One Governor Gets It, Another Doesn't

Being Catholic is not an excuse.  

It seems that Christine Gregoire understands that.  But someone in that foreign country, er, state, across the river from where I live doesn't.

Yesterday, Ms. Gregoire signed the legislation that made Washington the seventh state to legalize same-sex marriage.  "I'm proud of who and what we are as a state," she said.  

Although she doesn't use her Roman Catholic faith as a rationale for what she does as a lawmaker, she doesn't make her faith a secret, either.  And, apparently, she sees no contradiction between her beliefs and allowing non-heteorosexual people to enjoy a right heterosexual people take for granted.

Would that I could say the same of Chris Christie, the Governor of New Jersey. Today, his state's Senate passed a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage.  The same body rejected the bill two years ago, when Jon Corzine was still the governor.  During his campaign, and ever since, Christie said he would veto the bill and has called for a referendum on the issue.  

Steven Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality, has denounced Christie's move, saying that "the rights of a minority can't be trusted to the majority."  In principle, he may be right.  However, he may not have as much to fear as he believes:  In a recent poll, the majority of New Jersey residents said they favor legalizing gay marriage.  That is the first time the majority has expressed such a view in the state, and the numbers of people who support same-sex marriage have increased every time a poll has been taken.  

And, if I'm not mistaken, more New Jersey residents are Roman Catholic than of any other religion.  For them, it's not an excuse to perpetuate inequality.  Funny how Chris Christie doesn't see it that way.

Justine's Knee (Apologies to Eric Rohmer)

I took a bit of a fall the other day.  Now my knee is swollen and bruised.  I've been to the doctor, who said "it feels worse than it actually is."  That's good to know:  at least, according to him, I'll be fine if I give it a few days' rest.  


Even if I only need a few days to mend, I'm worried the inactivity will make me even fatter than I am.  And of course I want a pain-free and functional knee, but I want it to look good, too.  I know, I'm not asking for much, am I? ;-)


In spite of the title, Eric Rohmer had nothing to do with this post!

What If They Knew?

Yesterday, I was talking with friend of a colleague who dropped by our office.  This friend, whom I'll call "Amanda" is pregnant for the first time.  I asked her whether she knew the gender of her child.


"No.  I don't want to."


"What do you think?"


"Well, I have a feeling about what my baby will be.  But I really don't want to think about it.  Whatever the gender of my baby, I'll love it."


Although I'm not sure I'd feel the same way she does in her circumstances, I admire her.  The ability to determine the gender of the fetus is a pretty recent development; for milennia before it, people didn't know the genders of their babies until they were born.  So, in  sense, whatever the child's gender, he or she was a "surprise."


Now I find myself thinking about what it would be like to know other characteristics of your child before he or she is born. I'm thinking about physical characteristics, of course, like eye color, height and diseases.  However, I'm even more interested in what it would be like if parents could know that the fetus in the mother's womb would become a gay or transgendered child.   

When Pierre Is Allowed To Become Pauline But Can't Go Home

Imagine that you've just won the right to do something about which you've always dreamed--in this case, serving in the Armed Forces of your country.

Now, having become a soldier, sailor or member of your country's air force, imagine that you can't fly home to visit your family.

That is exactly the situation faced by transgender people in a Western country that's among the world's most respected, at least when it comest to human rights and general civility.

That country would be Canada.  Yes, the same country that had gay marriage before its powerful neighbor to the south.  Said neighbor still has it in only a few states, while the entirety of Canada--the second-largest nation on the planet--has it.

And Canada not only allows LGBT people to serve in its armed forces, it also allows members of the military who are making gender transition to wear the uniform of their "destination" gender.  So, if Pierre is in the process of becoming Pauline, he can wear Pauline's uniform even if he hasn't yet had surgery.

As far as I know, no other country has such a policy.   In the United States, transgenders still can't serve, at least not openly, in the military.  If they have been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder or have begun to transition, they can't join; if, once they're in, they visibly transition or reveal their identities, they can't stay.

Yet the same country that has no problem with transgenders serving in its armed forces has a policy that is, if unintentionally, as discriminatory against transgenders as anything its southern neighbor, and any number of other countries, have.

In July of 2011, Transport Canada instituted a rule stating that a passenger could be barred from boarding a plane if he or she doesn't appear to be the gender indicated on his or her passport.

Just for its sheer subjectivity alone, it's a terrible policy.  There are plenty of masculine-looking women and feminine-looking men, most of whom never thought about transitioning.  If this law can wreak havoc with them, imagine what it can do for any number of transgender people-- such as those who, for various reasons, never have the surgery or wait many years for it.

The argument made for this law--and the policies the US and other countries have regarding gender identity indicated on passports--goes something like this:  "Well, some suicide bomber might disguise pretend to be a woman to get on a plane." 

It's a silly--not to mention offensive--argument for any number of reasons.  First of all, suicide bombers, and terrorists generally, aren't people who try to "fly under the radar."  They are driven by some sort of rage or resentment, or out of  fervent (if twisted) political or religious beliefs that matter more to them than their own lives.  People who are about to blow themselves up for the sake of killing a bunch of other people aren't much concenred about whether or not they'll be found out.  If anything, they want to be known for committing the terrible deeds they plan to do.

Someone who is simply insane (which, according to some people, includes the would-be terrorists I've just mentioned) also isn't going to trouble him or herself with concealing his or her identity or carrying a false passport.

Also, consider the fact that someone who really wants to commit a terrible crime on a plane has to, well, get on the plane.  If he's carrying a false passport and is caught, that won't happen.  Most likely, he'll be arrested.  And, if he is caught wearing a dress and carrying a female passport that isn't his, he'll probably get the shit beaten out of him in the airport parking garage.

Now tell me, what self-respecting suicide bomber would do that?

I remember that when I first tried to get a new passport that indicated me as female,  the State Department gave, essentially, the reasons I just mentioned for denying me (as well as others in my situation).  Yet, one State Department representative with whom I spoke said that, to his knowledge, no terrorist had ever committed his or her deeds while presenting him or herself as a member of the other gender. 

Even one who could "pass" as a member of the other side is unlikely to represent him or herself as one in order to gain access to something and blow it up.  Even such people would have to spend a lot of time and money (As far as I know, Al Queda and Hamaz aren't paying for hormones or GRS.) to be a convincing member of the gender they were trying to represent.  And, if you're a male-to-female, the hormones rob you of a good part of your physical strength and quickness--not to mention that it's easier to do the sorts of things terrorists do in most men's than in most women's clothing!

So, what would-be terrorists Transport Canada expects to stop with such a policy is beyond me.  And, given the other laws Canada has, I rather doubt they were trying to exclude transgender people from boarding planes.  So what, exactly is the rationale for such a law?

Fortunately, there is a movement to repeal it.  I trust Canadians to have the good sense, and good will, to do so.  Hopefully, lawmakers in my country will start looking north for their cues.

Forever Seventeen At Two Hundred

Seventeen and two hundred.

All right, you ask, what is the connection between those two numbers?

Well, I'll tell you:  It's Charles Dickens.

Yes, the famed British writer is two hundred years old today.

So what about seventeen?  Think about Dora of David Copperfield, Estella of Great Expectations and Rosa Budd of The Mystery of Edwin Drood.  Thanks to Dickens, they will be forever seventeen.

You see, as progressive (for his time, anyway) he seems to be in describing life in London in the middle of the 19th Century, his attitudes about women were fairly retrograde, even by the standards of that time.  Take a look at the portrait of perfect womanhood he paints in his description of Mrs. Chirrup, in Sketches for Young Couples:

‘...the prettiest of all little women... the prettiest little figure conceivable...the neatest little foot, and the softest little voice, and the pleasantest little smile, and the tidiest little curls, and the brightest little eyes, and the quietest little manner... a condensation of all the domestic virtues – a pocket edition of the Young Man’s Best Companion...’

More than one critic has pointed out that were he not considered such a great writer, Dickens would be considered a terrible misogynist.  There's a lot of truth to that, I think, as the quote above is not merely an isolated example.  As we say in the old country, "There's more where that came from."

There are a number of explanations as to why Dickens seemed to have what amounts to a fetish for women who were young, small, weak and submissive--and virgins.  One is that he was in love with his wife's younger sister, who died in his arms when she was seventeen years old.  That may well explain, at least partially, his infatuation with young girls who, basically, were china dolls.  But it doesn't explain the other side of that obsession:  the cruelty he could express in his depictions of older women, or those who were sick or disabled in some way.  I'm thinking, for example, of Flora Flinching of Little Dorrit, who wants to rekindle a romance with the young lover but, in Dickens' descriptions, is beyond any hope of sexual allure, and is therefore worthy only of contempt. 

His portrayal of Flora Flinching is hardly the most misogynistic thing you'll find in his writing.  There's also the wheelchair-bound Mrs. Skewton, whom we meet in Domby and Son:

‘Cleopatra was arrayed in full dress, with the diamonds, short sleeves, rouge, curls, teeth, and other juvenility all complete, but Paralysis was not to be deceived, had known her for the object of its errand, and had struck her at her glass, where she lay like a horrible doll that had tumbled down.’

Some have said that this description, being from one of his later works, is a reflection of how he viewed his by-then-aging wife.  People who knew him--including one of his daughters--said that he didn't treat her well, and that he could be as cruel to some as he was generous to others.  And, she said, "My father does not understand women."

I suppose that such complexity is what made him a keen observer of the economic and social uphevals of his time--but not of women. 

Revving Up

We were in the department office after our evening classes.  Most students had already left the campus, and Alexie and I were looking forward to a few quiet moments to work on our projects.


"Vroom!  Vroom!  Skreeeech!"  Alexie pushed over to the window; I craned my head to look out.  The engine's revving faded to a drone and the screeching tires thudded over the curb as the Camaro pulled out of the lot.  Then, another car--I couldn't tell what it was in the darkness--echoed the Camaro and made the same beeline out of the lot.


Alexie: "You know, you guys don't have to show us you have penises!"


Me, to myself:  "Yeah, and having one isn't all that.  Trust me, I know!"

A Women's Super Bowl?

If you were to say "women's football," most people would think of the "other" football, a.k.a. soccer.  That's understandable:  After all, soccer has one of the highest rates of female participation among sports.  And women's soccer has gotten more attention in the past fifteen years or so, especially after the success of the US team.  


However, there was, believe it or not, a women's tackle football league--a women's NFL, if you will.


In the early days of the NFL (the 1920's and 1930's), some teams sponsored women's teams that mainly provided halftime entertainment.  Then, it seems, this episode of sports was all but forgotten for about two decades after World War II.


Then, during the mid-1960's, Cleveland talent agent Sid Friedman started the Women's Professional Football League.  It was really a semi-professional league and, as Friedman said, a "gimmick."  However, by the early 1970's, it had grown to a dozen teams with names like the Los Angeles Dandelions, Dallas Bluebonnets, Tulsa Babes and Oklahoma City Dolls.  Believe it or not, a few of their games were televised, albeit regionally, and as often as not, the broadcasters highlighted the physical attractiveness of some of the players and the fact that others were mothers.


There is some controversy as to whether the National Women's Football League was formed as a new league or was a re-branding of the WPFL, as the NWFL consisted mainly of WPFL franchises.  In any event, within two years, the NWFL fielded fourteen teams in three divisions.  While there were teams in Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angleles and Dallas, major metropoli like New York, Chicago, Boston and the San Francisco Bay area did not have teams.  That may well have been one of the reasons why the NWFL, and women's tackle football, didn't last.


However, there are signs of a revival of the sport.  The Independent Women's Football League, a nonprofit organization that allows its member teams to operate independently, was formed in 2000 and has since grown to 40 teams.  Stuart Kantor, the author of The History of Women's Professional Football, believes that the IWFL might finally bring women's tackle football to a national audience.


Who knows?  One day, "Super Bowl Sunday" might pit the New England Debs against the New York Catwalkers!

Once A Bully, Always A Bully?

What is a bully?  Most people, I think, would agree that "people who beat up on people who have less power than themselves" is a pretty good starting point for a definition.


Of course, the beating and power don't have to be physical.  In fact, the non-physical variety can be even worse, and is as often as not what underlies abusive relationships.  Trust me, I know something about that, and it's fresh in my mind!


Anyway, most people would also agree, I think, that bullies act as they do because they know, deep down, they have so little power themselves.  That is why so much domestic violence is done by men whose lives are on the edge:  the ones who've lost their jobs and way of life, or who are about to.  Or, they may simply fear that they are about to lose those things, or that they will be revealed as not having them.


But I don't want to simply rag on men who beat women.  Anyone who doesn't have the soul of a cockroach deplores such things.  Besides, the victims of such people can at least begin to recover from the damage they've incurred--a process that, admittedly, can be a project for the remainder of the victim's life--by getting out of the abusive relationship.  Also, the aftermath of such abuse is usually limited to the victim and his or her loved ones, as well as those of the abuser.


On the other hand, there are other kinds of bullies who can cause untold damage to large numbers, and entire groups, of people.  Such people usually pick some of the most disenfranchised people as objects of their hatred.  


One such person is one who, rightly, is vilified by the trans community and our allies is one about whom I, to myself, swore I would never write or speak.  She is none other than Janice Raymond.


To attack The Transgender Empire at this late date is almost pointless.  The damage she caused with the baseless claims she made in it is finally, I believe, being reversed simply because more people know they know someone who's transgendered, and because, thankfully, only a relatively small number of people see feminism as something that includes hating all men or anything that has ever--willingly or not--worn a male guise.


In other words, more people understand that people like me actually are women and that trans men are really men.  Or, they simply think of us as living a "different" way--one that they,perhaps, wouldn't want for themselves, but that is ours by both necessity and choice.  


And then, of course, there is a whole generation of people who's come along not having read or even heard about Janice Raymond, "radical feminism" or the sexual politics of the 1970's.  They don't think much, if at all, about feminism because they take it for granted that women can be bank presidents and airline pilots and judges rather than just "girls" who serve them.  They see sexism and hit glass ceilings, but know that feminism, as defined by such as Raymond, will not help them to overcome those things.  In fact, some have even come to realize that radicals, in the end, objectify them just as much as men, in the minds of those radicals, objectify women's bodies.


Still, people like Raymond, Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford simply can't be ignored out of existence.  Their real motivations need, as much as the flaws in what they try to pass off as arguments, to be not only fought against, but dismantled.


It seems that, as a friend of mine has pointed out, Raymond has found a new group of people to bully:  sex workers.  She argues against legalizing sex work and wants to end to "the sex industry."  


On the face of it, those are legitimate positions--and I say so as someone who doesn't agree with them.  One can make valid moral arguments against legalizing sex work, and I really wish that the world was a better place so that people wouldn't feel the need to become sex workers or their customers.  However, as cynical as this may seem, unless the human race changes radically, there will always be a market for what sex workers offer.


It would be one thing if Janice Raymond were merely ignorant of this fact, or even if she ignored it.  (Actually, either would make sense had she remained the nun she once was.)  However, as I read her Ten Reasons For Not Legalizing Prostitution, I realize that her real motivation is not concern for exploited sex workers--most of whom are young women from difficult backgrounds--but her hatred of their customers and those who control their industry, most of whom are men.  Instead of going after the johns, the pimps and those who make it easy for them to operate, she picks on the sex workers themselves.


Perhaps Janice Raymond is at too late a stage in her life to change.  Does her example tell us, "Once a bully, always a bully"?  Perhaps. But, I'm happy to say, plenty of people recognize a bully when they see one and will either fight them or simply keep them out of the way.  Most bullies back down or slink away when faced with people who have courage and integrity.  Janice Raymond may not do that, but those people, and others who recognize her for what she is, will consign her to Marx's infamous dustbin of history.

Today's post is going to be a rant that will lead to a long rhetorical question.  So consider yourself forewarned!

Ever since I can remember, I have heard people say that letting kids see--let alone teaching them about--gays, lesbians and transgender people will "confuse" them or "give" them "ideas".  Two couples who were once in my life gave me, essentially, the same rationale for ending their relationships with me after I began my transition.  They said things like "I don't want my kids exposed to things like that."

At least they've spared me the most spurious and simply ridiculous allegation of all:  that I might try to "recruit" their kids.  Oh, yes, we're all trying to "recruit" kids into facing the same sort of rejection we face.   I guess we're all sadists and don't want to admit it.

All right:  I'll get off the rant.  Now, to cut to the chase--or the long rhetorical question I promised you, anyway.  Here goes:  How is it that people can say I, or any other LGBT person, is bad for kids, yet those same people will let their kids watch stuff like "Family Guy"?  I mean, there was an episode in which Baby Stewie pulled out a machine gun and shot his mother full of holes.  (And peple say we have mother issues!)  Plus, he and the rest of the family continuously make fun of the physically unattractive and socially awkward daughter Meg.  Is that somehow a better example for children than an LGBT person who's an accomplished professional and raises a child he or she adopted?

Some would say, "But that's TV!" or "It's a cartoon!"  True enough.  But most Americans still think cartoons are OK for kids, and Fox has never made any effort to encourage adults to keep kids from watching the show.  Now tell me, what kind of a message is that for kids?

Hate Escalates At Montclair State

Last Thursday, anti-gay graffiti was found by the LGBT Center of Montclair State University in New Jersey.  The following day, a threatening note was left under the door of the center.

The other day, "Fags will die on 2/7" was scrawled on a wall of a women's restroom in the student center.

Any message of hate is threatening and disturbine enough.  But in this case, the ante was upped in each incident.  The downward spiral from anti-Semitic laws to Kristallnacht to the arrest and deportation of Jews from countries the Nazis invaded, to the execution of so many of those Jews (and the use of others as, essentially, guinea pigs) should teach us that when haters feel free to escalate the manifestations of their hatred, things cannot be good for those they hate--or anyone else.

Fortunately, many Montclair students have expressed their disgust and outrage at the incidents on their campus.  I don't doubt that they represent a large segment, if not the vast majority, of campus sentiment.  After all, today most young people who are not in the closet themselves will acknowledge that at least one of their family members, friends, classmates or other peers is one of the hues in the LGBT spectrum. 

However, unless something drastically changes in the physiological makeup of young males or the psychological construction of the human race, there will always be some homophobes on any college campus.

Some have speculated that one or more fundamentalist Muslims are behind the acts of bigotry.  Back in October, some students attending a meeting in the LGBT center found a note that said, "You will feel the wrath of Allah/Your thoughts are immoral/homosexuality is sin/Allah says you must pay."

Now, I don't doubt that some Muslims share such sentiments.  Then again, change "Allah" to "God" and you will see what some fundamentalist Christians believe.  However, I don't want to insult Muslims, Christians or members of any other religion, for one does not need those, or any other, religions to rationalize his or her hate. 

In fact, it may very well be that someone was who sent that message simply used "Allah" as a smokescreen.  Something very similar happened to me once:  Someone left an anonymous complaint about me and couched his/her grievances in terms of religious (Islamic) objections to my gender transition.  It turned out that it was a student who was upset at receiving a grade that reflected the kind of work he did (or more precisely, didn't) do in my class.

Likewise, someone may be sending threats against gays because of some beef he has with a specific gay person.  Or, more likely, he might be in the closet,  or simply feeling insecure--for whatever reason--about his place in this world as a young man.  And the age at which young men traditionally attend college is about the age that many young men experience their inner conflicts about their sexuality or gender identity most intensely.  They might be living in dorms with other males like themselves; in such an environment, they try to show who has the biggest one of all.  And a young man who is not comfortable with himself feels that he has the most to prove, and will do the most extreme things in his attempts to prove that he is a man or "the man."

Then again, whoever made the threats and scrawled the graffiti may not be a student at Montclair (or at all). Or those acts may not be the work of the same person.

Whoever is responsible for those actions, and whatever his/her/their motives, it's still alarming when acts of hate can be repeated and escalated as they have during the past several months at Montclair State University.

Upholding The "Norms"

Writing about Kitty Genovese, and the way it was covered in the media, has made me think more about the ways in which maleness, heterosexuality and cisgenderism frame most discussions and perceptions of gender and sexuality, even among those who seem to be sympathetic toward LGBT people.


Let's revisit, for one more moment, the portrayal of Genovese.  As I mentioned in my previous post, the fact that she was a lesbian was not disclosed at the time.  Her neighbors and the media mentioned that she had a "roommate," which seems plausible for two young single women.  


Also, much was made of how she was petite, dressed well and was "always smiling."  Those are often considered desirable "feminine" qualities, which is to say that they are qualities many straight men find appealing in women.   Also, the media accounts echoed something else her neighbors said about her:  Working at night left her free to browse the stores along Austin Street, the neighborhood's main shopping strip.  A good number of those stores sell women's clothing and shoes, as they do now, while others sold "aesthetic" items like jewelry and furnishings.


In other words, at least part of the sympathy people felt for her--and the media attention her case got--resulted from the degree to which she fit, or at least seemed to fit,  gender and sexual norms for young women at that time.


Sadly, not much has changed in that regard.  Worse, from my point of view, is that heterosexism and cisgenderism pervade even the standards and procedures of care for young men and women who are transitioning into the gender of their spirit--or subconscious, if you will.  


Although the situation is changing, you have a better chance of being approved for hormones and gender reassignment surgery if you seem as though you would fit a stereotype--almost a cariacture, really--of the gender in which you want to spend the rest of your life.   And whatever approval and support you might get will depend, at least to some degree, upon how well you fit people's expectation of what someone in your "new" gender should be.  


The weird thing is that if you fit one of those stereotypes--say, if you're one of those transwomen (increasingly rare these days) who never leaves her dwelling in anything but a skirt, blouse, stockings, high heels and makeup--you will be criticized for "overdoing it," on one hand and for "overcompensating," on the other.  


Yet, until recently, if you'd shown up for your first session with a screening doctor or psychotherapist in clothing more appropriate to someone of the gender to which you were assigned at birth, there was a very good chance you wouldn't be approved, or would be told that you're "not ready."


And, if you are a transwoman who falls into the kind of submissive behavior men traditionally expected from women, you are criticized for being weak.  Yet, if you stand up to mistreatment, people say that you're "acting like a man" or are "uppity."


One thing about privilege:  Those who enjoy it seem to see it fit to change thee rules at any given moment.  That is how you get criticized for doing the very things you were expected to do, and criticized for not doing other things.   


The things I've just mentioned remind me that there won't be any real progress in the human race, let alone in gender and power relations, unless variations in gender identity, expression, sexuality--not to mention culture and value systems--are recognized and respected rather than merely seen as conditions to "tolerate" or efface from the person who holds them.

More About Kitty Genovese

I realize now that yesterday I overlooked something very important when I was writing my post about Kitty Genovese:  the gender power structure that existed at the time of her murder.

Why is that important?, you ask.

Well, while I have my doubts that 38 (or whatever the number) people witnessed her murder and did nothing, and even graver doubts that anybody saw the incident from beginninng to end, I do think that some who heard the screams may have reacted from the (mis)conceptions that existed at the time.

At that time, it was commonly assumed that if a man attacked a woman--whether physically, verbally, emotionally or financially--"she must have done something to deserve it." 

According to the attitudes of the time, if a woman was raped, her skirt must have been too short, her heels too high or her blouse too revealing of cleavage.  Or, she was someplace where she shouldn't have been, or been there when she shouldn't have been there.

In line with that way of thinking, if a man yelled at or beat his wife or girlfriend, she must have done something to make him unhappy.  Perhaps the meal wasn't to his liking or the house wasn't tidy enough.  Or, maybe she withheld sex (although nobody would come out and use the word) when he was tired and needed to "get his rocks off."  There was also the possiblity that she "didn't know her place," which meant that somehow she didn't bolster his sense that he "wore the pants" and was therefore in charge.

Just today a colleague at work told me that after her first marriage ended--not long after Genovese's murder--people, including family members and people she beleived to be friends--echoed the things I recounted in the previous paragraph.   Nobody talked about "domestic abuse" in those days, and those who were subjected to it faced ostracism and sometimes even legal troubles, and often medicated themselves or did other self-destructive things.  Even clergypeople and psychotherapists, to the extent that they knew or discussed such problems, advised battered women to try to "make amends" with their husbands, and to try to please them more.

All of the notions and attitudes I've mentioned were voiced by adults I knew during my adolescence, about a decade after Genovese was left to die in a Queens doorway.  In fact, well into my adulthood, I heard people who urged sensitivity and understanding when it came to other issues echo the notions I've described.  I even heard women voice their support for men who abused their significant others, and denigrate those who were battered.

Now, I don't want to insinuate that all of Kitty Genovese's neighbors were misogynistic, any more than I'd want to portray them in the way they have been by the media, and even in academic journals.  Rather, I think that if some of them heard those screams--and it's entirely possible that they didn't, or they mistook them for those of a lover's quarrel or rowdy bar patrons--they may have been acting, or basing their inaction, on assumptions they didn't even realize they held.  In fact, almost nobody who held such assumptions would have recognized him or her self as having an internalized misogyny because most people had it, to one degree or another, at that time and long after.

I know I had it, too, and it was entwined with my internalized homophobia--or, more accurately, internalized phobia about anything that wasn't heterosexual and cisgendered.  They are among the factors that prevented me from transitioning earlier in my life than I did.  At least I got to live a life, at least more than poor Kitty Genovese did.

Kitty Genovese: A Hate Crime?

Tonight, on my way home from work, I rode through Kew Gardens.  George Gershwin lived there; Paul Simon and Jerry Springer were born and raised there.  However, the name of someone who lived there for only a year or so will be associated with the neighborhood for a long, long time.


It's something I don't normally think about.  However, today, the name of Kitty Genovese popped into my head.  If you have lived in New York for any amount of time, or are a researcher of social phenomena, you've probably heard the name.


She was a bar manager who was coming home from work shortly after 3 am on 13 March 1964.  She parked her red Fiat in the lot by the Long Island Rail Road station, even though the railroad discouraged it.  Her apartment was about 100 yards from that lot, and the neighborhood was quiet and considered safe.


That illusion of tranquility was shattered in the wee hours of that morning, when Winston Mosley raped and repeatedly stabbed her.  When people in nearby apartments turned on their lights to see what was going on, he leapt into his car and drove off.  About half an hour later, he returned to a staggering Genovese to stab her again.  


Police arrived two minutes after receiving the first call about the incident, only to find Genovese's lifeless body.


After his arrest, Mosley said he simply wanted to kill a woman and confessed to killing others.  To this day, he has expressed no remorse for his deed.  Not surprisingly, he was denied parole at his most recent hearing in November.  His next hearing is next year; even though he will be 77 years old in March, I don't think anybody wants to be responsible for releasing him.


It's not surprising that the details of the event are in dispute.  After all, the weather was cold and, which meant that windows were shut.  Also, at that hour, most people were still sleeping.  Some said they believed the screams, which they didn't hear distinctly, were from a lover's quarrel or a nearby bar that was known for its rowdy patrons.  Others may have thought they were awakening from a bad dream.  Plus, the crime happened in two stages, as it were.  And, after the first time Moseley attacked her, she staggered into a door a couple of buildings down from where she'd been attacked.


Then, of course, there were some people who simply "didn't want to get involved" and others who were afraid.  The article I linked, published two weeks after the attacks, said thirty-eight people witnessed the crime.  Almost nobody believes that now, in part for the reasons I mentioned in my previous paragraph.


However, there is one fact that was known to Kitty's neighbors but was not reported in any media accounts of the crime.  She was a lesbian.  In fact, many  people in the neighborhood knew her partner, with whom she shared her apartment. 


I only learned of these things tonight.  I'd had my suspicions (Yes, trans people have "gaydar," too!), but never gave them very much thought. I wasn't thinking about it even as I typed her name into a Google search box when I got home.  However, some of the search results mentioned her sexuality, and one even mentioned her partner's name.


Mosley said he enjoyed killing women.  None of the sources I found mentions the sexual orientations of the other women he killed, and none seem to imply that he killed them or Genovese because of their sexual orientation, or the way he may have perceived it.  However, even if he didn't choose Genovese as a victim because she was a lesbian, I wonder whether her sexuality motivated him to attack her as fiercely as he did, and to return and attack her a second time.  After all, as we've seen--and I've mentioned in some previous posts--murders of LGBT people (especially trans people) are some of the most gruesome in the annals of crime.  


Voltaire wrote, "To the living we owe respect; to the dead, only the truth."  Perhaps we will never know the whole truth about Kitty Genovese's murder.  But any aspect of it that comes to light needs to be examined scrupulously. Would you want any less if she'd been one of your loved ones?

It Ain't Dead Yet

When you get to be my age, you realize there isn't an idea that's so bad that nobody will try to keep it alive.


In fact, if it's a bad enough idea, someone will try to cross-breed it with an equally bad, and outmoded, idea.


So, what's the bad idea that just won't go away?  Why, it's none other than our old friend, Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).


So who's breathing new life into it?  Someone of whom I hadn't heard until now: Oklahoma State Representative Mike Reynolds.  And what Mendelian scheme is he using to keep it alive?  Well, it looks like he's crossing DADT with the Grandfather Clause.


Oh, talk about a piece of legislation only a lawyer could love: The Grandfather Clause said that all men who were eligible to vote in 1867--the year before the reforms of Reconstruction took effect--or men who were lineal descendents of such men--were eligible to vote.  Most of the Southern States adopted it, in one form or another, during the last years of the 19th Century.  


Oklahoma, which didn't become a state until 1907, was late to that party.  However, Oklahoma lawmakers wasted little time in getting their own version of the Clause, which was enacted in 1910.  Oklahoma was in on the fun for only a few years, though:  In 1915, Guinn v. United States effectively struck down various States' Grandfather Clauses as unconstitutional.  


That didn't stop Oklahoma or any other state, though, from stopping blacks from voting:  They found all sorts of other ways, including poll taxes.


But I digress.  Folks like Reynolds know a bad old laws become good laws after a generation or two--especially when they're combined with bad, not-so-old, laws.  So, voila--He combines DADT with the Grandfather Clause, and what does he get?  The new law he's trying to get the state to enact:  People can serve in the Oklahoma National Guard only if they would have qualified for military service under the Federal laws that were in effect on 1 January 2009.


So, while the rest of the country is benighted by the repeal of DADT, good ol' Mike is trying to bring it back for Oklahomans.  By combining it with the Grandfather Clause--the way you combine fabrics or ingredients in a sandwich--he's trying to give his people a new, improved version of the law--or "Don't Ask, Don't Tell on steroids," as someone quipped.


Of course, I was happy when DADT was repealed.  But somehow I knew it wouldn't go away. For once, I wish I had been wrong.

More About ROTC At York

To follow up on my post from yesterday:  A professor who's involved with curriculum development says, in essence, that the ROTC program is being offered as a "minor" in "military leadership" and would not oblige the student to serve in the military.


Unless things have changed dramatically since I was in ROTC, that person doesn't know what she's talking about.  If they pay you, whether or not they give you a scholarship, you have a commitment to the military upon graduation.  The Armed Forces are like many other organizations:  They don't give you something without demanding something in return.


Now, I realize that there are some people whose calling, if you will, is the military.  To those people, I would say "go for it."  But to them, and anyone else who joins, I'd say that it's a "must" to read everything--including the fine print--before signing on.  Lots of people, particularly the young, hear only about the benefits, but don't realize that the military isn't just a way to pay for a college, and it isn't a job-training program.


And, of course, if they're anywhere on the LGBT spectrum, they should really think about why they're joining. 

ROTC At York: Who's Serving Whom?

Yesterday, I learned that there's talk about bringing an ROTC program to York College.


Since opening its doors in 1966, the college has not had such a program.  Some argue that it would open up job opportunities for students.  In this economy,that's no small consideration.


Also, there are more than a few veterans among the student body, as there are in most other CUNY schools.  However, the feeling among the student body, not to mention the faculty, is not as pro-military as one might expect.


I suspect that the Department of Defense is looking to York for two reasons.


First of all, the college has been expanding its programs in health-related sciences and professions.  So, perhaps, the Pentagon is looking at the college as a potential source of people who have at least some of the skills the military needs.


But second, and perhaps equally important, about 90 percent of its students are members of "minority" groups.  As much as it pains me to say it, the Armed Forces have offered more and better opportunities to "minorities"--particularly black men--than other areas of society and the economy.  That is not to say, of course, that there's no racism in the military.  It just means that one has a better chance of becoming a high-ranking officer than of becoming a CEO of a major corporation or university president if one does not come from the "right" families and schools.  And, of course, most who come from such backgrounds are white and well-off.  


Perhaps ROTC can present itself as a vehicle for equal opportunity if it comes to York. However, there's a problem I have with that.  While "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," may have been repealed, the military is a notorious hotbed of homophobia.  We've heard about Marine Lance Corporal Harry Lew, the son of parents who emigrated to New York's Chinatown, who committed suicide in Afghanistan because he was hazed so much, and so badly, by fellow Marines. The media have reported that the hazing was motivated by those Marines' prejudice against Asians like Lew.  However, I've heard rumors that the hazing was as much motivated by those Marines' suspicions that he was gay.  If that's the case, it wouldn't be the first time someone was so harassed and driven to suicide.


And, in addition to the residual homophobia that still exists in the military, there's the fact that transgender people aren't allowed to serve at all. And, of course, one won't remain a soldier, sailor, member of the Air Force or Marine for very long after starting to transition, or merely revealing a wish to do so.


So...I hope the college's administration and whoever else might be responsible for deciding on whether or not York gets an ROTC program to think about what they'd really be bringing to campus.

Reconciliation

One of the nice things about being my age is that, if you're lucky, you can start to reconcile all kinds of things that seemed irreconcilable. If you're not lucky, they reconcile themselves, though perhaps not in the ways you'd intended--or one might destroy the other.


Where am I going with this?  Well, it's about growing up transgendered, but it also has to do with stuff you'd find on my other blog, if you read it.  So consider yourself forewarned.


You see, from the time I found out about John Rakowski, I wanted to do something like what he did.  He cycled around the world, turning his pedals on every continent except Antarctica.  (What would penguins think of some guy with a bike laden with full front and rear panniers, camping equipment and bottles of water anyplace they'd fit on the bike?)  He recounted his adventures in Bicycling! magazine during my teen years.


Rakowski was in his early 50's when he undertook his journey, which lasted three years, if I recall correctly.  As it turned out, he was living not far from where I lived, in New Jersey, at the time.  And, yes I met him, and he signed my magazines.  


Well, the fact that he lived nearby and did what he did would have been reason enough for me to take him as an inspiration, if not a role model.  But there was another reason--apart from the "local boy" and "cycling" aspects of the story--that meant so much to me at that time in my life.


However, as important as his feat was to me, I never talked about it with anybody.  For one thing, no one else in my family, or even in my circle of peers or the neighborhood in which I was living, shared my passion for cycling.   It was as if the so-called "bike boom" had passed them all by.  Everybody predicted that I would "grow out of " my obsession with cycling as soon as I got my driver's licence.  Then again, people said I would "grow out of" all sorts of other things, as if they were tops and shoes.


You may have figured out where this is going: something else I didn't "grow out of."  I'm talking, of course, about my wish to be able to wear bike jerseys and shorts with cleated shoes(In that place and time, almost no one had ever seen them.) or skirts and blouses with heels, as a way of life.


The reason, of course, I didn't "grow out of" those desires is that there was more to them--which, of course, I didn't talk about with anybody.  Wearing the clothes wasn't the point for me; I wanted to be the person who was expected to wear them--or, at least, a person who wouldn't face opprobrium for doing so.  


That John Rakowski was a man, and most cyclists were men, was problematic.  How could I want to ride around the world and win the Tour de France and be a woman at the same time?


Today, of course, there are more female cyclists than there were in those days, and women's racing enjoyed a heyday during the late '80's and the '90's.  I could not understand why only men should race, tour or participate in most other sports.  Title IX had been enacted around that time; however, it would take time for women's sports to gain any momentum because the sorts of sports programs, like Little League and Pop Warner football, that existed for boys didn't exist for girls.  


It was a time when many people--including many women--thought sports were "unfeminine."  I recall one girl in my high school who was as an even better athlete than most of the boys.  Her family, which included three brothers who were athletes,  was supportive of her interests.  However, some of the teachers and other adults tried to discourage her, saying that no man would want to marry her.  I couldn't understand that:  She was a very attractive girl who had no difficulty getting dates.


Fortunately for her, she was able to play basketball and a couple of other sports in college.  Of course, I would have wanted to be like her.  Perhaps I could have been:  I played soccer in high school.  However, my real passion always lay with cycling, and only a few colleges had teams or even clubs for cycling.  To my knowledge, none were for women.


Although I repressed my desire to be a woman then, and for most of the next three decades, I always felt, deep down, that there was no contradiction between wanting to ride the world, and to race, on my bike.  What has always drawn me to cycling is the freedom I feel when I ride.  I feel as if my spirit is unchained, that--if you'll indulge me a cliche--I felt as free as the wind and as open as the air.  


And that, naturally, was what the woman in me wanted.  She wanted to be free from what I now realize were the same boundaries that seemed to contain me when I was off my bike.  When I say what I'm about to say, I don't mean to aggrandize myself:  To be a long-distance cyclist at an age after you were supposed to have a drivers license and a car, you had to be an independent spirit.  And, of course, it's impossible to be anything else if you want to live by the imperatives of your spirit rather than the dictates of your school, community and society.  That's doubly true if your subconscious or unconscious gender--the one you are when you're by yourself--is different from the one on your birth certificate, and for which you are being trained by your school, church and other institutions.


I wanted to be free--to be Justine, on a bike.  At least I lived long enough to know that those things weren't contradictory, and to meet people who understand that.  And, just as important,from my point of view, is that I've begun to develop a language to explain my complications, contradictions and complexities.  It makes sense to me, which means that I can also make it make sense to others--well, some other people anyway.  If they don't understand, or don't accept it, that is all right.  


I am Justine, and ride wherever and whenever my time and resources allow.  Hopefully, some day, I'll have more of both.  For now, living my life and riding my bikes are inseparable, and offer me so much.

Portrait Of The Feline As A Real Man

Here's a picture of a Real Man:

He's not afraid to go into a lady's boudoir.  You know how some guys get that look on their faces that says, "Oh, shit, I'm in the wrong neighborhood!" when they're in a girl's girliest spot?  Or when they're around a bunch of women listening to Laura Nyro or Nina Simone?




Well, Max has no fear.  Just to show you what I mean, he's going to take a leap.  No, not the leap.  Just a leap.

Sigh.  I miss Charlie.  That's why I'm so glad Max is here.

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.

South Carolina Yesterday; Ecuador Tomorrow?

Media pundits have parsed Newt Gingrich's primary victory in South Carolina last night in a number of ways.  Some think it's an indication that the battle for the Republican nomination will be very close; after all, there has been one other primary and one caucus, each of which produced a different winner.  Others say South Carolina is a bellwether:  Every candidate who's won its primary since 1980 has gone on to win the nomination.  Then there are those pundits who think South Carolina is too different from other states that have had, and will have, primaries, to serve as a harbinger of what's to come.


But nearly all of the commentators seem to agree that Evangelical Christians played a large part in Gingrich's victory.  While a larger percentage of the population identifies itself as Evangelical in South Carolina than in any other state, it's hard to deny the influence they will have in upcoming primaries, and the general election.


That can have dire consequences for LGBT people.  Sure, Michele Bachmann may be out of the race, but her husband's "therapeutic" practice--which, among other things, purports to "cure" homosexuality--is still thriving.  He was her main campaign adviser; now that she's out of the race, I wouldn't be surprised if he were giving support to Gingrich or Rick Santorum, who has also denounced homosexuality in religious terms.


Some of my friends and colleagues--who work some of the "bluest" occupations  in one of the "bluest" states-- don't understand just how many people in other places hold similar beliefs and were sorry to see Bachmann leave the race but are willing to vote for people like Gingrich and Santorum.  Of course, I don't think they can elect a President all by themselves.  But they are vocal about what they believe, and they vote.


So what would happen if this country were run by people who operate or support "ex-gay" clinics or camps?  Well, this might seem extreme to some of you, but we could end up like Ecuador, where hundreds of such clinics exist. According to the testimony of people who've experienced them, the physical and psychological torture of women is endemic to those places.  According to Karen Barba, the Director of Fundation Causana, those who operating the centers are "not only getting away with obscene human rights abuses, they are profiting off them."


So those clinics come from an unholy alliance of bigotry married to greed, which is then covered with a veneer of religiosity.  Hmm...that sounds familiar.  I think we've seen it at work in this country's election cycle, and there's more to come.