The Supreme Court, Immigration And LGBT people

Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's immigration policy got me to thinking about someone in a weekly support group I attended early in my transition.

Fahrida (not her real name) had a smile that made people feel that everything was going to be OK.  As I came to know her, I realized that her smile didn't belie her experiences; rather, it was a kind of reward, like the rays of sun you see after a terrible storm.

No one who met her outside of that group would have guessed she had ever lived as male, or that she ever had so much as a male cell in her body.  She was so beautiful that when we were shopping, two other women sighed about what kinds of clothes they could wear if they had her body, and about what their lives would be like if they had her face.

I always wondered why someone with her looks, and her mind, was driving a gypsy cab.  Don't get me wrong:  I don't look down on such work.  But it's not work that many other women do, and I worried about her safety.  Then again, at least she wasn't doing sex work, I told myself.

Well, after knowing her about a year, I found out why she was driving that gypsy cab:  Her pay was "off the books."  That meant, of course, that she didn't pay taxes.  But more important, it meant that she didn't need a Social Security Number or any other documentation certifying that she could work in this country.

The next-to-last time we met, I found out why she needed such work.  You guessed it:  She entered this country illegally.  She couldn't have afforded to enter any other way, she told me:  She was so poor that she couldn't afford the papers she needed, which cost about half a worker's yearly pay in the country of her birth.  She got to this country, she said, by hitchiking across a two continents and stowing herself away in a transoceanic freighter. 

By the time of our penultimate meeting, she was facing deportation.  Going back to the country of her birth would have been, in essence, a death sentence:  She had no way of supporting herself there, save through sex work, and she would have faced almost certain violence.  Plus, all of her family had disowned her.

The last time we met, she told me she was going to a third country.  She hoped to re-apply for asylum in the United States, she said, because she had found a "community" here.  However, if that failed, she said, she believed that she could stay in the third country, where she had some ties and laws about immigration and LGBT people are, arguably, less restrictive than they are in the United States.

I mention Fahrida because I suspect that there are many other cases like her. Contrary to what people think, not all LGBT people are rich.  In fact, very, very few T's are.  That is one reason why they, like many other immigrants, come to this country illegally:  They can't afford to do so legally.  So they are forced to live "in the shadows," doing all sorts of low-paid work that doesn't offer any security:  that is, if they can get such work.  Others, who are less lucky, end up in sex work and other kinds of illegal and dangerous occupations.

On top of what I've mentioned, there's another issue:  Many LGBT couples are split up because of immigration policies.  I know of illegal immigrants who entered into sham heterosexual marriages so they could stay here, but why should anybody have to resort to something like that?  Even if they live in states that allow same-sex marriages (including New York, where I live), they could still be split up if one of them is here illegally because same-sex marriages are still not recognized under Federal law.

In fact, even if both members of the couple are here legally, immigration policy can still split them up.  That is what happened to my former doctor:  Her partner, a native of Scotland, came here to study and eventually started a business that employed other people.  She paid her taxes and never ran afoul of the law.  However, four years ago, the State Department would not renew her visa and the United Kingdom (of which Scotland is a part) is not eligible for the so-called "Green Card Lottery."

My former doctor went to Scotland with her partner.  She has since earned an additional degree in public health policy and has attained a position with a local ministry.  She says she and her partner are happy there, although they think about what could have been. 

To me, it seems such an appalling waste.  Think of the education, skills, talent, experience and ambition my former doctor and her partner have.  What country wouldn't (or shouldn't) want those things?  I could say similar things about Fahrida:  Though she doesn't have the formal education or credentials of my former doctor, she is very intelligent and self-taught in a number of areas.  And she's more than willing to work.  Plus, any country would be graced by her sheer presence. 

Her story, and that of my former doctor and her partner, show how immigration policies are inequitable on so many levels--particularly for LGBT people.

WE Bike And Me

What's gotten into me? 

I mean, what's this with me and volunteering?

It's not as if I haven't volunteered before.  But within the past two weeks, I've begun volunteering with two cycling organizations.  And--quelle coincidence--it turns out that they're going to be working with each other.

I've mentioned my recent experiences with Recycle-A-Bicycle.  I intend to continue working with them as my schedule allows.  It looks like I'll be doing the same--and perhaps more--with a new organization called WE Bike.

I learned of them at the New Amsterdam Bicycle Show, where they had a booth.  Liz, a bike mechanic and youth educator who started the organization only a couple of months ago was at the booth.  And she was under the arches of Grand Army Plaza yesterday, where WE Bike was holding a repair workshop.  

She immediately recognized me.  I didn't think I was so memorable.  Even more interestingly, she mentioned my blog and my Mercians.  Hmm...It's not often that my reputation precedes me.  Is that a good thing?

Anyway, I got there a bit late.  But I went to work right away, showing a woman from the Caribbean island of Dominique how to fix a flat.  She had just purchased her first bicycle, not long after learning how to ride a bicycle as an adult.  

Yesterday, I thought she was mastering what I believe to be the first thing every cyclist should learn to do.  But she apologized.  For what?, I asked.  Then I realized she was doing something I've seen many other women do--and which I've caught myself doing since I started to live as a woman:  apologizing for no particular reason.

"You are officially in a guilt-free zone," I declared. "This circle around me"--I stretched my arms--"is off-limits for gratuitous guilt."  At first, she didn't know what to make of what I said--or, I imagine, me. But then she giggled.  "Don't worry," I said, "You'll be fine."

I was thinking about her as Liz and I talked after the workshop.  We agreed that getting more women to ride, with other women, and learning how to fix their bikes from other women, could help some--especially the young--build their confidence.  Plus, I added, it would help them become more independent. 

Then I thought about my own experiences of working in bike shops.  I don't recall seeing a female mechanic and, in those days, it seemed a lot of shops--including two in which I worked--had a "shop girl" who usually was a salesperson/cashier/hostess/Gal Friday. (I hope I don't seem sexist in using those terms:  I can't think of any others that would accurately describe those roles.)  In other shops--including one in which I worked-- such jobs, along with record-keeping and such, were done by the proprietor's wife.

In recounting those experiences for Liz, I fancied myself, for a moment, as a kind of Prometheus.  Please indulge me if it seems a bit grandiose, but I realized that when I was showing two women how to remove bottom brackets and headsets, and how to true wheels, at Recycle-A-Bicycle, I was passing along knowledge that, in my day, was possessed almost entirely by males.  And I probably wouldn't have learned those skills had I not spent the first four decades of my life as a male.

Or, perhaps--here comes the baggage of my Catholic education!--I am doing penance for all of those times I was one of those awful men who spoke condescendingly to female customers and who was less than helpful with girlfriends who actually wanted to ride bikes with me.  If the work I am doing, and expect to do, is a penance, I suppose I'm lucky:  There are definitely worse and more painful kinds of atonement!

Anyway...I have a feeling that interesting times are ahead for me.

P.S.  Liz has said that she wants to make WE Bike "inclusive."  So she wants transgender women to participate.

Keelin Godsey: Competing As A Woman, Living As A Man?

Keelin Godsey wants to make the US Olympic team in the hammer throw, and compete in the Olympics in London this summer.

Normally, that would not seem like such a remarkable story.  However, Keelin is trying out for the women's team.  But wait:  It's not what you think.  Keelin was born female, and named Kelly, at birth.  He has been living as male but does not plan to take testosteone, or undergo any of the other medical aspects of his transition, until some time after the Olympics.

His dilemma is the exact opposite of what we're used to hearing:  a male-to-female who wants to compete as a woman.  Also, the MTF athletes of whom I'm aware didn't begin competing as females until their surgeries were complete.

So, in essence, Keelin is competing as a female, and once he stops doing that, he is going to live the rest of his life as male.  

There doesn't seem to be quite as much of a fuss over Keelin as there has been over the MTFs I've mentioned.  That may be, in part, because he is not considered a favorite to make the team.  But I think that, even discounting that, his situation isn't deemed as controversial as the MTFs who want to compete as female.  One reason is that because, as a female-to-male who has not begun to take testosterone, he is not perceived as having an advantage over other female contestants.  That perception is probably accurate:  If Keelin has any advantages, they would have to be in superior training or native ability.  


On the other hand, some female athletes--as well as many fans--believe that male-to-female athletes shouldn't be allowed to compete as females, even after they've had SRS/GRS.  Of course, some hold such a belief because of their general perceptions about gender.  However, many more believe, somewhat erroneously, that a MTF athlete has physical advantages over those who were identified as female at birth.  


It is true that on average, males are taller and heavier than females.  While I was average on both counts as a male, I am probably around the 80th percentile in both categories (although I mate be in a somewhat higher percentile in the, ahem, weight category!)for women my age.  But my transition had one very typical effect on me:  I continuously lost strength, muscle mass and physical endurance from the time I started taking estrogen and anti-androgens.  And I know that even if I were to ride and train as much as I did in my hyper-male days, I would not be as strong or fast, or have as much endurance, as I did in those days.


There is medical and other literature to corroborate what I've just said.  The changes I have described happen with remarkable consistency.  So, one doesn't need semantics or any other fancy rhetorical footwork to argue that MTFs have little, if any, advantage over most females in most sports.  Conversely, because the changes FTMs experience are even more dramatic and consistent, it's easy to see that because Keelin hasn't begun to take testosterone, he has no advantage over the other female contestants.


Personally, I hope Keelin makes the time.  His mother says it's been a lifelong ambition of his.  I'm guessing that he has wanted to live as male, if not all of his life, then for a long time.  Lots of people don't even get to live out one dream; I will be happy to see him live out both.

Kylar Broadus Testifies Before The Senate

An activist once told me, "It's all about visibility."

In this country, it's hard to beat testifying before the Senate to make one's cause, as well as one's self, visible.

That is what Kylar Broadus did last week.  That made him--a lawyer and professor from Lincoln University in Jefferson City, MO-- the transgender to do so. 

Appropriately enough, he testified before Senate Health and Labor Committee hearings on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act  (ENDA).

Although he is a lawyer and professor, he is not in an easy financial situation.  In the 1990's, he transitioned while he was working for an insurance company. For that, he was harrassed and fired.  "While my supervisors could tolerate a somewhat masculine-appearing black woman," Broadus recalled, "they were not prepared to deal with my transition to being a black man." As there were no laws on the books to protect transgender people in the workplace, he found that he had no legal recourse.

As you might imagine, a long stretch of unemployment ensued, from which Broadus says he has not fully recovered financially.

What I hope the Senators realize, as a result of hearing Broadus' testimony, is that if someone with his education and work experience can have such a difficult time, things are that much worse for someone who's poor or less educated, and probably even worse for a trans teenager who was kicked out of his or her home after "coming out."   I would love for the Senators to hear testimony from them, as well as more from Broadus and transgender people in situations like his.  

Thapelo Makutle: Transgender Pageant Winner Murdered In South Africa

I am glad to see countries that had repressive regimes not so long ago are making progress when it comes to LGBT right.  As examples, I think of Argentina's new law that, in essence, allows anyone over the age of 18 to choose his or her gender.  I also think of how gay marriage has been legalized in Spain which, under Franco, had one of the most conservative Catholic regimes in the world.  And a country that was long associated with the racism and violence of its Aprartheid policies--I'm talking, of course, about South Africa--legalized gay marriage in December of 2006.


While the latter country has taken a remarkable turn, at least officially, from its past, there is still a lot of work to be done.  Just because a country--or city or state or province--legalizes gay marriage or passes legislation to stop discrimination, it doesn't mean that old attitudes change, particularly in those communities far removed from the centers of power.


That point was brought home with the murder of Thapelo Makutle, who had been living as a gay man but recently began to identify with transgender.  


Makutle had been arguing with two men about his sexuality.  Those men followed him home, broke down his door and slit his throat.  They then severed his penis and shoved it in his mouth.


He had been active in the LGBT community of the Kuruman region, a rural area in the northern part of the country.  According to a 2011 Human Rights Watch report, LGBT people in that region, and other rural areas of the country, still face "extensive discrimination and violence in their daily lives, both from private individuals and government officials."  


Something similar can be said about those US cities and states that have legalized gay marriage and passed laws to fight discrimination against LGBT people.  Even here in New York, there are neighborhoods in which an LGBT person is not safe, and the police will do nothing to help someone who has experienced violence based on his or her actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Leslie Mora was beaten, and Amanda Gonzalez Andujar murdered, in such communities, which are home to large numbers of conservative religious people.  Even some of the colleges here are far from being "rainbow havens."  


That is why passing laws to give LGBT people the same rights other people take for granted is only a first step, and not something that, by itself, will guarantee equal rights, much less safety.  The real work begins after that.


Even though I am on the other side of the world and have never met any of Thapelo Makutle's loved ones, they have my condolences.  And I hope you, Thapelo Makutle ends up in a better, more enlightened place.  

13 Myths And Misconceptions About Trans Women

In light (!) of yesterday's post, I am linking "13 Myths And Misconceptions  About Trans Women."  I just came across it today.


Read and enjoy! (heh, heh)

Why Do You Want To Go To The Michigan Womyn's Music Festival?

You know it's summer when....you start hearing about the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival.


Thinking about it--to the degree that I do think about it, which isn't much--reminds me of what Groucho Marx said:  "I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member."  What that means, of course, is that people (some, anyway) want to belong to clubs that wouldn't have them as members.


I can think of no other reason, at this point, why a trans person would want to go the Womyn's Festival, or would even bother protesting its policy of excluding us.


I mean, really, why should any of us want to spend time with hateful, bigoted people to listen to performers who are interesting only to the extent that they're part of the Festival organizers' agenda?  Or, to put it more plainly, why should we want to spend any of our precious time listening to (mostly) mediocre musicians play for stupid, nasty people?


Those organizers, as best as I can tell, are stuck in the 1970's--or, at any rate, a sitcom parody of that time.  Even in those days, most people--especially women working in almost any environment besides the then-nascent Women's Studies departments of colleges and universities--saw the so-called radical feminists as comic-book versions of fighters for equality.  


But their most toxic quality is their absolute rigidity about gender identity and expression.  The so-called Archie Bunker blue-collar conservatives of the 1970's--who used to be most of the make population of neighborhoods like the one in which I now live--found out they had gay grandchildren, and had children or nieces or nephews who "changed" gender.  So, some of them were able to change their views about what "men" and "women" are, and came to realize that's it's not all a matter of the genitalia people are born with (which, by the way, are not always as clearly "male" or "female" as people assume they are).  The Archie Bunkers of this world--some of them, anyway--have therefore allowed themselves to become more educated than Festival organizers and other so-called Second Wave Feminists.


That means all of those nominally conservative people who've allowed themselves to realize that people like me are indeed women (and folks like Chastity Bono are men) are actually less defined, in their thinking, by the patriarchal gender norms than Lisa Vogel and other Festival organizers and Second Wave Feminists claim to oppose!  


So, to be blunt, and perhaps a bit crass: What use, exactly, do we (transgender people) have for the Festival, its organizers and the mentality behind them?  Other than excluding us from the Festival, how do they affect our lives?  Few, if any, of them are in any position to hire or fire us, to rent, sell or deny us housing, or even to allow us to attend, or prevent us from attending, any college, university or institute.  They aren't in a position to give us, or help us get, the health insurance that the majority of us don't have.  They're not even the ones voting for or against non-discrimination laws in local, state or federal legislative bodies.  Heck, almost none of them can deny or allow us access to anything besides the Festival!  So, why should we even bother with them?  


Hey, we can even go to places where we can hear much better music than we'd hear if we were allowed in the Festival!  There are much better reasons to take a trip to Michigan:  There are places in that State (which was the first in the US to outlaw capital punishment) that would be far more welcoming to us, and everyone else--including the organizers of the Festival!

How Low Will Cathy Brennan Go--And For What?

In spite of the evil I've witnessed, I still have had hope for this world.  That hope was based on, among other things, that folks like Cathy Brennan and Janice Raymond didn't have children.  


Actually, I haven't thought that much about them, until recently.  Years ago, long before I started my transition, I read The Transsexual Empire and thought it was one of the most ludicrous things I'd ever read.  I still do.  Next to it, any of Professor Leonard Jeffries' rants about "Ice People" and "Sun People" seem like Nobel Prize-worthy science.


As I read further, one of my suspicions was confirmed:  Raymond, Brennan, et al, have no influence outside of a very small circle of so-called Second Wave Feminists.  Ironically enough, even though their hatred has more in common with that of folks like the Reverend Fred Phelps and certain members of the College of Cardinals and the Supreme Court, even they would never pay any mind to the nonsense Raymond and Brennan were spewing.


However, as demented as their so-called theories and arguments may be, I simply can't laugh them off anymore.  At least, I can't do that to the estimable Ms. Brennan.  You see, now she's doing what, in my old neighborhood, would be called some "real bad, real serious shit."


From Kelli Busey of Planetransgender, I have learned that Ms. Brennan has viciously "outed" a transgender teenager.  We saw what happened when Dharun Ravi, in essence, outed Tyler Clementi.  Making a trans teenager's identity public puts him or her at even greater risk  for being subjected to violence, and committing suicide (whether in the way Clementi did or slowly and more painfully through substance abuse or other means) than "outing" a gay or lesbian teenager would .




As vile as his actions were, at least Darun Ravi could claim, and many people would agree, that his actions were childish pranks gone horribly wrong.  However, Brennan can make no such claim.  In fact, she has no defense at all.  The only rationale she has is her own hatred, whatever its sources and purposes.  


In other words, it was a purely malicious act.  What I find really reprehensible is that she is trying to use the fears and stereotypes some people have about trans people to destroy a young man's life.  That stereotype is the transsexual-as-sexual-predator whose modus operandi--in sex and everything else in life--is deception.


Call me selfish, but one of the reasons I think what Brennan did is especially vile is that I have been victimized in the same way.  Someone I've mentioned on this blog tried to destroy my life--and succeeded in causing me health problems which are just now coming under control--by falsely accusing me of sexual crimes against other people.  


So, when I read about that seventeen-year-old trans boy whom Cathy Brennan  "outed," I felt as if she had assaulted me personally.  And, I would expect, a lot of other non-cisgender people felt the same way.


After pressure from Busey and others, the courageous Ms. Brennan removed the post in which she "outed" the young man from her website.  However, one of Kelli Busey's friends, Stephanie Stevens, saved it, and Busey published it on Scribe.  I am grateful to, and for, Ms. Busey and Stevens.

Because He Can

So...A few weeks ago, Barack announced that he's in favor of gay marriage--after Joe Biden's announcement of same basically pressured him into reversing the position he espoused in 2008, when he was running for President.


Beyond that, though, how much progress has he really made on LGBT equality?  

Sometimes I get the feeling he's taking LGB people for granted because most won't vote for Romney.  And I sense that he'll throw transgenders under the bus again if the election is close enough, and the economy isn't good.


Am I the only one who feels this way?

About The Intersex Debate

Yesterday's post generated one of the most mean-spirited comments I've received since I started this blog.


For the record:  I have never claimed to be any sort of authority on intersex people--or even, for that matter, transgenders, lesbians, gays or bisexuals.  In fact, I don't even claim to be an expert on gender or sexuality, and I am not trying to become one.


That is the very reason why I will not ever judge whether someone is "really" intersex, transgender or whatever.  First of all, I don't want such a job--which, by the way, is one reason I'll most likely never become a therapist or social worker.  The only person who knows whether he or she "feels like" a man or woman, or his or her attractions, is the person him or her self.  


It doesn't do anybody any good to accuse someone whose beliefs and experiences don't square with what we know of "hiding behind" something, or "faking it."   It also doesn't do anyone any good to call someone a "late to the game transsexual" or some such thing.  It still shocks me to hear such bile and bitterness, and such baseless accusations, from other members of the LGBT community.  I still think of all of the men who were convinced that I was a gay cross-dresser, when they knew nothing of my motivations for wearing women's clothes or living as a woman.  (Neither one was a sexual turn-on.)  If I were a better person, I suppose I would feel pity for such people.  Talk about delusion:  They were assuming sexual interest that I simply didn't have for them.


Now, speaking as a lay person who just happens to have known people with the genitalia of both sexes--and, in some cases, neither was clearly defined--I don't think anyone has any business accusing Steve Crecilius or anyone else of "making up" such a story or "using" it to rationalize cross-dressing or whatever.  "Lindy," whom I mentioned yesterday, nearly died because of her condition.  She had not been to a doctor in many years because of her poverty and lack of insurance, and because of the mistreatment she received from medical professionals.   When she had last seen a doctor (before her condition was discovered), almost no doctors had any idea about intersexedness, or related conditions.  And, if someone doesn't get an X-ray or other kind of examination in that area of the body, such a condition would not have been discovered.  


"Lindy" was brought to an emergency room because she was so sick she could barely stand up.  As it turned out, her internal ovarian system had been infected and was gangrenous.  


Now, as to why someone like Steve would marry, father children and such even though he "felt like a woman inside."  Well--again, I will speak only from my own experience and that of people I know----most of us, especially those my age or older, knew that we would not find acceptance and would almost certainly lose our lives (or, at any rate, our careers, families and such) had we not followed the cultural dictates that go along with whichever gender is indicated on our birth certificates.  Some of us also thought that being in love with a member of the "opposite" gender would "cure" us.  Not to mention that many of us were always, and remain, attracted to members of the "opposite" gender.  And, finally, most people want to have kids.  That is, as best as I can tell, completely independent of anatomy, gender, sexual orientation or any other factor.


So, please stick to facts--or, at least, solid, commonly-accepted medical or scientific theory--if you are going to attack me or anyone else, or anything we say.  Please don't attack us with conjecture or your beliefs:  Isn't it bad enough that other people are doing the same to you?


I've managed not to have any "flame wars" during the nearly four years I've been writing this blog.  I'd like to keep that record going.

Intersexed People And Faux Fascination

Recently, Faux (I mean, Fox) and other media outlets made a spectacle about the "man who found out she was a woman."  


For an organization whose "conservative" commentators preach "family values" and such, the network seems, sometimes, to have an almost-lurid fascination with people who don't fit into the traditional categories of gender and sexuality.  Of course, Fox and their ilk see us as freaks, or worse.  But the fact that they pay more attention to us than the supposedly-liberal outlets is, to say the least, interesting.

But it's the subject, I think, of another, much longer, post (or something other than a blog post).  The reason I paid attention to the story is that I realized such "discoveries," while not common, aren't exactly unknown, either. 


During the days immediately following my surgery, when I was resting and recuperating in The Morning After House, an intersexed woman came to Trinidad for Marci's help. Like Steven Crecilius, "Lindy" found out she, essentially, the entire female reproductive system inside her when she went to a hospital for another condition that nearly killed her.  Like Steven (who, I imagine, will change her name), "Lindy" felt she was not the male her birth certificate said she was.  And, the discovery of that internal uterus cleared up that mystery, and others, as Steven's visit to the doctor did for her.


Since starting my transition, I have met other intersexed people.  Upon meeting them, I always said something like, "I can only imagine how it must have been."  And they said some version of the same thing to me.  Not one of them ever thought he or she was "more" transgendered or gender queer, or thought they were authentic and the rest of us were simply trying to avoid dealing with some other issue.   Sometimes I think each of them had another heart, in addition to another set of sexual and reproductive organs, within them.

Janet Jackson To Produce "Truth"

Sometimes I feel a little bit sorry for Janet Jackson.  Mention her name, and the first thing that comes to a lot of minds (particularly those of men and boys) is her "wardrobe malfunction" during the halftime show of Super Bowl XXVIII.


Now, it looks like she might redeem herself.  Then again, I never thought she needed redeeming.

Seriously, I just found out she's agreed to be an executive producer of "Truth,"  a documentary about the lives of transgender people around the world.  Filming is expected to begin this summer.  In addition to working behind-the-scenes, she's expected to sit for some on-camera interviews.


"'Truth' is our small chance to ask that you try and understand someone who lives their life in a way that is a little bit different from yours, even though our hearts are all the same," she says.  "We want to stop the hate and find understanding."


Director Robert Jason, whose previous directing experience includes the Style Network documentary "Style Exposed:  Born Male, Living Female," has promised that Jackson will play a "prominent" role in the finished product.

Life On A Rainy Day

Today has been unusually cool for this time of year.  It's also rained on and off throughout the day.  I managed to ride for about half an hour.

After a dinner of shrimp and corn bisque, tilapia coated with cornmeal, freshly-ground black pepper and thyme and sauteed in olive oil with capers and lemon, and a vegetable medley, I did some work.  But Marley (r) and Max had their own way of coping.  Oh, by the way, they dined on poached tilapia.

A Fine Article About Trans Kids And Their Parents

Jesse Green's S/He, in the most recent issue of New York magazine, is one of the more interesting articles I've read in a while.


It's also one of the fairest and most nuanced pieces of writing about transgenderism I've seen from someone who isn't trans.  


Specifically, it's about transgender children and the choices their parents face in raising them.  On one hand, we don't want kids or parents making decisions they might regret later on.  On the other hand, we also don't want to see those kids (or any other) commit suicide or do any harm to themselves.  All of the research done on the topic indicates that transgender teenagers have, by far, the highest suicide rate of anybody. The research also confirms what almost any of us can tell you:  Those of us who kill ourselves don't do so because we're trans.  Rather, we do it because of the ostracism and even violence we face too often.


So, some parents realize that starting a hormone regimen before, or just as, their kids reach puberty might save their lives.  And, as one parent of a male-to-female kid said, "I'd rather have a live daughter than a dead son."


What really makes Green's article stand out, in my mind, is that he understands that transgender kids aren't crossdressing or "experimenting" in any way.  He also realizes that it's not a form of "rebellion" or "pushing boundaries."  Instead, he seems to realize--if he doesn't state outright--that a person's gender is subconscious and will surface sooner or later in much the same way a bubble held underwater will rise to the surface.  


What that means--again, he doesn't state it, but from reading the article, I think he understands and intends--is that notions like "gender is performative" and other such nonsense taught in Gender Studies classes simply won't work for the parents or kids.  The parents seem to understand their kids' gender expression is not a "performance" (as if the kid were in a Broadway show), but a natural expression of what he or she is, or at least feels at that time.  This means, of course, the parents have to be as open to the idea that the kid might decide, at puberty or later, that he or she is not really transgender, or may simply decide (for whatever reasons) that he or she doesn't want to go through surgery and other advanced parts of the transition.


Also, the article shows that "liberal" parents wouldn't actually be helpful for such kids.  The parents who believe in the fluidity or ambiguity of gender simply aren't going to be helpful to a kid whose birth certificate is marked "M" but insists on having her bedroom painted lavender and festooned with Hello Kitty and Hannah Montana memorabilia.  In fact, the parents Green interviewed come off, in some cases, on the conservative side--both politically and in their view of social mores.  


Some of the comments that followed Green's article were thoughtful.  But there were others, predictably enough, that expressed ignorance or even hostility toward the kids and their parents.  But what really bothered me were the stupid ones--namely, the ones who carped on Green's pronoun usage and other such details.  I think he did the best he could and tried to follow the wishes of the kids and parents as much as he could.  Almost anyone who's gone through a transition can tell you that, at least early in the transition (which is where most of the kids are), they'd rather hear the wrong pronoun but be treated decently otherwise than to be called the right pronouns by someone who is otherwise untrustworthy.

SEIU Seeks Transgender-Inclusive Health Insurance

One good thing about working for the City University of New York is that it offers pretty good health insurance policies.  Mine didn't pay for my surgery; then again, not many policies do.  But I haven't had difficulty in getting other care I've needed, including follow-ups to my surgery.

On the other hand, other trans people don't have it so good.  For one thing, too many of us don't have jobs at all.  And among those of us who have one (or two or three or more part-time jobs!), too many don't have health insurance.  Some have been categorically denied insurance because they are transgendered.

At least one large labor union is looking to change that.  Yesterday, at their national conference in Denver, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) passed a resolution saying that local groups and individual members will bargain for transgender-inclusive health-care coverage in their contract negotiations with businesses and employers. 

That resolution is significant because the SEIU is one of this country's largest unions, with 2.1 million members.  It's also meaningful because it shows that SEIU is aligning itself with organization--some of which are transgender or LGBT-specific--that are working to get organizations and companies to offer trans-inclusive health policies. 

Paying for follow-up care, as my plan does, is a good first step.  But, ultimately, we need to have policies that cover, not only surgeries, but psychological therapy and counseling as well as such things as hormones and other medications.  (For trans people, hormones are indeed medications, not recreational drugs.)  I'm not a financial analyst or accountant, but I would think that such inclusions wouldn't be as expensive for the insurers as some might expect.  For one thing, the number and percentage of people who actually go through with the therapies and surgeries is quite small, and will remain so even if the "gates" to them are opened up.  Finally, as one doctor said about gender reassignment surgery, "You only get it once."

Memorial Day Without DADT: No Difference For Transgenders

Today, Memorial Day, LGB people have one more right than they had at this time last year:  They can serve openly in the military.  During the past year, as you know by now, the odious "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy ended.


While I am glad to be rid of DADT, the new non-discrimination policy does not cover transgenders.  So, while a gay man, lesbian or bisexual can't be discharged or denied enlistment or promotion (at least not officially, anyway) on the basis of his or her sexual orientation, transgenders can't remain in the Armed Forces.  In fact, even expressing one's gender identity issues can keep a person who wants to enlist out of the Forces, and result in a discharge for someone who's already in.  And "coming out" after leaving or retiring from military service--as Autumn Sandeen did--can cause problems in dealing with the Veterans Administration.  


What makes changing the military's current ban on transgenders, or others with gender-identity "disorders", difficult is that the ban isn't a law.  It's a mandate defined in the Defense Department's "Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment or Induction in the Military Service." (See p. 33, paragraph 3-35.)  So it can't be ended by popular vote, or even a Congressional mandate.  Only the Pentagon can change it, and it's a body that doesn't tend to be swayed much by public opinion.  On the other hand, DADT was a Federal law and could, as such, be voted out of existence by Congress.




This isn't to say that the ban on transgender people won't be repealed.  I just think that it's going to be difficult, in part because we're a much smaller community than lesbians, gay men or bisexuals, but also because doing so will require a change in the administrative culture of the Armed Forces.  Having a President or other elected officials who favor such a change wouldn't hurt, but wouldn't, in and of itself, be enough.

She Called Herself Lorena; The Times Called Her "Curvaceous"

Sometimes people don't understand why words are so important to us.  Actually, they're not any more important to us than they are to anyone else.  Some people think we're more "sensitive" to what we're called and the pronouns used to refer to us because they are not aware of the amount of respect for their dignity and persons they receive that trans--and, too often LGBT and other--people don't get.  

An example of what I'm talking about can be found in a NY Times article about a fire that killed a trans woman on Saturday night.  In the first sentence, Lorena Escalera was referred to as "curvaceous."  These days, even the NY Post does better than that.  I thought the Times stopped that sort of thing--if they ever did it--decades ago.

But it gets even worse.  The article says she was "called" Lorena.  Even the police report lists her name as Lorena; so did other documents referring to her.  If she is not legally known by that name, she is, for all intents and purposes, Lorena.  Why couldn't the Times recognize that?  Or the fact that she was living as a woman--that, in fact, she is a woman.  Al Baker and Nate Schweber, who wrote the article, simply had to say she was "born a male."  No, they didn't even have the guts to say it themselves:  They had to mention that "neighbors" said it.  

Worse yet, Messrs. Baker and Schweber simply couldn't stop themselves from indulging in some cultural stereotyping.  The noted that a debris pile outside of the apartment ravaged by the fire "contained many colorful items."  They included "wigs, women's shoes, coins from around the world, makeup, hairspray, handbags, a shopping bag from Spandex House, a red feather boa and a pamphlet on how to quit smoking.  

Baker and Schweber ended the article with a brief mention of another fire on the same night.  In fighting that blaze, firefighters found the body of a man on whom the fire seemed to be concentrated.  Around his charred remains, according to the reporters,  were "a shopping cart, spackling buckets and clothing."  Somehow I think Baker and Schweber made that list simply to highlight the "tranniness" of the belongings of someone "called" Lorena.  And, oh yeah, we mustn't forget:  This person called Lorena was curvaceous.
  

Re:Acting Fairly And Accurately

The political right has its so-called Accuracy In Media.


Now, I am happy to say, I've found a site that takes on, not only the transphobia in the media, but also the inaccuracies (if unintentional) in the way we're portrayed.  It also analyzes some of the hysteria found in coverage related to LGBT issues, particularly crimes and other prejudice against us.


The other day, Re:Act To Your News critiqued the coverage of the Dharun Ravi trial.  Whether or not Tyler Clementi's suicide is a direct consequence of Ravi's actions, it is still a tragedy, and Ravi doesn't seem very moved by his former roommate's death.  However, as the Re:Act piece shows, the very same mentality and processes that led to Ravi's conviction in the media are also, now, portraying him as a victim.  As the Re:Act post shows, neither portrayal of Ravi--as a villain or victim--is completely accurate.  


Why is that important?  Well, if he's seen as the victim he isn't, he won't be punished as he should.  On the other hand, portraying him as more of a monster than he actually is will lead to an over-zealous prosecution of him, which could result in his being punished for a crime very different from the one he committed.   That, ultimately, will not lead to the justice we are too often denied in cases bias-motivated crimes against us.


I am adding Re:Act to my "to read" list of blogs, and encourage you to do the same.

Miss Congeniality

Tonight I'm seeing a lot of reports saying that Jenna Talackova "lost" the Miss Universe Canada beauty pageant.


First of all, I don't think anybody who enters such a competition "loses."  After all, there are plenty of women (including moi) who will never be in one.   


Second, I have to admit that I feel it's a victory for me and lots of other people simply to see her in such a competition. After all, she had to overcome a lot of hassles and stonewalling to get there.  Officials tried to bar her from the contest, even though there is no written rule--at least for Canada's contest-- stating that transgender women can't compete.  So the officials who tried to keep her out were, to be charitable, afraid of something that even they couldn't explain to anyone.  If I didn't want to be charitable, I'd say they're pure-and-simple bigots.


Judgments in such contests are subjective.  So who's to say who is really the most beautiful, or most representative of Canada (or the universe) in such a contest?  That said, I don't see how anyone could not find Ms. Talackova at least a little teensy weensy bit attractive.  


Plus, she is articulate and outgoing.  She seems friendly and intelligent. So it's no surprise that they crowned her Miss Congeniality.  I've always suspected that pageant judges gave that title to the one they really wanted, but couldn't bring themselves, to crown Miss Universe (or Miss whatever).


So I declare her a winner.  After all, we all know Miss Congeniality is really the one you want to know better!

Christine Gets Married

It is most likely, as the Times reported, the highest-profile same-sex marriage to date.


Christine Quinn, the Speaker of the City Council (basically second only to the Mayor in the New York City government power structure) married her longtime partner Kim Catullo.

Congratulations to both of them!  While I think the legalization of same-sex marriage is not the direct route to equality that some believe it is, I am glad we have it.  Given the current social and legal structure, it's the best we can do. And, if Christine and Kim want to be married, I'm glad they've done it.  I can only wish them happiness.

What Motivates Him To Learn?

One thing I have to say for my students is that they have almost uniformly been good to me. My identity is known, and I think I'm no longer a curiosity:  I don't think anyone is taking my classes so they can find out what it's like to have "the tranny prof."  Now I'm just another boring professor--which, I believe is what they expect, and even want.


Anyway, one of my courses includes readings from science and history as well as a memoir.  Of course, the subject of gender has grown prominent in our discussions, especially in light of some of the writing we've read by female historians.   That leads the class, at times, into discussions of the differences between male and female.


One student seems particularly interested.  Other students have taken notice and have even wondered aloud why he's read as much as he has on the topic.  "How can you not be interested in it?," he implores them. 


He is a bit different from the other students.  For one thing, he's older than most of them.  For another, he's lived in a few more countries, and even served in the armed forces of one of them (not the US).  And, he has other experiences most other students don't have--and some that I may never have.


However, I rather doubt he is thinking about a gender transition.  It would even surprise me if he were gay, although I think he might have an issue or two when it comes to relationships.  (He's mentioned two marriages and children.)  Still, he is  better-versed in gender transitions and surgery than most lay people I've met, and seems interested in knowing even more.   


I wonder whether he's found this blog.  Actually, it would surprise me if he hasn't.  After all, if you type my name into a Google search bar, you'll find an entry to at least one entry of this blog on the first page of search results.  If he's curious enough to learn what he's learned, I'd guess that he'd also be curious enough to do a Google search on me--and to check out this blog.


This could be interesting--for me and for the class, as well as for him.  

The Whole World's IDAHO

"You learn something new every day."  At least, that's what my mother always says.  

At least it was true for me today.  I found out that this is the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO), and that it's being marked all over the world.  Following such initiatives as the National Day Against Homophobia, which was launched in the Canadian province of Quebec in 2003, IDAHO, French university professor Louis-Georges Tin launched an initiative to create an Day Against Homophobia that would be international in scope.  He prooposed that the Day would be observed on 17 May to commemorate the World Health Organization's decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. His efforts led to the first IDAHO in 2005, when a number of organizations and famous individuals signed the "IDAHO Appeal."


I am glad that this day, and the Transgender Day of Remembrance, are observed.  However--to paraphrase what some have said about Mother's Day, Father's Day, Thanksgiving and other holidays--every day should include efforts against homophobia and transphobia, and a commemoration of those who were killed for their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.


It's especially important to keep homophobia and transphobia--and the violence they generate--because of misconceptions some people still have. "Whenever I raise these issues, some complain I'm pushing for 'new rights' or 'special rights' for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," says Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.  "But there is nothing new or special about the right to life and security of a person, the right to freedom from discrimination."

What Will The Rest Of Her Life Be Like?

Last year, a video of the beating of a transwoman in a suburban Baltimore McDonalds went viral. 

Chrissy Polis said she wasn't even going to tell anyone her story because she was so embarassed.  Instead, it was told for her, in images, on YouTube.

The video thrust her into a spotlight she never sought.  She said she never even wanted to be involved in transgender causes.  Now, she shuns offers of help from strangers because she fears they are only trying to "use" her for a "greater cause." 

It's gotten so bad that she's afraid to go out of the house, according to her roommate, Heather Hock.

On top of everything, she has people calling her "sick," "in need of professional help" and worse.  In essence, they say, she had it coming to her.

All of this reminds me of what commonly happened--and still sometimes happens--to rape victims.  And, of course, the root of violence against Polis is the same as that of violence against any other woman:  misogyny.  Until that is rooted out, none of us are completely safe.
 

Will GENDA Pass This Time?

Ten years ago, New York City amended its Human Rights Law with language to forbid discrimination in housing, employment and city services on the basis of gender identity and expression.  At that time, seventy-four jurisdictions had such laws.

Now, New York State is considering something similar.  Sixteen other states and 143 cities and counties--in all parts of the country--have such laws.  Lest you think that Empire State lawmakers have suddenly been enlightened, think again.  The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act  (GENDA) has been up for vote for years now.  It usually passes in the State Assembly, in which Democrats have long dominated, but fails in the State Senate.  At various times, the Senate has had Republican majorities, but even when that party didn't have the numbers, it had influential leaders, like Joseph Bruno, from conservative upstate areas.


After Bruno chose not to seek re-election in 2008, many of us thought the Act had a greater chance of becoming law.  Our optimism was further stoked by the "tipping" of the Senate to a Democratic majority, however slight it may be.  Plus, in Andrew Cuomo, we now have a governor who's willing to sign the Act into law.  


What disheartens us, though, is that the State continues to be "late to the party."  In the same year the City amended its human rights laws to protect transgender people, the State finally passed the Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Act.  Insiders say that it passed only because the provisions encoded in GENDA were left out of it.  It seems that, as distasteful as gay rights may have been to some conservatives, lesbians and gays had become too large a voting bloc to ignore.  (They tend to vote at higher rates than the population in general.)  On the other hand, the numbers of transgender people are much smaller, and we tend to be poorer than gay men and, to a lesser extent, lesbians.  Plus, the fact that so many of us--especially our young--are unemployed, or even homeless, makes it harder for us to organize campaigns.


I hope that the State finally does what sixteen others have already done--and what it should have done ten years ago, when the City recognized gender identity and expression in its human rights laws.

 

Happy Mother's Day!

To all of you who are mothers--and those of you who love yours, or someone who was one to you--Happy Mother's Day.


My mom is great. But she hates being photographed, and I've been able to take the few photos I have of her only by swearing I would never share them.  Since I do believe in honoring my mother and father (which is not always the same as obeying them), you will not see her photo on my blogs.  However, I'll give you the next best thing--to me, anyway. Here's a photo of a mom riding with her kid in tow:

From Public

Where Are They Really "Gender Blind"?

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


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


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


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


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


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

Mitt Bully, I Mean, Romney

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


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


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


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

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


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

Argentina Gets It

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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