Who Hates The Sin But Loves The Sinner?

Zack Ford posed the Question of the Year (or Pride Month, anyway) in his recent Think Progress article.

Actually, he didn't so much pose a question as he juxtaposed two different responses to the same sort of crime.

Back in August, a security guard was shot at the Family Research Council.  Floyd Corkins II has been convicted and will be sentenced in July.  

Of course, nearly everyone who paid attention was outraged.  Among the leaders in condemning the crime a coalition of LGBT organizations, including GLAAD and SAGE.  They strongly condemned the violence and wished a full recovery to the victim.

On the other hand, last month someone claiming to be the Newtown gunman hurled homophobic slurs at Mark Carson and chased him to the Papaya King restaurant on West 8th Street and Sixth Avenue in Greenwich Village.  There, the gunman shot Carson point-blank in his face.  At Beth Israel Hospital, Mark Carson was pronounced dead on arrival.

Two weeks ago, I volunteered in the Anti-Violence Project's outreach in front of that very restaurant.  People who live in or frequent the neighborhood seemed shell-shocked; I and my outreach partner were explaining to tourists and others who don't spend a lot of time in the Village that, in some ways, the neighborhood is less safe than others for LGBT people.  Just as hunters go to the swamp or woods or wherever they can expect to find whatever they're hunting, haters--often fueled by volatile combinations of testosterone and alcohol (Trust me, I know of whence I speak!)--go to the Village and Chelse and other places where they know they'll find LGBT people to harass, beat or kill.

All the time my partner and I were handing out flyers and collecting signatures and e-mail addresses, I was bracing myself for someone to make a comment or hurl an object.  I guess nobody "read" me or my partner, a lesbian who readily "passes" as straight, because neither of us encountered any bigotry.  (And, oh, my partner in "crime" is black.)  

I now have a theory as to why we lucked out:  Haters are almost always cowards. And, for better or worse, most aren't as tone-deaf as those who called Newtown residents to enroll members and solicit donations weeks after the mass shooting there.

Instead, the haters expressed themselves through their silence.  Not one conservative organization--including any that claims to be "Christian"--denounced Mark Carson's murder.  At least, they were silent about it until Daily Kos blogger Mark Wooledge produced an image critical of anti-gay movements and it went viral. 

When conservatives finally commented on Carson's killing, they watered down their condemnations, as Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage did,  by saying that it wasn't connected to the debate about "redefining" marriage--which, of course, caused some people to associate the two. He also took pains to say that opponents of same-sex marriage are "equally persecuted."  Or else, in their condemnations, they compared Carson's death to the Newtown tragedy. The only connection between the two is that a gun was used; the motives of the shooters were entirely different.  What happened in Newtown is indeed a tragedy, but it cannot be usefully compared to Carson's death any more than the Holocaust can be compared to the Third Passage.

In other words, the conservative groups who finally condemned the violence did so only to advance their own views about marriage and the family.  Other conservative groups and commentators--that is, the ones who bothered to say anything--were less charitable.  A few even praised the shooter for getting rid of another "abomination".

In contrast, the LGBT groups who condemned the shooting at the Family Research Council made no mention of the group's views--some of which include outright homophobia--and attempts to stop the "redefinition" of marriage.  I'm not here to suggest that LGBT people are better than than the religious (or simply far) right:  Why would I do a thing like that?  

Seriously, I think the difference in responses can be explained this way:  At least some members of LGBT organizations have been the victims of hate crimes, some of them violent.  And, most of us have, at one time or another, experienced discrimination in employment, housing, education or other areas, or have simply experienced bigotry and hatred (as with people who want nothing more to do with us when they learn that we are L, G, B or T).  On the other hand, I think it's pretty safe to say that almost no conservative has been the victim of a hate crime--at least, not a crime motivated by someone's hatred of his or her conservativism.  I also think we can pretty fairly assume that many have never experienced any sort of discrimination against them as a result of their political and social views.  Higher education (at least in certain segments) might be one of the few areas in which being a conservative could hurt their chances of hiring or promotion--and then only if they express their views openly.

I Don't Have Any Problem With Ultrasound

"I don't have any problem with ultrasound."

Of course you wouldn't, Scott Walker.

After all, your office lends you authority on a whole variety of topics.  Being the Governor of Wisconsin, you have responsibility for the well-being of 2,864,586 women and girls.  Surely, you have learned everything one can about what is medically necessary--or just plain good--for them.  So, of course, you support a bill that would require women seeking abortions to undergo ultrasound.  

With all due respect, I would like to know how you came upon such knowledge.  Did you read medical journals?  Or did you do some--how can I say this?--field research?

If you did, you realize that for some women, mostly those in their first trimester of pregnancy--which, of course, is when women usually seek abortions--a transvaginal probe is necessary in order to perform the ultrasound.

Being a man, I suppose you could be forgiven for not knowing that--or what it's like to have anything harder than human flesh thrust into you.  Sometimes even flesh hurts, so you can only imagine what metal or hard plastic are like.

That's the thing, Mr. Governor:  You can only imagine.  Again, I do not want to excoriate you for that:  After all, it has to do with the way you're put together.    But since you can imagine, I'm asking you to do so.  If you can't imagine how it feels, imagine such an object stuck into your wife, your daughter, your mother.  

You don't want to imagine that?  I understand.  All the more reason to re-think your position on the bill.  Now, I know that you're a conservative, so I can understand (but not agree with) your desire to close one of your state's last remaining abortion clinics.  But, please, don't confuse conservativism--a perfectly respectable philosophy--with misogyny.  

And please, whatever you do, learn as much as you can about medical issues before passing laws on them.  Even if your mother, wife or daughter have never had--and never will have--an abortion, think about the transvaginal probe.  Better yet, try to imagine how it would feel.

Killer of Trans College Student Gets 30 Years

Every Transgender Day of Remembrance event I've attended has included a reading of the names of people who were killed for their gender identity or expression.  Usually, there is a procession to a lectern or microphone, and each person reads the name of one victim, the way he or she was killed (or where his or her body was found) and, sometimes, whether or not the perpetrator was caught.

No matter how many times I participate in those readings, I'm always shocked at just how brutal hate-fueled murders of transgender people are.  I remember reading the name of one victim who was shot and stabbed multiple times.  And then her body was burned.  

But, along with the shock I experience on relaying the brutality of their murders, I feel anger over how too many of those murders are treated.  The killer of the victim I mentioned received, if I recall correctly, a one-year susupended sentence.  Still, that's more justice than a lot of other murdered trans people get:  I've heard of too many cases in which the authorities didn't bother to investigate at all, or simply dismissed the killing as the result of a "lover's quarrel" or as a suicide.

So, it actually seems something like justice when the killer of a young trans person gets a 30-year sentence and is required to serve 80 percent of that sentence before becoming eligible for release.  

That was the sentence meted out to Virgin Islands native Sama Quinland for killing transgender college student DeAndre N. Fulton-Smith in South Carolina. Quinland stabbed her 22 times and shot her twice in the head. 

As awful as that killing was, it's not even close to being the most brutal murder of a trans person.  On the other hand, as I mentioned, Quinland got a longer prison sentence than most killers of trans people.  Both facts are simply outrageous.

What Nobody Planned

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ROBINSON HALL

CAMBRIDGE 33, MASSACHUSETTS

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF DESIGN DEPARTMENT OF CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING

June 21, 1961

Mrs. Alvin Richman

3055 16th Street, NW.

Washington 11, D. C.

Dear Mrs. Richman:

Although we have not yet received your official transcript from Brandeis, on the basis of your letters of recommendation there would seem to be a possibility of your admission to the Department of City and Regional Planning even at this date.

However -- to speak directly -- our experience, even with brilliant students, has been that married women find it difficult to carry out careers in planning, and hence tend to have some feeling of waste about the time and effort spent in professonal education. (This is, of course, true of almost all graduate professional studies.)

Therefore, for your own benefit, and to aid us in coming to a final decision, could you kindly write us a page or two at your earliest convenience indicating specifically how you might plan to combine a professional life in city planning with your responsibilities to your husband and a possible future family?

Sincerely yours,

William A. Doebele, Jr.

Assistant Professor 

 for the Department

*******************************************

 

"Mrs. Alvin" is, in fact, Phyllis.  She was the Washington Post's restaurant critic from 1976 until 2000.  

Ms. Richman also managed to write books about food--including "food mysteries" as well as numerous articles on other topics for other publications.  And, oh yeah, she raised three kids, who are successful professional who report fulfilling lives.

But, as you can see, that was not what she envisioned in 1961.  She wanted a career in urban planning. A few years later, she would follow her husband when he got a job teaching political science at Purdue University.  She thought about enrolling in that school's urban planning program, but it was part of the engineering school.  Thus, the program emphasized things like land use and architecture. But Ms. Richman opted against it because she was more interested in people and the impact that urban planning has on our lives. 

She would, like many ambitious, intelligent women of her time, fashion a career around the "duties" to which Professor Doebele alluded in his letter.  

Fifty-two years after receiving that letter, she wrote back to Professor Doebele, who taught at Havard until 1997.  And he responded to her.  To be fair, he said he wouldn't write such a letter today, though he defended having written it.

I chose to write about Ms. Richman's story because, while interesting in its own right, it's also relevant now, as more states and countries are legalizing same-sex marriage and passing laws (or amending laws currently on the books) to ban discrimination based on gender identity, expression, history or appearance.  These things simply would not be happening were it not for the gains that women have made in the workplace, education and other areas of life.  While, as Professor Doebele says, things are "far from perfect," they are better.  And the fact that women are still fighting and making gains offers us lessons in the struggle for LGBT--and especially transgender--equality.

(You can see a copy of the original letter here.) 
  

Egging The Haters On

Normally, I prefer not to write about stories, topics or concerns other transgender bloggers cover unless I have another perspective or idea to offer.

However, I am going to make an exception today. Kelli Busey's Planetransgender--one of my favorite blogs on any topic--posted about something so disturbing (but not surprising) that I simply had to mention it here.

It's one thing to overhear transphobic comments in a private conversation.  It's something else when the comments are public and directed at someone.  But it's even worse when the co-host of a Sirius XM program voices his approval of a violent hate crime committed against a transgender person:


   

Can you imagine some teenaged boy--especially one who feels under pressure to prove that he's a man--hearing that exchange?

 "There's a teen that shot a tranny after finding out that it was a man after they had a little sexual encounter." 

"I don't blame him. I would have shot his ass, too. 

 First of all, the trans woman was referred to as a "tranny" and "it". And then, of course, the co-host, essentially endorsed the violence. 

Aside from the impression it could make on young, insecure men, that conversation is also an echo of what is going through haters' minds, especially during Pride Month.  It seems that every year,  the number and viciousness of attacks against LGBT people increase as the time draws nearer to the Pride March.  

Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but I can't help but to perceive that trans people are being singled out even more than usual this year. 

Who Knew We Had Such Power?

Perhaps if you're old like me (Well, all right, you don't have to be that old!), you remember some of the arguments against same-sex marriage and letting gay couples adopt children.  

One of the classic arguments is that gay parents would make gay kids.  It's amazing how many otherwise sensible people parroted that line, even though it was one of the easiest pieces of wisdom to dismiss:  All of those gay people who wanted to get married and adopt kids were themselves the children of straight parents.

Listen:  If I have the power to make some kid trans--or, for that matter, gay or straight--I really am in the wrong business!

Seriously, it's funny, when you think about it, that people should whip up such hysteria about gay men, lesbians or trans people by imputing to us powers we never knew we had.

The latest example of that comes from Jerry Boykin, a vice president of the Family Research Council. He claims that the recent spike in the number of reported sexual assaults in the military happened because "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was repealed.

However, this is no mere silly accusation. Mr. Boykin bases his assertion on the erroneous (or deliberately misleading) assumption that more men than women are being assaulted in the military.

Now, even if that were the case, it wouldn't be a result of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly.  First of all, how would allowing lesbians in the military cause more men to sexually assault other men?   But, even more to the point, Mr. Boykin perpetuates a misperception about men who rape other men (or boys):  the perpetrators are gay men. While that may be true in some cases, most of the time it isn't.  In fact, most men who rape other men or boys are like the ones who sexually assaulted me as a boy and a young man:  They were older or had some sort of power or authority over me, and they didn't have committed intimate relationships with men.  I can state these facts with certainty because the men who sexually assaulted me were not strangers:  In fact, I knew them well.  One was a cadet commander of my ROTC class; he took advantage of me when we were in the woods during a training weekend.

But, according to reports, more females than males have been sexually assaulted, even though women make up only about a quarter of the Armed Forces overall.  Once we realize this, Mr. Boykin's claim becomes even more absurd (or even more of a bald-faced lie).  How in the world could bringing openly gay men (or, for that matter, lesbians) cause an increase in the number of men who sexually assault  women in the military?  I admit that I'm not a sexologist or psychologist, so perhaps my means of understanding the phenomenon are limited.  If you can explain how gays cause men to assault women, please do so. Just keep it simple!  And, while you're at it, perhaps you can explain to me how I (or any other LGBT person) have the power to make a kid gay, straight or trans.

What Became Of What Never Was

In my last post of the second year of this blog (and the last day in the year of my surgery), I included a poem.  After I posted it, I had a feeling I would change it. 

When you think about it, three years (actually, almost three-and-a-half) isn’t really a lot of time in a poem’s life.  Horace recommended that a poem should be set aside for nine years after it was written.  If, after that time, the poem looks as if it’s transcended whatever the poet felt, thought or experienced at the time he or she wrote it, then it’s ready to see the light of day, according to Horace.

Now, he might not think the poem I mentioned would pass the test.  However, I’ve revised it a bit, so I’m going to post it here:

The End of What Never Was

(To My Parents)

I never could have been the boy

Who climbed trees and played football

Like the one in the photo:  the one

Whose father stood proud, whose mother

Pinned stars and bars to his dress grays.

No, I never could have been a soldier

And I never could have been a sailor.

That young girl standing on the bridge

Exchanging vows under crossed swords:

She could not have known she would never be

My wife, the mother of your grandchildren.

I never could have given her anything except

Your name, and a name that was never mine.

After that, I could only lie to her again.

No, I never could have been her man.

She will never see me; she has never seen this day

The way you never could have foreseen today.

None of us ever could have known

I never could have been your son.

"Death By Bike"

I don't mean to pick on one political party or another.  But I simply must ask:  Why do some conservatives go totally apopleptic when the subject of bicycles comes up?

I think Dorothy Rabinowiz's rant about the New York's new bike share program takes the cake:


Now I will say, in her defense, that I used to respect and even admire Ms. Rabinowitz.  Sure, she has always been more "conservative" (whatever that means) than I am on most issues.  However, she took a courageous--and, as it turned out, correct--stance back in the days when it seemed that every week, some hapless day care worker was  being incarcerated over testimony that included "recovered memories" and other since-discredited evidence.

Please note that I am as disgusted as anyone can be by adults who abuse children sexually or otherwise. However, I also don't want to see people punished for crimes they didn't commit.  That, in essence, was Ms. Rabinowitz's stance when Kelly Michaels and others lost years or decades of their lives over the wildest stories imaginable.

What's happened to her since?  Why exactly does she think bikes are such a scourge?  While I agree, to some degree, with her criticisms of Mayor Bloomberg, I think that she doesn't represent the majority of citizens, as she believes she does.  

Autumn Sandeen's Season

If you know anything about transgender activism, you probably have heard of Autumn Sandeen.  In 2001, she retired after a two-decade career with the Navy.  Of course, the military has never classified her as "she" or idenitified her by her true name--until this week.  

For the first time in the history of the US Armed Forces, the gender change of one of its servicemembers was recognized.  After a battle that lasted nearly two years, the Navy finally changed Ms. Sandeen's records to reflect her true gender.  

Of course, she still could not serve in the Navy, or any other branch of the military, today.  Lifting the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy did not affect trans people, and we are still excluded from serving.

Some believe that this, and the fact that the DSM will no longer classify transgenderism as a mental illness, as signs that trans people may be allowed to serve openly, and not have to resort to hiding their identity, as Ms. Sandeed did for more than two decades.

Gay Marriage In The Land Of Il Conformisto

France has legalized same-sex marriage, the UK will do the same this summer, and Germany is awaiting a vote on the matter from the Bundestag.  That leaves Italy as one of the few Western European countries where the matter is not at least under consideration.  In fact, it's one of the few countries in the area that still doesn't even recognize same-sex civil unions.  

Some Italian cities--including Milan, but not including Rome--have legalized such unions.  But, as a recent Times article noted, the rights of gay couples end at their cities' limits. 

Some people blame the Vatican for the situation I've described. However, as Same Love founder Alessandro Bentivegna noted, "Ireland is just as Catholic, yet they're 100 years ahead of here."

If anything, the Irish have been more Catholic than the Italians for at least a couple of centuries. As in Giulia in Alberto Moravia's The Conformist observes, "Ninety percent of the people who go to church today don't believe. The priests don't, either."  Although the situation is changing, for many Italians, the Church is something like the Royal Family is to many British:  They can't tell you, exactly, what it's for or about, but they cannot imagine life without it.

On the other hand, Ireland had, arguably, the most fervent believers in Europe.  That, I believe, is a result of the British attempt to destroy their religion.  For a long time, Irish would-be priests were trained in France by disciples of theologian Cornelius Jansen, who emphasized human sin, depravity, predestination and the need for divine grace.  One result is that they preached through fiery sermons that could make even Jonathan Edwards blush.  

One thing about fundamentalism--whether of the Christian, Islamic or Jewish variety--is that when people break away from it, their actions are more decisive and climatic than of those who simply drift away from more moderate churches. So, while Italian Catholics--even those in the countryside--aren't much more religious than their peers in France or other countries, they are also less likely to bread away from Catholicism altogether.  That is why people attend church even when, as Giulia said, they don't believe in it.  

This attitude about church extends to other areas of Italian life:  People--especially politicians--cling to beliefs, rituals and traditions even after they have lost meaning.  That, I believe, accounts for the lack of urgency among Italians concerning a number of social issues that are debated vigorously--and, sometimes, acted upon--in other countries.  

A typical Italian attitude goes something like this:  Yes, gay couples should have the right to marry and have al of the other rights heterosexual couples have.  But they can go to Belgium or someplace else to get married.  So why is it so important to legalize it here?  Why is it such a big deal? If you can find a way to live your life the way you want to, why should you change anything?  As an Italian professor once told me, "If the Bastille had been in Rome, it would still be standing."

Also, politics are very different in Italy.  Here in the US, the far left and the far right are the most vocal in their views, and the latter is better able to transmit them because it is backed by some very wealthy individuals and corporations.  On the other hand, the center-left and center-right not only dominate Italian politics; they are also the most vocal proponents of their points of view.  And, those views, as often as not, are about preserving the status quo rather than making dramatic changes--as has happened in Ireland and Argentina--or in "returning" to some idealized version of what the "Founding Fathers" stood for, as we see in the US.  

In other words, Italians don't have the sense that they have to "save" their country, as the American right has, or that there has to be  a social revolution, as is occuring in Ireland, Spain and some Latin American countries.   That may be the main reason why Italy may not legalize same-sex unions--let alone marriage--for a while.

Bachmann Overdrive

By now, you've all heard that Michele Bachmann is not seeking re-election.

I'm going to miss her.  After all, it's an accomplishment to make Sarah Palin look sane--and, at times, relatively coherent.  I mean, it's not just anyone about whom we can say that her insistence that gays can be "cured" is one of the least kooky things she says.

Plus, as you might know, her husband is a "Christian therapist" who runs an "ex-gay" clinic.  I'm sure he can tide her over until she transitions into the next phase of her life.  She might be getting a little old to work on Faux News (Rupert Murdoch interprets "child labor laws" to mean that no one over the emotional age of eleven should be hired.) but there may be a future for her with Glenn Beck, if he ever gets his own satellite network.  Or maybe she can be a regular guest on the Springer show. 

Anyway, I came across an interesting survey about ex-gay clinics from an author who spent time in one.  When Jallen Rix, who is also a facilitator at Beyond Ex-Gay, asked alumni of ex-gay "clinics" what good, if any, came of their experienced, 50 percent said "none".  Others said it helped them "come fully out of the closet", "feel less alone", leave religion or meet a same-sex partner.

In other words, for many alumni, their experiences of ex-gay "therapy", or whatever its practitioners call it, had affected them in ways that were exactly the opposite of what was intended.  

Moreover, about three-quarters of all participants said they quit the ex-gay movement didn't make them straight.  Twenty percent said they quit because of a nervous breakdown.  

And nearly all of them said, in different words, what one respondent wrote:  "I saw that NOBODY was being changed, and some of those guys had a lot more faith than I did," he wrote.  "The only ones I ever met who claimed to have been changed were the leadership.  And one of them was always hitting on me."

Nearly all of the respondents said that they were still paying for the experiences in more than one way.  "The financial cost of the ex-gay ministry  is not what I paid during the experience (which was nothing)," one wrote, "'but the thousands of dollars I have spent for therapy to get over the experience."

Hmm..Is that the legacy Ms. or Mr. Bachmann, who purport to be Christians--and to be pro-family--want to leave?  Perhaps they don't see the irony in it.  At least, she doesn't.  After all, she says things like "The founding fathers wouldn't recognize America today."  Indeed they wouldn't:  The fact that she was in Congress would surprise them in more ways than one!