Where Are They Really "Gender Blind"?

Many people assume that gender equality is more readily found in large cities and institutions than in smaller ones.  It's not hard to understand why this belief exists:  After all, here in New York I have met young women who have told me they were working the kinds of jobs, and making salaries, that they simply would not have had they remained wherever they were born or raised.  Women in cities like Washington, DC and San Francisco have been saying similar things for decades.


However, it's not commonly noticed that in highly-populated regions, there are still areas of endeavor in which women lag behind men--or are not even playing on the same field.  This is especially true in the ranks of high-level executives in certain industries, and in such areas as politics. While we have seen women such as Hilary Clinton rise to become Secretary of State after representing New York State in the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi become Speaker of the House of Representatives after years of representing San Francisco in that body, women have not served as governors of their states or as mayors of the largest cities in their states.  On the other hand, Nikki Haley is currently the Governor of South Carolina, which has about as many people as Brooklyn and Manhattan, or Los Angeles and San Francisco.  And she's a Republican, which would seem to give lie to the notion that Democrats are better at achieving gender equality.


I got to thinking about the things I've mentioned thus far in this post after this, which a friend passed along to me.  It talks about "gender blind" sports programs in small upstate schools.  Being small schools, they have fewer students from which to choose in assembling their teams.  In some schools, there simply aren't enough students to assemble separate men's and women's teams in sports like tennis.  Also, there isn't enough money to field separate teams for boys and girls.


In essence, those schools mirror the situations in small towns and states where women have risen to positions of power.  There aren't as many people from which to choose in those places--and, as a friend from rural West Virginia tells me, the women are often more educated than the men and, in some cases, have better jobs (or have jobs at all when the men don't). I'm also thinking now about something a woman from a rural area in a Latin American country told me: In her town, and others like it, women are, in essence, acting as the priests.  They are doing all of the jobs in the church women "aren't supposed to do" and even ones expressly forbidden by the Church. 


But I think it's not just a lack of qualified men that gives women opportunities in such backwaters.  In one sense, it's easier (though not easy) for a woman to rise in such places because it doesn't take the same amount of money, or access to it or the networks that go along with it.  That could explain why South Carolina has a female governor but neither New York nor California has had one.  Also, the organizations and hierarchies through which women would have to work aren't as big, entrenched or, in some cases, as sclerotic as those in larger cities and states.  It's easier to rise past ten than a thousand men (or any other kind of person).  And, I think, frankly, once a woman rises through such a small network, there is less resistance to another than there is in a larger and more established community.  You might say that, even in the relatively conservative atmosphere of many small towns and states, there's actually less sexism, in practice, than there is in the establishments of large cities and highly-populated states.  


Thus, there may well be more resistance to co-ed sports teams, for example, in large city high schools than in smaller ones in small towns and rural counties.  So places like Utica will have "gender blind" sports teams while New York City high school teams remain segregated.

Mitt Bully, I Mean, Romney

Over the past few days, there have been media stories of how Presidential candidate Mitt Romney bullied classmates--including one who turned out to be gay-- at his prep school nearly half a century ago.  In those days, though, his behavior wasn't considered bullying:  It was "just boys being boys," especially in the milieu of schools like the one he attended. 


So, in one sense, those (mostly right-wing) critics of those who broke the stories are right:  No one should be judged for the behavior of his teen years.  I'll admit that I am speaking out of self-interest:  I did a bit of bullying myself.  However, I was also bullied and although I don't think I want to see my old tormentors again (for reasons other than the bullying), I expect, or at least hope, that they have grown out of such behavior and the attitudes behind them. 


However, it seems that Romney hasn't progressed much, in his attitudes or actions, since his teen years.  If anything, he's worse now because he has a greater platform and more resources to perpetuate his repressive and predatory actions.  For starters, he looks like a champion of gay rights only in comparison to Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and others who ran against him for the Republican Party's nomination to the Presidency.  It's one thing to oppose gay marriage. (I favor legalizing it only because it's the best we can do in the current legal system; I actually believe the government should play no role at all--save, perhaps, to set a minimum age--in determining who should be allowed to be married.)  He also opposes civil unions. Still, that's not the worst of his positions:  He supported, until its repeal, Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.  Worse still, in 2006 he rescinded the support he gave to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act twelve years earlier, saying that it would "unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges." 


But Romney's grown-up bullying doesn't end with his blatantly homo- and trans-phobic policies.  He also will throw workers and even managers under the  bus.  Bain Capital, which he headed, was known for buying companies and running them into the ground to make money.  Along the way, they'd fire workers, including managers, and install their own managers, most of whom knew nothing about the industries or products of the companies they were running. And Bain would charge exorbitant management fees.    Really, what they did was the corporate equivalent of a home invasion.

So, in a way, he hasn't changed since he was a teenager:  He is perfectly willing to exert force on people less able to defend themselves than he or his cohorts are.  The only difference is that now he doesn't use physical force.


If you want to read about more examples of what I've just described, look here, here, here and here. 

Argentina Gets It

Many, many years ago, I read Jacobo Timerman's wonderful (but disturbing) Prisoner Without A Name, Cell Without A Number.  In it, he recounts his arrests, torture and other trials and tribulations endured during the so-called "Dirty War" in  Argentina during the 1970's and 1980's. Although he was arrested, interrogated, tortured, incarcerated and, finally, deported, no formal charges were ever brought against him.  From what he says, he may have been lucky:  others were "disappeared" or simply murdered outright for such vague reasons as "financial ties" or other "connections" to "Israeli terrorists."


Now, three decades after Timerman's book was published and he was able to return to his home country, Argentina has taken a step no other country has ever taken in advancing human rights.


Last night, the Argentine Congress voted unanimously for a law that, in essence, allows people to change their gender because they want to.


No longer will anyone have to endure what Karla Oser had to in order to become one of only forty people to have gender reassignment surgery in the hospital at La Plata.  She had to present judges with testimony from two psychologists, a psychiatrist, a gynecologist, a urologist and an ear-nose-and-throat specialist.  Even after her surgery, she couldn't get her gender updated on her national identity card.

Now there are government doctors ready to perform the surgery, no questions asked.   


But it gets even better:  One doesn't have to go through the surgery, or even alter his or her body in any other way, in order to change his or her official gender identity.  


Passage of the new law--and the one that legalized gay marriage two years ago--didn't come without opposition.   After all, Roman Catholicism is still the official state religion, and the vast majority of Argentinians identify themselves as Catholics.  However, church attendance has been in steep decline, and the Church doesn't hold nearly as much sway over public life as it did during the time of which Timerman wrote.  In fact, the ties between Church officials and that government (which resulted, some believe, in Church officials aiding and abetting the "disappearances") are a major reason why the Church has less influence over people's lives than it did during the time of the "Dirty War."


As happy as I am over the Argentine government's decision, I'd like to know what prompted it.  Did they all come to the realization that a person's true gender is in his, her or hir mind and spirit?  If so, how?  Even if they didn't have such a realization, they have done the most enlightened thing any political body has ever done in terms of gender rights and equality.

Les Amies de Place Blanche

Place Blanche in Paris is perhaps best known as the site of Le Moulin Rouge, where the can-can dance is said to have originated, at least in its present form.

Not so long ago, it was also--along with nearby Place Pigalle--part of the City of Light's red light district.   Blanche in particular was known for its transgendered prostitutes.  Most were working to save money for gender reassignment surgery.   However, they had as much of a chance of ending up in the bowels of La Sante as in George Burou's basement.  In the conservative atmosphere of Charles deGaulle's France, they were routinely arrested--and, as often as not, beaten and otherwise abused by the police--for the offense of being, according to the law of that time, les hommes habilles en femme en dehors du carneval.

In that milieu, Christer Stromholm did something that was almost as risky as living as one of those trans women:  He befriended tem.  However, he wasn't a social worker or miisionary.  He was a photographer, born in Stockholm, who moved to the Blanche district around the time de Gaulle returned to power and formed le Cinquieme Republique.  Stromholm stayed in Blanche for a decade and took some remarkable photographs, which will be on display at the International Center of Photography starting on 18 May.  I probably don't have to tell you that I plan to attend.

Against Me! Singer Tom Gabel Speaking For Us

These days, I don't look at Rolling Stone very often. But I might check out the upcoming issue.  In it, Against Me! singer Tom Gabel will reveal plans to start living as a woman.

She said she will take the name Laura Jane Grace and remain married to her wife Heather.  She says, understandably, that the "most terrifying part" was wondering how Heather would accept the news.  "But she's been super-amazing and understanding," Laura relates.

As far as I know, no other rock star has come out as transgendered.  She is making a point of speaking openly about her identity and transition. "I'm going to have embarrassing moments," she says, "and that won't be fun."  But, she says, as she speaks out, "I'm hoping people will understand  and hoping they'll be fairly kind."

The Day After The Super Full Moon

The other night we had a "super full moon." Higher-than-normal tides usually come with it. What that means is that when the tides recede, they leave even more sandbars exposed than are usually seen when the tide is out.

These above photo, and the ones that follow, come from Point Lookout, where I rode yesterday.

 













It seemed that everyone there was happy. Why wouldn't they be? The overcast sky opened to bright sunshine, and everything seemed so peaceful. I pedalled into some wind on my way out there, but that meant an easier ride home.

Isn't that what everybody wants?

Finding The Moves Within

A friend of mine is teaching me Tai-Chi.  

I'll admit I'm a terrible student--in most things, not just Tai-Chi.  Really, I am:  I'm a very slow and very poor learner.  I'm neither proud nor ashamed of that fact, for it is simply that: a fact.

Anyway, this friend has come to my place for the last couple of Fridays because, as small as my apartment is, I can clear enough space for us to have our "classes."  She cannot do the same in her apartment.

Notice that my instructor is female.  She's a trans woman.  I really don't think I could learn Tai-Chi any other way, at least not at this point in my life.  It's not that I think being a trans person makes her better than other instructors, although I think she's pretty damned good.  Rather, I feel that my ability to learn the moves, and the ways of thinking and visualizing that underlay them, could only be tapped by someone who has had to relate to her body in much the same way as I have had to relate to mine.

For all of the training I did when I was younger, and especially considering the high level of physical fitness I enjoyed for a time in my life, I really felt that my body was entirely graceless.  I have always felt clumsy, and believed that my ability to pedal or run fast (at least, relatively speaking) for long periods of time was in spite, rather than because, of my body's (in)abilities.  

My friend insists that Tai-Chi moves are "natural."  They don't feel that way to me.  Perhaps they will, with time and practice.  She says that the body, my body, really wants to make the kinds of moves she is teaching me.  I want to believe her--no, I do believe her.   I somehow understand that those moves, and the ability to move through the world with more confidence, is within me, much as Michelangelo's David was, as he said, already within the block of marble he sculpted and all he had to do was find and bring it out.

I can say something like that about my femaleness.  I am sure that no one besides Michelangelo saw David in that block of marble before he started chipping away at it.  In fact, I'd bet that no one could have seen David until Michelangelo's work on that piece of rock was well under way.  Likewise, only a few people would have guessed that I was about to undertake a gender transition before I started; and it took some time before strangers addressed me as "Ma'am" or "Miss" even when I wasn't wearing makeup or feminine clothing.

Perhaps those Tai-Chi moves are within me, and my friend is trying to help me clear away all of those things that are keeping them from coming out.  At least, that's what I hope.  Could it be that underneath everything, there's a Tai-Chi Tranny just waiting to enter the world?

The Shooting Of Brandy Martell: Whether Or Not It's Hate, It's Still A Crime

Some people--conservatives, mainly--that there should not be a separate legal category of "hate crimes."  They argue that all crimes are "hate crimes" because, in their definition, all crimes are acts of hate.

They might be right.  However, I would say that "transgression" is a more accurate word than "crime" to describe an act of hate, simply because "crime" is a legal definition.  Also, not all crimes are committed against people or other living things, and people usually act out of hate only against animate beings.

But there is one good reason to have a separate legal definition, and set of penalties, for hate crimes.  Some people are targeted for such crimes simply for being who they are.  If everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then crimes that deny people those rights (especially for reasons that are not of their own making) should be considered exceptional, or at least different, from others.

The tricky part, of course, comes when police officers, lawyers, juries and judges have to determine whether or not a rape, beating or killing was motivated by a person's identity--whether by race, sexual orientation, gender manifestation, ethnicity--or was simply the result of a robbery or other crime gone wrong.

Such is the case of Brandy Martell, who lived in the San Francisco Bay community of Hayward.  She was in the driver's seat of a car she and three other transgendered women rode into Oakland on Sunday morning.  Three men had approached them and there ensued an argument that ended with the shooting death of Ms. Martell.

Her friends say she was targeted because of her identity.  Although I know nothing more about her or the case than what I've seen in news reports, I'd be inclined to believe it.  However, I cannot be certain.

Whatever his motives, I hope that Ms. Martell's shooter is brought to justice.  Too often, those who attack and kill transgender people aren't.

Prophecies Of Hate On The Campus Walls?

Last night, a friend told me that there has been a rash of "hate" graffiti on the campus where she teaches.  Most of it has been anti-Semitic, but there have been scrawlings against gays and other groups of people.

Based on my own none-too-scientific observations, I'd say that there's more such graffiti, and it's in a greater number of places, than there was a few years ago.  I wouldn't say there's more graffiti overall, although I have seen it return to the subways after an absence of nearly two decades.  However, the kinds of graffiti I'm seeing give me pause.

In Sounds of Silence, Paul Simon wrote, "The voices of the prophets are written on the subway walls."  In other words, graffiti is often an echo of what people will say when they're not in "polite" company.  While I won't venture an opinion as to whether more people are prejudiced, or whether people are becoming more prejudiced, I think that current conditions are causing some people to murmur, if not say out loud, what they've been thinking.

For all that we hear about "tolerance," it's the people who feel more or less secure that express acceptance of people different from themselves.  In other words, it's the people who haven't slipped into the underclass, whose jobs haven't been outsourced or made redundant.  And they're the same people who can rely on their social and professional networks if things get a little rough.

However, there are whole communities that are being displaced, even in this so-called economic recovery.  In previous economic upheavals, it was mostly the unskilled and semi-skilled workers who lost their jobs and never got them back.  Now we're seeing professionals and managers exhausting their unemployment benefits without getting new jobs.  And the industries in which they worked are disappearing--or moving to other countries, or online--in much the same way the steel industry all but vanished during the past three decades.

According to Bob Marley, "a hungry man is an angry man." People--particularly men who were conditioned to expect a well-paying job--fester with resentment when they lose what they believe to be their rightful place in society and the economy.  Too often, that resentment turns into hatred and violence against members of "minority" groups, who are seen as privileged.  All it takes for that hatred and anger to turn into a full-blown pogrom is a fiery, charismatic leader.  What I am describing, of course, happened in Nazi Germany:  Hitler channeled the misery and desperation of people whose lives were ravaged by hyperinflation and a worldwide depression by scapegoating Jews, Gypsies, gays and other marginalized groups of people.

It's really disturbing, though, that such hate is being expressed so openly on a college campus.  I often hear students express little or no faith in the future:  They realize that they could end up unemployed, and unemployable, even with a degree.  If they start to feel real despair, and that is channeled into hatred against some group or another, who else will fall prey to the sort of rhetoric that equates prejudice with social justice?

A Surprise In One Of My Classes

In one of my classes, students have been reading various essays and articles about gender and sexuality.  I've assigned them a paper based on those readings.  

Last year, I had a self-imposed moratorium on such readings and assignments.  I wanted to teach things that had nothing to do with those topics.  I started this year with the same moratorium but I found that, ironically, my students led me back to them.  They wanted to express their thoughts about gender identity and sexuality. Some of those thoughts included were about the inseparability of gender and sexuality from many other topics, including some that I hadn't anticipated, such as science.

Anyway, in the class in question, one student whom I thought to be a cocky teenager, expressed the opinion that "everyone has rights."  At first I was skeptical; I thought he was saying what he thought I wanted to hear.  However, as I read on, I realized that he had been thinking a lot about the issues in the reading.  He said, in essence, that he'd be disappointed if he had a son who expressed interest in "changing" genders.  However, he said, he would support that son's right to do so if he made that choice as an adult.

But what came after that assertion was, perhaps, the most interesting and gratifying part of all.  He wrote about one of his school-mates, with whom he had been friends since both were five years old. This friend had a brother who was several years older, and whom my student saw almost as often as he saw the friend.  This friend's older brother, according to my student, was sullen and testy (Those were his exact words.) and had a few incidents with cops and authority figures.

However, my student noticed a change in him.  This friend's brother began to "mellow" out, and even volunteered his time.  My student, of course, had no idea of what brought about the change--that is, until one day, when he noticed other changes.  "His face looked different.  His body was starting to look different."  What my student was describing, of course, were the effects of taking hormones.  

This friend's sibling has since had gender reassignment surgery.  My student says he can't imagine such a thing for himself, and he hopes that any son he may have wouldn't want to do the same thing.  However, he says, "it just might be necessary.  And that is why I would support his right to do it."

I wonder if his buddies in the class--who seem like even cockier teenagers than I thought him to be--saw that paper.  Actually, I hope they did, and that he's talked about it with them.   

Appealing For Care

Transgender health care isn't simply a matter of finding "sensitive" providers, as important as that is.  Rather, it is a matter of having our needs met.  In that sense, health care for us is no different from what it is for everyone else.  However, getting that care can be, to put it charitably, an adventure for some trans people.

Such was the case for Beth Scott of New Jersey.  She has just successfully appealed her health insurance company's denial of coverage for a mammogram she had nearly two years ago.  An official of the company, Aetna, apologized to Ms. Scott, saying, "[W]e have determined that the eligibility of the claim and plan benefits were misinterpreted." 

So what, exactly, was "misinterpreted"?  Well, Ms. Scott's plan, like most others, denies coverage for transgender care, including surgeries.  Apparently, someone thought that "transgender care" included Ms. Scott's mammogram, which she underwent under her doctor's recommendation.

I also have undergone mammograms my doctor recommended.  Fortunately for me, mine are paid for.  However, before I had my surgery--and before I had my current plan--I went one of the free mobile clinics that offers them.  Taking estrogen puts trans women at a greater risk for breast cancer, just as it does for cis women.  Although I wasn't, and have never been, what most people would call "rich," I gave a donation to the organization that provides the free mammograms.  (I still donate to them.)  In that clinic, I saw some destitute women--trans as well as cis--as well as some who looked as if they could have gone elsewhere.  I figure that I'm still better off than they are--or Ms. Scott is.

What Happened To Victoria Carmen White

It seems that any time a particularly heinous crime or sensational case is reported in the media, there are remarkably similar incidents--or, at least incidents that have similar circumstances or motives--that are ignored.  As an example, Evelyn Hernandez--whom I mentioned in an earlier post--met with a fate very similar to that of Lacey Peterson.   Yet the world's attention focused on Lacey's disappearance and the trial of Scott Peterson, yet nary a word was mentioned about Ms. Hernandez.


Alarshim Chambers of Newark, NJ is about to be tried for the shooting of Victor Carmen White, a professional lingerie model and dancer whom he'd met only hours earlier.  Two women who were in the apartment, though in a different room from, where White was shot on the evening of 12 September 2010.  They said they heard something said about White's gender identity as a transgender woman, which Chambers supposedly discovered only after becoming intimate with her.  

This shooting occurred just days after Tyler Clementi committed suicide.  The prosecution tried to argue, in essence, Dharun Ravi (Clementi's roommate) committed a hate crime when he used his Webcam to record Clementi kissing another man and videostreamed the images.  


So why was Clementi's death a worldwide headline, while White's was ignored until recently?  Well, call me a cynic, but I think the fact that Clementi was a white Rutgers student from an upper-middle class family and community had something to do with the questions i've been asking.  Plus, Clementi was a talented violinist who was working to parlay his talents into a career.  That elicits more sympathy than the knowledge that someone is a stripper and underwear model.  


Also, the fact that Ms. White was, and Mr. Chambers is, black would all but ensure that their case would be ignored.  And the final coup de grace for their case is the knowledge that White is transgendered.  


So, while Clementi's suicide deserved all of the attention it got, it oversadowed a crime committed by and against members of scorned minority groups.  It could be argued that blacks have it worst of all the races, and that transgender people have it the worst of all.  If some would say "You brought it on yourself" if I were to incur bias or harassment, I can only imagine what some would say about Ms. White.

The Spirit Moves Them To Harvard Divinity School

According to an in-the-know friend of mine, the Harvard Divinity School has more than its share of LGBT faculty members and students, and that a large number of theses are being written on topics related to LGBT and spirituality.


Somehow, even though I don't consider myself religious, what this friend tells me makes perfect sense.  Some cultures have seen dual-gendered or two-spirited people as having particular conduits to the divine or spirit world.  For this reason, they were often accorded the tasks of mediating disputes and performing marriages and funerals and were exempted from some of the duties normally expected of people of their physical or birth genders.


However, I think there is another reason why many LGBT people are returning, as clergy members, to the churches that once shunned them, or from which they felt alienated.  It doesn't have to do with "liberal" or "post-modern" interpretation of the Holy Scriptures or some such thing.  Rather, I feel that our identities--particularly for those of us who are of transgender experience--are not merely about our physical, or even psychological or sexual selves.  We identify ourselves as we do because of a force within us that is independent of just about everything else.  Freudians would call it the subconscious, a term which is accurate as far as it goes.  While I believe there are forces within us that influence, if not govern, much of our behavior, I also think there is a dimension of our selves that is both within and beyond our conscious and subconscious minds.  Perhaps it is a supernatural force, and there may be a being or beings responsible for it.


In other words--for lack of a better term--being lesbian, gay, transgendered, bisexual or of whatever orientation or identity you care to name is as much a spiritual state as it is a psychological or physical one.  In fact, one might say that the very fact of life (as opposed to mere existence) is a spiritual state.  As Pere Teilhard de Chardin said, we are not human beings having spiritual experiences, we are spiritual beings having human experiences.  


Lots of people would deny (or simply not understand) what I've just said.  However, many of those same people would say that our selves and our lives, whatever they are, are created by God (or whom- or whatever else they believe in).  For them, that is sufficient reason for LGBT people to believe, to worship and even to feel that they are "called" into the clergy or to become theologians.  


Now, I just happen to believe that one can believe whatever one believes independently of other people, and that one can pray (or pay homage to their Supreme Being or Force) in the privacy of their own selves.  However, people who are spiritually moved, more often, want to share what they regard as the "gift" of their faith with others, and seek the company and support of others who are similarly motivated.  LGBT people who feel such impulses and "callings" have, I believe, even more reason to want the company of like-minded people and the support the structure of an institution of such people can offer them.  After all, many face ostracism and worse in their daily lives, often from the very people who were supposed to love and nurture them. And, those who have not become embittered by such experiences often feel the need to reach out to those who might be hostile to, or simply not understand, them.  


So it doesn't surprise me that more and more LGBT people are turning or returning to the places of worship that shunned them, and are even following "callings" to become members of the clergy.  And it surprises me even less that they'd be studying and teaching in places like Harvard Divinity School.

Our "Unfair Advantage" In Beauty Pageants

On to another beauty pageant controversy...

Today, courtesy of Kelli Anne Busey (author of the Planet Transgender blog), I learned that organizers of the Miss Universe Singapore pageant might allow transgender contestants to enter. 



On its face, that sounds enlightened.  However, as the wonderful Ms. Busey points out, the Jakarta Post article about the issue still reflects some widely-held misconceptions:  "It is an event designed to celebrate the country's most beautiful women.  But next year's Miss Universe Singagpore could be won by somebody born a man..." 



Now, perhaps the writers and editors of the Jakarta Post can be forgiven for not understanding that male-to-female transsexuals (I include myself, of course.) were not born as men, or even boys. Yes, we have XY chromosomes (Most of us do, anyway.) and most of us have male genitalia and other body parts (as I did, until I had my surgery).  However, our psyches and spirits were no more male than Jennifer Lopez's body.  Many of us knew we were not the gender to which we were assigned at birth as soon as we had any awareness of gender.  Even those who weren't had, I believe, at least the innate propensity to femaleness.  If you want to use Freudian psychoanalytic terms, you could say--as Julia Serrano says-- that our subconscious gender is female.



The reason why it took so long for so many of us to express such a realization, let alone to begin our transitions, is that the vocuabulary to articulate our reality wasn't available to us.  Much of it didn't even exist when I was growing up, and what was available to us was, for the most part, diminutive, if not simply insulting, to trans people and to women generally.  And, even if we could express our realities with such limited language, not many people could have understood our condition as anything other than a mental illness (at best) or, worse, a criminal pathology.



So we, the male-to-female transgenders of this world, were born just as female as any past or current Miss Universe contestant.  Some cis people accuse trans women of having "unfair" advantages because we don't have to worry about cellulite or some of the other conditions that plage some cis women, and because we've "gone under the knife."  Well, guess what?  Cis contestants--some, anyway--have also had surgery.  If not, they've probably had other treatments that are no more natural than the refinement of petroleum into gasoline.



The only advantage we have over cis women is that we have had to question the way we were defined at birth, and to claim our selves as women.  I'm not saying that makes us better people, but it is a kind of advantage.  How that gives someone an unfair advantage in a Miss Universe contest, I don't know.

Outings: From Mike Wallace To Ellen De Generes

Today, when you mention Ellen De Generes' name, people think of her talk show and Cover Girl commercials.  Some still recall her season as a judge on American Idol, in which she replaced Paula Abdul.

But I can't recall the last time I heard anyone refer to her sexual orientation.  I take that back: I am remembering the time she hosted the Academy Awards show in 2001.  It had been postponed twice in the wake of the 11 September attacks over CBS networks' concerns that a lavish show so soon after the tragedy would appear insensitive.  Finally, in November, it aired, after its producers and Ellen realized that it would need a more somber tone that would still take viewers' minds off the tragedy, if only momentarily. Her performance, which brought her several standing ovations, included her now-famous line, "What would bug the Taliban more than seeing a gay woman in a pantsuit surrounded by Jews?"

It's hard to believe that only four years before that, in February of 1997,she caused a stir when she revealed her sexual orientation on The Oprah Winfrey Show. Two months later, on 30 April, her title character on her sitcom Ellen "came out" to a therapist played by Oprah. Ellen's viewership declined after that, and the show was canceled after the following season.  

So, only a decade and a half ago, Ellen risked her career by revealing, ironically, something that many people had already known, and many more had suspected, about her.  Still, her situation was better than that faced by some of the first gay people to appear on network television.  Three decades before Ellen's disclosure, when gay characters appeared on television series, they were almost always jealous, devious characters, or they lived in the fear of being blackmailed because of their orientation.  Lesbians and transgenders were hardly mentioned at all; the latter were likely to be conflated with transvestites.

In 1967, Americans were already getting much of what they knew (and believed) about a wide variety of topics from television.  In such an environment, a documentary about a controversial topic--as homosexuality was, and still is in some quarters--was bound to incite strong reactions.  It was in that milieu that, on 7 March of that year, an episode of CBS Reports on the topic would air.  The recently-deceased Mike Wallace hosted it.   

The program included interviews with several gay men, pyschiatrists, legal experts and academics.  Some of the gay men were shown in shadow or with their faces behind potted plants; some went by pseudonyms.  In fairness to Wallace, he presented some of the more pro-gay comments, not only from the gay men themselves, but from a Federal judge who suggested that the United States ought to re-examine its laws on homosexuality.  Wallace himself also discussed some of the legal aspects of homosexuality and noted that England was preparing to de-criminalize homosexual acts.  

However, Wallace undercut all of that with his own disparaging commentary of homosexuality, most of which echoed the prevailing notions of devious promiscuous gay men and most of the medical and psychiatric community's view of homosexuality as a mental illness or pathology.  (As late as 1995, he said that gays "could change their orientation if they really wanted to.")  

The result is--well, that depends on who you listen to.  At the time, the New York Times, Washington Star and Chicago Daily News praised the show simply for bringing up the issue. The Chicago Tribune and others trashed it for the very same reason.  A small minority--including George Gent of the New York Times--criticized the anti-gay bias of the show.  History has been less kind to it; in his 2003 book Unmasking the Truth:  Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth, LGBT activist Wayne Besen called the broadcast "the single most destructive hour of anti-gay propaganda in our nation's history."

There were no Cover Girl--or any other--commercials for anyone involved with the broadcast.  In fact, there were no advertisements of any kind on the broadcast:  No sponsor of the network's other shows wanted to be associated with a topic that was considered taboo.  Instead, the "commercial breaks" were filled with public service announcements from the Peace Corps and the Internal Revenue Service.  And one of the gay men Wallace interviewed lost his job after his identity was revealed. 


At least Ellen's career rebounded--or, I should say, took a new and more interesting direction--after the backlash against her "coming out."

 

Why They Should Say No To ROTC

A while back, I talked about the campaign to bring a Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) program to York College.  


Well, it seems that York is not the only school where there's at least some interest in starting or restoring an ROTC program.  In spite of the media's portrayal of colleges as bastions of left-wing politics and anti-militarism, there has been more support for the programs--and the military in general--since 9/11.  Even in schools like Harvard, where the few students enrolled in ROTC have to go to other colleges for their "leadership" classes, some students and faculty members thank the ROTC cadets even though, as one pointed out, "we haven't served yet."


The support 9/11 has generated for the military seems to have been aided, at least on college campuses, by the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.  However, no one should be fooled into thinking that the Armed Forces have suddenly become bastions of tolerance.  For one thing, we all know that a change in policy doesn't necessarily translate into a change in attitudes, let alone culture.  From what I have read and heard, homophobia is still just as strong as it's ever been, and known gays and lesbians face harassment and worse.  While it's been reported that the harassment that drove Army private Dan Chen to his suicide was motivated by bias against his ethnicity, there are also rumors that it was motivated by the perception of him as gay.


Even I have overstated the level of homophobia to be found in the military, there is still the fact that transgenders still aren't allowed serve.  At least, we can't transition while in uniform.  And, to the best of my knowledge, no branch of the Armed Forces will allow someone to enlist if he or she has already transitioned. 


Of course, there are other reasons not to have an ROTC program on a campus.   But if any school claims to support the rights of all, and to oppose discrimination, its administrators are being duplicitous, or simply hypocritical, in having the military in any form--including ROTC--on campus.

Too Good To Be True

Today I had a late lunch-early dinner with a friend of mine who's transitioning from male to female.  I remarked upon some of the changes I've seen in her appearance:  the growth of her breasts, the elongation of her facial lines and such.   She has been thinking about facial surgeries, she says.  We mentioned some of the surgeons who do the work she wants, and she said she's ruled out one in particular who's well-known in the field.  "For one thing, he's getting old," she said, "and I'm not sure I'd trust his hands."  I can understand that sentiment;  I ruled out one surgeon whom I'd considered for my GRS/SRS for that very reason.  


However, my friend made another point--one I agreed with--about the plastic surgeon she'd ruled out:  "I looked at his results.  They all look like Barbie dolls."


What's really interesting, to me, about her observation is that before I started my transition, I would have wanted some version of the "Barbie" look.  Although I knew, deep down, that I never could look that way, I thought it was a sure-fire way to "pass."  And, those who made the transition in the early days of hormone treatments and surgery aspired to such plastic perfection.  Some, like Christine Jorgensen, almost seamlessly transitioned into it.  Others tried.




However, what my friend--and I-- want is to ---.  She described a recent trip, during which she dressed "androgynously" but was still addressed by female titles and pronouns.  "I want to be able to wear men's clothes and still be addressed in the same way," she says.


Perhaps that's the best any of us can hope for.  After all, looking like a Barbie doll would leave a trans woman just as vulnerable to scrutiny, ostracism and worse as she would be if she looked like a man in a dress.

LGBT Scholarships

Today one of my students asked about scholarships that might be available to her.  Now, I don't know about very many of them off the top of my head, but I know that there are scholarships available for members of her race, and for people who have lived through some of the circumstances that have formed her life.

"What about a scholarship for gay and lesbian students?"

She had, in one of her writing assignments, revealed her orientation to me.  So the question was a surprise to me only because no one else had asked it, and I'd never thought about it.

Turns out, there are such scholarships available. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) maintains one of the most extensive lists of them.  Many of the awards are intended for LGBT students who want to pursue studies in a particular area, such as law or public policy, or who have shown a commitment to activism and other areas deemed vital to the LGBT community.

While the number of LGBT scholarships is nowhere near as great as it is for scholarships targeted to other groups of people, it is still greater than what was available when I was an undergraduate.  As far as I know, none were available then.  I'm not even sure any were available when I was in graduate school.  Then again, I was so deeply in the closet that I would not have applied.  In fact, I didn't know any self-identified trans people all through school.  

So, while the availability of such scholarships is a positive sign, I have to wonder how many students who might qualify for them won't apply because it would mean "outing" themselves.  I guess, as the activists say, the work of change is never done.
 

No "Outing" Today

Today I rode my bike to work. On the way, I stopped at a diner to use the bathroom. (I shouldn't have had that second cup of tea before I left my apartment!)  Anyway, on my way out, I heard a snippet of conversation between two seemingly-heterosexual young men.

Anyway, it seems that they saw the panel discussion I mentioned the other day.  One of them found it "interesting" and "educational" and said that cis people (He didn't use the term, but he was referring to them.) "really need to understand more about [transgender people]."  His friend, on the other hand, still seems ill-at-ease with the whole idea.  I wasn't upset with him:  After all, being "in the closet," as I was for most of my life, is an expression of such unease.  And, in spite of the rejections I've faced and ignorance I've encountered, I still hold out hope for young men like him.

But I found myself in a dilemma:  Do I "jump into" their conversation and try to shed a bit more light on the topic? Even if that act didn't by itself arouse his or other people's suspicions, I probably would have outed myself for no other reason than I probably would have found it impossible to argue with someone like him without mentioning my own experiences.

Although I would like for people to understand why we make the sorts of choices we make, I also would like to live in peace (as much as that's possible in this world) as a woman.  I can't even remember the last time a stranger gave me a suspicious glance or addressed me as anything but "Ma'am" or "Miss."  And, yes, that is what I have always wanted. 

I didn't get involved in the conversation of those young men.  I rationalized it with the fact that I was on my way to work.  Time wasn't an issue:  I was actually running a bit early.  I simply didn't want to "out" myself, even though I didn't sense that doing so to those young men would have been dangerous.

And, the one who was expressing his unease may have been on his way to greater understanding. Or so I hope.

Fake Butts And Real Troubles

Last week, when I was in Florida, the "Fake Butt Doctor" was in the news.

Oneal Ron Morris was accused of injecting patients' backsides with a mixture of cement, mineral oil, Fix-a-Flat tire sealant and Super Glue.  I don't think I have to say that the mixture is toxic; even if it weren't, I don't see how any but the most desperate of people would ever let themselves be injected with such a mix.

I was struck by two things about this story.  One, which the media played up, is the fact that Morris is a transgender woman.  One one hand, I was appalled at the news reporters for mentioning it.  After all, if she were a cis woman or man, no one would have mentioned it.  Also, if she'd been a gay man, lesbian or bisexual, I doubt that any reporter, at this late date, would have mentioned it.  On the other hand, I felt even more upset at Morris herself.  As a transsexual woman myself, I could only ask myself how she, who surely felt as desperate as her victims, could have so exploited them.  Given that some trans people who feel they have no other recourse will submit themselves to the risks of "doctors" like Morris, I couldn't help but to wonder whether some of her patients were trans women.

The other thing her exploitation of those people highlighted, at least for me, is the very desperation I've just mentioned.  I can't give you exact numbers, but I know that there are probably thousands, if not more, trans people who, for various reasons, cannot get cosmetic surgeries, let alone GRS/SRS.  Some will do just about anything to get those procedures:   That is one reason why many trans people, particularly the young, turn to sex work.  

However, even if they had access to the money they'd need for the surgeries, they would have to go through a lengthy and expensive screening process.  Many would be rejected for hormone treatment and surgery. Some should be.  But there are many others who have such adversarial relationships with physical and mental health care providers that they simply can't bear the thought of going through the screenings.  Also, some--again, the young in particular--see having surgeries as a "cure" for the emotional (and sometimes physical) scarring they've incurred as a result of repressing themselves, bullying or even banishment from their families and communities.  

Now, I don't know exactly who Morris' patients/victims were, so I do not know which ones might have fit the profiles I've sketched.  Still, I believe that no matter how scarred she might be from her own experiences, she should have been able to understand how desperate some of her patients/victims were.  To exploit that, as she did, is unconscionable.

The worst thing about this story, though, is that she's far from the only "doctor" to so take advantage of such people.  She is merely one of the latest, and her identity as a trans woman makes her a more sensational story than the others.