Speaking at Heritage of Pride Rally: and looking back at history

No, you won't find me on the program, but Noah Lewis from Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund (TLDEF) was on the program, and graciously shared his four minute time slot with Patricia Harrington, one of the other plaintiffs in the birth certificate lawsuits, and me.

In my brief comments, I looked to the history of the New York City Pride Rally, particularly at a dark chapter eleven years ago when Jim Fouratt, a Stonewall veteran and Radical Faerie, used his time on the podium as a featured speaker to share his discredited views about transgender women, and then turned to the present, looking forward to the day when the laws and regulations actually catch up with the science.

Here are my prepared remarks:

Remarks by Joann Prinzivalli at Heritage of Pride Rally, June 18, 2011

Eleven years ago today, at the Pride Rally in Bryant Park, the featured speaker, a stonewall veteran, claimed that transgender women are only “gay men in denial” - those of us in attendance who knew better than that turned our backs on that speaker.

Transgender women, like me, never really were men even if we spend part of our lives trying to fit into societal expectations.

Having the government fix the birth certificate regulations to recognize the reality that we are different, and having my birth certificate corrected, will go a long way toward erasing the prejudice that comes from ignorance of the biological reality that scientific study has discovered over just the past 17 years.

While I started the lawsuit in 2009 on my own, and obtained a victory against the City on its motion to dismiss the case, I am grateful to TLDEF, and to Noah Lewis and the other lawyers who are moving the lawsuit forward.

My piece lasted about 40 seconds - but I thought it important to look back to the history.

But the history of the relationship of trans rights to the New York City Pride Rally has a longer, darker history.

In my brief remarks, I did not have the opportunity to go back all that way to 1973, when the late Sylvia Rivera was pulled off the stage at the New York City Pride Rally when she tried to speak.

According to one account of this episode, found in Martin Duberman’s book Stonewall:

“During the 1973 gay pride rally in Washington Square Park, Jen O’Leary of GAA [Gay Activists Alliance] publicly denounced Rivera for 'parodying” womanhood.' Lesbian Feminist Liberation passed out flyers opposing the ‘female impersonators.’”

According to one report, “Sylvia Rivera Talk at LGMNY (June 2001)” (transcript by Lauren Galarza and Lawrence La Fountain-Stokes) Sylvia, herself, recalling the incident, shared the following:

“I had to fight my way up on that stage and literally, people I called my comrades in the movement literally beat the shit out of me.”

Contrast that to what happened to Jim Fouratt in 2000 - when a large number of people, aware of his proposed comments, attended to portest by silently turning our backs on him during his speech.

And then yesterday, we made it to the stage - no one tried to pull us off. No one was calling us "female impersonators" or "gay men in denial." No one was denying our legitimacy.

We have a duty to future generations, to use whatever means are available to help the arc of history bend toward justice.

We have to educate, advocate, demonstrate, legislate, litigate - we must speak truth to power and pray that power will be used with love.

I'd like to think that somewhere, if there is a heaven, Sylvia is smiling today, as the work toward justice for the trans community continues.

Marriage v. Civil Unions, with a postscript on Trans Rights

On the issue of marriage v. civil unions – “separate but equal" is still as bad an idea as it was during the period in which the United States permitted racial segregation with that as the basis), I'd like to examine the whole "civil union" as an alternative to "marriage" basis.

The ancient Romans used a term matrimonium to deal with the marriage concept of caring for children (the first part of the word comes from mater - the Latin word for "mother").

They had a separate concept of connubium (a word from which the English term "nuptial" emerges) that dealt with the rules as to who one could marry. In the early Roman Republic, patricians and plebeians could not intermarry - they did not have the right of connubium with each other, regardless of whether there would be children in a relationship.

Opponents of marriage fairness, whether they are in complete opposition, or merely want to create a separate legal status for gays, are possibly confusing matrimonium with connubium.

The right to marry is an issue of connubium - and the civil term "marriage" does not have to rerefer to a combination of matrimonium and connubium. (And with marriage being permitted between opposite-sex octogenarians and infertile (and other) couples who might not have the desire to raise children, the connubium issue - who may marry whom, is paramount.

It could easily be argued that the state is primarily concerned with the connubium aspect of marriage with marriage equality bills.

Even though the matrimonium aspect is one that would more often affect opposite-sex couples because of the fact that babies often (but not always) come as the result of heterosexual sexual encounters, matrimonium also involves caring for and nurturing children – something that studies have shown that gay and lesbian couples can do as well as, if not better than, heterosexual couples.

Matrimonium is the part of the marriage equation that Roman Catholics celebrate as a Sacrament of Holy Matrimony." For Catholics, the *sacramental* aspect is the matrimonium - at the same time, the Church recognized the connubium aspect for those who, in addition to the sacrament, wish to celebrate a Nuptial Mass.

There is nothing in any pending bill for marriage equality, marriage fairness, or the right to marry, that has any negative or deleterious impact, on the matrimonium aspect of marriage. In fact, what marriage equality bills do is enhance matrimonium to benefit children who live in households in which the parents are a same-sex couple.

This will have a particularly great impact on African-American and Latina lesbian couples, who are more likely to be raising children from previous relationships, than any other demographic. (One can argue that opposition to marriage fairness is racist, and onewould be right, in that context).

Religious-based opposition to civil marriage equality is absurd – perhaps a slogan should be made of "Marriage Rights for all, not Marriage Rites for all" with a crucifix for the central T in Rites. Despite rhetoric coming from some circles, there is no requirement that religions that do not accept marriage except between members of an opposite-sex couple, would be forced to perform or sacramentalize same-sex unions.

Still, for those religions that would wish to celebrate marriages for same-sex couples, a sacramental rite for same-sex marriages (or for octogenarians or infertile couples) would not have to include aspects that relate to matrimonium - (I mention marriages for opposite-sex octogenarians way past their child-bearing years in this context - this would avoid the necessity for some of the questions relating to bearing children - I have seen Catholic ceremonies for the elderly in which the question is always asked.) Of course, if the couple does have existing children (whether related by blood or adoption to one or both of the parties), plan to adopt, or have plans for surrogacy or medical procedures ranging from artificial insemination to embryo implantation, a celebration of the matrimonium aspect would be just as welcome as it would be

As I have mentioned, from the *civil* side in the marriage equality bills, we're talking mostly about connubium - the right to marry. The matrimonium comes in only if there are children involved, wheher pre-existing, later adopted, or in the case of pre-menopausal lesbians, even naturally born (though perhaps not "naturally" conceived, though I would not refer to artificial insemination or other fertility treatment as "unnatural.")

Using a different term for the connubium of same-sex couples than that used for the connubium of opposite-sex couples is a bad idea.

Call it marriage. Period. The focus is on the connubium - and that is the *only* change that marriage equality laws make. Matrimonium does not change - if there are or will be children, than the family created by marriage, regardless of the gender of the couple, will benefit the children.

For Roamn Catholic thrologians, one might find support for the idea in an unexpected place – a 1930 Papal encyclical from Pius XI, that, while it does put primacy on matrimonium, does place a lot of value in other aspects of marriage - this encyclical could actually be rewritten with very few changes to incorporate Catholic theological teachings that could be applied to same-sex couples as well.

Casti Connubii is the name of the encyclical.

Here is an excerpt, from Paragraphs 24 and 25:

24. This mutual molding of [husband and wife] spouses, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof.

25. By this same love it is necessary that all the other rights and duties of the marriage state be regulated as [the words of the Apostle: "Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband,"] not just a 50-50 proposition, but as each spouse giving 100% to the other, to express not only a law of justice but of charity.

NOTE: [Bracketed] portions to be deleted, Italicized portions are my gender-neutral replacements.

It's *possible* that one day, ancient texts will be rethought - after all, even our Declaration of Independence and other foundational documents are sexist - with the declaration that "all men are created equal" - at a time when married women were considered as "civilly dead" as any convicted felon, since in marriage under the common law, "the two become one and that one is the husband."

Today, we read men in that document as encompassing both men and women. Perhaps the day will come when old documents that relate to sex-specific marriage roles can be recast and reunderstood in a gender-neutral manner.

Many states have made their marriage and domestic relations laws largely gender neutral, even if many have not yet taken the final step of making the connubium also gender-neutral.

New York State is once again on the brink of recognizing the broadening of connubium to make it gender neutral.

Postscript: (Meanwhile in New York, the transgender community languishes, desperately awaiting Senate passage of the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) – a bill which would serve to “catch up” the trans community on the issues of hate crimes (passed without us in 1999), and on human rights (passed without us in December 2002). GENDA passed in the Assembly this year one day before the Assembly passed the Marriage bill. While the Senate should take GENDA up immediately before marriage, that depends on the Republican leadership of the Senate, as to whether one, both, or neither bill will come up for a vote.

While making marriage laws gender neutral is a positive step for the trans and intersex communities as well as the members of the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities, the failure to enact GENDA will remain an indictment against the members of the legislature, and the governor, for not following through on this vital bill as well.)

When marriage equality comes to New York, and I fervently hope it does, if GENDA is not also passed, my celebration will be somewhat muted. Will the ardent advocates of marriage turn to help pass GENDA? Or will they disappear? And if GENDA does not get a Senate vote - when redistricting come in 2012, it would be my fervent hope that it would result in the election of 35 or 36 Democrats to the Senate - because once that happens, there will be no excuses left.

My June 14, 2011 Letter to Dean Skelos on GENDA

The New York Transgender Rights Organization
Joann Prinzivalli, State Director


June 14, 2011

The Honorable Dean G. Skelos By FAX to 518-426-6950
Legislative Office Building, Room 909 Page 1 of pages
Albany, NY 12247
United States



Re: The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA)
S 2873 (Duane, et al.)/A5039 (Gottfried, et al.)

Dear Senator Skelos:

The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) (S2873/A5039) just today passed in the Assembly for the fourth time.

I am writing to urge you to put this bill to the floor for a vote. I understand that you can put it through Rules and get it to the floor that way.

I am saddened by listening to some of the Assembly debate – some Republican assemblymembers have an understanding of the meaning of the bill to protect “a man who might one day decide he feels like a woman, and immediately start using the women’s restroom” or might in some way be used to protect sexual predators. I assure you that this bill would not provide any protection for a voyeur or any other male sexual predator who might want to wander into a women’s restroom or locker room.

When I wrote the first draft of the bill in December 2002 in the week after the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act was passed without an amendment to include language specifically protecting transgender people, I made sure I thoroughly researched the evolution of the language used in various local and state ordinances. I am annexing to this letter for your reference the result of that research.

The annexed research also provides a survey of local law enactments in New York State that cover transgender human rights: New York City has had such protections in place since 2002, and more primitive language was adopted in Suffolk County and the City of Rochester since 2001. While Westchester County had the first introduction in 1999, a fully trans-inclusive human rights ordinance was not adopted there until 2009.

The need for GENDA cannot be exaggerated. A recent national study shows that transgender people are seriously disadvantaged in areas of employment, housing, public accommodations, etc. This study, entitled Injustice at Every Turn can be found at:

http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/ntds
and the full report iiself can be accessed at the following URL:

http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf

I urge you to read this full report – it is an eye opener.

Then there are the economic costs of not passing GENDA. A Massachusetts study can be accessed at the Williams Institute website, www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute. While it does not directly deal with New York, the adverse economic effects on New York State incurred by not passing GENDA are likely to be similar. I am sure that Senator Ball wants to do what he can to reduce costs and increasing revenue to the state without increasing taxes, and passing GENDA is actually one small way of doing that. (As an aside, the economic benefits of passing the marriage equality bill should not be underestimated. Millions of dollars are lost by new York State every year, with lesbian and gay couples opting to get married in Canada, Vermont, Massachusetts or Connecticut –and this actually adversely affects marriage-related businesses in New York State.)

While religious faith should not adversely impact human rights, I am terribly saddened by opposition to GENDA from New York State’s Roman Catholic bishops, and from the Rev. Duane Motley and his organizations, who apparently do not understand that sacred scripture includes Isaiah 56, Matthew 19:12, and Acts 8, all of which relate to transgender people.

However, GENDA would not adversely impact the Catholic Church or other churches, which would not have to ordain transgender people or solemnize marriages in which a transgender individual is a party. Existing human rights law has sufficient exemptions so that the Church can continue to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and GENDA would not provide any greater coverage for transgender people than is provided to any other protected class.

The nature of transgender people is also misunderstood by many, including people like Rev. Motley. In 1965, a blue ribbon medical commission in New York City determined that transgender people are delusional members of their initially-assigned sex for whom any medical or surgical treatment is merely palliative. This is the kind of thinking that is at the root of much opposition –but it is as outdated as the geocentric cosmological theory or the classification of whales as fish.

Much has been learned in scientific studies between 1995 and the present. The current scientific understanding of transgender people is that we are developmentally different, and do not belong to that initially-assigned sex. There are genetic predispositions that have been found for the embryonic development in which the brain develops along one gendered path, while the genital ducts develop along the other. I am also annexing to this letter a survey of a number of scientific studies that reflect the recent developments in the understanding of transgender people.

I urge you to take the evidence I have provided into consideration and allow this bill top go to a vote – you have an opportunity to stand on the right side of history and favor justice, fairness and equality for all by moving this bill.

Sincerely,


Joann Prinzivalli
State Director’
New York Transgender Rights Organization

JP:ns
Encs
cc: Hon. State Senator Tom Duane
Eric Bottcher (by e-mail)
Christopher Argyros (by email)
Colin Casey (by email)


---



- RESOURCES -

A DISCUSSION OF THE LEGISLATIVE SOURCES FOR
DEFINITIONAL LANGUAGE USED IN
THE GENDER EXPRESSION NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT;
AND
A SURVEY OF LOCAL LAW ENACTMENTS IN NEW YORK STATE
THAT PROTECT TRANSGENDER PEOPLE

By Joann Prinzivalli, State Director, New York Transgender Rights Organization
You ask about the source for the term "Gender Identity and Expression" as used in GENDA (The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act):
Current bill number S 2873 (Duane, et al.)/A5039 (Gottfried, et al.)

The proposed definitional language for "gender identity and expression" is found in Section 3 of the bill, which reads as follows:

S 3.

Section 292 of the executive law is amended by adding a new subdivision 34 to read as follows:
34. THE TERM "GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION" MEANS HAVING OR BEING PERCEIVED AS HAVING A GENDER IDENTITY, SELF-IMAGE, APPEARANCE, BEHAVIOR OR EXPRESSION WHETHER OR NOT THAT GENDER IDENTITY, SELF-IMAGE, APPEAR ANCE, BEHAVIOR OR EXPRESSION IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT TRADITIONALLY ASSO CIATED WITH THE SEX ASSIGNED TO THAT PERSON AT BIRTH.


When I wrote the first draft of the GENDA bill in December 2002, I was cognizant of the language then proposed for a similar amendment to the New York City Human Rights Law, (Local Law 3 of 2002, passed as Intro 24 in April 2002), and I was aware of the history of the adoption of housing, employment and human rights laws that cover transgender and gender-different people since 1995. An excellent resource for this is "Transgender Equality," published by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) available online at

http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/transeq.pdf?docID=1302

(I must disclose that I am cited in footnote 74 in this resource.)

While working on the first GENDA draft in December 2002, I took the history of the development of human rights law language over the years very seriously. The fact that half the population of the state was already covered by a well-drafted and inclusive ordinance, made it fairly easy for me to choose the language adopted by new York City earlier that year.

In the 1980's, New York City changed its human rights law - the word "sex" was replaced by the word "gender." it is believed that this change may have been an early attempt to broaden the protected class, but all it did was make the definitions seem more vague. See, e.g., Maffei v. Kolaeton Industry, Inc. 164 Misc. 2d 547; 626 N.Y.S.2d 391 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. 1995), which broadly interpreted the change.


The language of the New York City Human Rights Law definition of gender as adopted in 2002, now includes "gender identity and expression:

23. The term “gender” shall include actual or perceived sex and shall also include a person’s gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth.

The New York City language was adapted from a statutory formula first adopted at the state level by the State of Rhode Island in 2001.

2001 - H 5920 Substitute A, amending Chapter 34-37 of the Rhode Island General Laws

34-37-2.3. Right to equal housing opportunities -- Gender identity or expression. -- Whenever in this chapter there shall appear the words "sexual orientation" there shall be inserted immediately thereafter the words "gender identity or expression."

34-37-3. Definitions -- When used in this chapter:
. . .
(17) The term "gender identity or expression" includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression; whether or not that gender identity, gender-related self image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.

Prior to the use of the formulation in Rhode Island, legislation to protect the human rights of transgender and gender-different people used various formulas. It was not until the 1990's that the term "transgender" began to be used to describe transsexual and other gender-different people. The earliest ordinance from 1975 was enacted in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and amended that City's human rights law definition of "affectional preference" (what we would today call "sexual orientation"), to include "having or projecting a self-image not associated with one’s biological maleness or one’s biological femaleness."

In 1986, Seattle used the terms "transsexuality and transvestism." In 1999, based on a recommendation from the City of Seattle Commission on Sexual Minorities recommended an amendment to make the law "more accurate, inclusive, and more easily administered."

The language adopted in Seattle may be the first use of language that was adopted at a statewide level in Rhode Island. The Seattle language defined: " ‘gender identity’ means having an identity, expression, or physical characteristics not traditionally associated with one’s biological sex or one’s sex at birth, including transsexual, transvestite and transgendered, and including a person’s attitudes, preferences, beliefs and practices pertaining thereto."

One can see that this Seattle language can be related back to that first Minneapolis enactment, which was the source of the use of the term "self-image" in current definitional formulae.

While there are other inclusive formulas out there, since the adoption of language similar to the Seattle or Rhode Island Language in New York City in 2002, all county and local ordinances adopted in New York State have followed the New York City formulation with slight variations.

The quickly put together but nearly comprehensive survey of the human rights ordinances adopted (and proposed) in counties and municipalities in New York State that follows, indicates that the definitional formula used in the New York City human rights law has held up in later statutory enactments. In the two or three cases that predate the New York City amended ordinance, different language was used. Items are presented in reverse chronological order:

(Possible) Pending legislation NOTE: (This may have been re-introduced for 2011):
Albany CountyLocal Law K of 2009
Introduced 11/9/2009
Section 3.11.
11. The term “gender” shall include actual or perceived sex and shall include a person's gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth.
(Note: My last information on this bill is that it was on the agenda of the Albany County Audit and Finance Committee for March 27, 2010

Laws already adopted:

Westchester County –
April 13, 2009, Human Rights Law amended by unanimous bipartisan vote 16-0;
April 2008 Fair Housing Law enacted

The Westchester County Human Rights Law as amended by Local Law 4 of 2009 on April 13, 2009, and the Westchester County Fair Housing Law adopted in 2008 (Local Law 4 of 2008), also use the identical definition, which in Westchester County is one of the sub-definitions of "gender" which is also defined as "the physiological or psychological characteristics

From the Westchester County Fair Housing Law (Local Law 4 of 2008)

L.L. No. 4-2008

Section 700.20 Definitions
. . .
G. Gender shall mean:
1. The physiological and psychological characteristics of being a male or female; and
2. Gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not such gender identity, self image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth.

The language from the Westchester human rights law:

700.02 Definitions.
. . .
9. Gender means:

a. The physiological and psychological characteristics of being a male or female; and

b. gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not such gender identity, self image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth.

2008
City of Binghamton Human Rights Law (Local Law 008-001 (adopted 12/15/2008),
Section 45-3(5):

45-3
. . .

5. "Gender Identity or expression" shall mean having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth.


2006
Town of Rhinebeck (policy)
Employment Non-Discrimination policy adopted by Town Board of the Town of Rhinebeck, Decemebr 11, 2006, resolution increasing classifications covered under Rhinebeck’s non-discrimination policy to include “gender-identity or expression” and“ sexual orientation”
§902 of the Employee Handbook was amended to include:

d. The term “Gender Identity or Expression” shall mean having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex associated with that person at birth.”

duly passed by 5-0 vote of the Town Board at a regular meeting held on December 11, 2006.

2004
Tompkins County
Tompkins County, Chapter 92, Anti-Discrimination Local Law No. 6-1991, as amended by Local Law No. 1-2004 Chapter 92 of the Laws of Tompkins County § 92-3 - vote of 11 to 4

§ 92-3

GENDER IDENTITY AND EXPRESSION
A person's actual or perceived gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, gender-related behavioral or physical characteristics, or gender-related expression, whether or not that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, gender-related behavioral or physical characteristics, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex assigned at birth. This shall include but not be limited to:
A. Transsexuals in all stages of transition, including preoperative, postoperative and persons living in a gender other than their birth sex;
B. Persons (including cross-dressers) whose gender expression occasionally differs from their birth sex; and
C. Intersexed persons born with anatomy or physiology that includes medical characteristics of both male and female whose sex was assigned at birth and who sometimes manifest physical characteristics, expressions or identity that differs from the sex assigned.

2003
City of Ithaca
Adopted July 9, 2003

§ 215-2. Definitions
When used in this article:
. . .
11. The term “gender” shall include actual or perceived sex and shall also include a
person’s gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or
not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different
from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth.


2002 (for Anti-Discrimination Law, and 2006 for Fair Housing)
City of Buffalo
Part II Chapter 154 of the City Code of the City of Buffalo

Article III Antidiscrimination Law
[Adopted 9-21-1999, effective 10-4-1999; amended in its entirety 9-17-2002, effective 9-30-2002]

§ 154-9. Definitions
. . .
GENDER IDENTITY AND EXPRESSION
Includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, self-image, appearance, expression or behavior, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, expression or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.

Article IV Fair Housing Law
[Adopted 5-2-2006, effective 5-17-2006]

§ 154-13 Definitions
. . .
GENDER IDENTITY AND EXPRESSION
Include a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, self-image, appearance, expression or behavior, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, expression or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.

New York City
Intro 24 of 2002, passed in April 2002, amended subsection 23 of the Definitions section of the New York City Human Rights Law, and was the first use in New York State of "gender identity and expression” and the definition used was similar to that first used in the State of Rhode Island in 2001:

§ 8-102 Definitions. When used in this chapter:
23. The term “gender” shall include actual or perceived sex and shall also include a person’s gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth.


Earlier enactments:

2001
Suffolk County
§ 89-13 of Suffolk County's Local Law No. 14-2001

RESOLUTION NO. 802 - 2001, ADOPTING LOCAL LAW NO. 14 - 2001, A LOCAL LAW TO STRENGTHEN AND IMPLEMENT APPLICATION OF COUNTY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING

Section 2. Definitions.
G.) The term “gender” shall mean both the biological and social characteristics of being female or male.

Adopted August 18, 2001; Approved by Suffolk County Executibve Robert J. Gaffney September 20, 2001(after a public hearing Sept. 10, 2001); Filed with the Secretary of State on October 5, 2001 (Effective Date)

City of Rochester
General Ordinances of the City of Rochester
§ 63-2 Definitions
Adopted May 15, 2001 by Ordinance No. 2001-131

GENDER
Includes the biological and/or social characteristics of gender and gender identity.


1999
Westchester County
Human Rights law proposed that defined gender as “the biological or social characteristics of being female or male.” At the time of enactment, the definition (later amended in 2009 to clarify the definition) defined gender as “the biological characteristics of being male or female.” The statute also had a provision that included protection on the basis of “actual or perceived” membership in a protected class. On this basis, I wrote an article published in the LOFT Community News in 2000, in which I advocated that the term “biological” should be construed as meaning “physiological or psychological” and this interpretation was used by the Westchester County Human Rights Commission in accepting jurisdiction of human rights complaints from transgender people.


NOTES ON THE SCIENCE:

Here is what some of the science tells me:

In 1995, in a peer-reviewed article in Nature, entitled A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality [Nature 378, 68 - 70 (02 November 1995); doi:10.1038/378068a0] the researchers involved gave us a first glimmer into transsexual brain structures.

This was confirmed in a follow-up study in 2000, entitled Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus, published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 85, No. 5 2034-2041

..

In 2008, two separate studies from Australia established separate genetic predispositions for different kinds of transgender development.

In one study, the predisposition for those who develop with female-identified brains and male genital tracts was shown to involve a long androgen receptor gene:

Lauren Hare, Pascal Bernard, Francisco J. Sanchez, Paul N. Baird, Eric Vilain, Trudy Kennedy and Vincent R. Harley. Androgen Receptor (AR) Repeat Length Polymorphism Associated with Male-to-female Transsexualism. Biological Psychiatry, Advance online publication date 27 Oct 2008, Jan 2009 print edition

The other study,aimed at those who develop with male-identified brains and female genital tract development, was entitled A Polymorphism of the CYP17 Gene Related to Sex Steroid Metabolism is Associated With Female-to-Male But Not Male-to-Female Transsexualism by Bentz, Eva-Katrin; Hefler, Lukas A.; Kaufmann, Ulrike; Huber, Johannes C.; Kolbus, Andrea; Tempfer, Clemens B., published in Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey: December 2008 - Volume 63 - Issue 12 - pp 775-777
doi: 10.1097/01.ogx.0000338093.21452.0b

These studies, and the brain structure studies from 1995 and 2000, provide clues to the ontological developments that result in transgender people. While there is much additional study required, these studies make it possible to discredit the earlier understandings of transgender people that date back to 1965, in which transgender people were seen as merely delusional members of their initially-assigned sex, for whom any treatment is seen as merely palliative.

- excerpted from my blog essay at:
http://trans-cendence.blogspot.com/2011/04/e-pur-si-muove-response-to-keith.html

A further list of scientific resources (which includes references to two of the above studies (in italics) (courtesy of Zoe Brain):

Male-to-female transsexuals show sex-atypical hypothalamus activation when smelling odorous steroids. by Berglund et al Cerebral Cortex 2008 18(8):1900-1908;

Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041

Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation. Swaab Gynecol Endocrinol (2004) 19:301–312.

A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70.

A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity. by Garcia-Falgueras et al Brain. 2008 Dec;131(Pt 12):3132-46.

White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging study. - Rametti et al, J Psychiatr Res. 2010 Jun 8.

Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35

Male Gender Identity in Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome by T'sjoen et al. Arch Sex Behav. 2010 Apr 1.

Biological and Psychosocial Correlates of Adult Gender?Variant Identities: a Review by J.F.Veale & D.E.Clarke, Personality and Individual Differences (2009) 48(4), 357-366

Sexual differentiation of the human brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation D.Swaab & A.Garcia-Fulgaras Functional Neurology, Jan-Mar 2009:

Neuroimaging Differences in Spatial Cognition between Men and Male-to-Female Transsexuals Before and During Hormone Therapy by Scoening et al J Sex Med. 2009 Sep 14.

Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism. by Luders et al Neuroimage. 2009 Jul 15;46(4):904-7.

Clinical Implications of the Organizational and Activational Effects of Hormones M.Diamond Hormones and Behavior 55 (2009) 621–632

Dichotic Listening, Handedness, Brain Organization and Transsexuality Govier et al International Journal of Transgenderism, 12:144–154, 2010

Specific Cerebral Activation due to Visual Erotic Stimuli in Male-to-Female Transsexuals Compared with Male and Female Controls: An fMRI Study by Gizewski et al J Sex Med 2009;6:440–448.

Responding to Archbishop Dolan on Marriage

With all the hoopla about marriage equality finally getting close to a vote in the New York State Senate, New York Roman Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan writes (or rather, lies) in his blog about “The True Meaning of Marriage” as a last-ditch effort to try to stop the law from being enacted – and as has been typical and usual with Roman Catholic hierarchs in the United States, he advocates for moral injustice, using lies and misrepresentations as his methodology.
http://blog.archny.org/?p=1247

He commences his diatribe with:

“The stampede is on. Our elected senators who have stood courageous in their refusal to capitulate on the state’s presumption to redefine marriage are reporting unrelenting pressure to cave-in.”

Hmmm. “Redefine Marriage” is a stock phrase used by the opponents of the New York marriage bill. The impression is that marriage has lasted for thousands of years without change, and now some people want to “redefine” it so that men and women can’t marry each other.

The fact is that passing the marriage bill will not change a single thing about opposite-sex marriages and the families of people in opposite-sex marriages. Their marriages will not be redefined.

Not only that, but civil marriage gets “redefined” all the time. In ancient Rome, there were several different forms of marriage, and marriage has historically included various forms of polygamy, including both polygyny and (sometimes) polyandry. The Bible indicates that polygyny was one of the earlier forms of marriage – one husband with more than one wife. Indeed, even same-sex marriage was allowed, in some cases. In 1 Samuel 18:3 we see King Saul’s son Jonathan marrying the future King David, and then later in the chapter we see David also marryins Saul’s daughter Michal, thus becoming Saul’s “son-in-law a second time.” (See Darby or ASV, not the Vulgate or translations based on the Vulgate, because Jerome intentionally fudged the applicable verse). In Rome, the Emperor Nero, after killing his pregnant wife Poppaea, later married Sporus, a young man who resembled his dead wife.

In the early Christian Church, as Boswell points out, same-sex unions were actually blessed by Christians. (Indeed, in Christ Jesus, according to Paul, we are “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.”)


Also, according to Paul, marriage for Christians has nothing to do with procreation, but is for the sole purpose of allowing those with a strong libido an opportunity to have licit sex. See 1 Cor. 7:8-9.

But let’s look at the law as it evolved in New York – not an unchanging tradition spanning thousands of years – but a matter of civil law that has evolved over time.

After the English took over from the Dutch, New York was subject to the English common law, which developed over centuries. Marriage under the common law created a single legal person – “the two shall become one” – and then, as Blackstone (or Lord Coke) notes in a corollary, the married woman essentially suffers from a disability that is the equivalent of civil death for a prison inmate – “and that one is the husband.”

This was the barbaric traditional form of marriage for enough hundreds of years to be part of the common law that was the common law of New York State as well.

In 1836, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Ernestine Rose started petitioning for a “Married Women’s Property Act” that would allow married women the right to inheritances – until then, being that “the two are one, and that one is the husband,” the husband had control of inheritances – and would often enough spend it on liquor in taverns while leaving his wife and children destitute.

The religious leaders of the day, like Archbishop Dolan, were appalled – to change the civil law relating to marriage would destroy the institution! And the state senate took 12 years, until 1848, to actually pass the law – and then only because some senators realized that the inheritances that should go to their daughters and grandchildren were likely to end up in a tavernkeeper’s hands if they did not pass the bill.

It took another twelve years to push a bill through the legislature in 1860 “redefining marriage” again, to allow working women the right to their own wages – until then, husbands had control over those as well, and they were just as likely to spend their wife’s wages on strong drink as they were to spend their inheritances.

So many other changes have been made in the years since 1848 and 1860 – “redefining” marriage again and again . . .and again.

So, what’s all the ruckus from Archbishop Dolan about this particular proposed change?

The answer is a combination of moral error and conflict in the Church’s catechism that leads to a nearly schizophrenic response whenever the idea of “gay” is broached.

Archbishop Dolan continues:

“The media, mainly sympathetic to this rush to tamper with a definition as old as human reason and ordered good, reports annoyance on the part of some senators that those in defense of traditional marriage just don’t see the light, as we persist in opposing this enlightened, progressive, cause.”

Tamper? No. The arc of history bends toward justice, and the proposed amendment to make marriage laws gender-neutral is just, fair, and right. Tamperis a loaded word – improve would be better and more accurate.

As we have already noted, the “definition as old as human reason” is a fiction invented by Archbishop Dolan to cover his apparent ignorance of the fact that the definition of marriage has been amended many times in the past couple hundred years, and has changed over time as humanity has become more civilized.

Those “in defense of traditional marriage” should be honored to vote for the marriage bill – it makes no changes whatsoever to traditional marriage. All it does is expand the definition to include marriages that are gender neutral as well as those between opposite-sex individuals.

Dolan continues:

“But, really, shouldn’t we be more upset – and worried – about this perilous presumption of the state to re-invent the very definition of an undeniable truth – one man, one woman, united in lifelong love and fidelity, hoping for children – that has served as the very cornerstone of civilization and culture from the start?”

The archbishop apparently has little knowledge or understanding of civil law – and even of the law of his own Church. My own Roman Catholic marriage was ended by civil divorce more than 10 years ago (I didn’t start the proceedings), and then annulled by a Church tribunal of his diocese (though I admit it precedes his elevation to the archbishopric in New York). Is Dolan even aware that New York “tampered” with the whole “lifelong” thing a long time ago? That the grounds for civil divorce have changed many times, most recently when New York began allowing “no-fault” divorce? Isn’t he aware that his own Church’s Canon Law has changed many times with regard to marriage and annulment – with the most recent annulment rules being so liberalized that one prominent canon lawyer was quoted as stating that there was not a Catholic marriage in America that could not be annulled under the current rules?

Does the archbishop realize that procreation is not the sole reason for marriage – sure, the Roman idea of “matrimonium” involves procreation, but “connubium” does not. Perhaps he should brush up on his Latin.

Then the Archbishop gets cutesy:

“Last time I consulted an atlas, it is clear we are living in New York, in the United States of America – not in China or North Korea. In those countries, government presumes daily to “redefine” rights, relationships, values, and natural law. There, communiqués from the government can dictate the size of families, who lives and who dies, and what the very definition of “family” and “marriage” means.”

“But, please, not here! Our country’s founding principles speak of rights given by God, not invented by government, and certain noble values – life, home, family, marriage, children, faith – that are protected, not re-defined, by a state presuming omnipotence.”

Um – with his geographical references, Archbishop Dolan seems to imply that changing the law is something that only happens under “godless communism.”

But the Archbishop is just being silly here and making false analogies.

Indeed, he is so wrong that it would actually be funny if he weren’t attempting to be so serious.

In the United States, we have representative government, legislative bodies that are charged with making and amending laws and administrative bodies making and interpreting regulations, and courts watching over it all – on the federal, state and local levels. For most purposes, marriage is viewed as being among the laws that is defined at the state level, except to the extent that the state presumes to violate an individual federal constitutional right.

To that end, the United States Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia is most instructive, and the Archbishop should consider reading it one of these days.

And then you notice, he sneaks in something in the list of things godless Communists like to redefine – “natural law.” I can’t help but laugh at his ineptitude. It is the Catholic Church whose ideas and concepts of “natural law” have nothing at all to do with nature, and everything to do with Aristotle’s interpretation of nature. We’re lucky that the Church got as far as Aristotle – but Dolan is as wrong here as some of his predecessors in the hierarchy were when they condemned Galileo.

Let’s move on just a little. We know that in the United States, rights, relationships, laws, regulations, etc. are constantly being changed, interpreted and reinterpreted, by legislative and administrative bodies and courts. Yes, there are constitutional limits, but in many ways, the laws and regulations change as the society changes. This is how democratically elected republican government works, unlike the way the Vatican works, which is strictly top-down, and woe to the priest of bishop who steps out of line - so, which is more like North Korea – the Roman Catholic Church, or the New York State legislature?

Continuing with his misstatements, the Archbishop writes: “Please, not here! We cherish true freedom, not as the license to do whatever we want, but the liberty to do what we ought; we acknowledge that not every desire, urge, want, or chic cause is automatically a “right.” And, what about other rights, like that of a child to be raised in a family with a mom and a dad?”

I understand the difference between freedom and licentious behavior, having spent some time in a Roman Catholic seminary in my pre-transition youth. However, Archbishop Dolan is misusing the concept here. He might make sense if he was describing sexual promiscuity as licentious behavior – but even that, if engaged among consenting adults is legally permitted, regardless of whether it is moral liberty or licentiousness. Lawrence v. Texas clarified the unconstitutionality of laws prohibiting adult consensual sexual behavior other than heterosexual penile-vaginal intercourse. These laws were generally enforced only against gay people, even though a great deal of heterosexual sexual activity, within and outside of marriage, involves activity other than penile-vaginal intercourse. Morality is an individual matter, while legality is based on constitutional grounds. Like Hebrew National hot dogs, we answer to the higher authority – of the Constitution, and not on the laws of a Church imposed on the basis of arbitrary and capricious interpretations of ancient religious writings.

Incredibly, Dolan continues:

“Our beliefs should not be viewed as discrimination against homosexual people.”

That is a bald-faced lie, told with a straight face. Discrimination against the LGBT community is found in nearly everything the Roman Catholic hierarchy writes about marriage, or about transgender human rights. It is as if we are all less than human in the eyes of the Church hierarchy.

Dolan continues:

“The Church affirms the basic human rights of gay men and women, and the state has rightly changed many laws to offer these men and women hospital visitation rights, bereavement leave, death benefits, insurance benefits, and the like. This is not about denying rights.”

It is *all* about denying rights, Archbishop. And denying it is futile.

He continues:

“It is about upholding a truth about the human condition. Marriage is not simply a mechanism for delivering benefits: It is the union of a man and a woman in a loving, permanent, life-giving union to pro-create children. Please don’t vote to change that. If you do, you are claiming the power to change what is not into what is, simply because you say so. This is false, it is wrong, and it defies logic and common sense.”

Marriage as the union of a man and a woman will not change, by the amendment of the law- it will also mean the union of a man and a man, and a woman with a woman, and of a transgender or intersex person with a man, woman or other transgender or intersex person. The Church will still allow infertile octogenarians to marry despite the lack of any possibility of creating children. The church will bless the marriage of a man to a woman who has had a complete hysterectomy.

For that matter, the Church will not be forced to marry any non-Catholics, or even Catholics who want a same-sex wedding. The right to discriminate on that level will be preserved – just as a church that would not sanctify an interracial marriage can licitly deny the right to such a wedding in its sanctuary.

Dolan begins his conclusion:

“Yes, I admit, I come at this as a believer, who, along with other citizens of a diversity of creeds believe that God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage a long time ago.”

Again, Dolan does not seem to understand that there is a huge difference between civil marriage and the Roman Catholic sacrament of Holy Matrimony. To the extent that Dolan is referring to Holy Matrimony as a sacrament – “an outward sign, instituted by God, to give grace” – he is on solid Catholic theological ground, right from the Baltimore Catechism – but once he presumes to step into the legislative process for civil marriage, his particular religious prejudices should hold no sway.

He wraps up with:

“We believers worry not only about what this new intrusion will do to our common good, but also that we will be coerced to violate our deepest beliefs to accommodate the newest state decree. (If you think this paranoia, just ask believers in Canada and England what’s going on there to justify our apprehensions.) But I also come at this as an American citizen, who reads our formative principles as limiting government, not unleashing it to tamper with life’s most basic values.”

Canada and England do not have the constitutional protection of not having established churches, and do not have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religious expression. So yes, Archbishop, it’s paranoia – you’re not a “state religion” like the Church of England, and the U.S. has a strong aversion to establishing a religion, and a strong constitutional provision in favor of “free exercise” of religion.

If by “violating our deepest beliefs” he means that providing spousal benefits to married gay employees is somehow wrong, then he’s likely to have his deepest beliefs violated, just as the courts will require a blood transfusion for a Jehovah Witness’ baby over the objections of parents, or a court would convict someone who decides that their “deepest” religious beliefs require them to kill Wiccans, or stone gays to death, or otherwise not respect the rights of others.

This is where we should have a discussion about the difference between “freedom” and “license” – your freedom to exercise a Catholic faith does not give you the license to prevent women from exercising their constitutionally guaranteed reproductive rights. Your freedom to be Catholic does not give you the license to disrespect my Unitarian marriage, or to treat my marriage in any way under the law as different from any other marriage. Just because the Catholic Church teaches that transsexual people cannot marry anyone, male, female, or other, does not give the Church the right to deny me any civil benefit, even though the Church does not have to provide me with a sacrament.

Dolan violates my deepest beliefs with every word he has written in this blog essay – but that does not give me the right to censor him – he has the right of free speech even if he is lying, as long as he’s not committing defamation. His calumnious column is evidence of his deep official and possibly personal bigotry – I had hoped that he would at least try to keep himself to Church business rather than meddling – but they haven’t given him his cardinal’s hat yet, so he must feel that he has to cater to the irrational ravings from the Vatican on the subject. Would that he were brave enough to stand up and speak truth to power and risk his position. But he’s typical of the corporate middle-management about to break into the upper echelon – don’t rock the boat.

There is no intrusion, just a fairer, more decent law that will provide legal protection to families in need. Poor black and latina lesbians with children,( often children from prior relationships in which they tried to maintain a straight marriage against their natures because of societal expectations) are likely to have the biggest benefit from the broadening of the marriage law. They and their children will benefit.

Society will benefit from the New York legislature’s enactment of marriage equality – and I sincerely hope the legislature does do the right thing, despite pressure from Dolan and the other foes of freedom.
-

E pur si muove: A response to Keith Fournier’s lies and disinformation

Deacon Keith Fournier recently wrote an ignorant, inflammatory and inaccurate piece on transgender activism which was published at Catholic Online, entitled Exchanging the Truth of God for a Lie: Transgender Activists, Cultural Revolution

Fournier’s article is evidence of the continued resistance of the tradition-encrusted Roman Catholic Church’s to advances in scientific understanding that caused that Church to bring Galileo to trial for heresy, to condemn the more advanced (though still rather simple, cosmologically, as the Sun itself is not now understood to be the center of the universe, and is only a rather minor star in a peripheral spiral arm of a galaxy of over 200 million stars in a Universe that is staggeringly huge) scientific understanding of heliocentricity as being “false and contrary to Holy Scripture" because Galileo dared challenge the prevailing Church-accepted Ptolomaic geocentric theory of the solar system’s workings.

The Cardinals who condemned Galileo in their profound 17th century ignorance of the advances in cosmological science, pronounced in their decision that heliocentrism is “absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture” and that “The proposition that the earth is not the center of the universe and immovable, but that it moves (around the sun) and also with a rotational motion, is equally absurd, philosophically false and theologically erroneous.”

After a study of the Galileo trial that was commenced in 1979, on Halloween in 1992 Pope John Paul II finally issued an explanation, lifting the edict of Inquisition against Galileo, 359 years after the fact. While not actually apologizing, the pope said that

"Galileo sensed in his scientific research the presence of the Creator who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions."

Pope John Paul II pointed out at that time that the province of the Church is theology, and not science or astronomy. The pope indicated that the lack of modern scientific knowledge among the Cardinals on the tribunal,

"led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith, a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.”

And yet, Deacon Fournier, like many in that Church’s Magisterium, seems to have learned nothing at all from the serious error of those who put science on trial, and decided incorrectly.

Deacon Fournier is today in the same position of those 17th century Inquisition cardinals. He confuses his erroneous theological interpretation with Truth, he misstates and misinterprets the science and he ignores the evidence that explains the physiology of transgender people, the evidence for genetic predispositions and ontological development of brain structures along one sexed blueprint, while genital duct systems follow the other blueprint.

Instead, he starts with accusations that transgender people are the product of moral corruption, ignoring the moral corruption and mean-spirited attitudes that infest his church’s Magisterium. He misinterprets Romans 1 as a condemnation of homosexuality, rather than understanding that it is a condemnation of people who engage in sexual practices against their God-given natures while intoxicated during Bacchanalian religious rites. But why is Fournier beginning with a misdirected attack on homosexuality when the intended victims of his bullying are transgender people?

Does he not know the difference between sexual orientation and sex assignment, or with gender identity?

When Fournier erroneously declares that there are biblical references that must be ripped out of the Bible by those who maintain that “there is no reference to the rejection of homosexual practices in the Bible” - he is the one who has apparently ignored 1 Samuel 18, 2 Samuel 1 and many references in between, that relate to the marriage of David and Jonathan. In addition, he would have to rip out the often is interpreted story of the Men of Sodom – because a proper reading of that passage actually condemns Fournier’s own position, which, while wholly wrong, are consistent with the interpretive writings of Benedict XVI about things that “everyone knows” about Sodom, when he was merely Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and the head of the successor to the Inquisition, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

But Fournier iss supposedly condemning transgender people – so lets start with Isaiah 56, Matthew 19:12 and Acts 8 - all of which don’t seem to appear in Deacon Keith’s Bible – or he would understand that even Jesus knew about transgender and intersex people, and that we are special to God. Or he might ponder about the relationship between Genesis 1:27 and the secret name of God derived from reading the Tetragrammaton backward in Hebrew – which translates out as “He/She.” (This analysis is courtesy of Rabbi Mark Sameth of Pleasantville, who knows more about Jewish scripture than Deacon Fournier and any college of Cardinals combined.)

Fournier cites to the Reuters story about the lawsuits challenging New York’s birth certificate regulations. As I am the plaintiff in the first of these cases, I would suggest that he would do much better to refer to the actual legal documents and to the scientific materials that provide the basis for some of the challenge, rather than engaging in fanciful flights of illogic.

After quoting from the Reuters article, including a quote from me, he still does not have a clue, despite the words pointing him in the right direction for inquiry.
The next thing, Deacon Fournier starts some gibberish about the Australian Human Rights Commission recognizing “23 genders.” The ignorant article he first refers to cites to the Australian document – which does not identify 23 genders at all, but rather 23 terms for various gender identities on the spectrum of transgender identity that is in the gray area at the edge of the artificial binary that Western society imposes on the physiological sexual diversity in the nature of human beings. Those who accept the binary of sex as some strict “male and female” construct will shrug off those who don’t quite fit into their arbitrary definitions as abnormal, as “freakazoids,” or as delusional.

For Deacon Fournier’s edification, my best guess as to what “neutroi” might mean, is perhaps a weakly bigender identity that is the gender identity equivalent of asexuality. But that is not itself a “gender” if by gender Fournier means “sex assignment.”

Fournier is confused by all this, and he is in turn confusing apples with oranges – it is as if he is saying that some school board is no longer dealing with students as “boys” and “girls” but as” jocks, brainiacs, nerds, geeks, cheerleaders, skaters, outcasts, preppies, artsies, druggies, goths, gangstas, punks, rednecks, queers, etc.”

Interestingly, the Australian commission looks with favor on the language being considered by “the United States Senate” called “for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009” which defines gender identity as:

‘the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth’.

The wording of the federal Bill has a number of advantages over the narrower Australian definitions that only protect people who identify as a member of the ‘opposite’ or ‘other’ sex.

I could go through a detailed history of how the American definition grew and evolved between 1979 and the present day – but I will leave that to another essay.
Of course, Fournier is too busy making things up about “23 genders” to actually find anything useful to discuss, at least until he gets really deep into his article.
Fournier attacks hormonal and surgical treatments that are used to help those transgender people who feel the sociocultural pressure to conform those parts of our bodies that can be brought into greater conformity with the artificial binary expectation of society.

Perhaps in a society that respected the diversity of natural sex as was common among many world cultures in ancient times and even more recently, before those cultures were exposed to western binary prejudices, there would be a cultural niche appropriate for those who are different. However, we live in a society that recognizes two sexes, so the accepted medical practice is to try to help transgenderr people conform more closely to the physiological norm for those whose brain development is similar to our own.

Certainly, the late iranian Shi’ite Ayatollah Khomenei actually understood more about transgender people than the Catholic Church – even though the mullahs who have followed him have twisted his fatwa on the subject to give gay people they plan to execute by stoning, an alternative, to subject themselves to transsexual surgeries rather than a painful death.

Fournier writes, without a clue as to the real science:

“Medical science confirms that our identity as male or female affects even our brains. In addition, even the physical appearance must be sustained by massive doses of synthetic hormones.”

In the first sentence, he gets a glimmer of the truth – yes, there are sexed differences in brains – but he ignores the science – that transgender people have sex-differentiated brain structures in the hypothalamus that conform to those of the other genital sex.

In 1995, in a peer-reviewed article in Nature, entitled A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality [Nature 378, 68 - 70 (02 November 1995); doi:10.1038/378068a0] the researchers involved gave us a first glimmer into transsexual brain structures.

This was confirmed in a follow-up study in 2000, entitled Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus, published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 85, No. 5 2034-2041


But Deacon Fournier, as little as he understands the theology of transgender people (or gay people, for that matter) fails even more spectacularly to understand medical science. The first thing is that not all hormone therapy is by way of “synthetic” hormones. (He apparently does not know how premarin is manufactured, for example). Then he does not undertsand that synthetic hormonal therapies are used for a number of medical treatments – for example, one of the diabetes drugs that keep me alive every day is called Byetta, and it is a synthetic hormone derived from Gila monster saliva, which works as a mimetic for hormones secreted by the first two feet of the small intestine at the beginning of the digestive process and which stimulate the pancreas to produce insulin.

In rejecting surgeery for those transgender people who need it and can have it, he should also reject other life-saving surgery - perhaps he should forgo a needed triple bypass, because the intervention of a surgeon would violate his body as a temple of the Holy Spirit and interfere with God’s plan for his life and death. Applying this sort of “theology” to science is exactly what went wrong with the Galileo case – and Fournier is repeating history.

He also does not really understand the source of the “sub secretum” document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – it was issued first in 2000, and then circulated in 2002 to the bishops when it became apparent that none of the bishops had been asking their papal representatives anything about transgender people.

This document was leaked to Catholic News Service in February 2003 – and that is where a lot of the information available to the public about this document comes from.

It is believed that the source for mush of the erroneous information about transgender people in the sub secretum document came from Dr. Paul McHugh, an Opus Dei zealot whose area of psychiatric expertise is eating disorders, but who, as head of the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, shut down that institution’s sex reassignment surgery clinic. Much of the thrust of McHugh’s animus against transgender people comes from his severe lack of understanding of the facts – and his attack is on the discredited theories of the late John Money – an attack that Deacon Fournier continues. But the attack is misdirected, and is not against the actual science, but only at John Money's discredited ideas.

In addition to McHugh, another person thought to have been a source for the document was Urbano Cardinal Navarrete, a Spanish Jesuit most noted for being responsible for the enforced masculinization by the of the three persons of the Holy Trinity – Navarrete is thought to have been responsible for the invalidation of Catholic baptisms performed using gender-neutral references to the Trinity (example: Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier), rather than the traditional patriarchal masculine Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This pronouncement of masculine attributes of God is as ridiculous as the Church’s position on transgender people – but as long as they are sticking to theology for the adherents of their increasingly irrelevant and morally backward Church, that last is something that does not affect me, and as ludicrous as it is, there is no reason for me to do more than snicker at their patriarchist chutzpah, especially since I've since rejected the trinitarian doctrine and the divinity of that great Jewish teacher, the Rabbi Yeshua ben Miriam.

The place where the Church goes wrong on the science as it relates to transgender people is in its insistence on birth genital essentialism as a reaction to the unsound theories of John Money, and to certain aspects of feminism (though the Church itself is the source of the birth-genital essentialism espoused by some who style themselves radical feminist separatists based on Catholic-influenced doctrine passed to them by the late Mary Daly and her protege, Janice Raymond, the infamous author of The Transsexual Empire.

Fournier directs his attack without taking into account the individual’s personal biological, genetic and developmental factors that indicate that this birth genital-based assignment is incorrect.

In 2008, two separate studies from Australia established separate genetic predispositions for different kinds of transgender development.

In one study, the predisposition for those who develop with female-identified brains and male genital tracts was shown to involve a long androgen receptor gene:
Lauren Hare, Pascal Bernard, Francisco J. Sanchez, Paul N. Baird, Eric Vilain, Trudy Kennedy and Vincent R. Harley. Androgen Receptor (AR) Repeat Length Polymorphism Associated with Male-to-female Transsexualism. Biological Psychiatry, Advance online publication date 27 Oct 2008, Jan 2009 print edition

The other study,aimed at those who develop with male-identified brains and female genital tract development, was entitled A Polymorphism of the CYP17 Gene Related to Sex Steroid Metabolism is Associated With Female-to-Male But Not Male-to-Female Transsexualism by Bentz, Eva-Katrin; Hefler, Lukas A.; Kaufmann, Ulrike; Huber, Johannes C.; Kolbus, Andrea; Tempfer, Clemens B., published in Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey: December 2008 - Volume 63 - Issue 12 - pp 775-777
doi: 10.1097/01.ogx.0000338093.21452.0b

These studies, and the brain structure studies from 1995 and 2000, provide clues to the ontological developments that result in transgender people. While there is much additional study required, these studies make it possible to discredit the earlier understandings of transgender people that date back to 1965, in which transgender people were seen as merely delusional members of their initially-assigned sex, for whom any treatment is seen as merely palliative. It is the erroneous assumption at the root of the Roman Catholic Church Magisterium's position, and it is just as wrong as relying on the Bible to classify bats as birds merely because they fly, or whales as fish because they swim in the ocean.

Strangely enough, once one realizes that this misplaced genital essentialism is the primary issue with the Magisterium’s doctrine, it becomes apparent that things like Bishop Gregory’s quote about “canonical condition” can be made to make sense. Of course, it’s okay to see gender as fixed at birth, as long as we understand that it is the brain and not the genitalia, that is the predominant factor in the correct assignment. In addition, it should be obvious that even the Bible recognized some people as falling outside the male/female binary - the people classified as "eunuchs."

After all – my own situation is one in which I am asking the City of New York for a correction of the error made in my assignment at birth, as well as to conform my birth certificate with my other identity documentation. I am looking for a correction, not a change. There is a difference, one lost on Deacon Fournier.

Indeed, the Church’s position is and should be purely theological, and not scientific. He Magisterium should keep its theological noses out of the scientific arena and the medical science as it relates to who is properly assigned to which sex, unless it wishes to conform its theology to the prevailing science, and is willing to change that theology when the scientific understanding becomes more complete.

I am not calling for a right to “choose” a gender – I am calling for a legal right to correct my sex designation on a document that was erroneous at the time of my birth. And if the Church won't change my baptismal certificate, that's perfectly fine, since I have rejected their theology a while ago.

Deacon Fournier and his Church have a nasty habit of interfering in areas about which their Magisterium has no credible scientific, legal or cultural business. These include civil marriage, women’s reproductive rights in the civil arena (they can call whatever they want to be “sinful”), and the human rights, dignity and worth of transgender, lesbian, intersex, bisexual and gay people. The Church can deny us the priesthood, it can deny us the right to a sacrament of matrimony, but when it interferes in the civil arena in its gross, immoral and theologically unsound manner, they should expect pushback from those they oppress in their mean-spirited effort to impose their peculiar and backward morality on those whose moral compass actually points in the right direction.

Western Civilization became what it was in large part despite the resistance ot the Church, not because of it.

Thank the Arabs. Thank the Irish. Thank the Jews. Thank the Greeks and the Romans. Thank Thomas Aquinas, who more than anyone else was responsible for the Church accepting Aristotle, which allowed for a jump-start for the renaissance. Thank Martin Luther and Henry VIII, at least a little. Thank the scientists, engineers and inventors who brought the Industrial Revolution.

But the Church itself has done more harm than good over its lifetime, particularly when it acts in ignorant tradition-bound resistance to advances in science and to a kinder, gentler, superior morality. And rather than making me wait 359 years for a tepid apology, perhaps Deacon Fournier can start the ball rolling by apologizing now. But I won’t hold my breath or that. I would only hope and pray that the day comes when God will open his eyes, soften his heart and make him open up to the idea that at least some of the things he knows for sure about sex and gender may not be right 100% of the time.

Valerie Jarrett (or maybe her boss Barry O.) still clueless?

Here is a clip from CNN, showing both American Hero Lieutenant Dan Choi's response to the Obama Administration's incredibly arrogant and stupid decision to appeal the federal court decision striking DADT, and Administration Spokesperson Valerie Jarrett repeating her laughably silly talking points in response.



(NOTE: If you are seeing this as a Facebook NOTE, go to my Blog to actually see the video!)

http://www.trans-cendence.blogspot.com


Let's set the record "straight" on the President's power on DADT, and why the Administration position is playing politics, as Lieutenant Choi points out.

To be fair, President Obama can (and does) point to a number of positive accomplishments, but his errors, misssteps, and his continual attempts to compromise with evil has weakened his administration.

The statutory authority to suspend the discharges in found in 10 USC § 12305 - the exact text of this statute is quoted here, so that it might be abundanty clear that President Obama has failed on this issue:

§ 12305. Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to
promotion, retirement, and separation

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.

(b) A suspension made under the authority of subsection (a) shall terminate

(1) upon release from active duty of members of the reserve component ordered to active duty under the authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, as the case may be, or

(2) at such time as the President determines the circumstances which required the action of ordering members of the reserve component to active duty no longer exist, whichever is earlier.

(c) Upon the termination of a suspension made under the authority of subsection (a)of a provision of law otherwise requiring the separation or retirement of officers on active duty because of age, length of service or length of service in grade, or failure of selection for promotion, the Secretary concerned shall extend by up to 90 days the otherwise required separation or retirement date of any officer covered by the suspended provision whose separation or retirement date, but for the suspension, would have been before the date of the termination of the suspension or within 90 days after the date of such termination.

So, what part of 10 USC § 12305 (a) does Valerie Jarrett or Barack Obama not understand?

DADT should have been addressed with a statutorily-permitted "stop loss" executive order within the first 90 days. The Joint Chiefs should have been told on day 1 to prepare for this, and resignations accepted from those not willing to implement the stop loss. The Congress should have been told on day 1 that repeal was a priority issue just as important as the economy.

The President and his administration claim a desire to repeal DADT through congressional efforts - but Congress has already provided the means for the President to stop the losses - based on a statute passed by Congress before DAY ONE OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. The President should have issued such an order within his first 90 days of taking office, so that there would have been no shameful discharges under his administration.

As long as there are members of the reserves serving during a war, national emergency or other circumstances, the suspension of discharges of LGBT persons in military service could be ordered by the President. The question to Valerie and Barry has been and still is:

Why does the administration not make use of existing law to suspend the discharges?

And Lieutenant Choi knows the answer - it's a cold political calculation - and it's one that is an utter failure. On the one hand, the President claims, in his own words, and through his people, that he is committed to the repeal of DADT. But his actions show an opposite commitment. He already has the STATUTORY authority to stop the discharges - but he has failed to do so. He has the authority to recognize the decision of the federal court that sets aside the DADT statute as unconstitutional, but instead, has ordered an emergency appeal to keep the discharges coming.

There is one glimmer of good faith - the Secretary of Defense recently amended DoD policy on how to implement DADT discharges - and this may actually be the closest thing to a "stop loss" order that we are going to see. Authority to decide on discharges under DADT has been stripped from unit commanders and are now in the hands of five senior DoD civilian personnel. This is fairly close to a stop loss order - and could well have kept Arabic language expert Lieutenant Dan Choi in service to the nation, protecting us from harm.

But why hasn't Valerie Jarrett pointed that out?

We've been told that Lieutenant Choi tweeted that his re-enlistment papers, taken during the week during which the discharges were suspended, are apparently being shredded by the Army. I don't think it should be like that - why hasn't Valerie, who knows that Dan Choi re-enlisted the moment he could do so, asked Secretary Gates why this isn't being handled by the five civilians in charge? Don't they still have a shortage of Arabic translators? Or is this a case of "military intelligence" as an oxymoronic statement?

White House FAIL on DADT; Ted Olson in 2012?

Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett shows exactly how clueless the Obama administration is about the duty to uphold the law in this video:



(IF you're seeing this as a facebook note, do yourself a favor and go directly to my blog at:

http://www.transcendence.blogspot.com

Facebook does not pick up the video.

The best answer to Valerie's obvious ignorance comes from former Bush solicitor general Ted Olson:

"It happens every once in awhile at the federal level when the solicitor general, on behalf of the U.S., will confess error or decline to defend a law. I don't know what is going through the [Obama] administration's thought process on 'don't ask, don't tell.' It would be appropriate for them to say 'the law has been deemed unconstitutional, we are not going to seek further review of that.'"

There is NO earthly reason for President Obama and his "Justice" department to be appealing the DADT decision. The existing statute allows him to issue a stop loss Order - something he should morally have done within the first 90 days of having taken office. The existing law is not constitutional - and the executive is not required to attempt to enforce a law known to be unconstitutional, at least once a court has correctly weighed in on the subject.

I am taking the opportunity right now to call on someone with brains, a heart and some backbone, to step up the day after the mid-term elections, and start campaigning in a run for the Presidency in 2012. Barack Obama has earned a primary challenge.

I am putting the Democratic Party on notice - I will continue to work for Democratic candidates who support real human rights and full equality. If Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate for president in 2012, I will not carry his petitions. I will not campaign for his re-election. I will not make a donation to his re-election, and I will vote for some other candidate. And if there is no suitable candidate, I will write in my own name.

If I had the money, the time, and the support, I would run for president in 2012 myself. I'm more qualified for the job than the incumbent - I have a brain, a heart, and a backbone, and I won't compromise with evil. While President Obama is a wonderful public speaker, and is very bright, he has not shown the heart or the backbone to do right by the nation.

You know what? Even though he's a Republican, I think I might be willing to vote for Ted Olson, regardless of party line. Maybe Ted should run in 2012.

Glenn Beck: Half Monkey. Really?

WorldNutDaily is at it again, though this time, they’re merely the conduit.

In an article entitled, “Glen Beck: What if God made us from monkeys?” WND’s Joe Kovacs reports on Beck’s radio show defense of Delaware Republican U.S. Senate candidate Chrisine O’Donnell, and her decidedly creationist views with regard to evolution.

Beck is quoted as saying

“Did evolution just stop? I haven't seen the half-monkey/half-person yet.”

and

“There's no other species that's developing into half-people.”

He even refers to himself, jokingly, as a "half-monkey."

Beck’s justification apparently attemopts to lay its groundwork at the feet of the founding fathers, and without citing him, to Thomas Jefferson – Beck's reasoning includes nonsense like:

“God didn't create, if things evolve, then your rights evolve. You're not endowed by your Creator.”

I guess Glenn doesn’t know that Jefferson was a Unitarian, who was interested in nature and skeptical about miracles. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence well before Darwin expounded his theory.

Evolution does not require a denial of the existence of God, though it does not require the existence of a god, either. However, the kind of God that could comfortably co-exist with evolutionary theory is the sort hypothesized by prominent medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas as a prima causa.

This is distinguishable from the God hypothesized by Intelligent Design, which co-opts evolutionary processes but requires the belief that they are “directed” rather than random. Intelligent Design allows believers the hubris of a humanity that is at the top of the chain of evolution, rather than just a different sort of creature. There are many who may even be atheists who also fall into this trap.

While literal Creationism and Intelligent Design ideas are not credible based on the evidence of scientific observation, there are still truths that can be discerned from the Genesis Creation story, as well as aspects that have led many to misleading interpretive conclusions. One does not have to accept literalist interpretations in order to draw out the good.

One of these is the idea of responsible stewardship over the earth and other creatures.

In our everyday lives, it does not matter tremendously whether one individual or another might have a personal belief in a literalist Creation story. Sadly, this is a concept that many literalists, particularly those who believe that the “Rapture” is just around the corner, have abandoned the idea of responsible stewardship. A Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan believed that the sooner we lay waste to the environment, the sooner the rapture would come.

There is a growing movement among responsible evangelical Christians, that is a reaction against the nuttery fomented by the extremists at WorldNutDaily, with their focus on things like teaching creationism in the schools, persecuting gay people, and reducing women to a chattel status.

Before the Roman Catholic Church whipped them up, most evangelicals were neutral on the issue of women’s reproductive rights, and were content with the biblical teaching that taking the first breath was the point at which the soul is infused into a person. Now many of them believe that people are fully human from the moment of conception.

Before the Reaganites whipped them up, evangelical Christians were largely neutral on the issue of politics – preferring to adhere to the Biblical “rendering” teahing – leaving Caesar and God in separate realms. Now, there is a sadly strong Christianist Dominionist movement, braying at how “America is A Christian Nation” and working to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. They even believe that “freedom of religion” applies only to those with a fundamentalist or at least conservative “Christian” faith, grudgingly including fellow-travelers such as Mormons and Roman Catholics.

Beck, who was born and raised Roman Catholic, is a 1999 convert to the Latter Day Saints. He certainly took a different direction than I, a cradle Catholic who, after being thrown out of the Catholic Church that same year, discarded the non-essential aspects of that faith that require a “suspension of disbelief,” and ultimately settled into Unitarian-Universalism.

Unitarian and Universalist principles grew up out of the same fertile 19th century Northeastern religious fervor that spawned the Mormon churches – and yet these churches evolved in very different directions. The Latter Day Saints invented a fanciful theology that requires a belief that the ten “Lost Tribes” of Israel somehow made their way to the North American continent, where they are supposed to have warred with the native peoples. Unitarians and Universalists evolved and merged into a non-credal religious organization based on a respect for many paths to enlightenment (though not all paths are enlightened), with a moral theology that is inclusive and tolerant.

While faith in an imaginary half-baked “history” is a Mormon theological requirement, the mere belief in it is not harmful in and of itself. I am sure that there are many positive aspects to the LDS faith, but there are some teachings that are immoral and destructive.

And Glenn Beck’s faith has among its tenets stories that are no more fanciful than the stories of miracles and the resurrection of more traditional Christianity, that the Unitarian Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the “endowed by our Creator” language in the Declaration of Independence, razored out of his personal Bible.
The problem comes when people like Beck and other CHristianists take their religious myths and expect them to be taught in the schools as science.

Evolution is a theory in the sense that it is an established and proven from a scientific point of view. Not everything is known about the processes of evolution, but based on the observations and evidence, it’s irrefutable. It’s not as if everything has been learned about how it works, but to date, all the evidence is in support of the theory.

That isn’t to say that evolution on earth and in our known universe might only be the result of certain local conditions, much as Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics are local explanations that test well on the human scale, but not in the large ((relativity) and small (quantum) realms. Indeed, large-scale bridge building has to take into account the curvature of the earth – towers that are perpendicular to the surface of the earth but a quarter mile apart are not parallel to each other, and Newtonian theory does not explain the bending of light by gravity, an explanation that makes Einsteinian theory useful on the macro scale.

The principle of natural selection as a random process, basic to evolutionary theory, still makes sense. People often get misconceptions as to the idea of the “survival of the fittest,” imagining competition a being one of “tooth and claw.”

Properly understood, evolutionary theory is simple and elegant, and is borne out by the paleontological record as well as by contemporary observation in shorter-lived animals.

Beck and O’Donnell both assume that we should be seeing monkeys evolving into humans in a short period of time, such assumptions are folly. They fail to realize that gross evolutionary change occurs over millions of years, and then there is also punctuated equilibrium, as creatures react evolutionarily to changes in their environment – those that fail become extinct. We do observe evolutionary change in reaction to environmental pressures occurring in short-lived species.

One bit of evidence for recent evolution among humans comes with the genetic distinction between Tibetans and the Han Chinese with whom they share a common ancestry. Most Tibetans have a genetic makeup that allows for thriving at high latitudes, while these genes are rare in Han Chinese. As with all humans, the evolutionary differences are not sufficient to make Tibetans and other humans into separate species. Even so, the development of these differences came over thousands of years, while the differentiation of primate species takes millions of years.

Perhaps Glen Beck might like to explain what makes Tibetans different from Han Chinese, and how Creationism explains the genetic changes. Han Chinese and Tibetans are both human, but there are differences that are explainable by evolutionary theory, but not by Creation theory, which does not take into account genetic differences among any people alleged to have been descended from a single couple who are supposed to have existed about 4,000 years ago.


In the article, Beck is quoted:

Beck explained, "If God didn't create, if things evolve, then your rights evolve. You're not endowed by your Creator."

"Just like you go from a monkey to a man, you go from simple rights to higher rights and somebody has to take those rights and give them to you and take them away or change them. This is again the evolutionary thinking of progressivism."

The philosophical basis for the idea of inalienable rights, while written in the societal context of a then-pervasive creationist deism, does not depend on a deity, but rather on a principle of self-evident truths.

These lofty-minded principles are assumptions. The idea that “all men are created equal” may well have meant, using the idea of “original intent,” to encompass only white, anglo-saxon, protestant property owning males, particularly because of the existence of slavery, the limitations on voting such as poll taxes and literacy tests, and the non-inclusion of women in colonial times. Jefferson himself was a slave owner, and treated at least one of his female house slaves as a concubine with whom he fathered children, and not necessarily with her informed consent, particularly because of the relative power between master and slave,

However, as much as Glenn Beck pooh-poohs the idea of the evolution of ideas, and the evolution of inalienable rights, we have seen the arc of history bend ever so slowly toward justice.

While today, we assume that “all men” uses a meaning of “men” that includes women and the descendents of former slaves, that was not self-evident to the founding fathers.

No one has to “give” us these rights, but as society gradually becomes more civilized, it begins to recognize these rights as being more pervasive.

Gays have just as much of an inalienable right as anyone else to serve in the military and get married – the problem is that the law does not in most cases currently recognize the essential justice of the situation.

Biblical literalists once asserted that the enslavement of racially non-white Africans and their descendants was based on the Word of God as found in Genesis – and they would refer to their slaves as “the children of Ham.” (Bible-based racism can be found in the early history of our space program – our first chimp in space was named Ham, for example.) Today they want their religion-based creationism taught in schools, and they want their particular brand of Christianist faith to be the basis for the secular law.

Yet African Americans were freed from slavery, only to find themselves after a few brief years of Reconstruction to be relegated to a second class status by reason of the separate and quite unequal doctrine of racial segregation that was permitted by the federal courts. Even today, there are lingering effects of a continuing and insidious institutionalized racism that permeates the United States like an evil stench, largely not noticed by whites but still an affliction.

Racism, Heterosexism, Patriarchism , Cisgenderism and Dominionism are all examples of barriers to an inclusive understanding of the principles on which the nation was founded. Glen Beck complains because he thinks that evolution gets in the way of our inalienable rights. The problem is that Christianist thinking is perhaps the biggest obstacle to our rights. Christianity is fine, Christianist oppression is not. Beck, like the folks at WorldNutDaily, does not get the difference.