Can We Really Define “Man and Woman?”

According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force map, 40 states have some form of law or amendment that limits marriage to a man and a woman. California recently declared their law unconstitutional, so that leaves 39 others. Out of the remaining states and the District of Columbia, California and Massachusetts have full marriage equality, four have civil unions and four others plus DC recognizes same-sex couples in other ways.

The heart of all of the laws, decisions and amendments we see the statement, “Marriage is between a man and a woman.” From the very first time I heard that statement, I had to ask, “What constitutes a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’?” There are no legal definitions for these two words, and as we will see, the dictionary definitions don’t provide much help. No matter how you wish to define man and woman, there will always be exceptions to those definitions, shooting holes into the anti-same-sex laws and amendments.

Before I get started, many transgender and intersex leaders would rather I keep quiet about the lack of definitions for man and woman. Their point is that if the opposition wants to put a legal definition on them, they would more than likely pick the worst possible definition. Their concerns have validity. But, with the changing political climate, we may get to see some of those laws and amendments overturned. A definition becomes less of an issue.

First, let’s look at the dictionary definitions of man and woman, taken from the dictionary.com. We already see the laws against same-sex marriage starting to unravel. There are 15 different definitions for “man” and six for “woman.” I like #2 for man, “A human regardless of sex or age; a person.” If a marriage is suppose to be between a man and a woman, and a man is a “. . . human regardless of sex . . .” then how can ban same-“sex” marriage? I doubt bringing this up to a marriage license clerk would change anything, but it sure begs a chance to question the law.

Also notice the definitions from man and woman are strongly attached to the words “male” and “female.” For “male,” the person has to produce “spermatozoa for fertilizing ova.” If a man cannot do this, does it mean he is no longer male, thus no longer a man? You also see on the # 2 definition, “Virile; manly.” You have a situation where one word defines another and visa-versa. It doesn’t seem right to do that.

If you look at the definition of “female,” you also see, “Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young.” We can ask the same question we asked for the male definition. “If a woman can no longer produce ova or bear children, is she no longer considered female, thus no longer a woman?” Based on reading this, I come to the conclusion that there is no clear-cut, solid definition for male, female, man or woman in the dictionary. How can they continue to limit marriage to a man and a woman? But, there’s more.

Let’s talk about the physical differences between men/males and woman/females. It’s generally accepted that women have ovaries to produce eggs and breasts to feed the young. They have a vagina that is designed to take the male’s penis in order to receive sperm to fertilize the eggs. A male/man has a penis and testes to produce sperm, usually rougher skin, more aggressive personalities, more hair and a different brain structure.

The problem is that humans don’t come in neatly arranged physical packages as described above. Physical anomalies abound. According to the Intersex Society of North America, one in every 100 births in the world are people whose bodies differ from standard male or female in one form or another. If you look through the various issues listed on that page, you will see that it is a combination of visible and internal differences, to sex chromosome differences.

Portions of the population are born with genitalia that make it difficult for doctors to determine the person’s sex. For the longest time, doctors decided what sex to assign the child, but they had a 50/50 chance of being right. Today, the American Pediatric Association has modified that procedure to take into account what the child identifies when they get older and make proper surgical decisions at that time.

Making the wrong decision on what sex a person should grow up to be is drastically demonstrated in the “John/Joan” case of David Reimer. David and his twin brother both had been circumcised after birth, but because the doctor was using an inappropriate procedure, he burned off David’s penis. The well-known psychologist, John Money, at Johns Hopkins University suggests they could make David a girl and raise him as one.

This didn’t work and David grew up realizing something is wrong with his life. He found out later what the problems stemmed from and lived the rest of his life, until he committed suicide on May 4, 2004. David was 38. This shows that gender identity is in the brain and what parts the body was born with makes no difference. It’s another flaw in trying to define man and woman.

One of the chromosome conditions is called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, or AIS, which occurs in approximately 1 in 20,000 individuals. Those with AIS are female-bodied individuals who have XY sex chromosome. There are also male-bodied individuals who have XX chromosome, which can be caused by various conditions. In this area, there is a lot of overlapping of issues facing these individuals, which can include Progestin Induced Virilization, Swyer Syndrome, Turner Syndrome, and Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

On this page from About.com :Biology for Sex Chromosomes Abnormalities, you can see on the chart six other sex chromosome patterns besides the “normal” XX and XY. If you notice, these are assigned a particular gender, but the physical traits can blur the person’s presentation. So, what “sex” are they really?

I also discovered that in the future, there may no longer be a Y chromosome. In the research done by Dr Jennifer Graves, Research School Biological Sciences, ANU, Canberra, Australia called “Human Sex Chromosomes and the Future of Men,” she says, “The human Y chromosome is running out of time. At the rate it is degrading, it will lose its last 45 genes in just 10 million years, even taking complicating factors into account.” We won’t see it, but I thought it was an interesting piece to bring up.

The case of “Littleton vs. Prange” was a prime example of what can happen when the courts make a decision based on they think a person has for sex chromosomes. In this well-known case, Christie Lee Littleton’s husband of seven years, Jonathan went into the hospital for what was suppose to be a non-life-threatening issue, but ended up dying. After a time of grieving, Littleton decided to sue for wrongful death.

In the course of the trial, the defending lawyers discovered that Littleton had been born with male body parts, and even though she had received all the necessary procedures to be considered a female in the State of Texas, three of the judges assumed she was not really a woman because of her chromosomes. But, throughout the entire trial, they never once checked what sex chromosomes Littleton or her husband had. If Christie didn’t have XY chromosomes, then the case could have been thrown out.

Because of this decision, in the ten counties that this local district court covers, birth certificates will not be changed for transsexuals who have had SRS. However, a post-op trans woman can marry a non-trans woman or a trans man can marry a non-trans man and it would be considered legal. By doing this, it means the trans person would have to identify as their birth sex for the marriage to be considered legal. I wouldn’t consider changing my identity just to get married. Thanks to California, I don’t need to.

The other problem in using chromosomes as the way to determine a person’s sex is the cost. It can be from $600 to $900 to have a person’s sex chromosomes checked. Can you imagine if a state defined man and woman by their chromosomes what a financial burden it would be on couples wanting to get married. Many couples wouldn’t be able to afford the cost. And, I can just see a loving religious right couple getting their chromosomes checked, only to find out they both have XX. You can bet they would be screaming about dropping the amendment they fought so hard to pass.

The next way man and woman can be defined is by what is on their birth certificate. However, there are several ways that this is not 100% possible either. Many Americans cannot get access to a birth certificate because of natural disasters that destroyed the place they were stored at, long before a state could transfer them to computers. Some people in rural areas may not have ever had one issued. Many naturalized citizens cannot get a birth certificate from the country they were born in for various reasons. Also, I have heard that some people were issued a birth certificate that didn’t have a sex one it, some because of the genitalia situation.

In 46 states and the District of Columbia, a person can get their birth certificate changed after receiving a form of sex altering surgery. Idaho, Ohio and Tennessee and parts of Texas are the exception. This usually means a Phalloplasty or Metoidioplasty for trans men and Sex Reassignment/Gender Reassignment Surgery for trans women. However, it can also be changed in most of those states when a trans woman gets an orchiectomy, or the trans man gets top surgery or a hysterectomy. If the letter is worded correctly, the state will more than likely change the birth certificate. For more detailed state-by-state information on the procedure in your state or Canadian Provinces, visit Dr. Becky Allison’s page for instructions.

As we can see, the different ways to try and define “man” or “woman” all have flaws and exceptions making it difficult to create a legal definition that would cover every human in the country. If the various states picked one definition to try and keep same-sex people from getting married, they would cause problems for many opposite sex couples and create loopholes that same-sex couples could take advantage of.

This means that we are stuck with laws that are based on undefined terms, keeping same-sex couples from enjoying the same rights as opposite-sex couples. If anyone were to push the issue, then the end result would cause more problems then it would fix. One of the biggest problems would be to invalidate legally married transsexuals, like Christie Lee Littleton, and hundreds of others who stayed married after one person in the marriage changed their sex. We would be damned if we did, but we remain damned because we don’t.

Christian Siriano retires "hot tranny mess"

I was all set to write a happy little post about Christian Siriano retiring his catch phase, "hot tranny mess." Apparently someone clued him in that it might be offensive after he compared drag queens and trans people to "white trash." Maybe the light went on after hot pissed-off trans actress Candis Cayne ripped him a new one after he used the phrase on stage at the Logo NewNextNow Awards that she was hosting. Maybe he even read my open letter about why it's so not fierce when "tranny" is used by someone who isn't trans.

I was willing to overlook that it was one of those not-quite-an-apology "I wish that my words were not taken in that way" apologies that's all too common with public figures these days. And yes, he even mentioned that some of his best friends are trans. (BTW Christian, if you're reading this, just a heads-up, we trans people don't exist solely to provide you with fashion inspiration.) As I said before, I think it just never occurred to him that as a self-described "very flamboyant gay man" that he could say something that's considered derogatory speech, and I'm willing to overlook all that because I'm just glad that he publicly said he'd stop and maybe, just maybe, that would get other people to think twice about using it as a catch phrase.

What's got me not-so-happy are the comments on various gay blogs about how trans people are overreacting and picking on poor little Princess Puffysleeves. How come you're so humorless? Gawd you're so P.C. Can't you see it's a just a joke? What's the big deal anyway? We call each other faggots all the time, it's no big deal. Get it over! Not to mention, I'm sick of being hounded for not being properly appreciative of T people.

Funny how those arguments sound oh so familiar. I've heard the exact same things when I've asked clueless straight kids not to use "that's so gay" as a put-down. Or when women ask not to be called "bitches" and "hos." Or when the Sambo's restaurant chain was pressured to change its name.

To be honest, I had more respect for the out-and-out haters – did you know I'm a "breeder with a mental disorder"? – because at least with them there was no pretense. They'd probably get along swimmingly with the conservative bloggers (who I won't dignify with links) who had these recent headlines: "Shame on Dennis Hastert for joining tranny lobbist firm" and "Boycott NBC and its tranny sympathizers." (Companies that value LGBT diversity, the horror!)

And of course there was this: don't you have bigger things to worry about?

Well, yeah, actually I do. Trans people face hate crimes at a rate up to 16 times higher than gays and lesbians, yet we have to fight to be included in anti-hate crime laws. There's some segments of the trans communities where only one in four trans people have a full-time job and more than half live in poverty, yet we're asked to step aside so straight-acting gays and lesbians can get employment non-discrimination protections. Even when formal "transgender" protections are offered, crossdressers like myself are often excluded from them, and out in the every-day world they're too often ignored anyway.

The thing is, those are huge issues that are going to take time and effort to overcome. Whereas not referring to someone by a term they find offensive is a small thing. A simple thing. The human thing to do.

But evidentially even that is too much effort for some people.

The Incrementalists Dirty Little "Secret"

The Human Rights Campaign hopes you're not paying attention. Barney Frank hopes you'll look the other way. John Aravosis is crossing his fingers that you won't draw the only logical conclusion. These folks and those who think about basic civil rights protections like they do don't want you to know the truth, a truth that has been obvious for years now, proven accurate in every state in this country that has enacted anti-discrimination protections for their LGBT citizens except for one:

Protecting the transgendered and gender-variant from discrimination enjoys substantially more support among American voters nationwide than same-sex marriage does, or probably ever will.

We saw that reality played out yet again this week in New York. The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), the bill that would protect transgender and gender-variant New Yorkers from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accomodations statewide, was passed by the New York State Assembly yesterday by an overwhelming vote of 103-33. Same sex-marriage was passed by this same legislative body last year by a vote of 85-61. Doing the math, we discover that a little more than 56% of the 150-member Assembly voted in favor of the bill. Comparing the numbers on GENDA, however, we see that a whopping 68% of these same legislators chose to vote in favor of protecting transgender and gender-variant New Yorkers from discrimination, about 12% higher than voted in favor of the marriage bill.

Many similar stories can be told as well. Here in my home state of New Jersey, for example, state legislators fell all over themselves to pass civil unions in order to comply with the state's high court ruling that gay and lesbian New Jerseyans must be guaranteed the same rights as heterosexuals, but not actually grant the real equality the court intended to ensure for all state residents by legalizing same-sex marriage. Shortly thereafter, however, New Jersey's State Senate voted unanimously, 35-0, and the state Assembly voted by an almost equally overwhelming margin, 65-10, to add protections for transgender and gender-variant citizens to the state's existing anti-discrimination law.

Even back in 2002, over 60% polled in the conservative state of North Carolina supported protecting transgender people from employment discrimination, according to an HRC survey conducted that year, and support for these protections has only grown over that time, even as state after state passed laws and constitutional amendments preventing their states from recognizing same-sex unions. To my knowledge, while some states have chosen not to enact protections for transgender and gender-variant citizens when they were voted on, no state has ever voted to enact a law or amend their constitution to prevent such protections from being enacted in the future.

The conclusion here is inescapable to anyone really paying attention: There's far more support in this country for protecting transgender and gender-variant Americans from discrimination than there is or ever has been for legalizing same-sex marriage.

Yet, what we see and hear coming from HRC, Barney Frank, and so many others is the opposite of what has been conclusively proven over and over to be reality, that rights for transgender and gender-variant Americans is somehow less palatable to the American public at large than the right of same-sex couples to be married.

I'm not trying to make value comparisons here. Both goals are supremely worthy, both deserve to become the law of the land as soon as is humanly possible. My issue is with the hypocrisy of those like HRC and Barney Frank especially who continue pounding the drum for same-sex marriage while at the same time advocating for the exclusion of transgender and gender-variant Americans from basic civil rights legislation, claiming that there's not enough support for it to pass. Were they truly honest and consistant in their advocacy for LGBT equality, they'd acknowledge that it's far more likely to be able to pass anti-discrimination laws in the near future which would protect all LGBT Americans than it is that we'll see same-sex marriage become legalized at the federal level.

The numbers don't lie, only those who are willing to sacrifice the truth in the pursuit of personal and political gain are doing that here. It's time for us to focus on these realities, speak truth to power, and make sure everyone knows and understands what is true, what has always been true, that more Americans support basic anti-discrimination protections for transgender and gender-variant Americans, the goal these people refuse to fight for fairly and honestly, than support same-sex marriage, the goal they continue to advocate for with every erg of effort, energy and political clout they can possibly muster.

If these people truly believe in the kind of incrementalism they claim is the only way to advocate these issues, let's see them bow to the reality we all know to be true because the numbers prove it to be. Let's see them get in line and wait patiently their turn to attain their goals as they'd have us do. If they really do believe their own rhetoric, that incrementalism is the only way to achieve these goals, let's see Barney Frank, HRC, and all the rest of the same-sex marriage advocates adhere to the political logic they try to impose upon us and willingly accept their proper place in the incrementalism line, behind us.

Jan Morris: Marriage, Then Civil Union

Jan Morris has gotten a civil union with the wife she married when she was male. They had five kids together, and only got divorced due to Morris’ transition.

I kinda love that. It’s good to know, too, the world has changed some since they got divorced, though of course UK laws still require the dissolution of a heterosexual marriage when/if someone changes their gender marker while married.

Label, Label, Label

“Yer a cute girl.”

“I’ll let our mechanic take a look at this.”

“You still have a penis? Then you’re not really a woman.”

Yes, in order to communicate as a human being, we need to label things to give other people a better understanding on what it is we are talking about. If it weren’t for labels, we wouldn’t find the right foods in the grocery store. We have to have labels to take the correct drugs, in the correct combination and at the correct time. Harsh chemicals need labels to keep us from thinking we can use them in our mix drinks. Labels not only help make our lives easier, but safer.

I’m sure the label “trannie” has a different meaning for an auto mechanic then it does for a transgender person. However, there can be a bit of confusion when the mechanic is also a transgender person.

This need to label everything extends to labeling people. If you thought about it, it would take you a long time to write down all the labels associated with you over the course of your life. For those who believe that life starts at conception, then you can say you were labeled a “fertilized egg,” all the ways through to now being labeled “an old codger.” Are you part of a family? Then you could be a parent, father, mother, brother, sister, child, sibling, aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, nephew, and in some cases, all of those.

Because of how important labels are in our lives, it is the mindset of all humans that everything has to have a label and it seems that the label they give that object is the absolute defining one as far as they are concern. It doesn’t matter that the object has a different label for it in every language on the planet. “My label is the right one, damnit, because I’m speaking English!” Okay, no one really says that, but I get the impression some think it.

It appears to me that humans have a natural undying urge to label people and put them in various boxes for their own benefit and not out of respect for those people. Because of that, many people think that you have to accept the boxes they put you in because they say it’s the absolute defining label for you. This inflexible mindset has the most profound affect on the transgender community, affecting our core identity on a daily basis.

This being a highly patriarchal society, gender labels hinge on the present of a penis, or the lack there of. “Iffin’ ya got one, yer a man or a boy, and iffin’ ya don’t, yer a girl.” (Notice the word “woman” doesn’t even factor into this patriarchal way of thinking.) This is so strongly engrained in our DNA that there are a lot of trans people today who have bought into this patriarchal garbage hook, line and sinker. Some people seem to think that they get to decide what label you get saddled with based on a four-ounce body part no one in public should see. The person’s gender identity or expression has nothing to do with it.

If a person wants to label me something, does that mean I have to live with their decision? Will I die if I’m called a man? I’m not talking about transgender hate crimes, which can result from people who hate those because of the labels they assume we have. Labels by themselves cannot kill me, nor am I stuck with living my life based on what labels others call me or think of me. Labels cannot harm anyone else either, yet, I get the impression all the time that a label can destroy other people’s lives simply by its existence. I have not seen that happening to anyone as of yet. Maybe some labels have C4 attached to them. Does that mean terrorists will start using label for IEDs? “Incoming label!”

Let me pick a label out of thin air to use as an example. Let’s see . . . how about “transgender.” No one ever talks about that label. In some languages, the word “transgender” translates to their version of “transsexual.” (See: http://babelfish.yahoo.com/ and try various combinations.) When reading a translated description of a transsexual murdered in a Spanish speaking country, I noticed the label “travesit” or “travesits,” a derivative of “transvestite,” is used a lot. To them, it’s not a derogatory label. A prime example of this is the name of the trans advocacy organization in Argentina, called “Asociacion Travesits Transexuales Transgénero.”

There has been a successful movement by LGBT people to reclaim and embrace the label “queer.” Hate groups can no longer use queer as a slur to most of us, so they used other labels for their nasty comments. I doubt there will ever be a movement in the American transgender community to reclaim the label “transvestite,” especially since many transsexuals don’t even like the label “transgender.”

I have read reams and reams of web pages on why the label “transgender” is such a harmful word that should never be used, none of which can be substantiated. This stems from the widely accepted definition of the word, “transgender,” which serves as an umbrella term for ALL people who have or are currently crossing the gender lines, either permanently or temporarily. When use that way, some groups don’t like the idea of sharing space with people who are not labeled like them. One person once told me, “Define the label, but don’t let the label define you.” Some people must think this label defines them, yet they have full control over all of this. In my opinion, by getting upset with something like a label relinquishes their control over their own identity and gives that control to others.

Some people also based their hatred toward this label on the fact that a 100 year-old crossdresser supposedly invented it, which makes it flawed. She didn’t invent it, but she used it a lot. Sadly, when it comes to the origin of certain labels, history gets blurred and changed far too often. History, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.

I have also read where the label “transgender” should be used in certain context, but not in others, and that we all have to abide by this hard, fast “rule.” in the use of this word. Why? It’s just a label. I read where one person said that if a crossdresser did not go out into public, then they were really not a transgender person. Where did they get that? A label only means something to those people who seem to be obsessed with treating them like battering rams, swords, or poisonous insects. “No! Don’t go into the transgender light!” Too late.

Labels have their place in our community, as long as people don’t get married to them. When a person commits to using one label over another, they have a tendency of spending a lot of time defending their decision and chastising those who don’t use the label in the same fashion they do. This is where those extended comments occur on certain postings, most of which are not on subject. This reminds me. Are you aware that trans people are masters at trigonometry? They like to go off on tangents. Pythagoras must have been trans. (That was my intentional tangent or this article.)

To me, labels are part of my “activism toolbox.” Like other tools, I use a label to perform a certain job and when I’m done with it, I wipe it off and put it back in the tool box. I have found that when talking to some people, they understand the word “transsexual” better than “transgender,” so that’s the tool I use. With others, I have to switch their use. I also use “transgender” as an adjective and not a noun, like the words “transgenders” and “transgendered.” Transgender American is a good label for me. But, no matter what I use, I’m not married to that label like others seem to be, nor do I let it define me.

This is a subject that will be hashed over long after I’m dead. Some people will insist that a label is “evil,” while others will spend gigabytes of web space trying to tell others what labels are to be used, for which people and under what circumstances. Seems a waste of time. The only label that really means anything to me is “Monica,” since I paid money for it. And, the best time I like hearing that label used is when my girlfriend calls me to bed. At that moment, I could care less what other labels people want to attach to me.

“Coming, dear.”

NYS: GENDA Set for Assembly Vote

From Dick Gottfriend, the prime sponsor of GENDA:

The GENDA bill is set for an Assembly vote this Tues., 6/3 - that’s TOMORROW. The Assembly session is scheduled to begin at 3:30PM in the Capitol in Albany , and GENDA should be the first bill taken up.

Visitors can watch from the fourth floor gallery. If you are coming, you need photo ID to enter the Capitol and will go through security, so remember to leave your Swiss Army knife at home ;-) .
To watch the Assembly session live, go to the Assembly website, click on “Live Coverage of Legislative Proceedings” on the left. The url is http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/av/

If you go to that page, you will also see a link of cable systems that carry the proceedings and air times.

Thanks to all the members of the community who helped get the bill to this historic vote.

Very truly yours,
Dick Gottfried

Blogging for LGBT Families

This year, to blog for LGBT families, I want to highlight the fantastic new work by COLAGE called the Kids of Trans Resource Guide (pdf). I'm not sure if I can express how desperately this guide was needed nor how happy I am to see it published. It includes not just tips for people who are children of trans people - whether they are still children or have become adults - but it also gives great advice to trans people who are parents, as well, including this gem:

"As a parent, remember that your children come first and your transition comes second. Transition is an inherently self-focused process, as you align your body and appearance with your gender identity. The best way to be a responsible parent during transition is to make your children a major priority throughout the process. Sometimes this means that you have to compromise your ideal time frame for your transition in order to keep relationships with your family healthy."

Shock and revelation! Trans people are parents, children, spouses; they have families, extended families, and can adjust their transition goals to help the people who love them transition around them. How much does that rock? You can also access COLAGE's Kids of Trans pages on their website.

(cross-posted to Trans Group Blog)

We Are Family

Sometimes politics, like life, is just not as black and white as we often like to think it is, especially for those of us who perpetually inhabit gray space.

Thursday night, I interviewed Hilary Rosen on my radio show. While I had no expectation or desire for a real fight, I did think it would at least be a pretty adversarial interview just because she works with and has been a member of the leadership of the Human Rights Campaign. I expected Ms. Rosen to staunchly defend the HRC view of things, and I prepared for the interview based on that assumption. The thing is, people aren't the organizations they work for, they're people, and people can surprise you.

I can't help but let my thoughts drift back to August 2004, and a silly little joke that taught me a lot about the nature of the battle we find ourselves engaged in today. It happened during the second protest of the year outside HRC's Washington, DC headquarters. We knew HRC's Executive Board would be taking a vote that day on whether or not to support only transgender-inclusive federal legislation in the future. A team of the best and brightest transgender activists our community could muster had made a presentation to the board, and those of us protesting outside were now waiting to find out the result of the vote.

It was midday, and the lunchroom on the ground floor of the building was filled with people we could see through the floor to ceiling windows eating a sumptious meal as we stood outside on the sidewalk with our signs. I have no idea who started it, but at some point several of the protesters stepped onto the sloping, grassy area along the side of the building with their protest signs in front of them, and began slowly creeping toward the windows. They made it about three quarters of the way to the windows before someone inside noticed them. This game was replayed several times over the next few minutes, with some inside even writing numerical scores rating an approach attempt that they showed us through the window.

At the time, it seemed almost surreal. Here, in the middle of a protest, protestors were playing a silly, lighthearted game with the very people we were protesting, and those inside were having just as much fun with it as we were. Everyone was smiling and laughing, even though we disagreed politically with each other so much that we felt compelled to stand in front of their building and speak out against their politics. The moment evaporated soon afterward, however, when then-HRC Executive Director Cheryl Jacques came out of the building to tell us that the board had voted that HRC would only support fully inclusive federal legislation from then on.

While just a silly little pastime in and of itself, the experience taught me a valuable lesson as an activist and as a community media creator: Political disagreement need not always include personal animosity and anger. You can respect and even like someone you disagree with politically, even someone you are actively opposing. It's not always possible, of course, but far more likely, far more often, than many of us seem to think. It's not, or at least it doesn't have to be, an either/or proposition.

So often when I read the words of fellow transpeople speaking out on the political issues of importance to our community, I see the same automatic assumption being made over and over: If an individual works for, works with, or donates to an organization or politician that's unpopular with our community, regardless of their position or actual level of responsibility for the actions taken by that group or individual, they must be held directly and personally responsible for the actions of that group or individual, and be just as popularly despised within our community as the original offender because of that association.

Certainly there are times when drawing such a connection is justified, as in the case of current HRC Executive Director Joe Solmonese's either shockingly deceitful or stunningly stupid promise to the transgender community at Southern Comfort last year that HRC would not support any legislation which is not fully transgender-inclusive. Either Solmonese knew full well he couldn't keep such a promise but made it anyway, or he made his promise not really knowing if he'd be able to keep it or not. Either way, it's dirty pool and underhanded politics. No matter how you look at it, Joe Solmonese was wrong to do what he did, and in fact so very wrong that you have to wonder how any political lobbyist who could publicly misrepresent himself and his organization so badly could credibly be the Executive Director of anything...unless, of course, he knew exactly what he was doing right from the start and he did it intentionally. That Solmonese fully deserves whatever backlash he and HRC receive as a result of this escapade is abundantly clear. The only real question left is whether he lied to us knowingly, or if he simply said what he thought the crowd in front of him wanted to hear, even though he really had no idea if what he was saying was actually truthful or not.

Barney Frank? Same thing. This is a man who did everything within his power to derail, demean, and disempower an intensive lobbying effort by the transgender community and our allies, up to and including denouncing his own bill and our activist community's efforts at attaining equal rights and treatment for Transgender-Americans speaking on the floor of the US House of Representatives. This is a man who proactively uses his power and position as a US Congressman as a club to publicly bash Transgender-Americans with to clear the way for straight-looking gays and lesbians to be protected from discrimination in the workplace while the rest of us are left behind to fend for ourselves. Frank knew exactly what he was doing and not only did he do it intentionally, but even enthusiatically, as evidenced by his demeanor during the many interviews he's given to LGBT community media on the topic. For the first time in our collective history, the American LGBT community rose up and spoke out, almost with one voice, to demand equal rights for everyone, with no exceptions and without concession to political convenience. Barney Frank, through his actions in Congress in stripping gender-variant Americans from ENDA and doing his best to convince his fellow members of Congress to support him in doing so, spit on that effort and denegrated the courageous men and women in our activist community and our allies in Congress who stood up and spoke out for what they knew was the right thing to do. Like Joe Solmonese, Barney Frank bears direct and personal responsibility for the damage he has done to our community and our movement, and like Solmonese, he too richly deserves all of the community backlash that comes his way as a result of his actions.

Yet, there are also times when the connections aren't quite so clear cut. Take Hilary Rosen for example. Yes, she's on the board of the Human Rights Campaign Fund. Yes, she works closely with the organization and its leadership. Yes, she's been the Chair of an organization that's probably even more despised by working, lower, and middle class folks than HRC, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). I've written reams about my problems with HRC and how they operate, and it was natural for me to structure my interview with her with that uppermost in my mind. Like many of us, I too fell victim to making assumptions about Hilary Rosen as an individual because she's so closely aligned with HRC, the Democratic Party, and big business.

What I wasn't prepared for is how many of my assumptions about Hilary Rosen proved to be either somewhat off-base or just plain wrong. Sure, there's plenty we don't see eye-to-eye on and probably never will, but you know what? I like her. I had a great time interviewing her, and I hope we do it again soon. I'm not just saying that as a radio host seeking another interview, but also that she's the kind of person I think I'd enjoy talking with over a drink in a bar as much as I enjoyed having her on my show. Regardless of where we each happen to come down on the issues, I just think she's cool people on a personal level, a terrific example for young women in general and for young lesbians in particular.

I can say all of these things about Hilary Rosen and still disagree with her politically, because when you get right down to it, our real disagreements are about the details, about how we best go about achieving our goals, not about the goals themselves. We all agree that all LGBT Americans should be protected against discrimination at the federal level. We all agree that every American should have the right to legally marry the person they love. We all agree that we should do whatever we can to discourage and prevent hate crimes. What many of us vehemently disagree on is the path we should take to accomplish these things.

Those on both sides of the ongoing debate over the future direction of our movement would be well-served to keep this in mind: For the most part, the actions against our community which we fight against are taken collectively, by HRC, by the Democratic congressional leadership, by anti-equality groups, by the Republicans, and on and on. Is it, therefore, truly fair in all cases to saddle an individual with all of the sins of the organization they are affiliated with?

Personally, I believe there are times, perhaps even more often than not, when we need to be able to separate people from policy and individuals from organizations. We can stand against HRC and their transphobic political games without blaming every single person connected to the organization in some way for everything they've ever done that we don't like. We can stand against the Democratic Party leadership and those members of Congress who are known to be directly responsible for promoting civil rights legislation that could ensure the continuation of legally-sanctioned anti-transgender discrimination in most of this country for as much as another generation or more without tarring the entire Democratic Party with that same brush.

As this election year wears on, and we look toward a hopefully brighter future for all of us, it's incumbent upon us to remember that there's a time to speak out against the injustice, discrimination, and politicial cowardice of those who have failed us so miserably, and a time to remember that if we ourselves resent being lumped into a large, homogenous, and disparaged minority group and would prefer to be dealt with and respected as individuals with our own ideas and beliefs that are all our own and not solely reflective of those we choose to align ourselves with then we must also extend that same courtesy to others when it's appropriate, no matter what we might think of the politics of the organizations they work with.

When all is said and done, underneath all the politics, the lies, the venom, the misrepresentations, and all the rest of the surface drama, there lies one simple fact: We call it the LGBT community, but at the core we're really a family, and because we're family, we never really stop caring, no matter how angry we may get with each other. We know we all want the same things, even if we disagree about how to get them. For all of the heat and all of the anger, there is no hate. There is no violence. We can be loud enough and angry enough to peel paint off the walls and righteously so, but this is a family squabble and we have to remember that and treat it like one.

For all of you who are now thinking to yourselves that you couldn't possibly ever consider the Human Rights Campaign as family, I'd agree with you. It's not the organizations themselves, regardess of how they're popularly perceived, that should have the right to expect that kind of consideration from any of us, but rather it's the people, the unique individuals who make up the memberships and staffs of these groups, who do deserve to be seen as part of our greater LGBT family every bit as much as we ourselves do, and who deserve to be judged on their own merits, not solely on the record of the organizations they work with. If we are to demand inclusion and respect for ourselves and for others like us, then we ourselves must go out of our way to extend that offer in the other direction just as fiercely.

No matter how much we fight, call each other names (valid or not), make accusations (valid or not), and refuse to be drawn onto the path the other is taking, at the end of the day family is still family, regardless of how much we might sometimes wish otherwise. If and when we again reach a point in the future when the true battle lines in this movement are once again drawn and we must re-engage in direct and public combat on a grand scale with those who are truly the enemies of the goals we strive for, we're going to need each other. It's not only in the gender-variant community's own best interests, but also in the best interests of the greater LGBT movement in general, that we take this time before the election and before the prospect of the passage of ENDA looms before us once more, to do what we have to do to get our own house in order and prepare ourselves to fight the war we know is coming sooner or later together, as one, unifed community.

It's only when we recognize these realities and come together as one, as the family we truly are, that any of us, regardless of how politically potent we might like to think ourselves, will ever have a real chance of winning. There's something to be said, a lot in fact, for setting a good example.

Is She the One?

As I start typing this piece, the movie “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” is on Sci-Fi, in preparation for the upcoming new, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” I bring this up because the search for love, that one true love, is as much of a crusade as searching for the Holy Grail, and in some cases, more rare. I may have found the “Holy Grail” of my life. I may have found my one true love.

I say “may,” because there are still too many unknowns and hurdles in this new relationship that we cannot be certain of. Life is full of twists and turns, ups and downs and any one of them could end our relationship in a heartbeat. For now, we move forward.

Karen and I met at the Tucson IFGE Conference on a Wednesday when the hotel was providing snacks and finger foods for the attendees that night in the bar. I saw her walk into with her friends and was instantly drawn to her beauty. But, I suspected that someone as good looking as her already had a special person in her life.

As the evening progresses, I went to get some food, but when I got to the table, the main dishes were gone and they were bringing out more. I waited patiently for them to bring out the food and as I did, Karen walked up, so we struck up a conversation. I found out she lived in Austin, Texas.

Shortly into the conversation, she made an interesting comment that still makes us both laugh today. She said, “I identify as a lesbian.” Now, I hadn’t even traveled down that road of conversation, so I found the comment rather perplexing, to say the least.

“So do I.” I smiled. “My friends and I plan on going to a lesbian night club at ten. Would you care to go?”

“I’d love to.”

Thus started a journey on a trip that culminated into one of the most fantastic conferences I have ever experienced. We spent as much time together at the conference as was possible. We had dinner together, danced together, stared at the stars in the crystal clear desert night, and we felt the joys of passion together. It was magical.

But, as we all know, the awe of magic soon fades and reality takes its place. We both didn’t want the only reality for us to be those three days in Tucson, so we stayed in touch. One of the ways we communicated was through the modern technology of web cams. Not only could we talk, but we could see each other. We laughed, we cried and we played our favorite music for each other. To see each other in such a fashion helped to maintain the spark we felt at the conference.

It quickly became obvious that we had to get together once again, so the plan was for her to fly to Atlanta for a three-day weekend. It was to take place six weeks from the time we first met in Tucson. The wait was excruciating. We counted down the days.

What would we find on this next weekend? Would we see that the time we spent in Tucson was nothing more than two ships passing in the night? Or, could we at least capture what we had six weeks earlier? Fear filled my heart. I wanted to see her once again. I wanted to hold her once again. I wanted to kiss her once again.

The day came and I picked her up at the airport. My heart soared when I give her a hug and a kiss, right on the curb of the terminal. It was only the beginning of what would turn out to be the most amazing weekend in my life. She felt the same way when it was all over.

What is this new and outstanding feeling I’m experiencing here? I have had other girlfriends in the past and had a great time with them. What makes Karen so different? I have felt love many times in my life, but why is it so intense with Karen? Am I finally getting the chance to experience what REAL LOVE is? If so, I don’t want it to stop.

Karen and I connected in ways that the English language still hasn’t created the words to adequately describe how we feel about each other. We touched each other’s souls so deeply that our hearts beat in harmony. Just a light touch to the arms or the face redefines the word “sensuality.” Her kiss sends shivers down my spine and through my whole body. All of our senses intensify with every movement our bodies touch. Songs are written about finding heaven on earth. I now know that it is possible.

I truly love Karen and I cannot stop saying that. But, reality keeps us from enjoying a full life together. Both of us have good jobs and many responsibilities in the cities where we live. Our roots run deep in the Georgia red clay and the brown soil of the Texas plains. We do not see any possible way to snap those roots . . . at least for now. One never knows what other things can change our fortunes in the future.

For now, we have resigned ourselves to seeing each others whenever we can, based on finances and time off. Long distance relationships are not known to work out, but I have heard exceptions to that. We are both hoping that Time will show us the way to a happy life together. Yet, Time can also show us the futility of our love. “Love conquers all,” the saying goes. Will time and distance trump love? Not if we have anything to say about it.

We will work in fighting to keep our love strong. In the meantime, Karen and I will see each other on the 4th of July weekend and on other weekends in the future. Let’s hope that love can truly conquer all. I asked in the title if Karen is “The One.” After all the times I had my heart broken, its time I found The One, and I see Karen as that person.

I love you, Karen.

Sometimes it's the little things...

Someone once aptly described privilege as the luxury not to have to think about things. Like the way most men are blissfully unaware of the safety concerns that are reflexive for most women venturing out at night. In a far more minor way, I had a reminder last Friday about how being gender variant means not being able to take things for granted.

It was insanely hot for May here in the Bay Area, with record-breaking heat near 100 degrees. So it would've been nice to wear sandals to work because they would've been cooler than shoes and socks. One nice thing about working for a tech company is that the dress code is extremely casual and although a guy in sandals is a bit casual even in that environment, a lot of people were wearing shorts or sundresses that they wouldn't normally have worn because it was so damn hot.

There was just one issue: I've got painted toenails.

Unlike a lot crossdressers who "underdress" I don't wear nail polish because of the feminine symbolism, I wear because I like how it looks. To paraphrase (our patron saint) Eddie Izzard, it's not women's nail polish, it's my nail polish. I guess in that regard I'm just a metrosexual gone too far.

Now most of the company knows I perform as a drag queen, and a smaller number number know that my presenting myself as a woman is more than just for stage, it's also to express a part of myself that society deems "feminine." So it wasn't likely that my co-workers would freak out. Besides, my toes were an almost-sort-of-manly shade of bronze, and outside of work I've got no problem with walking around in sandals and shorts exposing my shaved legs and painted toenails.

But still...

There's always the not knowing how people will react, and if nothing else, I had a lot to do that day and just didn't feel like dealing with the conversations that might result. So I put on my shoes and went to work. It's trivial in the scheme of things I know. But it's another one of those subtle remainders about how I've forfeited my "straight" card now that I'm embraced being a gender variant guy.

Divided by a common language

During one of my first forays out in public while crossdressed, I was walking down the street in San Francisco when an extremely flamboyant gay man flounced up to me and shouted out, "Hey Mary, you're looking fierce! Work it girlfriend, work it!" (Yes I still remember the exact words.) Now he probably thought I was extremely drab drag queen, since I was dressed the way an ordinary woman of my age would've been, and undoubtedly he meant well and was trying to be friendly. But I was absolutely mortified. It had taken close to three decades to work up the courage to go out of the house while crossdressed, and consequently up to that moment I'd been ecstatic that not only had I not been beaten to death by sticks, but that -- although I was getting the occasional stare -- for the most part people seemed not to notice the guy in the dress in their midst. That confidence was crushed in an instant. I fought back the tears and just tried to get the hell away from him as fast as possible.

Ironically, I've since discovered that it's LGBT spaces, ones that usually thought of as "safe spaces," where I'm most likely to get "read." In part it's because LGB are simply more aware of trans people, but I think a big part of it has to do with the fact that when it comes to how people think about "being out," the LGB and T communities are like two nations divided by a common language (to paraphrase Oscar Wilde).

In the gay and lesbian communities it's usually presumed that being out is a Good Thing, and anyone who isn't is someone who's quivering in the closet. At the extreme, anti-assimilationists condemn those who are "straight-acting" for not being visibly queer, and milder forms of this thinking are behind the disrepect bisexuals often get for supposedly being "unwilling to commit" and "closeted when convenient." But in the T communities being "visibly out" has far different connotations. Over at the My Husband Betty forum, we've had a serious discussion about what we've half-jokingly called the "rules of engagement" -- i.e. if someone sets off your transdar, do you greet them as one of the tribe? In other words, do you overtly or subtly try to see if they're trans too. It's an issue gays and lesbians faced during the long years of needing to be discrete, and they evolved numerous subtle ways to identify each other without the straight population knowing what was going on: whether it was wearing red ties, asking if someone was a friend of Dorothy or mentioning you'd read "The Well of Loneliness." (Sometimes it wasn't subtle. Crossdressing (in part or in full) to signal one's homosexuality goes back at least as far as the "Molly houses" in the early 1700s.) All these were ways of trying to (safely) communicate to others who one really was.

Trans people have the same desire -- but the difference is that we usually want to be seen as the gender we're presenting ourselves. So for transsexuals being "visibly trans" means being seen as a trans woman or trans man, and for crossdressers it means being seen as a "guy in a dress," rather than being simply being seen as women and men. "Passing" (or as I prefer to think of it: "blending in") is something that most trans people -- at least those who aren't gender queer -- have usually thought about a lot during some point in their life. In fact, some people obsess over it. (Ironically it's often those who are most likely to blend in -- those of us with bodies that fall far outside the statistical norms for the height and build of our desired genders end up just having to make our peace with that.)

Now there's some very logical reasons for wanting to blend in. The first is one that LGB people are familiar with: safety. Being visibly gender variant means being a potential target, and not just from transphobes -- homophobes don't bother to inquire about my sexual orientation (If they would they've find out I prefer women.) The few times I've been harassed, people didn't yell "tranny," they yelled "faggot." Plus, higher percentages of trans people are victims of hate crimes than the LGB people -- at rates as high as 16 times the national average (a figure all the more striking because many jurisdictions still don't report hate crimes against trans people) -- so it is it any wonder we seek to avoid attention? Even if there's not a safety issue, constantly being an object of curiosity can just be wearying. Sometimes I just want to have an ordinary, boring day.

Another big reason -- one that lesbian and gays don't experience -- is how your identity is too often disrepected when you're "visibly trans." Transsexuals often are treated with double-standards when they're perceived as as trans men and women. As Julia Serano talks about in her excellent book "Whipping Girl," trans woman who act "too masculine" are accused of really being men (or at least of having "male energy"), and those who act "too feminine" are accused of aping women -- "unenlightened" women at that. Likewise, it seems like the current fetishization of trans men (most famously by Margaret Cho, who's bi) in some lesbian circles stems in part from trans men being perceived as deliciously masculine without the icky side-effects of being, well.. you know... actually men. (I can only imagine how these same folks doing the fetishizing would react if a similar disrepect was shown towards their own sexual identity as is shown in the implicit assumptions about trans men's gender identity.) As a crossdresser, I can tell you that the reception I get in some lesbian circles can be downright chilly, while gay men just assume I'm one of the boys.

Finally, there's a serious emotional component as well. I'd venture the most staight-acting "virtually normal" LGB people still would like to be do things such as be able to mention their partner when people ask about their weekend, or to be able to put their partners' picture on the their desks. In other words, to be seen as the person they see themselves as. Trans people want that too. I see it close-hand with one of my best friends, who transitioned a few months ago and who's thrilled that she's met new friends who see her simply as another women. But when we're "read," we're seen as not who we want others to see ourselves as -- just as I was on the street corner -- and that can be emotional devastating.

Now don't get me wrong. These days I'm both regularly out in public, and fairly publicly out -- most of my company knows I perform as drag queen. (Yes I went from fleeing attention to seeking to be the center of it -- after those long years in the closet there's something extremely liberating about that.) Some of my co-workers also know that I also crossdress off-stage to express a part of myself that society deems "feminine." I'm on various online forums for trans people and I see how being closeted eats away at people -- particularly the vast numbers of crossdressers (probably ten for every transsexual) who make up the "dark matter" of the trans spectrum. I dearly wish my peers could step free of that closet.

But it's still tricky at times. For the reasons mentioned, the consensus over at My Husband Betty was that one not let on that you think someone might be trans, and even dropping hints that you might be trans (like gays and lesbians of yesteryear) could be problematic -- since the only people who would get the hints would know that they set off your transdar, that they didn't blend in. It's also a widely-held belief in the trans communities that two trans people together are far more likely to get "read," (and three trans people together even more so), so there's an additional factor that the other person may react badly because of their fears about that. All of which is tragic in a way, because it leaves people isolated. It's not for nothing that people who disappear from the trans scene after transition call it going "deep stealth" -- and some of these folks who do quietly dip their toe back into the trans-world feel a fair amount of anxiety about their past being discovered, in part because they may not be out to their partners. These are problematic issues, and that's something the trans communities need to deal with.

However, these "rules of engagement" are, for better or worse, the rules most of us intuitively play by, and they can be hard for LGB people to grasp -- particularly since their own gender-bending (whether it's being a full-time nelly or butch, or whether it's just for play on Halloween or at a Pride parade) is often done in part as a statement about their being gay, lesbian or bisexual. Likewise, these rules are often misunderstood as being somehow ashamed of who we are, instead of recognized for what it is: just wanting to be seen as the person you see yourself as, and simply being able to live your life in peace. The difference for trans people is that not being "out" doesn't inherently mean one is "closeted."

Probably the best advice that came out of the discussion also was the simplest -- if someone sets off your transdar, just approach them and get to know them the way you would with any other person. If they're comfortable acknowledging to you that they're trans and they feel it's relevant, they'll do so. If the guy on the street corner had complimented me on my outfit and asked me about my day in the way he would've done with someone who was born female, would I have guessed that he probably had read me too. Yeah, probably. But I would've gone on my way with a smile on my face instead of tears on my cheeks.

Update: Now also cross-posted at Bilerico.