It's All Good, But We Need More!

Over the past few days, I’ve written about the most transgender-inclusive companies and the events that seem to be leading toward ending the ban on transgenders serving in the US Armed Forces.

While those are welcome developments, they also indicate how much more needs to be done to approach equality.

For one thing, not everyone—trans or cis, straight or gay, male or female—is suited (pardon the pun) to work in a large corporation or to be in the military.  Even those who have the skills, education, talents and temperament to work in such environments may not want to do so.  I think that anyone who has something to contribute should find the best avenue for it.  And I think that many of understand that not all necessary change comes from working within established institutions or power structures.

Perhaps more to the point, though, it seems to me that the changes corporations are making, and the ones the Armed Forces seem to be in the process of making, will benefit those who are already in those organizations and are embarking upon a gender transition.  I’m not sure that much will change for those who have lost jobs, or never had jobs in the first place, because of gender identity or expression.  How does the new protocol at Company X or in the Army help young trans women or men who are homeless or doing sex work because their family disowned them or bullies drove them out of school?

Also, I can’t help but to think that most trans people who will benefit from the latest developments are white and come from at least middle-class backgrounds.  To be fair, this is probably more true for the corporate world than for the military.  But even in the uniformed services, most who would be in a position—that is, those who have attained enough seniority and rank—to serve openly without reprisal are white college graduates.     

So, while I am glad that corporations and the Armed Forces are trying to be more open to diversity, I don’t think those who are making the decisions realize how their efforts are skewed—and how much more needs to be done.  For that matter, I don’t think most of the public does, either.

The Most Transgender-Inclusive Companies

According to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey Report, 90 percent of trans people have reported experiencing harassment, mistreatment or discrimination on the job--or hid who they are in order to avoid those things.  That same survey found that 47 percent of trans people experienced an adverse outcome--such as being fired or not hired, or denied a promotion--because they are gender non-conforming.

They're the lucky ones:  They actually had jobs.  We are more than twice as likely to be unemployed--or, worse, never to have had a job--than other people are.

In such a climate, it almost seems contradictory for someone to make the list of "the most transgender inclusive companies".  But that is what the Human Rights Campaign has done.

To be fair, there are companies that are making efforts to foster transgender inclusion in their work environments.  Some have gone as far as to create protocols to help workers transition while working for them.  

Some of those companies are the ones we might expect--like Disney, which has made great efforts to be LGBT-friendly before other companies thought of doing so.  Other such companies on the list are Nike and Starbuck's.

However, some are surprising--at least to some people.  Eastman Kodak has long been known for its efforts at inclusivity, which is surprising until you realize it's in Rochester, NY, which was one of the first cities to add language to include and protect transgenders in its human rights laws.  Then there are companies like Apple, Microsoft and other tech firms.  I'm guessing that they're "early adopters", so to speak, of trans-inclusiveness because to be technological innovators, they have to "think outside the box".  


What's truly surprising, though, is how many financial-services and insurance companies are on the list.  i guess they're realizing that it's best to recruit and retain talent, no matter what body it comes in or how it identifies itself.  At least, I'd hope that's true.
 

One Of The Things We Have In Common, Unfortunately...

In 2007-2008 IMPACT, the LGBT health and development program of Northwestern University, conducted a survey of LGBT youth in Chicago.  They conducted another round of interviews in 2012-13.

Among their findings are:

From IMPACT's website.

 

What They Can't Tell You

From Fairy JerBear's Queer World News

By The Numbers, Again

This is for anyone who thinks that our pleas for equality are demands for "special treatment":

Walk In Our Shoes



From Visual.ly



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.

School Rules

Speaking of trans kids in school...

By Landon Pan and Ethan Lopez

Why They Defected

Although most of my votes have gone to candidates from the Democratic Party, I can't say I've ever been terribly enthusiastic about the party--or, for that matter, most of the candidates for whom I've voted.  For one thing, I think many cities--including New York--are over-regulated.  And, too often, their rhetoric about "inclusion" is simply a smokescreen.  As an example, I think Obama "supports" gay rights (and gay marriage, only after Joe Biden beat him to it) only because the finance and insurance industries employ a lot of gay men (here in New York, anyway).  And those companies are his largest campaign contributors.  

But I've voted for, if not always identified with, Democrats because right around the time I started voting, the religious zealots and hatemongers started to worm their way into the Republican Party.  And now, it seems, they are running the show.

I'm not the only one who thinks that way.  No less than Carlo R. Key says as much, with even greater depth of knowledge than I'll ever have.

Who is Mr. Key?  He's a Texas judge who decided to leave his party and join the Democrats.  That's quite a move for someone in his position.  What's even more telling, though, is his explanation for it:

 Rational Republican beliefs have given way to ideological character assassination. Pragmatism and principle have been overtaken by pettiness and bigotry. Make no mistake; I have not left the Republican Party. It left me. I cannot tolerate a Republican Party that demeans Texans based on their sexual orientation, the color of their skin, or their economic status. I will not be a member of a party in which hate speech elevates candidates for higher office rather than disqualifying them. I cannot place my name on the ballot for a political party that is proud to destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of federal workers over the vain attempt to repeal a law that would provide healthcare to millions of people throughout our country. .. I would hope that more people of principle will follow me.

The man didn't pull any punches.   But there is also a note of sadness:  "I have not left the Republican Party.  It left me."  At least his move doesn't seem to be one of political opportunism, and even has fairness as a motive:  "I cannot tolerate a Republican Party that demeans Texans based on their sexual orientation, the color of their skin or their economic status."  Couldn't have said it any better myself.

The hate that has infested the party (and, I believe much of the political process) drove Judge Key out of the Republican Party--or, as he says, pulled it away from him--also motivated another high-profile move from the GOP to the Democrats.  In North Carolina, which has tried to suppress voter turnout, Congressional candidate Jason Thigpen announced his defection the other day:

 I simply cannot stand with a party where its most extreme element promote hate and division amongst people,” Thigpen said in a statement posted to his campaign website Thursday. “Nothing about my platform has, nor will it change. The government shutdown was simply the straw that broke the camels back. I guess being an American just isn’t good enough anymore and I refuse to be part of an extremist movement in the GOP that only appears to thrive on fear and hate mongering of anyone and everyone who doesn’t walk their line.

His switch is, perhaps, even more jarring than that of Judge Key because he spent six years in the Army, two of them deployed to Iraq as a gun-truck commander for a Convoy Security Team.  But that experience is another reason why he changed parties.  He says he "didn't go to war to defend the liberties and freedoms of one party, race or one income class of Americans".  So he simply could not abide the Republicans' attempt to make keep minorites and college students from voting.

While the Democrats are welcoming Thigpen and Judge Key with open arms, the party needs to heed a message both men voice:  that their party needs to represent everyone, not just certain segments of the population.  Simply supporting gay marriage is not enough; if the party is serious about representing the underrepresented, it needs to remember the "T" at the end of "LGBT" and all members of "minority" groups.

LGBT And Labor

I have to admit that I've long had mixed feelings about unions.  Yes, I understand their importance in protecting workers from abuses.  However, I have also seen firsthand how they can be used, like political clubhouses--and, very often, the very corporations whose exploitative practices unions are supposed to fight--to further the narrow interests of a select group of people.  

As an example, faculty members--whether full-timers or adjuncts--in the City University of New York are required to be members of the union.  When you are hired, you sign a card in which you "consent" to join and to have the dues deducted from your paycheck.

Granted, it's not a large amount of money and it helps to pay for some of the benefits members receive.  It's also used, supposedly, to help pay for the materials and work that go into protecting faculty members' rights.  

The union purports to represent adjuncts and other non-tenure-track faculty members as well as those who have tenure, or are on their way to it.  But, I know from experience that the union will throw adjuncts--and others who are not politically expedient--under the bus.  They also don't like to take up discrimination cases because they're "too difficult to prove".  However, they'll bray and bleat all day about some issue or another of "academic freedom".

Still, I'll admit, we need the union, particularly in the current climate: one in which the balance sheet rather than the syllabus is the most important document in education.   

If the marketers, bean-counters and others whose values come from the boardroom rather than the academy see graduates as "products" and faculty members merely as means to production, I don't think they're going to be terribly interested in much else besides getting as much money as possible for or from each student and paying as little as possible to turn those students into graduates.  And if the means of production, I mean faculty member, complains about being sexually harassed, having a false complaint made against him or her or simply not having goals and expectations clearly communicated (let alone receiving support in attaining those goals)--or simply gets sick or has a family emergency-- such administrators would like nothing better than to get rid of that faculty member and hire someone else who won't stand up for him or her self and doesn't have so much "baggage".  

Any member of a group who regularly experiences discrimination is vulnerable in such an atmosphere.  I would argue that trans people are the most vulnerable of all.  Never mind that our health insurance plans (when we have them) don't cover us in the same ways that other people are covered.  No matter how well we do our jobs, we have a harder time keeping them (and, of course, the health plans that go with them) than other people do because there's always somebody who's resentful over "special" treatment he or she imagines that we receive.  Or such a person is simply convinced that we are going to commit, or have committed, any and all sorts of crimes and perversions that never even crossed our minds--or that we are looking for reasons to get them fired over spurious claims of discrimination.  

(As an example of what I've described in my previous sentence, I'm thinking of a faculty member who, upon meeting me for the first time, exclaimed "I always feel I'm walking on eggshells and am going to say the wrong thing around you.")

So, I realize--in spite of my experiences--that trans people, as well as lesbians, gays and others on the "spectrum", need organized labor movements.  And they need us.  That's something to think about on Labor Day, which will be observed tomorrow.
 

Denying A Wolfe At Red Lion

Last month, people all over the United States were shocked to learn that, in their own country, there are still high schools that hold separate proms for white and black students.  So, students who have spent hundreds of hours with each other in classrooms, played on sports teams (or cheered them on) together, fought, hugged--and, in some cases, dated--could not dance with each other as they were about to graduate.

One such school was in Wilcox County, Georgia.  The state in which I was born (but spent only the first seven months of my life) has, to be sure, been one of the most atavistic when it comes to race relations.  It was one of the last states to repeal Jim Crow laws, and only in Missisippi were more African-Americans lynched between 1892 and 1968.  Still, it's hard to believe that even in such a place, such a frankly barbaric practice as a segregated prom could continue.

That is, until its students dragged out of the 19th Century and into the 21st.  Four girls--two white, two black--took it upon themselves to organize a prom to which all of their classmates were invited.  Roughly equal numbers of students of both races attended, and DJs, photographers and other people came from as far away as New York to volunteer their services.

I mention this story becuase it is, after all, prom season, and another group of people is facing discrimination.

I'm talking about transgender students who aren't allowed to attend in the gender in which they identify.  In one of the most egregious examples of this, Mark Shue, the principal of Red Lion (PA) Area  High School, changed Isaak Wolfe's bid to become the prom king to one to become the prom queen.  He did this without notifying Isaak.  Moreover, he said that Wolfe's female name would be read at graduation.

Shue's rationale for his actions is that Isaak Wolfe's name has not yet become legal.  He is working on that change, and he has been living by his male name--and in his male gender--for some time.  I don't know anything about Pennsylvania law, but I would think that it may well be possible that Wolfe's name change won't become official until he turns 18.  Still, if Wolfe has been living as a boy, with a boy's name--and that is how his classmates, teachers and family know him--he should be allowed to attend the prom and campaign for a title as the person he is.  As he told reporters, had he known Shue would change his petition, he never would have competed.  "It's humiliating," he said.

I call it bullying.  


I say that as someone who didn't attend her prom, and participate in many other activities and rituals that are normal parts of most people's lives, because I couldn't do so as the person I am.  Not being able to live with such integrity, I came to see rejection, exclusion and pure-and-simple meanness as normal.  You've probably heard songs about how love was for other people.  That is how I felt, and still feel sometimes.  When you are subjected to such treatment throughout your life, you have a more difficult time starting or maintaining relationships, or even believing that they are possible.  In other words, you internalize the bullying and bigotry to which you're subjected.

Principal Shue has already humiliated Isaak Wolfe.  I hope he realizes the error of his way and doesn't contribute to a cycle of alienation and despair that has claimed far too many young people.

When The Paperwork Is Done

Variations of this cartoon hung in many an office during the 1970's.  However, they all had the same message: No job is finished until the paperwork is done.

Who knew how pertinent that pearl of wisdom would be for transgender people today?  And, at this moment, how many people can better understand its verisimilitude than Calliope Wong can?

She has just been rejected by Smith College.  That happens to lots of applicants, as Smith is one of the most selective all-female colleges in the United States.  

But it wasn't Ms. Wong's grades or SAT scores, or a lack of extracurricular activities or letters of recommendation that doomed her application.  Rather, it had to do with her Financial Aid forms.

Now, it's been rumored that some schools will take an applicant that doesn't request financial aid over one who does but has similar credentials.  However, I am willing to believe Smith officials when they say that it isn't her family's lack of wealth that's keeping her out of their school.

Instead, it has to do with some information her parents provided on that form.  You see, they checked off the "M" box because it's the one marked on her birth certificate and Social Security records.  Although Calliope has been living as female for two years and has identified herself as one for as long as she can remember, her official records do not yet indicate that.  

So, Smith returned her application materials without an official admissions review.  College officials said she is free to re-apply.

To its credit, Smith was one of the first colleges to openly support lesbian students, and it allows students to remain in the college if they transition from female to male.  However, with such policies, "Smith seems to be saying that they welcome trans men, but not trans women", according to Mara Keisling.  "At first blush, it appears to be counter to Smith's anti-discrimination policy," added Ms. Keisling, who is the executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality.  

While I support Smith's willingness to allow female-to-male transitions, I agree with Keisling that it's strange that the same school wouldn't allow transitions in the other direction.  Perhaps Smith could use letters from doctors and therapists certifying that the applicant has made some significant step, such as taking hormones or living full-time as female, toward her gender transition.  Or, if the college wants candidates who are "officially" female, it should specify which documents have to indicate that gender in order for an applicant to be considered.

Ms. Wong says she plans to commence her studies elsewhere.  I get the feeling that Smith will be poorer for it.

Healthcare And The Transgender Lost Generation

How many people would take advice from someone who was deemed mentally ill?

And, what would you do if you suffered some sort of disease but no one who has suffered it would talk to you?

Those two questions, I believe, sum up at least one part of the reason why there is the lost generation of transgender pepople I've mentioned in earlier posts.  

In addition to discrimination and other problems, trans people of the 1950's, and even the 1980's, faced the stigma of being classified as mentally ill.  What this meant is that, in some places, they were subjected to treatment much like the kind suffered in some of this country's worst mental institutions.    Or they were referred to the wrong kinds of medical or pyschiatric practitioners for their difficulties.  That is not to mention, of course, all of the jobs that were unavailable to them, no matter their qualifications.

This belief that trans people are mentally ill is one reason why so much emphasis was placed on "going stealth".   Doing so also could prevent a trans person from experiencing discrimination in workplaces, schools, social service agencies and other ares.  

The hostility they faced also deterred many from getting the health care they needed.  This, of course, cut more than a few trans people's lives short:  Such was the story of a few older trans people I knew.  Not that I used the past tense:   They are no longer in this world.

I discovered another effect of what I've just described in 2005-2006, when I was writing a pamphlet on how to access health care for the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund .  Although I knew a fair number of trans people by that time, it was difficult to find older trans people with whom I could discuss such things as long-term health issues trans people experience as they age--or, for that matter, the issues they faced in getting the healthcare they needed.  Of course, I could--and did--talk to the health care providers.  But providers can talk mainly about treatments and therapies; only someone who has experienced those things can talk about coping with the effects of treatments and medications, or about some of the emotional and mental issues someone who's in the process of a gender transition might face.

What the experience also taught me is that trans people of that time didn't have others with whom they could share the wisdom borne of their experiences.  Part of the reason for this is in going "stealth", they could not disclose much about the issues--including discrimination and, in a few cases, outright hostility, they might have faced.  So, in not passing their knowledge and wisdom onto their "children"--because those "children" weren't there--the new generation of trans people I was seeing had no one from whom they could learn.  Thus, in the middle of the last decade, the level of healthcare (excluding surgeries) available to most trans people, and their level of sophistication in accessing it, was really not much (if at all) better than they were two or even three decades earlier.

How A Misguded Moral Crusade Victimizes Trans People

I am glad that attention has been paid to the discrimination and violence transgender people too often face.

There is a related issue that receives a lot of notice but is almost never discussed as a transgender issue: prostitution and human trafficking.

I am not a lawyer or policy-maker.  However, before continuing this post, I will do my best to distinguish prostitution from human trafficking, as the terms are often used interchangeably.

As I understand it, human trafficking involves the transportation of people--mainly young women and girls--from one place to another for the purpose of employing them as sex workers.  Prostitution is the sex work itself:  sexual acts performed for money, whether for one's self or (as is more common) a pimp or other boss.  It is the demand for the work of prostitution that fuels human trafficking.

However, both are transgender issues because trans people--particularly young male-to-females--are disproportionately involved in sex work. We disproportionately have the "risk factors" that can lead to becoming involved with such work--and vulnerable to human trafficking.

Though there are some who become sex workers voluntarily (We've all heard about young women who do it to pay for college.), the vast majority have left homes, schools communities or nations where they were sexually exploited or otherwise abused.  

Young trans people are more likely than others to experience such conditions. And when some young trans or gay kid runs away from home to escape bullying or other kinds of abuse, he or she finds him or herself as a stranger in some place or another with no educational or other credentials (Many don't finish high school.) and few or no marketable skills.  How many options for legal employment are available to such people?

So they turn to sex work.  I admit, I am glad I haven't had to make such a choice:  I'm not sure of how long I would have survived if I had. And I don't condone the demand for such services.  However, no one has ever been able to eradicate it. Attempts to do so are, as Noy Thrupkaew has written, misguided moral crusades.

Such crusades are not only misguided. they are destructive to the very people who are exploited by human trafficking and prostitution:  the sex workers themselves.  It seems that whenever some "get tough on crime" politician decides to go after the "Johns," it's the sex workers themselves who end up in the criminal justice system.  And, of course, we know which gender makes up most of each category!  

As Thrupkaew points out, there are a few who are sex workers by choice and would not want to go into any other line of work.  However, most want to get out of the trade; most can't.  The only ways out for most are arrest or death.  Either one precludes the possibility of a "normal" life after sex work.  Most of those who are arrested return to the work they were doing before the cops picked them up.  If it's so difficult for a high-school dropout with no marketable skills to get a job, imagine how much more difficult it is with such disadvantages combined with the burden of a criminal record.

The only way to improve the lives of people, especially transgenders, who become sex workers, is to make it possible for them to leave the trade.  If they can complete their educations in places where they don't face the daily threat of harassment or worse, and get safe places to live and  jobs that will allow them to pay for their housing and other experiences, they would be much less likely to turn to, or stay in, sex work.  

Turned Away By An LGBT Organization

Every time I think the world has become  a more hospitable, or at least a  less hostile, place for trans people, something happens to shake my faith.   

It's bad enough when hateful, ignorant or simply rude words or treatment comes from the sorts of people from whom we expect it.  At least then we can see it coming.  However, it's more distrubing, and more distressing, when we are treated badly by those whom we thought to be allies--or at least who previously seemed to be working on our behalf.

A friend of mine is having such an experience.  She went to an organization that is ostensibly dedicated to helping transgender people with various legal issues, including civil rights violations and access to health care.  In fact, that organization's founder litigated a case in which I had been involved, and was settled when the judge ordered the defendant to make contributions to LGBT organizations on behalf of me and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  After that, I would volunteer for that organization, join their board of directors and write a guidebook, which they distributed in print and online, to help transgenders gain access to the health care we need.

That organization--the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund--took over Lambda Legal's name-change project.  I used its free services and, even as a complete novice to the court system, I had no difficulty.  When TLDEF took it over, I thought it might be a good thing, as TLDEF is (or, at any rate, was) an organization centered on transgendered.  Plus, TLDEF's director, Michael Silverman is a first-rate lawyer. No less than the lawyers who opposed him, and a prosecutor, said as much.

In any event, my friend went to a TLDEF name-change clinic and was treated rudely, and with hostility.  Then the person who was supposed to help my friend instead invented a reason, called it TLDEF policy, and used it to keep my friend from using their services.

My friend, at least, is canny and persistent, although obviously upset with the treatment she received.  Now that this friend has found out that the rule that would have disqualfied her, had it existed, she is all the more upset, though still fighting.

How Gay And (Especially) Transgender Youth Are Criminalized

Members of "minority" groups who experience discrimination have long been over-represented in jails and prisons.  This has been documented at least since the 1960's; probably the first groups to be recognized as disproportionately incarcerated were African-Americans and Latinos.

Now a new report shows that the percentage of the young people in the juvenile justice system who are gay or transgender is double the percentage of GT youth in the general population.  

Some of the reasons for this include the fact that many LGBT youth are abandoned by their families and rejected by their communities.  This is practically a recipe for homelessness, which is one of the leading causes of crime among young people.  Even those young people who drop out of school and leave home on their own accord to escape bullying and harassment are at increased risk of turning to crime simply to support themselves.  After all, what marketable skills do most teenagers possess?

Also implicated in the high numbers of LGBT youth in the juvenile justice system are biased school discipline policies.  Research shows that gender non-conforming youth in particular are often singled out for severe punishment for minor infractions--or for no infractions at all.  As an example, a "butchy" girl who defends herself against kids who beat and harass her is identified as the aggressor, and punished as such, solely for her demeanor.  That is, of course, to say nothing of the "sissy boys" of whom teachers and school administrators make examples because, well, those teachers and administrators are bullies who happen to be old enough to be teachers and administrators.  And--I can tell you this from firsthand experience--they sometimes punish the "sissy" or "tomboy" who's picked on because they're afraid of the kids who are picking on them.

Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of the so-called juvenile justice system is that gay and transgender youth are often classified as sex offenders, even though they have not committed sexual crimes.  Being falsely accused of sex crimes, and branded as a sex offender, is one of the worst things that can happen to anyone:  Even after the person is proven innocent, he or she lives with the stigma of the charge, possibly for the rest of his or her life.  In fact, homophobic and transphobic people often accuse transgenders--especially male-to-females--of sexual crimes simply because they hate or have disputes with them.  

Once detained, trans youth are housed according to the sex they were assigned at birth rather than the one by which they're conducting their lives.  They and gay youth are also more likely to be placed in solitary confinement, ostensibly "for their own safety" but in reality because of stereotypes that persist among staff members.  Studies by the American Psychiatric Association show that such isolation leads to stigmatization, which leads to depression and a host of other problems.  The problems caused by isolation make those young people who are placed in solitary confinement more likely to return to the juvenile justice system.

The article I've linked makes a number of recommendations, all of which make sense to me.  Even if all of them were implemented, though, it will still take a long time to break the cycle of criminalization in LGBT youth.  The experience with racial and ethnic minorities showed us as much:   As long as young people have to experience unfair discrimination and attend bad schools in hostile communities without supportive family structures, they will always be at higher risk, no matter how many laws we pass or how many training programs we start in schools and juvenile centers.

To The Santorums

Last week, Annette Gross's "Open Letter to Karen Santorum" appeared on The Bilerico Project.


I've provided a link to it because I hope that you'll show it to someone who thinks that LGBT people get "special treatment."  

I also hope that you'll show it to those people who say that we wouldn't have any problems if we kept quiet or stayed in the closet.


What Gross's letter points out so brilliantly is that we are targets of discrimination, not because of a "lifestyle choice," but because we are targeted for who and what we are.  That is something most straight cissexual people never face.  When was the last time you heard of a straight person being assaulted, much less killed, for being--or simply being perceived as--straight?


And when do straight married people have to defend their right to have the relationships they enjoy, and the privilege society affords them for doing so?


To the Santorums, and everyone else who feels bullied by gays and lesbians and transgender people, I say: Get over it.  Toughen up.  Grow thicker skin.  Grow up.    Hey, people told us those same things, and look how fierce and intimidating we've become!  

And remember:  If the queers are bullying you now, go and get an education and turn the tables.  Tomorrow can be a better day for you.

Who Is Passing Whom?

I was starting tow write an e-mail to a colleague at my second job, which may become my primary job.  I haven't sent that e-mail, and am not sure I will.  If said colleague reads this post, I probably won't need to send that e-mail.

In it, I described a bit about my experience in that place this year.  In one sense, I would like to make that place my new professional "home," so to speak.  In that place,  I haven't experienced the subtle and not-so-subtle discrimination I've encountered on my primary job.  Plus, it doesn't seem to have the dysfunction, the corruption or just the pure-and-simple pettiness that do so much to define the atmosphere, not to mention behavior and relationships, at my other job.

Still, I can't say that I felt "at home" at that second job, and somehow I don't expect to.  That is in no way the fault of anyone I've encountered there--at least, not anyone I've encountered in person.  (In fact, the colleague to whom I was writing the e-mail is one of the nicest co-workers I've had in a long time.) Perhaps it is not fair to say such things, as I started to work there less than a year ago.  But I have noticed that there is a fundamental way in which I am different, which may or may not have to do with my experiences of gender identity and transition.

I think that if I had to choose one word to encapsulate that difference, it might be "innocence."  There really seems to be a belief that if they work for and with the system, it will work for them.  Whatever remnants I may have had of such a belief were destroyed on my primary job; I don't know whether anyone ever regains such a sense, or gains it after not having had it in the first place. 

What that means is that they trust authority in a way that I can't, and perhaps never will.  The interesting thing is that it's the most "liberal" people there who seem to have that faith (I can't think of a better word for it):  They still think that governments and administrations can be moved to act in enlightened ways.  I'm thinking in particular of one prof--whom, actually, I like personally--who wants me to become an organizer for the union.  It is the same union to which faculty members at my main job belong; both colleges are part of the same university system.  The prof says he "admires" my "intelligence" and "courage."  (Little does he know!)  However, I would have a very hard time in helping out a union that said it couldn't help me in what was a blatant case of discrimination.  

And--let's face it--after an experience like that, and of being "used" by various people and organizations, you tend to become a bit wary, to say the least.  Sometimes I don't simply feel I can't, or am not sure I can, trust certain colleagues and superiors:  I'm not even sure that I want to trust them.  Having been brought up on trumped-up charges, and being blamed for sexual harassment I experienced, may simply have made me less capable, and less desirous, of giving trust, at least on the job.

A few days ago, someone at my main job remarked that I am "outgrowing" that place.  I don't think I've been at my second job long enough for that to have happened.  But I sometimes wonder if I'm "outgrowing" the academic world entirely.  Or, perhaps, it is leaving me in some way.  

Hearing It All Again

Sometimes it all seems too familiar.  There is a particularly gruesome attack on a transgender person, and the media splashes it all over their pages and screens.  Or they do one of their "Bet You Didn't Know They Were Trannies" segments.


The problem is that reporters, producers and others who are supposed to inform the public forget about us the rest of the time.  They will never, for instance, talk about Injustice At Every Turn:  A Report of The National Transgender Discrimination Survey.  If they did, they would express shock or possibly pity.    But they would be surprised only in ways we can't be upon finding out that 78 percent of gender non-conforming people experience harassment in grades K-12 and half of us were harassed in our workplaces, while seven percent of us experienced outright violence there.  


And for trans people of color, it's all worse.  But when was the last time you saw a gender non-conforming person of color who wasn't named RuPaul on TV or in a movie?


I wonder whether anyone has done a study about how much media attention we actually get.