Batgirl's Transgender Roommate

I am old enough to remember when, for the first time (at least here in the US), a television drama featured a black actor in a lead role.

That show was I Spy.  Bill Cosby was the actor in question.  The year was 1965--when the Watts area of Los Angeles exploded into what was then one of the most destructive urban riots in American history.  I Spy was banned in some parts of the South.

I've told this story in a couple of my classes. It leaves the students incredulous--after all, they have grown up accustomed to seeing people who look more or less like them on TV, in movies and videos and on the covers of major magazines and newspapers--not to mention on websites and Youtube.

After hearing about I Spy, they're not surprised to learn that none of the shows or movies I watched in my childhood or adolescence featured Asians, Latinos, Native Americans or even Italians as anything more than stereotypes.    But I don't think I will ever be able to convey to them what it's like to grow up without, not only people who look like you, but also people who feel the way you do--or, more to the point, whose brains are constructed like yours--in the images you see every day.

The first time I recall seeing a gay character in a television show was in an episode of All In The Family, in which a friend of lead character Archie Bunker "comes out."  In that same episode, another man who is sensitive and not interested in sports or anything militaristic is revealed as straight.  That was certainly an advance, but it would be another two decades before any show featured a gay or lesbian--let alone transgender--character.

I occasionally looked at comic books, but I wasn't obsessed with them.  That said, I don't recall seeing an LGBT character in any of them.

Well, now it looks like the world of cartooning is changing.  Some characters, like Batwoman, Northstar and Green Lantern (Alan Scott) are openly gay or lesbian.  Now, in the latest issue of Batgirl, Alysia Yeoh--the roommate of Batgirl/Barbara Gordon--reveals herself to be a transwoman.

It gets better:  Batgirl writer Gail Simone has taken care not to conflate Alysia's gender identity with her sexuality.  So, Ms. Yeoh is also bisexual.

What's next?  Will we find out that she's not sharing only the rent and utility bills with Batgirl?  Now that would be a lot of fun!

This Letter Will Save Lives

If you were to ask most people to name a state that has progressive policies when it comes to transgender health care, many would mention California.  After all, San Francisco was one of the first cities to include gender identity and expression in its anti-discrimination laws.  It was also the first American city to offer to pay for gender-reassignment surgery, hormones and other necessary treatments for trans people who are City or County employees.

Now the California Department of Managed Health Care (CDMHC) has ordered all of the state's health plans to remove gender identity or expression as a basis for excluding or refusing coverage.

Why does that matter?  Well, I can offer one example from firsthand experience:  After I started taking hormones for two years, my doctor recommended that I get a mammogram.  My breasts had grown somewhat, but more important, the fact that I was taking estrogen put me at somewhat greater risk of breast cancer.  At the time, of course, I hadn't undergone gender reassignment surgery so, according to many insurers (though, thankfully, not the one I had) would have considered me a male.  And, as others in my situation discovered, other insurers would not pay for a "man's" mammogram--or, worse, would accuse any transwoman or her doctor of fraud for claiming the procedure.

Or, let's say some insurer considered me female and I had a medical problem that was testicular in origin, or that had to do with my prostate.  That insurer would have rejected a claim for any treatment involving those issues.

Then there are trans men who have been taking testosterone and who, perhaps, have had "top" surgery, but not bottom surgery.  He might then need, say, a pap smear--which an insurer could deny if he is classified as male.  On the other hand, if he is still classified as female, he might be denied treatment for high cholesterol or other conditions for which he is at greater risk as a result of taking testosterone.

What insurers may not realize is how risky it can be to deny treatments to people who are transitioning.  As Masen Davis, the Executive Director of the Transgender Law Center said, "This one letter will save lives."

Petitioning Smith College To End Anti-Transgender Discrimination

A few posts ago, I talked about the plight of Calliope Wong. She is a high-school senior who has been living as female for two years and has identified as one for as long as she can remember.  Her application to Smith College was rejected because her documentation--including her Social Security records, birth certificate and the financial aid form her parents had to submit--still indicate that she is male.

I, for one, found it very curious that Smith should have rejected her--or, more precisely, returned her applications materials--because Smith allows students to transition into maleness while they are enrolled in the college, and because the school has a longer history than most of supporting lesbian students.

Well, GLAAD has announced that it has joined 3000 other signatories on a petition to end the college's discriminatory policies.  If you are interested in signing the petition, you can find it here.

Six Years With Max

Six years ago today, I took Max into my home.

A few months earlier, my friend Millie rescued him from a street that divides a shop in which metal is cut, bent and welded from another in which auto bodies are painted, sometimes in bizarre schemes.  Just down the block from it is a commercial bakery that supplies restaurants in Manhattan as well as in Queens:  the place from which Marley was rescued.

Millie kept Max in her house for a time.  But she already had other cats, and a guy who briefly moved into the neighborhood took him in.  He disappeared, as he was wont to do, for two weeks.  A neighbor heard Max’s cries.  Fortunately, the guy returned a day later, and Millie took Max from him.

I offered to take Max home—when I was ready.  You see, during that time, Candice, who had been in my life for twelve years, died.

I jokingly referred to her as my “ballerina”:  She was pretty and thin even though I fed her what I fed Charlie.  And she always seemed to be walking en pointe.

In some ways, Marley reminds me of her. She liked to jump into my lap, cuddle and curl, as he does.  Also,  she was a bit skittish, though very gentle, as Marley is. While Max always seems ready to greet anyone I bring into my apartment, Marley is more cautious:  It takes him some time to work up the nerve (or whatever cats have) to meet my guests.  However, once he “comes out”, he rubs himself against my guest and licks his or her hand.  Candice was like that, too.

She died  a little more than a year after my first Charlie.  They were about the same age (15 years), though Candice spent a little less time in my life because I adopted her when she was three years old, while Charlie came home with me only a few weeks after he was born.   But both he and Candice shared some important times in my life, including the early and middle parts of my transition.  And I owned about a dozen bikes (though not all at the same time) and rode about a dozen more during that time!

Then Max came along.  I’ve gone through some more changes (and bikes) and he has just loved, and loved some more.  He doesn’t have to do anything else.

The End Of A Day At The Beginning Of A Season

During my ride home, I stopped at the Long Island City piers just in time for this:

And, in one sign that Spring is finally springing on us, I saw a willow just beginning to open itself to the sun that's finally warming it:

A Double Bind For "The Pregnant Man."

What if Franz Kafka wrote about transgender people and same-sex marriage?

One possible answer to that question is not a work of fiction.  It's a current news story unfolding in the State of Arizona.

There, Thomas Beatie--who made headlines a few years ago as the "pregnant man", lived with Nancy, the woman he married in Hawaii in 2003. Now he is trying to dissolve that union because, he says, she is violent and has even punched him in the crotch in front of their children.  He is willing to pay child support to keep his children in his life.

Now, even in most states that don't allow same-sex unions, a person who legally "changes" his or her sex can marry someone of the opposite sex. The problem is that states do not all define gender in the same way.  For example, in New York, I was considered female as soon as I had letters from my doctor and therapist saying that I was taking hormones and living as a woman in anticipation of gender-reassignment surgery.  However, at the time (2003-2004), most states and the Federal government required the surgery as a condition of recognizing a person's gender change.  That meant my New York State ID had an "F" in the "Gender" box, but my passport bore the "M" and Social Security still identified me as male.  

(Actually, I was able to get a one-year passport in the female gender when I first transitioned, and I was able to renew it twice before more restrictive policies were enacted. So I was able to take a trip to France and another to Turkey before I had to get the male passport I had until my surgery.)

Apparently, Hawaii's policies were more like New York's when Mr. Beatie got married.  Apparently, Arizona is more restrictive in the way it defines gender.  Or, at least, that's how Judge Douglas Gerlach interprets the law, or what he believes it to be.

He refused to grant a divorce because, he said, the Beaties weren't married in the first place: The Copper State doesn't allow or recognize same-sex marriage.  According to the judge, there isn't "sufficient evidence" to show that Thomas Beatie was indeed a man when he got married.  The esteemed jurist cited the interruption in Beatie's hormone treatments and said that the couple hadn't provided records to fully explain what Thomas had and hadn't done to become a man by the time he and Nancy wed in Honolulu.

Now, I'm not any sort of legal scholar, but if there is indeed a "lack of evidence," I can understand how Judge Gerlach would rule that, under Arizona law, would rule that the Beaties were never married.  After all, as judge, it is his job to adjudicate according to the laws of his state.  On the other hand, his ruling begs the question of what, exactly, constitutes a legal change in gender identity in Arizona, and why it or any other state would not recognize a marriage that was perfectly legal in another.

So now Thomas Beatie is in a double bind:  Because a judge in Arizona doesn't recognize his marriage, he can't get a divorce.  That means he can't leave his wife without, in essence, deserting her and their children.  Of course, his willingness to pay child support shows he doesn't want to do that. And, on top of everything, he can't marry his new girlfriend in either Arizona or Hawaii--or, for that matter, in any other state that recognizes his marriage.  While Arizona (and, probably, many other states) wouldn't allow or recognize such a union, in Hawaii he would be guilty of bigamy.  And he'd still wouldn't have custody of his kids.

David Brooks Homophobia--And Racism And Classism

Sure, let gays get married.  Let them suffer like the rest of us.

I don't know who said it first.  But, even as a trans woman who was married (albeit briefly) as a man, I always thought it was funny.

That's more than can be said for the editorial David Brooks wrote in today's New York Times.  

Once upon a time, one could actually raise one's IQ a few points from a steady diet of the Times.  Even its most partisan editorials were usually well-reasoned and were relatively well-written.  Sometimes they envinced righteous indignation, especially if they were written by Sydney Schanberg.  Others were provocative; sometimes they were ironic or even funny, in good ways.

Then Schanberg got fired for criticizing real estate developers who were among the newspaper's biggest advertisers, and other columnists like William Safire and Russell Baker died or simply moved on.

Now we have the likes of Brooks who, it seems, is seen as a pundit because, well, he has a column in the Times and he's on all of those Sunday morning political shows.  The thing is, he writes like Dave Barry with a lobotomy and his reasoning skills make Rush Limbaugh seem like Rene Descartes.  

What I really can't stand about him, though, is his smug condescension. He's one of those people who's always going to do you the favor of telling you what's best for you because you, being you, can't possibly know.  At least he is consistent:  He has the same attitude toward anyone who's not white, heterosexual, male and a Baby Boomer still living in the 1950's.

Of course, a man like that, by definition, cannot have a sense of irony.  The problem is, he writes as if he has it, or is capable of acquiring it.  To wit:

But last week saw a setback for the forces of maximum freedom.  A representative of millions of gays and lesbians went to the Supreme Court and asked the court to help put limits on their freedom of choice.  They asked for marriage.

Now, in one way, I would agree with him:  If I were to get married again, I would be placing restrictions on myself.  I would agree to commit my life to that person and, at times, reign in certain desires for the sake of the relationship and the happiness of the person to whom I would be married. Perhaps I would have to do a few things I don't particularly care to do, and spend time with a few people I really would prefer not to know.  But I would make such choices for a larger freedom: that to pursue my own happiness.

But in a society in which no one is considered a full-fledged citizen unless he or she has the right to marry the person of his or her choice, having the right--the freedom of choice--of marriage is one of the greatest freedoms of all.  Just ask any person of my parents' age or older who wanted to marry someone of a different race or religion.  Or, for that matter, ask any African-American who was living in Virginia in 1967 or earlier.  Restrictions on marriage are inevitably aimed at people whom a society considers to be less than full citizens, which of course means people who are not of the "majority" race, culture, sexual inclination or gender expression--and who are, socially and economically, below the middle class.

Plus, the idea that gays and lesbians "asked the court to help put limits on their freedom of choice" is preposterous, not only because those who do not have freedoms don't normally ask for fewer of them, but because they were not asking for their right not to marry.  What makes that statement even more absurd--and outright insulting--is the implication that without "those limits on their freedom of choice", crystal meth-addled gays would hop from bed to bed without making any kind of serious commitments.  (His argument, if it might be called that, quickly deteriorates into a rant about black fathers who abandon their families and unemployed people who buy wide-screen TVs on credit, never mind that guys at places like Shearson-Lehman ran up balances sheets that were in the red for more than all of the wealth that ever existed in the history of the human race.)  Granted, there are LGBT people who are irresponsible and dysfunctional, but there are also plenty of straight people who are no different.   Plus, when you look at the divorce rates for straight people, do you really think gays and lesbians will do any worse?

More to the point, though, people who want to marry people of their own gender would, if allowed to do so, gain all sorts of other freedoms.  They could live openly as couples.  They could adopt kids (or have surrogates conceive or give birth to them).  They could do all of the things heterosexual couples do:  Take advantage of tax benefits, get mortgages and buy homes in both of their names, pass on their estates to each other or the kids they adopt and visit each other, unrestricted, in a hospital or nursing home.  They would be free to care for each other in the same ways heterosexuals commit themselves to caring for each other.  Heck, they can even decide which one is the "male" or "female" in the couple, or to break free of such roles altogether.

That drives people like David Brooks crazy.  And he sounds even crazier when he tries to seem logical.    The operative word, of course, is "tries":  He is no more capable of the reasoning he thinks he can mimic than he is of having babies.  What that means, of course, is that when can't pass off his resentment over other people sharing his privilege as some sort of noblesse oblige.  That might actually be his saving grace.

An Old Riding Partner--Or Racing Rival?

"Mind if I ride your wheel?"

"No, not at all!"

He didn't realize it's the best--or, at least my favorite--question anyone has asked me in a while. It's  as good as "How old are you?  Forty?"

We'd been playing "tag" along Cross Bay Boulevard, the road that runs the length of an island in Jamaica Bay between Howard Beach and Rockaway Beach.  It's a long (about 4km) flat stretch, which makes almost anyone on a bike feel like a sprinter, at least for a few minutes.  The day was sunny, though chilly, and we were buffeted by the winds one expects at this time of year.  Still, I think both he and I felt  about ten years younger.

Actually, I felt even younger than that. A man--a trim one, who looked like he'd been riding more than I'd been--wanting to draft my wheel.  Hey, if he'd asked me, I probably would have pulled him with one hand!

Somehow he looked familiar.  He was maybe a centimeter, if that, taller than me and, as I mentioned, trimmer.  His dark beard was flecked with gray, and his fair black skin had a few small wrinkles.  I'd've guessed him to be close to my own age.  That guess would turn out to be correct.

As we talked, I couldn't help but to think we'd met--actually, ridden--together.  When I was living in Park Slope, he was living on the other side of Prospect Park, in Crown Heights.  Now he lives in Bedford-Stuyvesant.  So, naturally, we talked about riding in Prospect Park, and how we both had the "ten lap" rule:  Once we could ride that much in the park without much effort--something that would happen around this time of year, maybe a bit earlier--we'd "graduate" to longer rides outside the park,and even outside of Brooklyn or New York City.  I had a feeling I'd ridden with him on at least one of those longer rides; he had the same feeling. 

He also mentioned that he'd road-raced, around the same time I did.  Like me, he quit racing (and I also stopped riding off-road) after turning 40:  Although, ironically, I had more strength and endurance than I did 15 years earlier, my wounds weren't healing as quickly as they once did.  He also gave that as a reason for not chasing trophies, and other riders.

I rode with him for a couple of hours and, actually, off the route I'd planned to ride.  But I didn't mind:  Just as I was wondering whether I'd ever get myself into any kind of shape, ever again, he wanted to ride my wheel.  And he thought I'd been riding more than he'd been.  To be fair, I have to give at least some of the credit to Arielle:

To answer a question you might be asking:  He gave me his name (which was familiar) and told me where he works.

On Abortion And Same-Sex Marriage

As the Supreme Court hearings on same-sex marriage are taking place, I've read and heard more than a few comparisons between that issue and abortion.  I guess it was to be expected, as the 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade has just passed.  

Once upon a time (well, all right, in the days of the so-called Moral Majority), Evangelical Christians and various other social conservatives opposed both same-sex marriage and abortion rights.  However, they were more concerned with the latter, as Roe v Wade had  become the law of the land (which they were trying to repeal) and there wasn't as much of a movement for same-sex marriage as there has been in the past few years.  Also, in those days, even most people who favored legal abortions opposed same-sex unions, whether on religious or other grounds.  So there really wasn't much reason for Jerry Falwell and his friends to get worked up over Adam marrying Steve.

The fact that Evangelicals were against abortion and same-sex unions was really about the only thing those two issues have in common.  And, oh, yeah, they both involve sex, which is probably the reason they got Jerry and his friends all hot and bothered.

But more recent polls show that younger people--even the children of those fundamentalist Christians who helped Ronald Reagan and scores of state and local officials get elected--support, or are willing to entertain the idea of allowing, same-sex marriage.  And many of those same young people want to overturn Roe v Wade, as their parents did or do.

Part of the reason is simply that younger Evangelicals have grown up in a different world from what their parents knew in their youth.  But, more to the point, I think, is that abortion and same-sex marriages aren't just apples and oranges, or even apples and onions.  They are, simply, profoundly different issues.

First of all, for all of the controversy it has created, abortion is still mainly a private issue.  The girls and women who end their pregnancies do so, for the most part, alone.  Their boyfriends, husbands and families may be involved in the decision, but no one else is--save, perhaps, for the abortion provider, if the procedure should go wrong and he or she faces a malpractice suit.  Most girls or women who go through the procedure get on with their lives because, well, for most of them, that's the point of getting an abortion. The few exceptions are those who have to end their pregnancies for medical reasons.

On the other hand, getting married is the most public action most people ever take.  The union of two people affects themselves, their families and many other people in their community, mostly in positive ways.  In contrast, almost nobody is happy about an abortion.  The woman terminating her pregnancy as well as other people in her life might feel relief, or at least that the least bad choice is being made.  But almost no one who has ended her pregnancy will tell you that it's a cause for celebration.

Also, there are many legal ramifications to marriage.  They include tax benefits, inheritance rights, health care, insurance, hospital visitation rights and custody over children and, in a few cases, other relatives.  

Those consequences (both in the positive and negative sense of the word) last as long as the marriage does.  Most people, when they get married, want their unions to last for the rest of their lives.  And, if they don't, ending their marriages certainly has little, if anything, in common with ending a pregnancy.

Finally, let's just say that the kinds of people who want to enter into same-sex unions aren't, generally speaking, the same people who get abortions.  If same-sex couples want to have children, and they don't want to adopt, they have to find surrogates: One to impregnate one member of a lesbian couple, or one to carry a child for a gay male couple.  Somehow, I don't imagine that  very many people in those circumstances think about having abortions!  In fact, about the only way abortion might intersect with the life of anyone in, or who wants to enter, a same-sex union is if he or she is bisexual and has a heterosexual relationship outside the marriage, or has had such a relationship before getting married.

All of those things being said, I will reiterate a position Hillary Clinton articulated when she was First Lady:  Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. And, as I've mentioned in other posts, I support same-sex marriage because it's the best we can do for same-sex couples until the state and churches lose whatever power they have to determine whether or not people are married, and until there are no longer any tax or other benefits to marriage.  That is why I support both the right to same-sex marriage and abortion, and my support for one is not tied to the other.

A Growing Boy

Marley has been in my life for a bit more than a year.  When he first came into my life at the end of February of last year, he was still a little guy, save for his distended belly.  (He was born and lived the first five months of his life on the street.) Now, I can't believe how much he's grown:

Do you know why he's grown so much?  He's got an Italian mama feeding him!

Nice work if you can get it, eh?

Why I Didn't Give Up Cycling

I have been cycling, in one way or another, for more than four decades.  Now I do not pedal nearly as many miles (or kilometres) as I did "back in the day."  But I feel that, in some way, cycling is as much a part of my life now as it was then.

Through all of those years, there was one period when I seriously considered giving up cycling altogether.  I was going to keep one bike "for old time's sake" and, perhaps, for errands and transportation.  But I thought that my days as a regular rider were going to come to an end.

That time came early in my life as Justine.  I really didn't know how, or even whether, I could combine cycling--or, more precisely, my identity as a cyclist (There were years in which I pedaled 360 days and 25,000 or more kilometers!) with the life on which I was about to embark.  One reason for that was, frankly, I had practically no idea of what the life on which I was embarking would be like.  Oh, I had visions of who and what Justine would be.  But, as happens with nearly everyone who undergoes a gender transition, my expectations--and the sort of woman I would become--differed, at least somewhat. Although my therapist, social worker, doctor and other transgender people who were further along in their transitions--or who'd had surgery and were living fully in their "new" genders--told me such a thing would probably happen, I had no idea of what I would become as a woman.

Also, I was trying so hard to be the sort of woman I envisioned at the beginning of my transition that it took me time to realize that it could encompass much more than I imagined at the time--and that, of course, the sort of woman I could, and would, become could be different.  I'd entered my transition with ideas of what women in the '40's and '50's were like, which were the ideas to which early transsexuals like Christine Jorgensen conformed, and what the public expected of transsexuals (to the extent that they paid attention to us).

But, perhaps the most important reason why I thought I might not ride anymore was that so much of my cycling had been a means of escape, however temporary.  Whether I was pedaling 180 rpm on the Prospect Park loop or hugging the edge of a virage in the Alps--or dodging taxis and giving the one-fingered peace sign to drivers who got in my way--bicycling had always been a means of escape for me.  I think now of a friendly acquaintance who was one of the first women to attend her undergraduate college on a track and field scholarship.  She has told me that whether she was training on local streets or pumping away during the state championships, she was "running for my life by running from my life".  She never would have been able to attend her college without that scholarship, she said.  But, perhaps even more important, she says she doesn't know  how she would have "survived, in one piece" a childhood that included incest and other forms of dysfunction and disease in her family.

My childhood wasn't nearly as Dickensian as hers.  Perhaps I shouldn't say that, for such a comparison may not make any sense:  After all, she suffered at the hands of other people, while most of my torment came from within me.  Still, I could relate to what she said as much as anything anyone else has said to me.  Her running and my cycling had been means of escape, however momentary.  

She hasn't run, even for fitness, in more than two decades.  She has taken up other sports (including cycling, which is how I know her) and forms of training, but she has not run since the day she was doing laps in the park and "asking myself why," she said.

But I didn't give up cycling because, frankly, I probably have always enjoyed it more than she liked running, and I now have more reasons to continue on two wheels than she does on the training loop.  Also, during my second year of living as Justine, I was running errands and shopping after work one Friday.  It was a pleasantly cool day in May,and I was still in the blouse, skirt and low heels I'd worn to work that day. I had just come out of a store and was unlocking my bike from a parking meter when a tall black man chatted me up.  "Are you European?", he wondered.

"Well, I've lived and traveled there," I explained.  "But I'm from here, and I've lived most of my life here."

"You look more like a European woman, getting around on your bike," he said.  He confirmed what I suspected, from his accent and mannerisms, that he was born in Africa but had lived much of his life in Europe--specifically, France.

By Harmonyhalo

That day I realized that, one way or another, I would probably continue to ride my bicycle in my new life.  I would never be the same kind of cyclist I was when I was living as Nick--and, honestly, at that time, I didn't want to be.  But I knew that as Justine, a newly-born woman in her 40's, I would be able to ride her bike in my new life--and my job and those stores wouldn't be my only destinations, any more than commuting and store-hopping would be my only rides. 

When The Paperwork Is Done

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homophobia And The Lost Generation Of Transgenders

Parent: "So, are you going to date men or women?"

Adult child: "Men."

Parent:  (Expression of relief.) "At least you're not a lesbian."

If I ever do stand-up comedy (which is about as likely as my becoming the Pope), I will include that in my repertoire.

Now, I didn't have an exchange like that with my own parents.  But it wouldn't surprise me to learn that something like it was part of some other male-to-female transsexual's "coming out" to her parents.  

The principle espoused by the parent in that conversation--a paradoxical mixture of homophobia and a willingness to accept a trans child--actually governs an entire nation.  

The nation to which I'm referring is second only to Thailand in the number of gender-reassignment surgeries performed within its borders every year.  Yet, in that same country, same-sex relationships, and even cross-dressing, are punishable (at least in theory) by death.

That country is not governed by transgender equivalents of Janice Raymond and Mary Daly.  Rather, it's ruled by a man whom various groups tried to bar from speaking at Columbia and other American universities and who has done about as much for women's rights in his country as Raymond and Daly have done for transgender equality.

I am talking about Iran.  Not only do its doctors perform more gender-reassignment surgeries than their counterparts in the US; its government pays for up to half the cost of the surgery for those who can't pay for it themselves.  Moreover, male-to-female transgenders are allowed to live as women until they have their surgeries.  After surgery, their birth certificates and other documents are re-issued with their "new" gender and they are allowed to marry men.  

Did you notice that I've referred only to male-to-female transsexuals?  I did so, not only because I am one, but also because I couldn't find information about female-to-male transsexuals in Iran.   Also, I found, in my research, that when one is approved for surgery, one must begin to undergo treatments (hormones, psychotherapy, and such) immediately.  Anyone who doesn't undergo those treatments is considered to be of the gender assigned to him at birth.  That means that if he were to have sexual relationships with men, "cross-dress" or live as what we might call "genderqueer", he is subject to the same penalties as gay men can incur.

In other words, Iran's encouragement of GRS and related treatments is really, at least to some degree, a way of negating homosexuality.   I can't help but to wonder whether something similar happened here in the US during the 1960's and 1970's.  While those times were not easy for us, they were still better than the era of the Lost Generation of Transgenders, which spanned the decade-and-a-half (or so) following the rise of Second-Wave Feminism.  I have to wonder whether some people, in the time of Renee Richards, simply found trans women who dated and married men more palatable than men who dated other men.  

If that is the case, it certainly didn't help trans people.  If anything, it may have had something to do with the Lost Generation of Transgenders I've mentioned in earlier posts. 

Homophobia And The Lost Generation Of Transgenders

Parent: "So, are you going to date men or women?"

Adult child: "Men."

Parent:  (Expression of relief.) "At least you're not a lesbian."

If I ever do stand-up comedy (which is about as likely as my becoming the Pope), I will include that in my repertoire.

Now, I didn't have an exchange like that with my own parents.  But it wouldn't surprise me to learn that something like it was part of some other male-to-female transsexual's "coming out" to her parents.  

The principle espoused by the parent in that conversation--a paradoxical mixture of homophobia and a willingness to accept a trans child--actually governs an entire nation.  

The nation to which I'm referring is second only to Thailand in the number of gender-reassignment surgeries performed within its borders every year.  Yet, in that same country, same-sex relationships, and even cross-dressing, are punishable (at least in theory) by death.

That country is not governed by transgender equivalents of Janice Raymond and Mary Daly.  Rather, it's ruled by a man whom various groups tried to bar from speaking at Columbia and other American universities and who has done about as much for women's rights in his country as Raymond and Daly have done for transgender equality.

I am talking about Iran.  Not only do its doctors perform more gender-reassignment surgeries than their counterparts in the US; its government pays for up to half the cost of the surgery for those who can't pay for it themselves.  Moreover, male-to-female transgenders are allowed to live as women until they have their surgeries.  After surgery, their birth certificates and other documents are re-issued with their "new" gender and they are allowed to marry men.  

Did you notice that I've referred only to male-to-female transsexuals?  I did so, not only because I am one, but also because I couldn't find information about female-to-male transsexuals in Iran.   Also, I found, in my research, that when one is approved for surgery, one must begin to undergo treatments (hormones, psychotherapy, and such) immediately.  Anyone who doesn't undergo those treatments is considered to be of the gender assigned to him at birth.  That means that if he were to have sexual relationships with men, "cross-dress" or live as what we might call "genderqueer", he is subject to the same penalties as gay men can incur.

In other words, Iran's encouragement of GRS and related treatments is really, at least to some degree, a way of negating homosexuality.   I can't help but to wonder whether something similar happened here in the US during the 1960's and 1970's.  While those times were not easy for us, they were still better than the era of the Lost Generation of Transgenders, which spanned the decade-and-a-half (or so) following the rise of Second-Wave Feminism.  I have to wonder whether some people, in the time of Renee Richards, simply found trans women who dated and married men more palatable than a man who dated other men.  

If that is the case, it certainly didn't help trans people.  If anything, it may have had something to do with the Lost Generation of Transgenders I've mentioned in earlier posts. 

Not A Luxury

Being transgendered is not a luxury.

To some of you, such a statement may seem so self-evident that it doesn’t need to be said.  To other people, it may be frivolous, blasphemous or worse.

Let me put it another way:  Living as one’s true self—that is to say, living with integrity and dignity—is not a luxury.

Likewise, loving whomever one loves, and being loved by that person, is also not a luxury.  Nor is having the ability to build a life around one’s relationship with such a person.

The notion that the right to  be ourselves and to love whomever we love are luxuries is, however, deeply ingrained in people’s psyches—not to mention our legal, social and economic systems.  I say this as someone who, until the time of her transition—and, in fact, well into it—thought that living as Justine was not as important or necessary as going to school, having a career, building a family or meeting all sorts of other expectations that had been placed upon me.  

The truth is, of course, that I was never terribly successful at school, work or life itself because I was spending so much of my time trying to live without what I needed, and in alienation from the person I am.  I wasn’t more studious or ambitious than I was because I figured that the grades, the accomplishments, the accolades and everything else simply weren’t going to matter.  Degrees, titles, careers, money, beautiful lovers and spouses, and all of the other accomplishments, accolades and trophies simply wouldn’t mean a damned thing because they wouldn’t make life worth living. 

I am trying not to turn this into a hateful, resentful rant against heterosexual and cisgender people.  What I am trying to do, among other things, is to point out that people who never felt any reason to question their gender identities or any inclination to love anyone who isn’t of the “opposite” gender—or not to marry—are not treated as if their identities and proclivities must be earned, if they are allowed to exist at all.  Of course, we tell people that it’s best to be established in a career, or at least to have a stable job, before marrying someone of the “opposite” gender and having children.  However, if they are having difficulty providing for their kids, or are going through “rough patches” in their relationships, nobody questions their right to be married or have kids.  If anything, they often find sympathy and even help, even if they were “too young” or “too poor” when they got married and had kids.  If one or both members of the couple has a reasonably good insurance plan, it will pay for the hospital stay and most other costs related to giving birth. And, as we all know, there are tax benefits (at least in the US) for being a married heterosexual couple and having kids. 

The fact that there is such approval and support for a man and a woman who have kids tells us that the so-called nuclear family is seen as a foundation of society and, therefore, not a luxury.  The legal, social and economic arrangements I’ve described also allow people in heterosexual marriages, especially if they have kids, to feel secure in themselves in ways denied to those of us whose sense of ourselves and who we love is not condoned, let alone supported, by society in general.  A number of studies show that married people (particularly men) make much more money than single people, and that their kids do better in school.

Now, of course, social conservatives would take that last statement as evidence that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman, and that only people who are so married should be allowed to give birth to, or adopt, children.  But what it shows me is the importance of having a positive (though not overly egoistic) image of one’s self in attaining loce and other kinds of success.  To understand what I mean, all you have to do is to look at how much more likely despised or disapproved-of people are to be depressed, or to abuse substances, attempt suicide or harm themselves in any number of other ways.  I know this as someone who has done those things and was depressed for about 35 of the first 45 years of her life.  Now, I’m not saying that my gender-identity issues were the sole cause of those problems, and I’m not using the fact that I had to live as someone I’m not as the excuse for underachieving and other failures.  After all, some people have had the same problems as mine and attained success in one way or another.  But even those people—including a few I know personally—wonder how much more they could have achieved, or what different choices they might have made, had they been able to live and love their entire lives as the people they truly are.

Almost nobody denies that those who grow up poor and, as a result, attend bad schools or get substandard nutrition will have a more difficult time in realizing his or her potential.  I think that most of us would want to see talented, sensitive or simply ambitious kids get the kind of education that will help them realize their potential and dreams.  I think most people would also want those kids to get the help they need in overcoming the emotional difficulties they may have as a result of growing up in a fractured environment.

In other words, I don’t think that most of us would regard what those kids need as “luxuries.”  Why, then, shouldn’t we see someone’s need to be true to him- or her- self, and to love and be loved, as anything but necessities?

Calling MTF CUNY Faculty Members!

Last night, I had dinner with a friend who's in a late stage of her transition.  She teaches in the City University of New York (CUNY), as I do.  Although our situations are somewhat different, we have faced many of the same challenges in navigating university system.  

Aside from transphobia and pure-and-simple pettiness (and, to be fair, gestures of support) from unexpected as well as anticipated sources, we both have had to deal with administrators who didn't know or understand policies--or, in a few cases, chose to ignore them--in matters ranging from changing our names on our records to time off.  

My friend has said she learned a few things from my experiences, and that she hopes things will go more smoothly for the next faculty member who transitions on the job.  I said that we need to communicate with, not only those who are about to transition, but those who have already done so, while working in CUNY.

The problem, she said, is finding those other faculty members.  CUNY consists of eleven four-year colleges, six community colleges, The Graduate Center and a few other schools, scattered across a few hundred square miles.  

She thinks we should have an association of male-to-female transsexual/transgender faculty and staff members in the CUNY system.  I think it's a great idea, whether we are an informal association that meets for tea and discusses our experiences, or morph into a more formal organization sponsored or chartered by CUNY.  

Consider this post the first announcement of our intention to form such a group.  If you are an MTF faculty or staff member in any CUNY school and are interested, please let me know.  Also, if you know such a faculty or staff member, please feel free to pass this announcement on to her.  

The only real restriction we want to place on the group is that its members are actually in, or have completed, their transitions:  This is not a group for those who are questioning whether or not they are really trans. (There are such groups at the LGBT Community Center and other places here in New York.)  So, my friend and I thought that it would be best to limit membership to those who are, at minimum, taking hormones and have at least the intention of continuing their transitions.  We are not trying to be exclusionary; we simply want the group (in whatever form it takes) to be focused on some of the experiences shared by those of us who are transitioning, or have transitioned, while teaching in CUNY schools.

Please Help Kate

Today I'm going to ask you to help one of my heroines.

  

At the very beginning of my transition--just as I was about to start living full-time as a woman--I met Kate Bornstein, albeit briefly.

I was working on a media project at the LGBT Community Center in New York.  At the time, I was just learning about LGBT culture and some of its luminaries.

Meeting her was like seeing a supernova just as you've risen beyond the cloud cover.  All right, I can't tell you exactly what that's like, as I've risen beyond the clouds but have never seen such a bright celestial object.

However, Kate not only lit up the room; she filled the people in it--including me--with light.  In a way, she's what I imagine Ellen DeGeneres would be if she were a trans woman--only better.  Like Ellen, she is literate and funny but uses neither of those traits to demean or bully others.  What makes Kate even better, though, is that she is one of the few--perhaps the only--person I've ever met who can be tender, corny and ironic all at the same time.

I realized, then, that if she could keep such a perspective after making her transition, and having her surgery, in an environment even less hospitable than what I imagined I would face, I would be all right.  Things wouldn't be easy, I knew.  But somehow, meeting Kate helped me to realize I would, or at least could, make it.

And now I hope she makes it through her cancer.  The doctors say she can, but she'll, of course, need treatment.  

You can donate through the site her friend Laura Vogel has set up.      

Same-Sex Marriage And The Economy

I'm not entirely a fan of Obama, though I am glad he defeated Mitt Romney in the most recent election.

Now I'll defend Obama in a more specific way: In at least one area, he's doing exactly what he should be doing.  That is to say, he is endorsing gay marriage. 

(N.B.:  I don't think a government should have any say at all in marriage.  All couples should get the equivalent of a domestic partnership agreement and, if they want to marry in a church or wherever, let them.  But marriage in a religious institution should not confer tax and other benefits married heterosexual couples currently enjoy.)

Now, some people wonder why he's mentioning such an issue--or LGBT equality when we're experiencing the worst economy we've had since the Great Depression.  Well, if this isn't one of his reasons, it should be:  Allowing same-sex marriages makes economic sense.  Isn't that how he should be making most of his decisions?

Take a look at this infographic from Unicorn Booty:

Who Does This Pope Represent, Anyway?

I know this question has been asked before.  But I'll ask it anyway:  How can someone talk about the love of Jesus Christ and discriminate against people in the same breath?

I know it's done every day, inside and outside the Catholic Church.  Hey, I've known atheists and agnostics who talked about peace and cooperation with all --except for those they disliked, for whatever reasons, or with whom they disagreed.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this new pope--who calls himself Francis, after the patron saint of animals and the environment--should do the same.  To be fair, he has done a lot of work with the poor in his home country of Argentina, and he has eschewed many of the trappings of the offices he's held.  Plus, he seems to have a more democratic, if not demagogic, style.  The people gathered in St. Peter's square talked about feeling a "connection" and were happy that he addressed them in Italian instead of the Latin Benedict used in his initial address eight years ago.  

Although I'm far from being a practicing Catholic, I am glad to see that someone who is so dedicated to working with the poor, and who takes the vows of poverty seriously, has ascended to the Papacy.  On the other hand, I'm not so sure that he's a representative of Latin America, per se.  Yes, he was born and raised in Argentina.  However, many other Latin Americans will tell you that Argentinians do not really see themselves as Latin Americans; rather, they feel more like Europeans who just happen to live at the end of the South American continent.  Many people--including some Argentinians themselves--will argue that they are just that.  After all, of all South and Central American countries, Argentina is probably the one in which the European immigrants and their descendants--who come from Italy, Germany, France, Spain and other European countries--have mingled the least with the native peoples.  It is also the Latin American country whose culture probably most resembles those of European societies.  Reading the country's most famous writer, Jorge Luis Borges, and contrasting him with, say, Mario Vargas Llosa--let alone poets such as Pablo Neruda, Octavio Paz and Silvina Ocampo--could lead you to a similar conclusion.

Anyway, what I find most striking about the elevation of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio to the throne of St. Peter is that he comes from a country that is noteworthy for three events in its recent history.  One is the economic crisis of about a decade ago, which impoverished many formerly middle-class and even affluent Argentinians and kept the now-Pope Francis very busy, to say the least.  

That episode of Argentina's recent history is sandwiched between two seemingly-opposing events.  The first is the brutal military dictatorship that carried out a "dirty war" of murders and kidnappings between 1976 and 1983.  Jacobo Timerman, the author of Prisoner Without A Name, Cell Without A Number, as well as other journalists, scholars and everyday citizens, have documented the collaboration between Catholic Church authorities and the ruling junta of that time.  That, of course, has to lead one to wonder what, exactly, Father Bergoglio's role (if indeed he had any) was during that time.

The other side of recent Argentine history is playing out now.  Some now argue that Argentine LGBT people are the freest in the world. Same-sex sexual activity, in private, has been legal in Argentina since 1887; the age of consent is fifteen, as it is for heterosexuals. Still, it took about another century to pass laws that protected the rights of LGBT people.  The country legalized same-sex marriage in 2010; two years later, it passed a law that says, in essence, any person over the age of 18 can choose his or her gender, and mandates that state-funded hospitals perform gender-reassignment surgery free of charge.  The country has also done a lot to make counseling, psychotherapy and hormones available to poor transgender Argentinians. 

Pope Francis, like most other Catholic priests, is on record as opposing gay marriage.  I'm guessing that he wasn't too happy when the gender identity law was passed.  Not surprisingly, he has been a very outspoken critic of  President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, and her predecessor (and late husband) Nestor Kirchner.  In spite of opposition from Cardinal Bergoglio and other Catholic officials, polls show that most Argentines support gay marriage and the majority favor the gender-identity laws.

Given his opposition to LGBT equality and his possible collaboration with (or having done nothing against) a regime that most people are glad to be rid of, one has to--or, at least I have to--wonder just how much he actually "represents" the people of his country. And, because of what I've said about Argentina, I have to question how representative he is of Latin America, his work with the region's poor notwithstanding.