Bryan Fischer wants Women to shower with Trans Men

Just this past week, I turned my attention to the American "Family" Association's Bryan Fischer, and showed that he is neither a real Conservative or a real Christian. Thanks to my friend Zoe Brain, I've just been exposed to more of Fischer's inability to understand sacred scripture or science, in a blog essay over at the American "Family" Association's "Rightly Concerned" Blog, entitled "Barney Frank: ENDA is about men showering with women."

Fischer starts out showing his inability to comprehend Christian sacred scripure. His first two very short paragraphs are an attempt at scriptural exegesis:

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27, emphasis mine).

According to both Scripture and biology, there are just two genders, two
and only two, male and female. Period.

The emphasis was Fischer's, but it may as well have been mine. And his conclusion is totally and completely incorrect.

First, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, Genesis 1:27 has an "and" and not an "or" connecting "male" and "female."

Second, this scriptural passage connotes that the very image of God is "male *and* female." All Fischer needs to do is read about the (allegorical, true, but this is a bigger point for a biblical literalist) creation of Adam. Adam was created in God's image, "male and female" in one being, and then split into two people. This does not mean that every person created by God is "split" in exactly the same way. From the perspective of scripture, transsexual people are created by God with natures that are different - not entirely male, and not entrely female. In a way, we're possibly more "God-like" than most people, though we are not "all male" and "all female" in the way that God's image and likeness is. For more on the image and likeness of God, and how this relates to the Name of God, I'd refer Bryan to Rabbi Mark Sameth.

Third, scripture contains references to people who are male, people who are female, and people who are "other." Those "other" people are called "eunuchs" in sacred scripture. Is Bryan saying that sacred scripture is untrue? That there are no people who are different?

Jesus Christ knew more about transsexual and intersex people that Bryan Fischer. We have one biblical verse in which Jesus mentions us, using the term "eunuchs" but that term is fleshed out. Let's look at Matthew 19:12, which together with passages from Isaiah and Acts constitute a triple reference that should tell Bryan that trans people are specially loved by God.

In Matthew 19:12, we hear the words of Jesus:

"for there are eunuchs which have been born thus from [their] mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs of men; and there are eunuchs who have made eunuchs of themselves for the sake of the kingdom of the heavens. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it]."

I've used Darby here, but I could have used any of the literal translations.

So let's examine Jesus' words more closely, since people like Bryan are incapable of taking more than a few words in at once and not making a jumble of them:

"for there are eunuchs which have been born thus from [their] mother's womb; . . ."

In this first phrase, Jesus makes it clear that He, unlike Bryan, understands that transsexual and intersex people are born different.

". . . and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs of men; . . ."

While this second phrase may refer to those who are castrated as punishment for a crime, or to make them sing as sopranos in the Vatican choir, or for those who entered into government service in China or the Eastern Roman Empire, it also refers to things like genital reconstructuin surgery, performed on some trans and intersex people so that they can fit more easily into the artificial societal construct of sex that is imposed on the diversity of nature, to match the way their brains developed.

". . . and there are eunuchs who have made eunuchs of themselves for the sake of the kingdom of the heavens. "

This third category of eunuch has from early Christian times been misinterpreted as referring to priestly celibacy, in a reaction to those Chriistians who took literally Christ's admonitions in Matthew 5:30 and 18:8, and Mark 9:43-45, and, like the theologian Origen, castrated themselves to avoid succumbing to their sexual urges. Paul of Tarsus offered marriage as an alternative to Christians who could not make themselves be celibate - teaching that Christians should be celibate, but those who cannot control their sexual urges should get married. For true Christians, based on Paul's teaching, getting married s an acknowledgment of an inability for the parties to sexually contain themselves. (of course, not everyone is a Christian, and not all Christians are faithful to Paul's teaching, but it is at least a rebuttable presumption that any married Christian is unable to control their sexual urges - otherwise they would have chosen to be celibate, like the Shakers.)

In actuality, the third category of eunuch in Jesus' words, is a reference back to Isaiah 56:4-5, in which the Lord says:

". . . Unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and hold fast to my covenant,

even unto them will I give in my house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off."

Jesus, a great scripture scholar, knew that God has a special place in God's own House for those who are transsexual and intersex.

We already knew that Bryan Fischer fails in his theological understanding of sacred scripture. I just wanted to make it absolutely clear that he is wrong about Genesis 1:27. There can be no doubt of this among reasonable minds.

Let's turn to biology, shall we?

We've clearly established that Fischer nows nothing about scripture; he apparently knows even less about biology.

His third paragraph is a gem:

"Pro-family advocates have from the beginning opposed the normalizing of transgenderism because it does gross violence to any rational view of human sexuality, and, even worse, will force women to share shower, bathroom and locker-room facilities with biological males. "

First, he mischaracterizes his cohorts as "pro-family advocates." That is an utter lie. He and people like James Dobson are about as anti-family as they come. The only families that they support are families like their own. They believe that families that are different are to be feared and hated. That is not pro-family, just like the National Organization "for" Marriage is not for Marriage but is against it.

Second, Fischer does not have a rational view of human sexuality, or biology. He fails to understand that nature is more diverse than society, and that there are people who do not easily fit into societal definitions of male or female. For people who hew to the narrow view of sex assignment, anyone who does not fit into that view perfectly is abnormal, deviant and pathological. It's also why people like Fischer conflate homosexuality, which is a sexual orientation, with transsexualism, which involves gender identity seated in the brain, and its relation to sex assignment. These are different issues, but the T is associated with the LG and B because we are all *different* from the sexuality expected by the majority, and as a result, elements within that majority feel no compunction about singling us out for persecution just because we are different in some way. Bullies like Bryan Fischer have no sense of morality or decency. They lie like snakes in the grass, and strike with their venom, their lies, and their deceit. They delight in whipping up of gullible and ignorant straight cissexual people into a frenzy of fear that is rooted in their fear of people who are not exactly like them, ghoulishly raking in their contributions to fight against justice and decency.

Human sexuality is diverse. It is society that imposes the two-sex view on nature.

If society insists that there has to be two and only two sexes, then society has to accommodate those who are different and do not exactly fit into the narrow view, in a reasonable way.

Forcing women to bathe with men is not reasonable. But THAT is what Bryan Fischer wants! He wants to force transsexual men to use women;s shower facilities. Because Bryan does not recognize genital reconstruction surgery as being effective, he wants men - men with beards, deep voices and male pattern voices, some of whom have larger penises than others, to shower with women, just because those men were born with a developed mullerian duct system and have or had uteruses.

Just because Bryan thinks of women as merely walking uteruses and sperm depositories, does not mean that such a viewpoint is universally shared. I am sure that when Bryan is not busy opposing reasonable treatment for trans people, he must be out there shaking jars of formaldehyde with fetuses at women going to see their doctors for medical treatment. His reduction of women to the mullerian duct system, as mere cows who exist for the purpose of bearing children to the men who think they own them, is shameful.

Then he wants to force women to share showers with trans men. Shame on him! There is no rational basis for his position. He apparently thinks that there are only transsexual women out there for him to degrade and abuse. He does not seem to realize that there are transsexual men, too - and that when he forces women out of the showers and locker rooms, he is forcing real men into those same places!

Bryan does not want those gullible and ignorant followers of his to know the truth - because if they knew the truth, they would realize just how ridiculous his position is. No - Bryan is relying on the idea that trans men will be too afraid to use women's facilities because they would be openly challenged by the women, even though Bryan insists that this is where these men belong.
What he really wants is for trans people to be relegated to the shadows of society and not be seen in the daylight lest we offend people who are afraid of people who don;t fit into their preconceived binary notions of reality.

The reality is that even under ENDA, women-born-female (WBFs) would not be forced to shower with pre-op/non-op women-born-transsexual, at the same time. Women who have, or still have, penises, would either have private showers in the women's area, or if there are only open showers, can be accommodated by way of "time-slicing" so they have access at different times from women who have an objection. Post-op women should not be subjected to any limitation.

When it comes to bathrooms, privacy is at the stall level. Pre-op and non-op women can and dod safely use public bathroom facilities every day without a problem. It's usually the butch lesbians who get hassled by other women in the bathroom because they sometimes get mistaken for men, depending on what they are wearing.

Bryan goes on to paint a distorted picture of trans people:

Transgenders are people who are so psychologically and mentally confused they think they are trapped in a body of the wrong sex.

So we are talking here about biological males - males in every single cell of their bodies, with every strand of DNA male to the core, males according to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” - who are convinced that they are women trapped in male bodies. Consequently, they want to act as women, dress as women, and use the same facilities women use, including bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms.

Do you notice how easily and quickly Bryan makes the inconvenient trans men disappear? That's because he wants to foist these men onto women in women's showers and other facilities.

But that isn't the primary point. Bryan shows he doesn't have a clue about science, much as he proves over and over again that he does not have a clue about Christian sacred scripture.

Trans women are not and never are men. Not even when they got the blue blanket in the nursery because the obstetrician saw an "outie" rather than an "innie." Just because many may have an XY 23rd chromosome pair does not make them male. There has been scientific research that shows that there is an SRY gene that is one of the primary blueprints for male development. There have been genetic situtaions that have been discovered that explain at least some cases of transsexualism. In the past couple of years, a gene has been found that results in a "long androgen receptor." This may explain some of the brain development of trans women as female, while the recepptors work well enough to cause the wolffian ducts to develop rather then the mullerian ducts. For trans men, a gene was found that causes testosterone to be processed much more efficiently - and thiscan have an effect on embryonic and fetal development.

Bryan does not seem to realize that the "default" blueprint for the human body is female, and that any male development is the result of deviance from that default. In essence, before sexual differentiation, embryos are, as the bible points out in Genesis 1:27, "male *and* female." They have the capacity to develop in either direction, depending on how the blueprint reads, and the construction process moves. Transsexual embryos/fetuses get some parts that develop along male lines, and some parts that develop along female lines. Other intersex embryos/fetuses have developmental differences that range from developing fully in accordance with the "opposite" blueprint - complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) is an example, in which an embryos that would be classified as (unsing Bryan's words):

"males in every single cell of their bodies, with every strand of DNA male to the core"

develop phenotypically as female, because even though their bodies are full of testosterone, their cells have testosterone receptors that do not work. Remember, the default development is female, so that explains why the female form is used in the construction when the testosterone does not work.

Returning to trans women, or rather, fetuses that develop along those lines, the long androgen receptors may or may not be sufficient to cause female development in the brain or parts of the brain. The result is likely that not everyone who has this genetic feature will turn out to be a woman-born-transsexual. But enough of us do.

The studies do not claim to have found the only source of these developmental differences, but they point out the fact that who and what we are is biological and not merely psychiatric.

While the APA still classifies 'gender identity disorder" as a mental disorder, Bryan's take on it is pure prejudice and not scientific at all. The only reason for the mental disorder classification is so that trans people can get treatment. There are better models, medical models, that would be just as effective and less stigmatizing. The appropriate treatment, from the standpoint of a society that demands that there be only two sexes, is hormonal and surgical treatment to allow the trans individual to fit into society.

But Bryan and his ilk would have none of this - they'd rather have all trans people just commit suicide for lack of treatment, or push us off to the quacks who still practice electroshock and other "conversion" therapies that have been proven to be ineffective.

The only perversion I would not want to have people exposed to is Bryan's perversion of Christianity into something hateful and malignant.

Bryan quotes from Barney Frank, who, while a member of Congress, and a gay man, is no expert on transsexualism. Barney only showed in what Bryan quoted that even our allies need to be educated. But at least people like Barney Frank are likely to be educable, unlike bigots like Bryan, who perhaps should try electroshock therapy themselves to eliminate their harmful religious delusions. Not all religion is delusional, I hasten to add, and not all religious delusions are harmful. But when people like Bryan twist sacred scripture and science to fit their bigotry and prejudice and genuinely believe that they are right, they prove they are in serious need of professional help.

Incredibly, Bryan has to go back to 1999, when Rep. Frank was even less knowledgeable about trans people than he is now, to dig up his quote. In 1999, the first BSTc study was only four years old and was not widely known outside of specialized scientific circles.

Being gay does not make Barney Frank an expert on transsexual people, even now, but he's better today than he was in 1999, even if he still does not quite "get it."
And even in 1999, Barney was explaining that it was society that he saw as not ready to accept trans women as women. Things have changed - and those people who feel that way are increasingly in the minority.

Even most transsexual people ourselves are not experts on what it is that makes us tick - in part because we've all been educated in the same societal system that expects the sex binary to be a reflection of nature. We just know that the initial sex assignment was wrong. Once we realize that nature is more diverse, it's still difficult to let go of the societal expectations. Indeed, unless society changes, those who transition rather than trying to "gut it out" as something like "genderqueer" may have a better chance at coping with society, provided society meets us part way with reasonable accommodations.

So, when it comes to "protecting our wives and daughters," just remember that it's Bryan Fischer who is the one who really wants us women sharing the facilities with trans men. He just doesn't come out and say it openly, because it would scare away all those pretty donations that line his pockets.

--
ADDENDUM - August 30, 2010:

For those who want to know more about biological issues in the gray area that the "society" has historically ignored, and Bryan Fischer wants to continue keeping in ignorance, I suggest that readers take a look at numerous entries over at Zoe Brain's blog (you can find it in the column to the right).

Here are some examples of medical scientific studies that Zoe has provided information about:

http://www.facebook.com/l/c76ab;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18000096.

There's more in the comments at http://www.facebook.com/l/c76ab;aebrain.blogspot.com/2010/08/travel-issues.html
e.g. Frydman, R. et. al. (1988) Pregnancy in a 46 XY patient. Fertil. Steril., 50:813-814. Kan, A.K.S., et. al. (1997)

Two successful pregnancies in a 46, XY patient. Hum. Reprod.,12(7):1434-1435. Selvaraj, K., et. al. (2002)

Successful pregnancy in a patient with a 46, XY karyotype. Fertil. Steril., Aug.; 78(2):419-420.

Catholic Bishops show they are heirs of Sodom

In their May 19, 2010 letter to memebrs of Congress, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed their opposition to H.R.3017/S.1584 - better known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, stating, among other things:

". . . we cannot support a bill - such as ENDA in its current form - that would legally affirm and specially protect any sexual conduct outside of marriage."

I challenge the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to point out the exact language by virtue of which ENDA specially protects "sexual conduct."

They can't d it, because it's not there.

The fact is that ENDA will not protect employees on the basis of sexual conduct - sexual activity - on the job, regardless of sexual orientation. This law will not protect people who want to have sex, gay or straight, in the boardroom or in the supply closet, or for that matter, on top of a desk. So where's the "sexual conduct" that is supposed to be "legally affirmed and specially protected?"

Perhaps the Bishops are holding out - maybe they actually want ENDA amended to protect the on-the-job sexual predation of altar servers and Catholic schoolchildren by members of the Roman Catholic clergy? Sorry, but ENDA will not be amended to affirmatively protect any on-the-job sexual activity, not even the sexual activity of Roman Catholic clergy, no matter how much the Bishops hold their breath.

Let me repeat: ENDA will not protect conduct or sexual activity - it will protect people whose sexual orientation and gender identity is different from the sexual orientation or gender identity of other people, from discrimination in employment. There is no "condonation" of any sexual activity whatsoever involved in the bill, not sex between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, a trans person with another adult, or sex among a group of people of the same or different orientations, inside or outside of marriage. It does not protect inappropriate sexual conduct at the office or workplace, even if the people engaging in it are married to each other

All ENDA does is remove sexual orientation (not sexual "conduct" and not sexual activity), and gender identity and expression, as criteria for hiring and firing. It does not allow a preference or special right for one sexual orientation or gender identity over another. Indeed, this bill is the polar opposite of protecting "special rights." (If the Catholic Bishops want an example of special rights, they need only look at their position on marriage - their advocacy for special rights for heterosexuals.)

In that regard, the bishops are as wrong about ENDA as their fearless leader, "Papa" Joe Ratzinger, has been about the Genesis story of Sodom and Gommorrah. (In 1986 he snarkily wrote that "everyone knows" what the story is about, and then used it as an example to condemn homosexuality rather than the real sodomite sin, which is the sort of intolerant bigotry that the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops exemplify in their opposition to ENDA).

The Catholic Bishops show, once again, that not only are they whited sepulchres like the Scribes and Pharisees described in the Gospels, they are also like the Men of Sodom as described in Genesis - intolerant of people who are different.

I've shaken their dust off my sandals years ago.

The Roman Catholic Bishops have an incredible amount of chutzpah, peddling lies about the language of the bill and distortions of their own teachings as a means to an end.

When they teach that a good end does not justify an evil means, are they trying to imply that an evil end (preventing the passage of ENDA) justifies an evil means (lying and deceit to get their way)?

Republican ENDA liar caught in affair with staffer and resigns

Seven Deadly Sins: Republican Deceit on the ENDA Debate in the House

One of the most vocal of the opponents of ENDA on the house floor in 2007, and a vocal supporter of a misogynist and patriarchal interpretation of "family values," Representative Mark Souder, a Republican representative from Indiana's 3rd District, just resigned in disgrace - for having an affair with a staffer - the same staffer he televised a mock interview with over the issue of sexual abstinence education.

Apparently Representative Souder, like many patriarchal inhospitable *real* "Sodomites" that inhabit the Christianist Republican Right Wing in Congress (and elsewhere), believed that in his personal life he could be above the "morality" he proclaims for others - after all, isn't the purpose of "family values" to make the *wives* of patriarchs remain faithful to their husbands? If the husbands philander around, to their point of view, it doesn't really matter, because they are insecure about who the father of their children really is.

Reoresentative Souder proved himself to be a poor example of humanity and the bearer of a perverted moral message on the floor of the House during the ENDA debate.

I urge you to take another look at the material I quoted from the Congressional Record, at that time, particularly Represenattive Souder's comments and my on-the-fly responses to them.

This was a very bad man and a terrible Representative, who in resigning was not even man enough to admit that his mistakes were his own but chose to blame things on a hellish environment in Washington, claiming that he resigned to save his family from having to go through the wringer, but that if he had fought, he would have been exonerated.

Former Representative Souder is yet another example of a priggish male chauvinist political oinker who thinks mostly with his other head, and not the one on his shoulders.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Sharing Umbrellas?

In the US, some of the earliest human rights ordinances that were adopted (as early as 1975) treated trans within the definition of sexual orientation. Most later laws and ordinances have made a distinction. But that doesn’t stop some people from seeing “trans” as a sexual orientation.

Some will say that the LGBT “umbrella” (or (or "GLBT umbrella" for those who don't believe in "ladies first") is responsible for the problem. It's the "LGBT Umbrella" that creates the confusion - three "sexual orientations" coupled with "gender identity and expression." Of course, the reason for the inclusion of T (which always comes at the end in the four-letter versions), as well as I (for Intersex) and one or more Qs (for Queer and Questioning), is because all of these identities, orientations and expressions are not shared by the majority of people, who are Cisgendered, Cissexual, Conforming and Heterosexual.

There’s also a controversy about the "transgender umbrella," which has nothing at all to do with sexual orientation – but creates a great deal of agitation among transsexual separatists who claim they don’t fall within the shadow of that umbrella.

Unless it’s properly understood as being reflective of sexual minorities and not only sexual orientations, the "LGBT Umbrella" can create confusion - three "sexual orientations" coupled with "gender identity and expression."

And yes, the transsexual separatists do have a point – the “transgender umbrella” can be misunderstood. (In fact, the separatists themselves often misunderstand it.)

When I do one of my "Trans 101" lectures, I talk about "the binary of sex and gender" and explain that for most people, sex and gender are conflated - male is synonymous with man, and female is synonymous with woman. I also explain that in English, we don't really have good language to easily express the differences, so I use some terms as "terms of art" that take on a slightly unconventional meaning.

Then I start with four basic characteristics to break down sex and gender:

Gender Identity (GI)
Sex Assignment (SA)
Gender Expression/Social Role (GE)
Sexual Orientation (SO)

(You see, sexual orientation gets to be a part of sex/gender, but not the overarching thing)

Then I go with the "Either/Or" of the binary:

GI . . . Masculine . . . Feminine
SA . . . Male . . . . . . . . Female
GE . . . Man . . . . . . . . Woman
SO . . . Attracted . . . . Attracted
. . . . . . .to women . . . . to men


A bit over 90% of the population will identify as one or the other of these "either/or" columns.

Then I get into Both/Neither in each characteristic, bringing in bigender (GI), agender (GI), intersex (SA - for both *and* neither), alternate presentation (GE), mixed presentation(GE), neutral presenation (GE), attracted-to-both (SO), and attracted to neither (SO).

Then we go through how there is such a diversity of identities in that less-than-10% of the population.

Gender Identity and Gender Expression are Cisgender/Transgender characteristics. Sex Assignment is a Cissexual/Transsexual/Intersex characteristic, and Sexual orientation is a Heterosexual/Homosexual/Bisexual/Asexual characteristic.

It's clear to me that those with a reversed polarity in any of the characteristics, as well as those who are "both" or "neither" should be covered in human rights laws.

In a recent e-mail conversation I had with a Canadian trans-activist, I agreed that it is an error for the Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition to include aboriginal two-spirit people *solely* under sexual orientation. Of course, just like everyone else, two-spirit folks do have sexual orientations, they also have gender identities and gender expressions, *and* sex assignments!

As to including "all gender-non-conforming people" as homosexual? That seems a *lot* like a retrogression to the 1960's and 1970's - when the public perception of "trans" was as a kind of "gay." I guess that there is a bit of education that remains to be done.

BTW, on the "transgender as umbrella" thing - if you were to take my little matrix, it shows that both those who accept the "transgender umbrella" and those who reject it, do have a point. Transsexual relates to "sex assignment," Transgender relates to "gender identity" and "gender expression."

But transsexual people, like gay people, don't live in a vacuum. Transsexual people have gender identity and gender expression as well as a sex assignment (or in some cases, a sex re-assignment). For someone assigned as "Or" at birth, having a gender identity that is "Either" is one of the bases for seeking a change of SA. (And part-time crossdressers are often "Both" in gender identity and thus don't seek a change of SA.)

A part of the problem with the way some transsexual separatists view the situation, is that they will focus exclusively on the sex assignment aspect of things, and will even deny the existence of “gender identity.” (And for some, I actually have to refer to “gender identity” as “sex identity” because they will claim “gender identity” doesn’t exist, or refers to the Butch/Femme scale, while taking the definition customarily associated with “gender identity” and calling it “sex identity.” This is, of course, a matter of semantics.)

I am a firm advocate of replacing the “skinner box” psychology-psychiatry-as-equivalent-of-alchemy-astrology idea of “Gender Identity Disorder” with a recognition of Harry Benjamin Syndrome, a medical condition, not a psychiatric one.

I am also a firm believer that people who are born with HBS never really belong in their original sex assignment, and are not really male-to female (MTF) but are Women Born Transsexual (WBT), or not really female-to-male (FTM) but are Men Born Transsexual (MBT). This terminology change would reflect the recognition that people with HBS develop in such a way that their BSTc develops with a characteristic neuronal density related to target sex, not birth-assigned sex, while the mullerian or wollfian duct system developed in accordance with birth-assigned sex (except for those individuals with an intersex condition that is not solely centered in the brain development). The existence of the studies related to the BSTc and the long androgen receptor gene goes a long way to establishing HBS as a reality. I also believe that there is a need for study of the causes of whatever it is that causes non-transsexual transgender identities – is it related to HBS, or is it a completely different phenomenon? Could there be situations where the long androgen receptor gene is only partly expressed? What does the BSTc look like for part-time crossdressers who indicate that they are expressing an inner “feminine identity?” We don’t have answers to questions like these, so we’re in a situation where there is a lot more gray area than one might like, regardless of whether one is a separatist or not.

The fact that there are some ostensibly-heterosexual part-time MTF crossdressers who have an organization that excludes gays and post-op transsexuals doesn’t mean they are the root of some vast “transgender conspiracy” even if the founder of that organization had poorly-conceived understanding of the nature of transsexuality. The fact that there are some who advocate in favor of destroying the binary of sex and gender for everyone (rather than expanding it so that it isn’t just a binary and includes everyone), does not imply that anyone who is not a post-op is a member of this straw-man “transgender conspiracy.” The fact that there are mentally ill and socially pathological people who also have a sexual fetish for opposite-sex articles of clothing does not make them representative of all people “under the umbrella” (and in fact, if these people do not have an “opposite” or “bi” gender identity, those folks are not really under the “transgender” umbrella in the first place), does not support the existence of a vast “transgender conspiracy.”

I can understand and appreciate the fact that there are certain aspects of “reasonable accommodation” to which post-ops should have easier access and recognition, by virtue of having undergone the surgical procedures, which should be recognized as prima facie evidence of entitlement, while those who are pre-op or non-op should have more hoops to jump and perhaps a degree less accommodation. There is a huge difference between this and a common transsexual separatist position, which is that surgery should be the bright line for everything. It is also hugely different from the “straw man” transgender conspiracy created by some transsexual separatists that supposedly advocates that surgery shouldn’t be a consideration for anything, and that everything should be based on identity alone. (And I am sure there are perhaps a few out there who fit the “straw man” definition – after all, there is a diversity among advocates, and some may well fit into the boogie-trans category, monsters waiting under our beds and in our closets. But a few extremists do not represent the entire “umbrella.”)

Some transsexual separatists claim that the inclusive “transgender umbrella” folks are invading their space and claiming that “we are all the same.” The first thing, is that there is not a person with HBS who does not fit into the “set” (set theory was taught to me in the 5th grade with “new math” and I have always found it fascinating) of “people whose gender identity is opposite that expected for persons assigned the sex they were assigned at birth.” That is a “set” that excludes anyone without HBS. But they’re also members of a *larger* set – that of “people whose gender identity is different from that expected for persons assigned the sex they were assigned at birth.”

With the set of “opposite” one includes only persons whose gender identity is opposite that associated with birth assignment. With the set of “different” one also *includes* those whose identity is bigendered or agendered as well as opposite-gendered. That’s the “transgender umbrella” by definition. The only people who aren’t under the shadow of that umbrella are the cisgendered cissexual people who form a large majority (larger, if we include non-trans folks who have a cisgendered cissexual identity while having heir differences in sexual orientation!)

The last thought brings us to the next – what about sexual orientation? It seems that many but not all WBTs who have an issue with the “transgender umbrella” also have an issue with the “LGBT umbrella.” Many but not all of these are heterosexual based in reassigned sex. Perhaps it’s because they, once having completed surgery, desperately want to be included with the Cisgendered Cissexual Conforming and Heterosexual majority, and they see anyone who thinks of them as falling within the minority umbrella (LGBT or transgender) as holding them back from recognition.

The fact is that those transsexual separatists, by aligning with an oppressor majority, attempt to currying favor with that majority by claiming that by virtue of surgery they’ve joined the majority – and it’s those others, those sexual minorities, who shouldn’t have rights. (And there are some who might be transsexual separatists in some regards, who are actually enlightened enough to understand that there are some shared rights.)

Some transsexual separatists who identify as lesbian or bisexual may not have a terrible problem with gay and lesbian people, but see the “transsexual umbrella” as keeping them away from recognition as cissexual, or at least cissexual enough to be accepted as cissexual.

Some of the loathing I see expressed toward “transgender” is aimed at those who are bigender. This phenomenon is very mucg similar to the treatment of bisexual people in some gay and lesbian circles.

It is perhaps axiomatic that people whose polarities are “opposite” bus still within the binary, might have a tendency to look askance as those who have an aspect that falls outside the “Either/Or.” A “Both” identity, orientation or expression, can be viewed badly by those whose desire is to assimilate. (And no one seems to want to bother even thinking about the “Neithers.” It’s as if they didn’t exist – but they do!) With those who are post-op, the assimilation is more acute by virtue of having undergone surgery to fit in, than it is with gays and lesbians who take this view, whose resort in seeking human rights is that “the only difference is in the bedroom” – thus showing a willingness to leave behind those who don’t look straight (or in the case of transsexual separatists, “pass.”)

There are some transsexual separatists who also see “passing” as a factor – they believe that non-passable folks with HBS perhaps shouldn’t have surgery, because they make the passable ones look bad. (There are not too many transsexual separatists with this uncharitable view, but I have seen it expressed).

And yes, there are those "transsexual separatists" who object to the *term* "transsexual separatist." This may be because the term "separatist" has an odious bit of semantic baggage, though they'll indicate that they're not "separate" at all, just "not transgender." (Which, of course requires different definitions of the terms from those communly understood.)

So, is it possible that people can set aside their differences and work together? Is it possible for people to recognize that the “transgender umbrella” does not imply that “we are all the same” but only that “we all share a single characteristic even though we are all different?”

Perhaps not - there will probably always be some who feel a need for separatism. I hope they are and remain a tiny minority. I do hope it is possible to respect the differences while still accepting the umbrella – by looking to our commonalities rather than solely focusing on our differences, we can get farther together.

Race v. Gender? Some thoughts on an e-mail supporting Hillary

On February 13, 2008, I received a very interesting e-mail from Marilyn Fitterman, NOW's Northeast Regional Director, indicating her support of Hillary Clinton's candidacy. In trying to find it via Google, I did not see it in any NOW website, but did find two references that quote it in full (and then there are added comments, not related to my own).

The first place is on a Blogger blog called XpatriatedTexan: A blog on faith and politics, by Thurman Hart:

"More Idiocy from NOW"

Mr. Hart's blog is subtitled: A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

The other is at Message 194 on page 13 in a thread entitled Hillary for President -- Part VI, in forum on the "Big Soccer" website (the message itself is at):

Yet another e-mail from New York State NOW

So I really don't have to repeat Ms. Fitterman's entire message here.

Her message, when I received it, moved me to respond - especially because the examples she gave as her rationale for supporting Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy resonated so well with me. I have used those very same examples (and others) from the experience of the civil rights struggles of women and African-Americans in my own advocacy work for LGBT issues. I often think of these as lessons of history.

So here is the text of my response to the message:

From: Joann Prinzivalli ((EML ADDRESS REDACTED)
Sent: Wed 2/13/08 12:13 PM
To: Marilyn Fittrerman, NOW NE Regional Director & Pas (EML ADDRESS REDACTED)

Thank you, Marilyn. I have myself on numerous occasions used the same historical perspectives you so eloquently set out in your message in different contexts.

In the case of the Married Women's Property Acts (in New York, 1848 for inheritance and 1860 for wages - Ernestine Rose and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and others started to work on the first bill in 1836), I often point out the reaction of conservative religious leaders of the time that enacting these laws would destroy the institution of marriage, when advocating for a gender-neutral marriage law.

The 50 year gap between the 15th Amendment and the 19th Amendment, and the fact that women had to wait so long (as well as the nearly accidental last-minute inclusion of women in the Civil Rights Act of 1964) is something I hope doesn't get repeated in another context, though it seems to be doing so - in December 2002, when the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) was enacted, the transgender community was left behind by the legislature, and by the gay and lesbian community. The analogous bill, GENDA (Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act) is still struggling to gain passage in the allegedly "friendly" Democratically-controlled New York Assembly. Last year's shameful theatrics in the House of Representatives over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (originally HR 2015, but severely weakened and then passed by the House as HR 3685) seemed to be a reverse of what happened with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I agree that Senator Clinton is the better choice for President, despite her poorly nuanced position on the repeal of the federal Defense Against Marriage Act (one point where Senator Obama's position is superior) - she supports only the repeal of the provision of 1 USC §7, pursuant to which the federal government is prohibited from recognizing certain marriages that may be legal in any of the states, but would leave intact 28 USC §1738C, which permits each state to refuse full faith and credit to certain marriages legal in other states. In addition, she does not appear to support an affirmative federal recognition of the same-sex marriages currently prohibited from recognition.

Senator Clinton got my vote in the New York primary on February 5th - but while my support is genuine, it is less than completely enthusiastic, considering that even in Hillary's view, I am only entitled to a third class status without all the rights enjoyed by other citizens.

Joann Prinzivalli
State Director, New York Transgender Rights Organization (NYTRO)

PS: We really need to be doing more about (New York) Governor's Program Bill #16 - the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act. Like GENDA, it hasn't moved anywhere in either the State Assembly or the State Senate. I understand that Assembly leadership is the current key bottleneck (though the bill has little chance in a Republican-controlled Senate with Senator Bruno having become recalcitrant on anything progressive since former State Senator Nick Spano lost his seat.)

J.

And I received a very nice response from her.

In this primary season, I am currently supporting Senator Clinton's candidacy, despite the reservations I expressed as to her poorly-nuanced view on the repeal of the Defense Against Marriage Act.

It isn't because she is a woman, or because Senator Obama is black. It's because I really do think she would ultimately do a better job in the presidency. However, If Senator Obama becomes the Democratic candidate for president, he will get my support in the general election. I may have some personal respect for Senator McCain but he would not get my vote - I have too many issues with his positions. That respect was also eroded a bit by at least one sexist-seeming statement during the campaign where he didn't properly address a reference to Senator Clinton from a questioner as "that bitch" and laughed at the reference as if it was something funny. Surely, he would have received greater condemnation had he similarly laughingly sidestepped a racist reference to Senator Obama. (And I note, the McCain gaffe is something that wasn't even mentioned in Ms. Fitterman's e-mail message.)

I do have one last thought: I always thought is was a kind of institutionalized racism to think of "white" as if it has to mean somewhat with completely caucasian ancestry, while "black" includes people of mixed-race ancestry where one not-terribly-remote ancestor is negroid, though apparently having some known "Native American" ancestry seems to trump "black." Senator Obama's mom is "white," and pro golfer Tiger Woods'" mom is "asian." Both Senator Obama and Mr. Woods are usually thought of as being "black," but that is an identity that is placed on them by the lingering residue of white supremacist institutionalized racism. On the other hand, both men appear to identify that way themselves - and I don't think it is necessarily a matter of incorporating and internalizing the racism. The strangest thing is that it seems, from mitochondrial evidence, that every person in the world is descended from a single woman who lived 75,000 years ago in Africa.

Of course, I would prefer to be race-neutral as well as gender-neutral, and even the exclusionary racism of the "purity of whiteness" might be a little better than the sort of racial hierarchy that one finds in old, unenforceable real estate restrictive covenants, which are illegal and unenforceable under New York State and federal law (and perhaps the laws of most states). It's even illegal to reprint the words of the covenants in a title insurance commitment - references to racial covenants are limited to noting that they exist but are not enforceable. A copy of an instrument with the racial covenant has to be redacted to make the racial covenant unreadable.

One covenant I once ran into, regarding a subdivision in New Rochelle, New York, from the 1930's, prohibited any "negro, mullato, quadroon or octaroon," except domestic servants, from residing in homes built at the subdivision. While I had run into mulatto before, I surmised (correctly, as it turned out) that a "quadroon" would be an individual with a single black grandparent (or maybe two mulatto grandparents?), and an octaroon would have a single black great-grandparent (though if one is counting blood percentages, perhaps two black great-great grandparents might do, even if they weren't married to each other). This sort of racial slicing and dicing is reminiscent of the way Jewish ancestry was parsed by the agents of the Third Reich's "Final Solution."

I don't see the Democratic primary season as being a matter of race v. gender. That may be the spin some sophisticated pundits have tried to impose - and their best shot at that may have come when former President Clinton made some comments, or when Senator Clinton made a reference to the need for an LBJ as well as an MLK to get the civil rights act of 1964 passed. (The attempt at seeing that latter comment as racially divisive required a real stretch of the imagination).

Ingrid E. Barnes - 1960-2008 - Requiescat in Pacem

Ingrid Barnes
May 22, 1960 – February 4, 2008
Requiescat in Pacem

Ingrid E. Barnes, Associate Director of Adult Services at Pace University, former co-President of The LOFT: The Lesbian and Gay Community Services Center, Inc., former director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, passed away from colon cancer at age 47 on February 4, 2008. Ingrid was a friend of mine (though we were not particularly close), even though she and I didn’t agree on a lot of issues, particularly the trans community and how it relates to gays and lesbians.

In living her life, Ingrid was one of the most iconoclastic people I knew – a black lesbian Republican conservative – yet she really never “got it” when it came to transgender issues and the commonalities transpeople have with the lesbian and gay community. Here are excerpts from her Bloggger blog “Not Your Typical Negro” that relate to the trans community, and my responses to them(what I might have written had I seen them during her life) – I did not find her blog until after she passed away, and I regret not having had the opportunity to engage her in a conversation on the issues.

Friday, November 16, 2007

A Watershed Moment

Last week, the House of Representatives voted on and passed HR 3685. The final vote was 235 to 184. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA was introduced by Barney Frank in September of this year and excluded gender identity. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is a bill that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The bill was originally introduced in 1974 under a different name - the Gay Rights Bill, HR 14752. Currently, there are 13 states that prohibit discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Frank's argument for excluding gender identity was that the bill would not garner the votes necessary for passage which has created a firestorm in the gay, lesbian and transgender communities. The crux of the argument is that we should not exclude transgender folks from the bill simply to win legislation because they will be forever forgotten. On the other side are those, including myself, that believe that after all these years, we'll take the bill without gender expression. Some see this as unfair to the transgender community but others, whom I agree with, see it as an incredible win for gays and lesbians. One such group is United ENDA which includes gay, lesbian and transgender groups. One of my favorite writers says it best here.

I have always argued that the T is not a part of the gay and lesbian community and I'm very happy to see that I'm not alone. Of course once you make such a statement you are automatically labeled a transphobe but as a black lesbian Republican I've heard worse. This is what the Washington Post had to say about the vote. The key lines there are: "Transgender people must channel the activism this action sparked into a long-term effort to educate the public and lawmakers about the discrimination they face." After all, gays and lesbians have been doing just that for years.

My Response: Ingrid argues that “the T is not a part of the gay and lesbian community.” This is a straw man. Some trans people are gay or lesbian, and, depending on how one views how to base the definition of a sexual orientation, the idea of sexual orientation can get reversed, with some who think of themselves as straight being seen as gay, and vice versa, based on original genitals, current genitals, chromosomes, or some other factor.

But Ingrid’s error is in not realizing that real commonality is not that the T is part of LGB, but that the gay and lesbian community is a part of the same non-heteronormative, non-cissexual community as trans people. The majority in society expects everyone to be masculine male men attrected-to-women, or feminine female women attracted-to-men. Trans people, LGB people, and some intersexed people, all fall outside that heteronormative cissexual binary

The worst part of it is that most of the discrimination faced by lesbians and gays is often based on the idea of “gender identity.” Little boys perceived to be sissy, are perceived as not masculine enough. Little girls who are too butch, are perceived as not feminine enough. Adult gays who look too nelly, and lesbians who look too butch, areb’t discriminated against because of who they love or sleep with, it’s because of their gender expression.

And the opposite happens with trans people – the single most common expletive used to slur trans women is to call us “faggot.”

Like it or not, LGBs and Ts all really do belong together when it comes to human rights protections – if only because we all get associated with each other by the binary created and enforced by heteronormative cissexuals.

When it comes to “education about the discrimination we face,” trans people have been doing it as long as gays and lesbians – and the discrimination and societal marginalization faced by the trans community is often profoundly deeper and more pervasive than that experienced by LGBs.The Stonewall Riots were as much about us as it was about LGBs.

If one really looks at the conservative Republican rhetoric from the ENDA discussion on the floor of the House, the only human rights bill they were willing to consider was a “gay-only” and seriously weakened *employment* non-discrimination bill – nothing like the sort of comprehensive civil rights package that is urgently needed.


It’s inappropriate to leave out the most vulnerable members of the community to gain some temporary and hollow “vic ory” (victory without the T)

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

The Clock is Ticking

For some weeks now there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the impending passage of the Employment Non-discrimination Act or ENDA. The controversy, and reason for a second bill, is over the inclusion of gender identity. The inclusion of gender identity would protect members of the transgender community. The main bill, H.R. 2015 was introduced in April of this year and is very close to a vote in the House. The bill in its current form was first introduced in 1996 and under another name in 1974. The bill, if passed, would protect gays and lesbians from being fired from their jobs simply because they are gay and lesbian. Currently, there are 31 states in which gays can be terminated based on their sexual orientation. The bill's main sponsors are Representatives Barney Frank, Chris Shays and Tammy Baldwin.

The controversy started when Representative Frank declared that the bill has a better chance of passage if it did not include gender identity. This faux pau, the opinion of many LGBT organizations, is one that they will not tolerate and according to many the LGBT community is in an uproar. Two weeks ago there were 113 groups who signed a pledge opposing the bill if it did not include gender identity. One of the most vocal has been the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Matt Foreman and of course members of the transgender community. The Human Rights Campaign, forever playing it safe so that they can keep the donations coming said they would not oppose the bill but they wouldn't support it either. What else could they say when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was the recipient of HRC's National Equality Award.

So here is the problem as I see it. Many have said and will say that if we move ahead with H.R. 2015 without gender identity we are essentially kicking transgendered folks off the bus. Now, that would be true if: 1) trans folks were on the bus to begin with and 2) gender identity were analogous to sexual orientation. Neither of these two things are true. Gender identity is as different from sexual orientation as night is from day. Gays and lesbians still consider themselves men and women who love the same sex. And for the last 30 years gays and lesbians have been doing to work to get ENDA passed. So, from a pragmatic point of view why not support the bill in its current form and do the education to include and pass another bill in the future? Of course the 113 groups and others feel that we are abandoning our trans family. Well I got news for those people, they don't consider themselves one of us. In reading the literature, a very high percentage of transgendered folks consider themselves straight. And the number that consider themselves gay and lesbian are very, very small. Am I transphobic? I guess to a lot of people I am but life goes on.

We cannot and should not stop passage of this important bill because a few people are upset. Dale Carpenter says it best when he says in this article, "Passage of ENDA is possible only because gay people have organized politically to educate Americans about homosexuality and to elect sympathetic representatives." This is the true issue surrounding this controversy. The work has been done and to simply throw it away because some feel we are dissing the transgender community is at best, stupid.

My response: The work was never done. ENDA was not only weakened by the removal of “gender identity” (which could have been used to show congressional intent to disapprove of the Supreme Court’s 1987 ruling in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) , which involved “gender stereotyping” (which is the same as “gender expression” in different terms) – a part of the definition of “gender identity” in the HR 2015 bill that was abandoned in favor of HR 3685.

In addition, the religious exemption was broadened to the extent that any business that calls itself “Christian” can justify discrimination. If the owners want to discriminate, all they have to do is style their business a Christian” business, and they could legally bar gays and lesbians. A Christian boookstore was the primary example given by conservative Republican Congressmembers like Souder of Ohio. But why not a “Christian” car dealer, or a “Christian” suermarket? In parts of the country, putting “Christian” in front of a business name would increase business.

Gay people haven’t educated Christianist conservative Republicans, judging from the rhetoric, and the head count on transgender inclusion is only a few votes shorter than that for a “gay-only” ENDA with real teeth. Without gutting the bill for a hollow “vic ory” that wouldn’t even protect gays and lesbians, the non-inclusive bill would not have passed, either – and then where is the full civil rights bill? Where is the immigration reform? Where is marriage? Where is the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? And where is the Matthew Shepard Act? There are at least 180 conservative Republicans who will not vote for anything that has “gay” in it, and most of the rest of them would not consider more than the weak bill that did get through the House.

I give Ingrid credit for having been willing to be have been a Republican. There are too many Democrats who are not really willing to push hard for justice for LGBT people – they take us for granted. At least the Republicans are honest about hating us.

August 22, 2006

My Case for Excluding the T

In 1996, I attended a Creating Change Conference in Chicago. I attended the conference as the co-president of a local gay and lesbian community center. The conference was organized and hosted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF). NGLTF is a gay and lesbian advocacy group that had its beginnings in New York City in the 1970’s. In 1985, the organization changed its name from NGTF to NGLTF to include lesbians: “To make clear gender parity and lesbian issues.” It was in 1996, by my observations, that the organization was once again about to make a change. During the four day conference, as I was taking a break between sessions, I happened upon a protest of sorts. It seems that the transgender contingent was protesting the organization because they were not being heard. They wanted the "T" for transgender to be added to the acronym that was NGLTF. And by including the "T" there was an implicit request to start including transgender issues. I was rather dismayed at the protest and suggested to one of the organizers that educating gays and lesbians about transgender issues was a far more effective strategy than simply adding another letter to an already crowded acronym. My suggestion, however, was met with blank stares and annoyance at being asked to educate rather than harangue. How dare I ask for pragmatism rather than brute action? That was my introduction to the trans community. In that same year, Kerry Lobel, executive director, said the following: “NGLTF strongly supports civil rights protections and affordable health care for transgender [people]. We loathe discrimination and violence perpetuated against transgender people and stand in solidarity with transgender people in their struggle for respect, inclusion, equality and justice.” Thus began the love affair between gay and lesbian organizations with the transgender community.

Years later, I share comments about the transgender community with trepidation as they may be viewed as discriminatory by many. However, I have very strong opinions on this issue and cannot control the comments or feelings of my readers. In the Sunday New York Times styles section the following article appeared on its front cover. My take on gender reassignment is very similar to those of the lesbians interviewed for the article with some additional comments. The history of the gay movement has shown the gradual inclusion of lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people to the fold. Over the years organizations like NGLTF have broaden their definition of gay by including bisexual and transgender. But the problem is that bisexuality and transgender people cannot be automatically classified as gay. Bisexuals, in my limited experience with them, do not necessarily consider themselves gay nor do transgender people. So why are community centers, gay rights organizations etc., extending the acronym and confusing the issue? I have several reasons for this lumping of all that claim discrimination.

First, in politics and to politicians numbers play a crucil role hence the lumping of bisexuals and transgender numbers. So, show me the numbers and I'll show you my support. For this I blame the gay organizations. Second, gender identity is light years away from being the same thing as sexual orientation. As one interviewee stated in the article, “I am a lesbian because I am attracted to women and not men.” I continue to say this when groups keep insisting that the T be added to the l&g. Third, and I think this most important, gender reassignment does not mean that the person will then remain "gay or lesbian" as is obvious in the article.

When a man transitions from male to female and continues to date women he cannot be considered a lesbian because by definition he is a man. Lesbians don't date men. And when a woman transitions from female to male "she" cannot consider herself a lesbian - simple end of story. Fourth, none of these people can consider themselves truly the opposite sex because they have not changed their x & y chromosones. Fifth, the confusion that this causes children will make the g&l struggle even harder. Sixth, the struggle for transgender rights is not my fight and I will not take it up. In 2000 when the sexual orientation non-discrimination act - SONDA was about to pass Senator Tom Duane (D-NY) almost derailed it by his 11th hour plea to include transgender rights. Thank goodness it was not included and the votes went forward to enact SONDA. So, my point here is simply this, the "T" should not be added to l&g because it is completely different than that of sexual orientation. I do not deny equality to transgender folks I just don't want gender rights lumped with my rights as a lesbian who has no wish to become a man.

My response: Where the premises are wrong in the first place, the argument fails. And in this case, just as with the later blog entries we have seen already, Ingrid does not understand that it isn’t the divisive idea that “T (or B!) people aren’t L&G” – we know we are not all the same. But the fact is that LGBT and some I (intersexed people) don’t fit into the heteronormative cissexual binary.

Ingrid also showed a remarkable lack of understanding about transgender people.

She wrote: “When a man transitions from male to female and continues to date women he cannot be considered a lesbian because by definition he is a man. Lesbians don't date men.”

Ingrid didn’t realize that “male-to-female” (MTF) and “female-to-male” (FTM) only really relates to genital shape. Transsexual women are “women born transsexual" (WBT), and transexual men are "men born Transsexual (MBT)." We never really belonged to our originally-assigned sexes - otherwise why on earth would we feel the need for correction? Our identities belong to the sex not assigned to us at birth.

So I really am a lesbian (and not a heterosexual man, or ex-man), and my sweetie would disagree with Ingrid’s assessment that being with me would make her heterosexual. There are *some* lesbians who agree with Ingrid about “who we are” – and way too many transsexual separatists seem to think that only trans people ever read Professor Janis Raymond’s ill-conceived thesis, The Transsexual Empire. My friend Ingrid Barnes was clearly informed by Raymondite conservative lesbian feminist separatism.

Ingrid’s use of junk genetics (a blind reliance on the shape of the 23rd chromosome pair) is predictable – blind reliance on chromosome shape is as bad as blind reliance on genital shape. I wonder what Ingrid might have made of women assigned female at birth, who grow up, look like and identify as women, who, because of the way their SRY gene expresses, have Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) – these women are born with XY in their 23rd chromosome pair – are these women also men? Ingrid might think so. But whatever it is that causes an individual to be trans (we only know of some effects, like the neuronal density in the central area of the basal stria terminalis in the hypothalamus, that could point to a physiological, genetic, or developmental cause for transsexuality), Ingrid’s understanding, or lack of it, seems to be much the same as the understanding of those people who still call sexual orientation “sexual preference” and believe that everyone is born straight, and intentionally choose to live sinful lives by choosing to be homosexual.

Ingrid makes other factual errors, but I am sure she was blogging "off the top of her head" and not The proposed amendment to the non-inclusive New York Sexual Onientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) was made by Democratic State Senator Tom Duane in December 2002, on the floor of the New York State Senate. It was a symbolic thing, and there never was any possibility that the SONDA bill would have been derailed. Senator Duane had introduced an inclusive SONDA bill himself, but at the time, no one in the Assembly had done so - and it would ahve been surprising to have had the Republican-controlled State Senate passing an inclusive SONDA without the Democratically-controlled Assembly having passed it first. The non-inclusive SONDA bill had to be carried by a Republican in the Senate, as Democrat-sponsored bills do not get to a vote in that house of New York's sadly schizophrenic state legislature.

If we look at the non-inclusive ENDA bill that Ingrid liked, it wouldn’t have protected Ingrid herself had it become law. During the time I knew her, she always had close-cropped hair and looked rather butch. She may not have wanted to be a man, but her “gender identity” (as defined in HR 2015 – really “gender expression”) never really qualified as heteronormative.

I don’t want to paint a thoroughly negative picture of Ingrid. Readers here might wonder how I could consider this person my friend. As is the case with most people, she was more complicated than she would appear just from her writing.

She worked at Pace University - where a few years ago, she arranged to have me speak on trans isues to their diversity committee. She may not have understood trans people, and may not have wanted to work for our rights as well as her own, but ultimately, she wasn’t really against us having our rights recognized. She just wanted to make sure that L&G people came first.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Two from Column A and Three from Column B

I find it interesting that there is already a call for rights beyond same-sex marriage. Did I miss the memo that said that same-sex couples had the right to marry? So you can undertsand my surprise when I read this article.

Here I'll say it, I'm in favor of same-sex marriage but there is a caveat to that statemnet. And that is, that I would be perfectly fine with civil unions if they came with the same rights and priveledges of marriage. Now let me share my concerns after reading this article.

Number 1: Like all "movements" the gay and lesbian movemement has decided that inclusivity works better than exclusivity even though an argument could be made against such inclusivity. The inclusion of the B&T is a perfect example of such inclusivity. It is also an example of ramping up your numbers so that politicians take you more seriously and the people get to hear your story. The clout in numbers phenomena is not new and depending on you ask - can be quite beneficial.

Number 2: When the B&T were added someone forgot to ask the following questions: A) Could you share with us examples of overt discrimination based on your being bisexaul, i.e. fired from your job, refused an apartment etc.? and B) Are transgendered individuals gay? I would guess that it would have been politically incorrect to pose those questions.

Number 3: How does inlcuding all the groups presented in the article help the gay and lesbian movement?

It is my humble opinion that this group is not helping matters but hurting same-sex advocacy. My number one issue with the group is that it confuses the argument by adding all these different goups. The group's argument detracts from the important conversation surrounding same-sex equality to one of derision.
My response: This was the frst of Ingrid’s posts relating to the trans community. Including the T doesn’t add a lot of numbers. It’s more important to the T to be included, than it is for L&Gs who are much more visible and less woodworked or stealth or closeted.

So, this was Ingrid's first relevant post - and the first shall be the last discussed.

As to her Number 1, we have Ben Franklin’s adage” We must all hang together, or we will assuredly hang, separately.” Sure, there is much to be said for separatism, but most of it is negative. Ingrid never seems to have seen the commonality that we share by being non-heteronormative non-cissexual.

As to Number 2, Ingrid asked the wrong questions. Bi is a sexual orientation, so lesbians and gays really do have to include them, as well as asexual people, for “sexual orientation” to be a protected class. People who are "bi" oriented do get discriminated against for being perceived as gay, particularly if their current relationship is a same-sex one. Some people who are trans identify as gay and lesbian (and were perceived by Ingrid to be “straight”) – and the rest are either bi, or identify as straight and still get perceived by some people as being gay or lesbian.

With Number 3, I have explained in responses to later blogs abovem that lesbian and gat people often experience discrimination, not for being gay or lesbian, but because of their gender expression. And many trans people are perceived as being gay – even iof they don’t identiofy that way. It makes no sense to enact bills into law that protect only a part of the equation. Gays and lesbians are covered better when “gender identity and expression” as well as “sexual orientation” are included as protected classes in human rights laws.

--

In finis, I dedicate this post to the memory of Ingrid E. Barnes, who was always controversial in her thoughts, words, deeds, and her general comportment. She was well-educated, well-read, and while we did not often agree on abstruse philosophical issues relating to the LGBT community, she was always personally respectful – she may have intellectually thought of me as a “man” but always managed to deal with me personally with dignity and respect, and with the use of the proper pronouns.

I am sorry I never got to see her blog while she was alive - and the responses here aree intended as part of a onversation that never did take place. I would only wish I could have had the opportunity to perhaps make her think a bit about her assumptions. . .

Susan Stanton in the Whirlwind of Separatist Controversy

Susan Stanton, the transitioning transsexual woman who first became the subject of the news media when she was fired from her job as City Manager by government officials in Largo, Florida, was quoted in an article I found on Google, in The Ledger (a newspaper published in Polk County, Florida) on January 4, 2008 in an article - you can find it at:

http://www.theledger.com/article/20080104/NEWS/801040352/1023

However, the article first appeared in the St. Petersburg Times on December 31, 2007 - here is the URL for that (it did not come up in my Google search, while The Ledger article did):

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/12/31/Life/Susan_Stanton_s_lonel.shtml

Here is the section with the quote:

Susan has met hundreds of other people like her. She was among the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people lobbying for a law that would make it illegal for others to discriminate against them.But Susan has said all along that she's not like other transgender people. She feels uncomfortable even looking at some,"like I'm seeing a bunch of men in dresses."Eventually, she decided it was too early for transgender people to be federally protected. People need more time, more education, she says. "The transgender groups boo me, now, when I speak. Isn't that ironic?" But I don't blame the human rights groups from separating the transgender people from the protected groups. Most Americans aren't ready for us yet, " Susan says. Transgender people need to be able to prove they're still viable workers, especially in the mainstream."The biggest issue against the federal legislation is that politicians think the ladies' rooms will be invaded by guys in drag," Susan says, "instead of someone like me."

Now, I have it from someone who actually spoke with Susan that she states that she was actually misquoted - and here is a link to Susan's own website that indicates the same:

http://www.susanastanton.com/What_America_Said_and_Saw.html

(And an excerpt for those who don't want to click, or in the event the URL gets stale . . . ):

"I was shocked and disappointed when I read the recent article in the St. Petersburg Times entitled "Susan Stanton’s Lonely Transformation". The St. Petersburg Times is an excellent newspaper and I consider Ms. Lane DeGregory to be a gifted writer and a personal friend so I am not sure how my words could have been so terribly misunderstood. ""During the last year, I have had a very unique opportunity to become acquainted with many members of the transgender community and the wide diversity of life experiences. Contrary to the St. Petersburg Times article, I do not see members of the transgender community as "men wearing dresses." However, I do feel there is a fundamental misunderstanding by the general public that being transgender is simply a matter of men wanting to "dress up as women." Most people do not understand the medical nature of being a transgender and therefore cannot understand the need or justification for non-discrimination protection in employment and housing. During the extensive discussions associated with my termination, many reasonable people felt it was irresponsible conduct for a government official to be "dressing up in women’s clothes" let alone expect to someday "come to work in drag." In my extensive discussion with the national media, transgender people are still perceived to be living unhealthy lifestyles inconsistent with family values. It is my belief that
until the general public is properly educated on the diversity of gender identification and expression, attempts at passing comprehensive federal legislation prohibiting discrimination will not have the necessary support in Congress."

There is more, a lot more.

Personally, I think Susan Stanton's explanation is pretty clear, and as someone who has been misquoted in the media myself, quite believable.

(And I think it’s likely that she said was that the *general public* sees all of us as "men in dresses, frauds and deceivers." (and somehow that morphed into what ended up in print.)

While my initial reaction to the St. Petersburg Times article was to characterize Susan from that picture as a "transsexual separatist," it really doesn't necessarily appear to be the case.

(For a picture of what transsexual separatism looks like, one can visit

http://ts-si.org/

and take a look – but don’t expect the nice folks who operate that website to admit to anything like "transsexual separatism!" – just look for yourself and see it it looks, walks and quacks like a duck.)

Susan's explantation is nuanced - she does not reject the transgender "umbrella" but she believes that it takes education for people to understand that there is a diversity under that umbrella, and that Susan and those most like her are not "men in dresses."

The last of the quoted sentences is important - education of the general public is necessary. The problem is that doing the education faces problems from the Christianist conservatives whose misinterpretation of their own Bible makes the education an uphill battle.

Susan Stanton's nuance is one that does not rely on separatism. Unlike some of the advocacy one can see at that TS-Si site, it does not rely on a rigid belief that those who are post-op (or at least scheduled for surgery) are fundamentally differentand have no common ground with those who are unable to have surgery due to medical issues.

Making the achievement of SRS surgery the only dividing line between those that"have theirs" and those who don't, is an unfortunate oversimplification that harms a significant but tiny number of people with Harry Benjamin Syndrome (HBS) (This is the term currently in vogue for what is referred to as "Gender Identity Disorder" (GID) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) used in the psychiatric profession.

Having medical issues that make my surgery too much of a risk for any of the surgeons to undertake (I am ready to pay for it in the US, Canada or Thailand, I already have the mental health professionals certifying me, but none of the surgeons is willing to do it, even those in Thailand who don't require a surgery letter, because of my medical situation), I find myself on the "other side" of the artificial divide (encouraged by at least some of the columns at TS-Si) where surgery completion is advocated as the sole criterion for legal recogntion of one's correct sex identity.

All in all, I don't think that *anyone* should have to wait for legal recognition of our right to dignity and fair treatment as human beings with the reasonable accommodation of having legal sex assignment corrected in accordance with our established sex identity (those who aren't "educated" yet do have many resources to avail themselves of already to learn about this), I can understand (while disagreeing with) Susan's pragmatism regarding the HRC willingness to allow "gender identity" to be dropped from ENDA.

There has been a lot of angry critical reaction from segments of the"trans" community to the original article, and even some severe criticism of the explanation.

I think it shows pretty well that even "under the umbrella" not everyone marches in lock-step to a particular tune, or applies a single "Transgender party line."It could also show that there are alternatives to the rather strict "surgery first before legal correction" standpoint that appears to be taken in some columns and other writings at the TS-Si site (and in other forums) - and that these (like mine) shouldn't be dismissed, as someone commented over at TS-Si in response to a comment I made to one of the articles published there) as"The rest of her [i.e. my] posting(s) are just more of the same TG party line donkey dung."

So, the bottom line question is "what can we learn from all this?"

1. 
   we have to be careful when being quoted by the news media; and perhaps have a strategy for what to do when news coverage goes wrong – and when we read the newspaper, or get "news" from other media – we have to remember that even in the bast cases, only about a quarter of what is provided as "news" is actually factual;
2. 
   the "trans community has to continue educational efforts aimed at both legislators and the general public – when we do the educating, and I really do think it is necessary to educate, we have to make it absolutely clear that while there is a whole range or spectrum of differences within the community of people who don't fit *exactly* as expected by society into its societal expectation of binary sex and gender, that there are basic human rights that should not be denied on the basis of that single common factor of not completely fitting into that societal expectation. There are, in addition, possibly different levels of "reasonable accommodation" of any of our various forms of not fitting in (even those of us who strive to fit in to the "opposite" sex from birth assignment, do not fit in perfectly), that may or may not apply across the board - and we should all be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those in our communities whose self-identity is not identical or extremely similar to our own. The problem is going to be getting the *very* binary-oriented society to recognize that not everyone fits into the binary in accordance with expectations. Some fit in opposite those expectations and some fit in some ways into both, or don't fit at all well into either one.
3. we need to get what it is that we are teaching to be consistent. In a discussion group I participate in, one of the members wrote: "Drag Queens and Transsexual women are very different animals." That is not necesarily or entirely true - it depends on the definitions of the terms. I do happen to know some transsexual women (not all of them pre-op, either), who have found employment in doing "drag" performance to be a better option than anything else available to them. At the same time, I think I understand that member's intended point. A male-identified gay man who dresses up as a woman for fun and perhaps profit, is *not* the same as a trans woman who identifies as a heterosexual woman, even if she is pre-op and even if she works in the same drag club (meaning that if you were to just *look* at them, their bodies might be nearly identical - their minds, however, are not), and even if both of them are attracted to men (one as a hay man, the other as a straight, but trans, woman).Part of the problem is that the less-than-fully-educated in society see that the bodies in that example are "the same" (at least what they can see -I'm not saying anything about BSTc or other things in this example) and would treat both as "men." Others who need education would be those who might be happy aligning things solely on whether people can "pass." (The result there would be the marginalization or ghettoization, or worse, of post-op TS women and men who don't "pass" well.) There are several minefields in the education process - one example is the situation where SRS is pushed as the *only* bright line to use for the correction of the sex assigned on identity papers. This approach marginalizes those who cannot have the necessary surgical procedures for medical or other valid reasons, but who have the appropriate self-identity. The British Gender Recognition Act permits correction of sex based on having had SRS, but also allows correction in cases where SRS is not medically advisable. (A similar 2006 proposal for New York City birth cerificate correction was tabled because of concerns over conflict with the then-forthcoming federal Real ID Act regulations).We all need access to appropriate medical care, not just for transition-related issues.We all need protection in the traditional areas of human rights - employment, housing, access to public accommodations, credit, etc. (though there mat be reasonable differences in exactly what the reasonable accommodation is going to be). Some of the more controversial ideas have to do with the binary itself. Society isn't going to abandon it altogether. But what it can do is recognize that it is not reflective of 100% of all reality - and allow for people to be "other" "both" and "neither" as well as "still the original assignment" or "opposite the original assignment;" and
4. 
   Perhaps it is necessary for all of us to be aware of separatism within the trans community, and the possible deleterious effects of it (at the TS-Si site, for example, a comment to one article indicated that there were transsexual separatists working against the 2006 NYC Health Department proposal that would have made it possible for persons who couldn;t have sex reassignment surgery to have their birth certificates corrected; perhaps some are working against GENDA and other inclusive human rights legislation and regulatory amendments as well). Separatism is not only that of the post-op transsexual person who believes that rosurgery divides "real women (or men)" from "transgenders" – it includes those in the crossdressing community who see the people who seek surgical correction of their bodies to match their minds as being sick or delusional and that their surgeries are unnecessary. That is just as harmful.
   

The Democratic Side on the ENDA Debacle in the House

A review of the November 7, 2007 debate in the House of Representatives on H. Res. 793 to set up the rules for debate on H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, leads me to the following conclusions regarding the Democrats in the House (Republicans will be covered in a separate blog entry):

The carefully choreographed rule was designed to limit debate and to allow the introduction, brief discussion and withdrawal of the Baldwin Amendment to restore the protection for "gender identity" that had been stripped from the bill while it, or rather its predecessor, H.R. 2015, was in committee. This was a Kabuki-like dance of words designed only to bring the idea of protecting transgendered people from employment discrimination onto the floor of the House without permitting adequate timne for real debate, and no time at all for a vote.

As a result, there are perhaps only seven Democrats I can really count on for support, because they voted against the flawed bill on principle because it does almost nothing for anyone. They are: Rep. Yvette Clark (D-NY), Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), Rep. Michael Michaud (D-ME), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY). I applaud their principled stand, while not condemning the principled stand taken by those other Democrats in the House who voted in favor of the flawed bill because they would not vote against any bill to extend civil rights to even part of an oppressed minority. Some of them expressed as much in their remarks on the House floor and some inserted their remarks into the Congressional Record. I can respect that position.

I am appalled by the lack of moral fiber on the part of the House leadership that arranged this piece of choreographed theater without giving the Baldwin Amendment a chance at a vote. I do not blame Rep. Tammy Baldwin, because I believe the only opportunity the leadership gave her when the rule for debate was crafted, was to permit the introduction of the Amendment on condition that it be withdrawn prior to a vote. It was reported that this became the Speaker’s strategy because a couple of conservative Democratic first-term Representatives went to Speaker Nancy Pelosi to ask that there not be a vote. Rep. Baldwin would not have had the opportunity to introduce the Amendment without agreeing to ask for a withdrawal. I believe the failure to allow a vote was a serious tactical error, as bad an error as dropping the "gender identity" prpotection and watering down the "religious" loophole.

I am encouraged by the statements of Rep. Castor (D-FL), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), Rep Welch (D-VT), Rep. Davis (D-CA), Rep. Moran (D-VA), Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Rep. Langevin (D-RI), Rep. Stark ( ), Rep. Honda ( ), Rep. DeGette ( ), Rep. Waxman ( ), and Rep. Hirono ( ) (I plan to revisit this to get the states and fuller names for the imcomplete representatives).

Here are some of their trans-positive remarks, for those who wish to read but don;t want to poke around the Congressional Record:

Rep. Castor (D-FL): I do wish Ms. Baldwin would allow a vote on the amendment . I strongly support the amendment , as many of those in the Congress do. But this was her request, and this is the way the rule has been structured.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): The Baldwin amendment , which recognizes that transgendered Americans should have all of the protections and the rights of any person in America, should be included in this bill. It should include the Baldwin amendment . Because if we believe in who we are as a country, and if we believe that discrimination is wrong against anyone, then how in the world can we leave out a significant number of Americans in this bill? So, if it becomes law, transgendered Americans will still face discrimination in the workplace. And we must not let up until we ban discrimination against everyone.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): While I may disagree with some of my colleagues on strategy, I assure you that we are united in support of the ultimate goal, protection from employment discrimination for the entire LGBT community. . . . Transgender Americans, because of a lack of familiarity and understanding, are more likely to face employment discrimination and, therefore, more in need of protection from irrational discrimination that an inclusive ENDA would afford. And removing gender identity from ENDA may also leave lesbian and gay employees vulnerable to discrimination for failing to conform to gender stereotypes. In other words, some employers and courts may take an overly restrictive view that an exclusive ENDA fails to protect lesbians who appear ``too masculine'' or gay men who appear ``too effeminate.'' . . . . When the House considers ENDA today, I will support the amendment introduced by Congresswoman Baldwin to restore the protections from discrimination based on gender identity. Should that amendment fail, I will not be able to vote for the underlying bill because it fails to uphold adequately the American values of fairness, equality and inclusion, but I will continue to fight for a proper ENDA bill that includes all the people who need its help.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): I am very concerned, as my Republican colleagues are, that the Baldwin amendment can be offered and pulled back without a vote, because if it was given a vote, I would vote for the Baldwin amendment.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): I rise in strong support of the underlying bill and the Baldwin amendment. . . . I strongly support providing protection from discrimination to transgender Americans, and I will not rest until their right to live their lives free of fear, discrimination, and intolerance is the law of this land.

Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ): Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of inclusive ENDA that provides employment protections for sexual orientation as well as gender identity, I am an original cosponsor of the original ENDA that was introduced earlier this year, the legislation we should be taking up today.

(Rep. Holt also added to the Congressional Record a letter from himself, Rep. Yvette Clark, Rep. Linda Sanchez, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, dissenting from H.R. 3685, though only two of them (Reps. Holt and Clark) actually voted against the flawed bill.)

Rep Welch (D-VT): "I am glad that the rule makes in order the amendment by Representative Baldwin to include ``gender identity'' protections in the bill. I urge all my colleagues to support the rule, support the Baldwin amendment , and support the underlying bill."

Rep. Davis (D-CA): I rise in support, but I am sorry we are not debating a more inclusive gender identity bill today, which I would have supported, and let me tell you why. Employment discrimination strikes at a fundamental American value, the right of each individual to do his or her job without facing unfair discrimination. Transgendered people are among the most marginalized and vulnerable groups within the LGBT community.

Rep Moran (D-VA): As a sponsor of ENDA, I would have favored the further amendment by Congresswoman Baldwin , but the fact is that this is a civil rights struggle, and struggles take time.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): While ENDA's victory will represent an historic victory, I share the disappointment of TAMMY BALDWIN , BARNEY FRANK and others who support including protection for transgender individuals in ENDA.

Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA): . . . at the outset, I'd like to note that I did not vote for this bill in Committee, not because I don't support its goals--I do--but because I strongly believe that we could have done better by protecting more people from discrimination. That is why I am proud to support the amendment by my colleague from Wisconsin, that will add a prohibition against gender identity discrimination. This amendment is needed because protecting transgender people is the right thing to do. We're talking about a small group of people, but a group that faces tremendous discrimination and that deserves to be protected from workplace discrimination just as much as anybody else. Now that this bill is out of committee and on the floor, let me be clear, I will vote for it because it extends a basic right to millions of Americans. And that right is the right to go to work and earn a living.

Rep. Langevin (D-RI): I also want to voice my strong support for an amendment to be offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin , which would prevent discrimination based on gender identity. Rhode Island is one of 12 States that protect gender identity in employment, and our experience has been a positive one. Transgender individuals often have their own set of challenges in the workplace, and we must ensure that their rights are protected as well. I am deeply disappointed that the underlying bill does not include gender identity, especially as I am a cosponsor of a fully inclusive ENDA.

Rep. Stark ( ): No job applicant should be discriminated against because of his or her race, religion, gender, ethnicity, age, disability, political affiliation--or sexual orientation or gender identity. . . . This legislation succeeds in advancing civil rights. However, it still falls short of what needs to be accomplished. By no means is this bill as inclusive as it should be. It fails to include gender identity as a protected class. I commend Congresswoman BALDWIN for her efforts to include the transgender community in today's legislation. Had her amendment reached a vote on the House floor, I would have proudly supported it.

Rep Honda ( ): Sadly, more inclusive language was narrowed to exclude the most vulnerable, least understood group within the LGBT community, transgender men and women. I congratulate Representative BALDWIN on offering an amendment to re-insert this wording into the underlying bill and I proudly support her effort. Although this amendment was withdrawn, I was prepared to vote in its favor.

Rep. DeGette ( ): I will cast my vote with deep regret the trangendered community has been denied the protections offered to gays and lesbians in this bill. I did not support its removal from the overall legislation and am extremely disappointed that it will not be included when the House passes H.R. 3685.

Rep. Waxman ( ): As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2015, a more comprehensive version of this legislation, I am disappointed that H.R. 3685 does not protect against discrimination based on gender identity. I strongly support the amendment Representative Baldwin will offer to include gender identity in H.R. 3685 and if that amendment is not adopted, I pledge to work for an ENDA that includes gender identity.

Rep. Hirono: As an original cosponsor of the original ENDA, H.R. 2015, I am glad to be able to have this opportunity to debate the BALDWIN amendment to include anti-discrimination protections for transgender individuals. It is unfortunate that political realities made it difficult to bring an inclusive ENDA to the floor today in the first place.