Beside Themselves

A friend of mine read the article I posted the other day.  She was involved in the struggle to legalize same-sex marriage in New York State.  Several years before that legislation passed, she was married to her longtime partner in Canada.

This friend and I were talking about what’s happened in Utah, and about civil rights in general.  She reminded me of something which—surprisingly, given that the legislation in New York passed only two and half years ago—I had forgotten.

Here it is:  One of the arguments made against passing the same-sex marriage law was that it would discriminate against straight people, as it would not guarantee their right to marry gay people.

I wondered what it is about same-sex marriage that drives supposedly well-trained and talented legal minds to such contortions of logic as the one she recalled-- or the argument, made by same-sex marriage foes in Utah, that if diversity is a valid criterion for college admissions, it should also be a criterion in deciding whether or not people should be allowed to marry.

My friend had an explanation:  When people who don’t have much else, they will grasp onto whatever it is that (at least in their minds) separates them from people who are even lower on the socioeconomic ladder than they are.  Politicians like George Wallace, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan exploited this; folks like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are trying to do the same.  How else can they consider poor and working-class white people in the South and Midwest to vote for candidates like themselves:  the ones who align themselves with the plutocrats who imperil whatever separates those white people from the perpetually destitute blacks and other members of “minority” groups.

It sounds, to me, like a good explanation of why, in spite of the gains we’ve made, the condition of transgender people is still like that of gays and lesbians thirty years ago.

I'm Not A Scientist. Neither Is Bryan Fischer.

One reason why I have not talked more about going to church, at least on this blog, is that my reasons for doing so are highly personal, perhaps even idiosyncratic.  I don't pretend that my reasons for going to church apply to everyone, and I'm not ready to say that everyone "should" go to church or follow any sort of formal religion.

Also, I must admit that I didn't want to be lumped with some of the people who use their "religion" or "faith" to rationalize all sorts of bigotry--including their notions that people like me don't belong in their churches or can be "cured."

In the latter category is a fellow named Bryan Fischer.  Here is someone who, from what I can tell, has even less background in science than I have.  (I last took a science class in 1978; although I try to stay abreast of some developments, I can't claim to have any more than an average lay person's knowledge.)  Yet he is claiming the role of a scientist--specifically, a geneticist and an evolutionary biologist--to reiterate the tired canard that if you have male DNA and anatomy, you can't possibly be female because "God doesn't make mistakes."

What a lot of people don't know is that Charles Darwin studied to be an Anglican parson.  But he was astute enough to realize that the most startling phenomenon he encountered could be explained, if not resolved, only through scientific reasoning, not through faith.  He knew that faith and reason could not be substituted for each other and that a question of science cannot be answered with religion any more than a belief in the supernatural can be justified with empirical evidence.

The funny thing about folks like Fischer is that the more they use the word "science," the more irrational and even specious their explanations become.  That's because when they say things like "all of the science I've seen tells me", you know that they know about as much science as I do.  When someone asks them for citations, they change the subject or accuse the questioner of being misled by Satan, or some such thing.

Perhaps some day someone will come up with a scientific explanation for people like me. And someone else might come up with a cogent pyschological explanation, or even a religious or theological one.  Until then, I hope that enough people realize what the kinds of reasoning used in each of those fields can and can't do.  And people like me can tell our stories and, perhaps, create interesting and useful artistic and literary representations of our experiences.


 

The Diversity In Marriage Act (DIMA)

Back to serious, sober gender stuff today.

All right, perhaps not so serious and sober.  In fact, you might actually have fun (Whoda thunk it?) reading my latest Huffington Post piece.

I'll reproduce the text here:

The Diversity In Marriage Act


The state of Utah has just ruled that I can marry a black man. Or an Hispanic or Asian male. Even a Native American is acceptable, under the state's ruling.

But I can't marry a white man, let alone a white woman. Oh, I can't marry an African-descended, Latina or Asian female, either.

Now, you might think I've gone over to neighboring Colorado and partaken of their newly-legalized recreational drug. Truth is, I'm nowhere near that Rocky Mountain mecca. I've been there only once, and that was to avail myself to the services of one Dr. Marci Bowers. And I've never set foot in the Beehive State. I'm safely ensconced in the very state that kicked out someone named Joseph Smith, who is largely responsible for the Utah we know and love today.

Time was, not so long ago, someone who used "Utah" and "same-sex marriage" in the same sentence would have been suspected of inhaling Boulder's Best -- and I'm not talking about the pure mountain air. Or he or she would have been directed to take his or her medication.

But what would have been seen as a hallucination or fantasy less than a year ago actually came to pass, however briefly, last month. Judge Robert Shelby -- a conservative Republican -- ruled Utah's same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional. So, for a few heady days, Johns joined Jims and Willas wed Wendys in Salt Lake City and a few other locales in the state.

Of course, Utah being Utah, there were plenty of politicians and lay people who simply wouldn't let such a situation be. So they appealed Judge Shelby's decision to the Supreme Court. They made all of the predictable arguments citing long-discredited studies (or pure-and-simple folklore) about the "benefits" of being raised by one biological parent of each gender and the ways in which heterosexual marriage promotes "responsible" sexual behavior.

Now, such arguments couldn't sway someone like Judge Shelby. But, apparently, Utah's foes of same-sex marriage thought they might work in that liberal bastion known as the United States Supreme Court, where such left-wing stalwarts as Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia occupy the bench.

So what did those righteous folks who wanted to save us from the spectacle of Mr. and Mr. or Ms. and Ms. do? They did their homework and came up with a set of germane court rulings. And -- I must give them their due -- they used those rulings in a way that I never, in a million years, could have imagined.

Various courts have ruled that publicly-funded colleges and universities can use "diversity" as a criterion for admissions. Educators and related professionals have long argued that contact with people from nations, cultures and religions different from one's own enhances a student's educational experience. In other words, the prep school kid, the scholarship student from the slums and the young woman from Asia will all gain social and thinking skills they might not otherwise would have acquired in the classroom.

Ergo, a kid will learn more from two parents who are different sexes than from parents of the same sex -- or only one parent.

Now, I don't know whether Utah's same-sex marriage foes gained such reasoning skills (or, for that matter, learned the word "ergo") in the hallowed halls of their fair state's esteemed institutions of higher learning. Perhaps they're just naturally brilliant. I mean, how else could they have argued, in essence, that "diversity in marriage" is the ideal and will teach kids what they need to learn? At any rate, I never could have constructed such a logical tour de force.

What they said, in essence, is that the state should mandate diversity in marriage. Well, they want gender diversity -- or, more accurately, polarity. But imagine that the legislatures of Utah or other states -- or the federal government -- were to pass a comprehensive Diversity In Marriage Act.

Would DIMA simply mandate what DOMA proscribed? Or would it go beyond DOMA and specify other ways, besides gender, in which each spouse must differ? Must they be of different races and cultural backgrounds? Will they be expected to speak different languages and practice different religions? (Perhaps only one member of the couple could be a theist.) Would dreamers only be permitted to marry schemers? Omnivores to vegans? Would I have to marry a mathematician? (Not that I wouldn't.) Or someone with Type O blood?

If Utah were to pass DIMA, a lot of people might not marry at all: It's one of the whitest states in the union. It's also one of the least religiously diverse, and one of the most socially homogenous in all sorts of other ways.

If I were feeling lonely, I guess I could go to Colorado. Even if they were to pass DIMA, I could brighten up my days in other ways. And, if I were to marry someone of my own race, gender or cultural background, or with a skill-set like mine, I could plead ignorance: Everyone looks the same when you're on a Rocky Mountain High. Or is that when you're drunk?

If you are, you've got to marry someone in a 12-step program. Otherwise, you'll be in violation of the Diversity In Marriage Act. You don't want to get stung with the penalties for such an infraction, especially in the Beehive State. Do the birds marry the bees there?

 

 

Contemplation

OK.  Today I’ll take a break from “gender stuff”.  And I’ll give you a break from it.

Instead, I’ll give you a chance to contemplate.

What do you think this winsome creature is thinking about?  Do you think she’s pondering her own existence?  The finiteness (Is that a word?) of life?  Or is she just trying to make a decision?

What’s she thinking now?

Freedom Rider

On this date in 1929, Martin Luther King Jr. was born.   His birthdate will be commemorated on Monday, five days from now. We also observe the births of Presidents Washington and Lincoln, as well as other holidays, on Mondays in this country.

I guess if you want to become famous enough to have a holiday dedicated to you, you have to be born on Monday.  Or, perhaps, being born on Monday will lead you to fame.

But I digress.  I don't often hear or see MLK and bicycling mentioned on the same page, let alone the same sentence.  The biographies I've seen tell us that he enjoyed riding his bike as a kid but make no mention of him cycling as an adult.

From Dan's Globe Bike

So why am I mentioning him on this blog?  Well, I believe that my cycling is one major reason why I began to think about issues of social justice long before I would be affected by them in the immediate and visceral ways I would experience them when I was transitioning from male to female.  Riding my bike through New York--where I have lived much of my life--and other cities, I have seen, close-up, the stark differences between neighboring communities.  Just minutes after spinning by the opulent townhouses and boutiques of Manhattan's Fifth and Park Avenues--which rival Rodeo Drive, Kensington Gardens and l'Avenue Montaigne--I descend the ramp from the Triboro Bridge to the southern tip of the Bronx.  It's part of the 16th Congressional district, the poorest in the entire nation. There, I am as likely as not to be the only woman on a bicycle within a radius of several miles.

In both neighborhoods, people sometimes compliment the bike I'm riding, or (on rarer occasions these days) my riding itself.  In either neighborhood, I am keenly aware of my privilege:  Even if I am riding to work or an appointment, I am riding my bike by choice.  And I am riding a bike I choose to ride.  Even if I have no money in my purse, I still occupy a higher rung on the social--and, yes, economic--ladder then those who are riding bikes that no one else wanted so they can deliver pizzas or get to an appointment with a case worker.

As long as I can ride, and choose to do so, I am privileged.

Overturning Same-Sex Marriage In The Name Of "Diversity"

"Well, it was great while it lasted."

It's easy to think something like that after the Supreme Court halted same-sex marriages in Utah--barely two weeks after the first ones were consummated in the Beehive State.

On the surface, it almost seemed surprising that Utah allowed same-sex unions even for such a brief period.  After all, when you say "Utah" to most people, the first word that comes to their minds is "Mormons."

The Church of Latter-Day Saints, not surprisingly, does not want to encourage same-sex unions.  But, as I mentioned in an earlier post, in Salt Lake City--the State's capital and largest city--a higher percentage of same-sex couples raise children than in any other city in the nation.  Ironically, it is a result of the city's and state's social conservatism:  People there come out later in life, often after siring or birthing a child in a heterosexual marriage.  

Judge Robert Shelby--a conservative Republican--ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.  He consulted with a number of professionals, including clergy people, who assured him that allowing same-sex marriage has absolutely no effect on whether opposite-sex couples consummate their unions in marriage before having children.  Nobody could have been more succinct when he said "no one is harmed" when people marry others of the same sex.

State officials succeeded in having his ruling overturned by abandoning their earlier claims that heterosexual marriage encourages "responsible" sex and procreation.  Instead, they made one of the most bizarre arguments I've ever heard.

In essence, they drew upon earlier Supreme Court decisions supporting "diversity" as a criteria in deciding who may attend public universities.  They said, in essence, they were pursuing "diversity in marriage."

It's almost funny to read that such an argument was made in one of the whitest states in the Union. Perhaps someone else--say, a Supreme Court judge--will see it that way and Utah will follow California in legalizing gay marriage, overturning it and re-instating it.  Perhaps the last part of that process won't take as long in the Beehive State as it did in the so-called Golden State.

 

The CDC Catches Up

If you are transitioning from male to female, you may have discovered something I've learned:  The world of medicine was created by and for males.

If you didn't already know that, you will understand it when you climb into the "stirrups" for your first vaginal examination--if you hadn't already learned it from getting a mammogram.  That machine they use is almost as tortuous as the stirrups, and both devices were invented by, ahem, men!

Still, you need to do both.  OK, I'll admit:  I'm overdue for a mammogram.  But at least I'm procrastinating because of the unpleasantness of the experience, not because I can't pay for it. Or, more precisely, I don't have to pay for it.  That makes me one of the lucky ones.  Lots of other trans women--both pre- and post-op--don't have insurance policies that cover their mammograms or access to any medical provider who does them for free.  

One reason for that lack is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (commonly known as the CDC) provided free screenings only to those designated as females at birth.  Even those of us who have had surgery weren't provided with examinations from the CDC. And other health care providers, insurers and related organizations take their cues from the CDC.

However, last week, the CDC changed its policy after a trans woman in Colorado sued.  

One would think it shouldn't have come to that.  After all, one would expect that the folks at the CDC would be conversant in current research and literature.  According to decades' worth of investigation and practice, trans women who are taking estrogen are at a higher risk of breast cancer than they were before starting treatments, though their risk is not as great as that of "born" women.  And our risk of breast cancer increases after our surgeries.

 

The Netherlands Regains Its Edge

As of this writing, Argentina remains the nation with the most enlightened laws regarding gender identity.  Essentially, any Argentinian 18 years or older can live in whatever gender he or she chooses.  There are no prerequisites: no hormones, no surgery, not even a third-party recommendation or consent.

A year and eight months have passed since Argentina's ruling.  Since then, the United Kingdom, Austria and Portugal have done away with the requirements for hormones, surgeries or other medical or psychiatric interventions in order to change the gender marker on a person's identification documents.  A German court has ruled in favor of a similar policy.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the Netherlands is about to join them.  Like their European counterparts--and unlike Argentina--the Netherlands will require expert testimony attesting to the applicant's long-held conviction that he or she is of a gender different from the one to which he or she was assigned at birth.  The Dutch will, like the other nations mentined, not require any medical, pharmacological or psychiatric procedures or treatments.  One way in which the Dutch have parted company with those nations, though, is that a person has to be only 16 years old in order to make the changes.

I began my previous paragraph with "Perhaps not surprisingly" because, for one thing, the Netherlands was the first nation to legalize same-sex marriage.  Perhaps even more relevant is the fact that in 1985, it was one of the first nations to pass legislation enabling transgender people to change their registered gender.  In the ensuing quarter-century, the laws have lost some of their edge as understanding of what it means to be transgendered has advanced in the medical, legal and academic communities as well as among the general public.  So, apparently, the Dutch figured it was time to make the changes to reflect that knowledge as well as their changing understanding of human rights laws.

Stirring Up A Hornet's Nest In The Beehive State?

If you are anything like me, you probably never expected to use "Utah" and "same-sex marriage" in the same sentence.

But it looks like we may have to get used to such a locution.  As I've mentioned in an earlier post, a court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage.  Since then, hundreds of couples--most of them in Salt Lake City--have exchanged vows.

Meanwhile, the state has appealed Judge Robert Shelby's decision to the US Supreme Court.  The Beehive State's (With a name like that, the state wants to ban gay marriage?  Who do they think does all of those beehives?;-)) lawyers have argued that Judge Shelby--who, by the way, is a conservative Republican-- in essence, created a Constitutional right by ruling that the ban violated Federal guarantees of equal protection. In response, according to lawyer Peggy Tomic, advocates of same-sex marriage have filed papers in the Supreme Court in which they argue, in essence, that gay people aren't harming anyone by getting married in Utah.

Even if the Supreme Court grants the appeal--which, I believe, seems unlikely--it will still be something of a surprise to provincial New Yorkers like me that same-sex marriages ever took place in Utah.  But, as I've done some research, this turn of jurisprudence seems less surprising. After all, seemingly-conservative and mainly-rural Iowa legalized same-sex marriage a couple of years ago.  I know of Iowa only from acquaintances who hail from there; from their accounts, Iowans are "tolerant" and are taught to "mind their own business".  If that;s the case, then they are not so different--at least in that respect--from Vermonters, who surprised almost no one when they legalized same-sex marriage in their state.

But another fact makes recent events in Utah less surprising than they initially seemed.  According to at least one report, Salt Lake City has a higher percentage of its gay couples raising children than any other large city in the United States. Other cities near the top of that list include Virgina Beach, Detroit and Memphis.  

One reason why cities (with the possible exception of Detroit) that have such high proportions of gay couples raising children are located in socially conservative states may well be the social conservativism in such places.  It results in people coming out later in life and, often, entering into heterosexual marriages and having kids along the way.  Also, I think social conservatives lose, interestingly, some of their objection to gay marriage if not "the gay lifestyle" when they see gay couples raising kids. Seeing gay couples with kids is, perhaps, more palatable to some people than seeing images of  young, single gays leading seemingly-hedonistic lives in Chelsea or Castro.

Also, people in socially conservative places value order.  I think now of a Dutch minister who explained that his country's history of Calvinism is the very reason why marijuana and other drugs are legal in Amsterdam.  Legalizing something means regulating it.  It also means that people won't have to follow their proclivities "in the shadows" and resort to illegal means.  If you legalize pot, people don't have to support criminals in order to buy it; if you legalize gay marriage (and, indeed, almost anything else that goes along with homosexuality or queerness), there is less business for seedy bars and unscrupulous purveyors of pornography and sexual paraphernalia.   

Of course, if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling of a conservative Republican judge in what has been regarded as one of the most socially conservative states to strike down his state's ban on gay marriage, other states and jurisdictions will have less reason  to hold to bar such unions.  

That said, I still think that same-sex marriage is not the ne plus ultra of equal rights legislation for LGBT people.  I still believe that government should not have any say in marriage at all, save for setting a minimum age limit.  Everyone who wants to wed should, in the eyes of government, have the equivalent of a civil union, and couples could enshrine their marriages in their churches or other places of worship if they so wish.  And, finally, I think there should not be any tax benefits for any married couple, whether they are hetero- or same-sex.  But, given the legal and social systems we have, legalizing same-sex marriage is the best way to ensure that two men or two women have the same rights as a man and a woman.

(Now that Utah, in essence, allows same-sex marriage, at least one wag is wondering whether same-sex polygamy or polyandry will also be legal. In my own unbiased opinion, I think that there's a lot less reason to worry about gay marriage than about polygamy!)

What Becky Kent Got With Her Divorce Papers

It's one thing when people are bigoted or hateful, or merely ignorant.

But there are some who simply feel that they must mix belligerence, spitefulness or simply aggression with the meanness they exhibit toward people who simply happen to be different from themselves--or how they perceive themselves.

I am thinking now of someone who, the last time I spoke to him , insisted on calling me by my old name and using male titles and pronouns (and "Dude") when talking to me--a year after my surgery.

Nearly every trans person I know has had a similar experience with at least one person, whether he or she is a family member or former friend or colleague.  I can understand that some people simply cannot adjust their perception of someone they knew, or thought they knew.  On the other hand, I will never understand why someone has to take digs at a complete stranger, as some workers in a Scottish court did:

Becky Kent found this post-it attached to her divorce papers.  It reads, "Colin It's right! (sic).  Man- changed his name to woman's name.  Identity declaration attached!!!  Takes all sorts!!"

As someone who's spent a fair amount of time teaching English, I couldn't help but notice that there are six exclamation points in a post-it with sixteen words.  I've seen advertising copy and supermarket tabloid headlines with a lower ratio of exclamation points to words.  But that, of course, is not the most offensive thing about it.

What was probably even more offensive than the post-it, though, is something I didn't see:  the letter that accompanied the divorce papers.  It was addressed "Dear Sir."

Ms. Kent seemed more disappointed than hurt.  She'd moved from her native Wisconsin to Scotlan, she said, because she thought people in her adopted homeland were "forward thinking" on gender issues.  

For its part, the Scottish court issued an apology.  Still, even if you're not offended by the salutation of the letter or the vapid writing on the post-it, you have to be upset or astounded by the lack of professionalism--or sheer stupidity--of whoever left it attached to Ms. Kent's divorce papers.

What They Can't Do To Us

From JerBear's Queer World News

Moving Forward, Or Simply On

Back in the smoky mists of time, les neiges d'antan--well, all right, my youth--transsexuals were expected to break completely with the lives they lived before their gender transitions.  Doctors and therapists mandated new jobs and careers (or, if possible, no job or career) as well as places of habitation and friends as a condition of embarking upon the "real life test".  

Moreover, novitiate transgenders were told to re-invent their pasts. So, for example, if you were a Boy Scout, as I was, you might say you were a Girl Scout.  Of course, that meant you couldn't talk about experiences of your life that were specific to the gender in which you lived before your transition.  For many, that meant not mentioning being drafted into military service or giving birth. 

Thankfully, such expectations no longer existed when I started my transition.  As I explained to someone, I simply could not see how it was helpful to trade one mental disorder (as gender dysphoria was defined until recently) for another (i.e., willed amnesia).

As I begin this year, I know that I did not leave my past behind me.  However, I now realize that, piece by piece, my past has been leaving me.

Now, I don't expect (and hope I don't have) to abandon reading, writing, bicycling, my cats, my parents and Millie.  But much else, and many other people, are no longer in my life.  I realized this when I looked into my phone book (Yes, I still have one of those!) for the numbers of a couple of people I wanted to call with wishes for a happy new year.

A few people whose names and numbers are in that book are no longer in this world.  Others decided to end relationships they had with me, or simply drifted away. Or I drifted away from them.  I decided to call a couple of people with whom I haven't spoken in some time, mainly out of curiosity, only to find that their numbers were no longer in service.  Did they move?  Abandon their phone service?  Die?  Or take on new identities in new places?

I believe that during the past few months, some new friends and possible friends have come into my life.  They are lovely people and I am looking forward to sharing good and possibly difficult times with them.  Still, on New Year's Day, with the prospect of new relationships--and other things?--in my life for the coming year, it's hard not to think sometimes about who and what left me, and who and what I had to leave.  I suppose I always saw them as a part of my identity--which, ironically, may be the one thing I didn't give up.  I was Justine all along:  I did not abandon or re-invent that.  But those who broke with, or drifted away from, me could or would not understand that.  That is why I must move forward, even if it is further away from them.

Why Did The Boy Scouts Decide To Admit Gay Youth?

As you may have heard by now, the Boy Scouts of America will allow openly gay boys to join as the new year begins.

What I find interesting is that a number of news reports have likened this policy to the abolition of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the military.  Such a comparison is, on one hand, nearly fatuous, but on the other, relevant.

The repeal of DADT meant that openly homosexual people could serve, as enlisted members or officers, in any branch of the Armed Forces.  On the other hand, the new Scout policy does not allow openly gay adults to serve as Scoutmasters:  It only allows gay youngsters to become Scouts.  Moreover, it does not prevent churches and other organizations from withdrawing their sponsorship of troops.  More than one report indicates that the main ecumenical organizations, such as the Mormon Church (which is the largest sponsor) or the Catholic Church, are unlikely to do so although individual parishes or churches may.  And, most parents who don't like the idea of gay kids becoming scouts have already enrolled their own sons in conservative alternatives like Trail Life.

But the comparison with the repeal of DADT is interesting and relevant because Lord Baden-Powell started Scouting over a century ago for the purpose of preparing boys for the military.  Some would argue that it has always been a sort of paramilitary organization.  I would agree, at least in the sense that it is organized and in the titles it uses.  Also, some of the skills taught are among those required of soldiers, sailors and the like.  Then again, I would guess that the vast majority of Scouts do not join the Armed Forces when they come of age.

Another interesting parallel with the repeal of DADT is this:  Just as transgender people still can't serve in the military, they can't become Scoutmasters or Scouts.

The most interesting question, I think, is:  What motivated the BSA to change their policy?  Some might say it's the increased acceptance of LGBT people:  After all, Utah--of all states--just struck down its ban on gay marriage.  I wouldn't doubt that's a factor, but the cynic in me thinks that something else is at work.

An in-law of mine spent a number of years in the administrative offices of the Boy Scouts.  This in-law's job and the jobs of others in those office were rendered obsolete by the rapidly-declining numbers of boys (and girls) who were becoming (and remaining) Scouts. A number of factors conspired to shrink the rolls:  declining birth rates, the increased number of activities available to young people and, perhaps, the image of scouting.  As to the latter:  Among the many colleagues, acquaintances and friends I count in the worlds of academia and the arts, not one has a child who is or was a Scout.  In those circles, even the kids who like camping, hiking and such don't join.  It seems that in the worlds I inhabit--and in large coastal cities like the one in which I live--nearly all kids who are interested in scouting come from low- or lower middle-income backgrounds and from families and communities that include few people with advanced educations.  But those young people don't join because the cost, while low compared to other activities, is still prohibitive.

The part of me that asks "Cui bono?" believes that the Boy Scouts of America finally decided to accept gay boys because, frankly, they're trying to enroll any new members they can find.  My in-law said that some in the organization have even questioned whether or not the BSA would survive, at least in its current form, unless it could find new members.

Whatever its motivations, I'm glad the BSA decided to enter the 21st Century.  There will be some issues to iron out, such as that of shared facilities.  There will also be some reports of harassment, but I have little doubt that such things go on now unless things have changed drastically since I was a Scout more years ago than I care to admit.  But I think those issues will be resolved.  Still, I have to wonder--as I did when DADT was repealed--whether the new policy would actually leave gay members more vulnerable to harassment because they were "out" and no one could pretend otherwise.  After all, we all know how cruel young people, particularly adolescents, can be to each other, especially if one doesn't fit the sometimes-unarticulated expectations about gender and sexuality.  I don't think boys have stopped picking on "sissies" or simply those who are quiet and sensitive since I received such treatment about four decades ago. 

Then again, the new policy could present a new learning opportunity for such boys, especially if they have a scoutmaster who is a strong leader and doesn't tolerate bullying--or, perhaps, might have been one of those boys who might have been bullied.

Out Of The Web

No, I haven't abandoned this blog.  Nor will I.

Last week, I spent literally every waking moment I wasn't in class reading students' essays and exams and, finally, submitting grades and other paperwork last Thursday night.  Then there were all sorts of things related to the holidays, most of which were pleasant.  They included co-hosting a Christmas Eve reception in which I invented a "virgin" punch that proved wildly popular.  At least, I think I invented it:  I mixed equal parts of Ocean Spray Cranapple, Welch's white grape juice and Canada Dry ginger ale.

(Advertising or payments from those companies will not be refused!;-))

And I spent Christmas Day with Deborah and Suzanne, the couple who sent me the image of Alfred Letourner I included in an earlier post on my other blog.

And, I managed to do something I haven't done in about fifteen years:  I spent a whole week away from my--and every other--computer!  I didn't check e-mails, post anything or look at eBay.  As much as L love writing this blog, I must say that my respite from the net was probably good for me.

Finally, today I managed to sneak in a ride to the Rockaways.  There I was welcomed by a procession:

Being the public figures they are, they knew a photo op when they saw one. Especially these winsome creatures:

Happy holidays to them, and you!

In Another Light

Yesterday, I mentioned St. Luke In The Fields.  Before I went to Suzanne and Deborah's place for Thanksgiving/Chanukkah dinner, I went to chruch. Actually, I read one of the Scripture lessons.  They're a forgiving audience.

Jack Murray, who I first met while volunteering in the kitchen during Pride week, was also there.  He took these photos:

The man definitely has talent.  After all, look at what he did with the subject at hand--with an iPhone, no less!

Thankful For The Old And The New

Today I'm feeling a little sad.  My friend Mildred, with whom I have spent the past few Thanksgivings, was going to have her Thanksgiving dinner today.  She called earlier; I could tell she wasn't up to it.  "I want to have you over again soon, with Joanne", a mutual friend of ours.  I'm sure she will.  Maybe I'll host something for them.  

Millie's husband, John, hasn't been well.  So it wasn't a surprise she sounded so tired when she called.  Still, it's hard not to feel as I do now:  They are the best friends I've had in a long, long time.

On the other hand, I had a great time yesterday with some new friends.  I met Suzanne and Deborah at a church I began to attend in March.  They live a few neighborhoods away, in Queens.  Suzanne was raised Catholic, as I was, but Deborah is Jewish.  Still, she attends the church:  From what she tells me, she observes the traditions and treasures the culture she inherited, but likes the inclusiveness of the church we attend.  

It just happens that Hanukkah began on Thanksgiving Day. So Suzanne and Deborah combined the celebrations.  It never would have occurred to me to have borscht and latkes with a turkey dinner.  Then again, I wasn't surprised to learn that they actually go well together.  After all, the borscht--which Suzanne and Deborah made from scratch, as they did with everything else they served--is a soup of beets and cabbage, and latkes are, as everyone knows, potato pancakes.  So of course they go with cranberries, pumpkin and corn.  

And the people seemed to mix even more easily.  Suzanne's nonagenarian father, her brother and friends--and those of Debroah's--shared food and conversation with us, and two other people from the church.

All right, I know:  I waited a few months to say anything about church.  I guess I'm still wrapping my head around the idea that I go to one--volutarily, no less.  For a long time, I swore I would never attend any house of worship, or be part of any organized religion, ever again.  I kept that promise for a long time, even in the face of suggestions, prodding and outright pressure from various co-workers, friends and family members. 

I don't think I'll ever believe everything any church or other religious organization teaches.  But somehow it seems oddly right for me--at least, the one I've been attending.  I'm not one of those people who, in her old age, ponders her mortality and heads for the pews.  Actually, even when I didn't believe in any sort of supreme being--or, at least the ones I'd heard of--I knew myself to be spiritual.  In fact, I did my gender transition and reassignment surgery for spiritual reasons:  I am a female spirit; I wasn't merely a man who wanted to be a woman. (Most such men wouldn't even think of doing what I've done.)  And, I did a bit of church-surfing--without, of course, telling anyone what I was doing--before someone suggested I go to the one I've been attending:  St. Luke in the Fields, in Manhattan.

Here's another irony:  the person who suggested St. Luke's is one of the last people in the world I expected to do so.  He heard about it from a friend of his; he himself has never been a church-goer.  Well, I suppose that might be a lesson:  The spirit does not always proceed by logic, even if it makes perfect sense in the end.  I guess that's the reason why you can't solve questions of faith with science any more than you can solve questions of science with faith.

But I digress.  If nothing else, I am thankful that I have old friends and am making new ones, and finding, perhaps, a community.  That, I suspect, is more important than my beliefs (such as they are) align with those of other people or an institution.

Why I'm Giving Thanks

I know that today, Thanksgiving Day, I'm supposed to talk about how grateful we should be for the food we're going to eat and the people--whether biological or adoptive family--with who we're going to share it, as well as for whatever other blessings and good fortune we've had.  And indeed I encourage you to show your gratitude, as I am doing in my own way.

On the other hand, today also marks a grim anniversary:  Fifteen years ago today, the body of transgender woman Rita Hester was found in the Boston suburb of Allston.  Her murder, as I've mentioned in other posts, led to the Transgender Day of Remembrance, which was commemorated last week.

I am giving thanks that I have been able to live, however briefly, as my true self--and that I may have already done so for longer than Ms. Hester and too many other trans women and men could.