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!

Argentina Won't Cry For Him

One year ago, Argentina took the unprecedented step of, essentially, making it legal for anyone over the age of 18 to choose his or her gender. To date, no other country has even come close to allowing such freedom in gender identity and expression.

Two years earlier, the country became the eighth to legalize same-sex marriage. That law, perhaps, caused even more surprise than the one allowing people to choose their gender identity.  Argentina, like its neighbor Chile and other countries in the region,  was emerging from a cell of brutal authoritarian government (in Argentina's case, a military dictatorship) and Catholic Church authorities that colluded with the country's political and military leaders.  

Arguably the worst of such rulers--or, at any rate, the worst Argentina ever had--died on 17 May.  Jorge Rafael Videla participated in the coup d'etat on 24 March 1976 and served as the de facto president of the nation for five years.  During that time, about 30,000 people--including gays--were "desperaciados," or disappeared. Notice that "disappeared" was used as a verb:  Those people, in essence, were made to vanish from the face of the Earth; the fate of many is still not known.

Jacobo Timerman, who edited a newspaper critical of the government, was among them.  He was arrested, held without a trial date and, after months in prison, was abruptly put on a plane to Tel Aviv.  His excellent Prisoner Without A Name, Cell Without A Number recounts those experiences as well as others who were arbitrarily arrested, tortured and sometimes murdered.

As wonderful as Argentina's new laws are, and as happy as I am for Argentinians, I think they--and we--should not forget Videla, if only to remember what life was like only a generation ago for gays, transgenders, Jews, dissidents and others in Pope Francis' home country.

The Best States For Transgender Student-Athletes

It's actually easier to be a transgender student-athlete in Nebraska than it is in New Hampshire--or New York.

Yes, you read that right.  At least, in Nebraska, a trans girl who wants to play on her school's volleyball team--or a trans boy who wants to play basketball--has more legal rights and protections than his or her peers in my home state or the one whose motto is "Live Free Or Die."

What makes this all even weirder is that New York and New Hampshire have both legalized gay marriage, while very few people expect Nebraska to do the same any time soon.

Or would it?

Rhonda Blanford-Green, the executive director of Nebraska School Activities Association, had previously worked in neighboring Colorado, which has had a policy trans-inclusive non-discrimination policy for five years.  She decided to introduce something similar in the Cornhusker State.  It passed the NSAA board unanimously during the winter.  However, as it is a school policy and not a state law, it attracted little attention.  So far, nobody has invoked it.

On the other hand, the Empire State, which was among the first states to include language to protect sexual orientation in its human rights laws, and the fifth state to legalize same-sex marriage, has been behind the curve in helping transgenders.  There is still no language in the State's anti-discrimination laws to protect gender identity or expression.  Former Governor David Patterson issued an executive order banning discrimination against State workers.  As I understand, there is no time limit on it; however, it could be rescinded by Andrew Cuomo's successor.  

New York City passed its own laws banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression in April of 2002, but 74 other cities--including, interestingly, upstate Rochester--beat them to it.

When one considers this history, perhaps it's less surprising that New York is less progressive than Nebraska when it comes to trans student-athletes. Then again, some might argue that Nebraska's policy is the work of one particular person (even if it did pass unanimously). Others might say that it passed just because people pay more attention to school sports in the Cornhusker State than in New York.  

Here is a map showing which states have specific policies for student-athletes (in dark blue), which ones have overarching athletic or educational  policies that cover trans people , and which ones have no protections (lighest shade) at all:

The BSA Gets It Half-Right

I wasn't going to comment about the decision to allow openly gay boys to become Boy Scouts.  But I've found myself thinking about it, partly because--you guessed it--I was a Scout many, many years ago.

Now, before I talk about the decision, I'm going to share a little story.  I was a Scout for a year or two when the Boy Scouts of America decided to make some changes to the uniform.  Back in the old days, the standard uniform included a flat or "garrison" hat similar to the kind worn by soldiers in many countries.  But, the Boy Scouts' leadership decided to offer other kinds of headgear and allow troops and their leadership to choose.  One of the options was the old-style garrison hat; the others, as I recall, included a visored baseball-type cap (which seems to be what most Scouts wear today) and a red beret.  Most of the boys in my troop voted for the baseball cap, and our Scoutmaster seemed to like it, too.  It was all right but, as you may have guessed, I wanted to wear the red beret.

Anyway, having been a Scout, I can tell you that there have been gay scouts, most likely since the organization's founding.  Back then--and even during the time I was a Scout--one never heard of a boy (or, for that matter, a girl) "coming out" much before the age of twenty.  Matters of sexuality weren't widely discussed in those days; most kids' sexual education consisted of the "facts of life" talk from the parents.  Some kids didn't even get that.

But, of course, gay kids knew that they were somehow different.  Sometimes other kids knew, too, and taunted or even bullied them.  As bad as it could be, it usually wasn't as bad as the treatment the gay (or perceived-to-be-gay) kid got at school, in the community and, sometimes, at home.  Perhaps my view is colored by having had a Scoutmaster who didn't tolerate bullying.

I suspect there were, and are, others like him.  In addition to modeling good behavior, people like him are often the father-figures (or parents) many young people lack.  What about the gay kid who's been kicked out of his home and is living with other relatives--or some place else?  Doesn't he need at least one stable presence in his life?

Now, I haven't forgotten about the sex-abuse scandals that rocked the BSA.  While I'm sure that some men have become Scoutmasters because it gave them easy access to boys, I don't think they were in the majority.  (The same thing could be said about youth-league coaches.)  I think that far more scoutmasters, like the two I had, try to be the guides and role-models that too many young men lack.  

Having been through the sex-abuse scandals, and had to deal with declining membership for at least a decade and a half, the BSA is understandably worried about its image.  I think that might have been the reason why, while voting to allow gay Scouts, they also decided against allowing gay men to become Scoutmasters.  I suppose it was  the BSA's "compromise", or at least an attempt to mollify those parents who, rightly, worry about their kids' safety.  At least, I sort of hope that was their motivation.  Otherwise, they allowed their choice to be guided by a misplaced belief in a mistaken idea that had too long of a shelf life, so to speak.

In other words, if they weren't capitulating to pressure from vocal parents and church groups, BSA's leadership made a decision based on the notion that men who molest boys are gay.  Having been molested as a child--and having talked to others who were--I know how mistaken that notion is.  I know for a fact that one of my molesters never had sexual contact with any post-pubescent male, and was a married man.  I'm almost entirely certain that the other man who molested me also never had any interest in adult males.

But, the ban on gay Scoutmasters does gay Scouts a disservice for another reason.  Lots of boys--gay, straight and otherwise--join because it is one of the few structured environments in which they can be safe and validated. Think of that boy who joined when he was 12 or 13 and, a year or two later, realizes that he's gay. Imagine that he has no adult in his life with whom he can talk about it.  Don't you think that one of the best things that could happen to him would be for his scoutmaster to say, with complete honesty, "I know how you feel."

Now, I'm not saying that only a gay Scoutmaster can give a gay Scout the support he needs at a time like that.  I'm just saying that it's one situation in which a just-out gay kid needs an adult who is true to him or her self--in short, one with integrity.  Plus, if I'm not mistaken, the Scout Oath and Law both mention honesty.

So, the BSA got this issue half-right.  Perhaps one day they'll get it completely right.  

Why Are Gay Families In Salt Lake City?

According to a recent study, the US city in which the highest percentage of itsr gay couples is raising children is in a state that I wouldn't expect to legalize same-sex marriage in my lifetime.  In fact, two of the next three cities with metropolitan areas  of a milion or more are in such states.

The winner in that category is Salt Lake City.   Next is Virginia Beach, followed by Detroitand  Memphis. Jacksonville, FL is another place where more than one in four gay couples is raising children..  Of those cities, only Detroit is in a state in which there seems to be any chance of legalizing same-sex unions any time soon.

Mind you, New York, San Francisco and Boston have larger overall numbers of gay couples raising kids. But the percentage of such couples is actually much smaller than the cities I've mentioned--or the California communities of Visalia and Porterville.

The researchers who conducted the study say that the main reason for this phenomena is that members of gay couples in Salt Lake City and the other seemingly-unlikely hubs were in heterosexual marriages before coming out as gay.  They had kids in those unions and brought them into their new domestic arrangements.

The terrible irony of this is that in such places, gay people often feel more external or internal pressures to get married and have children--whether to mollify members of their families or churches, or in an attempt to silence their own inner voices.  A young person who's grown up in Park Slope or Chelsea or Castro or the Back Bay is less likely to feel such pressures and thus more likely to come out earlier--and less likely to enter into a heterosexual marriage.  On the other hand, I can only imagine how it feels to grow up gay or trans in a place where the center of life is a fundamentalist church.

Now, I don't want to depict all of those places where gay people are raising kids as backward or imprisoning.  Rather, I want to point out that the very same social milieu that causes people to avoid living as themselves--or simply not to be aware of their true natures--is also, in many ways, more conducive to raising families than what we find in larger and more cosmopolitan cities.

One, of course, is economics.  One almost has to be very wealthy to raise kids in New York, where I live, or in San Francisco, Boston or Washington.  At least, one has to be wealthy if one wants his or her kids to be safe, attend good schools and get good health care--and find kid- and family-friendly facilities.  What that means, of course, is that one has to have independent wealth or the sort of career that both pays well and has policies that allow parents to take time off to care for kids and such without losing a day's pay--or risking his or her job.  Contrary to popular perception, not all LGBT people are in such careers.

Also, while there is more than likely plenty of homo- and trans-phobia in the smaller cities and towns, those kinds of hatred are not absent in the Big Apple, the Hub or the City by the Bay.  In fact, gay, lesbian and transgender people from other places have expressed, to me, their surprise at how much homo- or trans-phobia they found here.  One reason for that, I think, is that New York is a much more segregated city than most people realize.  Many people live in neighborhoods populated mainly by people who come from their country or culture, or share their religion.  And, in another contrast to public perception, there's religious fundamentalism in this city.  We may not have snake-handlers and such here, but there are people who belong to various fundamentalist churches.  And, of course, there are ultra-Orthodox and Hasidic Jews who, although they barely communicate with anyone else in this city, have a disproportionate influence on public policy.

(To my own surprise, in my early transition, I didn't encounter prejudice from religious Muslims or Catholics, even those who come from "macho" cultures.  The latter may have to do with my own Catholic upbringing and the fact that I speak Spanish.)

So, really, I'm not surprised that so many gay couples by the Great Salt Lake or along the Virginia coast or across the river from Windsor are raising kids.   To me, it means that simply legalizing same-sex marriage or adding protections for LGBT people to civil-rights laws--as important as those things are--aren't enough to ensure that any kid with gay parents (or, for that matter, LGBT kids) will have the same access to the benefits of a good family and community that their peers (some of them, anyway) have.  

Kudos to all of the people in those places--and in my hometown and the other gay "capitals"--who are doing what they can to understand (and, hopefully, accept and support) same-sex parents and their kids.  If they are doing so out of their concern for children, as I suspect they are, that is as good a starting point as any.  

Denying A Wolfe At Red Lion

Last month, people all over the United States were shocked to learn that, in their own country, there are still high schools that hold separate proms for white and black students.  So, students who have spent hundreds of hours with each other in classrooms, played on sports teams (or cheered them on) together, fought, hugged--and, in some cases, dated--could not dance with each other as they were about to graduate.

One such school was in Wilcox County, Georgia.  The state in which I was born (but spent only the first seven months of my life) has, to be sure, been one of the most atavistic when it comes to race relations.  It was one of the last states to repeal Jim Crow laws, and only in Missisippi were more African-Americans lynched between 1892 and 1968.  Still, it's hard to believe that even in such a place, such a frankly barbaric practice as a segregated prom could continue.

That is, until its students dragged out of the 19th Century and into the 21st.  Four girls--two white, two black--took it upon themselves to organize a prom to which all of their classmates were invited.  Roughly equal numbers of students of both races attended, and DJs, photographers and other people came from as far away as New York to volunteer their services.

I mention this story becuase it is, after all, prom season, and another group of people is facing discrimination.

I'm talking about transgender students who aren't allowed to attend in the gender in which they identify.  In one of the most egregious examples of this, Mark Shue, the principal of Red Lion (PA) Area  High School, changed Isaak Wolfe's bid to become the prom king to one to become the prom queen.  He did this without notifying Isaak.  Moreover, he said that Wolfe's female name would be read at graduation.

Shue's rationale for his actions is that Isaak Wolfe's name has not yet become legal.  He is working on that change, and he has been living by his male name--and in his male gender--for some time.  I don't know anything about Pennsylvania law, but I would think that it may well be possible that Wolfe's name change won't become official until he turns 18.  Still, if Wolfe has been living as a boy, with a boy's name--and that is how his classmates, teachers and family know him--he should be allowed to attend the prom and campaign for a title as the person he is.  As he told reporters, had he known Shue would change his petition, he never would have competed.  "It's humiliating," he said.

I call it bullying.  


I say that as someone who didn't attend her prom, and participate in many other activities and rituals that are normal parts of most people's lives, because I couldn't do so as the person I am.  Not being able to live with such integrity, I came to see rejection, exclusion and pure-and-simple meanness as normal.  You've probably heard songs about how love was for other people.  That is how I felt, and still feel sometimes.  When you are subjected to such treatment throughout your life, you have a more difficult time starting or maintaining relationships, or even believing that they are possible.  In other words, you internalize the bullying and bigotry to which you're subjected.

Principal Shue has already humiliated Isaak Wolfe.  I hope he realizes the error of his way and doesn't contribute to a cycle of alienation and despair that has claimed far too many young people.

Put On Purple And Ride Your Bike To Work

Today is national Ride Your Bike to Work Day.

I just found out that it's also "Put On Purple" Day.  The Lupus Foundation of America has so designated this day to raise awareness of one of the most pervasive and severe conditions most people don't know about.  

One reason for the lack of awareness, I believe, is that many people perceive--as I did, until recently--that the disease only affects African-Americans.  Another reason is that 90 percent of its victims are female.  Illnesses that affect mostly women and girls are given the short shrift vis-a-vis those that affect males because medicine, as we know it, is a partiarchy.  Not only are the vast majority of doctors still men, so are and were most of their medical-school professors.  Said professors, like their counterparts in any other field, teach their students what they learned.  Given that--because, until recently, nearly all doctors and researchers were men--most research was done on conditions that mostly affect males, and the "baseline" sex in medicine has been male.

Anyway, if I had known that Put On Purple and Bike To Work Day converged as they did today, I'd have organized a ride in which everyone wears a purple jersey or T-shirt. And, of course, I'd be on it, riding one of my purple bikes (actually, Mercian finish #57)!

Here is someone who would definitely belong on such a ride: