages.  Two upstate Republicans, who had been undecided, cast votes in favor of the bill that allows for same-sex unions, and broke the deadlock in the Senate.  The State Assembly voted, by a wider margin, in favor of the bill last week.  

About an hour after the vote, Governor Andrew Cuomo singned the bill into law.  Now New York State joins neighboring Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont, as well as New Hampshire, Iowa and the District of Columbia, in legalizing same-sex unions.  


The Coquille nation, whose members live mainly along the Oregon Coast, also have legalized same-sex marriage.  They did so two years ago, and there was no mention of it in the mainstream press.  In one sense, it's not difficult to understand why:  In the 2000 Census, exactly 576 people identified themselves as Coquille.  


What is interesting (and disturbing to some) is that New York is the sixth state to legalize same-sex unions.  How, exactly, did those other states--including Iowa!--beat New York to legalizing same-sex unions?


Well, I don't have a complete answer to that. And I can only venture any sort of answer at all.  But I can venture a guess.  


One peculiarity of New York City and State politics is the degree to which the Roman Catholic church has influence.  When Cardinal O'Connor headed the Archdiocese of New York, no one was elected as Mayor or Governor without his approval and endorsement.  Archbishop Timothy Dolan may not yet have anything like O'Connor's influence.  Then again, he's been in the position for less than a year.  Still, one cannot deny the influence he and the Church have, even at this early stage of his stewardship. 


Now, it's true that there are many Catholics in Massachusetts, particularly in the Boston area.  But even when the Irish were the main ethnic group in Boston, the clerical hierarchy of the local Archdiocese never seemed to gain the sort of power and influence that they did in New York.  If what I've just said is correct, it would be interesting to find out how and why that happened. 


Now, I've never been to Iowa.  But I have been to all of the other states (and DC) that have legalized same-sex marriage.  Granted, Connecticut and Vermont are the only ones (besides Massachusettes and, of course, New York) in which I've spent extended periods of time.  However, I think I've learned enough to form some impressions of each one.  


It seems to me that no particular church or religious organization has the sort of influence over those states that the Archdiocese has over New York.  That may be due to the fact that New York has always had such a large immigrant population and that so many of those immigrants were Catholic.  In fact, three of the City's and State's four largest ethnic groups through most of the twentieth century--the Irish, Germans and Italians--were mainly (in the case of the Italians, almost entirely) Roman Catholic.  They didn't have a non-Catholic aristocracy keeping them in check, the way the old-line WASP families did to the Irish Catholics in Boston. Or, at any rate, New York's equivalents to that ruling class, which had been mainly of Dutch and English heritage, had dissipated or disappeared entirely by the end of the 19th Century. And the largest non-Catholic ethnic group--the Jews--mostly allied themselves with the Irish and Italians, and later Hispanics (most of whom are Catholic) on political issues.  That effectively strengthened the Catholic hold on the city.  And, as New York City goes, so goes New York State.


On the other hand, the other states that now have same-sex marriage never had anything like the high numbers of immigrants, particularly from mostly-Catholic countries, that New York and Massachusetts have had.  In fact, religion seems to play very little, if any, of a role at all in politics and public life in Vermont and New Hampshire.  There seems to be more religiosity in Iowa, but there doesn't seem to be a dominant church as there is in New York or, to a lesser degree, in Massachusetts.


Knowing these things makes me wonder which state or jurisdiction will be the next one to legalize same-sex marriages.  Perhaps Proposition 8 will be struck down in California.  Or will Oregon or Washington legalize gay marriages before then?  On the other hand, I don't expect that New Jersey will have gay marriage as long as Chris Cristie is Governor, although I expect the Garden State to wed same-sex couples before most other states.  Whatever happens, I'm sure that New York is not going to be the last jurisdiction in the US to allow same-sex marriages.