He Crashed The Train Because He's Gay

A few weeks ago, Time magazine's cover trumpeted a "transgender tipping point".  Indeed, more and more people are starting to understand--and accept--us.  Some of this, of course, has to do with celebrities like Bruce Jenner "coming out" as trans.  And I think it also has to do with the fact that more and more people are simply aware that some neighbor, co-worker, friend or even family member is trans.

As happy as I am about this development, I have also seen a dark side to it.  Those who hate us are becoming more virulent and, in some cases, violent.  They are going to more extreme methods to oppose us in whatever ways they can.  Those who don't have the means or wherewithal to do such things are coming up with ever-more-implausible and simply loopy notions about us and the terrible things we're responsible for.

All of what I've said also applies to gays and lesbians. As more states and countries legalize gay marriage, homophobes attribute everything from natural disasters to security breaches--and the old favorites like paedophilia--to gay people.

Add the recent Amtrak crash to the list.  Sandra Rose--who can actually make Ann Coulter seem like Stephen Jay Gould--claims that Brandon Bostian, the engineer of that train, crashed it because he wanted media attention.  He had been campaigning for the government to adopt greater rail safety marriage--and legalize gay marriage.

Now, how she can conflate his advocacy of gay marriage with his rants about the government's inaction about rail safety--and how she can say that he crashed the train to call attention to them--is something that, perhaps, takes a mind greater than mine to comprehend, let alone explain.  If you can walk me through Ms. Rose's logic, please do so.

Gays Caused The Baltimore Riots. Bill Flores Says So.

Let's see...Gay people (which, in the minds of many, still include trans folk) have been blamed for Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Irene and other natural disasters...the Benghazi attacks...the Newtown school shootings and other massacres...and...

...the riots in Baltimore.  Silly me.  I thought they were a reaction to the death of Freddie Gray.  Hmm...Here I was, thinking that people were (rightly) upset that another young black man in a racially divided city (and country) died while in police custody.  

It takes a greater mind than my own to understand, let alone explain, the slippery slope from allowing same-sex marriage to arson and looting in the streets. So I will let the estimable Bill Flores, a Republican (what else?) Representative from Texas, enlighten us:

https://soundcloud.com/rightwingwatch/flores-links-gay-marriage-to-baltimore-riots

Kill 'Em All! Let Matt Sort 'Em Out!

Some have said that the Bible should be the "law of the land".  That's a bit like saying an encyclopedia should guide your interests.

Somehow, though, it seems that "the Bible" always means one or two books within it.  In the case of California lawyer Matt McLaughlin, it seems to be Leviticus and Paul's letters to the Romans and Corinthians.

What exactly does McLaughlin, who lists his address as Huntington Beach, want to do?  He wants to execute anyone who commits sodomy.   

But, to be fair, the man is not as paleo as he seems at first glance. You see, he does not want to limit the method of snuffing out sodomite' lives to the old-fashioned way.  He wants anyone who touches a member of his or her own gender for sexual gratification to be "put to death by bullets to the head or any other convenient method".

Convenient?  Well, I guess the man deserves some comfort and ease.  After all, he brought $200 of his hard-earned money and a copy of his "Sodomite Suppression Act" to the Office of the Attorney General last month.  Here it is, in all of its glory:

 


Never mind that, last June, a Federal judge declared California's death penalty unconstitutional.

The Third Law: What Haters Will Do Next

Newton's Third Law of Motion says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

There is a parallel to that, I believe, in the struggle for LGBT equality.

Now it is legal for same-sex couples to marry in 36 of the 50 US states and the District of Columbia.  People who, not long ago wouldn't be caught dead uttering the word "gay"--let alone "lesbian" or "transsexual" (most didn't know the word "transgender"--are now speaking up in support of gay family members, co-workers and neighbors.  I know, personally, two people who beleived that "the lifestyle" is against their religious beliefs and are now advocating for the rights of LGBT people.  One has even become a counselor to them--and to parents who face the same struggle she had when her daughter "came out".

According to every recent poll, the majority of Americans think that there should be no legal bars against same-sex marriage and that lesbians and gay men should be protected under civil rights laws.  Expressing hate against gays is taboo in many quarters; in others, people simply wonder whether the hater hasn't got better things to do and more important things to think about.


What this means--in keeping with Newton's Law, as it were--is that the remaining homophobes are becoming more virulent in their hatred or simply more ludicrous in their expression of it. For example, there are lawmakers--like one from Texas (who looks like she's having a fantasy or two involving Rick Santorum)--who want the "right" to refuse to do business with or employ, or other wise discriminate against, LGBT people.  Why?  They believe that anti-discrimination laws somehow infringe upon their right to religious freedom.

That argument's absurdity is equaled only by its lack of originality:  It was used as a rationale for racial segregation and slavery itself.  Oh, yeah, and discrimination against women, too, which makes it all the more ironic that it's being used by women.

The good news is that where laws like the one Donna Campbell has proposed in Texas have been put to the vote, they've failed--even in states like Kansas, which is about as conservative and Republican as they come.  That tells me that even those who don't care much about LGBT equality can see how ridiculous and just plain wrong (I doubt that even Antonin Scalia thinks it's constitutional!) it is.

What that means is that Campbell and her ilk will just become even more illogical and delusional until the campaign funds dry up.  Then they'll give up or get voted out of office.  

Even when that happens, though, we'll have another reaction to contend with.  You see, the non-officeholders who've been fighting against same-sex marriage and LGBT equality--I'm talking now about groups like Focus on the Family  and American Family Association (It's always about protecting "family", right?)--are turning their hatred, I mean attention, toward transgender people.  And they will fight us with the same virulence and belligerence they used against lesbians and gays.  

The bad news is that as our lives and struggles become more familiar to more people, those groups will become more truculent and, possibly, violent.  The good news is that it will last only for so long.  But we have to be prepared in the meantime--and to keep our allies close to us.

Labels Are For Soup Cans

I think Andy Warhol would approve:

From The Rising Hollywood

A Paralell Universe?

From Diana, I learned that Roman Catholic Bishop Christopher Coyne of the Burlington (VT) diocese has affirming words for transgender people.  However, he sees same-sex relationships as "not matching up" to what the Catholic Church calls its members to "strive for".

A part of me is cheering:  Too often, trans people are “thrown under the bus”.  Too often, the throwers are gay men and, somewhat less often, lesbians and bisexuals.  Worse yet, groups that call themselves LGBT organizations and take our money (which, for trans people, is harder to come by than it is for anyone else) have sold us out by devoting all of their resources toward the singular goal of legalizing same-sex marriage. 

And, of course, many people who aren’t part of our alphabet soup are perfectly willing to welcome the first three letters into their fold but toss out T’s.  Some have positions of power and influence; others are examples for their children, students and others in their lives. 

Whether transphobia comes from gay, straight, bisexual or any other kind of people or organizations, the result is the same:  It divides trans people from lesbians, gays, bisexuals and others who don’t fit societal norms of gender and sexuality.  And, of course, it divides others in the spectrum.  The result is that when one has any sort of victory, the others believe (sometimes correctly) that it has come at their expense.  Such a perception, of course, makes all members of oppressed groups easy prey for further exploitation.

Really, all of this isn’t so different from the way plutocrats have created and exploited tensions between races and ethnic groups.  So, for example, many Italian immigrants of my grandparents’ generation detested Irish-Americans, most of whom preceded them by a decade or a generation in America.  And many African-Americans believe that Jews have done more than anyone else to oppress them.  Of course, the truly rich and powerful, who have exploited everyone I’ve mentioned, and just about everyone else, are, as the saying goes, “laughing all the way to the bank”.

My point is that if we, as trans people, should be glad that someone who could have “thrown us under the bus” chose not to do so, and should not rejoice or even breathe a sigh of relief that he chose to toss other groups of people—especially those who have been the objects of hate and violence similar to what we’ve experienced—instead.

All Are Welcome--As Long As....

One of the reasons why we become jaded, blase or even cynical is that we didn't start out wanting to be those things.   

I'm probably not telling you anything you don't already know.  Still, I think it bears telling in light of a story that came my way.

Greg Bullard is a senior pastor in his local church.  He and his husband, Brian Copeland, have won awards for their service to families in their home state of Tennessee.  That service includes running the only LGBT food pantry in their state.  Said pantry serves more than 200 families every month and addresses a problem--poverty in the LGBT community--that is often overlooked.

Whatever their sexual orientation or family configuration, one would expect that their son would be welcome in any school.  OK, maybe not "one".  I would expect that. I imagine you, dear reader, would, too.  So would many other people.

And, being that Greg is a senior pastor, I would expect--or, at least, hope--that his son would be welcome in a Christian school, even if that school is not affiliated with the same denomination as the one that includes Greg's church.  

Turns out, the school--the Davidson Academy--is not affiliated with any particular denomination, though it was "founded by Christians and operates in the Christian tradition based upon clear tenets of faith and practice."

Where did I find that verbal morsel I quoted in my previous sentence?  Where else:  in the letter the school sent to Greg and Brian.

Now, that clause can be interpreted in all sorts of ways.  But, it seems that interpretation of what "Christian" means, what the "Christian tradition" is and what constitutes "clear tenets of faith and practice" is dependent, at least to some degree, on geography--at least here in the good ol' USA.  And, since we're talking about Tennessee, it's not surprising that it was interpreted in a way to exclude the son of two pillars of the community--one of whom happens to be a senior pastor.

Really, I don't want to be snide and cynical.  But it's hard not to be because it's not surprising to learn that Christianity is interpreted to practice hate and exclusion in a particular part of this country where such things seem to happen more often than in other places.

Then again, I would expect--or, at least, hope--that even in Tennessee, there is a school with a supportive environment and high academic standards that would be glad to have the son of Greg Bullard and Brian Copeland walk into its doors.   

One can hope.

 

Aggravated Homophobia

Even by the standards of a region not known for its hospitability to LGBT people, Gambia stands out for its official homophobia.

Last month, the West African nation's president approved a law mandating life imprisonment for some homosexual acts. 

The US State Department, among other organizations, has condemned President Yahya Jammeh's action. They also "expressed concern" about the arrests of four men, nine women and a 17-year-old boy. According to Amnesty International, Gambian forces beat the suspects and threatened them with rape if they didn't confess. . 

Upon reading that, I couldn't help but to wonder whether male soldiers were threatening the male suspects with rape. Now that's an interesting way to get them to confess to homosexual acts, don't you think?

Before the law was passed, homosexual acts by men or women were punishable by up to 14 years in prison. In a perverse way, Gambia can be said to be a paragon of gender equality in that part of the world: In some neighboring countries, as well as some in other parts of the world, male homosexual acts are punished, but sexual acts between two women are not. ? And, President Jammeh might even claim that his country is protecting the vulnerable. Some of the acts punishable by life imprisonment are classified as "aggravated homosexuality". They include acts of homosexuality with people who are disabled, drugged or under 18. The term also applies to suspects who are parents, guardians or other authority figures over the person with whom he or she engages in same-sex practices.?

I'd love to know whether there is such a provision for people who have sex with members of the opposite gender who are disabled, drugged, under 18 or who are wards of the accused.

The term and definition of "aggravated homosexuality" was adopted from Ugandan law. Is there a "race to the bottom" in the human rights sweepstakes of Africa, or something?

Now They're Blaming This On Gays

Here I was, worrying that a President who's even worse on civil liberties than George the Younger would use the Ebola outbreak as an excuse to trample whatever rights we still have.

Well, my worries were misplaced.  Governors Christie and Cuomo didn't wait for Obama to out-Bush Bush. Not long after they ordered mandatory quarantines of people suspected of having the virus, a nurse returning from volunteering with  Medecins sans Frontieres in Africa is treated to a new version of stop-and-frisk--in Newark Liberty Airport.

(You can't make this shit up.)

But, as bad as Kaci Hickox's experience was, I am now even more worried about some folks in Africa.  As an example, Leroy Ponpon is one of many Liberians who might lock himself in his flat because of the virus.  If he doesn't do that, he has another option:  He can lock himself in his flat (in Monrovia) because he's gay.

In his country, church leaders are telling people that Ebola was a curse sent by God to punish sodomy.  That is, really, not surprising:  LGBT people have been blamed for the Newtown Massacre, Hurricane Katrina, the economic disaster of post-World War I Germany, Superstorm Sandy, the events of 11 September 2001  and all manner of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornadoes, floods, climate change and other natural and human-caused disasters. Oh, and let's not forget the AIDS epidemic.

But attributing the Ebola outbreak to gays takes on a particular virulence in a country in Liberia.  An acquaintance of mine hails from that country , when asked about LGBT rights in Liberia, says, "You can't say both in the same sentence."  As far as I know, he's straight.

Still, he says, the situation for gay and lesbian people in his homeland is better than it is in neighboring Sierra Leone and  Guinea.  Those nations and Liberia are, in turn, like San Francisco, Berlin and Montreal in comparison to nearby Nigeria.

Now, having never been in Africa and having almost entirely positive experiences with the Africans I've met, both here in North America and in Europe, I have no wish to paint the continent as a hotbed of homophobia.  Interestingly, in another of Liberia's neighbors--Cote d'Ivoire--has never criminalized same-sex relations conducted in private, though public same-sex sexual acts are considered punishable offenses. 

So how is it that Liberia and its other neighbors have such restrictive laws, and nearby Nigeria has ones that are draconian, even by the standards of such stalwarts of LGBT rights as Putin's Russia?  One reason is that Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Guinea were colonized by Great Britain during the Victorian era, when sexual mores were more repressive.  While Liberia doesn't have that history, it was founded by freed American slaves who were infused with the conservative Christianity of their time and their former masters.

Cote d'Ivoire, on the other hand, was--as its name indicates--a French colony.  Thus, its laws about homosexual relations are basically the same as the ones that prevailed in France at the time it ruled.  When you think of it, the law reflects a French attitude that persists even today:  Everyone there knows that certain people, some celebrities and others members of the local community, are gay.  But it is not discussed and, for the most part, the French don't care--as long the gay people in question keep it as leur propre affaire.

One might wonder why the other countries I've mentioned haven't updated their laws about LGBT people.  After all, the British colonizers haven't been in those countries in decades, and Liberians are several generations removed from their history as slaves.  The reason, I believe, is that all of those countries are still bound by another, and more insidious kind of colonialization.  The kind I'm talking about wasn't brought by merchants or by men in uniforms who arrived on gunships.  Rather, the ones I'm talking about--who probably never saw themselves as colonizers--sometimes wore clerical collars and habits.  Or they were the kinds of modestly-dressed people one sees handing out pamphlets on street corners.

I'm talking about religious missionaries.  They brought with them their churches' attitudes about sex and family that prevailed in their home countries at the time they arrived.   Nigeria in particular was affected:  It now has, arguably, the most conservative Christian church--the local Roman Catholic--on the continent.  (Indeed,  in part because of his conservativism,  Father Francis Arzine was considered a leading candidate to succeed Pope John Paul II.)  Nigeria also is home to Boko Haram, in the mainly-Muslim northern part of the country.  The organization's name means, "Western education is forbidden."  That, I think, says a lot about their attitudes toward women, let alone homosexuality. 

Between the Boko Haram and a conservative Catholic church, how much respect--let alone tolerance--would you expect to find for LGBT people?

If anything, the surprise is that some bishop or imam there didn't beat Liberian officials in blaming LGBT people for the Ebola epidemic.

 

The Economist Gets It

This week, The Economist published an editorial that left me pleasantly surprised.

I often read the magazine simply because it's more literate and has a broader horizon than most other magazines.  Their book and theatre reviews are among the best.  However, I don't always agree with their political and economic views, which always seemed to the right in a Thatcherist (if not Reaganesque) kind of way.  

As this week's editorial rightly points out, there seems to be a growing divide in this world when it comes to LGBT rights.  Now most western European countries, and some in Latin America and Asia--along with Canada and nineteen (as of this writing) US states--have legalized civil unions or gay marriage.  And those countries, along with others, have struck down old laws that criminalized homosexual acts.

On the other hand, some countries are developing ever-more-repressive policies toward LGBT people.  Those countries, mostly in Africa and the Muslim world, are--to some degree--reacting against the increasing tolerance of the West (and Far East).  But Russia's anti-gay policies cannot be laid solely at the feet of Vladimir Putin:  Polls indicate that about three in every four Russians disapprove of homosexuality.

Could the reaction of such countries be, in some way, a tacit admission that the world is changing?  Could they be left behind in other social areas, as well as economics, if they don't follow the rest of the world?  The editorial seems to imply as much:  In those countries, as in the rest of the world, the population--particularly the young--are becoming more urbanized and educated.  And, of course, they use the Internet.  So, perhaps, old prejudices and taboos could simply fade away as those younger people take their places in the world.

Barbera-ic

Sometimes I wonder whether I'm performing some sort of service by calling out someone by Peter LaBarbera.  Or, by mentioning him, am I merely lending him dignity he doesn't deserve?

Perhaps I should feel sorry for him.  After all, he must feel some terrible emptiness if he really can't find anything better to do with himself than to spread hate and bile about anyone who isn't cisgender and heterosexual.

I must give him credit, though:  He can pump out more bilge in one talk-show appearance than most people can in a year.  I guess that takes some sort of talent, not to mention dedication.

Listen to him slam doctors who perform gender-reassignment surgery and President Obama's "obsession" with homosexuality--and use legal reasoning skills that would leave Learned Hand,  Benjamin Cardozo, Sandra Day O'Connor, Thurgood Marshall and even John Jay speechless in talking about the Hobby Lobby case.

Was He Taunted Into Killing?

The other day, I heard about it:   One 14-year-old boy stabbed a classmate in front of a Bronx junior high school.  Both were scheduled to step up to the podium and graduate this week.  Instead, the boy who was stabbed is lying in casket and the boy who stabbed him is in a jail cell.

I’d heard that the stabber was so bullied that, on the day he stabbed his classmate (who was once his friend and skateboard buddy), it was the first time he’d been to school in weeks.  He could barely leave his apartment; other kids—some of whom didn’t even attend the school—came to his building specifically to taunt him and even to make death threats.

Knowing nothing about him, or the other boy, I immediately thought the bullying had to do with his actual or perceived sexuality or gender identity.  I hope I don’t seem as if I’m gloating when I say I was right.  At the time, I don’t know why the thought entered my mind.  But now I think I know why it did.

You see, I experienced a pretty fair amount of bullying myself all through school, practically from the first day I can recall all the way through college.  Every single incident included homophobic and misogynistic taunts.  I was called “fag”, “queer,” “fairy” and all of the old standards.  Relationships were invented between me and shy, lonely boys who were not considered terribly masculine and with whom I just happened to talk one day or another.   Sometimes those alleged liaisons were also used to label me as a girl, or more precisely, a non-male. (Little did they know!)  Of course, when anyone was seen as female—whether or not he or she actually was—it was not in a flattering light, even if the girl was seen as sexually attractive, or at least available.   The “c” word was one of the nicer labels attached to those born with XX chromosomes.

And, I’ll admit, I did a bit of bullying myself, including one pretty serious incident.  I’ve told a few people about it; most explain it away as “self defense” or a reaction to peer or other kinds of pressures I experienced.  While their intentions might be benign or even protective, I have never tried to so rationalize the bullying I committed.  

By the same token, I will not try to use the bullying Noel Estevez   experienced to rationalize, let alone justify stabbing  Timothy Crump,  any more than I would accept the taunts, beatings and other harassment a former partner of mine experienced in his childhood and early adult life as an excuse for the abuse he committed against me.  However, my experience has also led me to understand, I believe, why Estevez  acted as he did.

So have the stories I’ve heard from friends, acquaintances, current and former co-workers and students and others who were taunted, threatened, beaten and otherwise harassed—sometimes to the point that they dropped out of school and ran away from home.  Every single one of their taunters was motivated by homophobia, misogyny (in the case of girls who were, or were perceived as, lesbians) or what we might today recognize as transphobia.  

Nearly everyone who has worked with or studied young people who’ve committed violent crime recognize that the stabbings, shootings, beatings or other forms of brutality they inflict on others are almost invariably impulsive and instinctive.  Those with a more scientific orientation than mine might accuse me of being over-simplistic, but I think there is a very common-sensical reason:  A fourteen-year-old simply doesn’t have the skills, emotional and intellectual resources—or, I suspect, even the body chemistry—to deal with blows, whether they’re physical or emotional, the way some of us learn to deal with assaults on our dignity and persons when we’re forty.  

That is the reason why I think it’s so wrong to charge Noel Estevez   as an adult.  I know lots of people will say, “Well, if he’s old enough to kill, he’s old enough to pay for it.”  I wholeheartedly agree.  However, locking up such a young man with older men who’ve killed more than once or who started their criminal careers before his mother was born will do nothing to make him pay whatever debt he can pay for taking a classmate’s life.  It will also do nothing to help him deal with the impulses on which he acted; in fact, being incarcerated with career criminals will only make him more likely to respond to the next affront with violence has as much chance of ending in his own death as that of his attacker.  

However, treating  Estevez as a juvenile might at least give him access to whatever help he needs in dealing with the traumas he’s experienced.  Some have said he acted in self-defense; I don’t think anyone portrayed him as a crazed homicidal maniac.  Given the sort of environment and treatments he needs, it’s unlikely he’d ever commit such an act again, even under the most extreme duress, including homophobic death threats.

A Religious Edict To Exterminate Us

Once I almost got killed by a guy who turned purple with rage for daring to even suggest that Islam had anything in common with his religion.

The comparison?  That both recognize that there is a tension between the way of God (Allah) and the ways of the world or mankind.  I pointed out that jihad means, basically, "striving in the way of God".

Of course, someone like that man hears the word "jihad" and thinks a suicide bomber is right around the corner.  He would also denounce--rightly, I believe--a fatwa calling for the murder of somoene deemed an infidel. The difference, though, is that I would abhor the killing but he would hate the one who ordered it.

More accurately, he would be upset at the use of the word "fatwa", just he went ballistic over "jihad".  I wonder, though, how he feels about an American president's order to kill someone he deems an enemy of this country or a governor's order to execute someone deemed guilty of a particular crime.

I pondered this question after reading the resolution Denny Burk proposed to the Southern Baptist Convention.  Burk teaches Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate division of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  In many ways, it's just a long-winded version of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" argument you hear from those who use cherry-picked Bible verses (or merely their own religious ideas) to rationalize their homophobia and transphobia.  

But the last part of the resolution is what makes it as dangerous as any order to kill issued by an Ayatollah:

RESOLVED, That we oppose efforts to alter one’s bodily identity (e.g., cross-sex hormone therapy, gender reassignment surgery) to refashion it to conform with one’s perceived gender identity; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we continue to oppose steadfastly all efforts by any governing official or body to validate transgender identity as morally praiseworthy (Isaiah 5:20); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we oppose all cultural efforts to validate claims to transgender identity.

What, exactly, does it mean to oppose a claim of individual or group identity.  As best as I can tell, it means saying that they, in essence, don't exist or that they are lesser beings.  If someone thinks that someone else doesn't have the same right to exist, it makes it that much easier to deny him or her sustenance, education, employment, housing--or life itself.  That is what makes every kind of oppression possible, and that is how people are convinced to go out and murder people they've never before met and who have done them no harm--who have done nothing more, in fact, than to have been born in another country, in another skin color, in a different gender identity or with a different sexual orientation.  Or, for that matter, who merely worship in a different way or call attention to the missteps or corruption of the people who run institutions of worship.

Some might argue that it's no different from a fatwa.  I'd agree--at least, if you think, as most Americans do, that a fatwa is on order to kill semeone. (The first time most Americans heard the term was when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued one calling for the execution of Salman Rushdie, who wrote The Satanic Verses.)  But the real meaning of "fatwa" is simply a legal opinion or learned interpretation a mufti or qualified jurist can give on an issue pertaining to Islamic law.  They have been issued on some of the issues one might expect, such as smoking, drinking and nudity.  However, the right to issue a fatwa has been abused or resulted in some simply ridiculous pronouncements, such as this one.

But even with the most absurd pronouncements made by actual or self-proclaimed Islamic scholars, I think comparing the Professor Burk's  resolution to a fatwa gives Professor Burk's resolution more dignity than it deserves.  This self-professed man of God is more disingenuous and insidious in his hatred--and wish to exterminate trans people--than almost anyone who has issued a fatwa.

Off-Limits To Christians. And I'm Responsible.

I suppose that if I were a different sort of person, I'd be amused when I hear second-wave feminists (and their acolytes) making the same sorts of false, desperate claims as the LGBT-phobic Religious Right.

But such people affect my life and those of friends, allies and peers of mine.  So I am not amused. 

Someone who was once a really good friend but who later saw fit to disavow me--and claim that she never wanted anything to do with me in the first place-- said that I was "changing" genders so I could go to some university and get a job teaching Gender Studies (or Women's Studies) that should rightfully go to a "real"--that is to say, genetic and cisgender--woman.

.

She also asserted that I and other trans women are trying to usurp the other roles and jobs women have available to them. She never specified what those roles and jobs might be, but I don't recall trying to take any job away from any woman, or applying for one in the hope that I would displace what someone like her would deem a "real woman".

Of course, such facts will not dissuade her any more than any other relevant fact would cause American Family Association President Tim Wildmon to rethink his claim that LGBT folk are keeping good Christian people like him from making a living.

(Don't you just love it when hate groups use "family" in their names?)

According to him, the LGBT community seeks to "destroy the personal business and career (sic)" of Christians who don't support same-sex marriage and other forms of equality for LGBT people. (Of course, he doesn't think of them as "equality"; to him and his ilk, such things are "special privileges.) He cited such examples as Vermont's Wildflower Inn, which no longer hosts weddings after it was fined $30,000 for turning away a same-sex couple and Washington florist Baronnelle Stutzman, who faces a lawsuit from her state's attorney general after she refused to create the floral arrangements for a same-sex couple. He also referenced Oregon bakery Sweet Cakes By Melissa, whose owners cited their religious beliefs in their decision not to prep a cake for a gay couple's wedding.

He uses such examples, and others, to claim that seven common careers have become off-limits for Christians. They include those of the photographer, baker, florist, broadcaster, counselor, innkeeper and teacher/professor.

It sounds like "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers," from the way Wildmon tells it. All right, I confess: I am here to take over your career!"

All right, so that was a joke. To me, anyway. But not to folks like Wildmon--or that erstwhile friend of mine--who, apparently, has been teaching Gender/Women's Studies at the College of Staten Island in the City University of New York. What's really scary about that was that I teach on the premise that knowledge is power and that my budding faith is showing me that I don't have to be beaten down by this world. Yet that old friend of mine--her name is Elizabeth Pallitto--and Mr. Wildmon are painting themselves and those who listen to them as victims.

To be fair, I have to say that Wildmon's rhetoric is more reprehensible because he is, in essence, using his and his followers' privilege (which, of course, they don't see as such) as members of what is considered the mainstream in America to push members of minority groups back into the margins. In other words, he's inciting bullying. All Professor Pallitto and her ilk are guilty of, really, is that they stopped learning after they read Janice Raymond's The Transsexual Empire.

Not Again: Mrs. Doubtfire

In 1992, I came out.

I'm not talking about my sexual preferences or gender identity.  What I mean is that after coming about as close as I've come (until this past summer) to having a nervous breakdown, I talked for the first time about the sexual molestation I experienced as a child.

I was ready to do so; even more to the point, some people in my life were ready to hear it.  And in American society, more people understood that a kid or a woman who is sexually molested or assaulted did not bring it on him- or her-self.  In fact, I found a pretty fair amount of sympathy from those with whom I discussed my experience.

However, at that time I also felt the submerged bubble of my gender identity rising to the surface of the river of my life.  And I popped it, at least to the degree I could.  

For all that doing so cost me (emotionally, that is), I had good reasons.  You see, most people still believed (and I told myself) that so-called trans women were gay men who wouldn't admit it to themselves. Someone who ended his friendship with me after I began my transition said as much.  

And, to most people who were not in the "spectrum" gay and trans people cared about nothing but sex, and therefore were "asking for it" when they were raped, molested or even murdered.  About two decades earlier, most men (and many women) had similar attitudes about women.

So, while not coming out about my trans identity was not a calculated decision at the time, it probably was best, at least in some ways.  Even from sympathetic people, I might have gotten some really bad advice, and I probably would have ended up in the office of some therapist who still believed that a man molesting a boy was simply a result of repressed homosexuality on one or both sides.  The fact that one of my molesters was a married man who, to my knowledge, never had any liaisons with adult males would not have been considered.

Even more to the point, a lot of people still saw transgenderism as nothing more than a person of one gender wearing the clothes of, and aping the behavior (actually, cariactures) of the other.  This attitude accounts for the wild popularity of a movie that came out that year:  Mrs. Doubtfire.

Now, I don't want to paint all people who laughed at it as transphobes.  I saw it and laughed at Robin Williams' antic comedy, as I do whenever I see him in a comic role.  However, most people--including many critics--actually thought the idea of a man wearing women's clothes was just plain funny or, at best, an example of "gender bending."

Even the premise too many saw as novel was ancient in the time of Greek theatre:  Someone dons a disguise to win, or win back, the person he or she loves.  And the idea of a man putting on a dress and makeup to get a job was treated much more skillfully in Tootsie, not to mention in Richard Wright's acerbic short story A Man Of All Work.

Still, there's no idea so cliched or simply outdated that Hollywood won't try to recycle it.  That's why there's a sequel of Mrs. Doubtfire in the works, with Robin Williams reprising the lead role.

I hope he reconsiders.  After all, I always thought he was thoughtful and informed when it comes to gender, sexual identity and other issues.  Also, I don't think that any remake, no matter how well-done, will be as well-received as the original was.  A lot of people's notions--including my own and those of people in my own life--have changed, thankfully, since then.  Of course, there are still a few who will laugh at the same jokes and sight gags.  Even such people probably wouldn't want to see a remake more than once, or a sequel.  That can't be good for Robin Williams' career--not that it needs a boost.