Seda's Ramblings

So Osama bin Laden is dead...

2011-05-02T22:31:00.000-07:00

... and my own words cannot convey my feelings so well as these can:

“I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

— Martin Luther King, Jr.

For a little more in-depth view, click here.

Corporate Freeloaders

2011-04-18T09:40:00.000-07:00

Enjoy your Tax Day!

Pass ENDA Now!

2010-07-25T07:23:00.000-07:00

Link here

Subverting Patriarchy With Language

2010-06-24T16:00:00.001-07:00

"If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." ~George Orwell

We are all trained from birth to support the patriarchal system that limits human expression, establishes hierarchies over us, and oppresses. One of the key elements of this training is language. The language of patriarchy could be called "violent communication," since it trains us to enjoy violence, and supports a social structure that violates the humanity and the rights of individuals. However, it is called only "English," or "Spanish," or "Chinese" – it is the default language of our culture, and so it hides in plain sight, invisibly corrupting our thought.

Let me offer some examples:

Patriarchal language (violent communication, or VC) encourages the abdication of personal responsibility. It is the language of blame. "You hurt me." "You make me angry." "You scare me." "You make me happy." "You broke my heart." It is always the other person who is responsible for the way we feel. But look deeper. What is the real reason we feel the way we do?

VC supports hierarchy. It is laden with "have to's" that limit individual autonomy. This especially is used against children, to train them to blind obedience to authority and to suppress their own needs. "You have to go to school." "You have to do the dishes." "You must pay taxes." "I have to pick up the kids after school." The effect of this ubiquitous term is to reduce our autonomy, to abdicate responsibility, and to disguise the choices we make as imperative demands.

VC trains us to devalue our own needs, and also the needs of others. It trains us to believe that we are by nature evil. It trains us to suppress our emotions until we can't even recognize them.

VC is the language of judgment. It says, "You are bad." "He is good." It "otherizes" people, dividing the common human family into "us and them." "They (blacks, women, queers, Muslims, infidels, whatever) are (animalistic, weak, perverted, evil, whatever); we (Christians, whites, men, Muslims, whatever) are (good, strong, civilized, blah, blah). By this means, the "other" becomes less than human, and violence against them is not only justified, it is encouraged.

VC trains us to enjoy and think in terms of violence. "The war on drugs." "The war on poverty." "My team smashed your team." "If thy brother … saying, Let us go and serve other gods, … thou shalt surely kill him." "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, … they shall surely be put to death."

Fortunately, we don't have to speak the language of patriarchy. We have a choice. But in order to avail ourselves of that choice, we have to know what it is. We must learn the language of nonviolence – compassionate communication (CC), or nonviolent communication (NVC).

Let's look a little closer at the effects of VC. What is the real reason we feel the way we do? Isn't it because we have universal human needs that are met or unmet? I feel scared not because you are brandishing a baseball bat ready to kill me because I'm queer, but because my need for safety isn't met. I feel happy when I share a nice chat and meal with a friend not because she makes me happy, but because my need for connection is met.

Compassionate communication is the antidote to the violent communication of the patriarchy. With NVC, the goal is not to establish or maintain hierarchy through domination or appeasement, but to bring about a quality of connection that enables everyone's needs to be met. NVC assumes that our natures are compassionate, and that we all share the same basic human needs, and that we choose our behavior in an effort to meet those needs.

NVC strikes at the very heart of patriarchy. It uproots the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." It says, "Your needs matter, just as much as mine." "How you feel is important." It puts everyone on an equal basis, and encourages everyone to take full responsibility for their choices.

If I assume you are by nature compassionate, and share my same needs, how can I justify violence against you? How can hierarchy be maintained when I recognize that your needs are as valid as mine, and I start seeking strategies that meet both your needs and mine?

I'm not as fluent in NVC as I'd like. I was raised in this violent, patriarchal culture, and took in the language of violence with my mother's milk, even in a religion that is based on Love. But I'm learning, and practicing it more and more, on my children, on my opponents, on my job, and even with my own brother. Recently I stopped in the middle of one of our endless political arguments, and simply gave him empathy. Peace, and connection, was restored.

For those of us dedicated to destroying the patriarchy, there is no tool more powerful than language. We can use it to expose the cruel oppression of that corrupt system, erode the sand from under its weak foundation, and bring it down.

Iceland Institutes Gay Marriage

2010-06-12T07:56:00.001-07:00

Iceland just became a country that has institutionalized marriage of lesbians and gays. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out...

Thoughts on Different Kinds of Sciences

2010-06-02T22:01:00.001-07:00

Have you ever seen a scale model of an atom? If I drew one on an 8.5x11 sheet of paper, it would consist of a tiny dot at the center, representing the nucleus, and an appropriate number of other tiny dots, smaller than could be seen by the naked eye, representing the electrons. All of these infinitesimally tiny dots would be made up of smaller particles, called quarks, or whatever. (Hey, I'm no scientist.)

The physical sciences, all the reality discernable by our five senses, is the science of those tiny dots.

Christian Science is the science of all the rest of it.

There is no overlap between the two sciences (PS & CS, for short). The realm of one is completely independent of the realm of the other. And we each experience life in the science where we invest our attention, in the proportion that we invest.

The CS science is the realm of Spirit, of infinite Mind. In this science, this substance or reality, there is no gender. There is no body. There is no death. This substance is the same throughout all space; there is no place you can go to escape it. We all live inside this substance-space of Spirit. The science that Mary Baker Eddy developed states that substance is Mind; that "all is Mind." The PS science is the realm of the earth, of mortals, of death, and it occupies only a relatively tiny, very limited existence.

One of these must be superior to the other in power and effect; and that one is the realm of Spirit, because it is the one that can influence the other. Nothing within the power or realm of PS can affect that "empty" space at all. On the other hand, the realm of PS is completely mutable. Experiments such as Schrodinger's Cat demonstrate the paradox of the physical sciences and senses. In his book, The Self-Aware Universe, Amit Goswami relates an experiment that showed a particle in two places at the same time – until it was observed, at which point it became solid in one place. (I'm relating this from memory, so if I get it wrong, my apologies to Mr. Goswami – and my readers.) Even the existence of life is a conundrum in the physical sciences, because life can't be replicated, yet it is.

Mr. Goswami comes at this situation from a different angle than Mary Baker Eddy, but comes to some remarkably similar conclusions. "Marshalling evidence from recent research in cognitive psychology, biology, parapsychology and quantum physics, and leaning heavily on the ancient mystical traditions of the world, Goswami is building a case for a new paradigm that he calls "monistic idealism," the view that consciousness, not matter, is the foundation of everything that is." [emphasis mine] Mr. Goswami reaches this conclusion from his search into cognitive psychology, biology, and quantum physics; Mrs. Eddy reached what seems to me to be an identical conclusion solely by reading the Bible and studying the works of Jesus and the prophets.

Because the foundation of reality is consciousness (or Mind), not matter, our thought creates our reality.

My problem with Christian Science is, first, that it is presented to the world as a religion, rather than as a science. And second, that the literature of Christian Science is written in the language of patriarchy and judgment. This is understandable in Mrs. Eddy's case, given the culture in which she lived; but I find it disturbing in the literature which is being written today. I find it distracting, as I am constantly interpreting the language as I read, seeking the truth hidden within a very inadequate language.

Despite that challenge, I also find it fascinating. The power of consciousness, of Mind, has barely been unleashed upon a very malleable matter. Imagine what it can do to an oil slick.

Today I’m Beautiful

2010-05-01T19:38:00.001-07:00

I looked in the mirror today and realized I am beautiful.

I understand that that sounds pretty cocky, narcissistic and conceited, but it's not. It's a statement of the simple fact that I like the way I look. Yes, I recognize that my jaw is too big to be classically feminine, and my shoulders are too wide, my hips too narrow. I see my physical flaws and I see that they are meaningless. I see strength and courage and gentleness and sweetness. I see love. I have come to like and respect myself a great deal. I don't want to be someone else, not any more.

That statment also recognizes that others may find me beautiful. Not everyone, no, but many may do so – some who would be surprised to learn that I'm transsexual.

More than that, though – I see that I am beautiful as being transsexual, as bridging the chasm between the sexes, as exhibiting an amalgamation of those characteristics that are divided among the sexes. I am male and female.

And I will stand here before the world and testify that it is good.

A Parable

2010-04-12T06:44:00.001-07:00

One fine morning, walking down the street, an ugly woman met a man dressed in a fine Italian suit. The ugly woman nodded politely, and the man said to her, "Isn't it beautiful, how the sun revolves around the earth."

"Oh, but it doesn't," the woman replied. "The earth revolves around the sun. It's a proven fact."

Impatiently, the man brushed an imaginary bit of lint off his sleeve. "You are wrong!" he said. The woman was ugly, and dressed in rags – obviously she was morally inferior and unable to discern reality. "Look! You see the sun, rising in the east? Every day it goes across the sky to set in the west. Clearly the sun revolves around the earth!"

"No, look," the woman said, pulling a tattered map of the solar system from her knapsack. "See? This is a scale model of the solar system. See how tiny the earth is in comparison to the sun? See the orbit paths of the planets? The earth revolves on its axis, so we see the sun rising and setting – and the earth itself orbits around the sun."

"Aha!" the man said. He pulled a Bible from his briefcase and scanned to the first chapter of Ecclesiastes. "Look!" he cried triumphantly, pointing to verse five. "Incontrovertible proof that the sun revolves around the earth!"

The woman shook her head. "That's not what it says. It just talks about the sun rising and setting. This…" she pointed at the drawing of the solar system, "… is the model of the solar system."

"Hmmph!" the man exclaimed. He reverently put the Bible back in his briefcase and lifted his nose in the air. "You are obviously a creature of base morals. What would you know?" And he walked down the street, comforted and confident in his own inherent moral and intellectual superiority.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Deconstructing Gender Again

2010-04-11T12:40:00.001-07:00

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.

First All-woman Firefighter Recruit Class in the Nation!

2010-03-29T21:10:00.001-07:00

With the first all-female firefighter recruit class in the country, Eugene rocks! Women are well-represented even in leadership positions within the Fire & EMS Department, and now this. Read about it here.

When you get down to it, it's not the size of the dog in the fight – it's the size of the fight in the dog! And it's pretty cool to live in a place like this.

Our Needs – and Yours

2010-03-13T09:33:00.001-08:00

I started blogging about marriage roughly 2.5 year ago, during the campaign about Proposition 8, because a dear friend who had recently legally married her wife of twelve years was afraid she'd lose that special status. I began this endeavor by trying to use Nonviolent Communication (NVC) to "create a quality of connection which allows everyone's needs to be met." To that end, I engaged with the multiple posters to "The Opine Editorials" (and others), determined that I would find a way to connect and confident that NVC could guide us to solution(s) that would enable everyone's needs to be met.

I was naïve. After months of this engagement – after exploring the meaning of marriage more deeply than I had imagined, after trying every means I could think of to connect – I finally realized that I could not connect meaningfully with these people. They had a single story about me, and that is that because I am a transsexual, I am insane and depraved; because of their innate moral superiority and patriarchal wisdom, my needs really don't matter to them. I could not even connect to the degree that they recognized the pain, frustration, and anger that discrimination creates.

As I've considered this with the passage of time, I've come to see that this is part of the dominator relationship paradigm our culture has adopted since the first Goddess-based civilizations fell to the patriarchal warlords from the deserts and steppes. (For background, read "The Chalice & the Blade," by Riane Eisler.) This power-over system is what NVC attempts to replace, with a partnership model of relationships in which people work together to solve problems, rather than trying to impose solutions with force. In this domination system, a belief in one's own moral and/or innate superiority is essential to justify the oppression of others, whether due to race, sex, gender, religion, or sexual orientation – and judgmental religion is essential to justify that superiority. This can be seen even in so-called atheist systems, such as the Soviet Union.

The tragedy is that all the pain of oppression, and the immense energy expended to maintain or overcome power-over, is unnecessary. I still believe, with all my heart, that solutions that meet everyone's needs can be found. I have blogged with other marriage equality supporters that we would not insist on gay marriage if other means could be found to allow gays and lesbians full participation in society, including legal recognition of their relationships and families on an even basis with marriage. What I have found instead, is that those who oppose marriage equality also despise gay people. They have no interest, no willingness, to allow gays and lesbians full participation in society, on any level. Even as they often hide behind high-sounding declarations of love and tolerance, they hold the being of gays and lesbians to be depraved, evil, and undeserving of any social benefit. Again and again, I have seen them tell us (LGBT people) that our needs are met, even as we express our pain about our unmet needs. It is rare, though certainly not unheard of, for them to even recognize the pain that LGBT people experience because of the oppression and discrimination we experience. They claim that their advocacy is "for the children," but since every instance includes refusal to allow gays and lesbians full participation in society, regardless of the effect on LGBT children and the children of LGBT parents, I cannot discern sincerity. Because I cannot discern a place in which their advocacy of children is separate from their hatred and contempt of homosexuality and gender dysphoria, I cannot believe that those elements are separate; they are embedded with each other, and so their advocacy for children is not objective, but embedded, and born in, the cultural assumptions and domination paradigm of patriarchal religion – assumptions which my experience and education show to be false. I cannot accept that as a model for a society in which my own children grow and develop.

Over the course of my blogging I have shifted. As my frustration, grief, and despair deepen, I find anger, deep and hot, rise from those unmet needs. Along with my frustrations in blogging, I find it in relations with certain co-workers, who, even under a veneer of friendliness, yet make their contempt plain. I feel it in the frustration of my battle, for almost two years, to obtain equal access to health care under my employer's health plan. It burns hot with the challenges my children experience in the schoolyard. It rises from the social injustice of our dominator society in racism, in sexism, misogyny, patriarchy. And it's become harder and harder to keep that anger out of more recent blogposts.

The truth is, I don't know how to create a quality of connection that will enable everyone's needs to be met with religious conservatives and marriage-equality opponents, and I cannot find the status quo to be acceptable. I would like to find a non-violent solution, and toward that goal I'm still going to work. But I've found no success, and I have neither the patience nor the charisma of Gandhi. I feel torn between the models of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. I am determined to do all I can to transform our culture to a partnership paradigm of relations; but I refuse to be a victim of oppression, and I refuse to accept less than full participation in society for anyone – the homeless, minorities, women, homosexuals, and, most of all, my own children – the children of a transsexual.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

2010-02-24T09:53:00.001-08:00

Recently I read a commentary by a civilian pundit (I don't recall her name) who said that civil rights isn't the main issue in repealing DADT, unit cohesion is. She mentioned that that she had never served in the armed forces, yet still stated this "fact" with confidence.

As a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, allow me to politely disagree.

Unit cohesion is the responsibility of the unit commander. Repealing DADT may or may not increase the challenge of that charge, but, by itself, will not affect it. That's not the issue at all, period. The issue IS civil rights.

In 1941, blacks were forbidden to enlist in the US Marine Corps. General Holcomb, the Corps commandant at that time, said, "If it were a question of having a Marine Corps of 5,000 whites or 250,000 Negroes, I would rather have the whites." According to Morris MacGregor in Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965, "Black enlistment was impractical, he told one civil rights group, because the Marine Corps was too small to form racially separate units." (chap. 4) President Roosevelt ordered the Navy to enlist black troops, and, under orders, Holcomb complied. Under Truman, desegregation continued, and the Korean War was, I believe, the first to see racially integrated units in action. When I joined the Marine Corps in 1979, 30 years after racial integration of the Armed Forces, one of the first scenes I witnessed in boot camp was a fistfight between a white man and a black man – which was, of course, racially motivated. And it wasn't the only one I witnessed. Nevertheless, the leadership I witnessed in the Marine Corps did what it had to do to make sure that, regardless of racial tension, the units worked together. To their credit, they did a pretty good job of it.

The point is that, in a democracy, the civil government takes precedence over the military leadership. The president – a civilian – is the head of the military, for the very good reason that the military should be placed in service to the civil and civilian purpose. As Roosevelt and Truman understood, it is the job of the military to do as the civilian establishment dictates, not the other way 'round.

To show how this basic tenet of democracy has been twisted, according to the Washington Post, three years ago John McCain deferred to the military: "A former war hero, McCain said he would support ending the ban once the military's top brass told him that they agreed with the change."
McCain knows (or should know) about unit cohesion, and he should have a good grounding in the Constitution and the American, democratic theory of government – yet he deferred to the military. The Human Rights Campaign uses the military brass's coming out in favor of repealing DADT as if that were relevant to the issue. And, as noted, the pundit who inspired this post believes that the issue is "unit cohesion," that effectiveness of the military is the concern; she has been so deceived by the recent deferral of civilian leadership to military leadership that she believes that order is correct.

Failure of unit cohesion in the military is not caused by the diversity of the members making up the unit. It's caused by a failure of leadership. It is irrelevant to the issue of repealing DADT, and where it happens, the officer (and/or NCO) in charge should be disciplined and/or replaced.

In fact, there is one issue relevant to repealing DADT: civil rights. DADT is a moral travesty. It is the ethical and moral obligation and responsibility of the civilian leadership of this country, the president and congress, to order the military brass to integrate LGBT people into the military. It is the duty of military leadership to see that it is done without compromising unit cohesion or mission effectiveness.

Believe me, they're up to the task.

Modalities of Treatment

2010-02-21T09:11:00.001-08:00

Last Tuesday morning I woke up with a sore throat. I got a spoonful of honey and let it dissolve in my mouth and throat. Within a short time the soreness went away, and it didn't come back until evening – when I took another spoonful.

Then I took my standard meds – spironolactone to shut down the testosterone factories, estrogen to become visible, and aspirin to thin out my blood after estrogen side-effects.

That was the last day of the trial where I was serving on the jury, and I had a cough to go with the sore throat, so I headed off to the courthouse with a bottle of homeopathic cough syrup in my pocket. I had very little problem with the cough during the day.

The last two days of the trial I left the courthouse feeling rather sick from all the toxic energy in that room. I know, woo woo. Doesn't matter, it affected me. This time I used Christian Science treatment to shield myself from that toxic energy, and left the courthouse feeling fine...

… Except that I had a sore back. So I headed off to my acupuncture appointment, where I laid down on my stomach and got a nice collection of needles stuck into my back and neck. I also had some needles in my feet for migraine prevention. After an hour and a nice nap, I got up with my back hugely improved, and a much wider range of motion.

So in one day, I used five different modalities of treatment – herbal/naturopathic, allopathic, homeopathic, Christian Science, and acupuncture – for five different issues. Not earth-shattering or anything, but I found it interesting, which is why I'm posting here. I found it interesting that every one of these modalities worked, even though some are incompatible with each other, and some don't have any scientific reason for being.

I have heard people criticize Christian Scientists because they don't mix "tried and true" allopathic treatment with Christian Science treatment, and I've seen them dismiss Christian Science treatment as "faith healing." I've seen Christian Scientists refuse to use allopathic treatment even when their first choice wasn't working. I believe in using what works; the proof is in the pudding. Christian Science treatment is not faith healing; it is a teachable, replicable system of metaphysical healing, what I would consider a level above homeopathy and acupuncture on that continuum. It is covered by many health insurance companies and plans, including, partially, my own. I consider it to be an important part of my health care repertoire, and I've used it successfully in recent weeks to cure a migraine and for other healings. It's worth noting, however, that it is incompatible with other systems; if you want to use Christian Science, you'd better not use something else at that same time, or you might cancel each system's effects and end up worse off.*

I'm not a Christian Scientist because I have some issues with the church, because I don't like the pressure to rely on one system, and because I like beer and Scotch whiskey. But so what? I think it's silly that Christian Science is widely viewed as something just for Christian Scientists – you never see anyone who specializes in a different modality suggest it. You don't have to know anything about it to get results, and if you don't get results, you can try something else. Every system has shortcomings, things it can't cure, and times and places when, for whatever reason, it doesn't work. One thing I like about Christian Science is that there actually isn't anything it can't cure.

Like I said before, I believe in what works. And I like having the choice of multiple modalities of treatment for my health care needs. Every plan should provide for it.

*Note: I am not a Christian Scientist, and the folks from the church might disagree with some of my statements about it. My statements here are only my own opinion and perception of it.

Entitlement: or, Ducks Behaving Badly

2010-02-20T08:20:00.001-08:00

I always find it depressing when people I respect do something that destroys that respect. When it's something like this – LaMichael James' recent arrest for domestic violence – it's particularly depressing; added to my disgust and loss of respect is the plentiful ammunition it gives to my friends who object to the violence of football and the adulation so freely given to sports stars.

For context, here's what I like about the guy:

So added to the injury to Courtney Eckhart is the insult to all Duck fans: Do we really want this guy on the team?

More important, perhaps, is the question that arises: Why do so many star athletes get into this kind of trouble?

On Feb. 11, Oprah Winfrey interviewed Kim Reed, who used to be Paul McKerrow.* That's not the non sequiter it seems on first glance – check out the video clip on the link. Paul had some pretty good football highlights, too. I'm bringing her up here because of something she said on the interview: She said she was glad she was born and raised as a boy because it gave her a sense of possibility and entitlement she would not have learned as a girl, though if she had to do it over again she'd transition earlier. She wants all girls to have that sense of entitlement. I can relate; my own sense of male entitlement, inculcated even in my much more awkward boyhood, still colors every aspect of my social interaction – so much, in fact, that I think it is just as important as my non-menstrual biology in guaranteeing that I won't ever have the complete experience of womanhood in our culture. Probably more so. And believe me, that's not necessarily a bad thing - rather, perhaps it is some compensation for the positive experiences of womanhood I've been denied.

The Patriarchy creates and supports this sense of male entitlement that is, to most men, invisible and taken for granted. This entitlement manifests itself in our society in various ways: as the "dominator" model of social interaction Riane Eisler identifies in "The Chalice and the Blade;" and as Rape Culture (see also my previous post and here).

I think that male entitlement is a key to understanding why so many athletes make such poor choices, but that doesn't satisfy me. That answer leads me to another question: Is this sense of entitlement inherent and inevitable? Is there a way to have football, with all its inherent violence and encouraged aggression, without the entitlement? Or am I wrong, and it's just a guy thing?

I don't think it's a guy thing. Too many men act responsibly. I think these poor choice are connected to Rape Culture. And that begs the question: Is football itself connected to Rape Culture and male entitlement?

I don't think so.

But I'm not sure.

And that pisses me off.

(*My boss at work is Kim's cousin. He copied the interview and shared it with me. I wasn't able to find it on the web, but if you can find it somewhere, it's worth watching.)

Rape Prevention Tips That Work

2010-02-20T06:32:00.000-08:00

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.

Holy Intermission

2010-02-19T20:54:00.000-08:00

I recently found out about Lily Allen, and I've kinda been getting into her. And, of course, I think about things like God and human relationships and stuff. So while I work up a new post based on the intersection of recent thoughts, recent blogposts, and recent events, here's some musical God thoughts for y'all to enjoy.

"Him." I like the song, but I think maybe it's "Her..."

The Girl Cell

2010-02-14T08:17:00.001-08:00

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?

2010-02-13T09:03:00.001-08:00

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?

Corporations Are NOT Persons: Why I’m Liberal #3

2010-02-09T06:41:00.001-08:00

This should be a no-brainer: corporations are fictional entities created for the economic benefit of individuals. Yet as the recent Supreme Court decision made clear, our nation has made an incredible mistake in granting legal personhood to these amoral institutions. And the legal personhood of corporations is both a cornerstone of the erosion of American liberty that conservatives (and liberals) decry, and a cornerstone of conservative and Republican policy. It is not a coincidence that Bush II's nominees, Alito and Roberts, both voted for corporations at the expense of people and freedom.

While it's obvious that corporate personhood is an emperor-with-no-clothes, the establishment of it has been a long time coming. The 1886 case, Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, opened the floodgates. Note in the preamble to the text from the link that corporate personhood was never argued or discussed by the Supreme Court; it was simply an assertion by one single justice, which completely changed the law and the course of history. The author goes on to say:

"The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been directly addressed by the courts."

In his book, "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," (buy it here) Thom Hartmann does an excellent job of analyzing the costs and consequences of this great conservative fallacy, so I won't go into detail here. (I highly recommend reading this book – especially if you vote Republican!) Suffice it to say that the nominations of corporate lawyers Roberts and Alito to SCOTUS were not accidents. Their opinions on abortion were nothing but a sop to social conservatives; their unlimited support for the uber-rich and corporate personhood were the keys to their nominations. This is what makes Justice Sotomayer such a great choice, and is the strongest evidence to date that Obama may not be the corporate flunky his policies usually indicate.

The obvious consequence of corporate personhood is the establishment of an entity that is arguably a slave to a position of prominence over free men and women. It is a tool whereby, by amassing resources, a small cabal of individuals can exert overwhelming influence on political and economic policy. Note the resource base of the huge, multi-national corporations shown in the graph on the link to "corporations" above: what individual has any chance of matching that? Or even group of individuals? Yet these entities – some of them not even American corporations (Shell Oil, BP, DaimlerChrysler) – are granted the protections of personhood – but not the responsibilities. Individuals – persons – are fully liable for their actions; corporations, almost by definition, have limited liability.

The outcomes of this travesty are legion, but just to name a few:

Corporate censorship: the news media are owned by multi-national corporations, and they choose what news gets printed or broadcast. Regardless of liberal journalists, it is corporate boards who choose content. Thus the appearance of liberalism in the news media veneered over bedrock economic conservatism. The corporate elite don't care shit about the degradation of culture seen in Hollywood, or abortion, or family, morals, justice, etc. They care about maintaining their power and privilege. The news that's printed/broadcast is chosen to protect those specific economic interests. Corporate shill Rush Limbaugh's rants about liberal media are just part of the package, as deeply cynical and hypocritical as you can get. Note that General Electric, a major defense contactor, owns NBC, a major news outlet – an inherent conflict of interest. The Christian Science Monitor is one of the last relatively independent news sources of any reach, which is part of the reason for its good reputation.
Employment of the US military to defend the interests of corporations overseas and extend economic hegemony over the world; to defend American Empire. This is the real issue in the so-called "War on Terror," and the unsustainability of our military budget and adventurism, along with Peak Oil, is the reason we will ultimately lose. The all-volunteer military is part of this package. People who have chosen to sign a contract and make an explicit agreement to obey orders feel it is their duty to do so even when it is contrary to the best interest of themselves and their nation; draftees resist when told to do unconscionable acts.
The degradation of the US military and abdication of humanitarian responsibility and accountability by the hiring of mercenaries.
The inevitable degradation and erosion of American liberty, and growing irrelevance of both the Constitution and the federal government.
The degradation of our food supply, including loss of topsoil, animal abuse, etc.
The merger of State and Corporate power.

To quote Benito Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

In other words, yes, Virginia, corporate personhood is the key to fascism. By adopting the cause of corporate personhood, the Republican leadership – though not Republican membership – has unreservedly committed to fascism. You won't find any of the Republican leadership accepting this claim, however. That would be political suicide. Instead, they hide their corporate agenda under popular moral platitudes, and extend support for a cynical, perverted Christianity as a means to deceive and manipulate their own political base. In his book "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America," Chris Hedges explains how this works.

Corporations are not persons, and they should be carefully controlled, granted limited charters, and restricted from political influence. I stand unreservedly opposed to fascism and the continued erosion of American liberty and secular government. I am a liberal.

*Standard note: I value dissenting opinions as crucial to the maintenance of freedom and democracy. While I would like to write convincingly, to influence opinion and sway the balance of power my way, I also consider the conservative viewpoint to be important and meaningful. I do, however, believe that political discourse does not have to be nasty and vicious. I prefer to listen to and respect my political opponents. I ask the same from them.

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

2010-02-07T07:59:00.001-08:00

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.

Say what?

2010-02-06T21:48:00.000-08:00

Quote from anti-gay marriage blogger OnLawn:
"Homosexuals and Heterosexuals are not that unalike, there is a lot of room to understand each other's issues. The reason I am worried about the current homosexual dogma is that these issues for them are excuses to not show love and commitment."

Oh! So that's why gay people are fighting so hard to get married!

Who'd'a thunk?!

Dedicated to...

2010-02-06T21:09:00.000-08:00

Proposition 8:

(Sorry. I couldn't resist...)

Marriage and Equality

2010-02-06T08:26:00.001-08:00

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.

The Danger of Painting With Only One Color … & More

2010-02-05T23:05:00.001-08:00

A few days ago someone posted the following comment on a liberal blog I visit frequently: "This is just more evidence that cons hate everyone except the Great and Holy White Fetus, and even then only if it can be used to oppress its mother."

I responded with, "… conservatives are no more monolithical than liberals … are. There are a lot of libertarian cons who would quite agree with Fannie on this post." Later the same day, I was vindicated by Newsweek. They featured an article written by Theodore Olson, the conservative lawyer who argued Bush v. Gore in front of the Supreme Court. Olson is "attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8." I love this quote from his article: "I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." I wish him much luck, good fortune, and success.

A couple days later, and I see this at the HRC website. Turns out Colin Powell, Adm. Mike Mullen, and Secretary of War Gates have all come out in favor of repealing DADT. (I love using that phrase with these guys.) 'Bout time, guys!

I don't wish to put down the commenter, nor to say I'm better than anyone else. I'm just using her quote to showcase a common fault I see on both sides. For instance, a conservative blogger puts this in her profile: "I loathe liberals & all deluded nuts who voted for [President Obama]." The problem with painting with only one color is that you inevitably end up painting with the wrong color. And that's counter-productive.

I think what we're seeing may be a tectonic shift in politics – a tipping point, perhaps. It seems likely that the Perry v. Scharzenegger case will make it to the Supreme Court, and Olson sounds excited and optimistic about the outcome. Even with the Court heavily packed with radical conservatives, I tend to agree with him. I think every gay marriage case that has come up recently before state supreme courts – California, Maine, Iowa, Connecticut – has found for the gay couple, and it will only take one or two of these guys to choose the libertarian side of the cons to flip the Court in favor of gay marriage. The implication, emphasized in Olson's effortless evisceration of the conservative case against gay marriage, is that perhaps the judges, with the opportunity to hear the best of both sides of the argument, are more clear on the law, the Constitution, and the 14^th Amendment than are the public, swayed instead by 30-second sound bites, fear, and tradition.

And think of this: If Perry makes it to SCOTUS, and the Court finds for the gay couples, the fight for marriage equality is over. Everywhere in the country. State anti-gay marriage laws from Alabama to Wyoming would be struck down, along with DOMA. Pretty cool, huh? Go, Ted!

So we see the complexities of color. The same man may be largely responsible for Bush's illegal usurpation of office and the establishment of marriage equality across the nation. His advocacy for Kristin Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo already do much to erase the damage he's done before, regardless of his success.

It's going to be interesting.

Iraq Vets

2010-01-04T21:05:00.000-08:00

This video speaks for itself.

Link to Iraq Veterans Against the War

Gay Candidates and Causes

2010-01-03T09:46:00.001-08:00

The recent success of Annise Parker, the gay candidate for mayor in Houston, Texas, has got me thinking.

More and more, gay candidates are viable contenders. People vote for them regardless of their orientation, judging instead by their abilities and views. Here in Oregon, where we not long ago soundly rejected marriage equality for lesbians and gays with Measure 36, Kate Brown was elected Secretary of State. California instituted Harvey Milk Day. It seems that individuals have crossed a tipping point, and the majority of Americans, even in conservative areas, are willing to judge gay people by criteria other than their sexual orientation.

Compare that to gay causes, however, and there is a shift. Nowhere has a public election instituted gay marriage, or failed to prohibit it. DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell appear to be in no particular danger, even with a Democratic president and majorities in both houses of Congress. Some gains have been made, with Hate Crimes legislation adding sexual orientation, but even the domestic partnership law in Washington passed with an alarmingly narrow margin.

Comparing these phenomena, I come to an interesting conclusion: the motives of voters in rejecting gay causes are not personal, but instead are meant to either protect society, or resist demands and express autonomy, or both. I think there has been a cultural shift away from fear or disgust of gay individuals and homosexuality in general, which bodes well for the future. But why the difference?

Nearly every day, I receive at least one email from a liberal organization, such as the Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood, or Equality California, which centers around the statement, "Demand that your legislators (or whoever) (fill in the blank)." Frankly, it reminds me a lot of my kids when they were two-year-olds. They demand this or that, and throw a tantrum if they don't get it. And I notice that when my kids demand something of me, I tend to resist it – even if it's something I'd be willing to do if it was requested.

I think people have sincere needs for autonomy that are not met when organizations or individuals "demand" something – and I also think that making those demands, in that tone of tantrum, sounds immature. I've noticed that I even feel resistant to joining in these "demands," not only because I don't care for the language, but because they feel like demands on me!

I wonder if the response to those demands would be different if that word were simply changed to "request?"

I don't know. But I do believe there is a more mature way to approach these issues that are so important to the lives of individuals. A way that recognizes that everyone's needs are legitimate and real. A way that leaves options open for different solutions, which may meet all those needs. For instance, same-sex marriage meets a need for gay people to have their families recognized and to be treated equally in taxes, inheritance, and so forth. What other strategies might meet those needs?

And how might those who reject gay causes react, if they thought their needs mattered to gay people, too? Would they be open to recommending new solutions that meet everyone's needs?

Maybe it's worth a try.

Tribalism and the Rose Bowl

2010-01-02T18:30:00.001-08:00

Well, after a great season, the Oregon Ducks lost the Rose Bowl. Both teams played hard, and Oregon had its chances, but Ohio State put up an excellent game on both sides of the ball and there's no doubt they earned their victory. The boys and I watched the game at our neighbors' house, along with two other families from up the street. Every one of us was a Duck fan, and, as you can imagine, there were some long faces at the end of the game.

I shared that disappointment, of course, but mostly I just enjoyed watching the game. There are a number of sports I enjoy – basketball, soccer, horse racing – but most of all I love football. I love the pacing, because you always have a chance to talk with friends or watch replays between plays. I love the choreography, as each team moves in highly practiced ways to either move the ball down the field or prevent the other team from doing it. I love watching the power, grace, speed, and skill of the athletes. I love the strategy. I love to take sides, and see my chosen team win. I even love the violence – there is something primitively satisfying in seeing a hard tackle, or watching Jeremiah Masoli run over another safety. I just wish that women's football teams (go Pride!)were more popular, and we had more chances to watch them.

I have a friend who doesn't like football at all. He hates the violence. He's got a point. A lot of people get injured playing football, and I don't enjoy that, either. He hates the competition, which he calls tribalism, and the way that fans can get aggressive and obnoxious. Wouldn't it be better to recognize the unity we all share as humans on this planet, and focus on the real problems that so beg for solutions, and which are continually ignored? He points to it as a means to pacify the masses, and distract them from the way our leaders are corrupting our political and economic systems and destroying our planet. Again, he's got a point. I see the resources continually dedicated to sports teams that really contribute nothing to solving those serious problems, but rather take potential resources away, delaying the solutions.

I also agree that it is tribalism, on a very primitive scale. Football – and other sports, for that matter – is a highly stylized form of warfare, which sets one community apart from and against another. The athletes are warriors, holding the prestige of the entire community (in a limited sense) in their hands. Fans will meet them at the airport, whether they've won or lost, and celebrate their victories, mourn their defeats, with them.

However, I question whether that tribalism is necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps resources can be better allocated, but there is a beauty to the system. First, it is certainly better to participate in this stylized competition than in genuine warfare. Sports teams also do much to contribute to the identities of their communities, to define them. Perhaps it is this that gives me the sense that sports tribalism isn't a bad thing – I've had to fight to discover and define my own identity, and so see the importance that identity carries, even for communities, for states, for nations. On a larger scale, the Olympics does the same thing. At its best, affiliation with sports teams provides an outlet for what may well be the tribalism of human nature in a way that supports peace and inter-community or international connection and understanding.

I'm not saying my friend is wrong for his view. Every part of it is legitimate, and real. For my own part, though, I think I'll claim that tribalism for my own, celebrate it, and take my place in Duck Nation proudly. I'd like to be at the airport to greet our football heroes, too.

Honoring Diversity

2009-12-27T09:16:00.001-08:00

Following the posting of last month's Transgender Awareness Week display at work, a colleague told me that he thought the oft-used phrase, "Honor Diversity," conveys the wrong idea. He is a Christian who had written an articulate and compassionate protest about the use of the word "Celebrating" in the display title, and I actually found myself agreeing with his argument. When I asked for some clarification, he explained that "Hitler was diverse, and no way he could honor Hitler."

Well, I certainly concur with that sentiment. Not only is Hitler responsible for the slaughter of Jews, in the late 1930's, he also had the institute where Magnus Hirschfield did his pioneering work on the treatment of trans people destroyed. As a member of a minority group that was slaughtered by the Nazis along with Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals, Hitler's probably the last person on earth I'd want to honor. My colleague's statement, though, led me to question just what it means to honor something.

According to Dictionary.com, honor, when used as a verb, means (among other things):

13.	to hold in honor or high respect; revere: to honor one's parents.
14.	to treat with honor.
15.	to confer honor or distinction upon: The university honored him with its leadership award.
16.	to worship (the Supreme Being).
17.	to show a courteous regard for: to honor an invitation.

In the discussion on synonyms following the definitions, it says, "Honor suggests a combination of liking and respect."

It seems to me that definitions 13, 15, and 16 don't get at the meaning of "honoring diversity" at all. Used as a noun, as it is in #14, honor seems to mean "honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions." That seems appropriate, but def. 17, "to show a courteous regard for," gets more to the intent, I think.

Then what does "diversity" mean?

Again, Dictionary.com:

1.	the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.
2.	variety; multiformity.
3.	a point of difference.

So honoring diversity means to show a courteous regard for our differences, for those ways that we are unlike. In keeping with that, the Diversity and Equity Strategic Plan recently adopted by our city includes within it statements like the following: "Diversity and human rights should no longer be viewed as 'programs,' but as core values integrated into the very fiber of the organization."

To me, Hitler was the very antithesis of diversity, and his example provides the dark side of the impetus toward showing courteous regard for our differences. Hitler proclaimed the superiority of the Aryan people, and attempted to eliminate people who were different based on ethnic, racial, sexual orientation, ability, and gender differences through genocide. It would be impossible to honor both Hitler and diversity at the same time; if you honor one, you dishonor the other.

I don't think you need to approve of another's behavior in order to show a courteous regard for how one is different. So long as that behavior stays respectful of each other and our common humanity, there is no reason for disapproval. However, I believe that one of the best ways we can show courteous regard for those who are different is by learning how we are similar. This was a criticism of the Celebrating Transgender Lives display; that to some people, the display seemed to ignore the similarities we all share, and focus on the difference. Yet each profile of the display was intended to highlight those similarities, and cut through the stereotypes that so often limit the opportunities of trans people. Each profile displayed the unique character or accomplishments of one person – his or her humor, talent, courage, creativity, contribution to society, and so on.

And in fact, each one of us is unique; despite the similarities we all share, we are all different. It is that very difference, the uniqueness of each individual, that makes life so varied, interesting, and – well, diverse. We offer always to each other a learning opportunity, a chance to grow. We are all similar, and we are all diverse. Each one of us loves, laughs, cries, mourns, and struggles to be the best we can be. At the same time, each person's unique character and talent contributes value to the whole of who we are as a people, a society, and a species. That includes our unique or specific expression of gender, whether it fits in between the traditional gender binary or not.

That is worth celebrating – and honoring.

International Migrants' Day

2009-12-18T12:05:00.000-08:00

Today is International Migrants' Day, commemorating the day in 1990 that the UN Assembly adopted the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (resolution 45/158). This article by Chandra Bhatnagar is worth reading for background, but suffice it to say that migrants face many human rights abuses right here in the original modern Bastion of Freedom known as the USA.

With that in mind, I call on all US agencies and employers to treat migrants with the humanity and respect that they deserve, simply by being our brothers and sisters born to the same divine Father-Mother as created us. I call on President Obama to direct his agencies to enforce all aspects of national and international law that protect these people from abuse, and to take immediate steps to rectify the situation in Villas-del-Sol, Puerto Rico, including provision of electricity, water, health care, and humanitarian aid as needed (see the article). And I extend my own prayers for all migrant workers in the US, and everywhere.

It is a disgrace for a nation of our proud heritage to continue to allow this kind of abuse, especially in the aftermath of the Hurricane Katrina travesty. If we cannot extend mercy, compassion, and basic human rights to people on our own soil, how can we ever expect to support it as far away as Afghanistan?

A Biblical Surprise

2009-12-01T07:09:00.001-08:00

I love the 139^th Psalm, verses 1-18, with its lyrical assurance of God's everpresent Love. Sometimes I turn to it for comfort, for a reminder that I can never, not for one second, anywhere, be separated from the love of God. But this morning, as I turned the tattered pages of my Bible in search of it, something from the 142^nd caught my eye. I stopped to read it.

Then I read it again.

I read it a third time.

I never expected a three thousand year old man hiding in a cave to write my own prayer – the prayer of a trans woman. Because that's what it was. What it is. A mirror of the desperation that drove me to transition, of the faith that, though not couched in any religion, led me to take that irrevocable step across gender lines.

~*~

Psalm 142
Maschil of David; A Prayer when he was in the cave

I cried unto the Lord with my voice; with my voice unto the Lord did I make my supplication. I poured out my complaint before him; I shewed before him my trouble. When my spirit was overwhelmed within me, then thou knewest my path. In the way wherein I walked have they privily laid a snare for me. I looked on my right hand, and beheld, but there was no man that would know me: refuge failed me; no man cared for my soul. I cried unto thee, O Lord: I said, Thou art my refuge and my portion in the land of the living. Attend unto my cry; for I am brought very low: deliver me from my persecutors; for they are stronger than I. Bring my soul out of prison, that I may praise thy name: the righteous shall compass me about; for thou shalt deal bountifully with me.

~*~

But wait, you say, your family loved you! They cared deeply for you.

No. They did not know me. They cared deeply for the man they thought I was. But I was lying to them; my soul was deep in prison, and they cared not for me, because they could not know me. I lived then in a cave of my own making, a prison that seemed to have no door. But when the desolation of loneliness overwhelmed me, I cried out to the Universe; the door opened, and my path was shown; can I say that it was shown by other than divine Love? I had tried all others; religion, therapy, the Marine Corps, marriage, drunkenness, fantasy, adventure. Nothing opened the door until I surrendered to the one path that could bring my soul out of that prison.

And I am compassed with loving, open arms – friends, family, neighbors, co-workers and colleagues. The Lord has dealt bountifully with me.

He will deliver me from my persecutors; for if they are stronger than I, they are certainly not stronger than Him.

A Compromise

2009-11-29T08:36:00.001-08:00

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.

“Love Your Enemies…”

2009-11-26T08:17:00.001-08:00

Lately I've been thinking a lot about a certain Bible verse: Matthew 5:44 – "I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." These words were attributed to Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, which I believe is one of, if not the, greatest talks on nonviolence or ahimsa in history. (Of course, that's from my western perspective and limited knowledge of non-western texts and teachings.) I got to thinking about it partly because I got into a rather unpleasant debate regarding feminism and gay rights on another blog, because for several months I've been studying the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, and because I want to be the most effective force possible in my activism for LGBT rights, and I believe this is the way to do that. And I've been thinking about it because so often I fail to achieve my goal of doing just that – I want clarity about how to love my enemies – those who oppose equal rights for LGBT people.

So what does it mean, to "love your enemies?" That's a pretty strong statement, and the follow-up is no weaker: bless, do good to, pray for, those who hurt you. Turn the other cheek. How radically different is this from most of what I see in the world.

It's clear that "love," in this case, is a verb. It requires positive and proactive action on our part, a conscious decision, and determined persistence. In an essay titled "Love Your Enemies," Mrs. Eddy said, "We must love our enemies in all the manifestations wherein and whereby we love our friends; must even try not to expose their faults, but to do good to them whenever opportunity occurs." That raises the ante a bit, taking it to a new level. Certainly we must counter lies and misconceptions, and assert our own truth with determination and persistence. How do we do this without exposing the faults of our enemies? Perhaps by keeping our statements as completely impersonal as possible?

This gets really challenging in the heat of, so to speak, battle. How can you do good to and love someone who has just said words about you intended to wound and destroy? How can you not feel anger, and fear, and the hate that rises so easily from them? Once again I found some pretty useful words from Mrs. Eddy: "Love your enemies, or you will not lose them; and if you love them, you will help to reform them;" "The mental arrow shot from another's bow is practically harmless, unless our own thought barbs it. It is our pride that makes another's deed offensive, our egotism that feels hurt by another's self-assertion;" "Who is thine enemy that thou shouldst love him? Is it a creature or a thing outside thine own creation? Can you see an enemy, except you first formulate this enemy and then look upon the object of your own conception? What is it that harms you?" Hannah More said, "If I wished to punish my enemy, I should make him hate somebody."

In this context I want to take my activism to this new level; active love of my enemies, even more than just passively eliminating the anger and fear from my own heart and wishing them well while still opposing them. It means finding ways of doing good to them, while simultaneously holding unconditional love in my heart, completely without rancor or judgment, and while also resisting the injustice. Indeed, it makes my resistance stronger.

I don't expect to be perfect at this; it is a goal to strive for, but I'm still completely human, subject to pride, anger, ego, misjudgment, misinterpretation, misunderstanding, mistake, and all the other foibles humans are subject to. I'll make mistakes. But I am convinced that returning always to this guidepost will lead me to a more effective activism; this seems to be the guidepost that directed Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King. And if I'm not successful, at least I'll be happy doing it. After all, "'Love thine enemies' is identical with 'Thou hast no enemies.'" (MBE)

I'm not a Christian Scientist, but I wish that The Christian Science Church would put Mrs. Eddy's essays, "Love Your Enemies" and "Taking Offense" online, and I could direct those of us who fight for equal rights for LGBT people to read them. Regardless of the religious undertones, these are strategies, I believe, for effective action. Our anger, justified as it may be, benefits no one; indeed, it does active harm to our own side.

If there are any activists out there who access my blog, I'd be really interested in hearing your thoughts on this post.

I Smell Roses....

2009-11-23T19:50:00.000-08:00

Okay, this may be premature, with the Civil War coming up next Thursday, but this video's pretty cool. And I gotta go with Jeremiah Masoli and the Ducks.

Watch it before UO makes them pull it...! (UO ought to pay those students for making it!)

A Civil War for the ages. Go Ducks!

The Danger of a Single Story

2009-11-22T08:48:00.000-08:00

This video is rather long - about 20 minutes - but worth every second of it.

It has also inspired an idea for an upcoming project, which I hope to post soon. Stay tuned...

Labels

2009-11-14T08:07:00.001-08:00

I'm a member of the Diversity Committee where I work, and to celebrate Transgender Awareness Week (TAW) and International Transgender Day of Awareness (TDOR), we prepared a display that illustrates some of the gender-variant people through history, profiles of individual transpeople and their accomplishments, and a few of the people who've been killed over the last year because of their perceived gender-variance. The display will be put up in my building, and it turns out that, for some of my co-workers, it's controversial. They ask why we need to label people, why we can't just accept people for who they are without the labels.

And which label is it that offends them?

Turns out the display includes the word, "transgender," and a few of my coworkers don't want to be exposed to that word, and they don't want their children exposed to that word.

There's no doubt that labels can be limiting and destructive; that they can make pain and add to prejudice. But I'm not sure how you can have a display celebrating trans people for TAW without including the word "transgender." It would be kind of like celebrating Independence Day, but removing the word, "Independence." What makes that day different? What is it about these people that is different from others?

It's human nature to compartmentalize things, to label them for ease of understanding. There's great danger in that, as mis-labeling is common, and judging solely by label is guaranteed to result in misunderstanding and ignorance. Nevertheless, we cannot escape labels – and labels do have their place. They do differentiate according to individual characteristics. The error is in making assumptions regarding the person that go beyond the label. Assuming that because someone is a woman, she's weak and emotional. Assuming that because someone is a black man, he likes watermelon and fried chicken. Assuming that because someone is a Christian, she's a Republican. The label is accurate and impersonal, but that's all you know about the person; the assumption may or may not be accurate, and accepting it as truth perpetuates ignorance and violence.

In our building, we've also got a poster up called "Women at Work," illustrated with various women performing a variety of jobs, to show that women are capable workers. No one I've ever heard about has objected to it. We regularly put up notices regarding "Asian Celebration," or "Black History Month," or "Women's History Month", or "Hispanic Festival," or "Disability Etiquette." No one objects. If folks make assumptions regarding the people behind the labels, they keep those assumptions to themselves. The labels are accurate and impersonal, and important to place the announcement in context, to give it meaning. If you take that label away, you erase a part of that person's identity; you remove the person or the event from context, and make it meaningless. We are men, women, black, white, Native American, Asian – it's who we are, part of what makes us individuals, an aspect of our personhood that defines who we are in relation to those around us, that gives us our individuality within our common humanity. The label does not represent who we are – but who we are is not complete without it.

I am an American. I am white. I am middle-aged. I am a mother – and a father. I'm a writer. I'm a designer. I am an ex-Marine. I am a carpenter. I am an activist. I'm a feminist. I am free. I am a human. I am a woman. Most important of all, I am spiritual, a child of God. And I am transgendered.

Labels. I claim each one, I wear it with pride. This is who I am. Just as you label yourself, in whatever way you do, with whatever pride or shame you have about that aspect of who you are. Some of those labels I wear by choice – designer, writer, feminist, free. Others have been assigned to me by accident of birth, by fate, or by God – human, American, white, child of God. Transgender.

I don't have any choice about it. I was just as much a transgendered woman when I wore a beard, a man's name, and man's clothing, as I am now. I was just invisible, isolated, and desperately, suicidally miserable.

So when I hear that some of my own colleagues are so offended by who I am that they not only don't want to be confronted with my identity, that they don't even want their children to know of my existence; when I see that they want to bury my identity, erase it, make me invisible – it hurts.

It hurts not only because an important part of my identity is being dismissed. Making that label of such paramount importance that it must be hidden or erased, actually makes it more visible, even as it makes me invisible. The attempt to remove the label isolates it, so that it then becomes the definer of my individuality. It reduces me, and every trans person, to less than fully human, to only transgender. It perpetuates ignorance, prejudice, and fear, and smoothes the way for violence.

This is why we need the display so damned much in the first place.

Marriage: What’s Going On?

2009-11-07T08:07:00.001-08:00

Not long ago, a "marriage defender" who calls himself R.K. asked me what I would like the general cultural understanding of marriage to be, whether "marriage is between any two persons"? Or "marriage is between a man and a woman, unless...."? He recommended I answer after reading this article. I didn't answer in that comment thread, but it's a fair question – one I'll answer here.

I recently read that 4 in 10 children – 40% - are born to unmarried mothers. This is a radical cultural shift from what marriage would have been even 50 years ago, when getting pregnant outside of marriage was stigmatized, and women didn't have the economic equality and opportunity to support themselves effectively. 150 years ago, pioneering feminist Mary Baker Eddy wrote: "… the frequency of divorce shows that the sacredness of this relationship is losing its influence and that fatal mistakes are undermining its foundations." At that time, divorce was relatively rare; today, around 50% of marriages end in divorce. The institution of no-fault divorce is at least partly, and perhaps wholly, responsible, and this represents another profound cultural shift in the perception and understanding of marriage. Today, gay people in four states can get married, just the same as straight people and into the same institution, and hate crimes legislation has been passed to protect them from crimes based on their identity. 50 years ago, they were frequently targeted by police for beatings, harassment, and arrest, and very few people in mainstream, straight society seemed to care.

There's a saying in architecture: "Form follows function." In other words, how a building works is more important than its shape, colors, textures, and so on; instead, the function of the building informs what shape it will (ideally) take.

So already, the cultural understanding of marriage – and its function – is profoundly different than it was 100, or even 50 years ago.

I'm not going to argue what's right or wrong here, or what's best. I've seen enough marriages where children were being hurt by the wars between their parents, where no-fault divorce was a better option than allowing the anger to escalate to violence, where the children were benefited, perhaps even their lives saved, by their parents' separation. At the same time, there is a preponderance of evidence that shows that, overall, children of divorce fare worse than the children of intact families. I don't have the wisdom to even suss out all the variables that influence things like that, much less analyze their effects.

The article cites six "goods" of marriage as an other-sex-only institution: it supports a child's birthright to know and be raised by her biological parents; it maximizes the level of private welfare of children; it is the foundation of the "child-rearing mode" that correlates – "in ways not subject to reasonable dispute" – with a child's well being; it is a bridge that unites men and women; it
is "the only institution that can confer the status of husband and wife, that can transform a male into a husband or a female into a wife …, and thus that can transform males into husband/fathers … and females into wife/mothers …; and last, it constitutes "social and official endorsement of that form of adult intimacy that society may rationally value above all other such forms. It cites these as self-evidently, inarguably the ideal. But I can't help but question some of them.

For instance, do kids have a right to know who their biological parents are? No doubt. Do they have the right to be raised by their biological parents? Maybe. But too often they should have the right to not be raised by their biological parents. I imagine Rusty Yates' kids would have welcomed an opportunity to be raised by someone else. What kids do have, is the right to be raised by people who love them unconditionally and have the emotional, spiritual, and physical resources that will enable them to grow into fulfilled, functioning adults. Indisbutably, that is, in most cases, biological parents. But the exceptions are so common, that can we justify codifying that into law? Thousands of children are worse off with their biological parent or parents than with someone else; thousands of adults have love and resources to bestow on children, yet for one reason or another cannot or will not contribute their genes.

I very much question whether a child's private welfare is better with a man-woman parenting couple than with a same-sex parenting couple. Again, too many variables intrude. We have seen that divorce is not the best platform for a child's well-being; but do we even have any significant data on intact same-sex parents? And even if we did, is it so compelling as to codify it? The children of same-sex couples I know are doing just fine. A child's well-being depends more on her individual relationships than on any particular "mode." Men and women are united by far more than marriage, biology and our common humanity perhaps being the strongest bridge. Inclusion of gay marriage transforms a male into a husband (two of them, in fact), and a woman into a wife. And why should society endorse one form of consensual adult intimacy over another? There is great danger in this assumption – our culture currently endorses one-man, one-woman marriage, but other cultures endorse polygamy, and ours has endorsed the concept of the woman as subservient to the man in the not-so-distant past.

Okay, back to the question:

Answer: I don't know. Theoretically, I think I could live with the cultural understanding of marriage being man-woman only, or including only same-sex couples. Objectively, I don't even know what it should be, or which form is best for children or society.

What I do know, is that regardless of what the cultural understanding of marriage should be, when I see my friends "Ken" and "Tom" together – they've been faithful to each other for 19 years now – I see married. I see two people deeply in love, with the comfortable intimacy that marks happy couples who've been through years and trials together. It's the same when I see Ann & Christine (14 years, 1 child), Angela & Cecily (at least 10 yrs.), Lila & Elaine (28+ yrs.), Annie & Michelle (more than 18 yrs, 2 kids). And last year, when Kelly broke up with her domestic partner, and her eyes were red from crying for a month, I saw the deep grief of divorce. (All names are changed to protect their identities.)

In other words, the cultural understanding of marriage I have is that it's between two people, and sometimes more. What I want doesn't seem to play into it that much, except that I would like a shared understanding. I bet you would, too. On the other hand, I want the cultural understanding of intimate relationships to be that same-sex relationships are just as legitimate and valuable as other-sex relationships. I also strongly believe that gay couples should have access to all the rights, responsibilities, privileges, and obligations that straight married couples have. I'm not set on the idea that those rights be defined as "marriage" – if equality can be obtained through "civil union," fine. In fact, some people have suggested that a two-tier system would be better – you get a license for a civil union from the state, and hold a legal ceremony completely separate from religious affiliation at a courthouse or other state building; then, if you want, you can get married in a sacred ceremony in the religious venue of your choice. Our German friend recently went through just such a pair of ceremonies, and it seems to make sense, separating the legal from the sacred. In such a case, both gay and straight couples would enter into the civil union, while the sacred union would be completely regulated by religious authority. If that system could end the animosity and free the energy of both "marriage defenders" and "marriage reformers," may it happen.

In sum, I think what we have is a culture in upheaval, caught in a radical shift between two visions, two understandings of what this particular social institution is and means, linked to the growing cultural understanding and acceptance of gender variance. I'm part of the new culture, along with, judging from recent votes in California and Maine, probably about 45 to 48% of our population. Judging by history and current trends, it's just a matter of time before that cultural shift is complete. The changes in function will bring about a new form, and the "goods" of marriage will have shifted to a new set. Looking back at history, the cycle is clear: the new (fill in the blank) causes great social upheaval, the old resists stiffly, but gradually fades away, and the new becomes accepted as normal and right. Industrial Revolution vs. Luddites. Feminism vs. patriarchy (or women as people vs. women as servants). Transition of European monarchical political systems to parliamentarian systems following the French Revolution and Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo. This shift in marriage is intrinsically linked to the cultural shift of recognizing homosexuality and transgenderism as normal variations of the human condition. And in some ways things will be better, in some ways worse.

I just pray that that new set of goods more than compensates for the old, and that our families and our children are blessed by it and grow stronger.

“I Love My Country…

2009-10-08T19:44:00.001-07:00

… but I fear my government."

So reads a bumper sticker I've seen on a bunch of cars lately, from trucks with matching pro-gun stickers, to beat-up VW vans with Grateful Dead decals.

Enough.

I love my country, AND I REFUSE to fear my government.

I have made plain my disgust and dissent from the direction our federal government is going multiple times in recent years, in writing letters-to-the-editor to my local newspaper and national news magazines, and in the archives of this blog. I will continue to do so in the future. What I will not do is hide in fear, or remain silent about things that matter. Life is too short, and too beautiful; Love is too powerful; freedom is too precious.

When I attended the University of Oregon, I had an opportunity to take a class on the Soviet Union under Andrei Sinyavsky. I made sure to fit it into my schedule. Sinyavsky was an old man then; it was only a year before he died. He didn't speak English. A team of Russian immigrants translated for him, sitting on either side and towering over him, a tiny old man with a white beard – who yet towered over us all. I never missed a single class session, and when I had the chance I shook his hand and gave him my respect. Since I'd already filled elective requirements, the class did nothing for my degree; it did a lot for my education.

Sinyavsky knew what it meant to fear his government. He spent six years in the Soviet Gulag for criticizing the government in writing published under the pen name Abram Tertz. That writing, and his trial, gave birth to the modern Soviet dissident movement, which led to the collapse of that regime – which he lived to see. I will never forget his presence, nor his example.

Compared to that, we live in radical freedom, with a government that is simply benign – even if it is foolishly driving over a financial cliff, and even though black men often have to fear the government that will harrass them for such "crimes" as running while black, driving while black, and so on. As for our state, county, and municipal governments, they provide so many valuable services that I treasure them. I have no patience for people who make a big show about fearing our government as if it were a fearsome totalitarian state. Its problems are legion, but that's not one of them - at least not yet. We are incredibly lucky to live in this country, sharing in a legacy of liberty and boundless creativity.

Regardless of the overwhelming power that multinational corporations appear to have over our government, our government operates with our consent. It is us. There is no us vs. the government; we are the government. That is part of living in a democracy, even a broken one like ours. If we feel disempowered, then perhaps we should look deep inside ourselves, and determine what matters. Because no one can take away our power without our consent.

I Like People

2009-10-06T23:48:00.001-07:00

About a year ago, our jurisdiction let a team of coworkers develop a new program, called Express Permits, which allows customers to bring small projects on the mornings of certain days for review over-the-counter. The idea is, someone can show up in the morning and walk out the same day with their building permit in hand. It's very popular.

Yesterday I was the plans reviewer reviewing plans, and I got three of these applications. The first was a middle-aged white homeowner with whom I'd worked several times at the counter, helping him get what he needed to apply for permit. The plans were familiar, and it was probably the fastest review I've ever done – I'd already confirmed most of the information I needed. The second was a black mom and business owner, with plans drawn freehand on 8.5x11 paper, some of which had been taped together to make bigger sheets prior to copying. I enjoyed chatting with her about kids and stuff when I wasn't focused. The third was a design-build contractor we see regularly, with beautiful plans skillfully drawn by hand. I enjoyed working with them, helping them, and making their experience a pleasant one – after all, encounters with bureaucrats don't always make people's top-ten list of amusing activities. At the end of each review, as I walked back to my desk, codebook in hand, I felt a little high. And I realized something.

I like people.

That may not sound like much, but it wasn't always that way. Five years ago, it would have been torture for me to perform my job so openly in front of the public, interacting with perfect strangers. I was socially awkward and introverted. I considered myself a loner. And I was miserably unhappy. This blog is largely the story of the transformation that happened since – my social transition from male caterpillar to female butterfly.

Today, I know I'm one of the luckiest women in the world. I have a family that loves and embraces me. I live in a neighborhood full of liberal folks who are neighbors – talking, sharing, and watching out for each other. I live in beauty. I have friends with whom I can share my life in full honesty. I have friends half-a-world away, whom I've never met yet with whom I engage in stimulating conversations. I have job that pays well, supports me personally, offers me meaning, variety, and challenge, and benefits the community. God has blessed me richly with her omnipotent Love. And all this becomes radically clear, in stark contrast to my past, with this one tiny epiphany:

I like people.

The Essence of Feminism

2009-09-25T09:19:00.001-07:00

I just came across this statement by Mary Baker Eddy, in an excerpt from an essay titled "Man and Woman," published in the March 2004 Christian Science Journal:

"…The masculine element must not murmur if at some period in human history the verdict should take a turn in behalf of woman, and say, - Her time has come, and the reflection of God's feminine nature is permitted consideration, has come to the front, and will be heard and understood. … I would declare that one was not less, nor more, important in God's sight than the other, … we shall find therein no occasion for departure, no occasion for strife, no suggestion of preeminence, or disserverance [separation] of the masculine and feminine elements of God's creating – no question of who shall be greatest."

I love this quote. It's statements like this, as well as her accomplishments, that I believe have earned Mrs. Eddy a place of honor in the feminist canon. To me, it gets at the very essence of feminism, and of what it means to be a feminist: man, and woman, and those in between, all co-equal – and further, that every person is complete in their own right. This way lies peace, and freedom for all, ending the battle of the sexes, for each recognizes the other as equal and complete, with mutual respect, with no struggle for supremacy or subjugation of the other.

It seems to me that bringing on this "period in human history" is the desire and mission of mainstream feminism. Yes, there are extremists who twist feminism into the flip side of masculism, wishing a change from patriarchy to matriarchy, but, in my experience, these are a small minority. So why do antifeminists – typically conservatives, and often women who benefit greatly from feminism – feel so threatened by feminism? From where comes this meme of "feminazi?"

I think it's because they fear that losing male privilege will cause them to lose the essence of their identities – though in fact it only frees them to express the sovereignty of that identity.

I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of others, both feminists and those opposed, on this understanding of feminism.

Homeschooling? What’s that?

2009-09-11T08:00:00.001-07:00

Sometimes things happen fast around here.

For years now, we've been dedicated unschoolers, basing our educational philosophy on the work of John Holt, Alfie Kohn, John Taylor Gatto, and Marshall Rosenberg. Unschooling has its challenges, of course, but we made the sacrifices necessary to accommodate them gladly, and everything went well. Sam reads way above grade level. Trin's knows science stuff that most adults don't know. The boys' friends trotted off to their various schools a week or two back, and it seemed we were all set for another year of homeschooling.

Then, last week, Kristin told me that she desired more structure in our lives, including in regards to their unschooling.

Be careful what you ask for. Desire is prayer.

Tuesday, I came home to find Kristin and the boys in deep discussion. Sam had asked to go to school.

Well, our intent in unschooling was to give the boys the best education we could, without coercion. We've told them from the start that they could go to school if they want to, but so far, they've resisted – particularly Trinidad, who did NOT enjoy Waldorf kindergarten. Not that we could afford private school, anyway.

Wednesday, I came home and before she even greeted me, Kristin said, "Come here, look at this!" and showed me the Family School website. It's one of our groovy local alternative public charter schools, and shares much of our educational philosophy: Multi-age classrooms. A cooperative, child-centered learning environment. A garden. Parents are integrated into the school, and can participate as much as they want. It's one of few local schools that composts its food waste. Of course, there are downsides, like the idiotic standardized testing they'll have to endure, and getting up early, but there are downsides to unschooling, too. Besides, as I mentioned, it's also one of our groovy schools that always has a long waiting list; the chances of getting in this year are slim, and the lottery for school choice ended way back in March or something and won't happen again until next year. Still, Kristin and I agreed that she should visit the school and check it out.

Thursday evening, as we sat down to dinner, my ears filled with the story of Kristin's and the boys' visit to the school. They liked what they saw. Even Trin wanted to go. The teachers had mentioned that they were looking to add a couple students, but didn't know what grade level they were looking for – they'd have to meet and decide. The discussion wandered to getting on the waiting list, and wondering how long it was, but both of us felt completely unworried. We both knew that if it was the right thing, they'd get in – if not, no way – regardless of evidence. Then the phone rang. Strange number, so we almost didn't answer, but at the last moment Kristin picked up the phone.

It was the head teacher at the Family School. They'd met. They offered the boys a spot. Both of them, different classes.

Like that.

The boys start their new educational adventure Monday. My homeschooling co-worker is going to be shocked. Shocked! I thought back to my post from just a few weeks ago, and I laughed. "I have to blog about this!"

Eating crow?

Nah. Just sliding along on the path of least resistance. No way is unschooling off the plate. Their educations are still in the boys' hands.

Because nobody can take responsibility for your education, except yourself.

Ain’t I a Woman?

2009-08-29T22:20:00.001-07:00

The other day I pointed out Lynn Conway's website and photo to a friend for some reason. At first he thought she was cisgendered, and then he said something like, "She doesn't look trans." So I clicked on her Successful Transitions site, to kind of point out that she's not the only one, by a long shot. He thought just about everyone on the page looked like she was trans, and said, "Most of them would have a hard time finding someone who would put up with that."

Ouch.

My friend Tobi might call it "transmisogyny."

It's things like this that make me wish I were a lesbian. Women just don't seem to have that obsession with the physical bodies of their lovers – the personality, the inner beauty, seems more important than the physical. I know it's true for me. I sometimes feel quite attracted to guys who are not very physically attractive, because I like their personhood – their passion, their intellect, their generosity, humor, whatever. Characteristics other than physical beauty can be very sexy.

But apparently not to men. My friend is educated, liberal, accepting of gays, lesbians, and trans people. Yet his abhorrence of the idea of a man finding a woman like me attractive purely dripped from his words. And despite their obvious femininity, they all seemed like men to him. Any guy readers out there, does this resonate with you?

Why?

Many of these are beautiful women, with successful, interesting lives. Why should a man have to "put up with it" at all? Why can't men just see us for who we are? Why not celebrate it? Why this focus on birth gender?

What does it say about our culture, that the bodies of women are considered of so much more importance than their persons?

As Sojourner Truth might say, "And ain't I a woman?"

Political Science 101

2009-08-28T09:12:00.001-07:00

I have a bad habit of going onto conservative blogs and starting conversations. It's my means of breaking out of my own liberal echo chamber and attempting to expand my understanding and horizons, while also pushing others to break out of theirs. Something I've noticed repeatedly on these forays is that conservatives (at least the ones on the blogs I visit) really don't understand political/economic systems very well. Typically they look at the current health care "reform" bill being proposed, and call it "Marxist" or "socialist." So, if any of you conservatives ever come visit me here, here's a short lesson to clarify the issue for you.

Socialism, especially as Marx espoused, is the when the state owns and operates the means of production and distribution. A completely socialist approach to the health care system would be as follows: 1) Nationalize the hospitals; eliminate private ownership of hospitals and clinics. 2) Make all health care providers employees of the state. 3) Nationalize pharmaceutical companies – the folks who research and make drugs. 4) That pretty much eliminates the need for health insurance. Everything's paid for by the state, anyway.

Fascism, on the other hand, allows for private ownership – but ensures that that ownership belongs to a certain class. As Benito Mussolini puts it, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

So when Obama and other government officials meet with pharmaceutical and insurance lobbyists behind closed doors to negotiate how "health care reform" will not only be acceptable to them, but will make them primary beneficiaries, that's fascism. When the government requires citizens to purchase private insurance, that's fascism.

In fact, we've been seeing a lot of fascism in this country over the last 30 years or so. Now, it's SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) in Washington for lobbyists to write the majority of legislation, which our congresspeople then sponsor. That's why these bills are so long and complicated – they are designed by and for the wealthiest corporations in the world. And it's completely bipartisan. This is what Reagan did, in things like quietly privatizing the military. (Currently a large percentage of the American military system is composed of corporate mercenaries.) Clinton had NAFTA, GATT, and Hillarycare. Bush had the PATRIOT Act, no-bid contracts, the Iraq invasion and occupation, and so on. Now Obama's signed on with this very fascist health care plan.

Of course, we don't call it fascism. That wouldn't be PC at all. Instead, the conservative media lapdogs (Rush, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, et al) slam "the liberals" and call it "socialism" when liberals do it, and "conservatism" or "common sense" when Republicans do it – as if the problem were this large liberal section of the American people. And liberal voices retaliate, and a vicious and divisive political discourse cripples any resistance possible from a united grassroots movement of citizens who have a common interest in tearing down fascism in this country.

The irony is that people on both sides think their leaders have their own best interests at heart, and care about liberty for the masses. Not so. The leaders care about maintaining their positions, and because We the People are ignorant, angry, and misinformed, and don't recognize our common interests and humanity, we let them.

I feel sad when I see the vicious rhetoric so common on various blogs, because it ensures that we won't listen to each other or find common ground. Instead, it aids the very people who are bleeding our freedom away. It is deeply self-destructive.

Bibliography:

Bernays, Edward: Propaganda

Johnson, Chalmers: Blowback – the costs and consequences of American Empire

Gatto, John Taylor: The Underground History of American Education

Briody, Dan: The Iron Triangle: Inside the Carlyle Group

Marx, Karl: The Communist Manifesto

Rand, Ayn: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Hartmann, Thom: Unequal Protection and What Would Jefferson Do?: A return to democracy

Omerud, Paul: Butterfly Economics

Singer, P.W.: Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry

Mill, John Stuart: On Liberty

Palast, Greg: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy

Hayek, F. A.: The Road To Serfdom

plus a whole bunch of books on WWII that I read before I started keeping records, and so can't cite individually.

Thoughts on Homeschool Curriculum

2009-08-22T07:42:00.001-07:00

We got a letter from the local ESD (Education Service District) recently. They used paper, envelope, postage, and about 250 words to say "Please tell us if you move your homeschooled kid out of the district or enroll him in school." An email would have sufficed, and saved the district a buck or two and us the recycling. I asked Trinidad if he wants to go to school. "NO!"

The other day the kids got to wondering how long a blue whale is. So Kristin and they found a tape measure and went out to the street to measure. It was only a 25' tape, so they learned how to add the measurements together to get the whole. It stretched from the fire hydrant at the corner across our neighbor's lot and almost all of ours. Then they measured how high they climb in the willow tree (25') and how high the treehouse is (10').

We practice a form of homeschooling called "unschooling," which operates without any curriculum at all. It's a system pioneered by John Holt, author of How Children Fail, How Children Learn, and Learning All the Time – books which were influential in developing our homeschool style. As unschoolers, the boys are not involved with any homeschool group – there is at least one local group, which offers some classes and gatherings – and they are perfectly happy to be outside the school system. Instead they have a remarkable amount of freedom, and with it, a remarkable amount of opportunity.

But without curriculum, how do they learn what they need to know?

It does create some disjointed learning processes. For instance, the boys really got into math last winter. They printed out blanks, and then filled in times tables. They got some math workbooks, and spent hours doing the problems, from simple addition to some basic division. Then, as summer harvest and the house addition began to absorb our time, and their friends started summer vacation, math fell by the wayside. The kids were too busy playing with their friends in the kid-pack that floats from house-to-house up and down our street, Kristin too busy harvesting, me too busy building. Last night, as they played Scrabble, I noticed that they'd forgotten a lot of their addition. I helped them out for awhile. When I got tired, they still wanted help with the math, so I found an addition workbook and said they could add up the score on the margins. They got distracted and started working on the problems in the book while I went to bed. And rapidly regained what they had lost.

I got to thinking about it.

How do we, as adults, learn what we need to know?

We learn when we are ready, when we need to know. Nobody tells us we have to – the need is there, it stimulates the desire, we seek the knowledge, and we learn. I didn't learn much in school. I was interested in history and geography, and read books like Bruce Catton's Civil War, and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, that enabled me to frequently spot the inaccuracies in my school textbooks. High school history was so pointless that I used to hide novels inside my textbook and read them during class. I learned nothing about carpentry – I learned that on the job. I didn't learn to tie knots, splice line, sew web, maintain diesel engines, or start a fresh-water maker in school – I learned that working on a fishing boat. I learned nothing about design and architecture, my chosen field – I went to college, and followed it up with on-the-job training. I didn't learn to run a business until I started one. When I started work as a building official, I knew almost nothing about building code – now I can cite probably hundreds of code regulations.

Kids are no different. When Sam was five years old, he loved Magic Treehouse books. When his parents didn't have time to read to him, he needed to learn to read. He taught himself, with help from us. Now, at six, he reads at the 8^th or 9^th grade level.

But what if he had been in school? The demand to learn would be there, but the need might not. Or, he might have been too busy studying things he wasn't interested in (science?) to teach himself to read. I suspect he would have learned to read anyway. The need to learn is intrinsic to our human curiosity. If we aren't interested in something, if it doesn't have meaning in our lives, we won't learn it – or at least, not very well. If we are interested in it, if it has meaning in our lives, we will learn – and almost nothing can hold us back.

Feminism is the philosophy that women are people, too. Unschooling is the philosophy that kids are people, too.

School curricula, by removing the learning from the context, the readiness to learn it, the need for it and the meaning behind it, lowers the intrinsic motivation to learn. It is destructive. The best curriculum is to follow your heart.

Health Care Redux

2009-08-21T03:55:00.001-07:00

The more I consider the health care system "reform" currently being debated and opposed so ardently by conservatives, the more opposed I am to it – though not, I suspect, for the reasons they'd quote. In my last post, I said I was agnostic after looking at all the good things that are being proposed. Many of the things Obama and the Democrats are trying to do are not only worthwhile, but morally imperative. However, the very attractiveness of that led me to miss the key point: it addresses the symptoms of the health care malaise, without addressing the underlying problems that create the symptoms. Because of that, it is doomed to fail.

The problems of our current health care system are as follows: 1. It is an extremely complex system, in a situation where simplicity is proven, all over the world, to be more effective and far more efficient. 2. It allows outrageous rewards for malpractice suits, which drives outrageous costs for malpractice insurance. 3. It prohibits the public payer from negotiating prices with the providers. 4. The payer in most situations is motivated by profit (not need) in a system where profit is maximized by denying (not providing) the services needed – effectively rationing health care and reducing choice far more effectively than even this bill would allow.

This bill actually addresses none of these problems. Instead, it takes a quintessentially Republican approach to legislate better results out of a failing system: Government officials meet with corporate industry officials behind closed doors to craft legislation which is then crammed down the citizen's throats. Benito Mussolini would approve; he'd call it fascism – "the merging of corporate and state power." It is a mystery to me why the folks who supported Bush oppose this plan – it is exactly the kind of thing that he would support and promote.

At the risk of being boring and redundant, the solution is simple: 1. To deal with problems #1 & 4 above, expand Medicare to include everyone, and reform the paperwork process to make it simple, easy, and able to process in multiple ways (digital, hard copy, etc.). (This has the added benefit of increasing everyone's choices on doctors, providers, and so on, because every provider is a preferred provider, and there is no out-of-network unless you leave the country.) 2. To deal with problem #2 above, limit malpractice suit rewards. 3. To deal with #3 above, require Medicare to negotiate prices. 4. To additionally deal with #4 above, cover alternative health care (acupuncture, Christian Science, etc.) and preventative care.

The current reform plan on the table operates from the same assumptions and paradigm as the current system, and merely attempts to legislate better results. But without reforming the system, we won't get better results. As Einstein said, "Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them." While doing some things to mitigate the symptoms of our current insane system, this plan will hurt vulnerable populations – small business and the middle class – while providing huge, usurious profits to huge, corrupt corporations. It will delay genuine reform. Liberals should stand side-by-side with our conservative brethren and sistren in opposition to it.

The Health Care Reform Bill

2009-08-14T08:31:00.001-07:00

Caveat: I don't have time to research H.R. 3200, the House version of this bill, or any of the others, completely; so this analysis is based on reading the summary, scanning the text, and commentary from other sources. My analysis may have major holes in it. However, a conservative friend asked me to comment on it, so I'll give it a try.

First, this bill is almost 500 pages long. A basic principle I like to go by, articulated by Albert Einstein, is, "Everything should be made as simples as possible – but not simpler." Clearly, this bill fails that simple test.

The bill does have a lot of good points. It eliminates exclusions for pre-existing conditions. It limits out-of-pocket expenses and doesn't limit payouts. It covers preventive services. It provides health insurance for everyone. It requires the rich to pay more than the poor and middle class. It guarantees coverage for everyone. It includes mental health services. And so on.

My objections are as follows:

1. It's way more complex than it has to be. (See comment above.) It establishes a new bureaucracy, the "Health Choices Administration," with additional layers such as the "Health Insurance Exchange." It establishes a new public health insurance provider within this, I think as part of the Exchange. In addition, it seeks to fill the prescription benefit hole with this new insurance, so that people covered by Medicare then have the additional complexity of multiple payers for the same product, essentially doubling the paperwork. Every one of those is completely unnecessary and redundant. We've already got two public plans, Medicare and Medicaid, which is one more than we should have. Medicare has its problems, but it is run very efficiently. In fact, providing insurance is one of those places where government can excel, exceeding the efficiencies and effectiveness of private insurance because it is not motivated by profit, but by service.

2. The Health Insurance Exchange is supposed to compete with private insurers. Big mistake. I'd rather see something like the old-age insurance (Social Security) system: it is available for all, and if you want supplemental financial planning services, go for it.

3. It requires employers to provide coverage, based on payroll, not profitability. Really bad idea. We should be divorcing employers from providing coverage, not requiring more. Almost all other developed nations (those with which we trade) have single payer public health insurance; employers in those nations don't have the added cost of providing coverage. It's just one stupid way to make our own industry less competitive on the global market. Besides, it can really hit small employers hard, especially if their payroll is bigger than their profit. Expect marginal businesses to go under.

4. It doesn't mention "medically necessary." It should. Any procedure, service, or product considered medically necessary should be covered. That includes Sex Reassignment Surgery.

5. It imposes a tax on individuals without a health plan. That's okay, but I'd rather see a single-payer system that basically taxes everyone.

6. If it is true that people will be fined if they don't purchase a health care package, that is a major objection. "Nothing of benefit to the individual is obtained through coercion." (Socrates, I think?) I can think of no way to increase resistance to this bill better than this. People hate coercion, and rightfully so. I hate it. "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

7. Cost is not adequately addressed. (See update and link to Field's post below.) Without giving the public health insurance entity full ability to negotiate prices and without limiting the extent of malpractice suit penalties, cost cannot be adequately addressed. And creating redundant public bureaucracies adds a completely unnecessary level of cost, just for administration. It's stupid and counter-productive.

This health care reform bill is nowhere near as bad as some of the conservative commentary I've seen on it. For instance, one such objection is that it rations your health care. This exhibits the privileged ignorance of those who make this objection. Health care is already rationed, usually by income level. Poor people often have no coverage. Trans people can't obtain medically necessary procedures that are available to others. In fact, private insurers ration by pre-existing condition, exclusions, maximum payouts, preferred provider networks, and every other means they can legally access. This bill may well ration health care, but by eliminating maximum payouts, pre-existing conditions, and income refusals, it significantly reduces existing rationing. Another objection is that a government committee will determine your treatments and benefits. So what? Under private care, you've got an insurance executive, whose paycheck depends on reducing benefits provided to you, making those choices. And guess which one can be held accountable? (Hint: it's not the executive.) Making things better does not necessarily constitute making things perfect, but that's no reason not to do it.

Going back to Einstein's quote, the solution to the health care mess is way simpler than this bill. All we need to do is make Medicare available to everyone, with the following reforms: a) require it to negotiate prices. b) simplify the paperwork – everyone is covered, every provider a preferred provider; list the products and services provided to the patient on one sheet of paper, submit for payment, and you're done. c) limit malpractice suit payouts. d) cover alternative systems, such as acupuncture, naturopaths, homeopathy, and Christian Science treatment. Medicare is an efficiently run, existing agency; expanding it is simple, efficient, and effective. You could fit a far more complete reform package into a 25- or 50-page bill.

In sum, this bill is nowhere near as bad as the conservatives would make it out to be. It's also nowhere near as good as some liberals are making it out to be. It has some major problems, but also some really good stuff. Having looked at the actual bill, however briefly, I've modified my opposition. I'm agnostic. It will make some things better, but it will also create new problems which are obvious and predictable, and leaves other problems unaddressed. Whether there is a net social benefit to the bill is unclear to me – there may be one, and there may not. If it passes, we'll just have to wait and see.

One thing is clear, however: This health care reform bill could be a hell of a lot better.

Update: Field Negro is one smart cookie. When he posts something like this, I tend to believe it - and I agree with his commentary, especially about having each other's backs.

Party Day and Pride

2009-08-09T08:34:00.001-07:00

I've been busy this year, building an addition on our house so that I'll have my own room. And an office, and a second bathroom, and a big-ass shop/storage room where Kristin can store her harvest – row upon row of neatly labeled ball jars filled with goodies from our garden and every stray fruit tree in a 14-block radius. This means I'm working four ten-hour days at work (I love the flexibility at my job!), and spending three-day weekends working on the house. The trusses are finally up, and the roof sheathing is going on. Needless to say, not much time for blogging, hence the erratic and rare nature of my posts. It also means that Kristin has taken over almost all domestic chores, including even doubling up on watching the kids.

Yesterday, however, two events coincided to give me a day off. A day of relaxation – what a concept!

First, it was our local PRIDE day – a party not to be missed. And, second, it was the day that one of my girlfriend's daughter had a birthday party at Skate World. I don't get to see my friend often enough because of our work schedules and the different circles our children usually travel in, so that was a must-go for me, too. Bonus – B isn't Kristin's friend, and Pride isn't Kristin's thing (though she did enjoy it later on), so she got a much-deserved day without kids.

I balanced it all by taking the kids to Pride for its opening two hours, then going to the birthday party, then back to Pride where I was supposed to meet Kristin and she'd take the kids so I could help out for awhile at the Human Rights Commission table – though when I got back, the table was gone and Kristin ended up spending the rest of the time with us there.

It was a good day for the boys. They plucked free candy from nearly every bowl at the festival, and then we found the Balloon Man! An artist with balloons with a big rainbow hat made of them, he rapidly blew up and twisted long, skinny balloons into fantastic shapes. Trin got a fish on a pole, Sam a jester's hat, along with others. Other kids got an alien, or a monkey with a gun or a peeled banana. At Skate World they got to exercise their roller blades and eat a cake shaped like a hamburger; and then back to Pride where we ended up joining Kristin and going around as a family. I got to relax, chat with friends, play with my kids, and reload for another strenuous day on the roof.

Pride is an interesting event. (In the past, certain groups would come to protest – ironically, usually protesting abortion more than homosexuality. For the last two years, they didn't show up. I guess they finally put one-and-one together and got two: I can think of no female demographic less likely to have an unwanted pregnancy than lesbians. But I digress.) There are people of all ages, from tiny babies to bent old folks with walkers or wheelchairs. People of all colors – often brilliant colors dyed into hair or tattooed into skin. Camp and music and grace and vulgarity and humor and talent, and men and women holding hands and kissing their partners with freedom not found in most of society. There is a sense of freedom, joy, almost family. Here, for one day of the year, we are free to be who we are. Tomorrow, we will go back to disguising our relationships, to restraining ourselves, to modifying our behavior to deflect the sneers, the slurs, the abuse, and simply to avoid offending our neighbors, many of whom violently object to the reality of our existence – and especially to any public display of affection, no matter that they smile indulgently to see the same behavior exhibited by other-sex couples with far less monogamy and history than many of the couples at Pride share.

This is the attraction for me. It is an oasis of openness, of truth, where the stress of the need to hide is gone. Here, people do not need to indulge the social conventions that all too often oppress rather than liberate. Yet there is restraint. This is a family event. It is a chance to see that we, and our families, especially our children, are not alone, and that the people with whom we share our conditions are typically honorable, interesting, witty, fun, intelligent, often talented, and widely diverse. It is a place for peace, honesty – far more honesty than I see in most of the circles of those who condemn us – and yes, pride. We are more than okay. We are good.

Luna

2009-08-08T08:15:00.001-07:00

When I grew up back in the '60's and '70's, I didn't know that transgenderism existed. Not only was the ranch in Wyoming isolated from that kind of information, our entire culture buried it. The media never mentioned such phenomena. No books, especially children's or young adult's, reflected it. Trans people existed neither in fact nor fiction, and that isolation shut me off from any hope of understanding why I was different from my peers, and what that difference was.

Things have changed since then. A plethora of books have emerged, explaining the phenomenon of trangenderism from a variety of viewpoints. A list of some of them adorns the bottom of this webpage. Yet as much as these informational books clarify, they do not bring my experience to the mainstream with the power of fiction. The reason they do not is this: Non-fiction reveals facts; fiction reveals truth. Non-fiction explains intellectually; fiction explains viscerally. True understanding of another human being cannot come through the intellect; it must be experienced viscerally, emotionally. And while much fiction is void of that visceral truth, much also is not.

That's a rather long lead-in to this short review, but, I think, important. Because Julie Anne Peters, a lesbian author in Colorado, has written just such a book. Titled "Luna," the story of a young trans woman coming of age, told through the eyes of her sister, illuminates the trans experience. Written for young adults and told realistically, it makes the experience of people like me accessible to all – and most especially, to young people of the age when my own confusion and isolation were more than I could bear. That confusion and isolation led directly to drug and alcohol abuse and an emotional shut-down that took many years to overcome.

Had this book been available to me, had I read it then, how many things could have been different?

It's a moot point. What's done is done, and I now have a rich, fulfilling life. Had I transitioned earlier, I would not have my two beautiful sons, nor would I have the lovely relationship I share with Kristin. I regret nothing for myself.

But I am very glad that this resource is available to young people today.

Luna. Buy it. Read it.

Hmmmm....

2009-08-01T10:41:00.000-07:00

Can't resist posting this quote that showed up on a friend's signature line:

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 to heterosexuals.
This doesn't mean God doesn't love heterosexuals. Only that they seem to require much more supervision."
-Lynn Lavner, comedian, musician

Beauty

2009-07-26T09:14:00.001-07:00

One of the things I appreciate about being raised by a Christian Scientist is learning their definition of God. In the CS worldview, there are seven synonyms for a universal, single deity: Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Spirit, Soul, Principle. It offers a different, meaningful, and far more accurate understanding of God than the traditional Christian trinity of Father, Jesus, and the Spook (the three of which, somehow, are just one god. Wrap your head around that one!) Some of the things I love about it include the following:

It removes gender from the concept of the godhead completely. What gender is Life? Could be any – and, in fact, includes every. If mankind really is made in the image of God, then, truly, either man is genderless, or God includes all genders. This concept of God really does equalize the sexes, and by changing it from an anthropomorphic entity, makes the genders equal – all of them.

It removes the patriarchy from any sense of sacredness or higher meaning, and renders it what it is: politics.

It makes God accessible not as a distant, judgmental entity, but as ever-present – here, now, universal, and complete.

However, if it were me, I'd add one more to the list: Beauty. Everywhere, everything that is created in nature is beautiful in its own way. I am surrounded by beauty; I have been, everywhere I've gone, from the deserts of Arizona to the forests of Europe to the lush jungles of Hawaii to the stark Aleutians, and even far out in the middle of the Bering Sea. I was born in the beauty of sugar maples in their fall plumage, raised in the beauty of the Rocky Mountains. Everywhere I look I see beauty: the face of a child, the expression on a mother's face as she nurses her baby, puppies and kittens, even a vulture soaring on the wind. I hear it in a meadowlark's clear notes, the chuckle of water over rocks, Jerry Garcia's fantastical guitar solos blending in harmony with the band. I feel it in the warm sun on a cool fall morning, and the fall of cool water on a hot day. I smell it. I taste it. It fills me with joy, and brings tears of gratitude to my eyes.

God is Beauty. How could She not be?

Self-Preservation: Why I’m a Liberal #2

2009-07-19T07:22:00.001-07:00

I'm a trans woman, a full-blown member of the LGBT community. By default, my choice of primary political party affiliation must be Democrat. The GOP has established itself in opposition – even violent animosity – against me and every other gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans person in the country. I can't understand the Log Cabin Republicans, gay members of the party that desires to oppress them. They're like the gay versions of House Negroes.

Regardless of what conservatism may have meant in the past, it currently stands against equal rights and justice, firmly on the side of oppression and judgment. Conservatives have placed themselves in opposition to Thomas Jefferson's defining statement of American values: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Every effort of LGBT people to indulge in these rights, which conservatives take for granted in regards to themselves, is met with determined resistance by them. The oppression – frequently but not always unintended – is often invisible for these conservatives. In the same way, many white people have no understanding of how our culture oppresses black people, and many men are clueless about how it oppresses women. Those individuals who do not take this stand are drowned out and neutralized by those that do. Votes count for something, and actions speak louder than words.

This is not to say that conservatives have bad intentions. Often, their intent is only to support the institutions that have supported them, in our culture, for decades or centuries – religion, law, tradition, marriage, family, and so on. I have no trouble with that; in fact, I support them, too. The difference lies in that I believe there is room for all of us. I support those institutions not just for the majority, but for all of us.

When it comes to LGBT issues – to allowing gays to marry, to antidiscrimination laws, to universal health care, to fair taxation, etc. – I believe that we create a better society when all are welcome within it. I have experienced the social pressure to conform to a norm that is unnatural to me. I know the isolation and desolation of the closet. As a compassionate human being, I want to do all I can to relieve that pain for all. I also believe that the society we will create from granting gays, lesbians, and trans people an equal place at the table, will not be an immoral hell, but a healthier, happier, and more peaceful society. I believe that everyone should have the right to express themselves, not only within the parameters of this nation's First Amendment, but also in respect to the way they present their own gender. I believe that everyone has a right to safety within their own community, and given the bullying and abuse of gender variant children on schoolyards, and the frequency of gay- and trans-bashing incidents, we must counter the demonization of LGBT people wherever we find it. In fact, as a trans woman, I'm an activist just by showing up.

These beliefs are born in the conviction that people do not choose to be gay, or trans. I know I didn't choose to be trans; it was something I fought hard against for 40 years. It's born in an intimate knowledge of my own morality and genuine family values, and in the proximate knowledge I have of the values and morality of the gays, lesbians, and trans people of my acquaintance. It's also born in my own religious conviction, in the words of Jesus: "Judge not, lest ye be judged." "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you." "Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" "God is love."

Ultimately, it comes down to two worldviews. One values unity of culture, the comfort and ease of living in a world where every interaction with another human is predictable – it orients around a status quo; the other values the variety of diversity, enjoys engaging with and is curious about people one doesn't understand, and orients around openness, love, and acceptance. I embrace the second. I also recognize the need for balance. Without some unity of culture, it's hard to find our place in the world, but without diversity, culture is boring and oppressive.

In sum, my liberal views on LGBT issues come from both prior conviction and resistance to discrimination. They come from native belief and self-preservation. But even if native belief weren't there, the needs for safety and self-determination trumps all; even if my beliefs were conservative, I would still ally with liberals in my own defense, and in the defense of those who share my condition.

* Standard note: I value dissenting opinions as crucial to the maintenance of freedom and democracy. While I would like to write convincingly, to influence opinion and sway the balance of power my way, I also consider the conservative viewpoint to be important and meaningful. I do, however, believe that political discourse does not have to be nasty and vicious. I prefer to listen to and respect my political opponents. I ask the same from them.

NARTH and BS

2009-07-15T06:56:00.001-07:00

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.

Trans Woman Abroad #2 – The Funeral

2009-07-13T06:13:00.001-07:00

Earlier I wrote about the trip back to Wyoming, but that story did not include the climax of the matter – the memorial service.

My mom and I arrived early. We brought a couple of picture boards from Jenny's life, and wanted them to be displayed by the time everyone else arrived. I'm glad we did.

The chapel setup was beautiful. Two of Jenny's best horse paintings flanked several bouquets of flowers – enough, but not too much. The photo of Jenny that my brother Frank took, which was displayed in a national show, took center stage, along with the portrait my great-grandfather did of her.* As I got close enough to see everything, it hit me – the reality and finality of loss. I collapsed in tears. My mom hugged me close, and for the first time in probably 40 years, I cried on her breast while she comforted me.

When the flood abated, we went out to the lobby. Our old friends, Linda and Doug Nelson, joined us, and my cousins. My nieces, nephews, and brother and sister-in-law arrived, along with 2-year-old Tyler, my great-niece. I got to play with her while guests started to arrive. She had a great time exploring the fountain and getting everything wet while healing my heart, and soon the lobby swarmed with mourners.

Now, things have changed a bit for me since the last time I was home. These are the folks who knew me when I was a teenager and in the years since, when I desperately tried to compensate for the deeply ingrained sense of Not-a-Man by trying to be as macho as possible – which wasn't all that much, because macho just doesn't come natural to me. At all. Only this time, my hair was French-braided, and I wore a long black skirt and dark tunic. I did not look at all like the FN (Former Name) they used to know. Most people didn't recognize me, which was fine. I didn't go out of my way to introduce myself.

I did not, however, go unnoticed. Many people gave me curious looks. And when a large crowd had gathered in the lobby, I finally did approach someone, a close friend of my mom and my brother's former best friend – who greeted me with a loud "[FN]." A gentle correction led to, "You're still [FN] to me!"

Oh. Well, so it goes.

Without getting into too much detail, yes, that little exchange sucked.

I didn't cry during the service, which surprised me, given the way I collapsed before it. However, I was sitting up in the front, and felt the weight of eyes on my back too intensely to relax. It wasn't until after, during the reception in the lobby, that I once again collapsed, and cried on my cousin's shoulder for awhile. Jon has a pretty awesome shoulder for crying on. He's about 6'3", over 200#, former football player. Oh, yeah. His siblings nicknamed him "Herc," short for Hercules.

And then interesting things started happening. An old friend, a former rancher, realized who I was and rushed across the lobby and gave me a big hug. He was all smiles, and happy to see me. The fundamentalist Christian who adopted my youngest nephew following Jenny's car accident initiated a conversation with me, and we spoke pleasantly for several minutes. Raised eyebrows became smiles. The mom of the man who gave me that awkward moment before the service introduced her sister, hugged me warmly, and chatted for some time.**

* Art runs in the family. Jenny was a talented artist. My niece just graduated from grad school at the Chicago Art Institute. And I trace back professional artists on both sides of the family.

** There is immense power in being out. When people see you, the stereotypes they've accepted crumble before the reality of our common humanity.

An Aside: Why I'm Liberal #1a

2009-07-12T08:56:00.000-07:00

The difference between liberals and conservatives, inherent in the words themselves, is that conservatives stand to preserve the good that exists; liberals stand to make things better. Conservatism is by nature reactive; liberalism is proactive. Both have a place in the political order, and both are important in reaching a positive political outcome in most cases. Liberals have a tendency to overreach, to toss the good with the bad in their zeal for improvement, while conservatives tend to cling to social conditions that cause great damage in their zeal to preserve the positive conditions.

The interplay between these forces can, at its best, synthesize unforeseen solutions through respectful, compassionate communication. Such discourse generates new ideas as each side listens to the other. The liberal points out the need for improvement, or the damage the current conditions cause; the conservative then resists this presentation, pointing out how damage will result from the proposed change, or how positive conditions will be lost. In the continuing dialogue, the social needs that are or are not being met become clear, and, from that clarity, new solutions that can meet the needs of society present themselves – often with amazing ease.

It’s rather like a football team, with conservatives playing defense and liberals offense. With the shared goal of creating and maintaining the best society we can be, conservatives and liberals would play different roles on the same team, with respectful dialogue chasing positive solutions down the field.

Unfortunately, I rarely see this in our political discourse. Mostly I see people pushing their particular strategy for social preservation or reform, and when resistance comes from the other side, rather than listening and clarifying those needs that are/aren’t met, and the damage/good because of it, each side starts digging trenches and lobbing missiles. We play on opposite teams, and the goal becomes defeating the opposing team and winning the game. The chosen strategy becomes the need, rather than the means to meet the need. As the attacks escalate, each side grows more determined in promoting their chosen strategy, and the possibility of finding solutions that meet everyone’s needs go unexplored.

A case in point is marriage equality/defense of marriage. The presentation of allowing gays to marry as a solution to the problems of social inequity is resisted by people who value the concept of marriage as it has traditionally been applied through the Protestant establishment of our nation’s laws. I believe that a solution that both reduces or eliminates that social inequity, and strengthens families and communities (including “traditional” marriage), can be found. However, I have almost given up on finding it. The discourse has become so violent, and each side has become so defensive of their own position, that alienation becomes inevitable, and force becomes the means to end to the debate. When I hear conservatives suggest that we address the inequities through other means than changing marriage, it rings hollow; I have not heard them actually listen to us, and I have not seen any sign from any one of them that they would actually support any social action that may improve the lives of LGBT people. Every aspect, even our own natures, is opposed. How then do I find common ground?

To communicate, both sides must be willing to listen, and to respect, believe, and recognize the sincerity of the other side. Both sides must recognize that the other is not trying to destroy society, but to make it better – whether we realize it or not, our ultimate goals are the same. Only then will the possibility of conservatives and liberals working together to create the best society that we can be, be realized.

*Standard note: I value dissenting opinions as crucial to the maintenance of freedom and democracy. While I would like to write convincingly, to influence opinion and sway the balance of power my way, I also consider the conservative viewpoint to be important and meaningful. I do, however, believe that political discourse does not have to be nasty and vicious. I prefer to listen to and respect my political opponents. I ask the same from them.

Time Capsule

2009-07-11T08:52:00.000-07:00

Back when I was a kid, my dad owned an old 1947 two-ton truck with a beet body. In 1977, when we moved from the ranch at Laramie to the ranch at Sundance, he loaded up the ’47 with stuff, covered it with a tarp, and drove it north. He parked it in the ranch driveway, and there it sat for 32 years, while trees grew up through the bumpers and running boards, and the tarpaulin slowly rotted. For 30 years, until the day he died, he refused to allow any effort to open it up and see if anything was worth saving.

When my family gathered to celebrate Jenny’s life and mourn her passing, my nephew Ray (Jenny’s son, now a fine, strapping 6’3”, 200# man – how time flies!) looked out the window and said, “We should unpack that old truck.”

“What,” my brother Sam replied, “the Time Capsule?”

That’s what it was – a time capsule from 1977. Without Pa to restrain us, we trooped out, pulled off the old bungy cords, and folded back the tarp.

No surprise, much of the stuff was ruined. Boxes of clothes that had rotted, books with pages that had molded together into a solid mass of moldy paper, an old mandolin so rotted that it fell to dust at a touch. We found that my dad had thrown stuff in with random disregard for value or meaning. Family heirlooms sat next to bundles of old newspapers. Valuable antiques huddled with a bag of used, empty toothpaste tubes. (I’m not kidding. He really packed that and moved it, rather than tossing it in the garbage.) And sitting in a box with kid art and a bag of buttons, I found a roll of 35 mm negatives. The date, carefully printed in my mother’s hand, was “Oct.-Nov. 1960.”

That’s right. My very first baby pictures, miraculously preserved for 32 years in the back of an old truck, protected from broiling sun and freezing winter, from rain and snow and drought, by one thin layer of canvas.

It was the one prize I took from the stuff that wasn’t wrecked. And it was enough.

Sweetness

'Scuse me? Nixon??!!! Ouch!

You'll never find my kids dressed like this...

Sleepy time!

My sibs - Frank, Jenny, and Sam

This one reminds me of my Trinidad, all snuggled in his sling. Sweet, sweet boy. (Trin, not me.)

"Where's that nipple?!"

The best picture of my mom - darn it!

A Journey of Reason and Discovery: Why I’m a Liberal #1

2009-07-10T07:29:00.001-07:00

This is the first installment in a series inspired by someone who calls himself Euripedes, who wrote his own series on why he's a conservative. (Ironically, his sixth installment was to explain that he's a conservative because he agrees with Edmund Burke when he said self-interest should be put aside in the selection (election) of leaders, and that they should be chosen for integrity and for the good of all. In principle, I would guess this to be nearly universal to any viable democratic political philosophy. In practice, I think conservatives consistently perform worse on this than liberals, voting for narrow self-interest or to benefit one economic class over all others almost all the time, as opposed to liberals, who frequently vote to benefit society as a whole.)

Anyway, the place to start this series seems to be the beginning – the journey I've traveled to achieve liberalhood, and the sources I've explored on the way.

My father was a Goldwater conservative, a rancher in Wyoming who once ran for county commissioner as a Republican. Politics frequented our dinnertime conversation, and dominated during elections. All my neighbors were Republicans, so far as I know. In the school elections in 1972, I was the only person in my 5^th & 6^th grade class to vote for McGovern; everyone else voted for Nixon. But that vote was an anomaly, perhaps a sign of the distant future, and probably a symptom of the fact that I didn't fit in with the cisgendered kids. I went on to start my political life voting for Reagan – twice. (Since then, I've tried not to repeat my mistakes.) At that time, I hadn't really thought much about politics or economics, nor learned much about them.

I became disaffected with conservatism and Republicans shortly after Reagan began his second term. I noticed the neglect and damage his policies created for the environment. He replaced the "tax and spend" policies of Democrats with a "borrow and spend" mentality that was clearly unsustainable way back then, and has only grown worse to the present (ironically, reaching its apex – so far – under a Democrat who considers himself at least somewhat liberal). Iran-Contra blew up, exposing the corruption that ran deep throughout his administration. Still laden with a prejudice that made me unable to stomach Democrats, I abandoned the GOP and adopted third-party affiliations and candidates.

For the next 15 years, until 2000, I never voted for a Republican or a Democrat for president, and rarely for anything else. I explored Libertariansim, and read Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal." I compared it to "The Communist Manifesto," and to the actual economic conditions in our own nation and others. I briefly worked to help establish a Green Party in Missoula, Montana. I read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty," and Thoreau's "Walden Pond" and "Civil Disobedience." I met Kristin, and my inability to satisfactorily answer her questions led me to question my own assumptions, and to think and explore further. I went to the University, and, though my field of study was architecture, I learned much more, including how to question and find answers. In the evening job I held to work through school (I was a janitor), I listened to talk radio. I listened to Rush Limbaugh, found him lying again and again, and his vicious rhetoric turned me off. Dr. Laura, Michael Savage, Shawn Hannity – none of them stood the test of truth and compassion. Then, when Air America took off, I listened to liberal radio. I found that some hosts - Thom Hartmann in particular - seemed to get their facts straight all or most of the time. Others, like Randy Rhodes, disappointed, with judgmental rants and lies that seemed to be no different from their conservative counterparts, just from the other side of the aisle.

Then, in 2000, a momentous event occurred, which irrevocably changed my life. My son was born. Within three months, I was his primary caretaker, and it soon became clear that the only way I could get him to fall asleep for his afternoon nap was to put him in the car and go for a drive. Since we lived in a house on a hillside, significantly above street level, I couldn't leave him in the car alone to go and do stuff, so each day for almost two years I had two to three uninterrupted hours in which to do nothing but read and think. Following is a brief list of some of the books I read during that time:

American Empire, by Andrew Bacevich

The Twilight of American Culture, by Morris Berman

Freedom in Chains, by James Bovard

America's Future, by William Boyer

Whole Life Economics, by Barbara Brandt

The Iron Triangle: Inside the Carlyle Group, by Dan Briody

The End of Economic Man, by George Brockway

Clueless at the Top, by Harriet and Charlotte Childress

The Growth Illusion, by Richard Douthwaite

Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, by Barbara Ehrenreich

The Underground History of American Education, by John Taylor Gatto

Mobilizing Resentment, by Jean Hardisty

The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight; Unequal Protection; and What Would Jefferson Do?: a Return to Democracy, by Thom Hartmann

Natural Capitalism, by Paul Hawken et al

The Road to Serfdom, by F. A. Hayek

Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt

Instead of Education, by John Holt

The Death of Common Sense, by Phillip Howard

Bushwhacked, by Molly Ivins et al

Blowback: the Costs and Consequences of American Empire, by Chalmers Johnson

Punished by Rewards, by Alfie Kohn

The Teenage Liberation Handbook, by Grace Llewellyn

What It Means to Be a Libertarian, by Charles Murray

Butterfly Economics, by Paul Omerod

How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America, by Christina Page

Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn

Bionomics, by Michael Rothschild

Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Fundamentalist Islam, and the Future of America, by Michael Scheuer

Corporate Warriors: the Rise of the Privatized Military Industry, by P. W. Singer

When God Was a Woman, by Merlin Stone

The Fourth Turning, by William Strauss & Neil Howe

The Power of Now, by Eckhart Tolle

The Poverty of Affluence, by Paul Wachtel

and more.

This doesn't count the magazines, articles, and political and economic columns I read, nor my obsessive reading of the news following the 2000 election and 9/11. I did not, however, rely on TV for any information, and still don't. The manipulation of images and events is so blatant in TV that I think you become less informed the more you watch it (and, in fact, a study following 9/11 and the invasion and occupation of Iraq did show that people who watched Fox (Faux) News regularly were less informed than people who didn't pay any attention to the news at all.)

In sum, I sought out many different viewpoints, compared them to my observations and to the most reliable news reporting I could conveniently find (mostly Newsweek and our local newspaper), and reflected on what I read, heard, experienced, and observed. I accepted the ideas that made sense and that were verified by situations, events, and history, and rejected those that did not, regardless of the source – and many of the ideas I've embraced come from conservative sources. Yet from that grew a deepening liberalism – because ultimately, that is where the best arguments lie.

Disorientation Redux

2009-07-07T05:04:00.001-07:00

Since my sister's death, I've felt rather discombobulated. I intended to post the further story of my trip back to Wyoming, but have not yet finished it. Instead I started to explore this discombobulation I'm experiencing, and found it related to the human need for orientation I blogged about earlier.

We all orient our lives around the people who are important to us, and siblings form one of the basic foundations of our psychological orientation, especially when they are close in age, as Jenny was. I don't know if that relates to my grief, but I'm sure it relates to my discombobulation. My world has turned sideways again. I imagine it is really strong for parents, also; we orient around our children, mothers even more than fathers as the intense importance of those first days, of nursing, feeding your baby and keeping her alive with the milk of your body, must form a bond so deep and permanent and beautiful. How can no sense of orientation arise?

I imagine that the change in my gender presentation affects that need for orientation in others – not only for my family, but for everyone else! I wonder; do people who have a firm basis of psychological orientation find it easier to accept and integrate things like my transition, while for someone who orients around fundamentalist religion and the binary gender myth, gender transitions are very threatening as they challenge that orientation? Perhaps it is the nature of one's orientation that makes it harder for some than others. For instance, an orientation to Christian Science doesn't take much of a hit; the body, and gender, are mortal concepts, and the person, the spiritual idea, is intact and immortal. As my mom said when I came out to her, "Your identity is intact, and it doesn't depend on gender." On the other hand, for someone who orients around a strict brand of Christianity that holds rigid barriers between classifications of man and woman, it must be very disorienting, and alarming – it shifts the layout of their psychological map, as if you were to go to a place in your neighborhood and find that the street you'd traveled a thousand times was no longer there and had never existed. It threatens the fabric of their world, as they understand it; there is no room for acceptance, because to do so would be to change the entire orientation, to change the psychological landscape as much as, and as frightening as, to change one's understanding of the physical landscape. The order of nature has been reversed. The creek no longer appears to flow downhill; it seems to flow up – and never mind that they are finally seeing reality. But someone who orients around the science of observed phenomena might think my transition is really cool. "Wow! Look at that! How beautiful! Something new under the sun." I've seen that reaction from people. Some people seem hardly affected by my transition, but many have either a strong positive or a strong negative reaction.

Regardless, a death in the family is going to disorient the survivors. I believe that the feeling of grief is related to a need for orientation unmet. And until I get completely oriented to a world without my sister, I'm going to remain discombobulated.

Can This Be True?

2009-07-01T17:47:00.000-07:00

This clip is amazing and depressing. If true, it leaves me wondering if we now have a Bush III in office.

Think about it. The same policies as Bush; just under a new name - and, if this video is true (his awful budget is), taken to a greater extreme. Only this time, the guy who's making this stuff up is intelligent, articulate, and charismatic.

Scary.

I picked it up on a right-wing blog, so who knows? It's Rachel Maddow, though, not Rush, so I'm inclined to believe it.

Unfortunately.

Trans Woman Abroad: Part I – traveling and family

2009-07-01T09:00:00.001-07:00

I didn't know what to expect. It's the first time I've traveled back to Wyoming since my transition, and many people here know me by my former name; none as Seda. And this is the heart of Bush country. (Okay, maybe not the heart, but the last time a Democrat won in Wyoming was probably before FDR.)

The first surprise came in the process of getting there. I took the train to Portland, then the bus to the airport, then a stop in Denver until finally renting a car in Rapid City. I met and spoke with a lot of people, and I only got "sir'd" once during travel, at security on the way home – and then the TSA employee right behind him immediately and pointedly called me "ma'am." And only once did I get the repeated double take that means someone wasn't sure and was trying to figure out if he was talking to a genetic male. That's not to say I was passing almost flawlessly – I don't know how many people clocked me and just didn't care.

At ten o'clock that evening I arrived at the ranch to warm embraces. I sat down at the kitchen table in the old ranchhouse with my family; my mom, my brother and sister-in-law, my nephew, my niece. I ate leftovers from their dinner while we shared laughter and tears, catching up on the events of recent days and months. It wasn't even awkward. My gender wasn't an issue.

The next day, last before the memorial service, I met my nephew who was adopted by a fundamentalist Christian family following Jenny's accident. His embrace was tentative, but I opened to him, and he soon warmed up. His girlfriend embraced me warmly. My niece and I drove to town to do some shopping, and, again, no one blinked an eye. It was "you ladies" and "ma'am," and everything felt natural. At home, the whole bunch of us younger folks worked to help put my mom's yard in order.

On the day of the memorial, my cousins arrived from the Bay Area. It's a pattern that developed with my brother's death in 2001: since then, seems like we only meet at funerals. Frank's, then my uncle's, then my dad's, and now Jenny's. Nevertheless, it's always good to see them – and there's never enough time. And the Nelson's, close family friends for 40 years, whom I haven't seen for ages, also arrived, bringing our gathering to considerable size.

There was so much warmth, so much love, in the gathering of extended family and friends. I am rich and richly blessed.

Soon, I'll write about the memorial service, where I encountered all the old neighbors and friends of my sister and family.

Naivete?

2009-06-30T10:24:00.001-07:00

I used to think that common ground could be found between the viewpoints of liberals like me and any conservative Christian out there. All we had to do was connect using Nonviolent Communication to figure out what the other was feeling and needing, and then we could find solutions that work for everyone. That faith has been shaken. The problem is that in order to communicate, you must have two parties interested in communicating; curious about the other, open to at least hearing what the other has to say. And it appears that many Christians are not interested in that; all they want to do is cram their agenda and peculiar lifestyle down our throats.

Then, trolling through the internet last night, that faith took another hit. I clicked on a link on the blog of a Christian k-12 school and, in an article on the WorldNetDaily, I found this ad:

This is intended to be tongue-in-cheek, or "humor" – but they are talking here about torturing another human being, as if it were a sport or a fun, family activity. I wouldn't mind if it were satire, like Jonathan Swift's "Irish Solution," but it's not. In fact, many of the T-shirts are supposed to be humorous, but the humor isn't dry, or witty, or satirical, or even sarcastic. It's vicious and violent. It promotes murder or torture. It seems to represent a single-minded, simple-minded blind faith in GOP and conservative leadership.

When I see things like this, I think that I was wrong. It seems these people are determined to crush LGBT people and liberals completely, and they will not be satisfied until sodomy is recriminalized and schools teach that homosexuality is insane and depraved, that gays must change or die. I think that we are in a battle for our freedom and safety, and it seems that on the other side no quarter is asked or given. So I want to protect my children from this violence, and feel impelled to go further to the left to counter it more strongly. I want to harden my stance, renew my efforts, to counter this … depravity. It pushes me to my own stance of no quarter, of fighting for complete victory regardless of their needs, just to defend my own.

And that's too bad. Because the more decisions come from the extreme fringes, the worse, generally, they are.

Nevertheless, despite my emotional reaction, I will continue to work to find common ground, to build peace, and to seek a way to get everyone's needs met – or at least considered.

Jenny

2009-06-24T12:15:00.001-07:00

A few weeks ago, I got a feeling that it was time for me to go back to Wyoming. However, I didn't see how I could justify it. We're just starting an addition and remodel of our house, which we're doing mostly ourselves since we don't have much money. I've maxed out vacation time from work to accommodate that, and financially it just didn't seem possible, or reasonable. Still, it's been three years since I've been back, and I wanted Jenny to meet Seda.

It seems that the Universe had other plans.

Last night my sister died.

Jenny fought off many hardships in her life, but the last seven years were the hardest. In February of 2002, she was in a car accident, and she almost died. She had head injuries, and her back was broken in six places. She was in a coma for three months. The doctors said it was a miracle she survived at all, and that she probably would never regain much cognitive ability. Yet she did. Physically confined to the care only a nursing home could provide, she regained much of her language, memory, and thought processes. Though dealing with periodic medical crises and depression, her sense of humor and willingness to live made her popular among the residents.

Recently another crisis came. She stopped eating, and last night she slipped away.

Jenny was my older sister, two grades ahead of me in school. She first taught me to read when I was maybe five or six years old, and, when I started school, she protected me on the playground. I didn't fit in with the other kids, and I did not easily make friends. Her presence there was a blessing. After she graduated to junior high, my last two years in elementary school were miserable.

We were close as children, but somehow grew apart as adults. Not that we didn't get along – we did – but contact and communication became less frequent. Jenny moved out, and later on got married. She had two children. The young family struggled to get by, and her husband became abusive to the kids and eventually abandoned her, leaving her with two children and no means of support. Her next husband was worse, and a third child came into the world. Jenny dealt with bouts of poverty and abuse, and, in her mid-thirties, finally began to really get her life together. She worked her way through college. She tended bar, she logged, she got a job with the forest service and worked as an archeologist and wildland fire fighter. Finally, just a few years before her accident, she met a responsible, quiet man, and they got married. She had a fourth child after her 40^th birthday, and worked for her local power company. But just as it seemed that things had turned for the best, disaster struck. My brother died in a logging accident on Oct. 4, 2001. Jenny and Frank had always been close, and they had grown closer over the years. His loss hit her hard. Four months later, she was in the accident that changed everything.

That brief summary does not do justice to Jenny's life – to her endurance, her sometimes biting humor, her joy-of-life, her toughness, her love, her generosity, her courage. I don't know how to do justice to that, and there isn't space here anyway. I'm just glad she's my sister. I love you, Jenny, wherever you are, I love you. And I so hope and believe you are at peace.

After Jenny's accident, I felt helpless. I did what I could for my mom, but with two small children and a family to care for, I had to make them my priority. What could I do for my sister? I found something in July, 2004. I started writing her letters. Every Saturday morning from then until last week, I made it a priority to write a letter to her – keeping her abreast of my life, explaining my transition, encouraging her, sharing my thoughts and my fears, my hopes and my love. The communication was one-way – Jenny no longer had the ability to return it – yet in some small way, it connected us. During my last visit, in 2006, she said that she didn't think she could have gone on without them.

Last Saturday, I forgot to write. I forgot to write the letter that she never would have received.

Oh, Jenny, my heart is breaking. I love you. Goodbye for now, sweet sister. We will meet again, on the other side.

Be well. Be happy. Be Love.

Damaging My Children?

2009-06-24T07:54:00.001-07:00

In a brief discussion on another blog, someone who calls himself "Eutychus" made this comment: "Divorce damages our children. Are you telling me that (as in your own case) that telling your children that their dad is now their mom, won't?" I've already addressed the first sentence of this comment (which can be summed up as: usually it does, sometimes it doesn't – it depends on the individual family dynamic. Sometimes it saves their lives.) Now, I'll address the second.

Damaging my children was in fact my greatest fear as I started transition. It was also an impetus to "do it now," as I feared the damage and difficulty that might accrue if I managed somehow to make it to their adolescent years presenting as a man, only to transition during their most vulnerable time. (Though that is probably moot, as I doubt that I would be alive now, or still involved with my children, had I not transitioned.)

To my surprise, I found that that fear was completely ungrounded. Instead, all evidence indicates that my transition has only benefited them. They are happy and thriving. They are well-connected with their friends and with both parents. They have not missed their "father" – indeed, Trinidad has more than once expressed his preference for his "Maddy," and both boys share a positive and close relationship with Kristin's partner. They also have close relationships with one of their friend's dad and with their uncle.

Our relationship has deepened and become closer and more meaningful. I think kids instinctively know when you're lying; they sense it, even if they can't articulate it or know it on a conscious level, and it affects trust. They trust me more now. They know I'm authentic, that I share with them the truth of who I am. And I'm more emotionally available and fun; I'm not depressed all the time. They know that they have my unconditional love.

Further, their family is still intact. Kristin's and my partnership continues even as it has changed. We are no longer sexual partners, but we remain parenting, economic, and household partners, and best friends. Through the great care we took, and the deep communication we shared during transition, our friendship and understanding have deepened and become even richer and more meaningful, and we have both grown.

This is not to say that transition does not damage children in all instances. It takes care, love, communication, and honesty. And anyway, all parents make mistakes that damage their children in some way; the point is to limit the damage, to repair it, to build a foundation relationship that can absorb and heal what damage accrues, regardless of the nature, gender, or orientation of the parent. The issue is the same for divorce. An amicable and communicative separation, placing the children at the center of care, is more likely to benefit the children than a bitter, cold, intact family where the adults' needs are so unmet they cannot interact positively with their children. Like most things, one size does not fit all, and blanket statements seeking social uniformity are bound to so many exceptions as to be more harmful than useful. We must learn to be true to ourselves. We must learn to discover what our real needs are, and to find ways to meet them. And, if we are parents, we must find ways to keep the care of our children at the center of our attention. Then, regardless of life circumstances, we can create and maintain meaning, purpose, connection, and love, and give our children the support they need and deserve.

Disorientation

2009-06-21T09:01:00.001-07:00

Recently I started reading a book called "Hold On to Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More Than Peers," by Gordon Neufeld, Ph.D. and Gabor Mate, M.D. On page 18, they say, "… The orienting instinct is basic to our nature, even if we rarely become conscious of it. In its most concrete and physical form, orienting involves locating oneself in space and time. When we have difficulty doing this, we become anxious. If on waking we are not sure where we are or whether we are still dreaming, locating ourselves in space and time gets top priority. If we get lost while on a hike, we will not pause to admire the flora and fauna, or to assess our life goals, or even to think about supper. Getting our bearings will command all of our attention and consume most of our energy. … Our orienting needs are not just physical. Psychological orientation is just as important in human development."

As a student of Nonviolent Communication (NVC) (see sidebar), I try to relate the interactions I have with others to the feelings and needs they experience. In most cases, orientation is not clearly a need that is up. We tend to take our understanding of our physical world for granted as we move around our local milieus. However, I think the authors are on to something regarding the psychology of it.

When I first started taking hormones, I felt relief from a low-level anxiety that was so much a part of my experience and psyche I hadn't been aware of it. In its absence, however, it was very noticeable. In speaking with other trans people, I've found similar experiences following their first hormone doses to be universal. If it isn't, that's because I haven't spoken yet to a trans person who hasn't shared this result. In the past, I didn't connect it to the need to orient so much as a need for clarity, but reflecting on the truth of the author's statement, I think I was missing something.

The need for orientation, both physical and psychological, is universal. We all share it. The authors relate it to children, which makes sense in the context of their book, but I suspect that its psychological manifestation continues powerfully throughout life. I wonder how extensively it permeates our psyches and influences our actions, decisions, and lives.

For instance, how does it relate to alcohol and drug abuse? Is the abuse either an instigator or response to a lack of internal orientation? In my own case, prior to orienting around Kristin and transitioning, my abuse was so pervasive I concluded for awhile that I was an alcoholic. However, since transition, I find that drinking enough that I start to feel the effects brings an instant stop to any desire to drink more. I like sobriety much better. Is the psychological orientation found in matching my hormones to my brain responsible for that shift?

An even bigger question arises in relation to religion. Certainly religion is an orienting entity. Many people focus their lives around the larger guiding principles provided by religious texts and authorities. It seems to me that religious authorities often use this orienting need or principle to manipulate their flocks into quite negative directions. People everywhere cling to religion even when scientific evidence refutes religious myth. Hence, Galileo was sentenced to death if he didn't recant his conclusion that the earth revolves around the sun, that the sun is the center of the solar system. In my own case, when I joined the Marine Corps and found myself far from home, disoriented from anything I'd ever known to that time, I fell to the religious (Baptist and Pentacostal) proselytizers who infest military bases, preying on young military personnel in their vulnerability.

I have often wondered about the power of religion. Clearly it meets human needs, but what needs are really up for us when we cling to our faith, even in the face of fallacy, so fiercely? This intense need for orientation, starting with our first breaths, seems to explain it.

How Beautiful My Children Are!

2009-06-20T08:25:00.000-07:00

There is this thing – two, actually – that give me such joy in my life. They are my sons, and every morning when they arise they light my day. In fact, Trin is in my lap right now, helping me write this.

Studying
One of the many advantages of unschooling at home is that kids can choose their own desks and learn in comfort!

Reading
Sometimes Sam reads to me. At 6 1/2 years old, he reads at the 8th or 9th grade level. Another advantage to unschooling!

Working
Trin helping with the remodel. The boys are here every day, helping when they can, watching, learning the processes of construction. They're learning all the time. We could send them to school, I suppose, but I really don't want to slow them down that much.

Well, I started this post planning on just talking about how much I love my kids, how much joy they give me, how much meaning they give to my life, and so on, and it somehow turned into a celebration of unschooling! But then, I guess they really are connnected.

A Disappointing Hundred Days

2009-06-15T07:09:00.001-07:00

Cabinet choices: Loaded with old Clinton and Bush operatives. No significant new faces, no new ideas.

Foreign policy: Same old same old, just switching the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. When do we concede that the Empire is unsustainable and start tearing it down before it falls down? At least we got a promise to close Gitmo.

LGBT issues: A proclamation making June Pride Month. A defense of DOMA. A promise to eliminate Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, but it's still in place, and competent people are still being discharged because of their sexuality. When do words translate into action?

Budget: Total insanity. Not only same old same old, but now digging the hole faster and deeper. The worst budget ever?

War Department: Still spending more on weapons the rest of the world combined. What kind of karma are we making for ourselves?

Economy: Does anyone in Washington have a clue????

Health Care: Nothing yet.

When I voted for change, I voted for more than a change of tone and a figurehead who can say complex sentences competently.

Commentary on the DSM-IV, or When Should a Trans Person Transition?

2009-06-14T08:03:00.001-07:00

The DSM-IV, published by the APA (American Psychiatric Association) to describe and diagnose mental disorders, describes a mental disorder thus: "In DSM-IV, each of the mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one. Whatever its original cause, it must currently be considered a manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual. Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual, as described above."

The DSM-IV lists Gender Identity Disorder as one of these disorders, though the information they provide is clearly inaccurate.

However, by the APA's own definition of mental disorder, I am not insane when I am a woman; I'm insane when I try to live as a man. Note that last sentence. Every function of my life improved following transition. The same is true of every trans person of whom I have knowledge. The mental anguish experienced by trans people is primarily between the individual and society, and the dysfunction many trans people experience is a direct result of the discomfort of living "in the closet" – hiding their true selves, choosing the safety of invisibility and isolation over the risk of social ridicule, approbation, and violence. Again by the APA's definition, that indicates that the condition of gender dissonance itself is not a mental disorder, but hiding in the closet is. A better term for it would probably be "Gender Identity Denial Disorder," and it's easily cured by transition.

Besides which, I find it extremely odd that the same organization that diagnoses this as a mental disorder prescribes surgery and non-psycho-active drugs to treat it. "Oh, you're schitzophrenic? Here, have some aspirin for the pain, and I'll prescribe surgery to split you into the appropriate number of persons."

So, when should trans people transition?

I believe that that depends on what is meant by transition. There are several different aspects of it, including gender presentation, hormone replacement therapy, and surgery. Each of these is, ultimately, the choice of the individual. Almost all trans people choose to live in the gender that feels right to them; their gender presentation, the way they live their lives, is dependant on their internal sense of gender, their subconscious sex. So, I live my life as a woman, a trans man lives his life as a man. Most choose hormone treatment, as it really helps both gender presentation and an internal sense of calm. Less, but still many, choose surgery.

I think children should be allowed to present as who they are. A kid has a better sense of who she is than anyone else, and if she chooses to dress as a girl, and play with girls, even though she has a penis, she should be allowed to do that. Not encouraged – but not discouraged, either. So gender presentation transition should happen as soon as there is an awareness of it. Many parents are starting to do this, and I applaud them. Again and again, I see that trusting kids about their own lives is the best way to go.

Hormone therapy shouldn't start until secondary sex characteristics begin following puberty, and the best way to do that is probably to avoid taking actual hormones at first, and just take hormone blockers. I don't know if there are blockers for female hormones, but there are effective androgen blockers, which can delay the development of secondary sex characteristics until the child is fully confident that this is the direction she wishes to go. In the case of female-to-male transition, this can prevent the need for breast removal surgery; and male-to-female people can prevent the need for painful and expensive electrolysis.

As for surgery, I think that should wait until a child reaches majority, and can make that decision with full awareness of risks and consequences, fully as their own responsibility. No other person should bear that burden.

I believe that this is the best way to support the mental health of trans people, the best way to integrate them into the lives they will lead, and the best way to honor their individuality. I recognize that others, including trans people may disagree, and I welcome comment and discussion on the subject.

And the DSM-IV is still full of crap.

June is LGBT Pride Month!

2009-06-08T06:59:00.001-07:00

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

___________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 1, 2009

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2009
- - - - - - -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.

LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. LGBT Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country's response to the HIV pandemic.

Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration -- in both the White House and the Federal agencies -- openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.

The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress, but there is more work to be done. LGBT youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment, and LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect.

My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States.

These issues affect not only the LGBT community, but also our entire Nation. As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA

This president is cool!

Jesus and the Patriarchy; or, Christ and Antichrist

2009-06-07T08:05:00.001-07:00

All my life I've been confused about two different aspects of God that are described in the Bible. These two aspects march side-by-side from cover-to-cover, sharing the same name throughout. One of them is God-as-misogynistic-Nazi; the other is God-as-love – what might be described as Christ and Antichrist. Lately I've been reading a book by Leslie Feinberg called "Transgender Warriors," and the reason for this is starting to come into focus.

Good book. I highly recommend it. S/he tracks back history, and, in Part II (Chapters 5 – 8), starts talking about where bigotry comes from. Of course, the Bible being such a big part of history, he has to relate things from it, like Deuteronomy and Leviticus, where lots of laws forbid cross-gender expression. Interesting stuff. It puts those laws in the perspective of the times. And from it, those two aspects of God begin to emerge as distinct through the fog of "infallibility," "divine inspiration," and "perfection."

One aspect – the misogynistic Nazi, or Antichrist – was created by male priests (or someone) to establish laws and customs that would break down the ancient order of gender equality, and establish a patriarchal system that enabled an elite to emerge, holding both wealth and power over subject classes. The Bible start relating this aspect in Genesis 2:4, the Adam and Eve creation myth. This was part of the Agricultural Revolution, when "civilization" began and it became possible to hoard and amass wealth, especially in the male realm. Prior to this, people nearly everywhere lived in matrilineal groups or cultures, and cross-gender expression was common – thus the laws in Deuteronomy and Leviticus forbidding cross-dressing and drawing very distinct fashions appropriate for men and women. The contest was fierce for many years, pitting worshippers of Yahweh against worshippers of goddesses such as Baal. In this context, it was essential for the patriarchy that was overturning the natural (matrilineal) way humans had lived for the entire period of human evolution to discredit the old goddesses and the old systems; and it was a bloodbath. Merlin Stone spoke of this struggle in her book, "When God Was a Woman." This rise in Patriarchy came in tandem with a new system that allowed, for the first time, wealth to amass in the male social sphere; and it was an effect of men establishing an order to hoard that wealth to themselves, not to the matriarchs and matrilineal clans that society manifested to that time.

The other aspect – God as Love – comes through this political indoctrination again and again. The Bible starts with Her in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3, and she is mixed in with the Antichrist God in Revelations. This is the God of Jesus, who preached, "Love your enemies," and "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and "lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven;" and who taught women with the men, praising Mary for choosing to abandon the assigned role of woman to sit at his feet while Martha toiled alone. This aspect is also seen strongly in the Old Testament, in passages such as Ecclesiasties 3, where the Preacher says of mankind "that they might see that they themselves are beasts" – no better or worse than the other animals, implying as well that women are equal with men.

Now consider how radical Jesus' mission was! His tender care for the oppressed (the poor, women, lepers, etc.), coupled with the powerful miracles he did again and again, threatened the entire patriarchal order – which was still relatively new at that time, and much less entrenched than it is now. It was not the Jews who crucified him, per se – it was the Patriarchy, represented by the Pharisaical priests.

This conflict has continued for two thousand years, and it goes on today. Constantine pre-empted the budding following of Jesus, transforming Christianity into service of the Patriarchy in 313 CE by making it a state religion. The Catholic church crushed opposition from pagan peasants for years, up to and after Joan of Arc. Mary Baker Eddy chipped at the Patriarchy when she started Christian Science.

And then came WWII, and women first re-entered the modern mainstream economy. Gandhi revolutionized revolt with ahimsa, and defeated the British Empire without firing a shot. That was followed by the Cultural Revolution of the '60's. Women rejoined the workforce and began to accumulate wealth, obtained contraceptives, and started the Feminist movement. Minorities took to the streets and challenged the established order. Everywhere the oppressed masses were rising in revolt. Trans woman Sylvia Rivera kicked off the Stonewall Riots, and the Gay Liberation was begun.

This is not a digression. This relates directly to what is going on now, as the the wealthy elite that continues to hold sway over all our economic lives harnesses modern Christians to continue to divide the people, using the Antichrist aspect of God as their figurehead to justify the oppression of women and sexual minorities.

I have no doubt that that statement will offend many Christians. It is not intended to. I say it because I believe it, because it makes the most sense based on my study of religious texts, history, economics, politics, quantum physics, and anthropology, and my own experience and reasoning, over the course of almost half a century of life, and the 28 years of my quest for Truth, from the time I was "born again" in 1981 to the present. I intend it to start a dialogue. I ask, therefore, that before casting judgment you read the books mentioned above; study economic history and the history and anthropology of the Biblical era, preferably from primary sources; and, perhaps most of all, compare those passages in the Bible that seem to condemn people with the words and actions of Jesus and the political and social context of the times.

Take your time. Thinking deeply on it, with an open but skeptical mind.

If my argument stands up to your reason, it will inform your faith; if it does not, your faith will be stronger. And who knows? Maybe you'll blast holes in my argument, and I'll change my mind.

Food for Thought #2

2009-06-04T06:50:00.001-07:00

One of the favorite arguments of "marriage defenders" in opposing gay marriage is that they're doing it for the children – that each child needs a mom and a dad. This is a good example of a specious argument.

Specious: 'spee-shus; adjective; 1. Having deceptive attraction or allure. 2. Having a false look of truth or genuineness. (from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specious)

What gives this argument its gloss is the very real truth that every child needs positive, emotionally and physically close role models from both primary sexes, male and female.

What makes it specious is the idea that the only way to get them is in the heterosexual family – that only mom and dad can fill these roles.

In my own experience, I learned the role of woman very well from my mom, who is a devout Christian Scientist, who worked hard, had fun, laughed and loved us unconditionally. But even though I lived with my dad (family intact), I had to look elsewhere for positive male role models. I learned the role of man from people like my neighbor Ron Blake, who taught me woodworking in 4-H, and who gave me lessons in life specifically targeted at the holes my dad was leaving by example. And from Connie Hansen, and old rancher who leased us his ranch for a few years.

While statistically, children in broken families fare worse than those in intact families (duh), many exceptions abound on both sides – kids from intact families who are messed up, kids raised by single moms who turn out to be well-adjusted, high-achieving, independent adults. Many others are raised by a step-parent, some well, some not.

Kristin recently attended a lecture by a woman from Senegal. She was raised in a village where the children had free access to all the adults in the community, and all the adults shared in caring for the children regardless of whose child it was. She didn't realize that she had a single mother until she was twelve – and when she guessed who her real mother was, she guessed wrong. Yet this woman turned out to be very well adjusted, and is touring the US talking about parenting and sustainability.

In some cultures, the father has little to do with the child, and the uncle is the primary genetic male contact and role model the child has. And those kids, more or less, turn out all right.

Again and again, everywhere you look, you see extensive examples of two basic facts: the emotional and developmental damage done to children who don't have positive role models from both primary sexes, and people of both primary sexes who are not the parents providing positive, powerful role models for children who, either because of divorce or dysfunctional parents, don't have that role model supplied by their parent.

Which means that, for this argument at least, the real issue is not preventing gays from civil marriage or forcing biological parents to raise children together, but, how do we ensure that every child, regardless of the makeup of her family, has the positive role models she needs.

Different Conversations

2009-05-30T14:42:00.001-07:00

I have to confess to an enjoyment of discussing religion and politics, and to the fact that I actually enjoy doing this with people I disagree with more than those I agree with. I find the challenges stimulating – that of matching my wits against a worthy opponent, that of creating peace and connection where there was none, that of understanding and being understood, that of testing my own beliefs to see if they are worthy to be held. The blogosphere holds endless possibilities to do this, and this is much of my enjoyment and engagement in this blog.

Hence, perhaps it is no surprise that I am now engaging in several conversations with different Christians. I initially connected with Pearl on homeschooling, and hence got into this conversation (13^th comment on the thread) with someone who calls himself "Eutychus," after the boy Paul brought back to life after he fell from a window (Acts 20:9-12). At the same time (more or less), I've been holding a very different conversation on Deacon Blue's blog.

What intrigues me about these is the very different ways I speak of the Bible in each.

In speaking with Eutychus, I said, "I will pray that, someday, every Christian will look through the hollow words of his Bible, and see…" And I repeated the statement calling the Bible's words "hollow" in a later comment.

In speaking with Deke, I quoted rather extensively from Matthew and Ecclesiastes, and, in response to a post reflecting that he needed to "hit the books. More specifically, the Good Book," I replied, "I think you're onto something. Something good." And followed it with, "…if you don't mind a suggestion from a heathen: Ecclesiates Ch. 3, Psalms Ch. 23, Psalms Ch. 91, Matthew Ch. 6, 1 Cor. 2:10-16."

Now, I'm aware that these different responses indicated inconsistency, perhaps, to some, even hypocrisy. But they are different conversations, and the policies I advocate are the same in both cases. I stand by both of them. And I also remember that Gandhi said, "I am not at all concerned with appearing to be consistent. In my search for truth I have tried many things and discarded many ideas." (I forget exactly how it went…)

The truth is, I am meeting different needs, and making different points.

Perhaps, also, this is what politicians are doing when they say one thing to one group of people, and something that appears to be consistent with the first thing to another.

The question then is, do they advocate a consistent policy? And, if they change it, do they explain why, and then stand consistently on that one?

And the test is, do I?

A Very Special Relationship

2009-05-28T21:11:00.001-07:00

It's a joy working with Kristin on our new house addition.

Last Saturday the boys went off with friends and Ken left for a wedding gig and to do his schoolwork (he's earning a math certificate to add to his music teaching certs), and we spent the whole day working together. I don't think our jaws stopped yapping for more than a minute! We talked about everything from Roman and Viking history to relationships to kids to how we can best contribute to the world and society to how to take care of our bodies, etc., etc.

Our relationship has developed into something unique and incredible. We know each other like the paths of our own mind, and work together like music. There is a depth of spiritual intimacy and honesty that was not there (especially for me) when I was faking life. Now we are like sisters, but closer than sisters. We are partners and teammates. We are coparents who share in the nurture, guidance, and education of our children. It is this holistic female partnership that feels complete, even without the sexual relationship of spouses; and complete in a way that is hard to image a spousal relationship. Even now, two years past our spiritual divorce, there is a strong possibility that we'll stay together for the rest of our lives. Our love is that strong. Our respect and admiration for each other's strengths is that sincere.

I love her.

Abraham Lincoln & Proposition 8

2009-05-26T22:28:00.001-07:00

So the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8.

Somehow, I can't seem to get too excited about it. Sure, it's a setback for marriage equality, but so what? Those two words roll off my tongue with the flavor of inevitability; not quite there, but close. Almost all of New England has adopted it. Iowa, for God's sake, has adopted it. Every time a new state gets it, it's harder to take it away. And 18,000 same-sex couples in California are still married.

How absurd is that?

Not only that, but the demographics of this country are changing. I participate in occasional LGBT panels at the university, and at a recent panel on media for a journalism class, the students were asked how many of them had a gay friend or family member. Every single one of them raised their hand. Granted, the University of Oregon is no bastion of conservatism, but still – the Young Republicans is still a viable organization on campus.

Abraham Lincoln once said, "Am I not destroying my enemies, when I make friends of them?"

I love that quote. When I destroy my enemy by making him my friend, I also destroy my enemy's enemy. We both win.

Obtaining marriage equality for the nation is a matter of time. It's a matter of being out and proud. And it's a matter of civil discourse. I signed onto BRO's campaign to repeal Measure 36 here in Oregon, and fully intend to do all I can to move marriage equality forward.

I intend to be mindful about how I do it, though. The folks who voted for Prop. 8 and Measure 36 are our neighbors. The votes they cast were acts of conscience, fear, and/or ignorance; they were not, for the most part, acts of bigotry. Many of these votes were cast because the people who did it honestly believe that they are protecting their own family; that gay marriage really would somehow – spiritually, I guess – damage or destroy society. These are the acts of people motivated by love – and, I believe, in most cases, perhaps all, fear.

So I would ask that we speak to the opponents of marriage equality with respect. That we honor their dedication to their children, and to the code that they hold dear. That we honor their conscience, and their right to vote according to it. I would also ask that we do not motivate our actions out of fear, or anger, but love. I would ask that we do not take their words out of context, or lie. We do not need to lie; ours is an ethical and honest position. Leave the lies to them. And make no expectation that befriending them will change their minds. We have no hope of changing votes of conscience; and votes of fear or ignorance will fall by the wayside as we demonstrate to those who are ignorant of us our love, our respect, our compassion, and our integrity – as we ensure that our neighbors and family members know us, and know our lives.

I would like for us to stop throwing words like "bigotry" around. Let's recognize the integrity of those who are compassionate yet opposed to us because they rely on a certain reading of ancient wisdom texts to direct their moral consciences, and reserve "bigot" for genuine acts of violence that are directed at our persons, or intended to intimidate: rhetoric such as that thrown around by Fred Phelps, and the acts of violence that all too often harm us and our children.

To that end, I have entered conversations via this blog that have led to befriending an evangelical Christian, and may perhaps do the same with a Mormon mom, who shares with me a passion for homeschooling. They will continue to vote their conscience, and to pray for me, for they truly believe that that is their best gift. It probably is, and I appreciate it. If nothing else, when their children see them praying for a queer friend by name, the kids may think twice about bullying the queer kid on the schoolyard. And I have gifts to give to them, which I hope they are open to receive.

Their minds will not change. But that's not the point.

The point is to destroy our enemies – and theirs.

I believe we can do it.

If we all do it together, perhaps we can end the intolerance that leads to violence, and live side-by-side in peace.

Food for Thought #1

2009-05-24T09:39:00.001-07:00

One of the chief objections that conservative Christians hold against gay marriage (and all things gay, including hate crime legislation) is found in Romans 1:21-30. Paul starts out talking about people who knew God, but "…neither were thankful: … and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: … God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: … Being filled with … fornication, wickedness, covetousness, … full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, … backbiters, … despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents … covenantbreakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: Who knowing … that they which commit such things are worthy of death…"

Whew!

Let's see – who was Paul talking to? Oh, yeah, it says in v. 6-7: "Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be his saints."

Remember your high school history lessons? What was the culture like in Rome in A.D. 60, around the time Paul wrote this? Tacitus, who wrote a bit later and was not Christian, pretty much parroted this theme. It was a time of drunken orgies and slavery (which Paul thought was cool), steeped in the Greek culture where mentors were men who regularly had sex with the boys they were mentoring.

Meanwhile, the gay couples I know have been together for 5, 17, >4, 5, and ~28 years. The lesbian couples I know have been together 1, 12*, 13*, 28, 7, ~18, ~12*, ~22, and >13* years. (Strikethrough indicates divorce; asterix indicates children.) Doesn't sound much like "[burning] in their lust" to me. I remember the intense grief my coworker going through divorce suffered – it was a dark time, and for weeks her eyes were often red from crying.

The heterosexual couples I know who have been monogamous for that long have been so because they love each other. And it seems to me also that that kind of love wouldn't occur if one were "leaving the natural use" of their bodies.

Maybe there's more than one way to be natural?

It also seems to me that Paul is talking specifically to "the called of Jesus Christ" – and not to the general population. Is he saying that the standard to which he is calling his followers should be held to the general population?

I wonder what even Paul would advocate as a legal framework for treating LGBT people? He did, after all, appear to follow pretty closely Jesus' advice to "render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

How Unfair Is This?

2009-05-23T18:57:00.001-07:00

Kristin and I were talking about divorce and Social Security the other day, and I realized that if we were to separate completely and get a divorce, she would not share in my Social Security benefits.

Okay, here's some background. Nine years ago, we decided to have children. We chose Kristin, as the genetic female, to be the birth parent and do the baby-nursing and primary childcare. (Actually, for the first two years of Trin's life, she was the primary wage-earner, and I was the stay-at-home parent – but the last six years she's been the home-worker while I've been the wage-earner.) As we place a high priority on family and children, and wanted to parent our children fully, we chose to make the sacrifices that would allow us to get by on one wage, perhaps with part-time help from the other parent on an evening/weekend schedule. This means we've done things like live with all four of us in a one-bedroom duplex, and getting by with one 20+-year-old Volvo with well over 300,000 miles for the past eight years, and sleeping on garage-sale mattresses on the floor. But as time passed, I slowly advanced my position until now I've got a really good job that pays pretty damn well. We liken it to a football team. I play the offense; I make the points (money).

Kristin, meanwhile, plays defense. She saves money. While caring for the kids, she takes care of the house, manages the finances (which are all completely shared), plans meals and shops accordingly, cooks cheap, healthy meals for us all, and plants, weeds, and harvests gardens in four different yards, saving hundreds and hundreds of dollars on groceries and giving us the best food available. In doing all this, she saves a hell of a lot of money, gives our children the best education possible, and makes homeschooling on one wage possible.

Who do you suppose has the most challenging and difficult job, and works the hardest?

If you guessed Kristin, move to the head of the class.

However, even though Kristin contributes as much if not more to the economic well-being of this family, when we fill out our income tax forms, nearly all of the economic benefits are assigned to me.

Assuming we stay together, that's no big issue. She'll share in my benefits when I die.

But if (like 50% or so of the couples in this great nation) we divorce – she gets nothing from mine. She gets to try to make it on the benefits from her tiny-to-non-existent income, and I get all the benefits from my considerable income – even though we are equal members of a team, and she sacrificed her income to benefit me, our children, and, by extension, our community and society.

You know? It pisses me off. The income I make is not my income, it's our income. There ought to be some legal framework that ensures that the combination of our efforts will yield equal benefits to our old age, regardless of whether our team stays together or not.

While our situation is same-sex, most equivalent situations are not; and as usual, the woman ends up with the short end of the stick. Another reason to tear down the patriarchy, and embrace the philosophy of feminism.

Why Do We Homeschool?**

2009-05-23T04:45:00.001-07:00

This video interview of John Taylor Gatto gets at the reasons our kids don't go to compulsory schooling. It's about ½ hour long, and the link is through a site that appears to be Libertarian in nature. I don't endorse Libertarianism, which tends to empower corporations over people. I wish I could have figured out how to embed this vid in my blog, but it's not YouTube, and so it goes.

I've blogged on Gatto a bit before. He's a former teacher of the year who wrote some books like "The Underground History of American Education," which made sense of the misery of my own experience with compulsory schooling (beyond the confusion and subsequent peer harassment of gender dissonance).

To sum up, the reason school reform never works for long is because school does what it's really meant to do very well. Compulsory school (public and private) is very successful at the job to which it is set by our cultural elite – the corporate puppetmasters who create the consumerist economy. That job is to produce a compliant, predictable workforce that lacks meaning, purpose, and initiative, and is blindly subservient to authority.

Reforming education within the current system is a hopeless task. Bad as Bush's bipartisan "No Child Left Behind" policy is, tweaking it to mitigate some of the worst aspects won't do much. The problem is the system of compulsory schooling this country has adopted, and the solution cannot be found within that system at all. It can only be found in dismantling the system – in giving children options, in making school a choice, in trusting our children to learn what they need to learn in order to navigate in our high tech society and natural world.

Imagine if we unleashed the creative force of our children and adolescents, allowing them to explore the world with wide open eyes, to channel their energy into their passions, instead of squelching that energy in the barren institutions of our schools and channeling it into despair, rebellion, and subservience to authority.

Of course, you can't imagine – because the results would be completely unpredictable. That's what happened in America back in 1776. That's the whole point of compulsory schooling. Our corporate puppetmasters* don't want a repeat.

*Worth noting that the descent of our nation out of democracy and freedom, and into fascism, was really enabled and made inevitable by both compulsory schooling and the 1886 Supreme Court decision of Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, which was used to establish the legal idiocy that corporations are persons protected by the 14^th Amendment, even though the ruling did not say that. The abuse of that ruling enabled the rise of a corporate elite – further empowered by the methods Edward Bernays advocated in his book, "Propaganda" – which gradually insinuated itself into government, and ended up basically taking full control of government under Ronald Reagan. We've been a fully functional fascist society since 1981, if not earlier, and it doesn't matter whether the president is a Democrat or a Republican, that's the way it's been since.

**This post was inspired by my recent conversation with Pearl, a conservative "marriage defender" who's probably further on the right side of the aisle than I am on the left. I'm a queer liberal Democrat anti-religious pro-marriage-equality trans woman, she's a conservative Republican (I assume) LDS anti-gay-marriage cis woman, yet on this we can agree.

Seda’s Theory of Gender

2009-05-17T08:56:00.001-07:00

A couple of events recently got me to thinking about gender, and inspired me to come up with a revision of the concept of gender. First, reading Whipping Girl, by Julia Serano, introduced me to the concept of "subconscious sex," which makes so much more sense to me than "gender identity." And then at an LGBTQQIA panel (how's that for alphabet soup? More letters than people on the panel) recently, a feminist lesbian with a rather masculine gender presentation commented that gender is a "social construct," not inherent in individuals but created by culture. As a trans woman who has experienced both male and female hormone balances, I do not believe that is true. So, here is my personal understanding and belief of gender and the relationship between sex and gender.

To begin with, different aspects of sex and gender exist on a number of different continua. Nothing original here.

First there is biological sex, which includes several different aspects. Everyone has a genetic sex – most people have one of the two most common chromosomal combinations, XX or XY. A few fall in between, with XXY, XYY, or other combinations. Then there is body morphology – most people clearly exhibit primary and secondary sex characteristics, such as penis, testicles, broad shoulders, big feet, and hairy faces and torsos in males and vagina, ovaries, uterus, wide hips and breasts in females. Again, some fall in between, as intersexed people with ambiguous genitalia and people with AIS.

Then there is subconscious or instinctive sex, often (erroneously, in my opinion) termed "gender identity" – again on a continuum from hyper-male to hyper-female, with two-spirit or genderqueer in the middle. Subconscious sex is how the instinctive, primitive brain understands your body to be. In my case, my subconscious brain, or self, or whatever, has always thought I have a female body. When I first learned to throw, I threw "like a girl." The relationships I seek and treasure are female in nature. My sexual instincts are female, and in sexual situations the contrast between my instincts and desires and the nature of my body is sharp, intense, and painful. Everyone has a subconscious sex, though most people go through life unaware of it, as there is no conflict and no reason to access it consciously if your subconscious sex aligns with your biological sex.

The next continuum is gender expression. This is the natural inclination one has in expressing one's masculinity, femininity, or androgyny, and again, the continuum is related to the first two but independent of it. Someone might be male-bodied and male-gendered (in the subconscious sex sense of gender), and yet adopt feminine dress and mannerisms. Frequently folks refer to people who express gender strongly as "butch" or "femme," depending on which direction they are expressing. This is what people talk about when they speak of gender roles; it's what I believe feminists refer to when they say that gender is socially constructed. However, everyone has innate gender. I firmly believe, based on my study of philosophy, science, gender, and my own experience of both male and female sex hormones, that gender is innate – and that it is also influenced by society and social constructs.

The last one in my list is sexual orientation, reflecting one's innate attraction to one of the two primary sexes, both, all, or whatever.

So for each individual, there are four aspects of gender or sexuality, and each of these aspects is expressed somewhere on one of four corresponding continua. Each of these continua can be described as a double bell distribution curve, with the typical binary genders (male and female) each representing roughly equal "humps" and the rest spread out in between or way out on the fringes.

Female ------------------------ Male

(Imagine four of these, each separate and unique)

A typical man, for instance, would land in the center of the male hump (no pun intended) in all three internally-focused continua (genetic/body morphology, subconscious sex, and gender expression), and in the center of the female hump on the sexual orientation continuum, while a typical woman would land in the corresponding and opposite humps. My personal distribution used to be: a. center of the male genetic/biology hump; b. center of the female subconscious sex hump; c. extreme side of the male gender expression hump; and (on a conscious level – there was definitely serious subconscious conflict going on!) d. somewhere on the female side of the trough between the sexual orientation humps. Now, I've moved into the trough on the body morphology continuum (genetics are the same, but I've grown breasts and lost body hair, which puts me in that androgynous place in the middle), and my growing awareness of my real heterosexual orientation has moved me to the male side of the trough on the sexual orientation continuum.

Now, add the influence of our patriarchal culture and social constructs, including and especially the gender binary that says there is only one scale – the heterosexual male/female, opposite-sex dichotomy – and here's what you get:

Female--------------------------------Male

(Only one of these – where on the line do you fall? Chances are you don't)

Is it any wonder that feminists think of gender as socially constructed, and not innate? Especially since women have traditionally been given the short end of every opposite/binary stick (weak, irrational, emotional, etc.), they intensely feel the restrictions and limitations of cramming everyone onto one curve and making the curve a straight line. But it also hurts men. It hurts everyone. Gender is innate and natural, but society warps it into a cruel travesty.

The opposite-sex gender binary that supports patriarchy is wrong. It is limiting, harmful, inaccurate and untrue, and it's past time to bury it in an unmourned, unmarked grave. Everyone deserves the birthright to find their own places on the multiple levels of their own respective gender continua, and the respect of society to be recognized and honored there.

(Okay, I got off the theory and into my personal rant. Sorry, but it seems important.)

Being Special

2009-04-24T06:53:00.001-07:00

One of my girlfriends recently commented on how I tend to gush about how cool it is to be a woman. It seems like that's given her more appreciation for it, which his great, but her comment made me more aware of my attitude and led me to question it.

It's true that I'm thoroughly enjoying the freedom to explore my own femininity and sexuality. I do enjoy every aspect of womanhood I am able to participate in (except the tendency of some people to objectify, sexualize, or ignore me). But as I consider it, I think the real thing I'm finding joy in is being myself, in being connected with myself and others. It isn't femininity and womanhood per se, but the integrity, beauty, connection, autonomy, clarity, and sovereignty of my own life as a woman that are so rewarding. In my inner life, it's having hormones that correspond with my subconscious sex, so that my mind feels integrated instead of semi-schitzophrenic, and beginning to enjoy my body and my breasts and the way I look in the mirror.

All of these are miracles of wonder to me, but they are hardly unique, and they really don't indicate that being a woman is any more special than being a man. My trans men friends all report feeling the same way, just going in a different direction. For them, the joy is all in masculinity and manhood. (I know, I don't get it.)

The real meaning beneath the joy I find in my womanhood is found in the Bard's immortal statement: "To thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man." As Dr. Irene says (in a different context that makes this one no less true), "Allowing someone else to define who we are, we lose our ability to discover and grow inwardly. We no longer are able to discern a truth from a lie. For many of us, we have accepted lies for so long, that finding out what is true takes time. Having done this very thing, I know how difficult the journey to self-discovery can be."

It's as if Dr. Irene were talking about trans people, instead of survivors of abuse. I relate completely. For the first time in my life, I am being true to my own self. And that feels damn good.

“Opposite” Sexes?

2009-04-19T11:52:00.001-07:00

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.

They are so much more eloquent than me...

2009-04-15T22:00:00.000-07:00

... that I'm linking to Sara Whitman's and Field Negro's posts about Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover.

Please, follow the links, read the story, and then call your legislators and ask them to pass laws against bullying. Here in Oregon that law has passed the House - please, call you senator and ask them to pass it. I'm pretty sure Gov. Kulongoski will sign it.

It's past time to get past all this homophobia.

Hallelujah

2009-04-15T21:28:00.000-07:00

Just found this sweet song by my friend AJ - definitely worth a listen!

Mary Baker Eddy

2009-04-12T08:08:00.001-07:00

Today I'd like to celebrate a great pioneer of feminism who, in my opinion, is given way too little respect by the feminist establishment.

I rarely (if ever) see Mary Baker Eddy mentioned in the same context as the leaders of the suffragette movement, such as Susan B. Anthony, or even among other great woman pioneers, such as Amelia Earhart or Elizabeth Blackwell, who became the first woman doctor in the United States in 1849. Yet Mary Baker Eddy's accomplishments stand as tall, if not taller, than any of these other women.

In a world where preachers, pastors, and priests were men, Mary Baker Eddy established her own, successful, religion. Christian Science is still a viable, mainstream religion, even though, like feminism in general, it is widely disparaged and misunderstood. In an outstanding example of subverting and destroying patriarchy, she established a church that is as close to being without hierarchy as I can imagine. The Christian Science church is decentralized and run democratically. The nominal leaders (First Reader and Second Reader, co-equal) are elected annually by the church membership. Whenever possible, one is a woman, one is a man – it doesn't matter which is which. In the Mother Church leadership, qualifications and ability trump sex or race, every time. And anyone who does the requisite study and practice is eligible to become a Christian Science Practitioner or Teacher, regardless of sex, gender, or race. In fact, I know of very few organizations that base their structure to a lesser extent on privilege and position, and more on ability. (The exception would be in the LGBT arena. It's interesting to speculate on what might be different if Mary were writing today, and was not a product of her Victorian era.)

But just establishing a religion where sexes were equal in a man's world was not enough for Mary Baker Eddy. She also established a newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor, that is still one of the most respected news sources in the country. Unlike Faux News, whose mission is to further the agenda of multinational corporations, arms dealers, and the Republican Party, the Monitor's mission is "To injure no one, but to bless all mankind," and it is well known for unbiased, reliable reporting.

Not a bad accomplishment for a woman operating where women were not reporters and didn't even have the right to vote, but she didn't stop there. She made major inroads in the field of alternative medicine, as well. Her study of homeopathy led to her discovery of Christian Science treatment, which, contrary to mainstream opinion, is not "faith healing," or even, in any conventional sense, "healing through prayer." It is a scientific, proven system, practical and teachable, which is as effective (and sometimes more so) than acupuncture, homeopathy, or even allopathy, and it works on anybody, not just Christian Scientists. The record of Christian Science healing stands by itself. I know from experience. I have been healed, instantaneously, of a badly infected cut while I was out at sea on a fishing boat.

Christian Science healing has taken some serious hits from a few spectacular failures, especially among children, but that isn't Mary Baker Eddy's fault; rather, it is the fault of the culture within the religion that has developed in her absence, where if one doesn't heal with Christian Science treatment, one is often considered a failure. Mary Baker Eddy, in fact, stated that if someone is not able to effectively treat the disease or injury through Christian Science, they should seek medical treatment first. I have great respect (and gratitude) to my mom, who, when she developed cancer, did exactly that. She treated it with CS for awhile, and, when that wasn't effective, she sought medical treatment. She went through the chemo and so forth, and the speed and effectiveness of her recovery is, if anything, yet another testament to the effectiveness of Christian Science.

Mary Baker Eddy's philosophy and practice was not only non-hierarchical, it celebrated femininity. In her seminal book, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures," she says, "Union of the masculine and feminine qualities constitutes completeness. The masculine mind reaches a higher tone through certain elements of the feminine, while the feminine mind gains courage and strength through masculine qualities. … Both sexes should be loving, pure, tender, and strong." (I might argue a bit with the specifics of this – I think femininity itself exhibits courage, and trans women prove it again and again.) She referred to God not as patriarchal, judgmental "Father," but as "Father-Mother." The overall meaning is clear: No patriarchy need apply. Masculinity and femininity are co-equal and are not opposites, but complementary aspects of our universal humanity.

It's true that her advocacy of women's suffrage was rather weak: "Civil law establishes very unfair differences between the rights of the two sexes. Christian Science furnishes no precedent for such injustice… Our laws are not impartial, to say the least, in their discrimination as to the person, property, and parental claims of the two sexes. If the elective franchise for women will remedy the evil without encouraging difficulties of greater magnitude, let us hope it will be granted." However, it's not in Mary Baker Eddy's advocacy of equal rights that she was a pioneer of feminism – it is in her example of overcoming systemic sexism and patriarchy to prove that women can be spiritual leaders, medical healers, and effective editors. She did so with outstanding courage and strength, and impeccable femininity, belying the myth that those qualities are masculine in nature and male in possession.

Mary Baker Eddy also had the courage of her convictions. When her first husband, a slaveholder, died, she impoverished herself by freeing all his slaves. Compare that to our great Founding Father, who penned those immortal words, "We find these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights…" The only slaves he freed were his mistress and his children.

I am not a Christian Scientist for a number of reasons, including the fact that it did absolutely nothing to affect my gender dissonance, but I am grateful to have been raised on the teachings and writings of Mary Baker Eddy. In a community where blacks were often called "niggers" and Mexican-Americans were often referred to as "spics" and "greasers," my parents continually, by example, showed that all people, regardless of race, creed, religion, sex, economic privilege, or ability, are equally valued, equally beautiful children of God. For instance, one of my neighbors, "Benny the Jap," was welcomed into our house and always treated with respect, despite his race and poverty. In fact, not only was he treated with respect, my parents always referred to him with respect (and his name was always "Ben Shibata"), even when he wasn't anywhere around. And in a world where trans people are often disinherited and kicked out of home or family for being trans, when I came out as a woman to my mom, she didn't turn a hair. She looked across the table at me and spoke straight from her dedication to the religion that Mary Baker Eddy founded: "Your identity is intact, and it doesn't depend on gender."

Whenever I see a list of great women leaders in the feminist movement, I always look for Mary Baker Eddy's name. I rarely find it. She deserves better. Regardless of what one thinks of Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy deserves a place of honor in the feminist canon. We feminists deserve to have her in that place of honor, too. We deserve better access to her example of courage, strength, grace, and yes, femininity, in overcoming legal and cultural barriers against women that were almost insurmountable. She played an important role in laying the groundwork that enabled the success of Susan Anthony and the other suffragettes, as well as the success of the feminist movement that began in the 1960's. We should recognize that, and celebrate it.

Transconnection

2009-04-11T20:05:00.001-07:00

A week or two ago, I rode my bike past a neighbor's house and saw a friend of mine, who happens to be a trans man. We got to talking, one thing led to another, and the next thing I know I'm shooting off an email to several other trans people friends of mine, saying we all ought to gather for a social event. NOT a support group. I'm talking fun, food, etc. A flurry of emails later, and fourteen or fifteen of us gather at the Q Center for pot luck.

(Here, I can't resist a dig at the DSM-IV: By their criteria, there should be 2.5 trans men in my area; in fact, at least eight of them were present today, and I know of several others; there should be 8.5 trans women in this area, and nearly all of them were present – despite the fact that I can think of at least seven who weren't there. Not only that, but the description the DSM has of us is almost unrecognizable in any meaningful way by anyone present, and it's downright rude and disrespectful the way they use the wrong pronouns throughout.)

To get an idea of the people gathered, one is a polyamorous sex worker (who has been nominated for best feminist porn film). Another is an ordained, celibate Buddhist monk. At least two live in two worlds, gendered female in one and male in the other, switching pronouns depending on company and situation. Several of us are parents. One is the son of a preacher. No one wore a skirt. And the food was pretty damn good.

For over four hours, the conversation never lagged. We caught up with old friends, made new ones, commiserated on the pains and foibles of transition, celebrated honesty and friendship, bashed hypocrites, and laughed – and laughed – and laughed. Genders mixed in a delightful medley as we all allowed our expression free rein.

There is something both validating and empowering in sharing with people who understand your issues, and something wonderfully refreshing in talking with people who (almost) always get your pronouns right. It is a comradeship, a shared experience, a common understanding. In our society, being where you can completely let down your guard, and be yourself in a crowd, for a while makes the world just right. I relaxed. I let myself be, without fear. And it was fun.

Thank you, all my trans friends. Thank you for gathering. And thank you for being you. You are real, and deeply valued.

Permaculture Video Worth Watching...

2009-04-05T18:52:00.000-07:00

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.

Girlfriends

2009-03-21T09:55:00.001-07:00

Last night I was listening to a song by Mana. I closed my eyes and picked out the various parts – two acoustic guitars, keyboard, bass, drums and percussion – hearing how they played off each other and blended into this incredible beauty of sound. I thought of how Kristin and the boys are learning music, and often play together both with Ken, their teacher, and with each other in practice. I thought how much fun it would be to join with them, though I've been resisting for some time now because I just don't have the time to learn music. Then I reflected on the many times I've tried to learn to play an instrument – drums, guitar, banjo, jews harp, harmonica. I never learned any of them, and thinking back, it seems to me the reason is I never played with anyone else. I never got lessons, never played with peers. For me, like everything else, learning music was a solitary experience.

Then I got to thinking about why that might be. Part of it – maybe most of it – is because I never had friends I could share that with. I noticed that my entire life, I could make only the most shallow friendships, because my primary goal in any relationship was to protect myself – to avoid revealing who I really am, to keep my deepest thoughts and desires secret to myself alone.

The overriding reason I wanted to keep myself private was shame.

I was so deeply ashamed of myself for those thoughts, desires, and experiences that reflect who I am. I was ashamed because I saw that my own experience was so different from everyone else's; because I simply could not relate those thoughts, desires, and experiences to the male role models in my life – at least, not in a deep, personal, and gendered way.

While there are many activities in life that are not gendered – woodworking, chess, gardening, the list goes on forever – there are no relationships that are not gendered. I relate differently depending on who I'm relating with, and gender is part of that relation. Even my relationship with myself is gendered. Women relate differently when they are in a women only group vs. mixed company, men do the same. Mostly, I think, people accept these differences for granted, perhaps don't even notice them. For me, they dominated every social experience.

Because I was so deeply ashamed of who I was, I tried to relate to people according to my sex, and because doing so meant I could not relate in a genuinely gendered way, I could not reveal enough of who I was, even with my most intimate friends, to share real intimacy.

In short, I never learned how to be a friend. Others related with me in the fullness of who they are, and I responded with a deep reserve and definite deception. I related with a mask, an assumed persona I'd pieced together to disguise my real self.

As I reflected on my current life, this became very clear, because I am finally learning how to be, and what it means to be, a friend. It's a matter of baby-steps, of stumbling in the dusk. I still don't have the basic skills of friendship down, by any means. However, I am relating in the wholeness of who I am, and that is bringing incredible changes.

I have real women friends now. These are the people most responsible for my new growth. This is the growing richness of my life. Girlfriends. I am finally welcomed into the social role where I belong. No longer am I isolated, an outsider in every social situation, an interloper who feels out of place. I can be myself, and people actually like me.

I cannot relate to you how incredibly beautiful that is, to belong, to be myself, to relate to others as fully human. This is the best thing, for me, about my transition. Women friends. Honesty. Relating fully, no longer isolated and alone, no longer a square peg in a round hole, but real, comfortable. I am just me. I cannot find words to express the sense of wholeness I have found. It is a pearl of great price.

To the extent that my body does not match my gender, it affects how people relate to me. But the need for human, intimate connection is so great and so basic to our humanity, to feeling and expressing love, so essential to our development and survival, that I will change my body as much as I possibly can to achieve that fullness of social connection. I cannot do otherwise. I am amazed that I stayed alive for so long without that intimacy. Kristin is responsible, of course. I was able to forge a relationship, cobbled together out of my deceptive persona and elements of my real self, with her that was sufficiently intimate to survive, and her love sustained me for 15 years. Yet there is no doubt in my mind that if I had not transitioned, I would now be dead. I simply could not survive in that vacuum of my own soul, in that social and personal isolation, much longer.

There are still a lot of aspects of being transgendered that suck. I hate parts of my body. They betray me. They are completely dysfunctional to who I am. Every day, throughout the day, they rear up and show me how still incomplete are my social relations. The pain of them is constant and unremitting. God, how I wish I could change them! But they do not dominate my life. I have hope. I have meaning. I have girlfriends.