skip to main |
skip to sidebar
As I've said in a previous post, there's a corollary to Newton's Third Law in the struggle for LGBT equality.
That law says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. When it comes to LGBT equality--or any other social or political issue--we usually call that reaction "backlash".
That is why, after same-sex marriage has become legal in 36 of the 50 US States (and the District of Columbia), some of the holdouts are passing laws that make it legal to discriminate against us and calling it "religious freedom".
Now we've seen another kind of backlash in a McGuffey (Pennsylvania) High School: an "anti-gay day", which some students held on Thursday.
It would be one thing if the haters wore flannel shirts--as LGBT people and allies do on "gay days"--and left it at that. But no...They're hanging signs on gay students' lockers, which the teachers have been taking down. Worse, the bigoted bullies are harassing gay students, sometimes physically, and have drawn up and circulated a "lynch list", which includes the names of gay students.
This awful spectacle also illustrates something else I've said: Kids, especially teenagers, may not listen to the adults (actual or alleged) in their lives. But they never, ever fail to imitate them.
And who are the role models for the young thugs in McGuffey? Why, none other than such bastions of rectitude as Focus on the Family and the Illinois Family Institute, which organized antigay events like Day of Dialogue and walkouts to protest the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network's "homosexuality-affirming dogma".
Such organizations also prove something else I've said: If an organization has "Family" in its name, there's a good chance it's promoting prejudice and worse against LGBT people. It seems that you can get away with anything as long as you use that word--or mention your religious beliefs. Wanna bet those kids in Pennsylvania figured that out?
"Well, gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense. [...] First, these men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners. These conditions do not make one's older years the happiest. Second, because sex is the center of their lives, they want it to be as pleasurable as possible, which means unprotected sex. Third, they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
Where did I find the above quote? Well, all right, I found it on Wikipedia. (Shh...Don't tell anybody.) Actually, I remembered seeing it somewhere, but I couldn't recall where or when.
It came, not from the early days of the AIDS epidemic or any of the earlier Dark Ages. Rather, it's of recent vintage--twenty years old, to be exact. It came from the 5 January 1994 Ron Paul Survival Report.
Now, I won't get into a discussion of Mr. Paul's fitness for public office, let alone the Presidency. But the quote that began this post reveals not only his, but a very common, perception about gay men--and, by extension, LBT people.
None other than Larry Kramer condemned the sexual habits of gay men during the '70's and '80's in language not much different from Ron Paul's. The first gay men I knew (at least, the first who revealed their sexuality to me) were indeed more sexually active than anyone else I knew up to that time, or most people I've known since. However, it was a time when many gay men--as well as lesbians--came "out of the closet." And, like anyone who has been released from bondage, they wanted as much of the very thing they'd been denied. Also, to be fair, almost no one had heard of what would come to be known as AIDS, let alone the ways it was transmitted.
Still, it's disturbing to read comments like the one from Ron Paul. If anything has an impact on the life expectancy of LGBT people, it's homophobia.
At least, that's a conclusion of a new study. When you think about it, it makes perfect sense: LGBT people in accepting communities live (on average, 12 years) longer than those in intolerant environment. And, until recently, homophobia was everywhere. In fact, people who abhorred racism and sexism held anti-LGBT attitudes, often unconsciously. I was one such person.
Before the AIDS epidemic, one didn't see many older LGBT people. Of course, during the epidemic, many died young. But those who survived are embarking upon old age, and many of us have a better chance of doing so than we might have in the old days.
Still, even in the most tolerant of environments, we face the hazards of homophobia and the terrors of transphobia. People are harassed, beaten and even murdered right here in New York for their actual or perceived sexuality or gender identity. So, while more of us are becoming members of the AARP, there are still things that have just as much chance of claiming us. And they can't be changed by medical science. Rather, we have our best chance of living long, fulfilling lives as the human spirit grows and expands.
In spite of (or, as some might argue, as a backlash against) the passing of laws to protect gender identity and expression, more violence is committed against transgender (or other gender-variant) people every year. And, perhaps even more disturbing, the assaults committed against, and the murders of, us constitute an ever-increasing percentage of crimes against LGBT people, hate crimes and crimes generally.
When "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was repealed, I pointed out--on this blog and to people I know--that it wasn't an unmitigated victory for LGBT who are in, or want to join, the military.
For one thing, I expressed concerns that DADT's repeal could actually make LGBT people in the military more vulnerable to sexual, and other kinds of, harassment than they were when DADT was the official policy. Under DADT, some gay servicemembers were "flying under the radar," so to speak, and other servicemembers could only make assumptions about the sexual orientation (or, in some cases, gender identity) of other servicemembers. No one wants to go through the embarrassment and humiliation, not to mention the legal problems, that could stem from assuming that someone was gay and harassing him or her. With DADT gone, gay servicemembers can be more easily identified--and harassed or worse.
Also, the repeal of DADT did not clear the way for transgender people to serve in the Armed Forces. One who identifies as such cannot join; anyone who comes to identify as such, and begins a gender transition, after enlisting is not allowed to remain in uniform.
There is still another problem that the repeal of DADT didn't, and couldn't, address: The culture of the armed forces is not, and probably never will be, tolerant, much less accepting, of people who are not identifiably heterosexual and cisgender. The very sorts of traits and values valued and promoted by and in the military are not exactly hospitable to diversity in gender expression and sexuality. Plus, the emphasis on creating "traditional" families (ironic, when you consider that military families have some of the highest rates of divorce) will probably ensure that the military brass won't be welcoming toward LGBT people. That Pentagon computers block any website they deem to be LGBT-friendly, while allowing unfettered access to such as Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, ought to tell you something about the military commanders' real attitudes toward LGBTs.
Plus, I'm not optimistic about the outlook for LGBT people in the military now that almost everyone expects Senator Chuck Hagel to be nominated as Secretary of Defense. While he says he is "committed to LGBT military families", his track record suggests otherwise. In 1998, he opposed then-President Bill Clinton's nomination of James Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg on the grounds that Hormel was "aggressively gay"--which, according to Hagel, would prove an impediment to doing the job. He finally apologized for his slur two weeks ago. But he still hasn't apologized for derogatory comments he made about Congressional Representative Barney Frank.
I'm waiting to see just how "committed" Sen. Hagel will be to LGBT military families.
Far too many people are killed simply for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, for crossing paths with the wrong person or people. Any murder is tragic; any seemingly out-of-the-blue slaying on the street should provoke grief and outrage.
Whenever the victim is gay, lesbian or transgendered--or seems to be--we cannot help but to believe that--or, at least, wonder whether--the killing is a hate crime. And when said victim is a well-known activist, it's hard not to feel that the killing was an assassination and, perhaps, part of an attempt at genocide.
And so it is with the murder of Lou Rispoli. Details of the crime are sketchy, but it seems fairly certain that two stick-wielding young men beat him while another kept watch in a nearby car. Rispoli was killed around 2:15 am on 20 October, on 43rd Avenue near 42nd Street in Sunnyside, Queens.
It's not much more than a mile from where I live. In fact, I've passed that spot dozens, if not hundreds, of times. It's a quiet, almost quaint, neighborhood of prewar apartment buildings and row houses that abuts Sunnyside Gardens. Like much of Queens, it is very diverse, with old Irish immigrants and their children, Italians and their children who came a bit later and more recent immigrants from India, Bangladesh, the Philippines and several South American countries. And, like a few other Queens neighborhoods--notably neighboring Woodside and Jackson Heights--it has a population, if not community, of gay male couples (Rispoli, in fact, had lived with his husband, whom he married just last year, for more than three decades.) that lives under a sort of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
The good news is that in such neighborhoods, one's identity or orientation is almost never questioned, at least openly. Most people tolerate, if not accept, their LGBT neighbors. The bad news is, of course, that the revelation of a gay, lesbian or trans person's identity leaves him or her very vulnerable to haters, or simply to aimless young (mostly male) people.
Somehow I suspect Rispoli's attackers are from the latter group. Whoever they are, they have left a man without the partner with whom he's spent most of his adult life, and two daughters without one of the people who raised them. And from many other people they have taken a friend and ally--and robbed everyone of his humanity, which I sensed very strongly in the brief encounters I had with him. That is what everyone recalled when they marched and held a candlelight vigil in his memory this afternoon and evening.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Conservapedia exists. After all, there are people who will accuse you of being brainwashed by the "liberal" media if you merely contradict their claim that Obama is a Muslim. And, believe it or not, there are others who cite Wikipedia's policy of allowing British spellings as evidence of its anti-American bias.
So, I suppose it should cause me no consternation to learn that there is a Conservapedia "article" that denies the existence of homophobia. "Homophobia would be an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals, if it really existed." So reads the very first sentence of that entry.
If it really existed: Try telling that to Matthew Shepard. Or Rebecca Wight. Or Julio Rivera. Or Gwen Araujo. Or John Lauber. Or...
What happened to Damian Furtch is terrible. He was leaving the McDonald's at Sixth Avenue and West Third Street in Manhattan on Saturday night when he was attacked.
Sometimes I think LGBT people are actually less safe in the "gay ghettos" than they are in other areas. Damian Furtch was attacked in the heart of Greenwich Village, just doors away from stores and other establishments owned by, and that cater to, gay men as well as other non-heterosexual and non-gender-conforming people.
The particular stretch where Furtch ended up with two black eyes and bloody nose is the site of one of the biggest subway stations in the New York City system. Seven different lines stop there, on two levels of track separated by a mezzanine. Lots of young people from New Jersey, Long Island, Connecticut and other places outside the city get off the train there, especially on Saturday nights, as it is only one stop away from Penn Station and two away from the Port Authority Bus Terminal and Times Square. I know because more times (and more years ago) than I'll admit, I was one of those young people.
Now, the majority of them go to the Village to hang out, and perhaps to catch a movie or go shopping. But others are go there specifically to harass gay people. After all, they're a lot more likely to find a target there than in Moonachie or Mahopac or Meriden.
I'm glad that Damian Furtch is speaking up. He is performing as valuable a role as all of those young LGBT people in the "It Gets Better" videos and commercials. He and they are survivors and, hopefully, testaments that their love for whomever they love is greater than whatever hate someone else might have for them.
At some point, I came to think of late June as gay bashing season. It seemed that the couple of weeks before and after this city's Pride March (and the anniversary of Stonewall) brought every bigot out of the woodwork. In fact, after the first Pride March in which I participated, I found myself consoling someone who'd just been attacked by a bunch of teenagers two days after moving to New York from Alabama.
But lately I've been hearing more and more stories of violence against LGBT people for being LGBT people at other times of year, including this one. Maybe the "season" really has extended. Or, perhaps, I am simply more aware of attacks that occur.
Today one of my favorite bloggers, Vickie Davis, related the story of two transgendered women who were murdered within 20 hours of each other in Brazil. I can assure you that Vickie is a realist and not someone who's fallen into mindless cynicism. So, she can honestly say that it's "without malice" when she says that such incidents are "to be expected" in a country where a trans person is slain every other day.
Now, tonight I learned of Barie Shortell, who was brutally attacked when he was walking home in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. His medical bills are expected to come to more than $100,000. And he doesn't have health insurance. Friends are holding a benefit and have created a Facebook page for donations to help pay for those expenses.
Today, without thinking, I wore a purple overshirt atop a magenta blouse that coordinated with a like color in the print of the skirt I wore. And I covered myself with a shawl in a sort of burgundish purple. A couple of people told me I looked nice, but one woman--a stranger--said, "So you're wearing purple for this day?"
"What?"
She explained that it was Domestic Violence Awareness Day. Also, she said, people were wearing purple to commemorate the victims of anti-gay violence. It turns out that there has been an epidemic of both lately.
I've read a few reports in which social workers and researchers attribute an increase in domestic violence to the recession. People are spending more time at home, they explain, in relationships they may no longer want to be in because they can't afford to go anywhere else. And people--men, mainly--are frustrated over losing jobs and, in some cases, being supported by the very wives and girlfriends they're beating.
Purple has long been my favorite color, but today that woman I met confirmed something that I've always suspected: it's a color of survivors: of people who've had to be creative simply to survive, much less to live life on their own terms. It's certainly not a color of the status quo.
As I was going home tonight, I saw that the Empire State Building was lit in dark red and purple. You can't get a much clearer sign than that!
What is it about October?
I know that it's fall and leaves are dying and, oh, they look so beautiful doing it. And I'll admit that I've taken trips just to see vast tableaux of that happening. Well, I did other things, too--like biking and, um, visiting Ben and Jerry's and Chabot's.
Those of you who know me well might say that the way I feel about October is my personal reaction to the deaths I've experienced during this month: my grandmother and an uncle. And a few other things have ended for me in October.
On the other hand, I feel energized, even if I get sick or some other inconvenience or a tragedy befalls me. There must be some weird dialectic (I hate that word, but it's apt.) between death and creative energy. I can't think of things that have begun for me in October, but there were times when, in October, I realized that I was into, or on my way to, something I'd wanted. Seven years ago, I was a month into living full-time as Justine. There was something about that milestone; I guess a month is a fairly significant amount of time. Plus, it represents a cycle of the moon. According to much in religion, mysticism and even some more empirical pursuits, the moon is a source of creative energy. And, of course, the tides--and, for some of us, the cycles of our bodies--are tied to the lunar waxings and wanings.
The flip side of creative energy is whatever causes people to do stupid, crazy or terrible things. Why else do young men risk their futures and lives to play a game? I really hope Eric LeGrand recovers and lives a wonderful life. But, really: Why risk one's self in such a way for...what?...the glory of your team? Your college? Your country?
I think James Wright put it best at the end of his poem Autumn Begins In Martin's Ferry, Ohio: "Their sons grow suicidally beautiful / At the beginning of October / And gallop terribly against each other's bodies."
I know, I'm un-American (and, as some of my peers and colleagues used to tell me, not "one of the guys") because I just don't get what's so entertaining about guys hitting each other as hard as they can to move a ball a few yards down a field.
Anyway...Could it be that a certain kind of guy really has to "prove" himself at this time of year. Everything around him says "fall;" that's exactly what he doesn't want to do. He wants to show he can stand tall; that he is indeed "the man." But even if he is, he won't be forever. So he needs something to assert himself.
Maybe that's the reason why there's so much violence against LGBT people at this time of year, and why the perpetrators of them seem to be trying to outdo each other in viciousness and brutality. I've mentioned some of those crimes--Even those few I've mentioned are too many!--in previous posts. And, it seems, there's a new one, if not every day, at least every other day.
One result is that, even with anti-discrimination laws and even with workplaces and other settings where people make the effort to understand people who are different from themselves, there are still unspoken, unwritten versions of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, as "Diana" relates on her blog. And for everyone who is silenced by such practices, many more--especially young people-- will silence themselves out of fear. After all, if you saw your teacher or some other adult in your life lose his or her livelihood--and suffer other kinds of grief-- simply for being honest, what would you do?
I can tell you this: It does nothing to stop the cycle of hate and violence. After all, we know that people gallop most violently against the bodies of the enemies they find within themselves.
Posts
