Well, Chaz Bono has been identified as someone who is going to transition from female-to-male, and members of the press went searching for a trans spokesmodel for comment. No surprise there.
But oops, it looks like the National Center For Transgender Equality's (NCTE's) executive Director Mara Keisling bumbled an answer. So, let's take a look, eh?
From CNN's Sonny and Cher's child transitioning from female to male:
Someone's decision to transition does not necessarily mean they are undergoing gender reassignment surgery, and in many cases they do not, said Mara Keisling, executive director of the Washington-based National Center for Transgender Equality."The whole media fixation on surgery is kind of misplaced," she said. "Almost no transgender people ever have surgery. We don't have any idea how many do."
At a time when trans folk and our allies want to see health care benefits provided by the workplace increased for trans people -- including genital reconstruction surgery that has been determined to be good for the health and wellbeing of many transsexuals -- Mara's phrasing for CNN seems at best unfortunate, and at worst actually damaging for increasing health benefits for those of us trans folk who actually identify as transsexual.
In other words, for me it would be nice for me if the Veterans Administration would do genial reassignment surgeries, but her comment "Almost no transgender people ever have surgery" makes it sound like my peers and I don't want those surgeries for ourselves -- so in the personal sense it sounds like she's saying to the general public that I don't want or need the VA to cover it.
The reality is that insurance doesn't often cover genital reconstruction surgeries, so most transsexuals can't afford the $15,000 to $60,000 for male-to-female genital reconstruction surgery, or the $30,000 to $150,000 for female-to-male genital reconstruction surgery out of their own pockets. Economics are often the main reason why the transgender people who identify as transsexual don't have genital reconstruction surgery. Some transsexuals actually do identify as non-operative transsexuals, but my experiece is that those folk aren't how most transsexu als identify -- most who haven't had genital reconstruction surgery identify as pre-operative even if they anticipate never being able to afford surgery on their genitalia.
I believe that what Mara was trying to say was that for transsexuals, when we are born what's between our ears doesn't match the genitalia usually associated with that gender. However, having genitalia that doesn't match one's gender identity shouldn't be used by media or politicians to say that trans men aren't really men, or trans women aren't really women -- Genitals don't trump identity.
And too, not everyone who identifies as a transgender person is a transsexual person -- there are crossdressers, genderqueers, and such that may identify as transgender, but not as transsexuals.
But, this isn't what she actually said -- or worse, what she actually implied -- with how she worded her response to Chaz Bono's transition.
Engh, I know that trans activist leaders are going to be quoteduoted when "big news" transitions take place, and gaffs will occur when talking to the press. I just wish Mara would have thought about how to answer that standard question about gender and genitalia a bit more than she appears to have for this occasion; I hope she thinks through a "standard blurb" for that standard question on gender and genitalia for future interviews regarding high profile transitions.
And too, I certainly hope no one takes what Mara Keisling said this time and attempts to use it as an argument against insurance companies paying for genital reconstruction surgeries, or even covering other services for trans people -- such as hormone therapy and psychological counseling. That would be tragic.
NCTE gets a monthly donation from me, and that certainly won't change. Gaff's happen; we all move forward. I do hope NCTE clarifies what Mara meant very early next week though, as this statement she made for CNN really is a gaff that could hurt trans people's quest for a future thst includes more inclusive medical care.
My pal Joe Sudbay has written a thoughtful and spot-on piece about the sad reality that many in the progressive straight community, particularly those who are lawyers, are defending this administration's decision to defend DOMA in a manner that is completely soulless, devoid of humanity and it's not all that surprising to me (check out this DKos post for a prime example).For some, the decision whether to defend or oppose DOMA is purely a legal exercise. For many of us, it's our lives. I'm sure, along the way, Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP were told to back off on their challenge to Topeka's segregation law. After all, that law had been unsuccessfully challenged already, and there was that very clear Supreme Court precedent on "separate, but equal." The law is the law. Who was this political activist Thurgood Marshall to suggest it should be overturned?Lots of progressives run screaming from the issue of race, for instance, running for cover out of fear of appearing racist; why should we be shocked that the LGBT community is getting a taste of the "just wait and be patient" dismissiveness as we watch progressives put the "lalalalala" fingers in the ears because they don't want to discuss the filthy, degrading arguments in the brief. They aren't about to go there, because there is no defense, and of course THEY AREN'T HOMOPHOBES, right?It's sh ocking how many people viewed yesterday's DOMA discussion through their own purely intellectual, legal lens. The condescending tone from some of the legal types, both straight and gay - all Democrat - was insulting, demeaning, and horribly out of touch (with their own humanity). Gay Americans lost rights last November in California. We had fundamental rights taken away by an election. Think about that. When was the last time that happened in this country?
This is really ally about heterosexual privilege, coming from people who have full civil rights; isn't it nice from that vantage point to smugly tell LGBTs who could lose their job for being LGBT or legally marry in one state and lose all of those rights when you cross a state line that they have to wait -- and be quiet lest they ruin ___ (health care, the environment, economic recovery...fill in the blank). Joe:
Yesterday, a Democratic President of the United States of America, in the year 2009, and an African-American child of inter-racial parents no less, gave his lawyers the go ahead to compare our marriages to incest on the same day that 42 years ago the Supreme Court ruled in his parents' favor in Loving v. Virginia. And these people, along with our President, are suggesting that the appropriate response is to shrug our shoulders and go home, since, after all, the law is the law?There are pathetic excuses flying about like "oh, President Obama couldn't have had any idea about what was in this brief." Um, that doesn't pass the smell test. They all knew multiple DOMA challenges were heading their way. Remember -- "they have a plan," right? Didn't I hear that somewhere? Oh, never mind.So, yes, I am advocating that we push the envelope and demand new and creative thinking on legal issues, on our civil and human rights. That's how change happens (there's that pesky word again). That's what we expect from our President who promised change, who promised to be a "fierce advocate" for our rights. Yesterday's homophobic brief would have met the expectations we had from George Bush (or Jerry Falwell). From President Barack Obama, it was an appalling betrayal of our humanity, and his own.
I'm sick of being separate, but equal. And it's now clear that many of you agree.
Journalist Karen Ocamb asked Jon Davidson, Legal Director at Lambda Legal to comment on the brief and the choices the Obama DOJ had -- and decided to follow through with on this civil rights issue.
Whether or not the administration felt a need to defend, there are many ways one can defend. The administration could have rested on the first two arguments raised in their papers (jurisdiction and standing) that these plaintiffs were not entitled to sue without arguing at this point that DOMA is constitutional. Doing that would not have waived those arguments. What they need to be asked is why they gratuitously went out of their way to make the outrageous arguments they unnecessarily included such as that DOMA does not discriminate based on sexual orientation or that the right at issue is not marriage but an unestablished right to "same-sex marriage" or that DOMA is somehow justified in order to protect taxpayers who don't want their tax dollars used to support lesbian and gay couples (while it's apparently fine to make les bians and gay men pay the same taxes but be denied the benefits provided heterosexual couples). Their public statements about the filing try to sidestep these points. They absolutely knew they did not need to make these additional arguments, especially at this time and consciously decided to do so. I am seething mad.When will our progressive "friends" address this? We're waiting.
***
This reminds me of the charge levied against LGBTs by the black community -- that LGBTs don't care about social justice issues in the black community, then come around, not only asking for support on LGBT issues but also being chastised for the homophobia in the black church as if 1) all blacks are religious and 2) they are all homophobic. Progressives want LGBTs to be on board and promote their pet issues (and largely, we do), but when it comes down to the tough stuff on our issues -- and we need all the allies we can get -- they they have a million excuses why it's not time, we don't have it bad enough, move along.
Soul-searching and looking in the mirror are something we should all do once in a while.
Related:
* What kind of leadership do we need?
* The godd*mn DOMA-loving Obama DOJ mess
* Video rewind: Obama asking for our support on the campaign trail
* The Obama admin defends DOMA in a brief comparing marriage equality to incest
* Watch one progressive bus run over Rachel Maddow and the LGBT community
The fact is that we actually do not know what Obama's personal views are on marriage equality for same-sex couples. And that shouldn't really matter. Because we do know he was on record at one point as supporting marriage equality and then that changed. We also know that he now espouses the tired rationalization that so many Democrats rely upon: "Aw, gee, I'm all for equal rights, but my religion doesn't let me get behind the calling it 'marriage' thing for you all. Sorry."That last section I bolded is fantasy unless the President actually takes on that filthy brief defending DOMA by his Department of Justice.But, for some reason, we allow - without open challenge - this Constitutional legal expert to use his personal religious beliefs as an excuse to espouse support for a separate but equal policy and not to speak out for civil equality for all Americans? Really?!
Are we that desperate?
Let's say, just hypothetically, that a meeting took place between certain Administration officn officials and certain leaders of prominent LGBT rights organizations. And let's say, again hypothetically, that the Administration laid out its plan for dealing with hate-crimes legislation, employment discrimination, and military discrimination in a characteristically controlled and pragmatic way. Further, let's say - still talking hypothetically here - that, within that plan, the repeal of the travesty of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) was scheduled to be addressed during the Administration's presumptive second term. Let's also theorize hypothetically that some LGBT leaders were apparently so happy to be let behind the curtain that they simply nodded in response. Not acceptable.
Note to President Obama, his advisors and LGBT Grand Poobahs everywhere: that's NOT leadership. It's political strategy, sure, but it's not presidential leadership. And it's not enough.
...If President Obama were to come out and say that the movement of more states in recognizing same-sex marriage equality highlights the unfairness of DOMA and the need to have it repealed or overturned, that would be progress. If President Obama were to come out and say that his own prayerful thought has led him to begin to reconsider his stance on marriage equality, that would be progress. If President Obama were to come out and say that the language in his own Justice Department's response to a legal challenge to DOMA was unnecessary, wrong and dehumanizing, that would be progress. It would be, in his words, change.
Honestly, the answer to Leah's question is that each of us has to lead because traditional leadership has failed us. And we can all lead in all kinds of ways; we don't have to have access to cocktail parties in DC to rub shoulders with an administration that sh*ts on us make a difference. We have to write, call, demonstrate, lobby lawmakers, speak out to your neighbors, help friends come out of the closet, live your own life out of the closet. Ask your allies to come out of closet as strong advocates, not just passive supporters.
Meanwhile, the buck stops at the President's desk. Other questions to ponder:
* how aggressive (or not) will the professional advocacy gays be in holding this administration accountable?
* will the progressive movement keep its rolling-over-the-gays bus in overdrive, continuing to defend the brief, saying the administration "had to do it" or "Obama couldn't have known about the contents of the brief"?
A: The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act will extend the same employee and health benefits that married couples have to all federal employees regardless of their sexual orientation and that includes employees at the DOD. However, the bill does not extend health and employment benefits to members of the military because it’s in conflict with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I believe it is long past time to get rid of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and allow members of the military to receive the same benefits married couples have as well as be able to serve openly in the military.Q: What are your thoughts on the recent California Supreme Court ruling on the state's Proposition 8? In light of this ruling, what do you feel is the future of marriage equality in Oregon?
A: As a supporter of gay marriage, I am very disappointed that Prop 8 was allowed to stand, but glad that the couples who married while gay marriage was allowed in California had their marriages upheld. But the court decision in California shouldn’t overshadow the tremendous gains that have been made in just the last few months. It was exciting to see Iowa become the first state in the heartland to end marriage discrimination. In addition, a number of states decided that the politics of division weren’t strong enough to prevent them from doing the right thing. Moreover, polls show an ever-increasing number of Americans support extending marriage rights to same sex couples. While Oregon’s constitutional amendment defining marriage is a significant obstacle to the establishment of equality in Oregon, I am hopeful that the conversation in Oregon will continue and that Oregon will eventually choose to support marriage equality as the only right course under our U.S. constitutional guarantee of equality under the law for all Americans.
On the eve of the 40th Anniversary of Stonewall, come join us in celebrating the achievements of the LGBT equality movement:
I'll Toast to That
Thursday, June 25th, 2009 6:00pm Charlenter">I'll Toast to That Thursday, June 25th, 2009 6:00pm Charles Froelick Gallery 714 NW Davis $40 beforehand, $50 at the door (tickets available here) Attire: Pizazzulous A special thank you to our sponsors: Organic Nation Spirits Devil's Food Catering Raptor Ridge Music by: DJ Scotty D Ticket price qualifies for the Oregon Political Tax Credit which means you can get every penny of your ticket price back at tax time! Click here for more information on the Oregon Political Tax Credit. Questions? Call 503/222.6151
No comments:
Post a Comment