Corporate Freeloaders

Enjoy your Tax Day!

Deconstructing Gender Again

Gender: 2. sex: the feminine gender. (Dictionary.com)

Gender: 2. Sexual category; males or females as a group. (The American Heritage Dictionary, 4^th edition)

I think almost everyone understands that these definitions don't adequately define gender. A real definition of gender would be something like this:

Gender: 2. Subconscious sex; the subjective, instinctive understanding one has of their own biological sex at a subconscious level, which may or may not coincide with biological sex and conscious awareness of biological sex.

Perhaps that's why there is so much disagreement within our society about what gender really is, what the word really relates to or means. For instance, many feminists believe that gender is wholly a social construct, that it is a concept created and perpetrated by society as a means to restrict the behavior of women and oppress them. Many religious sects think gender is and means the same thing as sex, is just another word for it, like "truck" and "lorry." They assume that biological sex is completely deterministic, and that to express gender in a way that is not culturally typical to your biological sex is a crime against God (or some such). I object to both of those concepts. Both are limiting and incomplete. In fact, gender is both biologically and socially constructed.

Physical sex plays a large role in determining who we are. The physically smaller size of women, their menstrual cycles, pregnancy and childbirth, lactation and nursing, and the vulnerability that goes with them all powerfully influence one's innate, instinctual understanding of self. In addition, hormones affect thought processes, as the vast majority of women are well aware, due to their menstrual cycles. Many men, on the other hand, are completely unaware that hormones affect thought, because the lack of cycle means their hormone balance remains constant. This is borne out by the children of my friends, as they tend to be open-minded, liberal folks who go to some pains to protect their children from the social influences of gender, to allow them to express gender as they see fit. Regardless, in a general sense, boys and girls exhibit different behaviors from birth. These differences can be observed in young children, as even when they are encouraged in gender-neutral or cross-gender activities, boys will gravitate to more active, violent play, and girls to relationship play (which is not to say that either primary sex plays exclusively one or the other – just about everyone does some degree of cross-gender play, to their own unique degree). Two girls from the same family, sharing the same background and social influence, often develop quite different degrees of feminine expression, with one perhaps adopting ruffles and high femme, the other more of a butch style – and the same goes for boys.

Society also exerts a strong influence on the development of gender. A neighbor's boy frequently wore skirts before starting school, even though he exhibited a high degree of masculine-style play/behavior. When he started school, he only wore it one time – I've never seen him wear a skirt since. In most families, gendered behavior and style is encouraged in clothing choice, activities, toys, social relations, and just about everything else. Boys and girls are frequently held to different standards, with more tolerance for boys getting their clothes dirty and being loud and violent, and so forth. Often that gendered behavior is not only encouraged, it's coerced – boys' hair cut short, girls forbidden from wearing pants, etc. That coercion damages some children badly; others, already inclined in that direction, are damaged hardly at all.

Deconstructing inherent, biological gender development from socially gendered influence is probably impossible. There is a constant interplay between the two factors at least from birth, if not sooner. They weave our gendered lives together, much like the warp and weft of cloth, to determine the fabric of our lives. Some aspects, however, can be deconstructed, and must be if individuals are to be whole and free:

- Gender should never be coercive, and nobody should suffer ridicule or punishment for crossing gender lines.

- Exaggerating the natural differences among sexes/genders is destructive.

- Everyone – man, woman, child, and all those who fall between – has an unalienable right to live and express gender in their own way, in the manner that is most comfortable to them and allows them the greatest freedom in personal development – from the time of their birth.

- Gender is not a toggle switch, an either-or, on-off binary. It's a multi-faceted continuum (or perhaps continua).

- Perhaps most important, no sex, nor any gender, is inherently better or worse, stronger or weaker, more or less emotional or rational, than any other. The differences in style and expression are cosmetic, not structural. By themselves, they add beauty and diversity to life and make it richer, but the value is the same.

Rape Prevention Tips That Work

Personal Failure recently linked to a list Valdosa State University published (and more recently removed from their website) advising women on "Tips for avoiding rape." Between PF and Fannie, the list itself has been thoroughly deconstructed, so I won't go into it here. Instead, I'll post an alternative list below, copied from I Blame the Patriarchy, with some modifications

Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work

1. No means no. There are no exceptions to this rule. Not even when you've been necking and heavy petting. "No" immediately removes all implicit and explicit consent; to continue and force sex after "no" constitutes rape.

2. Don’t put drugs in women’s drinks.

3. When you see a woman walking by herself, leave her alone.

4. If you pull over to help a woman whose car has broken down, remember not to assault her.

5. If you are in a lift and a woman gets in, don’t assault her. You know what? Don’t even ogle her.

6. When you encounter a woman who is asleep, the safest course of action is to not assault her.

6. Never creep into a woman’s home through an unlocked door or window, or spring out at her from between parked cars, or assault her.

8. When you lurk in bushes and doorways with criminal intentions, always wear bright clothing, wave a flashlight, or play “Boys Who Rape (Should All Be Destroyed)” by the Raveonettes on a boombox really loud, so women in the vicinity will know where to aim their flamethrowers.

9. USE THE BUDDY SYSTEM! If it is inconvenient for you to stop yourself from assaulting women, ask a trusted friend to accompany you when in public.

10. Carry a rape whistle. If you find that you are about to assault a woman, you can hand the whistle to your buddy, so s/he can blow it to call for help.

11. Give your buddy a revolver, so that when indifferent passers-by either ignore the rape whistle, or gather round to enjoy the spectacle, s/he can pistol-whip you.

12. Don’t forget: Honesty is the best policy. When asking a woman out on a date, don’t pretend that you are interested in her as a person; tell her straight up that you expect to be assaulting her later. If you don’t communicate your intentions, the woman may take it as a sign that you do not plan to rape her.

The Girl Cell

For some time, there's been a Valentine's Day tradition of performing Eve Ensler's "The Vagina Monologues." This Valentine's Day, however, I'd like to refer you to THIS VIDEO of Eve talking on TED. Watch it, and take a moment to celebrate your "girl cell."

I know I'm celebrating mine!

The Roots of Racism?

This post is speculative, so I'm interested in hearing other people's points of view. But first, let me tie together several seemingly unrelated elements:

As a member of the Diversity Committee at work, I get links to an online "Managing Diversity" newsletter. A recent article pointed out the importance of diversity, because (assuming the trends continue), by 2030 or so, whites will be a minority.

Then, over at Black Diaspora, I saw this quote: "The Election of Barack Obama is just the most startling manifestation of a larger trend: the gradual erosion of "whiteness" as the touchstone of what it means to be American. If the end of white America is a cultural and demographic inevitability, what will the new mainstream look like—and how will white Americans fit into it? What will it mean to be white when whiteness is no longer the norm? And will a post-white America be less racially divided—or more so?" I told B.D. that, to me, losing my membership in the majority race would be "no big deal."

Daniel Quinn, in his book Ishmael, introduces the idea of "keeper" culture vs. "leaver" culture as two distinct paradigms of social relations and, primarily, human relations to our planet. "The premise of the Takers' story is 'The world belongs to man.' ...The premise of the Leavers' story is 'Man belongs to the world.'"

Riane Eisler introduces the concept of "dominator" vs. "partnership" as two models or paradigms for social relations, extending from personal/family to international in scope, in The Chalice and the Blade.

Bringing all this together, I started to wonder: Is racism integral to a dominator to keeper social paradigm?

In other words, does racism come automatically when one adopts a domination culture, as we have done – and not only racism, but sexism, etc.? Are these isms doomed to remain so long as we cling to our traditional domination culture, only to disappear at the paradigm shift to a partnership culture? And I have no doubt that we are in the process of this paradigm shift – though the default, baseline is still domination over partnership, and that trend could end at any time.

Exploring the early books of the Bible, we see the development of a domination culture, and it starts right at the beginning with the suppression and oppression of women. From there it develops into the Israelites' conquests and utter annihilation of some Canaanite tribes, along with the Israelites' clear claim to racial superiority seen in them being the chosen people of God.

But then, you also see a lot of warfare among leaver cultures, such as most Native American cultures prior to the invasion of Europeans into their territories. Tribalism, in these cases (as in Europeans and even to modern days and municipal rivalries), is widespread, perhaps universal.

There is, however, a difference. So far as I've been able to determine, warfare among pre-European Native Americans was never (or were rarely) a war of annihilation. There were territorial disputes and raiding for goods or prestige or captives. Children from enemy tribes were adopted into their captor tribes, as Barcheeampe, sometimes going on to positions of prominence in those tribes. So I don't think tribalism accounts for racism and so forth, at least by itself. I see plenty of tribalism between Duck fans and Beaver fans, but it's not infrequent that they end up married to each other.

Everything is connected, and it seems reasonable to me to think that the dominator model our society has adopted over the course of the last 3000 years or so is integral with racism, and that racism is born in that dominator model, including the fear of people of color (POC's) obtaining equality (or power). And that the same applies to women, or gays and lesbians, or trans people, etc.

What do you think?

Gen. 1:1-3:24 v. “Origin of the Species”

In his book "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America," Chris Hedges makes a strong case, backed with evidence, that it is not gays, as Sally Kern would say, or a few Muslim terrorists, as our political leaders would argue, who are the greatest threat to America and American freedom. It is the well-meaning, deluded folks who pack the megachurches of the Christian Right, and give of their wealth and being to the great Pharisees of our time, such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. In other words, it is Sally Kern, and a lot of the folks who run around abusing tea instead of putting it to good use in a cup of hot water, not Barney Frank, you need to watch out for. People who believe that the first three chapters of the Bible are the true, literal account of the origin of our species.

I'll clarify that in a bit, but first I want to address the "controversy" between creationism and evolution. After all, Hedges refers to a 2004 Gallup poll reporting that "45 percent [of Americans] said the Genesis account of creation was a true story" (p. 117). Creation museums are sprouting up around the nation, at the cost of millions and millions of dollars. There must be something there, right?

Well, first, let's compare the sources of the two diverse theories, creationism v. evolution. Genesis 1:1 – Gen. 3:24 v. "The Origin of Species," by Charles Darwin.

The first, creationism, relies on two ancient metaphorical or allegorical tales, handed down verbally for eons before getting locked onto paper. The authors of these two stories are lost in the mists of time, as are their intents in creating them. And yes, there are two distinctly different stories here, with different authors and different deities (Elohim & Yahweh), which are also antagonistic to and contradict each other.

"The Origin of Species" was written by a scientist, based on his observation of physical reality, and developed over time by use of the scientific method.

One is myth-based, the other is science- and reality-based.

In other words, there is no controversy. Evolution is not in doubt; it's scientific fact. The supposed controversy between creationism and evolution amounts to no more than the comparison of myth with truth. Apples with oranges. Metaphor with fact. Creationism is bullshit. The effort to require the teaching of creationism in schools amounts to no more than an attempt to degenerate the education system still further, and indoctrinate our children to believe a lie.

But if you look more carefully, you'll see that Genesis and Darwin aren't contradictory or antagonistic at all. They are irrelevant to each other – they address different issues, they talk about different things. "Origin of Species" talks about the physical development over time of biological diversity. Genesis talks about the spiritual condition of humankind, and two contradictory paradigms of human relations. It teaches not to believe a lie.

The first account, Genesis 1:1 – Gen. 2:3, is a beautiful metaphor of God (Elohim) as Love and Spirit (as Jesus taught), and of what Riane Eisler, in "The Chalice & the Blade," would call the "partnership" paradigm of human relations. It begins with light (perhaps metaphorical of the Big Bang), develops from the most basic forms of life to man and woman as both co-equal and co-created, and ends with God blessing all, which is "good."

The second account, Genesis 2:4 – Gen. 3:24, describes metaphorically what Eisler would call the "dominator" paradigm of human relations. It begins with mist. Adam (man) is created first, and God (Yahweh) needs his help to finish the creation. Eve (woman) is an afterthought, created solely for man's service and enjoyment. And at the end, it is cursed.

It teaches not to believe a lie.

It is this second model that fundamentalist Christians have chosen to adopt, and that permeates our culture – a model of male domination over women, adults over children, white people over people of color, rich over poor, powerful men over less powerful men, powerful nations over those nations they can conquer and exploit, greedy men over the earth that sustains us and gives us life. A model that enthrones oppression, cruelty, tyranny, violence, pain, greed, and environmental destruction.

The first Genesis metaphor celebrates the creation of life as the power to be worshipped. The second celebrates death – the destruction of life – as the power to be worshipped. The first celebrates in foresight Jesus's life, work, and resurrection; the second celebrates in foresight his betrayal, trial, and execution.

What would Jesus do?

On p. 113 of "American Fascists," Hedges quotes Hannah Arendt, in "The Origins of Totalitarianism: "The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda – before the movements have the power to drop iron curtains to prevent anyone's disturbing, by the slightest reality, the gruesome quiet of an entirely imaginary world – lies in its ability to shut the masses off from the real world." Expounding on that, he (Hedges) says, "The power of these non-reality-based movements is that they appeal to our deepest-held, most primitive prejudices, or classism, sexism, racism – perversions based on fear of complexity or change. So the propaganda contains much of what we already yearn to believe. Its subversive message is that it's OK to believe what we want, to believe lies." Creationists, by buying into the belief in magic and denying scientific fact, have abdicated their grasp on reality, and thus their responsibility and ability to make choices based on reality, to cynical, power-hungry men who wish to establish in the United States a Christo-fascist state, unlike Iran's Islamo-facist state only in the name of the tyrannical deity they profess to serve.

Read the books. Wake up. And resist.

Marriage and Equality

Awhile back I commented on a post by a guy (conservative anti-gay type) who, in order to defend "traditional" marriage as between a man and a woman only, created the idea that women's equality came about because of their marriages – that "marriage brings equality," or, the interactions women had with their husbands were what led to women's suffrage, not the marching and the protesting and the blood of courageous women spilled on the ground in protest, along with the cultural change these brave pioneers instigated. (Well, what the heck, as the article in yesterday's post reveals, sometimes "marriage defenders" get desperate.) I wish I had found this website while I was taking issue with his fantasy.

OnLawn works hard to make his case, but the No Longer Quivering bloggers, along with their counterparts such as Our Quiverfull, offer real-time examples of how fully patriarchal marriage – traditional marriage, if you will, from the days before women's suffrage and the feminist movement – works. It's true that women often influence their husbands, even under the most oppressive legal circumstance. John Stuart Mill is an example – way back in the mid-1800's, his relations with his wife led to his essay On the Subjection of Women, where he proposed that women should be wholly equal with men. So I have no doubt that OnLawn's argument about marital interactions and relations is correct – for some men. But reading the accounts of the NLQ bloggers shows the flip side; for many – I would argue most – men, the subjection and submission of women in their households leads to varying levels of abuse, from outright physical and emotional abuse to subtle abuse that amounts to no more than fond contempt, such as one might have for a child or pet – the assumption that women are less competent, less able, less intelligent than men.

Where have you encountered that attitude before?

Even when intended with love and nurturance, that attitude damages women and society by preventing the development of the full potential of both men and women.

I have no doubt that many women were in happy, near-equalitarian relationships with their husbands, back when they were legal chattel. But that is a testament to the quality of their husbands, not to the legal disparity between them, or their powers of persuasion. As Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." The moral character of men put in a position of absolute power over their wives must have degraded, damaging them as well as their wives. The NLQ bloggers' experience shows that it still degrades. The indoctrination of women from birth in their inferiority and natural submissiveness, along with the promise of reward in the afterlife for that submissiveness and fear of punishment for being uppity (emphasized in the past by executions of women purported to be "witches"), serves only to gain their acquiescence. It, and their marital relations, do nothing to bring equality. I know of no one who, having power, has given it up without a strong demand – often a violent demand – being made to do so.

The husbands of 100 years ago are no different. Equality – or at least, women's suffrage – was brought by the persistent demand of women, led by courageous women such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Baker Eddy, and others.

A Compromise

In a discussion on a "marriage defense" blog, I asked the questions, "Is defending traditional marriage more important than assuring that gay people and their families are not fully accepted into society? Would you trade supporting age-appropriate educational tools (such as the book "Heather Has Two Mommies" and movies like "Southern Comfort") for teaching your children, and prominent, visible support for the passage of ENDA and fully equal civil unions(including federal tax benefits and interstate recognition) on your blogs, for visible support from LGBT people in opposing the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex marriage?" My intent in asking the questions was to clarify what the opine bloggers priorities are in regards to marriage equality for gays, i.e., whether protecting marriage was top priority, or whether protecting society from the "gay menace" was priority and that's merely one aspect of the anti-gay agenda.

OnLawn offered in reply a compromise on gay marriage. ("A compromise means both don't get everything we want, but we work together to find some ground in the middle where they both get what they need. Where there are direct incompatibilities, there each need their own space to afford their own values and ideals.") To summarize:

• Gay people can become Reciprocal Beneficiaries, which essentially means the states pass a law that grants any two adults who are restricted from marriage by law "access to a limited number of rights and benefits on the state level."
  
• No age-appropriate educational materials reflecting LGBT families in schools.
  
• No federal protections for LGBT people from employment or housing discrimination.
  
• It's not clear whether OnLawn would allow the reciprocal beneficiaries to extend to the federal level.
  

OnLawn is a Mormon, a member of a group that has survived plenty of persecution, violence, hate, and discrimination, some of which lingers on today, but most of which is in the past (thanks in part to civil rights legislation protecting folks from discrimination based on religion), such as when the Mormons were driven out of Illinois. So I'll assume that OnLawn is familiar with the effects of discrimination in a personal way, and, in that spirit of compromise, I'll offer this:

• Mormons may no longer marry each other, but they may enter into reciprocal beneficiaries with each other.
  
• No educational materials mentioning Mormons will be allowed in schools.
  
• Mormons will be exempt from civil rights legislation protecting individuals from discrimination based on their religion.
  
• Mormon reciprocal beneficiaries will be recognized at the federal level, granting full rights of tax equality, inheritance, guardianship of children, and so on.
  

Of course, this is an academic question, as neither of us has the power to enact any of these elements beyond our votes – and, regarding my own suggestions, almost nobody, including me, is interested in effecting any of them. Also, I'm philosophically opposed to compromising on human rights, justice, and equality – not that there isn't room for all to have their needs met, and to have an equal place at the table. However, perhaps this will open a dialogue where we can both really hear what each other needs, and find a way to deal together toward finding that solution that meets all needs. This compromise deals with specific strategies for meeting needs, and I'm totally open to hearing other strategies; I don't insist that the strategies I believe will be effective be implemented, if others can accomplish the same thing in a way that better meets the needs of "marriage defenders" or gay people or preferably everybody. If this leads to a dialogue that clarifies what needs are/aren't met by different strategies, may it be blessed.

NARTH and BS

A conservative blogger recently posted information that a "scientific" study had found that gays and lesbians don't suffer harm from reparative therapy. (Worth noting here this the article regarding the ICD-10: "It lists ego-dystonic sexual orientation as a disorder instead, which it defines as occurring where "the gender identity or sexual preference (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or prepubertal) is not in doubt, but the individual wishes it were different because of associated psychological and behavioural disorders, and may seek treatment in order to change it.") Having never heard of NARTH, I followed the link. Being a straight trans woman, I didn't look into the writings on homosexuality much, but instead focused on their entries on GID - and found a web(page) of misinformation. I hate to give a group like this even this much of attention, but some of the stuff written there really needs to be refuted. (For more on reparative therapty, try this, or this, or this.)

From "Transsexuality Explained," by Sander Breiner, M.D. (Note – in this article, the writer hardly mentions trans men, who compose about half the population of trans people – no doubt because "they're women" and so have no importance nor reflection on the human experience, which is white and male):

• "There are a significant number of male homosexuals who would like to be a female with a penis. There are others who would like to be completely transformed into a female, but can't arrange to have such a complex surgical procedure. Both groups will obtain hormones from various sources; often it will be illegally from a pharmacy."
  

The assumption here, of course, is that trans women are gay men. But what about all those trans women who are attracted to women? And trans people who can't afford or obtain prescriptions for hormones (typically due to a lack of adequate health care) obtain illegal hormones online or on the black market – not from pharmacies, which actually have pretty stringent control mechanisms for disseminating controlled drugs. I'm rather surprised this "M.D." doesn't realize this.

• "The transsexual male who was not part of a university/medical school treatment program, will often take hormone treatment (self-prescribed and administered), and play a feminine role with unsuspecting heterosexual males (often as a prostitute). … Their thinking about how they are tricking, fooling and using others has a clearly sadistic dynamic as well."
  

There are few if any current (2008, when this article was updated/published) university/medical school programs, and people who did go through these regularly told the gatekeepers, such as McHugh, what they thought the gatekeeper would want to hear to help them transition. Hormones are commonly and typically prescribed by doctors, and it would be silly to go to the doctor every day to take a little green pill. And many trans women are kicked out of their homes or fired because of discrimination, and end up on the street. They are forced into sex work to survive. They are not using, so much as being used; and they are not partnering with "unsuspecting" men so much as men who seek them out (tranny chasers). Most trans women, however, are employed, and reveal their status to prospective sexual partners if they are not asexual. In other words, this statement is patently false.

• "Their histories almost invariably demonstrate a mother figure who is at least domineering, manipulative and controlling."
  

That sounds almost exactly the opposite of my mom, who left us free to make our own choices about most things, who never tried to manipulate us that I can remember, and who was definitely not domineering. Nor do I recognize this as a pattern in my trans women friends, whose families run the gamut.

• "Such men have little to no relationship with their family. Unfortunately, their lifestyle has a clearly self-destructive quality."
  

First, a trans woman is not a man. Second, as mentioned, many trans women, especially youth, have been kicked out of their families for being trans. Most, however, have some relationship. In my case, I'm quite close to my former wife (I share a household with her) and kids; I'm close to the surviving members of my immediate family; I have good relations with my cousins, nephews, and nieces. And most of my transwomen friends also have supportive families.

• "Their lifestyle has a clearly self-destructive quality."
  

Yeah. Like mine. Lots of healthy, nutritious, natural food in the diet, close connections with family and friends, spirituality, purpose and meaning, a good, middle class job. Actually, just like (surprise!) "normal" people, we run the gamut, from health nut to addict.

• "These individuals usually do not stay in any adequate psychotherapy program (i.e., once per week for at least three months). They also have significant problems in certain areas of reality perception; therefore, long-term intensive therapy is the best choice, and long-term supportive therapy with medication is the bare minimum required to prevent them from destroying themselves."
  

If we don't stay long enough in a therapy program, it's most likely because the therapist doesn't know jack about gender dissonance. Paying $80/hour to educate someone who is supposed to be educated is not cost effective; the trans person involved will most likely stop sending good money after bad when she's got her letter authorizing hormones – and who could blame her? The "reality perception" is conveniently left vague. What areas? What medication is prescribed? The implication is some kind of anti-depressant; the reality is hormones and androgen blockers, which are not psycho-active. And the self-destruction comes almost completely prior to transition, when virtually all trans people have suicidal ideation, and many attempt it. Post-transition, such becomes much less common.

• "There is a smaller group of transsexuals that includes those individuals who have been involved with a university-sponsored, medical-school treatment program."
  

He goes on to mention Wayne State University and Johns Hopkins University programs, both of which, I believe, are now defunct. The problems with these programs were legion. The gatekeepers turned away multitudes because they didn't fit the profile they were looking for (described by the author in the next section of his article). Trans people with same-sex attraction (trans women attracted to women, for instance) were turned away. Etc., etc. Those that did get in typically learned to deceive skillfully, giving the stereotypical answers the gatekeepers were looking for in their efforts to get hormone therapy and surgery.

Breiner goes on to describe a caricature of transsexualism who is completely unrecognizable when compared to real trans women, like Lynn Conway, Jennifer Boylan, Kate Bornstein, Calpernia Addams, Dr. Sara Becker, Anna Moore, Tobi, Julia Serrano, Hangar Queen, Andrea James, Dr. Becky Allison, etc., those represented here on Lynn Conway's website, and me. He then sums up thus:

• "At this point in the process, I … must tell the surgeons that the disturbed body image was not an organic at all, but was strictly a psychological problem. … The more pervasive and extensive is this misperception of oneself [as defined by Mr. Breiner et al], the more significant is the psychological problem. The more the patient is willing to do extensive surgical intervention (especially when it is destructive), the more serious is the psychological problem. … This principle of isolated significant psychopathology indicating serious psychological problems (despite their ability to function in all other areas of life) is well known psychiatrically, historically, and by the judiciary."
  

So well known, in fact, that almost no one knows about the many people who have violated gender boundaries throughout history and in almost all cultures. So well known that psychologists who specialize in GID regularly authorize hormone therapy and surgery, and the AMA has determined that surgery is "medically necessary" and is often necessary for positive outcomes, and that it limits health risks from other sources. So well known that the judiciary regularly allows name changes and sex marker changes on documents.

I've written on this issue before. By the American Psychiatric Association's definition of a mental disorder, trans people are mentally disordered when they try to live as the sex they were assigned at birth – not when they transition. It's notable that the ISD-10 lists the denial of being homosexual as a mental disorder; the same should apply to denial of gender dissonance. Indeed, it almost killed me, and it did make me almost completely dysfunctional in my social and practical life. NARTH does a grave disservice to the people who go to them for help, supporting the mental disorders that affect them, rather than the patients themselves.

I wanted to correct a second article, too, but have run out of space and time. This is too long anyway. And still, I wonder: where are the trans men? Breiner and others go to some length to describe and define transsexuality, and yet never even mention, or at best only in passing, half the transsexual population. Perhaps, in their phallo-centric world, the desire for a penis is perfectly sane.

“Opposite” Sexes?

There is an ancient myth in our culture that men and women belong to "opposite" sexes. Based on this myth, our culture assigns men and women – and masculinity and femininity – to opposite qualities and characteristics. Under this paradigm, because men and masculinity are strong, women and femininity are weak. Because men and masculinity are rational, women and femininity are irrational.

This model is not only flawed, it is completely wrong. If masculinity and femininity were opposites, why (and how) would they be expressed in differing degrees in each individual? Most men have some feminine traits to some extent, and most women have some masculine traits. The reason these traits are assigned a value according to sex is that they are expressed more often and to a more intense extent in one sex than the other. Many of these traits are influenced by hormones, and everyone has them. For example, men usually do have greater physical strength than women, thanks to the upper body muscle mass induced by greater amounts of testosterone. However, it takes great strength to give birth, not to mention the other aspects of strength women show – endurance, flexibility, courage, etc.

The "opposite sex" model is not biological, it is political. Notice that in every case, masculinity is assigned to a higher value. It is a means to support and perpetuate a patriarchy that disempowers women and enables a monopoly on power for men. It's time to subscribe to a new paradigm. Men and women, masculinity and femininity, are complementary and equally valuable aspects of our humanity. Both are necessary to be completely human. And femininity should be celebrated and enjoyed by feminism and feminists, just as masculinity is in our culture.

Permaculture Video Worth Watching...

This video is long - about an hour - but definitely worth it. It is extremely well done, with beautiful cinematography, done by a professional wildlife photographer.

I was especially struck by the juxtaposition of images of plowing the same field for the first time in the 1980's with the way it looked 20 years later. In the first, thick rich black dirt, flocks of birds swarming around devouring the critters in the soil. Twenty years later, the soil is greyish-brown, dead, nothing living in it. You need chemical fertilizer, made from oil, to get it to grow.

Then, too, the permaculture garden, showing land that produces twice as much food as a conventionally-farmed farm - all for 10 days maintenance work per year, and one day a week to work it (primarily for harvest) - made an impression.

It leaves you with the sense that we kicked ourselves out of the Garden of Eden. It wasn't God doing it, it was agriculture. So then the power in agriculture is not in producing more food, so that we can have a higher population and greater separation of labor (specialization) as we were always taught. The real point of it was to reduce the amount of food to the degree that it could be locked up; and then people could be coerced into working for food, enabling the consolidation of wealth and power into a power elite - the pharoahs, kings, Bushes, etc.

Of course, making the case for that would take a book, and I don't have time for it. So I'll just leave it at that. Watch the video. It's worth it, and it talks about issues of today, not the historical theory I'm pulling out of my hat.

Depravity Catch-22

Jose answered my request for clarification mentioned a couple of posts ago, and in his explanation included this quote:

"The disfigurement of the human body through piercing and tattooing is depraved activity. The mutilation of the body through dismemberment, castration, etc., to become what one is not, is even more depraved."

The implications of this quote are interesting. What exactly is "disfigurement"? Does this standard include pierced ears and plucked eyebrows, or are those beautifications of the human body? I don't know, and it doesn't make much difference to me where he draws the line, because it does seem pretty clear that Jose is referring to people like me, and that he would include the facial laser and electrolysis that has removed my beard and the hormone therapy that's done such a great job of growing breasts, softening skin, and redistributing body fat. Which makes me a full-blown member of the "pro-death and depravity" culture.

It's when I see things like this that I'm very grateful for NVC. It's pretty easy to guess that Jose has needs for sanctity, predictability, and probably beauty that aren't met when he looks around and sees people getting tattoos and sex-reassignment surgery. What's not to like about those needs? Is there anyone out there who doesn't share them? I know I have them, in spades, though I'd choose to meet them in a different way. So, as I empathize with the needs behind his judgment, I feel not hurt, not angry, but sadness that my own need for being understood isn't met. It's a good, clean sadness, and a small one, because that need is met so thoroughly in so many other ways in my life.

I also find this interesting for the Catch-22 it sets up for me. (Not that I'm embracing it! I'm just fine as I am, thank you.) I didn't start the process of transition out of any desire for depravity – if anything, quite the opposite. Nor do I or anyone I know choose transition for the fun of it, because believe me, it's not fun. We do it for survival. When I reached the point where I simply could not go on as I was, I chose transition because the only other choice I could reasonably make was suicide or psychic anesthesia*. The result has been completely positive in my personal life and primarily positive in my social life. My kids like me better, most of the people I know like me better, I have more friends, the genuinely depraved sexual fantasies that used to torment me are gone, and the list of benefits goes on and on.

So Jose would leave me with no choice except depravity. Suicide, drunkenness, or transition. And I suspect he's not alone. I'm guessing it is this judgment that makes so many Christians despise transpeople.

I have no doubt, though, that he would not recognize this as the choice offered. I'm guessing he'd say there was also the choice to live as a godly man, that prayer and fasting would "cure" me, or something like. That's okay. He can't see my heart, and he has no idea of reality in which I've lived my life. But it's sad, because it prevents him from bearing witness to the beauty and travail that are my life. It's sad because it's a judgment that prevents understanding and withers compassion.

*psychic anesthesia is alcohol and drugs - those things that point the way to oblivion.

Teaching Tolerance

This post by Riftgirl is one that I highly recommend everyone read - especially if they have any kids or grandkids who are or will be in school.

The Traditional Values Coalition

For some reason, there are a number of groups willing to commit lots of resources to prevent transpeople from getting legal protection from discrimination. I'm not sure why they care one way or another, except it seems that they fear the existence of transpeople threatens to expose their particular interpretation of sacred texts as erroneous. One of these is the Traditional Values Coalition, which published this report.

I don't want to waste a lot of time deconstructing this article (which is not attributed to any author), but there were a couple of things that popped out at me when I read this. The first:

"The promotion of 'sex changes,' and the normalizing of severe gender identity disorders by radical feminists, pro-same-sex attraction disorder activists, and sexual revolutionaries is part of their larger agenda—namely the destabilization of the categories of sex and gender."

Actually, my agenda is truth and freedom. I have no desire to destabilize anything, except the domination culture that is unsustainable anyway. I do desire to expand the awareness of the limitations placed on people by stereotypical gender roles, so that people who choose to follow them may do so mindfully and consciously.

O'Leary notes that radicals and medical professionals who promote sex change operations are operating under the delusion that one's gender is changeable. One cannot change into a different sex. It is genetically and medically impossible. Gender confused individuals need long-term counseling, not approval for what is clearly a mental disturbance.

O'Leary is obviously mistaking sex and gender as being the same thing. Sex is your body; gender is your soul. It's true that gender is unchangeable, and that's the point. That's why sex reassignment surgery is recommended as a last resort. And you don't get it without long-term counseling.

A boy who has developed a Gender Identity Disorder such as homosexuality or transvestism, typically comes from a home where the mother is smothering in her love and where the father is passive and feels powerless to overcome his wife's dominance in the family.

Gee. That doesn't match my own family's dynamic at all, nor does it account for the normality of my siblings. Studies have also found physical difference in brain structure between cisgendered and transgendered individuals.

According to these activists, a person can self-identify and be whatever he or she wishes to be sexually.

How can anyone identify another? The only real identity is self-identity, because the only person you can really know completely is yourself (though most people don't even know that).

Yet, the reality is that no person can actually change into a different sex. Maleness and femaleness are in the DNA and are unchangeable. A man who has his sex organ removed and takes hormone treatments to grow female breasts is still genetically a male.

Well, duh.

No rational person would claim that he or she has the "right" to define his own gender.

How can any rational person abdicate their right to define themselves to someone else? Who else possibly can have that right?

Transgenders Are Mentally Disordered. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) still lists Transsexualism and Transvestism as paraphilias or mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV-TR).

Yet they've got a 0% cure rate via psychological or psychiatric care, and 98% satisfaction via medical treatment allowing life in one's 'chosen' gender. If it's a mental disorder, why do they recommend medical procedures and non-psychiatric drugs to treat it?

These are deeply troubled individuals who need professional help, not societal approval or affirmation.

Then why are we suicidal before transition, and happy, productive members of society after? Why does professional help guide us into transition, even while acting as our gatekeepers?

It's amazing how much we've eroded our society.

Ah. The crux of the matter. It's all about fear. They are scared. Scared of the unknown; of things that go bump in the night. I wish I could ease their fears for them. It's okay. We won't hurt you. We won't call down the wrath of God on you. And God won't hurt you if you let us be.

"How I Feel...

...on a Day-to-Day Basis"

This one from The Angry Black Man cracked me up, so I just had to link to it!

Schroer Decision!

Way back in June, I blogged about Diane Schroer and the discrimination she experienced in trying to get a job. Well, a decision has finally been handed down, and the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia found in her favor. Very cool.

One thing I found interesting about the case was the statement below, taken from Dr. Weiss's blog post:

"Charlotte Preece, the decisonmaker, admitted that when she viewed the photographs of Schroer in traditionally feminine attire, with a feminine hairstyle and makeup, she saw a man in women's clothing. In conversations Preece had with colleagues at the Library after her lunch with Schroer, she repeatedly mentioned these photographs. Preece testified that her difficulty comprehending Schroer's decision to undergo a gender transition was heightened because she viewed David Schroer not just as a man, but, in light of her Special Forces background, as a particularly masculine kind of man. Preece's perception of David Schroer as especially masculine made it all the more difficult for her to visualize Diane Schroer as anyone other than a man in a dress. Preece admitted that she believed that others at CRS, as well as Members of Congress and their staffs, would not take Diane Schroer seriously
because they, too, would view her as a man in women's clothing."

I find this cultural assumption that your body defines who you are incredibly painful. It virtually makes me invisible. If you look at me and see a man in woman's clothing, you don't see me, you don't understand me, you don't believe in me. And that hurts.

I'm a woman in a man's body. That is very different. My clothing tells you that's who I am, as well as every other signifier I can come up with. Yeah, I know it's not perfect. It's like a big birthmark all over my face, or a hunchback. There's only so much I can change. And I'm very grateful that so many people see me for who I am, including one friend who didn't realize I could donate sperm for a possible pregnancy until she thought about it for a minute.

But I'm off the subject. I just want to take a minute to celebrate this landmark decision – another step forward for equal rights.

Curiosity

So I'm going down the sidewalk, and a woman standing with two guys and a baby carriage smiles at me and says, "Hi!"

I smile back. "Hello."

"Two bucks to let us see up your skirt."

And I wonder:

Do genetic women have to deal with comments like this?

I'm guessing that they do, but what gives me pause with this comment is that it came from another woman – who was also wearing a skirt. Would she make that offer to someone she was sure was a genetic woman?

I kind of doubt it.

“Unregulated chemicals …

… were discovered in some of the base drinking water systems in the early 1980's. At this time, the Marine Corps is funding health studies to determine … whether or not there may be an association between exposure to the water and certain health conditions."

That information came to me yesterday in a letter from the US Marine Corps, forwarded by the IRS since the Marines don't know where to find me anymore. The Marine Corps is "actively seeking individuals who resided or worked aboard Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune." They want me to call them up and tell them all about my health history.

My first response to reading it was fury. I felt so angry to be part of a scientific experiment, without my knowledge or consent – and I couldn't help but wonder if it didn't impact my gender dysphoria.

Now, maybe I'm jumping to conclusions. Maybe it was accidental, or unintended, and there's nothing here but healthy concern for my well-being.

However, the United States government has a long history of using US citizens as guinea pigs in tests and experiments without consent or knowledge. Hanford. Gulf War Syndrome. The Tuskogee Experiment.

These "unregulated chemicals" were released on a Marine Corps base. Security is generally pretty tight in these locations, and I have a hard time believing that someone just came in and dumped some strange chemicals into the water, and nobody asked them what they were doing. The chemicals may have been "unregulated," but they were certainly known.

And if they were "discovered" in the early 1980's, why did it take them 25 years to notify me, or seek me out, and ask for my health information?

No. My Marine Corps colleagues and I were human guinea pigs in some chemical experiment, and now it's time to collect the data on long-term effects.

I'm not going to call them up and give them any.

At least, not willingly.

The letter ends: "We appreciate your support in helping us reach all former residents and employees as we want to ensure the widest dissemination of information to our Marine family." The cynicism drips off the page.

I felt a lot of anger at first, and some fear – what was in the water? How did it affect me? Those bastards! Etc.

Thank God for Kristin and her NVC magic. After the boys went to sleep, she came and we talked for awhile. I cried a bit, and got empathy and some other treatment she gives that gets to the bottom of feelings and needs. I unraveled the anger to find feelings of helplessness underneath, and she showed me how that anger empowers me by defying the helplessness. And I came out of it, once again, stronger than before.

I am not a victim. It doesn't matter what that experiment did to me, if indeed it did anything. I am in control of my own life, and I am coming into my own, with the power of nonviolence behind and in me. I'm making a difference in this world – a small difference perhaps, but it is there.

I'm grateful.

But I'm still not going to call the Marine Corps up and give them any data.

Judge not…

… lest ye be judged.

So spake Jesus, and what exactly did he mean by it, anyway?

I thought about it a bit, and talked it over with Kristin, and came to some conclusions.

It all ties back to the Garden of Eden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Does anyone still think that story is literal rather than allegory?

Judging is when you say what someone else is, a statement about the quality of their being rather than a statement of the quality of their actions. For example, "You're so intelligent!" "He's a good kid." "George Bush is evil."

When you make statements such as those – when you judge – you eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and set yourself in a position of dominance over the person judged. After all, you're the one hereby qualified to make that judgment of hir!

But by accepting that paradigm – eating that fruit – you accept also that others can (and will) judge you, and thereby grant them authority and dominion over you. You accept others as your judges.

It is the heart of the domination culture in which we live and suffer, the one that says the rich deserve to keep and waste all of their immense wealth, and the mentally ill deserve to be cast out to beg on street corners and sleep under bridges.

We don't have to leave the Garden of Eden. We don't have to buy into the paradigm of judgment. We can choose.

Because if you don't believe in good and evil, if you don't make judgments about the quality of other people or animals or events, if you don't judge them – their judgments have no power over you.

This is the paradigm that NVC teaches.

I believe that this is the heart of Jesus' gospel, even more than "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or any other aspect. Certainly more than damnation and hellfire, or sin.

I'm starting to get it, but it's still too easy to judge. I have so many needs unmet when I hear of the crimes and policies that the Bush administration commits, that even though in my head I know they're just human beings doing their best to meet needs, just like me, I still feel in my heart that they're evil. And when Christians judge me so harshly because they don't like the way I live, and try to keep me from marrying who I want to or entering restrooms appropriate to my gender, I still think they are ignorant hypocrites. My own judgments that cast me out of the Garden and subject me to the power of their judgments.

I'm working on it.

I want to get back into the Garden.

National Security

"We should cut our military budget by about 75%, withdraw our troops from most of the rest of the world, get out of Iraq, and start an Apollo-style project to change our energy use away from fossil and bio-fuels."

You may ask, how does cutting the military budget by 75% or more support national security?

It does because our current level of spending on the tools of war is unsustainable. Currently we spend about half of the entire world's so-called "defense" budget. If we cut our military budget 75%, we would still have the largest, best-equipped and best-trained military in the world, but we could divert $300 billion or so into balancing the budget and supporting our crumbling civil and civic infrastructures. Every day we continue to pour our wealth and resources into a well of international violence increases our negative karma, delays our transition to a more sustainable energy infrastructure, and makes such a transition less fiscally feasible.

A quote I read recently goes something like this: "I'd rather lose in service to a cause that will eventually win, than win in service to a cause that will eventually lose." I don't remember who said it, and I don't agree in all situations. (I'd rather be on the side that is ethically and morally right, in service to a cause that is just, regardless of who wins in the end.) However, that quote applies perfectly to my concern about national security. Our current course of imperial occupation and unrestrained military spending ensures that we will win any pitched battle against any military anywhere, but simultaneously ensures that we will eventually lose the occupation of Iraq, the "war on terror," and our place in the world.

Besides, it is morally and ethically wrong to dump that amount of resources into the weapons of war – ever – but particularly when children in our own country are going hungry and without health care, and homeless people clog the streets and crowd the bridges (many of them in dire need of mental and physical care), and our leaders are torturing folks they guess might be our enemies.