Carl Paladino APOLOGIZES!

After first trying to deny his words, or some of them (the ones he had in his written speech but didn't read), Carl Paladino has done something unusual - he has actually apologized.

The actual and unedited text of his apology is below. While I still disagree with him on a large number of issues and I still support his Democratic opponent in the New York gubernatorial election, the issuance of an actual apology that has a minimum of weasel wording is worth noting. As a reward, I am editing my earlier post to remove the caricature of Mr. Paladino's head with the Charlie Chaplin moustache photoshopped onto a picture of one A. Hitler, former Fuehrer of the Third Reich.

Here is the text of the apology, followed by my comments:

I am Carl Paladino, a father, a husband, a builder and a business owner. I am neither perfect, nor a career politician. I have made mistakes in this campaign - I have made mistakes all my life- as we all have. I am what I am - a simple man who works hard, trusts others, and loves his family and fears for the future of our State.

Yesterday I was handed a script. I redacted some contents that were unacceptable. I did also say some things for which I should have chosen better words. I said other things that the press misinterpreted and misstated. I sincerely apologize for any comment that may have offended the Gay and Lesbian Community or their family members. Any reference to branding an entire community based on a small representation of them is wrong. My personal beliefs are:

1) I am a live and let live person.

2) I am 100% against discrimination of any group. I oppose discrimination of any kind in housing, credit, insurance benefits or visitation.

3) I am 100% against hate crimes in any form.

4) I am in support of civil agreements and equal rights for all citizens.

5) My position on marriage is based on my personal views. I have the same position on this issue as President Barrack Obama. I have previously stated I would support a referendum by New York voters. I have proposed Initiative and Referendum so New Yorkers can decide important issues like this.

6) The portrayal of me as anti-gay is inconsistent with my lifelong beliefs and actions and my prior history as an father, employer and friend to many in the gay and lesbian community.

I am concerned with the future for all our citizens, gay, straight, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim and Agnostic. Although I am not perfect I do admit my mistakes. I will reach out to leaders of the gay community to educate me on how to better represent my support for the rights of all citizens. If elected as your governor I will stand and fight for all gay New Yorkers rights. I ask you for forgiveness on my poorly chosen words and the publication by others not involved with our campaign of unredacted script that did not reflect my oral statement or match my personal feelings. Please go to my website www.paladinoforthepeople.com to learn more detail about the issues including my staunch support for civil rights for all New Yorkers.

The only weasely words?

I did also say some things for which I should have chosen better words. I said other things that the press misinterpreted and misstated.

The "should have chosen better words" part requires some amplification, as does the "misinterpreted and misstated."

It's really hard to misinterpret and misstate an unaltered video.

Essentially, what Carl biggest mistake was to read someone else's words as his own, slightly edited. That someone was most probably the ultra-conservative right wing "Rabbi" Yehuda Levin, the leader of a tiny ultra-Orthodox but not Hasidic Jewish sect.

Carl was trying to garner support from these people by telling them pretty much what their leader wanted them to hear. So, if he doesn't believe what he told them, he was lying to them to get their vote, possibly not thinking that the terribly nasty things he was saying to pander to this small group was going to be spread to the rest of the world by way of the news media and the blogosphere.

This is the sort of campaign trick that used to work fairly well - a candidate would tell a small group what they wanted to hear without fearing that the words would be recorded and broadcast, and then promising something else to some other group.

In this case, Mr. Paladino got caught.

His hiding behind Barack Obama's skirts as if the President is his mommy, on the issue of marriage equality, is rather disingenuous. President Obama is wrong on this issue, and he is another example of a lying politician who has told many different stories to many different groups on many different issues, though President Obama's actual record is mixed.

If Carl really believes in "live and let live," he would be willing to put the Constitution above his religious prejudices - why should the Catholic Church decide whether gay Unitarians should be able to get legally married?

The fact remains that no one who places the immoral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church ahead of the Constitution of the United States or that of the State of New York, is and remains unqualified to be Governor.

The addition of "Initiative" and "Referendum" like they have in California, particularly if not limited so that individual rights are unaffected, is likely to result in what Alexis de Tocqueville referred to as "the tyranny of the majority." Popular votes taken to limit the rights of people who are different that they don't like, can result in injustice - the majority is not always right.

Carl - if your apology was genuine and sincerely intended:

- Will you openly sponsor a civil marriage bill as a Governor's program bill? (It has to be civil marriage, because "live and let live" does not work any other way unless you abolish civil marriage for everyone in New York and leave it up to the churches and individuals to decide for themselves on the basis of their own personal beliefs). It is okay for you to be personally against marrying a man yourself - you already have a wife, and a female concubine (well, how else am I supposed to describe the mother of your daughter . . .) - you don;t have to choose to marry a man - so that's where your personal beliefs are appropriate.

- Will you make GENDA a Governor's program bill? It would extend human rights and hate crimes protections to the trans community.

- Will you direct insurance companies and Medicaid to provide for medically appropriate care for all, including transgender New Yorkers?

- Will you pledge to let the federal government deal with immigration issues and leave the State out of it?

- Will you support abolishing city, town and village governments (excepting New York City) and provide for consolidation of services (including school districts) at the county level?

- Will you support making Medicaid costs the sole responsibility of the State without passing the cost off to the counties?

- Will you support the abolition of "member items?"

- Will you support the elimination of all loopholes in the mortgage recording tax?

- Will you support the adoption of the ACRIS recording system on a statewide basis, with local recording officers acting only as agents of the state? Will you provide for free online public access to land records (as they do in the State of Florida?)

I have much longer laundry list, but something along these lines would be a start.

Taking the Medicaid burden off county governments and consolidating local municipalities and districts to the county government level would go much farther toward reducing the real property tax burden than the things you're foolishly promising already.

But Carl, I do thank you for the apology - it's not something that a Ruben Diaz or a Sally Kern would ever do. It may be that all you need is a little education.

If you don't follow through on your apology, would you prefer I find a photo of Benito Mussolini to use as the basis for a caricature?

Gary Bauer Sows the Wind, May he Reap the Whirlwind!

Gary Bauer, former president of the notorious “Family” Research Council, appeared at that organization’s recent “Value Voters Summit” to urge Christianist Dominionists, social conservatives, misguided “tea partiers” and the other assembled wingnuts, to get out and vote in November, using verbal imagery evoking the heroic struggle of the passengers of United Flight 93, who fought back against the hijackers, resulting in that plane ending up in a field in Pennsylvania rather than the White House or another building in Washington D.C.

This clip is actually rather inspiring:



But Bauer does not tell his audience that at least one of those “American heroes” on that Flight 93 was a gay man.

Okay, so they can’t handle the truth.

If these wingnuts are going to profane the memory of the martyrs of Flight 93 to push their evil agenda and motivate their colleagues to come out and vote, I perhaps should not stoop to their level.

But I will.

So, after watching the Bauer clip, follow it with a rendition of Melissa Etheridge’s “Tuesday Morning” -





Okay, folks – this song should silence the Bauers and the other wingnuts.

LGBT Americans are Americans, too – and our people can be and have been every bit as heroic as any other Americans.

We deserve the same rights as other Americans.

People like Gary Bauer want to push us down. They are motivating their troops to get out the vote.

I urge readers to share these two clips widely – and let your friends know that people who really love liberty, who really love freedom of religion, who really love American principles, have to get motivated to come out and vote.

Gary Bauer may have sown the wind with his speech – may he reap the whirlwind!

Or else, the misguided Tea Partiers and Christianist Dominionists like Carl Palladino, Christine O’Donnell, and their evil cohorts are going to win in November – and when they come for us, who will speak for us?

WND's Joseph Farah: Clueless about marriage equality

I was visiting the highly regarded Pam’s House Blend blog Sunday morning, and found an interesting article of Pam’s, commenting on a column over at WorldNutDaily (remember, they can’t seem to spell “Nut” which somehow comes out as “Net,” by the “founder, editor and CEO” there, the noted slacker Joseph Farah, entitled “Conservative Surrender on Same-Sex Marriage?"

After reading Pam’s column exposing Farah’s cluelessness, I thought it might be worthwhile and fun to join in the pile-on.

Pam concludes her column by giving us four possibilities as to why conservatives are not listening to people like Joe Farah any more – the last possibility:

“4) simply tired and offended by the political bedroom-peeping proclivities of people like Farah dressed up as moral righteousness.”

I believe that last item is the most likely reason real conservatives are starting to abandon their bigoted Christianist "social conservative" associates, as society becomes increasingly aware that the Christianists are not really Christians, they are bigots who wrap themselves in a cloak of Christian-looking doctrine.

While Pam does not directly address the “Christianist” arguments beyond pointing them out and indicating that they are irrelevant, I would like to tear that fig leaf from Joe Farah, and expose the ugly truth beneath.

But first, let’s deal with the idea that Farah’s “traitors” are somehow not *real* conservatives. It's really Joe who isn't conservative - and apparently he knows that.

I’d like to turn the “conservative” part of the explanation to Ted Olson, whose credentials as a real conservative are unsullied, and whose words are authentic. The following quotes from Ted Olson are all excerpted from a transcript of his amazing FOX News interview about the recent California federal district court marriage case decision, which is available online at:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/transcript/ted-olson-debate-over-judicial-activism-and-same-sex-marriage

Farah cites an unnamed “homosexual activist blog” to point out :

“"But isn't it something how the issue of marriage equality is slowly starting to tear at the GOP. What a difference a few years make. In 2004, there was nary a Republican that could get behind the issue of marriage equality without looking like a Benedict Arnold. And now? The trend is shifting big time." "

And to name names, in addition to Anne Coulter:

"Ted Olson, Margaret Hoover, Meghan McCain, Glenn Beck, Laura Bush, Steve
Schmidt, Cindy McCain, Charlie Baker, Elisabeth Hasselbeck ... it's like each
day a new high-profile conservative jumps on the marriage equality bandwagon."

Af course, that astute blogger was in all probablility Pam Spaulding – see her blog essays at:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/17154/game-over-man-antigay-forces-know-the-marriage-war-is-over-as-conservatives-toss-them-overboard

and

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/17143/mike-signorile-interviews-wnds-farah-on-coulters-betrayal-my-eyes-have-been-opened

and

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/17111/worldnetdailys-farah-in-complete-meltdown-as-highprofile-conservatives-embrace-the-homos


as examples of Pam’s astute analysis of Farah’s slackitude..

Farah whines:

“The people vote and express their will in overwhelming numbers to affirm
something as basic as traditional marriage between one man and one woman.”

But Ted Olson has already answered with the *real* conservative view about the clash between what Alexis de Tocqueville characterized as “the tyranny of the majority” and the bedrock conservative American value of individual rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment:

“If we didn't have a separation of powers, if we didn't have a Bill of Rights, then 7 million Californians could take away your rights, or my rights or the rights of these citizens in California. But we do have a Bill of Rights, and it's intended to protect us. The 14th Amendment was the result that -- the 14th Amendment that guarantees due process and equal protection to all citizens, to all persons, was the result of a civil war intended to enforce the promise of our Constitution that all men and women are created equal.”

Farah rants:

“Judges assail the process and explain that only bigotry could explain their votes. Election results are overturned.”

On this, and the issue of whether the California marriage decision involved “judicial activism” (a popular right wing mantra), here is what Olson has to say:

“. . . since 1888 the United States Supreme Court has 14 times decided and articulated that the right to marriage is a fundamental right. We're not talking about a new right here.

We're talking about whether a fundamental right, something that the Supreme Court has characterized as the most fundamental relationship we have in this country, can be deprived of certain individuals because of the color of their skin or because of their sexual orientation.

We do not permit discrimination, inequality. That's why we have a 14th Amendment that guarantees equal rights to all citizens. It's not judicial activism when judges do what the Constitution requires them to do, and they follow the precedent of previousdecisions of the Supreme Court.”

Ted Olsen pointed out:

“. . . most people use the term "judicial activism" to explain decisions that they don't like.”

“And what the court decided here -- the Supreme Court, as I said, of the United States has 14 times decided that the fundamental right to marry is an important constitutional right. The judge applied that right, that existing right, that fully determined and repeatedly determined constitutional right, to some tens of thousands of citizens in California who are being harmed by discrimination. That is not judicial activism. That is judicial responsibility. ”

Olson further notes:

“Yes, it's encouraging that many states are moving towards equality on the basis of sexual orientation, and I am very, very pleased about that, because it is extraordinarily damaging to our citizens, our family members, our brothers, our sisters, our co- workers and our neighbors when they are labeled second-class citizens.”

Farah continues with his pathetic moans:

“The conservative movement is nearing surrender on the issue – even while public opinion stands firmly committed against same-sex marriage.“

Some of Olson’s bedrock conservatism comes out in this quote that works to skewer Farah's assertion:

“When the state of California, as it did in this case, enshrined in its constitution a separate status for certain of its citizens, it did immeasurable harm. We can't wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm that is unconstitutional must finally be eliminated.

I applaud the fact that things are changing, and I think this case is helping open people's eyes to the damage done by discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Farah sobs:

“If we lose the battle over marriage, I'm not sure there's much left to preserve. Marriage is literally the building block of our civilization. Destroy it and you destroy the foundation."

Olson’s answer to this one is the cincher, the bottom line – what *real* conservatives think (addressing the FOX interviewer):

“Chris, we believe that a conservative value is stable relationships and a stable community and loving individuals coming together and forming a basis that is a building block of our society, which includes marriage. We believe that that is a conservative value.

We also believe that it's an important conservative value to sustain the rights of liberty of our citizens and to eliminate discrimination on invidious bases, whether it's race, or sex or sexual orientation. It should be a liberal and a conservative value. It is a fundamental American value. All men and all women are created equal under the law. ”

I want to repeat the principle:

“It should be a liberal and a conservative value. It is a fundamental American value. All men and all women are created equal under the law.”

Now, look at pathetic Joe Farah again. Farah even quotes from another conservative blogger – one who actually “gets” the point:

“ “In time, gay people will be married, extending the valuable social institution of marriage to more people," writes blogger Jon Henke of TheNextRight.com. "In time, conservatives will argue that the positive impact that marriage has on the gay community is further evidence of the importance of the institution of marriage."”

If you want to read Jon Henke’s long-standing position on marriage equality, he makes a compelling case in his June 10, 2006 (that’s right, 2006) blog at Quando.net – “The Libertarian Case for Gay Marriage”

Farah has had the opportunity to read what real conservatives other than Ted Olson are saying and writing, and he is still clueless!

Farah seems to have a kind of psychotic belief not based in anything but his fantasy world, that there are people out there who are looking to destroy “traditional marriage.”

This fantasy argument has been trotted out every time that there has been legal change in the understanding of marriage, beginning with the abansonment of the common law of “coverture” that reduced women to virtual chattel status under the control of their husbands.

It was raised in New York by the social conservatives of the 1830's - 1850;s, who railed against the adoption of the two “Married Women’s Property Acts” of 1848 and 1860. They even used bible passages that indicate that "wives should be obedient to their husbands" in support of continuing to oppress women.

The sort of marriage that Joe Farah wants to “preserve” was changed long ago, and for the better. If marriage laws are made completely gender-neutral, this will have zero adverse impact on marriages between a man and a woman. They will still be permitted.

It is not, as Farah would have us believe, a matter of requiring heterosexual couples to divorce and each take on a same sex spouse – which is the only way “traditional marriage” would be “destroyed” by some kind of “same-sex” marriage. The fact is, that making marriage laws fully gender neutral will not destroy anything, but will strengthen marriage, just as both Ted Olson, Jon Henke, and numerous others have pointed out.

The fact is that real conservatives are finally waking up to the fact that they can’t reconcile real conservative principles favoring individual liberty over government coercion with the bigotry pandered by “social conservatives” whose beliefs are rooted in their hatred of people who are different, lightly wrapped in a veil of “Christian” religious beliefs.

For a number of years, real conservatives have felt they had to put up with Christianist social conservative allies, because they needed their help to get enough votes to get elected. Ronald Reagan gave the Christianist social conservatves lip service. Unfortunately for real conservatives, George W. Bush, who is himself a Christianist, gave the Christianists a lot of what they wanted. This has scared the real conservatives.

The real conservatives have awakened to realize that the Christianist "social" conservatives are dragging them down, rather than lifting them up – and no one wants to drown in the muck and mire of bigotry and prejudice.

So let’s look at Christian beliefs – it’s time to tear that fig leaf from Farah’s Christianist cloaking. Farah is not really a Christian, he is a Christianist, because he consistently misunderstands and misinterprets the Bible as a justification for un-American discriminatory attitudes against people who are different from the majority. Real conservatives can also be real Christians. (For that matter, real liberals can also be real Christians!)


Farah sets us up with his fantasies about the nature of marriage:

“I am ashamed of these people who should know better flirting with the destruction of a 6,000-year-old, God-created institution with no regard for the unforeseen and unimaginable consequences.”

The last time I checked, neither Joe Farah nor Joe Ratzinger was qualified to speak the mind of God to anyone – and their interpretations and understandings of God and religion are not binding on the American People or on the Constitution and Laws of the United States and the several states.

As I have pointed out with the assistance of Pam Spaulding, Ted Olson and Jon Henke, no one is destroying Farah’s version of a “6,000-year-old, God-created institution.” On the day after marriage equality became the law in Massachuusetts, churches all over that state were still celebrating traditional heterosexual marriages. Nothing was changed about those marriages! The same situation is true of the other states and jurisdictions in which marriage equality is recognized – the freedom of those Christians and Christianists and other faiths who will only sanctify, sacramentalize, or bless heterosexual marriages, to continue to do so, is still maintained. The freedom of those Christian and other faiths that will sanctify, sacramentalize, or bless marriages on a gender neutral basis is no longer suppressed in those states and jurisdictions.

Farah goes on to quote scripture:

“If there is a subject upon which the Bible is crystal clear – from beginning to end – it is homosexuality. Another subject about which no one can misinterpret what the Bible says is marriage. Let's examine the text:
• Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
• Romans 1:22-27: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." ”

Let us examine the contexts. The Leviticus quote at worst may refer to one particular kind of sexual activity that may be engaged by gay men – it does not refer to all different ways in which gay men can sexually satisfy each other. But how does Joe Farah square this with the marriage of David and Jonathan, clearly presented in 1 Samuel 18?

The fact is that the Leviticus quote is more accurately limited to forcible sodomy – the kind of inhospitable treatment of strangers envisioned by the Men of Sodom. The misogyny can also be recognized – to the Men of Sodom as well as to the patriarchal Israelites, treating another man as a sex object for forcible carnal use was to lie with him “as with a woman.”

The Romans quote is the only one that is ever used by Christianists against lesbians, who also have the example of the Book of Ruth to guide them.

Farah does not look at the context of Romans 1 – which involves heterosexual people who were engaging in sex acts against their natures under the influence of the wine administered as part of the orgiastic practices of some Greco-roman religious traditions of the times, and particularly the Dionysian (Bacchic) practices. The key language in the version quoted by Farah is “natural use.” For heterosexual people, it is as unnatural to engage in same-sex sexual activity as it is unnatural for homosexual people to engage in opposite-sex sexual activity.

So clearly, Farah’s Christianity is suspect – though it is perfectly all right for him to maintain his version of the interpretation of scripture, it is wrong for him to claim that it is the only interpretation. Indeed, his interpretation flies in the face of American constitutional principles, and while he may be protected in his own freedom of religious expression, he is on weak ground when he insists that his religious freedom should trump everyone else’s, particularly outside his church.

Joe blathers on, first speaking that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law (and apparently this must include 1 Samuel 18), and he continues:

“In Matthew 19:4-6, it says: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? ”

But Jesus says exactly nothing about those instances in which a man may leave his parents and cleave unto another man, or where a woman may leave her parents and cleave unto another woman. This may not have happened in the culture of the time, though there is evidence that same-sex relationships were blessed in the early Church.

The initial Creation of Adam as a woman-man (in God’s image and likeness) and the subsequent split of Adam into Adam and Eve, is not a literal story, it’s an allegory, an allegory on the same level as the similar story from Plato’s Symposium, as related by the great playwright Aristophanes, in which he similarly explains the creation and splitting in such a way as to explain the variety of sexual orientations among humans – certainly a part of human nature, though one that was somewhat simplified in the patriarchal bible story. I would suggest that Aristophanes is at least as good a source of ancient mythology as the Bible.

Farah states:

“Either you believe the Bible or you don't.”

Apparently, Farah does not understand that there are different interpretations and understandings on what the Bible means – if we took the whole thing literally, there are numerous contradictions and some pretty bad aspects to it that would make it totally useless as a source for religious or moral guidance.

The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights are not bible-based.

Farah points out :

“But followers of Jesus cannot find some happy medium where they can please God and please the world. Nobody can. I choose obedience.“

In this case, that is fine – and biblical obedience clearly implies that Joe Farah should remove himself from the Modern world to some monastery where he can remain silent, pray, raise grain and make bread, and await the return of Jesus.

In the meantime, Joe should read 1 Corinthians 6:1-8:

1 Dare any of you, having a matter against his neighbor, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?

2 Or know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world is judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more, things that pertain to this life?

4 If then ye have to judge things pertaining to this life, do ye set them to judge who are of no account in the church?

5 I say this to move you to shame. What, cannot there be found among you one wise man who shall be able to decide between his brethren,

6 but brother goeth to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?

7 Nay, already it is altogether a defect in you, that ye have lawsuits one with another. Why not rather take wrong? why not rather be defrauded?

8 Nay, but ye yourselves do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

Of course, this passage continues:

9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,

10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

12 All things are lawful for me; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful for me; but I will not be brought under the power of any.

13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall bring to nought both it and them. But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body:

14 and God both raised the Lord, and will raise up as through his power.

15 Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? shall I then take away the members of Christ, and make them members of a harlot? God forbid.

16 Or know ye not that he that is joined to a harlot is one body? for, The twain, saith he, shall become one flesh.

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

19 Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own;

20 for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body.

I point the second half of the chapter out because there are those who will use verses 9, 19 and 20 to criticize transsexual people who seek the appropriate medical and surgical treatment, despite the clear message in Isaiah 56, Mathew 19:12 and Acts 8 that eunuchs (a term that includes transgender, transsexual and intersex people) are loved by God. Part of the problem has to do with relying on English translations rather than looking to the original languages - and while more modern translations might further obscure the meaning, even the more literal translations, such as the American Standard Version (ASV) used here, there are ossues in the understanding of the words.

Still, Joe Farah likes to pick and choose his bible verses, anyway.

In response to that, I will reproduce here, and commend you to the Snopes.com investigative commentary on it, a 2004 version of a ca. 2000 “Letter to Doctor Laura” that deals with a number of “literal” Bible teachings:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15: 19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,

I would like to challenge Joe Farah to address the issues posed in the “Letter to Doctor Laura” – if his version of Christianity, in which “Either you believe the Bible or you don’t” in a literal manner, without taking anything else into consideration. Is correct, he must have some answer to these questions.

But then, if Joe wants to be a real conservative, he has to understand that American conservatism, like American liberalism, is not compatible with his version of Christianity. He has a choice – to either be “obedient to” (or rather, to agree with!) conservative American principles, or to be “obedient to” his crackpot version of what he thinks God wants. He has chosen his religious beliefs. So why hasn’t he retreated from the modern world? He doesn’t have to drink any Kool-Aid to accelerate his personal Rapture – a monastery of some kind, where he can withdraw from the secular world, would be good enough to keep him on the “straight” and narrow. It does not have to be a monastery that requires celibacy – if Joe can’t control his sexual urges, the Bible allows him to get married (see 1 Corinthians 7:8-9) – I am sure there must be some sort of religious center that would allow him to practice marital relations while contemplating and praying, and keeping out of American secular affairs that are inconsistent with his beliefs.

On the other hand, if Joe really does not want the early “Kool-Aid” Rapture, or life in a monastery, maybe he can try to understand the idea of the First Amendment as it relates to both the establishment and free exercise of religion.

He might want to carefully read that 2006 Jon Henke essay about marriage, if he sincerely wants to get a clue.

Maybe he might find a way to reconcile his religious beliefs with the principles of American liberty and justice. If he wishes to maintain his intolerance, there’s always the monastery, or the Kool-Aid, or even just leaving us alone. Unfortunately, it does not seem likely that he will ever see the light of reason and Truth.

Joe wrote:

“Someone needs to hold the celebrities accountable. Someone needs to offer correction.”

Joe Farah, celebrity slacker, consider yourself corrected. And if you show up on September 17th to debate GOProud’s board chair Chris Barron (reported later yesterday at Pam’s House Blend) , expect to be thoroughly exposed as the intolerant bigot you are. As a former moderate libertarian member of the late William Buckley’s Young Americans for Freedom (when I was in college). I will be rooting for Chris. I may be a proud progressive Democrat these days, but I still have a moderate libertarian philosophy (one that is well removed from the near-anarchy of radical libertarianism) underlying what everyone seems to see as a liberal point of view.

A brief Epistle to Totustuos

Totustuos (nice Latin pun of a name/handle! Is he or she really "totally mine?" "All yours," literally - though perhaps short for JPII's motto) commented on my Blog essay: “Responding to the Manhattan Declaration” with the following:

“Robert George is truly a brilliant Philosophical icon of the 21st century. No liberals have ever challenge and won against his natural law argument. To all liberal gays, transgender, and other morphed humans, go straight and be save.”

I can certainly agree with Totustuos that Robby George is “brilliant” and is seen as a “philosophical icon” to his many followers, including many members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

However, with regard to any successes to a challenge to Robby’s “Natural Law Argument,” I would disagree. Robby usually sets up a straw man “liberal” who may be arguing philosophically in accord with utilitarianism or hedonism as a basis, rather than a “natural law” or “social contract” theory. In so setting up a liberal “straw man” as a hedonist or utilitarian, Robby proceeds to beat the imaginary "liberal" opponent thoroughly (but figuratively) senseless.

Robby doesn’t normally face challenges on his own natural law turf, against his concepts of “practical reason.” But that is exactly what he gets from me - and I don't think our correspondent Totustuos quite gets that.

Robby’s “practical reason” (his version of “natural law”) arguments fail, first because his idea of natural law is not derived from nature (but from nature, at best, viewed through a set of unwarrantedly-constraining blinders to eliminate natural diversity).

Second, his arguments fail because his reasoning, or rather, rationalization on the basis of false premises, goes further astray. This may be done blindly, because his rationalization process is flawed by virtue of prejudice that is sufficiently internalized and institutionalized so he truly believes that he is arguing from Reason, or malevolently, where he knows he is arguing from a grounding ind eep-seated prejudice, but either does not care or is working knowingly for an evil cause. I will presume the former ignorant blindness rather than the latter indifference or malevolence, since such a presumption is more charitable and collegial, but I will not rule out the latter motivations.

Augustine of Hippo brought both Platonic philosophy and a corrupt Manichean view of nature into Christian thinking. Sadly, Christianity was diminished by the concepts of Original Sin and the view that the natural world is somehow less than the spiritual one.

Aquinas made Aristotle safe for Christianity, and almost single-handedly ushered in a Christian respect for science (notwithstanding those "Galileo moments"), and the budding of the Renaissance and Industrial eras.

Robby George and his views represent a dead end, a turning away from right reason and a descent into barbarism – and he even knows it. When confronted by a reporter for the New York Times Magazine with possible criticism based on Martin Luther’s insistence that “reason was so corrupted that faith in the divine was humanity’s only hope of salvation,” Robby is quoted as acknowledging “This is a serious issue, and if I am wrong, this is where I am wrong.”

This is indeed exactly where Robby’s rationalizations are wrong. Beginning with a warped and unscientific understanding of the nature of nature, he builds his rationalized castles in the sand without foundation, convinced that his “practical reason” rationalizations are correct despite being blinded by and presumably not cosnsciously aware of his deeply-rooted prejudices.

To Totustuos, who refers to “. . . transgender, and other morphed humans,” it is likely that I may not get through with this message, because of the presence of the same sort of deeply ingrained, institutionalized, institutionally approved and authorized prejudice that warps the perception of reality to conform it to the already-warped principles on which the prejudice is built. Castles built in the same sand into which heads are hidden, waiting to be washed away by the waters of right reason.

Perhaps it is true that Robby George is brilliant, but brilliance alone is insufficient – one must also be correct. Brilliance was traditionally known to be the mark of the Archangel Lucifer – and tradition tells us what he did, and who he is – one reason I referred to Robby as Father of Lies in my earlier essay. Brilliant, but corrupted by his hubris as was his “brilliant” predecessor luminary, he and his flawed rationalizations continue unjustly persecuting me and my people.

Totustuos, to be saved, you may yet have to hug me, at least spiritually.

In pacem et iustitiam,

Joann Prinzivalli
Serva Servarum Deae

O'Leary Exposed: NARTH Opponent of Trans Rights is Delusional, or a Liar

Dale O’Leary is a spokesman for the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), and claims to be a Catholic. His tagline refers to him as an: “internationally known lecturer and author of The Gender Agenda, One Man, One Woman and numerous articles.”

On June 25, 2009, Dale O’Leary posted a blog article filled entitled Legalizing Deception: Why “Gender Identity” Should Not be Added to Anti-discrimination Legislation.

His article makes several misstatements of fact, and builds on them to construct an argument against human rights for transgender people that requires refutation. So, let’s start with some of his gems:

In describing proposed human right legislation similar to GENDA, the bill pending in the New York State legislature, he states that enactment of such legislation “would mean that males dressed as females could use women’s restrooms and locker rooms.”

This is the first error – he does not seem to understand that women born transsexual were never really male, and men born transsexual were never really women – we’re born transsexual, with a brain that developed in one “sexed” direction, and a body that developed genitalia in accordance with the wolffian or mullerian duct system (both present in embryonic and fetal development of all babies) that developed in the other "sexed” direction.

He amplifies on his error with this paragraph:

“No one can change sex; it is written in DNA on every cell of our bodies. The people demanding “gender identity and expression” protection are physically normal men or women, but according to the “gender” ideologues, what matters is not what sex you really are, but what sex you want to be or think you are. People could be sanctioned for simply using the correct pronouns when referring to a person who is obviously male, but wants to be female.”

O’Leary’s first sentence is correct – transsexual people do not want to change their sex, we want to conform our genital development to our brain development, in a society that arbitrarily recognizes only two sexes, male and female. He doesn't seem to understand the first thing about DNA, or he wouldn't be using DNA as an argument - my genetic blueprint resulted in me being different - but he must be thinking of the overly-simplified XY and XX concept. As to using the "correct" pronouns - O'Leary apparently does not know what the correct pronouns are, and would prefer to insult people by using the wrong ones intentionally as a provocation, rather than to respect others and their lives.

O’Leary builds further, referring to the desire of transsexual people to conform our bodies with our brains to be a “lie” and a “deception.” The lies and deceptions are coming from O’Leary and his ilk. O’Leary’s association with NARTH indicates that he is just another dangerous demagogue attempting to conform reality to his narrow vision.

He provides some junk psychology attributing gender identity, actually based on brain structures and developed in accordance with our personal genetic blueprint, to things like, “As children they may have been wounded, traumatized, abused, or rejected.” He deceptively spins the “deceit” angle. By constantly repeating his lie, he figures it might stick in the reader's mind.

He drops more lies into the mix: “While persons who want to be the other sex desperately want to believe that they were born with this problem, there is no evidence for this.”

No evidence? That is either a baldfaced lie, or perhaps O'Leary is merely an ignorant fool pretending to be an expert. Apparently he has not heard of, or chose to ignore, any of the scientific evidence, such as:

• Zhou, Hoffman, Gooren, Swaab A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality (Nature 378, 68-70 (02 Nov 1995)
• Lauren Hare; Pascal Bernard; Francisco J. Sánchez; Paul N. Baird; Eric Vilain; Trudy Kennedy; Vincent R. Harley Androgen Receptor Repeat Length Polymorphism Associated with Male-to-Female Transsexualism (Biological Psychiatry, Volume 65, Issue 1, Pages 93-96, 1 January 2009)

Instead, he goes to the pop-(pseudo)psychology writings of J. Michael Bailey, whose book The Man Who Would Be Queen is a poorly-written pop rehash of the poorly-constructed psychological theories of Ray Blanchard and Anne Lawrence with regard to the nature of transsexuality. And O’Leary doesn’t even get that right – Bailey, Blanchard and Lawrence posit that some transsexuals are “homosexual transsexuals” and others are “autogynephilic.”

O’Leary ought coinsider the idea that autogynephilia is a normal state of mind for a female person – essentially liking oneself as a woman. Only those who see women born transsexual as “really being delusional men” can come to the conclusion that “liking oneself as a woman” is a psychiatric disorder.

His quote of Anne Lawrence is a joke. I am personally an example of a transsexual woman who does not have an issue with reality, and the number of those who do have any issues, have issues that are based on internalized transphobia, often as the result of years of inculcation with erroneous social and religious beliefs that are antithetical to the truth.

The implication O’Leary paints for us is that transsexual people are delusional. He doesn’t even understand that which would constitute a delusion for a transsexual person.

If I were to be convinced that I was menstruating, pregnant, or claimed to have given birth to babies, those beliefs would be delusional. My mullerian duct system did not develop – I have no uterus or ovaries, and while I wish I did, that doesn’t make me delusional. A belief that I *am* a woman, even though I had a wollfian genital development, is not delusional, since it is based on the fact of my brain development.

We live in a society that expects two kinds of people – men, or women. There is no separate classification for those who are different. Many of us have sufficient identity with the sex opposite that we were assigned at birth, based on physiological structures in our brains, to be able to live in society in accordance with the way our brains developed. Others may well have a less-developed or differentiated brain structure, while still others may identity in such a way as to require that society recognize an “other” in addition to male or female.

The enactment of laws that protect us against job discrimination, discrimination in housing, insurance, and public accommodations (and yes, that includes bathrooms) is just. O’Leary panders to the fear-mongers and hate-mongers – and to the reparative therapists.

O’Leary uses his lies and deception to advance the idea that transgender people should not be entitled to reasonable accommodation under the law. He would rather impose his world-view on people it doesn't cover. Anyone who does not fit into that world view must be insane.

O’Leary claims to be writing the truth – but all I see in his article are lies. Perhaps he doesn’t believe he is lying – perhaps he is only delusional, after all.

He claims to be Catholic – and he may well be Catholic. After all, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t seem to understand sacred scripture as it relates to transsexual people. The current Pope Benedict doesn't comprehend the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, one would be expecting too much for the Pope to understand transsexuality.

I am appalled that some conservative Catholics have been at the forefront of the movement against human rights for my people. I am appalled that the Catholic hierarchy has seen fit to oppose civil marriage on a gender-neutral basis. O’Leary may well share in this lack of moral values. I would expect the “Cafeteria” Catholics out there, who have a well-developed moral sense sufficient to be able to discern the Truth, will reject the lies of O’Leary and his ilk (Paul McHugh, the eating-disorder specialist who heads the psychiatric department at Johns Hopkins comes to mind), much as they have rejected Church teachings on issues such as birth control, the treatment of women, and gay rights.

Bathrooms - An Ironic Experience at the State Capitol

Yesterday (Tuesday, April 21, 2009) I took a trip to the New York State Capitol in Albany to witness the Assembly debate and passage (for the second time in two years) of the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA, A5710/S2406) in that chamber.

The floor session was scheduled to begin at 3:30 PM, so I made sure I got myself a good seat in the Assembly gallery, which is accessed from a fourth-floor hallway in the State Capitol building. I took a look at the agenda, and realized that it might be some time before the bill came up for debate and a vote, so at about 3:45 PM, with a quorum not yet present, I decided to make a brief stop at the nearest restroom, which happened to be just on the other side of the metal detector and security staff at the entrance to the gallery.

I nodded to the security staffer in the dark suit and red buttoneer, went past the metal detector, and on my way to the stall passed by two older women who were on their way out. In passing, I noted that they might be Capitol cleaning ladies, wearing colorful crocheted patchwork smocks.

As I got into the stall, I started hearing knocking. With the bad acoustics, it seemed to me as if the knocking was coming through the wall to my left. Then I heard a man’s voice saying “hello, hello.”

After getting the necessary body functions taken care of and leaving the stall to wash my hands, I heard the continued knocking, and the man’s voice say, “you’re in the wrong bathroom.” At that point I realized the knocking and hallooing might be aimed at me. I looked around – I didn’t see any urinals in there, and I thought, and weren’t there a couple of older women just in here? And then I saw the security gentleman standing politely at the open bathroom door.

Anyway, at this point I stepped through to the anteroom and then out of the bathroom, and it turned out the knocking and “hallooing” had indeed been coming from the nice, respectful, Capitol security gentleman with the red buttoneer, who repeated the assertion that I had been in the wrong bathroom. I looked around at the glass sign above the door which clearly said “women” and then looked at the security man and told him, “No, that was the correct bathroom.”

His response was to say that “a couple of ladies” had complained. It must have been those cleaning staffers who were on their way out as I was entering.

Then he asked me, “Do you have I.D.?”

Now, I know that may have crossed the line – we don’t ask people for their I.D. when they use the bathroom. However, he was a Capitol security staffer in charge of the metal detector, and asking for I.D. is a permissible thing in connection with that process, though I hadn’t been asked for it when I passed through the metal detector. Regardless of whether he was entitled to see identity papers, I decided to take the easiest course, and opened my handbag, pulled out my driver’s license and handed it to him, with my as-yet-unwashed hands, to take a look for himself.

This was apparently satisfactory. So I asked, “Do you think I can go back in and wash my hands now?”

He had no problem with that.

I have never been confronted with this situation before, though I have heard of situations like it. There was that time a few years ago when I was on line at the Steak Escape fast food counter at the food court at the Palisade Center Mall, when I noticed a group of teens furtively whispering and alternately peering at me. One of them approached me to ask the time – and after I looked at my watch and gave it to him, he returned to the group to announce, “she’s a woman.” Apparently my voice passed muster.

I can just imagine what it might have been with the security staffer at the Capitol if I had not had my driver’s license corrected in accordance with New York DMV regulations – a situation that confronts many trans women who are early in transition, and have not yet gotten legal name changes and documentation in order.

I also thought of what the situation might have been like had the security staffer entered the ladies’ room to pound on the stall door and demand my immediate egress. That would have been frightening and upsetting, and I would have made a rather indignant and immediate protest and complaint. As it was, the situation was only mildly annoying.

I thought of just how ironic this was, being “clocked” by a couple of Capitol cleaning ladies who hadn’t even spoken to me, on the very day the Assembly was about to consider passing GENDA again.

And, of course, this entire experience turned out to be an ironic preface to the floor discussion between Assemblymember Gottfried and a Republican member whose name sounded to me like “Condon” (but there is apparently not a “Condon” in the Assembly)[ADDED NOTE: According to Caprice Bellefleur, who was watching the proceedings on television, the Republican member with the questions was Assemblymember Conte, who ended up voting for the bill - so it seems as if this Assemblymember was satisfied with Assemblymember Gottfried's explanations on the floor.], which predictably turned to the usual but politely-stated outrage over the so-called “bathroom issue.”

The “bathroom issue” seems to be based on the bogeyman that the law would encourage crossdressed male sexual predators to be lurking in bathrooms waiting to pounce on women. GENDA would not protect sexual predators, even if they disguise themselves.

However, GENDA would protect that poor early-transitioner who doesn’t have her I.D. in order from being barred from the correct bathroom.

The idea that innocent transgendered and transsexual women should be barred from the appropriate public rest rooms because cisgendered women might feel “uncomfortable” is reminiscent of the policy of racial segregation once practiced in the American South.

The comfort level of white women was “protected.” They were "safe" from having to share the use of toilet seats that were also used by women of color. In many places, there were three facilities – Women, Men, Colored. One might presume that “colored” men and women were supposed to have no problem sharing the same toilets – I guess African-American women were expected to deal with men the seat left up in public facilities, while white women only had to worry about other white women peeing on the seat.) Their segregated white childen were “protected” from exposure to African-American kids in the classroom. In hotels and restaurants, their only contact with African-Americans was with menial cleaning and kitchen staff, and perhaps entertainers, but they were assured that they would be sleeping on sheets that were not shared with African Americans (perhaps not thinking of the fact that the laundress and the maid had at least touched these items). Of course, there was always the shared bus, but even that was separated based on who could sit where.

My own discomfiture is with these ostensibly cissexual cleaning ladies (that’s what they looked like, anyway, with their crochet-patchwork smocks – they certainly weren’t dressed like Capitol professional or office staff – they looked more like the shabbily-dressed denizens of seedy bingo parlors) thinking their feeling of “uncomfortability” with transsexual women (or women they “clock” as transsexual or transgender women, who might just be butch-looking cissexual women, or cissexual women exhibiting symptoms of Poly-Cystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS)) entitles them to bar people like me from using the correct public restroom.

If they feel that uncomfortable, I welcome them to “hold it” until they get to the privacy of their own homes. Their comfort level issue should not force me out of an appropriate public restroom. Of course, if they were educated on the issues, they might have a lessened sense of discomfort. They’re not being asked to share the ladies’ room with men, after all.

I actually felt bad for the security staffer – once he had the complaint, he felt it appropriate to use his position of apparent authority to make me prove my entitlement to use the bathroom facility near his security station. I doubt that he was aware of any guidelines as to how to approach this situation, or whether he had the necessary jurisdiction to make the inquiry. And I am sure that he felt terribly uncomfortable about the entire situation, especially after he reviewed my driver’s license to see the big capital “F” on it.

Perhaps he was unaware that the City of Albany already has an appropriate local law protecting transgender people from discrimination like this. I wonder whether there is some policy that the Capitol, being state property, is exempt from the application of local anti-discrimination law, or whether the issue has been raised.

I am not sure who supervises the cleaning personnel (or Capitol staff, if that’s what those two women were). My best guess with regard to the security gentleman, since he was not a uniformed state trooper, is that he is probably a civilian State Police security screening technician associated with the State Police Security Services Unit.

In any event, it might not be a bad idea for some basic sensitivity education to be provided so that gaffes like this don’t happen in the future. I am going to bring this quietly to the attention of State Senator Tom Duane, whose office is just a little way down the hall from the bathroom in question, and trust the good senator to know exactly what to do and who to contact.

Next week is Equality and Justice Day – and there will be hundreds of trans people in Albany, in the throng of over 1,600 people expected to be there for GENDA, Dignity for All Students, and Marriage. I’d hate to see situations occurring where someone without the right documentation gets barred from the appropriate bathroom.

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.

Start a Dialogue? Yes, we CAN!

Now that Rev. Rick Warren has delivered his invocation at the Obama inauguration, perhaps we can start to focus on how we’re going to be advancing the cause of gaining recognition of equal civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people under federal law.

For those who don’t think we should be ready to move forward, ready, let’s recap the situation:

Rick Warren is the pastor of the Saddleback Church, an evangelical mega-congregation in Lake Forest, California, and is the author of a best-selling book, The Purpose Driven Life.

His notoriety in LGBT circles peaked when, after having equated same-sex marriage with incest, pedophilia and polygamy (though it’s pretty obvious to me that the equivalency of these things in his mind may charitably be limited to “these are things Rick doesn’t equate with marriage”), he was invited by the Obama people to deliver the invocation at the Inaugural.

Here is what he said at the time, in an interview:

Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

Rick Warren: Oh I do.

If it was merely a matter of drawing a line from Point A to Point B, it might have been what Joe Solmonese of HRC hysterically called “a punch in the gut.” Or it might not.


There was was more to it – there was a point in the presidential campaign at which Barack Obama and John McCain appeared to speak at the Saddleback Church, and Rick Warren endured much criticism from hard core Right Wing Christianists for allowing Obama to speak.

I’ll let singer-songwriter Melissa Etheridge have the floor now – I’ve said and written from a similar viewpoint, but I think I’ll give the platform to her. She actually had a chance to talk to Warren. Here is what she says about her meeting:

"On the day of the [Muslim Public Affairs Council ] conference [at which Rick Warren was the guest speaker] I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn’t sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with Proposition 8 because he didn’t want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids. He told me of his wife’s struggle with breast cancer just a year before mine. When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future.”

After her meeting, Melissa Etheridge bravely went forth with her message of peace and reconciliation:

"I believe I understand Obama's choice here. I believe that Barack Obama wants to be the President of the entire United States. Pastor Rick Warren reached out to him, brought him into his church during the campaign, which outraged many members of his church. Yet he reaches across and I think this is Obama reaching back and going, 'I think we can disagree on things, yet we can still all move forward. We need to get past our differences.' And I just want to make sure that as the liberals and progressives and Democrats or whatever you want to call us are moving into this new time with this new president do not say that they, the Evangelicals who say such horrible things about gays, they have to stay over here and we're not going to let them in. That makes us no better than the last administration."

After hearing the actual words Warren used, Melissa continues:

"Just because he (compares gays to incest or polygamy) does not mean I have to not speak to him, or don't ever want to be in his company. We had a crazy experience at the Muslim Public Affairs Council conference...We met, we spoke. He's a fine person...He said he was trying to make the definition of marriage not change, not necessarily saying that gays are pedophiles or any of that stuff. One can draw whatever they want from that. This is what he told me."

Now, I am going to reproduce the Rick Warren invocation here, highlighting what may be words of conciliation:

Let us pray.

Almighty God, our father, everything we see and everything we can't see exists because of you alone. It all comes from you, it all belongs to you. It all exists for your glory. History is your story.

The Scripture tells us Hear, oh Israel, the Lord is our God; the Lord is one. And you are the compassionate and merciful one. And you are loving to everyone you have made.

Now today we rejoice not only in America's peaceful transfer of power for the 44th time. We celebrate a hinge-point of history with the inauguration of our first African-American president of the United States.

We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where the son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership.

And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in Heaven.

Give to our new president, Barack Obama, the wisdom to lead us with humility, the courage to lead us with integrity, the compassion to lead us with generosity. Bless and protect him, his family, Vice President Biden, the Cabinet, and every one of our freely elected leaders.

Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race or religion or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all.

When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you, forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone, forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the Earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us.

And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ.

Help us to share, to serve and to seek the common good of all.

May all people of good will today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet. And may we never forget that one day all nations and all people will stand accountable before you.

We now commit our new president and his wife, Michelle, and his daughters, Malia and Sasha, into your loving care.

I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus, Jesus (hay-SOOS), who taught us to pray, Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.

Amen.

I underlined the parts of the prayer that seem to be showing a conciliatoty attitude. Certainly invoking the idea of a loving God who loves all his creation (even gay and trans people) is a good start.

Invoking the idea that as Americans, we must be dedicated and committed to "freedom and justice for all" doesn't seem to close the door on civil marriage for same-sex couples.

And if I want to be charitable (and why shouldn’t I be?), I would put a very positive spin on his “When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the Earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us.”

Of course, this last sentiment might be in accord with one of the schizophrenic sections of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church with respect to the treatment of gay people:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[140] tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."[141] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Now, aside from the catechism being totally incorrect about Sacred Scripture and natural law in relation to “homosexual acts” in Paragraph 2357, leading to the false conclusion that such “acts” cannot be approved, the next section, with regard to the treatment of gay people, says “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

Now, I know Rick Warren isn’t Catholic, but perhaps he’s suffering from the same sort of schizophrenic “I want to treat gay people with compassion, but I can’t condone gay marriage or human rights laws” theology that grips the Catholic hierarchy.

I think that unlike those evangelicals who believe that “homosexuality is a choice” Warren may be reachable on the theological side. (Alas, with the Catholic hierarchy, the encrustations of mistaken “tradition” keep the Church on a wrong course.)

Let’s look at Warren’s prayer asking for forgiveness for failing to treat “our fellow human beings and all the earth” with the respect we deserve as a start.

On the other hand, it may not be so far removed from the Pope’s 2008 Christmas Greeting to the Curia and Prelature referred to in my last post. The key is to discern what Pastor Warren might mean, regarding the LGBT community, to be the respect that we “deserve.”


I think that Pastor Warren, despite being “on the other side” on the marriage issue, may have a more open mind on the subject than he gets credit for when things are painted in pure black-white, good-evil terms. And he isn’t encrusted with as many barnacles of “tradition” as the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

We have to remember, too, that President Barack Obama, while certainly better on LGBT issues than anyone who has ever been President of the United States, still himself falls short of endorsing full equal civil rights for our community. There is a need for dialogue with the Administration as much as there is a need to dialogue with those with whom we have a fundamental disagreement.

The immediate and marked change on the White House website, including us under Civil Rights in the Administration’s agenda, is a huge step. The inclusion of “gender identity and expression” for the first time in the anti-discrimination hiring policy of this administration, in addition to the inclusion of sexual orientation (first added by President Clinton), is also monumental.

We have hope. With this Administration, we have a chance to change minds – and the opportunity is also clear that we must engage those who oppose the recognition of our rights with clearly articulated arguments from all perspectives. We do have the Judaeo-Christian ideological high ground, as well as the constitutional high ground, as well as the critical underpinning of the basic underlying rational philosophy under which the United States was created. It is only a matter of articulating these things in a way in which reasonable opponents can understand.

There may well be a basic disconnect between our understanding and that of our opponents. We can look at the same constitution, and the same sacred scripture, and the same philosophical writing, and come to such an amazingly and diametrically opposed conclusion.

If we can come to the point where we can resolve this underlying disconnection, I believe that we will find much more support in unanticipated places – support we can never find if we do not engage in the conversation. We may not have to convince, we may only have to go so far as to get the opposition to realize that “reasonable minds may differ” in order to defuse the opposition. After all, America is founded on the idea of respect, tolerance and free exercise for the religious beliefs of others as well as ourselves. If we can convince Christianists that their beliefs are not the only valid Judaeo-Christian understanding on our issues, they might well be willing to go the distance with regard to civil marriage – especially when they come to the realization that there would be no infringement of their right to refuse to sanctify a marriage that does not follow their interpretation of scripture.

Yes, we CAN!

Why Governor David Paterson "gets it" (and an afterthought as to how he doesn't)

Ever since I met New York Governor David Paterson some years ago when he was the New York State Senate minority leader, I knew that he "got it" about the need for legal recognition of transgender rights under the state human rights laws.

Just yesterday (Thursday, July 17, 2008), Governor Paterson gave a speech to attendees at the national convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (N.A.A.C.P.) held in Cincinnati, Ohio. In an interview given after the speech, he indirectly explained the context of how he came to this understanding, as he is quoted in the New York Times article cited above:

Governor Paterson’s views on discrimination have been shaped by the fact that he is both black and legally blind. He said one of the most painful experiences he had with discrimination came from a black businessman who refused to hire him because of his blindness.

"That’s when I realized this is kind of a universal problem that exists, this fear of the unknown, fear of others displaying difference," he said.

[citation: Paterson, at N.A.A.C.P., Warns of Racism’s Power, by Jeremy W. Peters, New York Times, published Friday July 18, 2008]

The impact of this insight is precisely the reason Governor Paterson has embraced and supported the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), the Dignity for All Students Act (DASA) and the Dignity for All Youth Act (DAYA), as well as the bill to make New York’s Marriage laws completely gender-neutral.

People who are transgendered, or gay, experience discrimination for the same reason that African-Americans still experience discrimination – it’s this, as he put it, "fear of the unknown, fear of others displaying difference."

It’s the reason a major title insurance company fired me as its chief underwriting counsel in January 2000. Just before Thanksgiving 1999, on my own time and after work, I testified at a public hearing, imploring Westchester County legislators to restore language that would have better clarified coverage for transgender people to the then-proposed county human rights bill. My testimony was televised on local and regional news, some lawyer in Long Island realized exactly who I was and called the company headquarters in Texas and asked "what kind of pervert do you have working for you?"

It took two board meetings, one for the national company and one for the New York subsidiary, but despite an excellent history of job performance, I became persona non grata at that company because by being "different" I sparked that visceral and instinctual "fear of the unknown" in the hearts of the company’s management – the same management that only a few months earlier was effusively praising my work.

In the meantime, I am hoping Governor Paterson issues an Executive Order some time soon that provides employment protection to transgender people in state employment - this is something the governor can do without waiting for the legislature. It's something trans community activists and allies were working on obtaining from former governor Eliot Spitzer's administration before he resigned. Now that the legislative session is over, perhaps Governor Paterson will be able to turn his attention to this bit of work.

Afterthought: During his N.A.A.C.P. convention speech, Governor Paterson took the time to condemn the recent satirical cover illustration from The New Yorker magazine, that depicted Senator and presidential Candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle, as militant radicals seeking to destroy the United States. He called it "one of the most malignant, vicious covers of a magazine I have ever seen."

I wouldn’t condemn the magazine for running the cover – I know the magazine’s purpose was to show just how malignant and vicious the lies, innuendoes and false rumors some conservative Republicans have been spreading about Senator Obama and his wife – things like how he is supposedly a Muslim extremist, or that their "fist bump" is some kind of black radical secret handshake, or that the Senator was educated in a "madrassas" school (depicted as a fundamentalist Muslim school the teaches radical Islamost "Jihad against America" propaganda as part of its interpretation of the Holy Qu’ran, its only textbook).

By printing the cover, the magazine exposed the vicious lies to the light of day as exactly how ridiculous these are – and the reaction the cover has inspired is exactly the reaction intended by The New Yorker – except I think The New Yorker editors expected more sophisticated readers to understand that the cover itself, by being so "over the top" was intended as satire.

Governor Paterson is not alone in his condemnation of the magazine cover.

The reaction to the New Yorker cover is reminiscent of the reaction of abhorrence that another famous satire, a 1729 essay by Jonathan Swift, entitled A Modest Proposal, once evoked.

As with the cartoon cover, Swift had the experience of having some, including some rather sophisticated and intelligent people, take his satire seriously and react with abhorrence.

So in this instance, I’ll part with Governor Paterson, but only slightly, and condemn the malicious and repugnant lies that were satirized by the magazine cover, rather than the cover itself.