Barbera-ic

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

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

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

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

I Always Thought They Were Better Than This

Even when I wanted nothing to do with religion and was denying my spirituality, I had respect for the Quakers.  For one thing, they played important roles in helping to end slavery in the US.  For another, they have always been (officially, at least) pacifistic.  Plus, they were among the first congregations to accept LGBT people.


And now they are running a modern version of the "Underground Railroad" to help LGBT Ugandans the harsh sanctions and punishments their country imposes on them simply for being who they are.


So how do any of these things square with what's happening at George Fox University?


The Quaker-run school is denying a student named Jayce the opportunity to live with his male friends on campus.


Because you're reading this blog, you've probably deduced that Jayce is a trans man.  Having undergone his transition process, both the governments of this country and his home state (Oregon) classify him as male.  His birth certificate, driver's license and Social Security card say as much.


But, for some reason, the folks who run GFU don't see it that way.  In fact, they even lobbied for, and got, a religious exemption that allows them to deny Jayce his housing choice.  Worse, they made their request without notifying Jayce or his lawyer.


School officials have offered him the choice of living in a single on-campus apartment. However, he says, such a living arrangement would cut him off from the social life and much else he likes about the college. 


Now tell me:  How can a congregation with such a long history of welcoming people do something that further marginalizes someone from a marginalized group?  Given that many other people, organizations and communities are doing the same, and worse, is it any wonder that trans people have such high rates of depression and self-destructive behavior?


I always thought better of the Quakers.  And now I don't think I'm out of line in expecting better of them.

"Where Are You Riding Today?"

Sometimes, when I’m about to mount my bike, someone—almost invariably, someone who doesn’t ride—will spot me and ask, “Where are you going to ride?”

Sometimes I have a specific destination in mind.  But, as often as not, I have no particular itinerary, let a landmark toward which my trek will be directed—when I lift my leg over my saddle.

Sometimes I lie:  “I’m going to the park.”  Or the beach.  Or some other seemingly-plausible terminal or turnaround for an hour or two or more on my bike. But, other times, I tell state the undeniable fact: “Oh, I don’t know.  I’m just going to ride for a bit.”

Perhaps paradoxically, I am most likely to take a “pointless” ride when I have a set amount of time—say, an hour or two—to ride.  At such times, I simply want to use my legs as something more than props for keeping me upright on a chair or standing in front of a classroom.  Or I simply want to experience sun, wind, clouds, heat or cold, or the sounds of leaves opening themselves or tires hissing on pavement without the filter of a window or the barrier of walls.

 

Sometimes I have a vague idea of where I’m going to ride—say, a general direction.  But my ride is just as likely to be directed by things that have absolutely nothing to do with my conscious mind. 

Sometimes my itinerary has to do with the day’s weather or season.  It could also be determined by the day of the week or the time of year:  I might decide to ride, or not, toward the ocean because a lot of other people might decide, or not, that it’s the perfect day to drive that way.  Or I might ride in a loop that will take me into lightly-trafficked or well-lit areas because there isn’t much daylight left.  I have lights for my bikes, but I still prefer to ride in daylight whenever possible—unless the night is lit by a bright moon or is simply more pleasant than the sweltering summer day.

But there are times when my ride is determined by things even less concrete or more intuitive, depending on your point of view, than anything I’ve mentioned so far.  Sometimes it seems as if my bike, or the ride itself, is determining my route.  It’s hard to explain to people who don’t ride, unless they’re writers or artists or other creative people.  Then, I can draw on my own experience of writing: My poem or essay or whatever I’m writing might start off as a work that’s ostensibly about some subject or topic or another.  But, as I immerse myself in writing, the piece I’m writing takes on a life of its own and develops, if you will, its own will, its own wants and needs. An image or even the sound of a word—or the rhythm or syntax of a line or sentence—can take my work in a direction I hadn’t envisioned, let alone imagined.

Sometimes I write, or ride, simply because it’s what I want to do, and nothing else will do.  The destination and scenery don’t matter, only the journey does.

An Early Role Model

I have never thought myself as a particularly good model of anything for anybody.  Maybe that explains, at least partially, some of the ambivalence I’ve often felt about teaching.  I am sure that it’s a reason why I have been reluctant to take on some of the other roles people have wanted me to fulfill.

Also, I often think that if anyone sees me as a role model, he or she is likely to realize that I embody at least as much of what he or she doesn’t—or shouldn’t—want to emulate as I am an example of what he or she can be.

Why am I thinking about that now?  I realize that about a dozen years have passed since I attended my first support groups for people who were trying to figure out their gender identity, exploring the possibility of making a transition or who’d made up their minds that they were indeed going to live their lives as a gender not assigned to them at birth and who wanted to find out how to go about it.

The very first group—and a later one—in which I participated were co-facilitated by a post-op trans woman who, at the time, was seen as something of a leader, if not an icon, in the community.  She was attractive and had developed a fine reputation for her work as a therapist, social worker and activist.  I think I wasn’t the only one who looked to hear as the sort of woman we could become.

I haven’t seen her in some time, so I don’t know how she looks.  But the work she did remains important to me personally as well as to the community.

However, I would come to realize that so much of her energy was focused in being a transgender poster girl, if you will, that it stunted her emotional and spiritual growth.  I sensed her anger early on; over time, I would realize that it would keep her from being anything more than an icon in a small community—a ghetto, really, because she lived and worked within the confines of a groups of people like herself who distrusted, resented and even hated anyone different from themselves.

I couldn’t help but to wonder what was the point of undergoing a gender transition if only to put one’s self in another box and to continue writhing with the same pent-up ire as people whose lives were constricted by their inability to live authentically.

One Of Our Own Might Win The Prize

I haven't watched television in more than a year.  That means I probably pay less attention than most other people pay to the world of entertainment.

So, if you've already heard about this, I apologize.  Still, I feel the need to tell it:  Laverne Cox has just become the first known transgender actress to be nominated for an Emmy Award!

The Rainbow

From the University of Arizona

The Hobby Lobby Case You Didn't Hear About

We've been hearing a lot about the Supreme Court decision that allows Hobby Lobby, and other "closely held" businesses, to use their executives' religious beliefs to deny women coverage for birth control, the Affordable Care Act notwithstanding.


In an earlier post, I mentioned some of the other possible effects this could have on employees' health coverage.  For example, what if a company's president cites his religious beliefs in denying coverage for a blood transfusion?  Or what if the company's owner is a Rastafarian, Christian Scientist or a member of any religion that doesn't allow some or all medical treatments?


There is another Hobby Lobby case that only recently has come to light.  This one doesn't involve medical insurance.  But it does involve a transgender employee.

When Meggan Somerville began working as a framer for Hobby Lobby in 1998, she was still living as a man.  Five years ago, she began her transition.  A year later she changed her name, and after that, her birth certificate.  She didn't have any problem keeping her job, and her insurance paid for hormones but her office visits.  But they made her life--at work, anyway--more hazardous in another way:  She wasn't allowed the women's restroom.  In fact, she was written up for doing so.  She then filed a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights.  Her suit against the company is still pending.


The fact that she was taking hormones and living as female was enough reason for the state of Illinois to change Meggan Somerville's name and the gender on her birth certificate.  But, I guess the Hobby Lobby brass defer to a "higher" authority. Let's hope that the IDHR doesn't.

Old Enough To Remember

I have lived only a fifth of my life as a woman.  Still, I've lived as Justine long enough--and as Nick before that--to remember when being gay, lesbian or even bisexual was a big deal, even subversive.


Did you notice that I didn't mention transgenders?  That's because, while attitudes are changing in some quarters, in others,  being trans is still considered everything from an oddity to a crime against God, nature and whatever else people think is right and good--or whatever they simply like.  Unfortunately, the latter quarters sometimes include segments of the gay and lesbian communities.


That is the point Jesse Monteagudo makes in Gay Today.  Here is a particularly pithy segment of his  "Jesse's Journal" column:


I am old enough to remember when being gay was a Big Deal. When I came out (in 1973) to be gay was to rebel against the universe. To paraphrase the gay writer and film director John Waters, to be gay back then meant you did not get married, have children, or serve in the military. Nowadays, of course, all that lesbians and gay men want to do is to get married, have children, or serve in the military. I am not surprised. Like most other people, most lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are conservative, and if society treats them fairly their natural instincts would come forth. Besides, there is nothing our society values more than marriage, parentage and military service. Lesbian, gay and bisexual people become more acceptable when we incorporate those values, not as pretend straights but as openly lesbian, gay or bisexual people.


You notice that I left out transgender people from the previous paragraph. This is because being transgender is still a Big Deal. Today trans* people are in the same fix, minus AIDS, that LGB people were twenty years ago. It is still illegal for Ts to serve in the military. Legislation that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation often ignores discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Trans* people, especially transgender women of color, are often victims of violence, more so than those of us who are lesbian, gay or bi. Transphobic prejudice is more prevalent than homophobia, even among members of our LGBT community.


Thank you, Jesse!

Five Years Since My Surgery

Today marks five years since my surgery--and six since I started this blog.

Perhaps not surprisingly, I have less and less to say about the surgery and my transtition.  And life as a woman has become a fact rather than a hope or dream for me.  I am still learning about it, and finding adventures (and pitfalls) I could not have anticipated.

I don't anticipate stopping this blog, though my posts may become less frequent over time.  I'll probably post more on my other blog.  Plus, I have other projects I want--and feel I must do. They involve writing, and other things.

But, as a famous Austrian body builder-turned actor-turned Governator growled, "I'll be back!"
 

A Failed Attempt To Disguise Hate As Comedy

Looking back, I’m not surprised that Joan Rivers attained the peak of her popularity during the 1980’s.  After all, it was a time when everyone from the President (Ronald Reagan) to the actors in, and producers of, popular television programs like Dallas and Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous were teaching people to identify with the rich and powerful and to despise those who made the mistake of being born the wrong color or the wrong gender, in the wrong country or social class, or to love the wrong people.  And those avatars of the culture managed to convince people that adulation of the more fortunate and hatred of those less so was really an affirmation of their own heroic struggles to survive in a world where the less-fortunate were given “special treatment” with laws that kept them from getting fired from (or not hired for) jobs, or from being evicted from apartments or refused services simply for being who they are while corporate executives who bought companies simply to blow them up and shipped jobs overseas were “oppressed” by taxes and environmental regulations.

In such an environment, “gay” or “lesbian”—not to mention “transgender”—are derogatory terms rather than mere adjectives or nouns.  And a woman like Ms. Rivers can put a man down by making a claim, however baseless, that President Barack Obama is gay –in her world-view,less than a man--and his wife is a “tranny” –in other words, not really a woman, for who else would be with a man who’s not really a man.

Mind you, I’m not a fan of the First Couple.  They are two of the most disingenuous people ever to occupy the White House:  They talk about human rights while taking money from the very banks and corporations that have done more to widen the gap between the “haves” and “have nots” than any other individuals or institutions ever could have.  After accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack—who was a Constitutional Law Professor—continued two illegal wars and arrogated unto himself the right to assassinate anyone anywhere in the world, with or without cause.  And Michelle’s hobby horse is an anti-obesity campaign that she finances with contributions from the very companies that have contributed to the epidemic that has, among other things, led health officials to reclassify what used to be known as “Adult Onset Diabetes” to “Class II Diabetes” after it developed in eight-year-old children.

Perhaps Ms. Rivers is unaware of such facts.  Otherwise, I believe (or hope) that she (or, at any rate, her writers) could have come up with more trenchant ways of criticizing, or even merely poking fun at, the Mendacitor In Chief and His Enabler.

My Birthday Card Spread

Here it is, the day after my birthday, and some cards are still coming in, both via snail- and e-mail.

I have perched the paper cards around various spots in my apartment.  Here are a few atop a TV I never watch:

 

Happy Independence Day!

It's also my birthday.  And, if you've been following this blog, you know that my other "birthday" is coming up.

Enjoy the day!

Disinformation In The Service Of Hate

One of the easiest ways to make an inaccurate case against--or simply to slander someone or something--is to use outmoded or discredited information that many people don't know (or don't want to know) is outmoded or discredited.

That is essentially what pyschiatrist Paul McHugh did last month in a Wall Street Journal editorial.  He characterized trangenderism as a "disorder", something the DSM no longer does.  He also cited the studies showing poor outcomes for people who underwent gender-reassignment surgery.  Those studies led to the closure of the Johns Hopkins program in 1979.  But surgeries as well as psychotherapy and other treatments for transgenders have improved greatly since then.  With those developments have come greater understanding among the general public about what transgender people are.  (Whenever I remember that, I am grateful I transitioned in my 40's and my early 50's rather than in my 20's!).   

Fortunately, Dan Karasic got wind of it and responded as only he could.  Dr. Karasic is conversant with the most recent studies of, and treatments for, transgenders.  That's no surprise, really:  He's on the Board of Directors for the World Professional Association of Transgender Health.   More to the point, he approaches transgenderism as a scientist and health professional and does not let ideology or warped religious ideas cloud his thinking.

He notes that since 1989, the mortality rate for trans people is not significantly different from that of the general population.  Moreover, the "regret rate" of those who had surgery between 2001 and 2010 (which includes yours truly) is only 0.3 percent.   Can you think of any other human endeavor with such a low percentage of people who regret doing it?  (Before I began this post, I talked to two women who told me that if they "could do it all over again," they wouldn't get married.)

Anyway, as we start to gain our rights and greater acceptance from society, there will be folks like McHugh who will try to use outmoded studies and stereotypes to cast us in a negative light.  Fortunately, if we keep ourselves informed, it won't be hard to debunk their hokum.

What The Hobby Lobby Decision Means For Us

This week, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to allow family-owned or other closely-held businesses to opt out of a Federal requirement to pay for contraceptives as part of an employee's health coverage.


In the media and public consciousness, it has come to be known as the Hobby Lobby case, after the chain of arts-and-crafts stores whose founder and CEO claimed that his religious rights were being violated when his company was required to pay for birth control.


Perhaps not surprisingly, the five judges who voted for this ruling were all appointed by Republican presidents, while the other four--including the three women on the bench--were appointed by Democrats.


I am not a Constitutional (or any other kind) of lawyer.  But, from what I understand, this ruling will affect far more than whether employers will include contraception in their employees' health insurance plans.


It almost goes without saying that the decision could open the door for employers to deny benefits to same-sex partners of employees if same-sex unions violate the religious beliefs of the employer.  And, of course, the ruling also means that such employers won't even have to think about whether or not to cover therapy, hormones, surgery or other treatments for transgenders.


Even if you don't care about LGBT equality, you should be concerned.  For example, if you should need a blood transfusion, your employer could refuse to cover it on the basis of his or her religion.  Or, I'm guessing, he or she could refuse to pay the cost of your office visits or treatments if, say, your gynecologist is male.


What do you do if your employer is a Christian Scientist or Scientologist?  The latter actually has the same tax-exempt religious status in the US that every mainstream church enjoys.

A Poster Girl For Equality In The Military

Here in New York, anyone with an IQ above room temperature realizes that one of our local newspapers, the Post, is nothing more than a print version of Faux, I mean Fox, News.

Wait a minute:  At least one Fox News anchor is coming to her senses.  Apres elle, la deluge.

Seriously, though:  Bad as FN and the Post are, there's a "news" source that makes them seem like Utne Reader and Mother Jones.

I'm talking about the Washington Times.  One of its reporters actually believes that a former Navy SEAL who transitioned is actually trying to fill the ranks of the Armed Forces with trans people.  The reporter in question is Bill Gertz, and the "mole" is Kristin Beck, who described her experiences in her book Warrior Princess.

OK, it's one thing to describe Ms. Beck as a "poster girl for a Pentagon effort to include transgenders". But it's still another to say that the effort to allow transgenders to serve in the military is another way Obama is pandering to "special interest groups".  

Special interest groups?  We just want to be who we are, and have the same rights as everyone else.  We want to live with the same confidence we won't be harassed, fired from our jobs, denied housing or slandered because of what we are that cisgenders, heterosexuals and white people enjoy.

As for the military:  Ms. Beck is simply asking this country's Armed Forces to do what nearly all of its counterparts in Western Europe, and Israel, already do: Allow all people an equal opportunity to serve as long as they have the wherewithal to do so. 

As for the Washington Times:  Its founders are in the wrong country, and its contributors and readers are in the wrong century:  The eighteenth ended more than three hundred years ago

Holding Pride

It looks like someone was smiling on the Pride celebration:





She stands in the courtyard of St. Luke in the Fields parish and school.  The Pride March ended only a block away.