Two Words

The English language is wonderful. Really.  

After all, it takes only two words to save trans or gay kids from getting the shit kicked out of them in the schoolyard--or trans or gay adults from getting fired from their jobs, evicted from their homes or denied health care or other services.

Just two words.  Deux mots justes.  

On the other hand, those two words are so powerful that they would make some parents pull their kids out of a school--out of fear of the  trans students their kids are bullying.

Two cheap, measly little words.  They're so little the local school board can slip them right past the parents.  Or so those parents fear--because, as little as they are, they could expose their kids to "she male" teachers.

What are those two words?

Hold on to your hats:  Gender identity.

All someone has to do is add those two words to a non-discrimination policy.   Two words, mightier thant the two hydrogen bombs Barry Goldwater  wanted to drop on Vietnam.

That's why some folks in Fairfax County, Virginia are trying to stop them.  Gender identity.  Those words could end the world as they know it.

They could also end the world that those bullied kids know.  

What They Can't Tell You

From Fairy JerBear's Queer World News

The Wrong Way To Go About It

None of us likes to hear ignorant, hateful comments, especially when they're directed at us--or, at least, some notion that the person making the comment has about us.  I really hope that one day we will live in a world in which we--and the trans people who are coming after us--don't have to hear such things.

At the same time I oppose, and have always opposed, censorship  and in any form. People--at least in this country--have a right to say what they please, even if it's something people don't like or is simply wrong.  If the latter is true, it's our job to point out the error in their thinking or expression; if we find something not to our liking, we should say what we find objectionable about it.  

That is the reason why I think Houston mayor Annise Parker was wrong to subpoena pastors who oppose the recent city ordinance prohibiting businesses from discriminating against transgender people.  

Now, I don't want you to think that just because I've become involved in a church, I've begun to side with all members of the clergy.  Far from it:  I still cringe when I hear of some of the pure and simple hate some of them are spewing from their pulpits, and I have to remind myself that not all ordained people do such things.  In fact, the priests at my church make great efforts to make trans people welcome and the senior pastoral associate--a very intelligent and compassionate straight woman--spends time with me and other trans members of our congregation in an effort to better understand our needs and wishes.

It is precisely because I've found her, and the other priests and the congregation of my church that I know things can be better.  And that is another reason why I think that we should--no, must--allow bigoted clergy people to express their opposition to laws designed to protect us, or simply to whatever they think we represent.  Simply demonizing, and trying to silence, them will only deepen their opposition to us because it shuts off any possibility of dialogue.  Even if they don't want to talk to us, we can't win the right to exercise the rights God and the Constitution gave us, let alone any possibility of gaining the respect of others within and outside our community, if we deny the rights and humanity of those who want to push us back into the closet.

Please understand that I am saying things that I have a difficult time accepting myself.  A part of me still wants to dismiss those "fundamentalist" pastors as barbaric and hypocritical.  (After all, how can someone preach the love of God and hatred, or simply bigotry, against human beings?)  Having said that, it almost goes without saying that I cringe at the thought of having to love such people.  But, really, there is no other choice:  No one has ever won a battle against hate by using hate.

Gay Rights = Loss Of Religious Freedom. Haven't We Heard That One Before?

New Orleans is often called "The Big Easy."  While that nickname might depict life--at least some aspects of it--in the Crescent City, it doesn't apply to the state--Louisiana--of which it is a part.

Interestingly, New Orleans extended its anti-discrimination laws to protect gender identity and expression in 1998, four years before New York City managed to do the same.  And, of course, New Orleans was known to have a lively gay culture and "scene"--even if much of it was underground--long before it held its first "official" Pride event in 1978.  

Even with such an environment, there were reminders--some of them truly awful--that the "N'awlins" is indeed located in Dixie.  On 24 June 1973, the UpStairs Lounge, club that provided meeting space for the city's first LGBT-affirming congregation, was set ablaze in an arson attack. Thirty-two people died as a result.  Rodger Dale Nunez, the only suspect arrested for the attack, escaped from psychiatric custody and was never again picked up by the police, even though he spent a lot of time hanging around in the French Quarter neighborhood surrounding the UpStairs Lounge.  He committed suicide in November 1974.  Six years later, the state fire marshal's office. lacking other leads, closed the case.

I mention this to give you an idea of what a formidable task some folks in Baton Rouge, the state's capital, are trying to do:  pass a "Fairness Ordinance" banning discrimination against gays and lesbians in their city. Not surprisingly, it's meeting with fierce opposition from people who claim that passing such an ordinance will inhibit their religious freedom?

How many times have we heard that argument?  How many more times must we hear it before everyone realizes how bogus it is?

How To Protect Yourself In The Workplace

I have met Professor Jillian Weiss at Transgender Day of Remembrance events as well as on other occasions.  She is a most interesting and engaging speaker, and the work she does for our community is invaluable.

Therefore, I urge you to go to the main chat room of her Transworkplace on Tuesday evening.  There, she is hosting a chat on how to protect yourself legally.

Even if you live in one of those states (which don't include, ahem, New York) that has an all-inclusive Employment Non Discrimination Act, you need to learn what will be discussed in that chat.

No Apple In The Eye Of Those Who Want Equal Rights

New York is all but surrounded by states with laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and expression.  Pennsylvania doesn't even have laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation, but Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey all prohibit that as well as discrimination against transgender people.

I'm sure this surprises many of you.  If it does, you probably don't live in the Empire State and are therefore unfamiliar with its landscape as well as its politics.

You see, New York is not, and has never been, a "progressive" state.  We not only have conservative, even reactionary people living in the rural upstate areas; we also have them right here in New York City.  The Big Apple isn't all Chelsea or Jackson Heights; we have communities of recently-arrived immigrants as well as conservative white people who have the same prejudices--some of which people rationalize with their religious beliefs.

One result is that while the State Assembly is dominated by Democrats, most who are more or less progressive, the State Senate is the province of reactionary Republicans.  The result is--as we have seen in Washington--gridlock.  But even when relations between the two legislative bodies, and between them and the Governor, are relatively harmonious, there is always a Sargasso Sea of tangled red tape bound by pure-and-simple inertia.  (By the way, I think that's one of the reasons why New York has not legalized marijuana for medical use, while its neighbors--again, with the exception of Pennsylvania--have done so.

Where They Can't Fire You For Being Who You Are

From Indiana Equality Action

Not Welcome In Arizona

What rights does--or doesn't--religion confer?

Nearly everyone (at least, everyone I know) thinks that no matter how you interpret Islam, it doesn't give you the right to hijack a plane and fly it into the side of a skyscraper.  And almost nobody in the Christian world thinks that the Inquision or the Crusades were positive developments.

Perhaps being refused service on the basis of your sexual orientation doesn't compare to such tragedies.  Still, I am guessing that almost any first-year law student or seminarian would tell you that if religion doesn't confer the right to commit murder, it also shouldn't allow discrimination.

Apparently, that's not how legislators in Arizona see it.  They've passed a bill that would allow businesses and other establishments to refuse service to LGBT people.  

So, for example, it would be perfectly legal for a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding.  Or a photographer could decide he didn't want to record a same-sex ceremony.

The two examples I've cited have actually occurred in other states.  Now Governor Jan Brewer, on whose desk the bill sits, must decide whether she'll allow such things in her state. Given her record on civil rights issues, I'm not optimistic that she'll veto it.

Why Anti-Discrimination Laws In San Antonio Matter

In Milk, a gay teenager calls on the film's eponymous subject--Harvey Milk--for advice. He's isolated in a small town in Minnesota. This young man asks Milk--the first openly gay elected offficial in the US--what he should do.

"Get on a bus and go to any really big city," Milk counsels the young man.  What Milk doesn't--can't--know is that the boy can't walk.

At least there's a happy ending to that story within the film:  A few months later, the young man calls Milk to tell him that he's in Los Angeles with a new-found circle of gay friends. 

At that time--in the 1970's--it seemed that every young LGBT person wanted to move to L.A., San Francisco or New York--or, perhaps, Miami.  Some gay men I knew at the time--the first I would ever know--also mentioned Minneapolis as a "gay friendly" city.  Ironically, the young man in the film didn't move to St. Paul's "twin" city--which, I would think, is much closer than L.A. to his home town.

Anyway, I was thinking about all of that as I read an article someone passed on to me.  I never would have thought of San Antonio--or, for that matter, any place in Texas--as places for enlightened thinking about law and social policy related to LGBT people.  (I'll concede that I've never been to SA, and that my experience of Texas is limited to Houston and Galveston.)  But the good folks of San Antonio not only passed a truly progressive (even by SF or LA standards) anti-discrimination ordinance in September.  The best thing about the law, though, is the process that led up to it.  

That the battle to enact such an ordinance began after other cities adopted, or were in the process of adopting, anti-discrimination legislation may have been a blessing:  From the outset, the law contained language that protected gender identity and expression as well as sexual orientation.  Here in New York, it took more than two decades to get gender identity and expression included in non-discrimination laws that already covered sexual orientation as well as race and ethnicity.  Other jurisdictions had laws that protected racial or ethnic discrimination but endured protracted battles over whether or not to protect LGBT folk.

From reading the article, and doing some other research, I have learned that San Antonio may actually be more left-leaning than I'd realized.  Even so, I think the value of such a city passing such a broad anti-discrimination law is immense.  After all, it's in Texas, which much of the rest of the country--and the world--views as more prototypically American than, say, New York or California

Smaller And Meaner

When we have the most reason for optimism, we are in the most danger.

I came to that conclusion after writing my Huffington Post article about AB 1266 in California--and hearing the remarks of San Antonio (TX) Councilwoman Elisa Chan.



 


The more people realize that giving us--I mean, all people who don't confirm to societal, cultural or religious notions of gender and sexuality--the same rights as everyone else won't bring down this country or bring on the Apocalypse, the more bigots will resort to mendacity, belligerence and even violence to continue a battle they can only lose.



Ms. Chan, though, is even worse than all of those people who trot out their far-fetched "what if" scenarios (for which they can never provide even a single concrete example) to keep trans people from using public bathrooms designated for the gender in which they live.  Those people, at least, can be seen as merely clinging to an irrational fear.  Chan, on the other hand, is trying to be a local version of Ann Coulter:  Because she cannot think, let alone form a rational, cogent position, she is trying to build her career on hate and fear-mongering.  (At least, that has always been my theory about Ms. Coulter.)  As one of her advisers tells her, "It's not an economic argument; it's not a small-governnment argument; it's a social-cultural argument and you'll get the most points by taking a stand".  

While Chan herself admits that publicly saying that she finds LGBT people's lives "personally disgusting" would destroy her career, she says that she's willing to lie about her "confusion" about trans people in order to take a position against adding language that would protect them in local ordinances.

Chan is an example of something against which we need to gird ourselves:  As the number of our opponents dwindles, they will grow meaner, more dishonest, more vicious and, in some cases, more violent. They will ultimately lose, but I (and, I assume, you) want to be alive and well to savor our victory.  So, be aware!



 

Protections In The Blue Hen State

Delaware's license plates refer to it as "The First State".

It was indeed the first to ratify the Constitution, on 7 December 1787.  

Lately, it hasn't been first at many things.  However, it's ahead of most other states on two issues that matter.

Not long ago, it became the 11th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Now Governor Jack Markell has signed legislation that would outlaw discrimination based on gender identity in housing, employment, insurance and public accommodations.  The Blue Hen State thus became the 17th state to pass such legislation.

The State's Senate passed the bill, but the House didn't until the bill was amended.  After language specifying how a person could establish his or her gender identity, and to prevent people from using "gender identity" as an excuse to enter an opposite-sex changing area for an "improper purpose", 11 of 21 House members voted for the bill Governor Markell signed.

Now we have just 33 more to go!

   

Keeping Honest People Honest

"Locks keep honest people out."

I forget who said that.  That person certainly had the right idea.  Also, I think he or she could have substituted the word "Laws" for "locks" and "honest" for "out".

That's what I find myself thinking every time I hear about a trans person who loses a job or, worse, applies for a job only to be told that it's already filled, yet the employer keeps the job listing posted.  Or, we experience something nearly every educated African-American or white person from a working-class background has encountered:  would-be employers who say we wouldn't "fit in with the culture" of the organizations in which we're applying for jobs.  The academic world loves to use that excuse.

Those sorts of things happen in places where there are gender identity and expression are covered in human rights laws.  In places where no such protection exists, interviewers laugh in the faces of trans people.

I was reminded of what I've just described by Diana, who has experienced her own troubles in getting a job.  She also posted a link to an insightful (at least to the readers of CNN Money) article by Blake Ellis.  It describes what we already know:  that we're far more likely than anyone else to be unemployed, homeless, engaging in sex work or to live in homeless shelters or with relatives (if they haven't disowned us).  But it at least gives some specific stories that illustrate--and, more important, humanize the phenomena described.

All of them are heartbreaking or infuriating, depending on who you are and your temperament. Jennifer Chavez has 40 years of experience in the auto industry, yet she has been blackballed by all of the auto dealerships in the Atlanta area, where she lives, as word about her transition got around.  Her former co-workers stopped talking to her and her former employer told her that a would-be employee turned down a position because of her.  Finally, after 300 applications, she got a commission-based job as a technician with Pep Boys, where she has the potential to make, at best, half of what she made on her old job. She's just barely holding on to her home.

What's really terrible is that her story is far from the worst case, even of the ones described in that article.  And, in addition to employment, medical expenses are a problem because almost no employer-provided health insurance covers the costs of transitioning (therapy, hormones and such), let alone surgery.

It's About The Bathrooms, Again

When I was in school, I very rarely went to the bathroom.  That wasn't because I ate an unusual diet or had extraordinary self-control.  Rather, I was just too damned scared to use the boys' bathrooms. To me, they were the most dangerous parts of the school:  If I were harassed or beaten, there would be nobody to stop it.  

In elementary school, all of the teachers were female.  In high school, we had some male teachers, and most of the security guards were men, but their bathrooms were separate from the students'.    


I was always a target for bullies because I was considered a "sissy" or "girly" boy.  In fact, some--and, I would later learn, a couple of teachers--actually referred to me as a "girl".  Ironically, they were right, but in school that put me in danger.   After I started to work out and play sports, the school thugs no longer punched me in the face in the hallway or body-slammed me into lockers.  However, the bathrooms were like black holes:  Kids quite literally disappeared into them.

If it was so dangerous for me even though I was a fairly athletic teenager, I can only imagine what it would have been like had I been living and dressing as a girl, or even if I'd been more androgynous than I was.  

Even after I left school, male-only bathrooms terrified me.  Whenever I had to use a toilet while away from home, I sought out bathrooms that weren't gender-specific.  That meant going to a pizzeria, coffee shop or store that had a single bathroom or toilet stall for all customers.  Even the filthiest, smelliest ones didn't frighten and repulse me as much as male-only facilities.

I think of those experiences whenever any government or other institutions is crafting transgender-inclusive policies, or at least rules that don't discriminate.  It seems that most people don't object until it comes to the part about bathrooms.  That is where people's acceptance of diversity in gender identity and expression stops.  People who were all for equal rights adopt "boys are boys and girls are girls" attitudes that could make any fundamentalist preacher seem like the director of PFLAG.  

Not surprisingly, that's happening in Massachusetts right now.  The Bay State's Department of Education has just issued a list of directives for handling transgender students so that schools are in compliance with the 2011 anti-discrimination law to protect transgender people.  Included are policies that allow students to use bathrooms or play on the sports teams designated for the gender by which they identify.  


While resistance to these policies has been, perhaps, not as strong as opposition to similar policies in other parts of the nation, it has been not only present, but almost entirely predictable. 

How predictable?  It uses the same trite and misinformed arguments as other objections to such policies.  Here's another maddening similarity:  the name of the group leading the opposition.  In this case, it's the Massachusetts Family Institute.

Why is it that so many transphobic and homophobic groups have the word "family" in their names?   My cynical self says it's a smokescreen.  However, people who oppose the kinds of policies adopted in Massachusetts almost always are sincere in the belief that they support "families"--or, at least, their concept of them.  They usually make voice their objections in religious terms: "The Family" is, in their view, based on differences in gender that are ordained by God.

However, I cannot understand how anyone can purport to be advocates of families or "The Family" if they are not concerned with the safety and well-being of children.   Trans kids need to be in an environment where they can learn without unwarranted threats to their physical beings and emotional health.  In that sense, as in many others, they are exactly like all other kids.  

I can understand the discomfort some might feel over someone they perceive to be of the "other" gender in their bathrooms.   Most of us feel the need for privacy as we take care of our needs.  Most school bathrooms provide that, at least to some degree:  The ones I've seen all have stalls.  (When I was living as a male and using men's bathrooms, I used the stalls even if I had only to urinate:  I didn't want to stand alongside other men at the urinals!)  Others are worried about the potential for rape and harassment.  I have looked long and hard, and I have yet to find any report of a male-to-female transgender of any age harassing a woman in a bathroom.  We don't go to bathrooms for that reason; still, we are conflated with "peeping Toms" and pedophiles.  

I have found that most people understand what I've just described if it's explained to them, and they actually get to know a trans person or two.  On the other hand, those who belong to "Family" organizations seem to cling to their phobias, no matter what facts are presented to them.

A Thorn In The Side Of The Rose City T-Girls

One thing any trans person can tell you is that there are some things that even the most trans-friendly communities and the strongest anti-discrimination laws can't prevent.

They include, among other things, plain-and-simple bigotry.  Such is the case in Portland, Oregon.  

The Beaver State passed its Equality Act, designed to protect the rights of LGBT people, in 2007.  This week, the State's Labor Commissioner, Brad Avakian, filed the first complaint submitted under the law.

The complaint alleges that Chris Penner, the owner of the Twilight Room Annex (formerly known as the P Club), asked the Rose City T-Girls, a group of transgender patrons, to stop patronizing his establishment.  According to them, he said he didn't want his place to be known as a "tranny bar."

Penner described himself as "shocked and baffled", saying that he's not "against gay or transgender people" and has LGBT employees.  He also says his bar has even hosted same-sex weddings and Pride events.

However, he claimed that that the Rose City T-Girls were driving patrons away on Friday nights, when the T-Girls were congregating there, because they left the stall doors open and toilet seats up in the women's rest rooms.

Investigators reported that they could find no evidence that the T-Girls were "disrupting business", as he claimed, and concluded that he did not talk to them about their behavior before barring them.

A hearing is set for 19 March.

(I couldn't help but to notice this irony: The bar owner shares the same last name with an award-winning sportswriter who came out as trans, lived and worked as female, then quietly returned to living as male and committed suicide.)

Maryland Bill To Outlaw Trans Discrimination

New Year's Day was the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation.

So, it seems appropriate that just over the border from where President Lincoln made one of the most important speeches in the history of this country, a bill has been introduced to ban discrimination against transgenders.

Maryland State Senator Rich Madaleno, who is gay, and his fellow Senator (and Democrat) Jaime Raskin are the ones who introduced the bill to the Terrapin State's legislative body.  

The good news is that Maladeno and Raskin have twenty co-sponsors, including Republican Allan Kittleman.

The bad news is that the proposal for it died in committee last year.  Senate President Thomas V. "Mike" Miller, a Democrat, reportedly blocked a vote on it.  But now he's on board with Madaleno, Raskin and Kittleman.

Because of their diligence, Dana Beyer, who is Excecutive Director of Gender Rights Maryland, says the trans community "should be very hopeful this is the year."

Her optimism is not baseless.  Maryland, like neighboring Washington, DC, has banned discrimination based on sexual orientation, and DC also has laws barring discrimination against transgenders.

We Won't Come For What They've Built In The Beaver State

Once again, I've Kelli Busey to thank for the latest news about what's available to trans people.

She reports that in order to comply with the state's non-discrimination laws, health-care insurers cannot have riders that categorically exclude all transgender patients.  Also, the state's mandate for coverage of mental health services must also apply to transgender patients.  Furthermore, the designation of a policyholder as male or female can no longer have any bearing on the types of treatments that are covered.  So, for example, a female-to-male who is documented as male cannot be denied coverage for ovarian cancer screening.

So far, it all sounds really good, right?  Then this part will sound, at first, even better:  Insurers cannot deny coverage of treatments for transgender patients if those same treatments are covered for cisgender patients.  Therefore, if an insurer pays for a cis woman's breast reduction to lessen her back pain, it also must pay for the same treatment if it's undergone by a female-to-male transgender.  

Think about that for a moment.  It sounds good until you realize that sex reassignment procedures procedures are not done on cisgender people.  To my knowledge, no cis man has ever asked to have his genitals cut open and reconstructed as a vagina, and no cis woman has ever demanded to have an artificial penis constructed (to the extent it can be done) in place of her vagina.  Also, I don't know of any insurer that pays for cis women's breast augmentations; under the new regulations, they wouldn't be required to do so for male-to-female transsexuals.

But all of this leads to an even slipperier slope:  Insurers could still change their policies as to what they will and won't cover for cis people.  So, an insurance company might decide that it will no longer cover breast or penile implants for anyone, cis or trans.  

Somehow I don't expect to see trans people hitching their wagons to mules for cross-country treks to the Beaver State--not yet, anyway.  

The Yankees Get It

Disclaimer:  In spite of its title, this post has nothing to do with baseball.   (By the way, I'm a Mets fan!)

I am referring to natives of New England.   They always seem to be ahead of the rest of the country (save, perhaps, for San Francisco) when it comes to legislation and policies that help to bring about equality for LGBT people.

Massachusetts, of course, was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage.  Now that voters in Maine have approved such unions, the only New England state in which same-sex couples can't get married is Rhode Island.  However, the Ocean State recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

Last year, Massachusetts Governor Patrick Deval signed a law that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in employment, education, housing, credit and lending.  It also makes violence against transgender individuals a hate crime. Now similar laws are on the books in all New England states, with one exception:  New Hampshire.

However, the situation in the Granite State may change.  As voters in Maine were voting in favor of same-sex marriage, New Hampshire's voters elected their first transgender lawmaker.

Stacie Laughton beat out two Republican challengers for one of three seats in the Granite State's House of Representatives in Ward 4.  She says she hopes that her victory will inspire others in the community "to get into politics, or into any other position, for that matter".  On the other hand, she says, "I don't want being transgender to be a focal point," and that she can "work between party lines and not let political partisanship hold us up when it comes to the important matters before us in the Statehouse."

She seems to understand that, aside from discrimination, those matters are the same for transgender people as they are for everyone else:  jobs, the economy, healthcare, education and such.   Would that others understood!

Infographic On LGBT Legal Protections

Yesterday, the Center for American Progress posted a very informative infographic about the state of legal protections for LGBT people in the United States:

The information about which states have or don't have protections for transgnders, lesians and gays isn't shocking to most of us in the community.  But it is disturbing to note that 71 percent of the land area of the United States has no laws protecting LGBT people against discrimination in employment, housing and other areas.

What might be even more shocking, though, is that 42,044,205 children live in states without laws that would prohibit employers from firing those kids' parents, guardians or other caretakers for being transgendered, lesbian or gay.

What would Romney, who claims to care so much about the future of our kids, make of this?  

More Attempts At Legislative Violence Against Women

I'm normally not much of a fan of increased government regulation.  However, I am disgusted by  the latest efforts to weaken legislation designed to help women.  What's even worse is that such efforts are being made in tandem with attempts to violate our right to the sanctity of our own bodies.


In a previous post, I discussed the drive in several states--most notably Texas--to require a woman who seeks an abortion to be probed, in her vagina, with an ultrasound stick.  Now many of the same lawmakers who support such legislation are behind efforts to prevent the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.


Those who want to renew the Act also want to broaden its powers to include, among other women, those who live in rural areas and Native American communities, and those who experience violence in same-sex relationships.  They also want to include stalking in the definition of domestic violence.


I can tell you firsthand that being stalked, even electronically, by an ex can have as much an effect as physical battering on your physical health and emotional well-being.  It's a kind of terrorism, when you think about it, because it keeps the stalked person on edge in much the same way that the threat of bombings keeps a society on edge.  The difference is that law enforcement officers and agencies don't take stalking seriously.  (Yes, I know that firsthand, too.) Then again, most of them don't take other kinds of violence against women seriously, either.


As for women in rural areas and Native American communities, they have less access than most other women to the services available to victims of violence, as well as the services to prevent some of them from becoming victims. Such a lack of access has to do with their isolation:  In addition to being far from the centers that offer services, women in those areas also share the isolation women in abusive relationships experience.  One all-too-common side effect of that isolation, which further exacerbates the problems those women face, is poverty.  A woman in such a relationship is likely not to have money or other resources of her own that would allow her to escape such a situation and start life anew someplace else.  Also, if such women have children, they want to take those children with them. That, of course, requires even more money and other resources, including a safe place to which they can go.


Now you might ask, "Why should there be programs for same-sex couples?"  You might not believe this, but even the so-called "helping professions" have their share of deliberately and, more often, unconsciously homophobic practitioners.  There are many other practitioners who simply don't have training for, or experience with, helping LGBT people and don't understand the particular risks-- most of which stem from the stress of living with discrimination in employment, housing and other areas--for domestic violence (and related issues like substance abuse) in the community.  Those problems are further exacerbated by the fact that because same-sex marriage still isn't legal in most states, abused partners often don't have the same venues of recourse and redress that people battered in heterosexual relationships can use.


What really rankles me is that some of the politicians who want to get rid of the Violence Against Women Act, and require doctors to probe the vaginas of women who've been raped and girls who've been incested, frame it as a diversion of money away from "more important" things in the worst economic times since the Great Depression.  If 51 percent of the population can't be as secure within our persons as the other 49 percent, what hope is there of a "recovery" or "improvement" in any other area?

Victory And Backlash In Baltimore County And Maryland

The good news:  Baltimore County, in Maryland, has approved a bill that would ban discrimination against transgenders.  It thus becomes the fourth jurisdiction in Maryland to take such action.

Also:  The Maryland Legislature has just passed a law to allow same-sex marriage, thus becoming the eighth state (last week, Washington State became the seventh) to allow same-sex marriage.

The bad news:  The unfounded but predictable objections. There are the ones who think that a "lifestyle" is being "pushed" on their children or grandchildren.  

Hmm...When other previously-disenfranchised people, such as women and blacks, were given the right to vote, own property and such, and when laws to fight discrimination against them were passed, was someone "pushing" a "lifestyle", or anything else, on people who had always enjoyed those same rights?  Did anyone accuse them of putting dangerous ideas in kids' heads?  Imagine...a girl in 1920 thinking, "Wow!  I can vote for the President!" Or a young black man thinking, "Dang!  Now I can run for Congress when I grow up!"  

I know a pretty fair number of transgender people.  Not a single one of them has ever tried to "push" his or her "lifestyle" on anyone or "recruit" anyone's kids.  Even though most of us (I include myself) are happy that we decided to live as the people we really are, none of us try to convince anyone else that he or she is transgendered.  That is a realization one can only make for one's self.  

A few parents try to raise their kids as the "opposite" gender from the one they were assigned at birth.  Most of those kids rebel against it; many run away from home.  The kids who want to live as the "opposite" gender will, in one way or another, manifest that wish without any help or prodding from anyone else.  Or they simply carry their true selves within them until the moment they feel they can live as the people they are.  If anything, the truly transgendered survive in spite of attempts to make them conform to the gender they were assigned at birth.  

I know that the last two sentences of the previous paragraph describe the childhood and adolescent experience of me and many other transgendered people of my generation.  Most people had little or no idea of what it meant to have a conflict over one's gender identity, much less to be a child with such a conflict.  So, even parents with the best of intentions tried to make their kids conform because they didn't know what else to do.

Those of us who've grown up that way want to help anyone who realizes he or she is really transgendered.  But none of us would try to convince anyone that he or she is like us.  And I doubt that any non-transgendered person would try to do such a thing, either.

So tell me...Who is trying to "push" what on whom?