In reference to the column posted by Jurist here, by Dean Broyles concerning California bill AB 1266, I'd like to offer some points for your consideration.
The
writer is presented as one who brings some expertise to the subject
which he is addressing, however the assumption appears to be in
considerable error as he seems unaware of several very relevant points.
Among those are the following:
1.
The law he references (AB 1266) is new but the policy is not. Several
major metro school districts in California, as well as many others
nationwide including in such conservative leaning areas as Texas,
already have in place policies which are substantially the same as that
laid out in 1266. Indeed, the board policy of some entire states
(Massachusetts, and as has been shown in recent news stories, Colorado
to name just two) lay out a very similar policy. Some of these have been
in place for close to a decade.
How
is it that our writer is unaware of this? Or does it not support his
case for outrage that said policies have not, in fact, resulted in any
harm. How can he build a case that 1266 is "dangerous" if he has to
admit that after many thousands of occasions in which trans girls share a
restroom with cis-girls, nothing harmful has transpired.
2.
The writer quotes "facts are stubborn things" and then proceeds to make
a fact-claim that directly contradicts ACTUAL scientific evidence. It
is scientifically demonstrated that some persons apparently female from
birth were in fact born with XY chromosomes, and some persons apparently
male from birth were born with XX chromosomes. That's before we note
the existence of XXY individuals, and a host of other intersex
conditions which defy the writers wooden binary misconceptions. To be
clear, I do not speak here of the self perception of gender but of
actual biologically observable and verifiable physical facts. Intersex
individuals are rare, but then so are transsexuals.
3.
Existing policy would again be instructive on his next mistake. He
speaks of "transient" opinions, yet all existing policies lay out the
terms and conditions for transsexual accommodation and none of them give
space to a transient "mood." The one who professes trans status needs
to have a consistent and relatively long term cross-sex presentation and
professional consultation supporting. The oft propagated myth of "a kid
does not know what he wants" and "boys will claim to be girls for
voyeuristic purposes" fail in the face of the history of how these
policies are enacted and applied on a daily basis.
4.
He waxes at length about what he professes as the lack of scientific
evidence that people are born homosexual or trans (how is it that people
of his political stripe can never speak of a trans issue without
distracting themselves with the obsession with homosexuality, which is
not at all relevant to the subject he is ostensibly writing about?) and
in so doing ignores a multitude of solid scientific research
studieswhich demonstrates that transsexualism is a biological condition
present from before birth. See for reference the impressive data base of
links collected here:
5.
There is a clear, verifiable, documented track record of how these
policies work in practice. If the man has questions (dumb questions
thought they seem to be) it would seem logical that a trained lawyer
would be conversant with the concept of doing the research necessary to
find the answers, since it is easily available.
A. As stated above, the policies do not allow for "gender of the day" nonsense that Broyles and his peers imagine.
B.
All these policies lay out the stipulations under which an
accommodation is granted, involving the input of the parent, health care
professionals, and school staff.
C.
The "exposed to the genitals" argument is vapid, and silly, given that
students do not, one hopes, routinely compare their genitals in the rest
room and policies elsewhere make provisions for privacy in the one area
in which it might present an issue - the locker room/shower - and this,
wisely, both out of sensitivity to the cis child, as well as the trans
child (something the author is apparently unaware of - a male-to-female
transsexual does not LIKE her penis, WANT her penis, or want anyone to
KNOW about it. they are exactly the LAST people one should expect to
casually or proudly display their genitalia for viewing). Later in the
column the writer advocates for the wisdom of the local school, and here
it is in practice - witness the lack of news stories, law suits, or
outraged hyperbole citing actual cases of "exposed genitals" in the
public schools in which these policies are already in place.
D.
Again, he supposes "opportunism" and predicts a bright future for
litigators, yet in spite of the standing policy in place in all the
major metro school districts in California for years, resulting in tens
of thousands of these interactions, PJI still pleads fruitlessly for a
plaintiff willing to go to court to challenge AB 1266. One is forced to
wonder about the author's connection to reality, not the trans child's.
E.
the "religious freedom" argument is as irrelevant as it would have been
50 years ago had some teacher claimed a religious belief that blacks
and whites should not mingle. First, teachers et al are asked every day
to set aside their religious doctrines - consider the Pentecostal
teacher who spends every day teaching girls who cut their hair, wear
makeup, and wear pants. Religious liberty is a vapid smokescreen in this
context.
To say nothing of the fact that the supposed "doctrine" that a transsexual is sinning is based on a VERY thin Scriptural reed.
6.
The false-face pretense that such students should be treated with "love
dignity and respect" is contemptible. For the trans person, the ONLY
way to treat them with respect is to acknowledge their stated gender
identity as valid. you cannot "lovingly" "respect" a person by
asserting you know their mind and they do not.
7.
Given that transsexuals number something like .1% of the population,
and the majority of those still closeted (sometimes even from
themselves) the hyperbole that accommodating the one child in a few
thousand who needs it is going to tear down the whole structure of human
society is laughable.
In summation, let me offer a very specific conclusion. In reading your "about" page, I find the following passage:
I
argue that this column is the very definition of "mere punditry" -
Before even completing the second paragraph he's descended into
buzz-words and scare tactics. Some examples:
"This dangerous legislation"
"purportedly enlightened"
"what
it means to be a "girl" is becoming confused when genetic material is
dangerously dumped into the elite culture's gender-blender."
"postmodernism's notions of extreme personal autonomy and radical sexual liberty."
"appear to be heavily influenced by the desire of many radical secular-progressives to..."
"How would they know if the child is being sincere or cleverly perverted..."
"we must vigilantly resist the popular temptation to allow truth and
common sense to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness"
In short, I
submit that if the quoted passage from your "About" page is sincere, you
have no choice but to withdraw Mr Broyles column, if not actively
publish your regret at having published it. I acknowledge that it is
reasonable to be concerned about the legal implications of AB1266 and
express, rationally, those logical concerns. what Mr Broyles has offered
is neither reasonable nor rational, but hyperbolic punditry that fails,
in my opinion, to clear the bar you have set for yourselves in terms of
content.
Warning: Strong language, including profanity, ahead. If "ugly words" offend you, gird up your loins or take your leave, because this nonsense brings out the stridency in me. I CAN say these things without profanity, and often do. in this case, I choose not to.
So, the Traditionalist social conservatives are so twisted up over ENDA
that they can't even make an internally consistent case against it.
Nevermind that it's blatant scare tactic nonsense since the House won't
touch it with a 2,000 foot pole, there's fear-mongering to be done!
With every passing month my willingness to cut these folks some slack in
the "sincere but wrong" department fades. At this point it would take
an electron microscope to measure how little I have left.
Let us consider two examples. First, the ever-vigilant Tony Perkins,
who's service to FRC is so vital that the website he pimps on the radio where you can find his
valuable contributions is described as"tonyperkins.com" instead of "FRC.org" even though both lead to the same page. Perkins weighed in with a sky-is-falling rant about
ENDA Friday:
Life hasn't exactly been rosy for the business community under this
administration. First, the President's policies kept the economy in the
tank. Then he strangled the financial and energy sectors by passing a
health care law that's trampling employers' freedom and crushing their
bottom lines. Now, as if those burdens weren't enough, the President's
party wants to tell companies how they should run their business, who
they should hire, and what they can and can't believe.
It's all part of the agenda called the Employment Non-Discrimination
Act, an innocuous-sounding, but republic-altering piece of legislation
that has the power to fundamentally destroy Americans' First Amendment
rights. Under this bill, the same community that said it wanted to keep
the government out of its bedroom would be bringing their bedroom to
work -- where employers would be forced to reward workers based on their
sexual preferences.
Right, because clearly ENDA enshrines the right to have sex in the
workplace...right? And "reward"? what's the reward again? Being able to
eat and pay rent?
Through ENDA (which FRC has blocked for a decade)...
Single handedly? our heroes!!
Bullshit.
Only in Traditionalist-obsessives' logic is forbidding an action the exact same thing as requiring that very action.
Such as?
Fuck you Tony, fuck you right in the motherfucking ear. Why do I feel so strongly about this? Oh, I dunno, maybe the $18k in student loans I owe the government to get a BS which qualifies me, in theory, to TEACH SCHOOL! why do I work at Walmart for 1/3 the annual salary i should be making? Because of THIS very attitude.
Thanks Tony, you're a prince.
"Can you imagine walking into your child's classroom and finding a
nigger teacher? Neither can most Americans but that's just one of the
many consequences...."
~T. Perkins, circa 1963
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!!! YOU JUST GOT THROUGH MAKING THE CASE FOR THAT VERY THING!
The classic your-intolerance-of-my-intolerance-is-intolerant angle.
So the same people that brag Christians are the great majority in
this country, and gloat that gays are a mere "1-3%" (which the latter is
actually true) nevertheless want us to believe that the 3% is going to
"take over the marketplace"
Something amiss here Tony...
Nothing about ENDA has anything to do with the Craig James matter -
and for the record, if I understand correctly that James was fired for
off-the-job comments, I do agree he was wronged. But he's irrelevant to
this issue.
Seems to me that James was fired BEFORE ENDA became law, by a
private entity making a private choice to retain or dismiss a person
based on their private judgement about the best business interest of the
company - which is precisely the very fucking thing you say ENDA is a threat to!!!
Do you favor the employer having that right or do you not? Pick a fucking side.
And yet, let's repeat - James was fired WITHOUT ENDA and Fox has
suffered no legal repercussions. How then does ENDA change that for the
worse? How is the imagined "open season" not already open, if indeed it
is such a thing to be feared?
so you are saying that people on the other side of the world are willing
to be put to death for speaking their Christian beliefs, but the noble
American Christian will be cowed into silence by the threat of losing
their job? you seem to think very highly of your sheep, Mr. Perkins.
Again, I support Craig James' right to his views (however in error) and
believe he was wronged. I would say the same about any Christian fired
for their views. but Perkins isn't really worried about people being
free to hold a different view, what he's really advocating for here is
your right as a Christian to harass your gay/trans co-worker or employee
(or reject a potential employee).
In Perkins' ideal world, assuming I could somehow manage to be employed
anywhere being trans, any "Christian" co-worker could spend all day
telling me what a horrible abomination before God I was under the
umbrella of "religious liberty." If he were asked not to, he would
clearly be a victim of discrimination. Not, of course, that people like
Perkins think that people like me should ever have jobs at all.
Nevermind the spouse and children that having no support become wholly
dependent on the welfare system - no wait, he's against that too. Let's
just put them under the bridge rather than fool with that icky trans
employee, eh?
Is American Eagle still in business Tony? How's the profit margin? Still customers coming through the doors? Yes? Then bite me. The truth is that the only way the general population becomes accustomed to interacting with trans people is by DOING it (same as with the teacher example above). I think that's what you really fear, just as Ross Barnett and George Wallace feared 50 years ago: people might spend enough time with us to find out they DON'T have to hate and fear their fellow human being, and then what would your crowd use to manipulate folks out of their money? Demon possessed poultry? Nooo. that won't do. Far better to keep people afraid of each other.
So...you are not in favor of discrimination for ANY reason, and you just
wrote a couple thousand words advocating for the right to do JUST THAT, capping things off with a quote from a person who specificaly says, in som many words, "I have to discriminate on behalf of my bigoted customers."
Look, hero, just come out and be HONEST, okay? Isn't that a Christian virtue? Just SAY "I think that the law should protect our right to discriminate against gay/trans people for no other reason than that they are people we don't like."
You'd still be wrong, in my view, but I could completely respect your honesty in standing your ground. but violating one universal christian value in the process of defending your sneaky attempt to avoid a different one (that whole pesky "love they neighbor" business)?
Yeah. that's pretty much total fail.
Oh, but it gets better! You have gotten John Boehner all confuzzled.
So let me walk through this John...on the one hand, protecting LGBT
people will directly cause the loss of jobs and an explosion of
frivolous lawsuits....BUUUUUUT.....this protection already exists???
Howzat again?
By the way - if these protections already exist, what's tony shitting
his pants about again? oh yeah, he's not - he's just manipulating poor
ignorant suckers who think he can be trusted to tell them the truth. I
grow increasingly ashamed I was ever one of them.
So,
the Traditionalist social conservatives are so twisted up over ENDA
that they can't even make an internally consistent case against it.
Nevermind that it's blatant scare tactic nonsense since the house won't
touch it with a 2,000 foot pole, there's fear-mongering to be done!
With
every passing month my willingness to cut these folks some slack in the
"sincere but wrong" department fades. At this point it would take an
electron microscope to measure how little i have left.
Let
us consider two examples. First, the ever-vigilant Tony Perkins, who's
service to FRC is so vital that the website where you can find his
valuable contributions is "tonyperkins.com" instead of "FRC.org" or any
similar variant. Perkins weighed in with a sky-is-falling rant about
ENDA Friday:
[quote]
It's the ENDA the World as We Know It...
Life hasn't exactly been rosy for the business community under this
administration. First, the President's policies kept the economy in the
tank. Then he strangled the financial and energy sectors by passing a
health care law that's trampling employers' freedom and crushing their
bottom lines. Now, as if those burdens weren't enough, the President's
party wants to tell companies how they should run their business, who
they should hire, and what they can and can't believe.
It's all part of the agenda called the Employment Non-Discrimination
Act, an innocuous-sounding, but republic-altering piece of legislation
that has the power to fundamentally destroy Americans' First Amendment
rights. Under this bill, the same community that said it wanted to keep
the government out of its bedroom would be bringing their bedroom to
work -- where employers would be forced to reward workers based on their
sexual preferences.[/quote]
Right, because
clearly ENDA enshrines the right to have sex in the workplace...right?
And "reward"? what's the reward again? Being able to eat and pay rent?
[quote]
Through ENDA (which FRC has blocked for a decade), [/quote]Single handedly? our heroes!![quote]...businesses would be ordered
to make hiring, firing, and promotion decisions -- not based on a
person's qualifications -- but on their sexual expression. [/quote]
Bullshit.
Only in Traditionalist-obsessives' logic is forbidding an action the exact same thing as requiring that very action.
[quote]
Homosexuals,
cross-dressers, and transgendered workers would automatically qualify
for special treatment that other workers would not.[/quote]
Such as?
[quote]Can you imagine
walking into your child's classroom and meeting a teacher dressed in
drag? Neither can most Americans[/quote]
Fuck you Tony, fuck you right in the motherfucking ear.
[quote]
. But unfortunately, that's just one of
the many consequences of adopting a law as dangerous as this one.
Preschools, daycare centers, summer camps, religious chains like Hobby
Lobby or Chick-fil-A -- they'll all be subject to the law, regardless of
their personal beliefs and workplace standards.
[/quote]
"Can
you imagine walking into your child's classroom and finding a nigger
teacher? Neither can most Americans but that's just one of the many
consequences....
~T. Perkins, circa 1963
[quote]
Obviously, FRC isn't in favor of discrimination against anyone for
any reason. [/quote]
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!!! YOU JUST GOT THROUGH MAKING THE CASE FOR THAT VERY THING!
[quote]
But a law like this wouldn't stop discrimination -- it would
encourage it against anyone with a traditional view of
morality.[/quote]
The classic your-intolerance-of-my-intolerance-is-intolerant angle.
[quote]
We all know how the activist community works. Homosexuals and
transgenders will use this law to marginalize Christians and take over
the marketplace -- until only their "lifestyle" is promoted. [/quote]
So
the same people that brag Christians are the great majority in this
country, and gloat that gays are a mere "1-3%" (which the latter is
actually true) nevertheless want us to believe that the 3% is going to
"take over the marketplace"
Something amiss here Tony...[quote]
ENDA isn't
about tolerance -- it's about a nationwide celebration of unlimited
sexual expression. And Christians, like fired Fox Sportscaster Craig James, will be the ones paying the price.
[/quote]
Nothing
about ENDA has anything to do with the Craig James matter - and for the
record, if I understand correctly that James was fired for off-the-job
comments, I do agree he was wrong. But he's irrelevant to this issue.
[quote]
The Left wants to equate opposition to ENDA with intolerance, when in reality, this policy would breed real intolerance toward people like Craig, who are already being fired simply for holding conservative
beliefs. Although James never once talked about his views of marriage
on the air, Fox executives didn't care. "We just asked ourselves how
Craig's statements would play with our HR department," the network said.
[/quote]
Seems
to me that James was fired BEFORE ENDA became law, by a private entity
making a private choice to retain or dismiss a person based on their
private judgement about the best business interest of the company - which is precisely the very fucking thing you say ENDA is a threat to!!!
Do you favor the employer having that right or do you not? Pick a fucking side dumbass.
[quote]
Imagine how many conservatives would find themselves in the same
unemployment line if ENDA were the law of the land! The workplace would
be open season on people with religious convictions and beliefs.[/quote]
And
yet, let's repeat - James was fired WITHOUT ENDA and ESPN has suffered
no legal repercussions. How then does ENDA change that for the worse?
How is the imagined "open season" not already open, if indeed it is such
a thing to be feared?
[quote]
Christians (and people who follow most major religions) would be
silenced and forced underground, while homosexuals and transgenders turn
the business world into their strongest political platform.
[/quote]
so
you are saying that people on the other side of the world are willing
to be put to death for speaking their Christian beliefs, but the noble
American Christian will be cowed into silence by the threat of losing
their job? you seem to think very highly of your sheep, Mr. Perkins.
Again, I support Craig James' right to his views (however in error) and
believe he was wronged. I would say the same about any Christian fired
for their views. but Perkins isn't really worried about people being
free to hold a different view, what he's really advocating for here is
your right as a Christian to harass your gay/trans co-worker or employee
(or reject a potential employee).
In
Perkins' ideal world, assuming I could somehow manage to be employed
anywhere being trans, any "Christian" co-worker could spend all day
telling me what a horrible abomination before God i was under the
umbrella of "religious liberty." if he were asked not to, he would
clearly be a victim of discrimination. not, of course, that people like
Perkins think that people like me should ever have jobs at all.
Nevermind the spouse and children that having no support become wholly
dependent on the welfare system - no wait, he's against that too. let's
just put them under the bridge rather than fool with that pesky trans
employee, eh?
[quote]
A lot of squishy Republicans think they fix the problem with a
religious liberty amendment to ENDA. But as we've seen with the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which the courts have shot full of
holes), it will take a legislative firewall -- not an amendment -- to
protect faithful Americans.
Meanwhile, Christians wouldn't be the only ones hurt by the law. Just
ask American Eagle. When an employee started cross-dressing, managers
said it made shoppers uncomfortable. But when the store tried to enforce
its standards, the company was sued. As part of a private settlement,
American Eagle had to agree to hire transgenders no matter how
uncomfortable it makes customers -- or employees! Some New Yorkers were
surprised. Shouldn't companies be free to enforce a dress code? Not if
ENDA passes.
[/quote]
Is American Eagle still in business Tony? How's the profit margin? Stlil customers coming through the doors? Yes? then fuck off.
[quote]
In Maryland, one hair salon owner testified that she'll lose business
under a similar "non-discrimination" law. Like a lot of shop owners, she
said the government can force her to hire transgenders, but it can't
force customers who are uncomfortable with them to come into her salon.
Still, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the rest of his party are intent
on bringing ENDA up for a vote as early as next week. The only way to put the brakes on this devastating proposal is by speaking out. Contact your senators today and urge them to oppose ENDA -- for freedom's sake.[/quote]
So...you
are not in favor of discrimination for ANY reason, and you just wrote a
couple thousand words advocating for the right to do JUST THAT.
Oh, but it gets better! You have gotten John Boehner all confuzzled.
[quote]
John Boehner today came out swinging against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
The Speaker of The House issued a terse statement hours before the
Senate is slated to vote today on the legislation that would protect
LGBT Americans from being fired — for being LGBT. Boehner’s spokesman
warned against the bill, claiming it would cost straight Americans their
jobs, and falsely stated that LGBT people are already protected from
being fired — a claim that’s egregiously false.
Boehner’s spokesperson said the Speaker believes ENDA will
“cost American jobs, especially small business jobs,” and added it will
“increase frivolous litigation.” How that is possible was not addressed.
Shortly after his initial comments, came a second attack.
“We have always believed,” an aide from Boehner’s office stated, that
the protections included in the ENDA legislation for LGBT people are
“covered by existing law,” the Huffington Post reported.[/quote]
So
let me walk through this John...on the one hand, protecting LGBT people
will directly cause the loss of jobs and an explosion of frivolous
lawsuits....BUUUUUUT.....this protection already exists???
Howzat again?
By
the way - if these protections already exist, what's tony shitting his
pants about again? oh yeah, he's not - he's just manipulating poor
ignorant suckers who think he can be trusted to tell them the truth. I
grow increasingly ashamed I was ever one of them.
So,
the Traditionalist social conservatives are so twisted up over ENDA
that they can't even make an internally consistent case against it.
Nevermind that it's blatant scare tactic nonsense since the house won't
touch it with a 2,000 foot pole, there's fear-mongering to be done!
With
every passing month my willingness to cut these folks some slack in the
"sincere but wrong" department fades. At this point it would take an
electron microscope to measure how little i have left.
Let
us consider two examples. First, the ever-vigilant Tony Perkins, who's
service to FRC is so vital that the website where you can find his
valuable contributions is "tonyperkins.com" instead of "FRC.org" or any
similar variant. Perkins weighed in with a sky-is-falling rant about
ENDA Friday:
[quote]
It's the ENDA the World as We Know It...
Life hasn't exactly been rosy for the business community under this
administration. First, the President's policies kept the economy in the
tank. Then he strangled the financial and energy sectors by passing a
health care law that's trampling employers' freedom and crushing their
bottom lines. Now, as if those burdens weren't enough, the President's
party wants to tell companies how they should run their business, who
they should hire, and what they can and can't believe.
It's all part of the agenda called the Employment Non-Discrimination
Act, an innocuous-sounding, but republic-altering piece of legislation
that has the power to fundamentally destroy Americans' First Amendment
rights. Under this bill, the same community that said it wanted to keep
the government out of its bedroom would be bringing their bedroom to
work -- where employers would be forced to reward workers based on their
sexual preferences.[/quote]
Right, because
clearly ENDA enshrines the right to have sex in the workplace...right?
And "reward"? what's the reward again? Being able to eat and pay rent?
[quote]
Through ENDA (which FRC has blocked for a decade), [/quote]Single handedly? our heroes!![quote]...businesses would be ordered
to make hiring, firing, and promotion decisions -- not based on a
person's qualifications -- but on their sexual expression. [/quote]
Bullshit.
Only in Traditionalist-obsessives' logic is forbidding an action the exact same thing as requiring that very action.
[quote]
Homosexuals,
cross-dressers, and transgendered workers would automatically qualify
for special treatment that other workers would not.[/quote]
Such as?
[quote]Can you imagine
walking into your child's classroom and meeting a teacher dressed in
drag? Neither can most Americans[/quote]
Fuck you Tony, fuck you right in the motherfucking ear.
[quote]
. But unfortunately, that's just one of
the many consequences of adopting a law as dangerous as this one.
Preschools, daycare centers, summer camps, religious chains like Hobby
Lobby or Chick-fil-A -- they'll all be subject to the law, regardless of
their personal beliefs and workplace standards.
[/quote]
"Can
you imagine walking into your child's classroom and finding a nigger
teacher? Neither can most Americans but that's just one of the many
consequences....
~T. Perkins, circa 1963
[quote]
Obviously, FRC isn't in favor of discrimination against anyone for
any reason. [/quote]
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!!! YOU JUST GOT THROUGH MAKING THE CASE FOR THAT VERY THING!
[quote]
But a law like this wouldn't stop discrimination -- it would
encourage it against anyone with a traditional view of
morality.[/quote]
The classic your-intolerance-of-my-intolerance-is-intolerant angle.
[quote]
We all know how the activist community works. Homosexuals and
transgenders will use this law to marginalize Christians and take over
the marketplace -- until only their "lifestyle" is promoted. [/quote]
So
the same people that brag Christians are the great majority in this
country, and gloat that gays are a mere "1-3%" (which the latter is
actually true) nevertheless want us to believe that the 3% is going to
"take over the marketplace"
Something amiss here Tony...[quote]
ENDA isn't
about tolerance -- it's about a nationwide celebration of unlimited
sexual expression. And Christians, like fired Fox Sportscaster Craig James, will be the ones paying the price.
[/quote]
Nothing
about ENDA has anything to do with the Craig James matter - and for the
record, if I understand correctly that James was fired for off-the-job
comments, I do agree he was wrong. But he's irrelevant to this issue.
[quote]
The Left wants to equate opposition to ENDA with intolerance, when in reality, this policy would breed real intolerance toward people like Craig, who are already being fired simply for holding conservative
beliefs. Although James never once talked about his views of marriage
on the air, Fox executives didn't care. "We just asked ourselves how
Craig's statements would play with our HR department," the network said.
[/quote]
Seems
to me that James was fired BEFORE ENDA became law, by a private entity
making a private choice to retain or dismiss a person based on their
private judgement about the best business interest of the company - which is precisely the very fucking thing you say ENDA is a threat to!!!
Do you favor the employer having that right or do you not? Pick a fucking side dumbass.
[quote]
Imagine how many conservatives would find themselves in the same
unemployment line if ENDA were the law of the land! The workplace would
be open season on people with religious convictions and beliefs.[/quote]
And
yet, let's repeat - James was fired WITHOUT ENDA and ESPN has suffered
no legal repercussions. How then does ENDA change that for the worse?
How is the imagined "open season" not already open, if indeed it is such
a thing to be feared?
[quote]
Christians (and people who follow most major religions) would be
silenced and forced underground, while homosexuals and transgenders turn
the business world into their strongest political platform.
[/quote]
so
you are saying that people on the other side of the world are willing
to be put to death for speaking their Christian beliefs, but the noble
American Christian will be cowed into silence by the threat of losing
their job? you seem to think very highly of your sheep, Mr. Perkins.
Again, I support Craig James' right to his views (however in error) and
believe he was wronged. I would say the same about any Christian fired
for their views. but Perkins isn't really worried about people being
free to hold a different view, what he's really advocating for here is
your right as a Christian to harass your gay/trans co-worker or employee
(or reject a potential employee).
In
Perkins' ideal world, assuming I could somehow manage to be employed
anywhere being trans, any "Christian" co-worker could spend all day
telling me what a horrible abomination before God i was under the
umbrella of "religious liberty." if he were asked not to, he would
clearly be a victim of discrimination. not, of course, that people like
Perkins think that people like me should ever have jobs at all.
Nevermind the spouse and children that having no support become wholly
dependent on the welfare system - no wait, he's against that too. let's
just put them under the bridge rather than fool with that pesky trans
employee, eh?
[quote]
A lot of squishy Republicans think they fix the problem with a
religious liberty amendment to ENDA. But as we've seen with the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which the courts have shot full of
holes), it will take a legislative firewall -- not an amendment -- to
protect faithful Americans.
Meanwhile, Christians wouldn't be the only ones hurt by the law. Just
ask American Eagle. When an employee started cross-dressing, managers
said it made shoppers uncomfortable. But when the store tried to enforce
its standards, the company was sued. As part of a private settlement,
American Eagle had to agree to hire transgenders no matter how
uncomfortable it makes customers -- or employees! Some New Yorkers were
surprised. Shouldn't companies be free to enforce a dress code? Not if
ENDA passes.
[/quote]
Is American Eagle still in business Tony? How's the profit margin? Stlil customers coming through the doors? Yes? then fuck off.
[quote]
In Maryland, one hair salon owner testified that she'll lose business
under a similar "non-discrimination" law. Like a lot of shop owners, she
said the government can force her to hire transgenders, but it can't
force customers who are uncomfortable with them to come into her salon.
Still, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the rest of his party are intent
on bringing ENDA up for a vote as early as next week. The only way to put the brakes on this devastating proposal is by speaking out. Contact your senators today and urge them to oppose ENDA -- for freedom's sake.[/quote]
So...you
are not in favor of discrimination for ANY reason, and you just wrote a
couple thousand words advocating for the right to do JUST THAT.
Oh, but it gets better! You have gotten John Boehner all confuzzled.
[quote]
John Boehner today came out swinging against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
The Speaker of The House issued a terse statement hours before the
Senate is slated to vote today on the legislation that would protect
LGBT Americans from being fired — for being LGBT. Boehner’s spokesman
warned against the bill, claiming it would cost straight Americans their
jobs, and falsely stated that LGBT people are already protected from
being fired — a claim that’s egregiously false.
Boehner’s spokesperson said the Speaker believes ENDA will
“cost American jobs, especially small business jobs,” and added it will
“increase frivolous litigation.” How that is possible was not addressed.
Shortly after his initial comments, came a second attack.
“We have always believed,” an aide from Boehner’s office stated, that
the protections included in the ENDA legislation for LGBT people are
“covered by existing law,” the Huffington Post reported.[/quote]
So
let me walk through this John...on the one hand, protecting LGBT people
will directly cause the loss of jobs and an explosion of frivolous
lawsuits....BUUUUUUT.....this protection already exists???
Howzat again?
By
the way - if these protections already exist, what's tony shitting his
pants about again? oh yeah, he's not - he's just manipulating poor
ignorant suckers who think he can be trusted to tell them the truth. I
grow increasingly ashamed I was ever one of them.
Okay, so manifestly NO ONE is reading my writings except maybe half a dozen of my closest friends. The pageviews tell the tale. I'm not going to beat myself up with the obvious implications of that.
Still, if this vehicle serve no other purpose, it's an opportunity to vent, and I have a thought on my mind that I really want to expand on so here goes: Jerry Springer is my enemy.
I have online acquaintances, what might be termed friends if the term can be applied to those who fall in that category on Facebook, who've appeared on that show. I regret that what I'm about to say can easily be taken as a slam against them but that's not my intent. it's a slam against Jerry. I'll admit that I consider it an act of either desperation or exceedingly poor judgement for a trans person to ever set foot on that stage, but such is the culture we live in, where being on TV is the ultimate win.
Why am I so passionate about this? Simple. For all the talk about the specifically hateful profiteers and political actors out there (I'm looking at you, Bryan Fischer) who, indeed, need to be countered - the average ignorant (is that redundant?) American is more heavily influenced by pop culture than be religious flamethrowers. In short, a very great many of those who would profess a willingness to "whoop my ass" for the bathroom i use, and quite possibly actually follow through, form their views of people like me based on the over-the-top bullshit on Springer.
"Ah," but you say, "intelligent people know that Springer isn't real and that's all just an act for fun."
Do they? We're talking about a populace that regularly assaults actors for the actions of the characters they play. I do not for one minute assume that the majority of Springer's audience thinks that nothing they see is real. These are the people who show up at the school board meeting when a trans student ask for respect, they are the ones stampeded into voting against any measure or candidate friendly to our safety; they are the people who won't hire a trans applicant; who will evict a trans tenant.
Jerry Springer knows all this, but he refuses to at least avoid exploiting our situations on his show. He directly fuels the ignorance, misconception, and hatred that costs us heath and happiness and even sometimes our lives. He is my enemy, and your enemy too, whether you know it or not.
My Facebook page has been filled today with the expressions of shock and sadness at the passing of Lisa Empanada. While she was not a direct acquaintance of mine, let alone one I cold call friend (other than that ephemeral friendship that all of us who travel the same road share) and while it's quite true that the specifics of what happened and why are not very well known and indeed may never be, it's been said she took her own life and that choice, as well as the various reactions to it, provoke me to write tonight not specifically about her, for I cannot know the details of her situation, but about the phenomena in general, and what brings us to the point of slipping into the darkness.
My thoughts tonight are, in a sense, two posts in one. I'm inclined both to speak outward, to the world at large, and inward, to that circle of people for whom these are indeed life and death choices. so forgive me if there appears to be a radical change of subject a bit further down.
In another place where I write, I was once cautioned that i tended to present possibly a too-negative description of the pressures that come to bear on the person who sets out to transition gender. That advice was well taken because too much negativity can serve to add to the chains that keep the transsexual person closeted behind their mask, afraid of the consiquences of moving forward.
That said, it is important both for the potential transitioner to not be blindsided by the potential obstacles, but it is also important - and too seldom addressed - for the cis-gendered population to wrap their heads around how much of that pressure and obstruction arises directly from ignorant and ill-willed attitudes displayed by non-trans people. One can easily detail all the various ways in which the transition journey, while leading to a very desired destination, can for some lead through some very dark valleys before you get there. it is a verified fact that the vast majority of those who achieve full transition are very very happy with the results themselves. Strikingly rare is the person who regrets their own physical transformation.
However, as stories like that of Christine Daniels testify, there are those who even having achieved what outwardly seems to be the most successful of transitions, are tormented by some regret that is collateral to the process. perhaps a lost love, perhaps a bitter ex who cuts you off from your kids, perhaps the loss of a career for which one was passionate. These are all examples of how ignorance or ill-will can create negative feedback which can be destructive to even the most (apparently) successful trans person.
It should be remembered too, that very often this negative feedback reinforces a lifelong pattern of negative self-evaluation, because it is inherent to the closeted transsexual to spend much of their life in fear that they will never be good enough, or "normal" enough to be respected and loved. For even the best of us there's usually a lot of psychological wounding and scarring to deal with. To take such a psyche and pound away at it with animosity and negativity can often be a recipe for a downward spiral that is almost impossible to halt. And it would be a mistake to assume that such a process is always obvious.
Now certainly there can be situations which provoke those negative thoughts, even suicidal thoughts, which have nothing to do with the attitude of others. Despondency over ever being able to afford transition is certainly one obvious example (which could be greatly aided were these treatments rout8inely covered by insurance, BTW) or worse, being medically prevented from these treatments by a conflicting medical condition.
But the fact remains that if we in the trans community want to see these numbers reduced, we MUST educate those who don't understand us. Certainly their will always be unrepentant bigots, but so many of our critics could be won over if we take the time to lovingly help them understand. Every person who's heart you help change is a person who might not be the trigger that sends our brothers and sisters into that dark place from which they cannot escape. Do not be obnoxious, do not be hostile, do not be defensive - but do be gently, compassionately, PERSISTENT.
In the mean time, if you are one of those people out there who feels the darkness closing in, despite the fact that you present your friends and acquaintences with a hopeful image, remember a few things:
1. You did NOT take off one mask to put on another one. You and I know what it's like to spend most of your life trying to make the world see a "you" that was not authentic, and how much pain that caused. Why then will we torture ourselves by doing that all over again, only with a different mask? Our mantra, if it is anything, is "Be Real" - so when you are hurting, when you don't feel "normal enough" - find a friend and SAY SO.
2. Remember that when you are forced to make that final decision, the worst of your critics WIN. Think about that one harshest and most hurtful critic you have, the one who might even say to your face that you are a monster that doesn't deserve to live. Are you going to give THAT person the satisfaction of quitting and justify the lie that your transition was a function of mental illness, not biology?
3. There are scores, maybe hundreds, of women tonight crying bitter tears that Lisa did not give them a chance to make a difference. However isolated you feel, each and every one of them - every one of US - longs to be the voice who breaks through the darkness and becomes a ray of light and hope in your existence. please give someone that chance.
For the rest of us? Never miss the chance, not ever, to say to the apparently despondent person or even the one that seems to you to have it all together, "You are loved!" because you never know for who that message might be the one lifeline that stays their hand.
Last month the big “trans story”
came out of California, but was so quickly supplanted by the announcement regarding Chelsea Manning that it got pushed out of the
public view with much less commentary that usually happens in these
cases. Truth be told, that's a good thing as such progress usually is
more effective, ultimately, when it takes place quietly and incrementally. Because you can look back in five or ten years and say
“See? Civilization didn't collapse after all!”
I'm speaking, of course, about the bill
signed by Gov. Brown which affirmed a policy already in place in
quite a few school districts in California (and elsewhere, for that
matter) which allows transgender youth to use the facilities, and
participate in the activities, consistent with their identified
gender rather than the one assigned at birth.
For the consideration of the potential
reader who may not be well versed in the intricacies of trans-related
terminology and so forth, let me explain. The phrase “assigned at
birth” is not meant to imply that everyone's gender is arbitrary.
Rather, it reflects the reality that for a very small percentage of
births, the apparent gender of the infant is not, after all, the
correct one – but the delivering doctor has no obvious way to
determine this at birth. So when the doctor says “it's a boy” or
“Its a girl” he's reacting to what he can see, which is 99'9% (or
so) reliable. That's your “assigned” gender, which almost no one
ever has any reason to wonder about. But occasionally, a child is
assigned based on visual evidence incorrectly. Such a child is considered, in most cases, intersex when the situation is discovered.
Sometimes the intersex condition is visible, and parents are asked to
decide how to handle it. THAT is a subject for another day.
Your identified gender is your internal
sense of self, who you believe you are – and it has nothing to do
with the physical construct of your outward appearance. It might be
customary to think that “because I have a vagina, I therefore know
I'm a female” but the reality is that there's no sense in which a
child doesn't know what they are until they learn the difference
between one set of plumbing and the other. All sorts of examples
might be offered to support this premise but that, too, would be a
tangent. Short story: you know what gender you are innately, not based
on outwardly visible data. Again, for 99+% of the population the
outward data and the internal data are consistent. On rare occasions
they are not. These people are, depending on the term you want to use
(see my previous post on the subject) transgender, transsexual, or
intersex.
Contrary to the popular mythology, it's
more common for a trans person to know about their gender incongruity
as a child than the reverse. Admittedly, there's a reason that myth
exists. Until the last 10-15 years, the overwhelming majority of
trans-kids would have felt an almost unimaginable social pressure to
conceal their status. If they did display “cross-gender” feelings
or actions, they were in almost every case browbeaten into
conformity, and all this negative feedback of course reinforcing in
their mind a sense of self-shame that persists far into adulthood. In
my generation, accepting yourself is something that takes you often
into your 40's to do.
With each succeeding generation that
drops. One can basically correlate the age at which any person comes
out with the age they reached in the first decade of this century. In
other words, if you survey a thousand out trans people, the vast
majority started their transition within the last 15 years, no matter
what age they were at the time. That's simply a result of the
increased volume of information available in the internet age than
had been before. Not unexpectedly, it takes a while for cultural
traditions to catch up with new information, or increased
availability of information, both of which apply in relation to the
science of being trans.
But the truth remains, a very high percentage of people born trans understand their gender dysphoria
long before they leave school. The question then becomes, how do we
as a society, as the responsible adults, react to this? Predictably,
the traditionalist (masquerading as the defenders of morals) express
shock and outrage that trans kids would be accommodated. Policies like
the one in California (and many other local districts around the
country, including the major metro school districts in Texas of all
places) which seek to make the world a safer and more tolerant place
for the one or two in a thousand kids who have gender dysphoria are
twisted into outlandish claims that schools are purposely confusing
the gender of your kids.
It's utter nonsense. Documented cases
exist in which misguided adults tried to indoctrinate a child into a
specific gender identity, with horrifically failed results. One need
only consider the fact that medical and psychological science has
utterly failed to come up with an effective treatment to “cure” a
transsexual person of gender dysphoria. Heck, one need only ask
themselves “what possible strategy might have been applied to me,
when I was six, to make me think I was the opposite gender?” Are any
of you willing to admit that could have been done? Of course it couldn't.
What remains, then, is teaching kids a
pretty simple message, paraphrased thus: “You may someday have a
classmate who believe they are the opposite sex from what you thought
they were. This is a real condition, just like diabetes or anything
else, and it's stupid to be mean to them for it, so don't do that,
okay?” What's so objectionable about that?
“But,” the traditionalist cries,
“Bathrooms! Locker rooms! Wild penises running around everywhere!!!”
Again, it's nonsense on so many levels.
There may have been a time when no one anywhere ever used the
bathroom with people of the opposite sex, in which one could have
claimed it was dangerous to individuals or society to do so. Just as
there was a time when people would have declared it a danger to
society for blacks and whites to toilet in the same place. But for
whatever reason, some places did it anyway. Guess what? No “Human
sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!”
too place. Well, some folks might be on the fringes of that mass
hysteria thing, but almost all of them are getting paid handsomely to
be there.
In point of fact, we have a substantial
data sample now, in both public settings and student settings,
demonstrating conclusively that the predicted dangers failed to
appear. Yes, occasionally some pervy man – a cis-man by the way –
violates women's private spaces with his person or his technology,
but there's no correlation at all between those fairly rare incidents
and the local policies and laws being trans friendly or not. The
whole “men will claim to be trans in order to gain access to
vulnerable women” prediction completely failed to materialize. Even
in school districts, this policy has been in place on the local level
for, in some cases, close to a decade – long enough for us to see
what the downside is. Here's the thing – no downside. All the
rabble rousing is so much scare tactics proffered to you by people who
KNOW based on available data that the thing they are warning you
about hasn't happened.
So you, if you believe the rantings of
everyone from Peter LaBarbara to Scott Lively to Bryan Fischer, if
you believe the dire scare stories on WND, ONN, or the Christian Post
– you need to ask yourself “why do these people continue to lie
to me? What's in it for them?” Then consider the fact that every
one of them will remind you that they are in business thanks to the
generous financial support of believers like you.
September 1, 2008. I took the first rash step on what has been a life-saving journey five years ago and there's a part of me that very much wants to mark that anniversary with a profound bit of writing that will be worthy of the (completely arbitrary) milestone. But as I sit here and think back over the road thus far, I'm not sure that any profundity will emerge. Still, I don't think I want to go in an upbeat direction. I'm in a more mellow state of mind. Maybe someday I'll write a more lighthearted commentary on what I learned
on "the other side of the street" so far - in a couple of months I'll
reach 4 full years of full time presentation as a woman. But I'm not in
that kind of mood tonight.
One of the things that you do gain, apart from the obvious, in undertaking transition is a great deal more clarity than you had before. Of course there's clarity about your own heart and mind and soul. Anyone who was not wholly invested in the necessity of this process will certainly turn back in the fact of the difficulty of the task. Occasionally you will hear of a case of "regret" or a person who decided to "de-transition" and I feel sad for those people because they are either people who tried it for the wrong reasons (Hiya Walt!) or those for whom the lack of support and outright opposition from loved ones was too much to take. Often those in that latter group ends in a tragic place. I sometimes wonder if those who pulled out every stop to undermine a transition or reject their trans "loved" one are at peace with their choices after they had to bury the one they rejected. I myself have been told, in all seriousness, that it would be far better had I taken my own life than that i transitioned - and this by those who profess to love me. what kind of love is that, exactly? So yes, you face that kind of challenge, both emotionally and all the various circumstances regarding the cost, the physical pain, the rejection of the world, the loss of career and social standing and all the rest - it burns away the dross in your life and gives you a clear view of your priority.
Likewise, you get a much clearer understanding of the immediate world around you. Trans people find themselves cut off with people that they thought were the most loyal, close family and old friends often just disappear or, if they do maintain any sort of relationship it's laced with open contempt. I'm estranged from my father, who thinks I'm "crazy as hell"...but that was a difficult relationship anyway. More surprising to me was that it's been over 4 years since I've had any interaction with my brother and, as far as I can tell, there's a specific mandate among his family to NOT give me any point of contact information. Here's a guy who, make during my hyper-religious days, came to me to tell me about his impending divorce and received nothing but understanding - even though the Bible says far more about divorce than about me. Now, when love and understanding need to flow in the other direction, the tap is turned off and welded shut. so be it.
Discretion does not even allow me to begin to comment on the things I've heard from my spouse, or the things I've experienced. suffice it to say that i have a lot more clarity about people's priorities. There are others I could comment on - my one time "best friend" who's all too willing to throw me under the bus and talk about me in terms that would imply he never liked me at all, for example. But the point is made I think. It is, though, only fitting that I also remark that others, such as my mother, have also shown their true colors during this difficult time and that reflecting well upon their character and their heart.
You get clarity on a larger scale too, the folks so blinded by religious tradition that they lose site of what it means to love your fellow human being; the people so obsessed with making you pay that they go out of their way to poison your job prospects or even your marriage; the knowledge that even those who've known you their whole life can't show enough compassion to even have a civil discussion with you about it. And on the other hand the people you basically never knew at all until they stepped up and said "I admire your courage" and become new friends, more true than any of the ones you claimed that title that you lost.
You get clarity about the world at large and just how infested the human race is with, let's call it what it is, meanness. The hundreds and hundreds of remarks I've seen in various media from those who claim the name of Christ and profess to be defending morals which are just flat out hateful is stunning. Let's be clear, I don't toss around the word "hateful" lightly. there are several religious conservative organizations that the SPLC calls a hate group that I don't think are at all motivated by hate. They do not intentionally speak or act hatefully, it's just that their ignorance and loyalty to tradition leads then to inadvertently say and do hateful things. THAT is not what i mean. What I refer to is, for example, the sort of thing I saw on WND just last night. You see, i can't even post a comment on that site because I'm banned, despite never having lowered myself to any sort of antagonistic comment on that site. meanwhile, the "good Christians" (so professed) go on about how trans people are perverts and freaks who ought to be institutionalized, lobotomized, or even euthanized for the good of society - and those comments and the ones who posted them go unmolested. This is not the exception, this is the majority on any number of supposed "Christian" sites.
There was a time I'd have argued such a thing would never be possible. Then you look at just how often a trans person is assaulted, raped, or killed (or all three) for the offense of being what they are and ...yeah, it's pretty hard to not be very cynical about the human race.
The remarkable thing, though, is that the more clarity you get, the more peace you have in your own soul. At least that has been my experience. It is about like the Biblical analogy of the refiner's fire. The difficulties of this process burn away the people and things in your life which are not true and worthy, and leave you with a much smaller, but more precious, possession instead.
I'm not done, far from it. in fact, in my state of poverty I despair of ever finishing the process to the extent I'd prefer. Even when or if that ever is the case, I'll still have to deal with regrets. Every day I have to remind myself to focus on what I've gained and not waste time mourning for all the experiences
I feel ought rightfully have been mine that I'll never ever get to live. There's no comparison between transitioning at 20 and transitioning at 45-50 in terms of the life you have left in front of you. but then I remember that many people my age are dealing with serious issues like cancer or renal failure or whatever, many didn't even live this long, so quit my whining and be glad for what I have.
I'm not done. not even with the things i could have done even in the midst of poverty, because I have personal obligations of the heart that i have refuse to just throw away. I have friends who don't understand my commitment, and advise me to move on. I have enemies who spit on my efforts rather than recognizing the sincerity of them because they can't see me as anything other than a villain. Certainly it would be a lie to deny that there are not moments when i am tempted to say "this is too hard" and wash my hands of it - to cut all the strings which tie me to my past life and which force me to spend some part of every day having "him" rubbed in my face. Nevertheless, I'm resolved to be able to look in the mirror every day and say "I did my best" in how I handle this situation.
Because clarity extends beyond just confirming you have the strength to transition, it shows you how much strength you have in every other area of life too.
I've been taking in and digesting a lot of material over the last week or so about the Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning and the complex matrix of her crime, her trial, her treatment, and her condition. The complexity of the situation is staggering and, even for one as verbose as myself, defies a straightforward assessment. There's a really good book to be written here, by one connected enough to gather the facts. Sadly, the book we get probably won't be that book.
I'm not going to attempt to go into any sort of deep analysis of the progression of events, rather I'll link you to the best thing I've seen written on the subject. but what i do want to do is step around the superstructure that's already been erected over the various interlocking elements of this story and look for a moment at the broader implications for the trans community which could potentially grow out of Manning's situation.
However, in order to do that I do need to review the most specific salient points to lay the factual foundation for my comments. Manning is 25 years old, and joined the Army just before her 20th birthday. she almost washed out of boot camp (a discharge order was created, then revoked) and there were red flags about her suitability for the service throughout her enlistment and even before. Other writers have well covered the argument that Manning should never have been IN the Army, let alone have access to sensitive information.
Alongside that, the situation in the Army, vis-a-vi security, retention, and the DADT policy all can be faulted in various ways for the nexus of events which led Manning to have the access she had. Whatever one's view of her crimes, and the motivation behind them, one has to be blind to believe that Manning "beat the system" and cleverly outsmarted anyone. There are truckloads of culpability backed up in a row here. As we all know, Manning chose to transmit to the site Wikilinks a huge document dump of classified information. However, the Army testifies that no life has been lost, or is expected to be, due to Manning's actions.
I shall, in this writing, take no position on the action to reveal the documents. It is not the purpose for which I've created it. Rather, my interest is in the implications which might be drawn from the situation as it now stands. Chelsea Manning was a self-identified transsexual* having reportedly revealed this to more than one other person, well before the "espionage" event. Though there's some evidence that she viewed herself as a gay male for her early adult years. This no doubt comes as a shock to many people who get their information from the nightly news or other mainstream media because they've treated that bit of established fact is if it were a pile of nuclear waste that they dare not touch.
Likewise, both before the Incident and after, the Army refused to deal in a head-on way with this reality. the did not discharge her when she outed herself (as DADT would require at the time) nor did they offer her significant care to attempt to deal with her distress, nor have they treated their prisoner as a woman in any regard or, indeed, in a way which constitutes recognizing the particular needs of a trans inmate. Some will no doubt scoff at the close timeline between the willingness to reveal gender dysphoria, and the crime being committed, but there's no visible evidence of lack of sincerity about her GD situation.
Now, with her lawyer having boldly proclaimed Chelsea's wishes on national TV, most feign shock and surprise and a "where did this come from?" attitude and propose to begin the conversation of what should be done with her - a conversation that rightly should have been long held by this point. Even here, as she is facing a 35 year sentence, at least eight of which she'll serve in Ft. Leavenworth (which is a military prison, separate from the Leavenworth Federal prison for civilians), the situation hasn't gotten less complex at all, just taken on a new dynamic.
The controversy now bears considerable resemblance to the ongoing legal battle in Massachusetts concerning the claims of convicted murderer Michelle Kosilek that part of her essential medical health treatment includes Gender Reassignment surgery (GRS - also known by various other labels). In that state, government lawyers for the prison system vociferously fight to deny the treatment, which a U.S. district judge says is her civil right. That case is now before the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
Kosilek's legal case is, in some respects, more cut and dried in that there's no moral mitigation for her crimes (committed while still living as a man) but those details are not really relevant to the point I feel needs to be addressed. The central point of controversy here, and the one sure to spark the indignant outrage of a large segment of the population, is common to both these cases as well as several others: Is the prison obliged to expend taxpayer funding for the treatment of Gender Dysphoria (the sole effective treatment being transition)?
This question provokes outrage even from some in the trans community itself. It is not uncommon to see the sentiment expressed something like this: "Why should a convicted murderer (or whatever the crime) be privileged to have their treatment paid for while I, a law abiding citizen, can't afford mine?!"
As one of those who cannot afford a great many aspects of treatment, I completely sympathize with this instinct. It parallels, of course, the anger many non-trans people feel on the issue (if they are aware of it) because many people will argue that a convicted criminal should receive only the most basic health care intervention - or none at all. Many people are really invested in the "make them suffer" paradigm. I won't try to persuade anyone who holds that view to change it. The over-riding reality is, that the courts do not hold that view. There's a long legal history now of the courts firmly coming down on the side of providing prisoners with a full slate of health care ruling that to fail to do so violates the 8th Amendment. That is thoroughly established legal precedent and all the howls of protest won't change it. So the question of Manning's treatment, and Kosilek's and the rest of the trans persons who are incarcerated HAS to be discussed within that context.
It's clear, to logically thinking observers who are not biased against the interest of trans people that the answer to their requests for transitional treatment MUST be "yes." Why? Because upon that question turns the whole concept of whether transitional treatment is recognized at large as a legitimate medical expense. As opposed to cosmetic or elective procedures. I don't need to tell you that, while some city policies and a few major employers (such as Microsoft and Disney to name just two) have updated their coverage to include trans related care, the vast majority of insurance policies, including government insurance (though this may change soon) excludes trans-related treatment from covered options. The decision makers in the insurance industry often take their cues from the courts, and court rulings upholding treatment for Kosilek and others benefit all insured trans people by establishing the official position that the care is legitimate.
The law-abiding trans person who protests Kosilek's surgery, or Manning's treatment, spites themselves because all of us are in better standing before the insurance industry when those rulings happen. To be clear, the courts are not making this "right" up out of whole cloth either, but these decisions reflect the consensus of the medical, scientific, and psychological professional communities. It is from THOSE professionals that the court draws guidance. But insurance companies will spurn that guidance until they are forced to do differently, either by the client purchaser, or by the court.
I have no real answer for the cis-person who says "feed em bread and water and let them suffer" except to say that you'll need to take your position to the court and argue with them. but for the trans person who resents the possibility that manning will eventually get transitional treatment in prison - STOP IT! Every time you voice that view what the cis-person hearing you says is "Oh? so it IS elective treatment after all? You don't HAVE to have it? Thought so." Please do not surrender your legitimacy and your credibility in a pique over the perceived imbalance of the prisoner's treatment. Ultimately, we are closer to being covered - each of us - every time a court rules in favor of someone like Manning. It's true that Manning, being a prisoner of the Army, is under a different set of rules but the Army, too, os bound not to violate the civil rights of their prisoners.
Consider this chain of events:
>Kosilek (and others) get court ordered treatment;
>>Manning sues, based on that precedent, and the courts affirm that it's a matter of civil rights (equality before the law) that Manning get treatment as directed by her doctors;
>>>Trans civilian sues insurance company demanding coverage, citing the foregoing court decisions as precedent and wins. Bam. Trans exclusions in private and public insurance policies are dismantled; Including, for instance, medicare.
>>>>Trans service members, citing manning, are armed to appeal the military's unfair policy towards trans service members, including but not limited to health care.
I, for one, calculate the price her to be well worth it. And before someone begins to bemoan the cost of that treatment, consider that in Kosilek's case, the projected cost of mental health care treatment ongoing into the future exceeds the cost of the surgery by a wide margin. consider too, that the state has now incurred enough expense fighting her operation that they could have paid for around 100 such operations. GRS, when medically indicated, is in fact a cost-effective treatment for an incarceration of any significant length.
As for Manning, the point has been made that a 25 year old person can surely wait 8 years for surgery. indeed, in the abstract that is true. Manning has not yet indicated an intention to even pursue a surgical treatment while incarcerated. I can testify to the burden and necessity of long waits, as I began my transition five years ago and would be stunned if I've obtained that surgery within the next three. I'm insanely jealous of acquaintances I've had who had the money to go from start to finish in 2 years and sometimes less. Nevertheless, we must not lose site of the principle at stake here. If Manning's treating physicians agree that GRS is indicated and necessary treatment, then I want to see her get it. Not because she can't wait but because WE can't wait.
*Regarding my use of the word "Transsexual": I recognize that in some circles within the trans community, there's a lot of debate about the proper use of these labels. for my fuller exposition on that subject, see my previous post Transgender 101, but suffice to say in this space that while many would like to push the word transsexual into the dustbin, I hold the view that it is perfectly reasonable to distinguish between the transgender person who is born with a condition which they have no choice and and which is only fully resolved by transition, from the transgender person who for whatever reason lives in a way that is inconsistent with traditional gender expectations. in short, what I am and what a drag queen are is not the same thing (transsexuals who also do drag notwithstanding) yet both are considered "transgender." I will not compromise the argument that we need more specificity and clarity than that. I am not a separatist, nor do I hold either as superior to the other. but they are distinct and we should not whitewash that.
So whenever you see me write about the broader spectrum of trans issues, I'll readily say "transgender", but when the subject is a person who is engaged in, wishes to be, or has completed a physical modification of their body in order to align it with their brain sex, or an issue related specifically to that process, I'll be using the word "transsexual" - deal with it.
